Who do you believe is responsible for the bloodshed in Orlando?

(Before I begin a new Blog Post, I want to say how grateful I am to the Comal County (TX) Republican Women's Club and Joyce Yanuzzi.  I was afforded the opportunity to speak with this group on Monday night and made many new friends.  I also was fortunate to run into a few old friends, including Comal County Commissioner Jen Crownover.  I had such a wonderful evening with this intelligent, engaging group of Comal County citizens, and was reminded that folks are paying very close attention to politics in 2016,  Personally, I feel much better with that little bit of knowledge.)



Late Monday evening I took the time to read an editorial on FoxNews written by FoxNews contributor Greg Gutfield.  I usually appreciate Gutfield's perspective, and his clear, concise and flowing style is welcome.  I'm sure I'm not alone when I express an annoyance with self-important commentary that prides itself on how many times the reader has to retreat to a dictionary.  Notice to all online contributors: most people don't bother with the dictionary; they just move on to the next article.  Gutfield decided to pen this particular commentary after observing the collective response of the media to the events in Orlando, Florida on June 12/13th.  So what did happen?  How would you answer that simple question?  From my optic, on July 12/13, at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando Florida, a fanatical Islamic Terrorist opened fire with various weapons and killed forty-nine innocent people.  As Gutfield so deftly points out, the American people seem to be split regarding the cause of the violence in Orlando.  According to Gutfield, The New York Times blamed Republicans for the attack, and the Huffington Post blamed Christians (I had trouble excepting this as fact, so I did my homework, and Gutfield is spot-on).  In the South and in the Red State heartland, people blamed fanatical Islamic terrorism.  I wish I had the tools to take a poll of my readers because I would be fascinated to know where you assign blame.

If we cut through the politically correct crap for a few minutes, this one is truly a no-brainer.  The Left/media continues to try and create this evil boogeyman "The Christian Bigot" in America, because the are so desperate for him to exist (and yes, I made it a "he"!).  The fact that we have no examples of reprisal attacks following the Boston episode, the California murders, and now this event in Orlando, is certainly a credit to the faith we have in Law Enforcement to do the job.  Since the Left is unable to screech about Christians rioting in Moslem neighborhoods and burning down mosques, they have decided to blame Christians for the actual genesis of the event.  And since the shooter was obviously a Muslim, it then becomes necessary to show how his actions were caused by both Donald Trump and Christian bigots, who gave the killer no other outlet for his anger (caused by bigotry and racism, no doubt).  Try and hang with my, folks; I know it can get a bit confusing.  Although the New York Times, which hasn't printed a political news piece worth a bucket of shit since Gettysburg, and The Huffington Post gave the appearance of focusing on two separate culprits (Republicans and Christians), make no mistake; Republican and Christian are the same in their entertaining political lexicon.  Blaming conservative white America (yes, I went there) for the actions of an ISIS-inspired Muslim Extremist lunatic creates a discussion which fills the room.  We were talking about President Obama's determination to never use the word Muslim in the same sentence as terrorist/terrorism, but now the subject has changed.  We are now discussing the possibility that the American people might somehow hold some responsibility for the Pulse nightclub murders.  The narrative for the Left doesn't change.  We are always the guilty party, and must apologize.  And as we consider the absurdity of that thought, we aren't really paying attention to the fact that Obama has ordered the enter federal bureaucracy to follow his strict example and not include "Muslim" in any conversation regarding the terrible events of that night.

As a former government servant, I am surprised at how quickly the federal workforce accepts these precedence-setting orders from the Executive Branch.  How bad is it?  Just follow the breadcrumbs, folks.  Over the past eight years, we have suffered through one scandal after another, including the more famous examples at the Justice Department and IRS.  When the Obama Administration arrived in DC in 2009, it issued an important set of marching orders: when an opportunity arises to replace a retiring manager from any of the various departments or agencies in the federal government, the replacement will not be the most qualified individual, it will be a political appointee.  These political appointees started popping up everywhere, especially on our television screens, testifying before one Congressional Committee after another.  To give credit where it is due, these folks did their job (especially that little guy from IRS who looks so much like Gollum from Lord of the Rings, that I start mumbling, "my precious, my precious", whenever I see his smirk).  They stone-walled, obfuscated, cleared-their-throat, feigned ignorance, and flat-out lied to protect the Obama Administration.  So when the order came down to redact all mentions of "Islamic" from details on terrorism, people understood their job quite clearly.  Sadly, I had half-expected, hoped that maybe someone at the FBI or somewhere else at Justice, would stand up and say, "this is ridiculous; we are at war with Muslim extremists."  But I don't blame anyone for not putting their job on the line.  We all have bills to pay and families to care for.

So why is President Obama so darned set against associating the word "Muslim" with terrorism?  The easy answer is to assume that somehow he is actually Muslim himself, and has been hiding the fact for years.  President Obama is not a Muslim.  Personally, I don't believe he's a Christian, either (just my opinion, folks).  I believe that Barack Obama's religion is the kind of Socialism that his father espoused in the late 1960s, Kenya.  Obama believes, as his father did, that Europe and the United States in particular, engaged in an undeclared war for many years against anyone who opposed our interests.  Much of what Obama believes is in fact, true.  For years, in particular the time periods following World War II and the Vietnam Conflict, our Intelligence Agencies and on occasion our Armed Forces, took action that we believed at the time was necessary for our long-term security.  We did support and arm the Taliban against Russia in the 1980s, and we did support Saddam Hussein in his late-1980s war with Iran.  We have also supported Israel each and every time that nation has been ambushed by multiple enemies all at once.  Obama has made it clear that he believes the United States owes apologies all over the Arab world, and also in Africa (Congo, South Africa) and South America (Chile, Paraguay).  Whether or not you agree with that view of our overall impact in various regions of the world, will say a lot about how you view this blog post as well.

Hopefully my perspective will help to explain why President Obama is so reticent to connect "terrorism" with Islam.  He does not believe that it is helpful nor fair to make the connection, and after decades and decades of unfair treatment from the United States, Islam deserves the benefit of the doubt.  I understand the argument, but I certainly do not agree.     

Revisiting the Iraq War.

For all of 2016, I have been without a television.  It wasn't some moral choice on my part to rid my life of time wasting distractions and bad influences, it was more of a case of changing residences and not finding the time to hire a new Cable or Satellite provider.  Once Lent season rolled around, and I still hadn't connected the boob tube, I decided to guilt myself into extending this new lifestyle sans TV.  I gave up television for Lent.  Granted, when Lent commenced I was already without my 46' flat-screen Sony, but I did have the intention of rejoining the grid.  Lent gave me the opportunity to extend this experiment, which no-doubt has been good for me.  The most valued benefit of not having a television is being able to keep Donald Trump out of my life.  Friends assumed I would spend less time at home without a TV, but having my own personal, guaranteed "no Trump zone" tempts me to spend more time in my empty little apartment, catching up on my reading.  But I still function in this society, therefore I am destined to get more than my share of "The Donald".  This character manages to increase my dislike for him every single chance he has.  If I'm at my friend Sue's house, or visiting my Mother, and the TV is on in the background, the media will find a way to include Trump in the programming.  I could be mistaken, but I believe my friend Stacy and I actually saw Trump interjected into a National Geographic Channel program about asexual reproduction in the worm community.....and there's Trump.

I've already explained my hypothesis regarding Trump, the media, and our future next President, Donald Trump.  Today my annoyance is with something I've heard this ignorant bully repeat a number of times.  Donald Trump did not support President George Bush's decision to invade Iraq following 9/11.  Shockingly, Trump normally explains his lack of support for the invasion by connecting the war and its aftermath to Bush's less-than brilliant attempt to justify the invasion by protecting the free world from Iraq's research into Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).  Trump, who seems to enjoy soaking in his own ignorance like a chicken in a pot of stew, seems to believe that Iraq, in fact, did not have any WMD and was not conducting banned weapons research.  In fact, Iraq was (is?) littered with WMD; Saddam Hussein had poison gas storage facilities in a number of locations around Iraq.  Maybe you don't consider Mustard Gas a Weapon of Mass Destruction?  I'm sure the Shi'a women and children that Saddam gassed following the first Gulf War will disagree. But Trump, in all his bluster and braggadocio, can't help himself.  So he goes on television to brag to the American people that he did not support the Iraq War and that he knew that there were no WMDs.  I only wish Trump would have been obliged to spend a bit of time out in the desert as we had to do.  A good gust of wind and sand would turn his hair into a magic carpet.

I no longer discuss the subject of WMD as it relates to the Iraq War, but I welcome the opportunity to discuss the conflict in simple, factual terms.  After observing the damage that had been inflicted on our transportation grid and our sense of safety, no doubt Osama bin-Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri spent the months following the September 11 tragedy, making every effort to plan and implement a similar attack.  The longer we waited to directly respond, the more likely that al-Qaida and their supporters would find the opportunity to hit us again.  As a nation, our defense apparati had to undergo a Sea Change, and make terrorism the greatest threat to our security.  Fighting a war against s terrorist group is nothing like conventional warfare.  They don't want to be forced into prolonged military engagements because they have neither the manpower or the equipment to be successful.  Hence their Modus Operandi of utilizing well-trained, heavily-armed and religiously motivated operators with tremendous religious conviction.  Terrorists can slip into crowds and disappear like a needle in a haystack.  President Bush was faced with a difficult task: how to defeat an enemy that is so far removed from the United States, and relishes the backward, primitive society within which they live.  Bush and his advisors came to the conclusion that to destroy Al-Qaida, the conflict must be taken to bin-Laden and his group of butchers.  We knew that Al-Qaida was being given a form of Sanctuary by Afghanistan's Islamic Extremist Taliban government.  I believe that the Bush Administration chose to deliver the war to Al-Qaida in its own back yard, which ideally would force them into a conventional conflict, and there was no way that Al-Qaida (and the Taliban, for good measure, could hope to triumph over the United States military in a conventional war.  But the Bush Administration had a dilemma: a country was needed that was near enough to Afghanistan to support our military efforts against the Taliban, and also present an opportunity for a long-term military presence, in the form of military bases.  If this plan were successful, Al-Qaida would not have the resources or operatives to continue launching suicide attacks against Europe and the United States.

We all know that Iraq was chosen as the ideal location.  The United Nations had been involved in a protracted struggle with Iraq regarding its attitude towards UN resolutions.  The Bush Administration must have considered Iraq as the ideal location the create this semi-permanent military footprint in the Middle East.  I imagine that Bush expected the UN and it's member states to welcome the willingness of the United States to go into Iraq, remove a bloodthirsty dictator, and rebuild a nation with tremendous oil reserves.  Heck, he probably expected that our troops would be greeted as liberators (at least that's what a number of the Iraqi ex-pats, told Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

In the end, the plan proved successful, at least temporarily.  By 2009, much of Iraq had been rebuilt, including its transportation network and refining capacity.  But more important is the fact that following 9-11, Islamic Extremists were unable to repeat their destruction.  The U.S. military, like an avenging giant, transported itself in a matter of weeks into bin-Laden's front AND back yard.  Al-Qaida attempted to combat the U.S. presence, partly by sending Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to Iraq with orders to establish an Iraqi-based military force that would conduct lightening raids and ambushes, and make deadly use of Improvised Explosive Devises.  In the end, our military dropped a 500 lb bomb in Zarqawi's lap, and his group took off for greener pastures (Syria beckoned).  Of course, our foreign policy since 2008 has been at odds with what was accomplished during the Bush Administration.  But let's not let Trump trick himself anymore.  He wants to brag that he would not have invaded Iraq in 2003, then I wonder just how long it would have been before Donald Trump was witnessing another domestic terror incident.  So lay blame as you see fit, Mr. Trump.  I'm convinced that history will give the Bush Administration credit for keeping the pressure on Al-Qaida, and disrupting any other attempts at 9-11 type attacks.

Thirteen years later, a look back at the Iraq War, its motivations and its consequences. (Part I)

Link: Wikipedia entry for the Benghazi scandal.

Part I

The recent opening of a well-produced and costly film on the 2012 Benghazi incident in which four Americans, including an Ambassador were killed, reminds us of the sadly dangerous world we live in.  Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three young men that lost their lives that night, believed that they were in Benghazi, Libya, to help spread America's message of freedom and give hope to a nation in great need of something in which to believe.  When I was a child, I would spend hours looking at the globe my parents bought me for my ninth birthday, and try to learn, day by day, a little bit about all the different countries around the world.  Over the year, I remember using that globe to identify places where war had broken out.  As I've gotten older, the areas free from conflict has continually gotten smaller.  Today, as I look at a map of the world, I can no longer identify a place which isn't in some way either directly under attack or threatened by the plague of Islamic Extremist terrorism.  In the seven years following the 9-11 tragedy, the United States used its military capability to force the terrorist elements to fight in their own backyard.  True, Al-Qaeda was guest-of-honor of the Taliban in Afghanistan, not Saddam Hussein in Iraq.  But strategically, the best way to get at Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was by using Iraq as a spring-board.  The Bush Administration had been in a war of words with Iraq and its manipulation of the oil-for-food program to ignore United Nation's Resolutions.  I don't know the real answer, but it would seem that the Bush Administration gambled that the Democrats, the United Nations, and the rest of the world wouldn't mind if the U.S. borrowed Iraq's U.N. Resolution violations as an excuse to invade Iraq and turn it into a U.S. military base.  I understand the reasoning behind the strategy: the best was to annihilate Al-Qaeda was to force them into a conventional war (to which they were wholly unsuited) in their own backyard; no place to retreat. 

As for the politics involved, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue, I understand the frustration of folks who did not follow the Bush Administration's lead.  But Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant who had ignored every attempt by the United Nations to get him in line.  And by 2009, the Iraqi insurgency was over, and Iraq was beginning, for the first time as an independent and free nation, to stand on its own feet (thank you, U.S. taxpayer).  You see, while the military was defeating first, Saddam loyalists and second, the insurgency, we had engineers, architects, plumbers, construction specialists, electricians, town planners, and all sorts of other "nation rebuilding" experts in place, to rebuild Iraq.  Highways were put back in order, from one side of Iraq to the other.  The urban transportation systems were modernized and put back on line, along with traffic lights and speed limits.  The water distribution and waste disposal systems in place were practically from the time of the Ottomans, and we fixed what was repairable and replaced the rest.  Education was important to President Bush, and school building was a priority, from grade school to university-level education.  A tremendous effort to put Iraq's refining capacity back on line was not complete by 2009, but a great deal had been accomplished.  Also, the U.S. military was in the process of training a streamlined, effective, modern Iraqi Armed Forces.

    

How serious is the most recent resurgence of the Taliban?

Link: Taliban forces making gains in Kunduz.


In the last few weeks, the Taliban have demonstrated the ability to rise from the ashes once again.  Just a few years past, many thought that the Taliban had become just a footnote in Afghan history.  The nation was at peace, and the Afghan people seemed to embrace the idea of a more open, modern society.  Satellite dishes popped up everywhere, including outside of the capital city, and internet cafes could be found on just about every corner in Kabul.  Most impressive was the school attendance statistics, with boys and girls attending classes all over the country.  The freedom with which young Afghans embraced education, both grade school and secondary, was an indication that he continued presence of NATO and U.S. military forces was providing a strong sense of security.  But insidious organizations like the Taliban, ISIS, and Al-Qaida, never really go away.  They will always find another avenue of anger, disappointment and rage to tap into and use to their advantage.  In Afghanistan, the Taliban has always directed their recruitment efforts at the young make section of the population.  Many young men in Afghanistan have difficult lives and not much hope for a better future.  The Taliban blames this on the pervading influence of western culture, and exhorts their target audience to return to Islam, with its familiar traditions and promises of eternal life, scores of virgins, and whatever else is included in the brochure.  Another strong appeal for young Afghan men is the Taliban strict interpretation of the Quran in its instruction regarding women.  The idea of a totally subservient, uneducated wife, always waiting at home and never leaving the house without a burqa, is appealing.  Not to mention that in Taliban society, a woman is not allowed to disagree with her husband.  Beatings are common, and on the occurrence of "accidental" death, no one is prosecuted.  The Taliban has been beaten before and re-emerged, as we are seeing again today.  The ability to always appeal to the same particular common denominators guarantees that they will always have a certain percentage of the population who are willing to drink the Taliban Kool-Aid.

Following the successful September 28 offensive against Kunduz city, the Taliban have increased operational activity all throughout northern Afghanistan.  The initial display of strength has been troubling to NATO and U.S. military officials currently serving in Afghanistan.  The attempt to invest Kunduz city was expected, but the Taliban's ability to conduct large offensive operations in other provinces was not anticipated.  All intelligence had pointed to a resurgence in Taliban influence and numbers, but the Taliban is demonstrating an offensive capacity, including weapons and supplies, that was unknown before the week of September 28th.  It appears that the intel folks will have to review their assessment.  Interestingly, some concern is already being expressed regarding the defense of the capital Kabul.  A quick glance at Iraq reveals a similar scenario.  Iraq has Ramadi, Afghanistan has Kunduz; both the extremists and the government are willing to expend great resources to gain full control of this particular city.  In the last year or so, concern has been raised regarding the threat that ISIS poses to Baghdad.  With ISIS able to conduct operations in Diyala Province to the east of Baghdad, Salah al-Din to the north and Anbar to the west, Iraq's capital city is indeed in a difficult position, although ISIS' ability to actually lay siege to such a large city is in question.  Kabul is also under threat, but just how long it will take the Taliban to reach that point is unknown.  The Taliban will be just as interested in taking Kabul as ISIS is in occupying Baghdad because for many average Afghans the news that Kabul is under the control of the Taliban is all they would need to fall back into the extremist footstep.  Due to predictable Taliban infighting, the Afghan government does have some time to prepare its Armed Forces for a counter-offensive in the north, probably focusing on the recapture of Kunduz.  As far as the Taliban are concerned, Mullah Akthar Mansour is still consolidating his power base by establishing a presence in Badakhshan, Takhar and Bakhlan Provinces.  No doubt the current offensives in Jowzjan, Faryab, and Farah Provinces were also part of that effort.   

Affghanistan: the Taliban launches broad, coordinated offensive in nine northern districts.

Link: Taliban offensive in northern Afghanistan.

I can't recall the last time I devoted an entire post to Afghanistan.  I've been living in a cycle of world events that includes only Syria, Iraq, Iran and Ukraine.  I admit its nice to focus on a different topic, but the Taliban, who are responsible for the relocation of my attention, won't be receiving a thank you card.  In 2011 President Obama ordered the withdrawal of 10,000 U.S. troops, and another 23,000 were removed in 2012.  The United States continues to keep 10,000 mostly Special Forces troops in country, in an effort to both train and bolster the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF).  Prior to 2011, the Taliban had for the most part lost its authority in Afghanistan.  Even in areas traditionally loyal to the Taliban, the government was making inroads building schools and introducing technology.  There was hope that the Taliban was gone for good, and with the Taliban goes Al-Qaeda.  Not surprisingly, the Taliban still existed, but was hunkered down, patiently waiting for the opportunity to return.  The reality is, if the Taliban had been obliged to stay in hibernation for an extended period of time, and some of the more grizzled, fanatical leaders had died, the organization itself very well may have disappeared.  But the extremists know us all too well, as was demonstrated in the deserts of Western Iraq at about the same time.  The Taliban understood that a political change had occurred in Washington DC, and the new man in charge wanted to pull the U.S. military out of Afghanistan as quickly as politically expedient.  Their job was to be patient, because without a doubt, the ANSF would eventually collapse, as they had in the past.  Once the U.S. began withdrawing from Afghanistan, the Taliban slowly began to re-emerge.  The more troops withdrawn, the more attacks by the Taliban on Afghan military or government targets.  Of course, the withdrawal in Iraq was much more precipitous; the Iraqi Army was in no way ready to take the field in battle.  This information wasn't confidential, and ISIS immediately took advantage by crossing into the western deserts of Iraq from Syria, and beginning an offensive that would take them to the gates of Tikrit.  The rejuvenation of the Taliban has taken a bit more time, as U.S. and NATO forces continue to provide support to the ANSF.

The recent military advances by the Taliban involve nine northern provinces of Afghanistan, and comes on the heels of the occupation of Kunduz.  Its fascinating how some of the events in Iraq seem to mirror events in Afghanistan.  Just as the Iraqi forces attempted to retake Ramadi bit by bit after it initially fell to ISIS, the ANSF are trying to regain Kunduz one neighborhood at a time.  And just as ISIS took advantage of the focus on Ramadi to expand their presence to areas north, south, and east of Baghdad, the Taliban is using the capture of Kunduz as a jumping-off point for further offensive activity in northern Afghanistan.  The re-emergence of the Taliban is no great surprise, and was discussed as a real possibility on a regular basis in the media.  Frankly speaking, their strength and level of organization and military sophistication are a bit of a surprise to us.  The amount of territory involved in this broad attack is very discouraging, and brings into question the long-term security of the capital city.  Once before, President Obama increased troop levels in Afghanistan; would he consider doing so, this late in his term?  Don't hold your breath.  What happens in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and even sad-and-forgotten Ukraine, will involve the U.S. only as long as diplomacy is involved.  The U.S. may continue the Coalition Air Campaign, but that is as far as it goes.  Until a new president is sworn in, the U.S. will not involve ground forces in a foreign conflict.  

Sure, the Islamic State has its share of Ex-Ba'athists; but its still a religiously motivated organization at heart.

Links: A. ISIS fighters in Ramadi are ex-Ba'ath Party members.
           B. Ex-Ba'athists helping organize ISIS.

In the past few weeks, I have repeatedly heard a bit of information that is taking on a life of its own.  I have been told by persons I respect and persons whose news sources are dubious at best, that the Islamic State/ISIS, is being controlled and run by ethnic Iraqi former Saddam loyalists and Ba'ath Party members.  Last year I had a long conversation with a good friend who happens to be a retired Iraqi General and a former Ba'ath Party member (his brother and father, now deceased, were both party representatives from Baghdad).  He informed me, almost off-handedly, that some of his former colleagues were involved with ISIS.  He elaborated that these individuals were assisting in the creation and expansion of different departments within the organization, including intelligence and recruitment.  He laughed as he pointed out that like many Iraqis, they were desperate to bring home a paycheck, and at least someone was willing to compensate them for their skills.  So the demographic that is the Islamic State now includes a number of former Ba'ath Party hacks, I thought.  It only strengthened my existing opinion that the Islamic State is determined to develop the characteristics of a conventional military force.  When George Bush (and more importantly Donald Rumsfeld) was considering the best way to defeat Al-Qaeda, the decision was made to force the terrorist organization to fight a conventional war, something it was not designed to do.  Although the insurgency and the Abu Ghraib fiasco dragged things out way longer than should have been necessary, the strategy actually worked, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Al-Qaida and the Taliban just did not have the personnel, the equipment, the resources, or the infrastructure to combat the U.S. military.  Interestingly enough, the Islamic State has been successful since it started behaving more as a legitimate armed forces, which requires a plan for resupply and reinforcements, and also must include a transportation and communication network.  When Al-Qaeda works in small units, transportation and communication are much simpler.  But the Islamic State now commands tens of thousands of personnel, and it can be no surprise that former regime elements, Sunni no doubt, have joined the cause, and that ISIS, which had a definite need for that expertise, welcomed them with open arms.

But this development can be easily misunderstood.  In no way does the motivation expressed by the Islamic State dovetail with the Socialist manifesto of the Arab Ba'ath Party that at one time controlled both Iraq and Syria.  Do not read too much into the fact that the intelligence branch of the Islamic State is run in the same manner as the intelligence branch of the Iraqi Army.  Certainly Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State, is ethnic Iraqi.  But he was not a supporter of Saddam Hussein.  Because the roots of the ISIS movement can be traced to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", it should be no surprise that a number of Iraqis are prominent in the organization.  But I am beginning to see this perspective take root that the ghost of Saddam and Ba'ath Party adherents are dictating policy for the Islamic State.  Do not be distracted by this red herring.  Do not forget what the Islamic State represents and exactly what methods it has used to achieve its ends. No doubt Saddam did some heinous things, but is always attempted to cover-up or deny the existence of such government-sanctioned activity.  The Islamic State WANTS you as a first-row witness to its execution of persons because of religious persuasion.  More importantly, don't forget that the Ba'ath Party and Saddam Hussein were interested in political motivation as opposed to religious.  Saddam (and his buddy Bashir al-Assad) were in fear of the Islamic Extremist movement, and directed their security forces to deal with it harshly.  In its inception and at the height of its popularity, the Ba'ath movement was inherently political.  It sought to enfranchise the Arab worker in all nations and create a political movement with Socialist leanings that would sweep the party into power in places like Egypt and Turkey.  The Islamic State exists for the purpose of the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate, a nation ruled by a Caliph (religious leader) with the Quran as the law of the land. 

The former Iraqi Ba'ath Party members who are active in the Islamic State are the ones being co-opted, not vice versa.  And that should have been expected.  When the U.S. arrived in Iraq in 2003 and the Iraqi military has ceased to exist, everyone wanted to become a part of the U.S. military force that now appeared to hold the reigns of power.  In reality, its just a circumstance of survival.  People have families to provide for, and they  will do what is necessary to reach that goal.  What would I do to feed my family?  Just about anything.

Where The Hell Is Yemen And Why Should I Care?

Links: A. Yemen on Wikipedia
           B. CIA drone kills suspected CIA operatives

Yemen is the Muslim nation that occupies the strategic southwest corner of the Arabian

peninsula.  Depending on your tastes, the landscape can be described in various ways.  The coasts of Yemen include both barren, rocky cliffs and beautiful sand beaches.  The interior of Yemen is mountainous in places, as the Al-Sarat Range bisects northern Yemen.  The entire country is defined by a mountainous interior which falls to the sea on one side and to the Rub' Al Khali (the empty quarter) and Saudi Arabia on the other.  Not surprisingly, Yemen reminds me of the Dodecanese Islands of Greece.  Unless it was raining, Yemen always seemed to be sun-drenched, with little vegetation except for wait-to-shoulder high native shrubs.  Principal agricultural commodities include fruit (mangoes), sorghum, grain, cotton, and qat.  To use a favorite term from my childhood, the Yemenis grow a "buttload" of qat, and it gets exported everywhere.  Travel to Somalia, Kenya, Mauritius, and they will tell you that Yemeni qat is the best.  Heck, as far as I know, it may only grow in Yemen.  I can't recall ever seeing a woman chewing qat, but I'm sure it happens.  Its much like chewing tobacco.  You take a few leaves, squeeze together and put them in your mouth, either between your bottom lip and gums or in the pouch of your cheek.  When you collect enough spit, you do

Man chewing qat in Yemen
Source: Ferdinand Reus 

what comes natural.  Let me tell you, I've seen my share of stoners and potheads, but these qat chewers are just as dedicated.  They chew while working, from sun-up until sun-down, and they partake when relaxing.  I've been chewing tobacco (dipping) off and on for thirty-plus years, so I had to give it a shot.  To tell the truth, I never noticed much except for a bit of a headache that lasted all afternoon. I've heard that its supposed to be a bit like marijuana, but I've never smoked pot, so I can't compare.

Taking a look at Yemen on a map, you can see why I call it "the elbow country": since the end of the civil war between north and south, Yemen resembles an elbow and a bit of a forearm.  At one time, Yemen was a much-valued gem in the crown of the Ottoman Empire.  The area has always been active in trading, and old history books make mention of the port city of Mocha as being an important location for bartering just about everything under the sun.  This is what I love about places like Yemen; it's almost as if time has stood still.  An ancient map of this area identifies Yemen as "Arabia Felix", which translated from Latin means "Happy Arabia".  That same map, which may be centuries and centuries old, will identify cities that still exist today.  No wonder Yemen is a playground for Geographers and Archaeologists.  With the arrival of the Europeans, the usual scenario unfolded.  Portugal wanted it, as did the British.  It was part of the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman for many years, until the arrival of the Ottoman Turks, who created a national border of sorts.  The Turks were removed following the end of World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1922), leaving Yemen in the cold, gluttonous hands of the English, who realized that the value in Yemen was strategic, not economic.

Between 1918 and 1967, the territory was in a constant disarray.  The British garrisoned a few of the larger towns, but were unable to subdue the tribal forces who were under various different leaders and, of course, were also trying to slit each other's throats.  Two treaties were signed with the British (in 1934 and 1940), which effectively decided the issue, although conflict continued.  The Yemeni people were able to enjoy a few decades of peace that coincided with the second world war.  But in 1967, the southern half of Yemen (Aden), split from the north.  This led to a civil war which seemed to go on forever.  In May 1990, both sides agreed to unification, and a treaty was signed.  Things were looking up . . . and then Al-Qaeda arrived. 

Shockingly, Al-Qaeda's presence in Yemen was not part of a plot to kill Americans.  Al-Qaeda, which is based on Sunni teachings, became active in Yemen in opposition to the actions of the Houthis, (the Shia Muslims of Yemen).  Yemen is one of those Muslim nations with a large population of both Sunni and Shia.  As has been the model, for many years the Sunni were accused of keeping the Shia (Houthi) from succeeding in business or participating in government.  With a bit of help from Iran, the Houthi armed themselves and started making demands at the end of an AK-47.  The Sunni-led government was in a real pickle.  Al-Qaeda was active in the southern coastal areas around Aden, but Yemeni President (and Sunni) Hadi could not ally himself and his government to Al-Qaeda because the United States was also in town, and up to that point, had been supporting Hadi in his efforts to stay in power.  Believe it or not, the U.S. military largely avoided involvement in the Houthi/Hadi conflict.  The U.S. presence in Yemen was for one purpose; to capture and kill members of Al-Qaeda.  Your see, Al-Qaeda wasn't in Yemen just to represent Sunni interests militarily, Al-Qaeda was in Yemen to provide training to its operatives.

When George W. Bush and the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2003, we exposed Al-Qaeda's most glaring weakness.  Since we forced the issue into Bin Laden's own backyard, he had no choice but to respond.  The U.S. military engaged fighters from the Taliban, from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and from other loosely-named but directly AQ-affiliated groups.  The bad guys had to funnel all their resources into the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there wasn't much time to plan and conduct another 9-11.  But Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri (probably more Al-Zawahiri) realized that the struggle needed something resembling a conventional army.  Recruitment drives went into action, especially targeting ex-military in the UK, France and the United States.  Recruitment also increased dramatically in Africa.  If Al-Qaeda was going to build an army, they needed soldiers. The recruits who showed intelligence were directed towards Al-Qaeda, who continued to be the cerebral part of the machine, while the rest were sent to Yemen, to learn how to be soldiers.  The Houthi development complicated what was turning into a war between Al-Qaeda recruits and armed U.S. drones.

This past weekend, the Hadi government fell.  The capital of Sana'a is calm, and the Houthi appear to be following through with their pledge to keep the peace.  The Houthi are the majority in north Yemen, which bodes well for a bit of down-time to try and group (for all sides).  Fortunately, the U.S. military has been extremely discreet when it comes to Yemen.  A real effort is being made to locate, target, and kill Al-Qaeda operatives.  I don't believe any chances are taken which involve civilians, which at this stage is the correct move.  Why is Yemen important?  Because Al-Qaeda has decided to use it as a training location for its operatives.  As the war in Syria continues, and the connections between Al-Qaeda and ISIS become more apparent, intelligence analysts will start to notice that some ISIS fighters were trained in Yemen, and the overall picture will become much more clear.