The expansion of ISIS and its intended future targets.

Link: A.  The expansion of The Islamic State.
          B.  Hamas aiding ISIS in Sinai?
      

This blog has regularly taken the opportunity to provide information regarding the recruitment efforts ands expansionist intentions of the extremist group, The Islamic State (ISIS).  From out perspective, the United States and its European and Arab allies have not been nearly proactive enough regarding the ISIS' ability to establish itself rapidly in almost any part of the world.  In fact, the allies haven't been proactive whatsoever.  Until now, that is.  We are beginning to see a bit more attention paid to the activities of ISIS, and more importantly, groups that have aligned themselves with the Islamic State.  June and July were pivotal months regarding the expansion of ISIS from within the conflict zones of Syria and Iraq, to Egypt, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Kenya, and possibly even the United States itself.  As detailed in our blog posting from July 8 (Link B), ISIS arrived with a bang in Sinai, taking out one Egyptian checkpoint before being dispatched themselves.  Although the international press had published occasional stories regarding certain established terrorist groups pledging allegiance to ISIS, it was the attack in Sinai that sounded the alarm.  From a strictly military perspective, the attack was a disaster.  The ISIS fighters, most of whom were local Palestinian recruits with a few veterans of Syria thrown in for good measure, managed to kill a handful of Egyptian soldiers, but they lost roughly two hundred of their own.  We know from a source on the scene that the Egyptian soldiers, especially the ones attacked at the original checkpoint, exhibited tremendous courage and determination.  No doubt their ability to keep ISIS from quickly moving through the checkpoint and on to larger targets, saved many lives.  In the end, though, the attack achieved its goals.  ISIS wanted to announce to the world that the conflict was no longer limited to Syria and Iraq, and also demonstrate its ability to recruit and utilize dedicated supporters was basically unlimited.

Since the early July events in Gaza, ISIS has not conducted anymore high-profile attacks outside Syria and Iraq, at least not of which we are aware.  In July, an Islamic extremist gunman opened fire on a U.S. military facility in Chattanooga, Tennessee, killing four Marines and a Sailor.  Was this deranged young man connected to ISIS?  Not according to the U.S. government.  He was a frequent visitor to ISIS-friendly websites, message boards and chat rooms, and he recently spent six months in Jordan, which makes the "lone-wolf" declaration by the Obama Administration seem to us to be bizarrely premature and suspiciously political.  We suspect that the shooter probably had some contact with ISIS agents while in Jordan, who ratcheted up the hate and anti-infidel message which was spinning in his head when he returned stateside.  The most difficult question to answer, is what kind of sleeper-cell network has ISIS, and Al-Qaeda beforehand, developed in North America?  From our optic, Al-Qaeda appears to favor the well-planned, highly trained, carefully chosen target, patient approach with regards to its cells, while ISIS seems to have no problem just handing someone a gun or a vehicle full of explosives, and telling them that when the signal comes in, just go out and kill people.  Interestingly enough, Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda loved a carefully planned, well-resourced operation, and al-Baghdadi and ISIS seem to prefer operations that result in the highest casualty list, regardless of cost.  In the end, though, all three were definite believers in the power of fear.  However the operation comes about, in the end, it must create enough fear in the target communities, to make people consider changing the way they and their families live life.

On a positive note, the new administration in Nigeria seems intent on destroying Boko Haram (BH)once and for all.  The terrorist group has basically been on the run for some weeks, as the joint military efforts of Chad, Nigeria, Benin and Cameroon have left BH very little room to maneuver.  BH achieved a great deal of attention with its announcement of allegiance to ISIS, but ISIS is smart enough to stay out of northern Nigeria, at least for the moment.  The same can't be said for Libya, which seems to become more of a complicated mess everyday.  The fact that Libya hasn't already been united under one Islamic extremist banner is a surprise in itself, because it certainly seems destined to happen.  But for the time being, the United States and Europe continue to utilize some form of diplomacy to effect positive change, while at the same time, ISIS does its business out in the desert, visiting one isolated community after another, and adding them to the cause.  I'm not sure if the current Libyan government sits in Benghazi or Tripoli, or if any government is currently being recognized by the United Nations.  But the U.N. and the United States have been aware of the delicate state of affairs in Libya, since long before the Benghazi incident which killed five Americans.  You could not plan a more advantageous situation for ISIS, as the people are desperate for someone to institute a bit of law and order, and maybe get the water turned back on.  As demonstrated in Iraq, ISIS has learned the art of local government, and is expanding its footprint in Libya by providing communities with some level of organization and relief.

ISIS has also become active in Yemen, but to what degree is still a mystery.  ISIS has also established itself in many of the large, urban township communities in central and southern Africa, which has the potential to be an unlimited source of recruits.  Has ISIS found its way to the townships of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paolo?  When young people see no future, the color of their skin makes no difference.  They will be a captive audience when the ISIS recruiters show up, with stories of glory on the battlefield, the holiness of killing infidels, and the providing of a wife (in this world, and forty additional ones in the next).  But one of the most important thing that ISIS can provide is something that the planners at the U.N. and the Pentagon haven't really started to notice: ISIS provides these young people with DIRECTION, a cause, a reason to get up in the morning.  One can never overestimate the value of "raison d'etre".  If the various governments in Africa are unable to solve endemic problems of unemployment and homelessness, then we should have a good idea from where the next batch of young recruits will originate.  Maybe the next Gaza-like statement will be in Pretoria, or Nakuru.  One thing is certain: the problem of global youth unemployment will only feed the fire of discontent that continues to provide extremists like ISIS with young people who are willing to die for the cause. 

An Examination Of Al-Qaeda In 2015

Links: A. Who's Left To Lead Al-Qaeda?
           B. Al-Qaeda (Arab. Peninsula) Attempts to Counter Drones

I can't recall who was chosen as Time magazine's "Person of the Year - 2014", but the Islamic State (IS) would have been as good a choice as any (as long as bad guys get to play as well).  The frequent stories from northern Iraq about mass executions and starving children at least elevated IS to the "most despised" position.  The stated goal of the Islamic State is the creation of a Caliphate somewhere in the Levant/Mesopotamia/North Africa/Arabian Peninsula, and in furtherance of that goal, the IS is engaged in a conventional war in both Syria and Iraq.  It would appear that the IS has pushed Al-Qaeda not only from the front page, but all the way to the back next to Dear Abby.  Our Air Force is in regular combat with the IS, and we are providing military aid to the Free Syrian Army, the Iraqis and the Kurds, so it only makes sense that 2014 came with a steady diet of news on the IS.  For those of us who are obsessed with staying informed, the blogosphere is a miracle.  I can hop over to www.longwarjournal.org at any time for an update on Al-Qaeda.  The truth is, the death of Osama Bin Laden did not lead to the collapse of AQ.  Long before Abbottabad, Bin Laden had restructured the Al-Qaeda network of communications and operations, to avoid dependence on any one leader.  The virus that is Al-Qaeda is still very active in certain parts of the world.  Let's take stock of Al-Qaeda as 2015 begins.

Pakistan/Afghanistan - it would be foolish for anyone to claim that Al-Qaeda is stronger anywhere else in the world than Pakistan and Afghanistan.  For reasons of simplification, I consider the Taliban to be "Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan".  Does the Pakistani government expect the American people to believe that no one in the Pakistani Intelligence Service or military was aware that Bin Laden and his immediate family were living in Abbottabad?  Bullshit.  The Pakistani Intelligence Service has a number of very dedicated, decent officers, many of whom are pro-West in political orientation. But it also contains a traditional, deep-rooted vein of support for both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.  More importantly, it appears that the people of Pakistan support AQ.  How long has it been since an international sampling/polling company like Gallup has provided numbers on the sympathies of the Pakistani people?  No need to take a poll....just listen to the people on the street.  They hate the British (even though it seems as if half of London is Pakistani), hate the United States and REALLY hate India.  Lots of hate going around, which isn't surprising, given the perpetual state of endemic poverty the Pakistani people wake up to every morning.  Sadly, I'm losing my sympathy in old age.  Stop having so many damn kids, stop electing thieves, and stop spending over fifty percent of the nation's budget on nuclear research and weapons to aim at India.  As is my habit, I've gotten off-topic; my apologies.  The point is, Al-Qaeda is safe in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  At times over the past ten years, we were close to eradicating AQ in Afghanistan.  But the draw-down and the confusing policy of the Obama Administration has allowed for a full rejuvenation of AQ influence and control.

Iraq - I don't believe that AQ has any current interest in Iraq, although I have seen reports of recruiting efforts in the Sunni community and also training bases in the far west of the country.  As MB pointed out last summer, the IS was actually born of an AQ parent.  Al-Qaeda in Iraq, led by the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, began to lose steam in 2007-2008, as the Sunni people grew tired of the violence and constant warfare, and withdrew support.  Al-Qaeda in Iraq eventually ended up in Syria and re-emerged with a different name and a different mission.  But make no mistake - the IS is a Sunni-based group with numerous similarities to AQ.  I have always suspected that the lines of communication between the IS and AQ are much more active than people are willing to admit.  It behooves both organizations to make the west believe that the IS and AQ are two separate, very distinct groups working towards a different agenda.  It leaves the impression that Islamic Extremism is a growing umbrella movement with room for many, many more, and that agreement on all issues is not required.

Yemen - Al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has been active for over a decade, trying to remove the current government and replace it with...well, AQAP.  The conflict in Yemen is a microcosm of the conflict in Iraq.  Not only are the Sunni fighting amongst themselves (the secular government against AQAP), but the large Shia population has armed itself and made its presence known.  And in the middle is the United States, with a substantial military footprint in Yemen and drones flying around everywhere, looking for AQAP to blow to bits.  I understand that the Shia are determined to keep AQAP from succeeding in Yemen, just as the continued presence of U.S. military in Yemen (that includes the U.S. Navy) will keep AQAP pissed off enough to stay in the fight.  Yemen has provided Al-Qaeda with the perfect environment to train its new recruits, as AQAP has demonstrated that it is in possession of the latest weaponry (although I'm not sold on the Jiffy-Pop tablecloth as the best way to avoid a drone strike...see link #2).

Africa - Al-Qaeda is very active in Africa, and, unfortunately, very healthy.  AQ has a definite presence in Libya, but I am guessing they are playing the same game as us; waiting for the dust to clear.  Al-Qaeda has proven to be a very patient organization, which I believe is more the philosophy of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the crusty old psychopath who took over after Bin Laden took a couple bullets to the front right side of his head.  Dr. Zawahiri is all about the methodology (he is a physician, after all), and he is probably the one who has orchestrated the "sleeper cell" operation, if one exists (scary thought).  Al-Qaeda in Africa is most active under the moniker "Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb", with the Maghreb being that hard-to-define area that is basically west of Egypt and north of Mali, Niger, Mauritania and Chad.  Actually, I consider the northern half of Mali, Niger and Chad to be part of the Maghreb.  Al-Qaeda has used Islam to propel its message from oasis to oasis and campsite to campsite.  In some of the struggling communities they have found a receptive audience.  Al-Qaeda's most receptive audiences, though, are in the northern parts of Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, Mali and Niger.  These people have been forsaken by their governments for one reason or another (usually because the president and the ruling party are from a tribe of economically successful southerners).  Boko Haram, for all its radical ideas, and the Lord's Resistance Army, for all its insanity, have found recruits around every corner.  Africa presents an opportunity for AQ to recruit heavily and to create a second base of security (after Afghanistan).

Southeast Asia - Al-Qaeda has always been comfortable in Indonesia and the Philippines, where the government is always in the midst of some new effort to root out the communist insurgency that has been active since Karl Marx was in short pants (or at least seems like it).  Indonesia is another country which provides AQ the opportunity to spread its message through the mosques and Islamic educational centers on Java.  In the last two decades, the transportation network in this part of the world has grown by leaps and bounds.  Flying from Malaysia to Australia, or Singapore to Beijing, or Vientiane to Manila, is as simple as buying a ticket, and the arrival of the no-frills airlines (AirAsia being a good example) has made air travel affordable.  This complicates matters for security personnel in every country.  Its as if even Al-Qaeda can have conference calls in 2015.  Indonesia also presents fertile ground for recruitment, and the mosques have a bad reputation for preaching some really nasty, anti-U.S., anti-Aussie propaganda.

My next post will focus exclusively on Al-Qaeda on Africa, with other geographic locations to follow.  I consider Al-Qaeda, not the Islamic State, be the number one international terror threat to the United States.

What is in a Name? IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh

By Jennifer Jennings, Guest Blogger
sistereight@icloud.com    Twitter @Sistereight 

Links: A. “There is no al-Sham”
           B.  Levant and al-Sham are not Synonyms
           C.  France Swtiches to Daesh Acronym

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
- Act II, Scene II of Romeo and Juliet, William Shakespeare

What is in a name?  Well, when it comes to branding … everything.  And that includes the branding of political groups.  While the truth of what a group represents is defined in large part by their deeds and actions, it is also defined, in part, by what others can be convinced to believe they represent.  And this all starts with nomenclature, known in contemporary terms as “spin”.  Normally I would have expected that a group lacking a clear, unambiguous, and universally recognized name would have difficulty maintaining legitimacy or attention.  Perhaps this is my business background biasing my view.  You usually can't get widespread attention for a product or your brand if everyone is referring to it as something different.  But over the last four months I've seen the militant terrorists in Iraq and Syria get just this kind of attention despite the fact that no one can quite seem to agree on what to call them.  I suppose when you destroy lives and property, take control of and oppress populations, and publicly behead those who disagree . . . well then you are bound to capture attention regardless of what various names are being used to refer to you.  So why then all the disparity in names?  And why the multiple news articles and mentions addressing the disparity?   Wouldn’t it just be easiest to go with the self-given name of the group?  Well, let's start with this then.

الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام
This is the self-given name of the militant terrorist group in question.  Not so easy to use in European/western conversation, or oral news reporting, or even for readers to continually recognize in print.  Even the romanization of the Arabic script leaves us with the lengthy: ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fīl-ʻIraq wa ash-Shām, which is difficult for western ears, tongues and memories.  So a translation seems the natural course:  Put the name in the native language of the reader/listener.  This will make it easier to refer to, easier to remember, and easier to understand in an instant just what it is that the group is self-proclaiming via their name.  If only translation were so simple a task . . .

• ad-Dawlah translates easy enough as “the State” (which brings its own issues)
• al-Islāmīyah is also an easy translation to “Islamic” (also creating issues)
• fīl-ʻIraq is accepted to translate as “of Iraq”

The first two easily translated words form the “IS” basis of the names IS, ISIS, and ISIL, since there is no dispute that they translate as “the Islamic State”.  And while it’s also readily accepted that the next portion translates as “of Iraq”, it is ambiguity with the final part that leads to the split between the users of ISIS and those of ISIL, and ultimately to those that avoid the dispute entirely by sticking simply with IS.

wa ash-Shām/ ISIS v ISIL

For translators, this is the most complicated portion of the self-given name. It refers to “al-Sham”: a region that is translated either as the Levant or as Syria.  There are some that

claim that al-Sham and the Levant are essentially, or even exactly, the same thing, while others argue that there are cultural differences that indicate the true motivation of the jihadist group we are dealing with.

• The Levant:  The term first appeared in English in 1497 and is borrowed from the French, levant,  meaning “rising”.   It is used to refer to the east Mediterranean, where the sun rises and is accepted to refer to a geographical and cultural region that includes Cyrpus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and part of Southern Turkey. 
• al-Sham:  This term refers to Bilad al-Sham which is sometimes also called “Greater Syria”. It is a province that is roughly incorporated by the same area as the Levant, but was in existence far earlier (630s-940s) as an Islamic Caliphate with Damascus as its capital. 

Some of the dispute between using ISIS versus ISIL seems to stem from two sources:   First, and easiest to dismiss is that the last "S" in ISIS shouldn’t stand for “Syria”, as the modern version of this country doesn’t include all the countries of the historical al-Sham.  Most news sources have recognized that the “Syria” translated here is referring to the Greater Syria of old.  Although, to avoid confusion this is why some have chosen “Levant” rather than “Syria” for use in the acronym and have thus gone with ISIL.  The other dispute comes from those that claim al-Sham and Levant are in fact not synonymous, but that the use of al-Sham has a deeper, older, cultural and religious meaning that indicates a “race to Jeruselem” for the militant Islamic group (link B).  Those with this perspective prefer using “ISIS” over “ISIL” with the final “S” referring to al-Sham, not Syria and certainly not the Levant, as they argue that this is a western geographical distinction that ignores the prior religious significance that al-Sham held to the Muslims.

DAESH
Another major difference in nomenclature for this militant jihadist group comes from the refusal to recognize them as a State, or as representing Islam.  Daesh is a loose

acronym formed from ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fīl-ʻIraq wa ash-Shām and is most frequently used by enemies of the group as it has negative undertones: it sounds similar in Arabic to words  Daes meaning "one who crushes something underfoot" and Dahes meaning "one who sows discord".  This name, Daesh, has been officially adopted by the French government (see link C), but I see it most frequently used by Kurds in Syria that I follow on Twitter.  In fact, on Twitter there was a campaign to make the name even more insulting: the winning hashtag was #daeshbag. However, I do still see the runner up, #daesshole, used almost as frequently.  For the terrorists being targeted with the name Daesh, there is strong evidence that they do in deed take offense to it:  there are reports out of northern Iraq that anyone caught using this name is subject to having their tongue cut out by the militants.  It is worth noting that there are westerners and Europeans who are opposed to calling the terrorists Daesh.  They argue that it ignores and hides the fact that the militants are an Islamic religious group intent on converting the world to submit to Islamic rule and law by forcing non-believers into slavery, and/or to pay tax for not being Muslim, and/or being beheaded.

As a civilized people, we like to label and neatly categorize.  I started off feeling this same way;  I was simply annoyed when one newscast said "ISIS" while the U.S. Government said "ISIL" and my Kurd Tweeps said "Daesh".  Like most people, I am more comfortable if everyone is on the same page.  I have come to accept that everyone is not.  In my personal journey to figure out the “right name” for this group, I can’t say that I’ve come to any definitive conclusions.  I know they’re the bad guys.  But I have come to realize that it is much less important what I personally call "them", those evil militant beheaders in the Middle East, and more important that I keep listening to all the different names they call themselves and are being called by others.  And that then I ask “why”?  What motives and beliefs does each group have that cause it to refuse the name that others use and offer one of its own? Only then can I begin to get a glimmer of understanding into the chaos of this region.

Battle Of Baghdad.....The End Of the Beginning

Links:  A. Iraqi Army Struggles On In Anbar
            B. Suicide Attack In Baiji

I'm hoping to eventually stumble onto a blog that is exclusively devoted to disseminating articles about Iraqi military engagements.  I am fascinated with the Iraqi Defense Force and its attempt to combat the Islamic Front in Anbar Province.  The conflict in Syria is ugly, disorganized, and hidden most of the time.  But for us armchair generals, Iraq presents the opportunity to watch at least one army as it pursues strategic goals.  The Iraqi Army is attempting to engage and destroy elements of the Islamic State in The Levant (IS) in Anbar Province.  Over the past month we have taken a close look at the strategies of both parties as the Iraqis seek to defend greater Baghdad.  Since its initial military movements in northern Iraq, the IS has presented a difficult target.  I had fallen into the trap of expecting IS forces engaged in Iraq to resemble the IS elements that had been engaged in Syria since 2012.  I was taken by surprise with the IS and its use of heavy weaponry (artillery in particular).  I had grown accustomed to groups of men riding around in Toyota pick-ups that had been rigged with an anti-aircraft or large caliber machine-gun in the bed.  From the beginning, the IS has shown a military sophistication in Iraq that includes the ability to effectively use artillery, strategically move large numbers of fighters from one area to another, and to control extensive resupply lines.  Most importantly, the IS has demonstrated the ability to adapt.  The IS appears just as comfortable using guerilla tactics as they do utilizing heavy weaponry and fighting in larger units.

The IS rarely makes a public statement without barking something or other about the creation of an Islamic Fundamentalist Nation.  They seem to prefer the word, "Caliphate", but who gives a shit.  This beast, which rose like a phoenix from the ashes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda in Iraq, has a true organizational structure.  If we were in a boardroom and I had a flip chart, I could probably draw a nice diagram (and one of the numerous people sleeping would fart in appreciation).  We have the political IS and the military IS; the talented folks in CTC at Langley have the complete political picture, no doubt.  At the moment we here at MB are solely concerned with the military wing of the IS.  Link A seems to be a carbon copy of a situational update that I read last week in the NY Times.  Who controls Fallujah, the IS or the Iraqi Army?  And Ramadi?  The truth is that the only time the Iraqi Army makes any headway in Anbar is when they participate in a U.S.- planned ground attack (with armor) coordinated with allied air attacks.  The current state of the Iraqi Air Force seems to be a complete mystery.  They were supposed to receive 18 F16s over a period of two years.  The pilots are currently training in the United States, but Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in a typical show of Iraqi ingratitude, complained about the F16 and purchased five second-hand Sukhoi (Su) 25's to counter the IS threat.  (Entertaining side note: Iran generously "gave" Iraq a handful of Su-25's as well, as a show of solidarity against the IS.  And by the way, the majority of the Su-25's that arrived from Iran were ex-Iraqi Air Force planes that had fled Iraq at the start of the Gulf War, rather than face sure death in combat with U.S. Air Force F16s.)  So we know that the Iraqi Air Force has a few Migs and Su-25s, not to mention a handful of Russian Helicopters.  Does anyone know if the Iraqi Air Force is participating in the allied air campaign?

Link B is a reminder that the IS is very familiar with urban-warfare tactics.  The suicide car bombs were a specialty of Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the Iraqis are experiencing them all over again.  Even though the heavier elements of the IS forces are engaged with the Iraqi Army in Anbar (and with allied air attacks in Syria), the plan to seed the poorer Sunni neighborhoods of greater Baghdad is in full swing.  From today onward, You can be sure that any mortars launched toward government buildings, military targets, or foreign diplomatic property in Baghdad, will originate from the poor Sunni bedroom communities of Baghdad.  And the car bombs will be built in the same neighborhoods.  The IS is conducting this war in a very sophisticated manner, successfully engaging in what is a three-front war (In September Secretary of Defense Hagel was quoted as saying that the goal was to force the IS to fight a three-front war).  The current areas of conflict include Syria, Anbar Province in eastern Iraq, and Kurdistan/northern Iraq.  I am surprised at the IS's ability to function so effectively.  I had anticipated that IS fortunes would suffer somewhere, but it hasn't happened.  They are hanging tough in Kobani, staying on the offensive against regular Syrian forces, threatening again in northern Iraq, and giving the Iraqi Army fits in Anbar.  Just this morning I learned that the IS had restarted the "Great Yezidi Roundup of 2014".  Yee Ha.  You would think that after a while they would run out of Yezidis. 

I'm going out on a limb and predicting that as the days go by, the focus of this conflict will become less on Syria and more on Iraq.  The IS is determined to capture Baghdad.  It hasn't always been a target, but once it became apparent that Baghdad could be captured, the IS created a plan.  Seed the poorer neighborhoods with operatives, play-up the Sunni/Shia conflict, conduct daily car bombings and mortar attacks, and destabilize the city.  With no U.S. ground forces, the IS will have little trouble taking Baghdad one street at a time, the same MO presently in use in Ramadi and Fallujah.  I think we can call the last week of October 2014, the end of the beginning of The Battle of Baghdad.

Whats Up with Syrian President Assad And His Moscow Handlers?

Links: Russia And The Syrian Civil War
           What Are Assad And Putin Up To?

Since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, it seems that the Soviet Union/Russia has always sided with the Arabs while the United States sides with the Jewish nation.  To be

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict

fair, the Soviet Union voted in favor of the UN resolution that partitioned Palestine and created two separate states (the Palestinian state never really got off the ground; the Jewish half became Israel).  Given its strong support of a Jewish state following World War II, it's no surprise that the United States supported Israel from the beginning (I'm not saying a word about the politically influential Jewish lobby). However once Cold War tensions elevated, the Soviets sided with the Arab regimes in the Arab-Israeli conflicts in order to maintain thier position in opposition to the United States, Israel's strongest ally.  Conflict between Israel and the Palestinians/Arab states brings to mind three separate military engagements: the War of Independence (1947-1949), the Six Day War (June 1967), and the Yom Kippur War (October 1973).  In truth, my earliest memory as a child was my father celebrating President Richard Nixon's re-election in 1972; my family lived on U.S. Army Bases in Germany (Bad Kreuznach,  Kaiserslautern, and Bad Hersfeld). But I can still recall the attack on the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.  I was barely out of diapers but I remember being so confused at how easy it was for some people to hurt others.  As I sit here in 2014, it seems as if Israel and the Palestinians have never really taken a break in their conflict.

The Soviet Union seldom went in for "half-measures".  They supported the Arab states both diplomatically and militarily.  Egypt's Presidents Nasser and then Sadat were dependent upon the Soviets for a never-ending stream of tanks and jet fighters.  The Soviets kept flying the tanks in, the Egyptians and Syrians kept rushing them into battle, and the Israelis kept creating bombed-out crematoriums for their crews.  I'm sure that Egypt, Syria and Iraq paid what they could, but there is not doubt in my mind that most of the military equipment that the Arabs lost came gratis from Moscow.  To the Soviets it was a necessary expenditure: Syria and Egypt gave the Reds access to the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal.  I don't think that the Russians had a particular dislike for Israel; more than anything else it was a strategic issue (the enemy of my enemy is my friend).  Its been some years since Syria, Egypt and Israel actually met on the battlefield.  The Egyptians are now equipped with modern U.S. military hardware (and training), but the Syrians have stayed loyal to Mother Russia. A number of times in the last two decades there was some concern that Turkey and Syria might duke it out (once over a territorial dispute, and once over the flow of a river).  The Turkish military would have humiliated old man Hafez al-Assad and his outdated weaponry. 

Syria has had great difficulty keeping its Soviet-era equipment up-to-specs.  Before the start

Syrian T-55 ARV armored recovery vehicle
(http://www.armyrecognition.com/News)

of the Syrian Civil War, the army still laid claim to 2,000 T-55 tanks, for goodness sake.  The only way to keep a few of those old junks running would be to cannibalize some of the others.  At one time Syria had a healthy number of T-62S, T-72S, and T-72Ms in its arsenal.  I have no clue how many have been destroyed in the war, how many have been captured, or how many just don't run anymore; the Soviets were not known for their weapons craftmanship (ever fired an AK-47?).  As for the Syrian Air Force, the great majority of its jet fighters were aged Mig 21s, 23s, and 25s.  They also have a handful of Sukhois and Mig 29s.  It was rumored that Russia has been hesitant to supply Syria with the new model Mig 31 because of pressure from the west.  The truth is, for offensive purposes, the Syrian Air Force no longer exists.  I realize that the media puts out the odd report of Syrian government Helicopter Gunships shooting up civilian areas, but if the Syrian Air Force had any real offensive capability, they would be laying it to the Islamic State (safe to assume?).  Interestingly enough, I have seen more conversation lately regarding the Islamic State and Migs than I have the Syrian Air Force.

Over the past month, the Islamic State has been forced into the dreaded two-front war.  It's fighting the Iraqi Army in Anbar Province and in north central Iraq it's waging war on the

Bashir al-Assad

Kurds in Kurdistan. Additionally the IS is attacking the Kurds full-force in north central Syria (Kobani) all the while under a regular barrage of death from the sky (Carl von Clausewitz is spinning in his grave).  What is most amazing is that the Islamic State continues to have the initiative on all fronts.  Be that as it may, Bashir al-Assad could not be happier, as the Americans and their allies (some are hated enemies of Assad and his Ba'ath Party) degrade the fighting ability of the Islamic State forces (I'm being optimistic).  No doubt Assad has used this respite to reorganize his army, repair and upgrade his armor, train new recruits, and prepare the West for an inevitable diplomatic offensive, sponsored by Putin.  I just hope Bashir has had a few extra minutes to try and locate his missing chin. Seriously.  Never in my life have a seen such a "chinless" person.  Too bad he doesn't live in Beverly Hills; he could've bought a chin and had it installed over lunch.

Speaking of the upcoming charm offensive, I predict that Assad will try to stay in power by reminding the west of what happens in a vacuum in this part of the world.  Can we afford

another Libya?  Assad knows that Obama can't support a coup orchestrated by the U.S.-trained New Syrian Army.  It would be to much meddling for Obama to stomach, and would also infuriate Russia.  If the New Syrian Army defeats the Islamic State, they will probably make a play for control in Damascus.  However, Obama can't let that happen, and Assad is aware of this fact.  I expect that the New Syrian Army and the regular Syrian Army will actually be fighting side-by-side against the Al-Nusra Front, the Islamic State, Khorasan, and all the other baddies.  Assad may offer blanket amnesty to the Syrian military officers who originally deserted to form the New Syrian Army.  When the time comes, Assad will have many Aces up his sleeve, and will have Vladimir Putin to watch his back.  It's not difficult to imagine Assad making amends with the leaders of the New Syrian Army, and presenting a fait accompli to the United States and its allies.  So from my optic, Assad is in the cat bird's seat.  The chair is a bit wobbly, though.  He needs to continue do everything possible to reconstitute his military, especially the Air Force.  I started this post pointing out the historic ties between the Russians and the Arabs, and I want to end it on a similar note.  Why is Putin so intent on keeping Assad in power?  Because Syria has a bit of land that serves as a coastline to the Mediterranean Sea.  Putin has visions of Russian Navy ships and, more importantly, submarines, having a home away from home in the Levant.  How the Obama Administration deals with this evolving situation will be a fascinating piece of the puzzle.