Link: Putin using media and military to make headlines in Syria.
Over the last two years, the world has become a much more dangerous place. Russia seems intent on presiding over the dismemberment of Ukraine, Libya has become a magnet for jihadist groups, Iran, arguably the world's foremost exporter of terrorism, has been given open access to purchase modern military equipment, and ISIS seems unstoppable as it racks up battlefield victories in Iraq and Syria. What the international situation calls for is the arrival on the scene of a true leader. Barack Obama does not have the courage or the conviction to be that leader, and the various European Heads of State are permanently frozen in "surrender" mode. Whose left? What about Vladimir Putin? Sure, I'm disturbed by Russian aggression in Ukraine, but the situation in Donbas and Crimea does not present a current threat to world peace. Let's take a serious look at the danger posed by the continued existence of the Islamic State for Iraq and al-Sham, or the Islamic State for a Caliphate in the Levant, or ISIS/ISIL, or whatever name suits you. Simply put, this Islamic Extremist Organization is about Death.
ISIS claims to be singularly focused on the creation of a new Islamic Caliphate. The most recent Caliph was embodied in the form of the last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. What is a Caliph? A Caliph is the spiritual leader of the Islamic World, and the Caliphate is intended to be whatever geographical area that accepts his total authority. At times, ISIS has claimed to be only interested in Syria, but that interest was expanded to include Iraq, upon the ill-timed withdrawal of U.S. troops. Now we here the area of interest has expanded to include "The Levant" which is a colonial term used to describe Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, and Jordan. The reality is, ISIS is a plague with world domination goals. The organization has spread to Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, Europe and the United States. Quite a reach for a group only interested in The Levant. As for its Modus Operandi, ISIS flourishes through the spread of tyranny, domination and mass murder. The tools most frequently utilized are terror and fear. Its ability to spread to so many disparate communities, including the Philippines and Kenya, allows ISIS to spread its message like a virus. How are they able to convince so many young people to join? ISIS provides the one thing missing in the lives of young people from the poorest corners of the earth: hope. For the individual, ISIS provides sustenance, and in many instances, a little money to send home. And at the end of the day, anyone who dies in pursuit of the Caliphate, will most certainly qualify as a martyr. For the hundreds of thousands of unemployed, hungry young men in places like Cairo, Nairobi, Damascus, Sana'a, the Balkans, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, and Libya, ISIS puts a gun in their hands and gives them not only something to do, but something powerful to belong to.
Again, anyone one of a dozen nations, if properly motivated and mobilized, could defeat ISIS on the present battlefields of Iraq and Syria. Even with their F5s and stolen Iraqi Migs, I believe the Iranians could vanquish ISIS. In fact, a coalition of Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. and Kuwait could probably get the job done as well. Ideally, the United Nations would sponsor the creation of an international military coalition to destroy ISIS. There was a day when the President of United States would ideally fit into the role of political leader of this coalition, given the amount of diplomatic relationships and influence the United States enjoys. But it doesn't appear that our current President is up for the job. Just when it appeared that no one was willing to take the job, Vladimir Putin announces that Russia has decided to aggressively re-engage in Syria, in opposition to ISIS. Vlad puts his money where his mouth is; Russian heavy tanks, artillery, and necessary troop-support equipment has started to arrive in Latakia, on Syria's northwestern coast. If the Russians so chose, a dedicated offensive campaign against ISIS, that utilizes whatever resources are necessary (and with the "no troops on the ground" assistance from the U.S. and Europe), would eventually crush ISIS. But the elephant-sized question in the room, is can we allow Putin to become that leader of an international coalition to defeat the worst of the bad guys, when in the first paragraph, we identified Putin as one of the (lesser) bad guys?
In every post on this blog that focuses on Ukraine, I have made my pro-Ukrainian stance obvious. I'm not Ukrainian, nor do I have any close Ukrainian friends. I support Ukraine simply because they are a nation attempting to become more free and democratic, that has been invaded by its more powerful neighbor. I will continue to support Ukraine, but I'm willing to avert my gaze for a period of time, if it will encourage Putin to dive head-first into the battle to defeat ISIS. I recognize this evil organization for what it is, and what it has the potential to accomplish. The time to smash ISIS is now, when it is still basically in its infant state. Can you imagine the kind of conflicts that are raging in Iraq and Syria, also happening in South Africa, Argentina, and Thailand? Unfortunately, its not as far-fetched as it was a year ago. Someone with international influence has to stand up and build a coalition to destroy ISIS, and it needs to happen now. Since no one else wants it, as far as I'm concerned, Putin has my total support to assume the job.
Showing posts with label U.A.E.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.A.E.. Show all posts
Friday, September 18, 2015
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Allies look to the U.S. to expand its military profile in the region; Turkish Air Force bombs both PKK and ISIS targets.
Links: A. Turkish Air Force hits both Kurdish/PKK and ISIS targets.
B. BBC comments on Turkish air strikes.
The current environment in the Middle East and the Levant (can't we just go back to using Mesopotamia?) has evolved so dramatically in the last month that regional players have been obliged to review, adjust, and re-apply strategies. The treaty drafted between Iranian officials and representatives from the United States and various European interested parties (the Foreign Minister of Austria was involved, and I swear to you that I have cans of corn older than he is) has been approved by the United Nations and now must be reviewed by the U.S. Congress and the Iranian Parliament. For the most part, the Iranians love this treaty, so the real test will be in the U.S. Congress. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (who, along with Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, constitute the Gulf Monarchies) have unleashed their diplomats and foreign friends to investigate the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons without having a production facility. Being rich in fossil fuels, The Gulf Emirates have no need for nuclear power; but you can guarantee that they will be looking to purchase a nuclear weapon or three and a delivery system effective enough to at least act as a deterrent (how far are Tehran and Qom from King Khalid Air Force Base?). Not surprisingly, since the United States is responsible for the Iranian nuclear treaty, its allies in the region (including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Kuwait and Iraq) fully expect the U.S. to strengthen its military presence and involvement in the region. The argument will be that since the U.S. took it upon itself to make the region all the more dangerous, then the U.S. needs to share in the security responsibility. Obviously the Administration agrees, as diplomats have been scurrying to various capitals, including Baghdad and Jerusalem/Tel Aviv, to discuss the possibility of new arms treaties.
Also, Turkey has decided to become more aggressive on the military front, bombing both PKK (Kurdish Worker's Party) and ISIS (Islamic State) targets simultaneously. Turkey's attack on the PKK ended an unofficial truce between Ankara and the Kurdish independence organization that had existed since 2013. Before conducting the PKK raid, Turkey concluded an agreement with the United States for the use of the U.S. Air Force Base at Incirlik, Turkey, by the allied air coalition currently active against ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq. Its obvious that Turkey timed its attack on the PKK only after placating U.S. efforts to use Incirlik. Also, Turkey sweetened the pot a bit by also bombing ISIS targets in Syria. We strongly suspect that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is planning to call for elections in the fall. His decision ratchet up military attacks on PKK targets after a two-year unofficial cease-fire is calculated to appeal to the Turkish voters, who are opposed to the PKK by a large percentage. At the same time, Turkish military action against ISIS, and the relaxation of opposition to the use of Incirlik, will no-doubt help to repair a damaged relationship with the United States, which is another issue that is very important to the average Turkish voter.
If Turkey were to decide to become one-hundred percent involved militarily in the efforts to defeat ISIS, the impact on the battlefield would be staggering. Similar to a full Iranian intervention in Iraq, the Turkish military would make short-order of ISIS, especially given that the Turks do not play with the same rule book as the United States. Turkey would have no hesitation using ISIS tactics to combat ISIS, which is one of the most effective ways to combat organizations of this nature. Any squeamishness or hesitance to act as barbarously as ISIS is automatically accepted as a sign of weakness, and used to ISIS' advantage, especially when utilizing the world press and social media. But Turkey will not be the agent of destruction for ISIS, because that result would leave Bashir al-Assad and his depleted regime military as the next biggest-fish in Syria. Erdogan despises Assad and will do nothing to aid the Syrian de-facto president and his Syrian Ba'ath Party cronies. Ideally, Iranian and Turkish diplomats and military leaders would convene a summit and create a military plan (with the U.S. and its European allies in full support) to destroy ISIS from two directions. Can you imagine two militarily powerful Muslim nations working together to destroy the world's worst terrorist threat of all time? It would send a tremendous message about the power of peace, and set an example for Christian nations to follow (Russia/Ukraine). Again, it won't happen, and not just because Erdogan hates Assad. The deep, ingrained prejudice that Sunnis and Shi'a have for one another will prevent any serious Muslim coalition. The best that can be hoped for is continued cooperation between the much smaller Sunni tribal groups in Iraq, and the Popular Mobilization Units/PMUs (Shi'a militias). The tripartite grouping of the supposed secular Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), and the Shi'a PMUs and Sunni tribal groups, has been kept in a very delicate balance up to now. The reason it has succeeded is because very little pressure has been exerted, i.e. the groups haven't been forced to merge as a fighting unit. Also, every effort is being made to keep one group from getting more credit for battlefield victories than the others. This effort has not always been successful.
B. BBC comments on Turkish air strikes.
The current environment in the Middle East and the Levant (can't we just go back to using Mesopotamia?) has evolved so dramatically in the last month that regional players have been obliged to review, adjust, and re-apply strategies. The treaty drafted between Iranian officials and representatives from the United States and various European interested parties (the Foreign Minister of Austria was involved, and I swear to you that I have cans of corn older than he is) has been approved by the United Nations and now must be reviewed by the U.S. Congress and the Iranian Parliament. For the most part, the Iranians love this treaty, so the real test will be in the U.S. Congress. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (who, along with Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, constitute the Gulf Monarchies) have unleashed their diplomats and foreign friends to investigate the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons without having a production facility. Being rich in fossil fuels, The Gulf Emirates have no need for nuclear power; but you can guarantee that they will be looking to purchase a nuclear weapon or three and a delivery system effective enough to at least act as a deterrent (how far are Tehran and Qom from King Khalid Air Force Base?). Not surprisingly, since the United States is responsible for the Iranian nuclear treaty, its allies in the region (including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Kuwait and Iraq) fully expect the U.S. to strengthen its military presence and involvement in the region. The argument will be that since the U.S. took it upon itself to make the region all the more dangerous, then the U.S. needs to share in the security responsibility. Obviously the Administration agrees, as diplomats have been scurrying to various capitals, including Baghdad and Jerusalem/Tel Aviv, to discuss the possibility of new arms treaties.
Also, Turkey has decided to become more aggressive on the military front, bombing both PKK (Kurdish Worker's Party) and ISIS (Islamic State) targets simultaneously. Turkey's attack on the PKK ended an unofficial truce between Ankara and the Kurdish independence organization that had existed since 2013. Before conducting the PKK raid, Turkey concluded an agreement with the United States for the use of the U.S. Air Force Base at Incirlik, Turkey, by the allied air coalition currently active against ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq. Its obvious that Turkey timed its attack on the PKK only after placating U.S. efforts to use Incirlik. Also, Turkey sweetened the pot a bit by also bombing ISIS targets in Syria. We strongly suspect that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is planning to call for elections in the fall. His decision ratchet up military attacks on PKK targets after a two-year unofficial cease-fire is calculated to appeal to the Turkish voters, who are opposed to the PKK by a large percentage. At the same time, Turkish military action against ISIS, and the relaxation of opposition to the use of Incirlik, will no-doubt help to repair a damaged relationship with the United States, which is another issue that is very important to the average Turkish voter.
If Turkey were to decide to become one-hundred percent involved militarily in the efforts to defeat ISIS, the impact on the battlefield would be staggering. Similar to a full Iranian intervention in Iraq, the Turkish military would make short-order of ISIS, especially given that the Turks do not play with the same rule book as the United States. Turkey would have no hesitation using ISIS tactics to combat ISIS, which is one of the most effective ways to combat organizations of this nature. Any squeamishness or hesitance to act as barbarously as ISIS is automatically accepted as a sign of weakness, and used to ISIS' advantage, especially when utilizing the world press and social media. But Turkey will not be the agent of destruction for ISIS, because that result would leave Bashir al-Assad and his depleted regime military as the next biggest-fish in Syria. Erdogan despises Assad and will do nothing to aid the Syrian de-facto president and his Syrian Ba'ath Party cronies. Ideally, Iranian and Turkish diplomats and military leaders would convene a summit and create a military plan (with the U.S. and its European allies in full support) to destroy ISIS from two directions. Can you imagine two militarily powerful Muslim nations working together to destroy the world's worst terrorist threat of all time? It would send a tremendous message about the power of peace, and set an example for Christian nations to follow (Russia/Ukraine). Again, it won't happen, and not just because Erdogan hates Assad. The deep, ingrained prejudice that Sunnis and Shi'a have for one another will prevent any serious Muslim coalition. The best that can be hoped for is continued cooperation between the much smaller Sunni tribal groups in Iraq, and the Popular Mobilization Units/PMUs (Shi'a militias). The tripartite grouping of the supposed secular Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), and the Shi'a PMUs and Sunni tribal groups, has been kept in a very delicate balance up to now. The reason it has succeeded is because very little pressure has been exerted, i.e. the groups haven't been forced to merge as a fighting unit. Also, every effort is being made to keep one group from getting more credit for battlefield victories than the others. This effort has not always been successful.
Monday, July 20, 2015
Obama's treaty with Iran surpasses Neville Chamberlain in sacrificing international security in search of a political legacy.
Links: A. ISIS a beneficiary of the Obama/Iran nuclear treaty.
B. Putin assisted with Obama/Iran nuclear treaty.
So, Vladimir Putin heartily approves of the treaty agreed to by the Obama Administration and the Islamic Republic of Iran. In fact, President Obama is quick to praise Putin for being helpful during the negotiations. How quickly we forget who we are dealing with. Have we forgotten the 298 dead civilians from Malaysian Airlines flight 17, whose lives were lost because Putin agreed to use advanced Russian military hardware in the Ukrainian conflict. Unfortunately, he didn't lend the experts who know how to use the equipment, and the result was a civilian airline being mistaken for a military flight. The world understands and excepts this reality, along with many others that show Putin to be a megalomaniacal dictator, intent on returning Russia to the military prominence of the Cold War. Every effort made by the United States on behalf of de-escalation of violence and the end of nuclear proliferation, up to now has been met with cold, hard opposition by Putin in Russia. The Russians never sided with the United Nations in its efforts to force Iran to steer away from militarizing its nuclear research. But now, because Putin approves of this treaty, he's become "a friend". And those of us in this country, including many who have served in uniform and sacrificed limbs for national security, are called "overheated and dishonest" by Obama. And now we are told that the Administration has been working on a "rapprochement" with Russia, and has started putting pressure on the Ukrainian government to be more conciliatory to the Russian-backed terrorists, I mean separatists, who are trying to detach entire pieces of Ukraine for annexation by Russia.
I have no doubt that this Administration did not spend one second considering the consequences of this treaty on the current unstable situation in the Persian Gulf and the Levant. All that mattered was to keep the goal in sight, and the goal in this instance was a treaty of some sort to allow Obama to leave office claiming credit for some foreign policy initiative. I don't understand why he just didn't focus on one of his other, previous foreign policy initiatives; he's had six years so there must be something, right? Fat chance. Our foreign policy over the past six years has been as knee-jerk as a reflex in a doctor's office. Under President's Reagan, Bush, and even Clinton, our government continued the tradition of initiating positive change in the world. The last six years have been singularly about responses, not initiatives. Now for a bit of simple, common-sense. ISIS is a religiously Sunni-affiliated organization, as is Al-Qaida. Iran, with the lifting a sanctions, which conservatively will release as much as one hundred billion dollars to the Iranian treasury, will rapidly become a dominant force in the Persian Gulf. The ballsy involvement with the Houthis in Yemen has already demonstrated this Iranian Administration's determination to expand its international influence. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, who are already suspected of having some funding connections to Sunni extremism, will look upon recent developments as a return to the Battlefield of Karbala. Even if the Iranians were to fulfill their obligations according to this treaty, in five years they would again be free to pursue whatever type of nuclear research they desire. There are a number of questionable facilities that are part of the Iranian nuclear research program, which can have no purpose other than the construction of a nuclear weapon. It would have been nice if our negotiating team had at least requested that the Iranians shut these facilities. But as far as I know, nothing was requested of the Iranians whatsoever, except the need for unannounced inspections. Well, we saw how far that demand went.
Lets welcome Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. to the nuclear arms race. Lets also congratulate Sunni extremists everywhere, who will now be able to use the growing power of Shi'a Iran as a recruiting and fundraising tool. This treaty is so flawed that I think its time I took a sabbatical from reviewing its contents. Instead, I will pick up another debate which is near and dear to my heart. In 1993, President Clinton signed a law making it illegal for active duty military personnel to be armed on base. I can't recall if this law was preceded by some incident involving firearms and active duty personnel, but I can tell you that the United States is not the same country as it was twenty-one years ago. Our Federal Law Enforcement and Intelligence experts stress the likelihood that Islamic extremists are living within our communities, waiting for the order or the opportunity to strike. On a number of occasions, we have already seen that military installations are prime targets. This is the world we live in today, 2015. Our young men and women who volunteer to put their lives in jeopardy for national security, should not be deprived of the ability to defend themselves. Are we supposed to tell these soldiers that we can trust them enough to die for their country, but they can't be trusted enough to carry a weapon on base? What an absurd law. I'm not afraid to state the obvious, and point directly to former President Bill Clinton: if that law had not passed in 1993, its probable that at least some of the victims of Thursday's attack would have been armed. I will leave the rest of that assumption up to the reader.....
B. Putin assisted with Obama/Iran nuclear treaty.
So, Vladimir Putin heartily approves of the treaty agreed to by the Obama Administration and the Islamic Republic of Iran. In fact, President Obama is quick to praise Putin for being helpful during the negotiations. How quickly we forget who we are dealing with. Have we forgotten the 298 dead civilians from Malaysian Airlines flight 17, whose lives were lost because Putin agreed to use advanced Russian military hardware in the Ukrainian conflict. Unfortunately, he didn't lend the experts who know how to use the equipment, and the result was a civilian airline being mistaken for a military flight. The world understands and excepts this reality, along with many others that show Putin to be a megalomaniacal dictator, intent on returning Russia to the military prominence of the Cold War. Every effort made by the United States on behalf of de-escalation of violence and the end of nuclear proliferation, up to now has been met with cold, hard opposition by Putin in Russia. The Russians never sided with the United Nations in its efforts to force Iran to steer away from militarizing its nuclear research. But now, because Putin approves of this treaty, he's become "a friend". And those of us in this country, including many who have served in uniform and sacrificed limbs for national security, are called "overheated and dishonest" by Obama. And now we are told that the Administration has been working on a "rapprochement" with Russia, and has started putting pressure on the Ukrainian government to be more conciliatory to the Russian-backed terrorists, I mean separatists, who are trying to detach entire pieces of Ukraine for annexation by Russia.
I have no doubt that this Administration did not spend one second considering the consequences of this treaty on the current unstable situation in the Persian Gulf and the Levant. All that mattered was to keep the goal in sight, and the goal in this instance was a treaty of some sort to allow Obama to leave office claiming credit for some foreign policy initiative. I don't understand why he just didn't focus on one of his other, previous foreign policy initiatives; he's had six years so there must be something, right? Fat chance. Our foreign policy over the past six years has been as knee-jerk as a reflex in a doctor's office. Under President's Reagan, Bush, and even Clinton, our government continued the tradition of initiating positive change in the world. The last six years have been singularly about responses, not initiatives. Now for a bit of simple, common-sense. ISIS is a religiously Sunni-affiliated organization, as is Al-Qaida. Iran, with the lifting a sanctions, which conservatively will release as much as one hundred billion dollars to the Iranian treasury, will rapidly become a dominant force in the Persian Gulf. The ballsy involvement with the Houthis in Yemen has already demonstrated this Iranian Administration's determination to expand its international influence. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, who are already suspected of having some funding connections to Sunni extremism, will look upon recent developments as a return to the Battlefield of Karbala. Even if the Iranians were to fulfill their obligations according to this treaty, in five years they would again be free to pursue whatever type of nuclear research they desire. There are a number of questionable facilities that are part of the Iranian nuclear research program, which can have no purpose other than the construction of a nuclear weapon. It would have been nice if our negotiating team had at least requested that the Iranians shut these facilities. But as far as I know, nothing was requested of the Iranians whatsoever, except the need for unannounced inspections. Well, we saw how far that demand went.
Lets welcome Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. to the nuclear arms race. Lets also congratulate Sunni extremists everywhere, who will now be able to use the growing power of Shi'a Iran as a recruiting and fundraising tool. This treaty is so flawed that I think its time I took a sabbatical from reviewing its contents. Instead, I will pick up another debate which is near and dear to my heart. In 1993, President Clinton signed a law making it illegal for active duty military personnel to be armed on base. I can't recall if this law was preceded by some incident involving firearms and active duty personnel, but I can tell you that the United States is not the same country as it was twenty-one years ago. Our Federal Law Enforcement and Intelligence experts stress the likelihood that Islamic extremists are living within our communities, waiting for the order or the opportunity to strike. On a number of occasions, we have already seen that military installations are prime targets. This is the world we live in today, 2015. Our young men and women who volunteer to put their lives in jeopardy for national security, should not be deprived of the ability to defend themselves. Are we supposed to tell these soldiers that we can trust them enough to die for their country, but they can't be trusted enough to carry a weapon on base? What an absurd law. I'm not afraid to state the obvious, and point directly to former President Bill Clinton: if that law had not passed in 1993, its probable that at least some of the victims of Thursday's attack would have been armed. I will leave the rest of that assumption up to the reader.....
Thursday, July 16, 2015
True to form, Obama bargains away our National Security in a vain search for a legacy.
Links: A. CNN: Landmark treaty reached with Iran.
B. Fox News: Iran deal worse than expected.
C. Basics of 2010 New Start Treaty with Russia.
Earlier today, during a discussion regarding the Nuclear Treaty the Obama Administration and our European allies have crafted, I expressed my opposition. Almost immediately, I was accused of being so opposed to the current Administration that my opinions had become very "predictable". My reply to the young lady was to describe myself as "consistent", especially when discussing governments that openly export terrorism and are responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of U.S. soldiers. As for my opposition to the Obama Administration, I can only speak from my personal life experience and my conscience. I voted against Obama on both occasions, along with almost fifty percent of the rest of the country. I don't feel isolated in my opposition to his policies, nor do I consider myself a radical. Most importantly, I'm always prepared to back up my perspective with facts.
I have been patiently waiting for the 2016 Presidential Debates so I can hear Hillary Clinton's defense of the 2010 New Start Treaty negotiated and signed with Russia. This treaty reduces our nuclear arsenal by one-third, while China and Russia are modernizing theirs. I addition, the Obama Administration has delayed funding for ground-based interceptor (GBI) missile and radar sites that we promised to install in the Czech Republic and Poland. This delay was the result of loud complaints from Russia regarding this proposed defensive capability. Unbelievably, the Obama Administration has gone further and hinted at a willingness to unilaterally deactivate one-third of our nuclear arsenal, as behind-the-scenes discussions take place regarding the next round of U.S.-Russian arms talks. All of this is taking place while Russia slowly swallows up big chunks of Ukraine, and laughs off our repeated attempts to "sanction" them into playing nicely.
The treaty that was hammered out yesterday by John Kerry, his European counterparts, and the Iranian delegation, is even worse than New Start. A Republican Administration, backed by a Republican Congress, and take effective steps to roll-back the New Start Treaty or rewrite it altogether. This treaty with Iran establishes so many precedents that will be impossible to reverse. What are my problems with the treaty? Lets start with the existing diplomatic environment. Everyone in the room, including the cleaning man and the lady who refilled everyone's glasses, knew that Kerry was not allowed to leave empty-handed. He had orders to make every concession necessary in order to secure the Obama Legacy. Where is the proof to support this allegation? Just look at the treaty: the Iranians got everything they wanted, and in return we received a few promises that re impossible to verify. All of DC knew Kerry wasn't allowed to come home without a treaty, and I'm sure Tehran (and Qom) were just as clued-in. That explains the continued delay after delay. Sadly, in the end it was only the Iranian complaints that were addressed, as the verification process became so watered down as to make the Saddam Hussein inspection/verification regimen look respectable.
Early on in the negotiations, the Iranians demanded that the conversation be limited to the subject at hand, the nuclear issue. This removed any chance that suffering families in the United States might get word regarding relatives that have been languishing in Iranian prisons, with no due process. These are American citizens, and this is how imperative it was for Kerry to get an agreement. From my optic, their lives don't matter to this Administration. As an example of just how much carte blanche the Iranians had to rewrite the ground rules, the issue of conventional arms sales were added to the negotiations. So the U.S. was not allowed to introduce the subject of American citizens in Iranian jails, but the Iranians were able to introduce the subject of sanctions on arms sales to Iran. Not surprisingly, this issue was included in the final draft. Sanctions on arms sales to Iran are to be lifted, as they continue to be the world's number one sponsor of international terrorism (Hezbollah, Houthis, etc.). The Iranians were not required to renounce support for terror, or to join any existing agreement to not engage in weapons proliferation to places like Yemen, Libya, and Syria.
From my perspective, the worst part of the agreement was the controls put on verification. If our inspectors want to visit an Iranian nuclear research facility, they have to submit the name of the location at least one month in advance. Even then, there are clauses that allow the Iranians to delay the inspectors. Even Saddam Hussein had it worse. Another negative result: you can be sure that both the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia will become players in the nuclear arms race. The royal families of the Persian Gulf are well-aware that they fall just below Israel on Iran's nuclear hit-list. What a mess.
What happened to the days when we expected people to join the ranks of civility and common courtesy amongst nations before they are rewarded? Wouldn't it have made sense to establish diplomatic relations first, before agreeing to this giveaway? Monday, he government of Iran had as its official policy, the destruction of Iran. As for the public policy, the streets were full on Monday of Iranians chanting "Death to America!" I do not have the expertise or the space to provide a full review of the absolute crap that this treaty contains. I respectfully ask everyone to read both B and C, to get an honest appreciation of how little our national security means to this Administration. Amateur Hour in DC.
B. Fox News: Iran deal worse than expected.
C. Basics of 2010 New Start Treaty with Russia.
Earlier today, during a discussion regarding the Nuclear Treaty the Obama Administration and our European allies have crafted, I expressed my opposition. Almost immediately, I was accused of being so opposed to the current Administration that my opinions had become very "predictable". My reply to the young lady was to describe myself as "consistent", especially when discussing governments that openly export terrorism and are responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of U.S. soldiers. As for my opposition to the Obama Administration, I can only speak from my personal life experience and my conscience. I voted against Obama on both occasions, along with almost fifty percent of the rest of the country. I don't feel isolated in my opposition to his policies, nor do I consider myself a radical. Most importantly, I'm always prepared to back up my perspective with facts.
I have been patiently waiting for the 2016 Presidential Debates so I can hear Hillary Clinton's defense of the 2010 New Start Treaty negotiated and signed with Russia. This treaty reduces our nuclear arsenal by one-third, while China and Russia are modernizing theirs. I addition, the Obama Administration has delayed funding for ground-based interceptor (GBI) missile and radar sites that we promised to install in the Czech Republic and Poland. This delay was the result of loud complaints from Russia regarding this proposed defensive capability. Unbelievably, the Obama Administration has gone further and hinted at a willingness to unilaterally deactivate one-third of our nuclear arsenal, as behind-the-scenes discussions take place regarding the next round of U.S.-Russian arms talks. All of this is taking place while Russia slowly swallows up big chunks of Ukraine, and laughs off our repeated attempts to "sanction" them into playing nicely.
The treaty that was hammered out yesterday by John Kerry, his European counterparts, and the Iranian delegation, is even worse than New Start. A Republican Administration, backed by a Republican Congress, and take effective steps to roll-back the New Start Treaty or rewrite it altogether. This treaty with Iran establishes so many precedents that will be impossible to reverse. What are my problems with the treaty? Lets start with the existing diplomatic environment. Everyone in the room, including the cleaning man and the lady who refilled everyone's glasses, knew that Kerry was not allowed to leave empty-handed. He had orders to make every concession necessary in order to secure the Obama Legacy. Where is the proof to support this allegation? Just look at the treaty: the Iranians got everything they wanted, and in return we received a few promises that re impossible to verify. All of DC knew Kerry wasn't allowed to come home without a treaty, and I'm sure Tehran (and Qom) were just as clued-in. That explains the continued delay after delay. Sadly, in the end it was only the Iranian complaints that were addressed, as the verification process became so watered down as to make the Saddam Hussein inspection/verification regimen look respectable.
Early on in the negotiations, the Iranians demanded that the conversation be limited to the subject at hand, the nuclear issue. This removed any chance that suffering families in the United States might get word regarding relatives that have been languishing in Iranian prisons, with no due process. These are American citizens, and this is how imperative it was for Kerry to get an agreement. From my optic, their lives don't matter to this Administration. As an example of just how much carte blanche the Iranians had to rewrite the ground rules, the issue of conventional arms sales were added to the negotiations. So the U.S. was not allowed to introduce the subject of American citizens in Iranian jails, but the Iranians were able to introduce the subject of sanctions on arms sales to Iran. Not surprisingly, this issue was included in the final draft. Sanctions on arms sales to Iran are to be lifted, as they continue to be the world's number one sponsor of international terrorism (Hezbollah, Houthis, etc.). The Iranians were not required to renounce support for terror, or to join any existing agreement to not engage in weapons proliferation to places like Yemen, Libya, and Syria.
From my perspective, the worst part of the agreement was the controls put on verification. If our inspectors want to visit an Iranian nuclear research facility, they have to submit the name of the location at least one month in advance. Even then, there are clauses that allow the Iranians to delay the inspectors. Even Saddam Hussein had it worse. Another negative result: you can be sure that both the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia will become players in the nuclear arms race. The royal families of the Persian Gulf are well-aware that they fall just below Israel on Iran's nuclear hit-list. What a mess.
What happened to the days when we expected people to join the ranks of civility and common courtesy amongst nations before they are rewarded? Wouldn't it have made sense to establish diplomatic relations first, before agreeing to this giveaway? Monday, he government of Iran had as its official policy, the destruction of Iran. As for the public policy, the streets were full on Monday of Iranians chanting "Death to America!" I do not have the expertise or the space to provide a full review of the absolute crap that this treaty contains. I respectfully ask everyone to read both B and C, to get an honest appreciation of how little our national security means to this Administration. Amateur Hour in DC.
Friday, April 10, 2015
Big Surprise.....Iran Agrees To A Treaty.
Links: A. Treaty With Iran Faces Opposition
B. Difficulty Of Inspecting/Verifying Iran's Nuclear Research
To no one's surprise, the Obama Administration's negotiators returned home with a Treaty that was acceptable to the government of Iran. This State Department, which has proven to be so woefully inept in the Middle East, Ukraine, South America, and everywhere else for that matter, manage to accomplish what no one in a decade has been able to do: get the Iranians to agree to a Treaty which would prohibit (through verification) the weaponizing of Iran's nuclear capabilities. Up to this point, the Iranians have been claiming that their only interest in nuclear research is to create energy for peaceful purposes (electricity). This type of research would be easy to monitor and verify. But the Iranians do not want Inspectors. Tehran argues that the United States, Russia, India and Pakistan achieved nuclear power without having "their sovereignty insulted", therefore why should Iran be made the exception? The last few years have borne a disturbing resemblance to the games of Saddam Hussein, with a mixture of diplomacy and indignation used to propel the Iranians ever so closer to their goal. Obviously the goal of the Iranian government is to develop a nuclear weapon not that free electricity wouldn't be a useful side benefit. Tehran would become the first Shi'a nation to achieve this goal, and the second Muslim country after Sunni Pakistan.
On its face, this issue appears to be all about the security of Israel. Over the years, various different governments in Tehran have expressed the same desire, to participate in the destruction of Israel. The most recent government has toned things down a bit, but that hasn't relaxed anyone in Tel Aviv. But the issue goes much deeper. Iran has bitter enemies in the Muslim world, especially in the Persian Gulf. Once the Obama Administration announced that discussions were taking place with Iran, their Saudis immediately ratcheted up their interest in nuclear power/weapons. The Saudis understood, just as we did, that the announcement of negotiations was nothing more than a warning that the deal was on its way. The idea that this team of negotiators would come back empty-handed was, frankly, ignorant. Obama needs this Treaty badly, as his opportunities to build some sense of a Legacy to his two-terms in office are dwindling. We have Obamacare, The end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", and the removal of military forces from Iraq. We are somewhat in the midst of an effort to reform the Immigration system, but I'm not clear on how things will work themselves out, so I can't add that to the Legacy just yet. But a signed treaty with the Islamic Republic of Iran, that provides the Iranians with peaceful nuclear power and no weapons, something the United Nations was unable to do, would be a very nice platform on which to start building that Legacy.
I do not pretend to understand much about physics, and atomic energy was never my strong suit at University. But understanding the basics of the Iranian conundrum is not difficult. In order to produce nuclear power, enriched uranium is necessary. Because Russia has a ten-year contract to fuel Iran’s only power reactor at Bushehr, Iran has no present need for enriched uranium to generate civilian nuclear energy. But Iran has enriched uranium, and its stockpile is growing. Why, you ask, would Iran want enriched uranium if their "peaceful ambitions" (i.e., the amount of enriched uranium needed for peaceful purposes) are met by a contract signed with Russia? The reality is, nuclear weapons require uranium that has been enriched at a higher grade that what Russia is contracted to deliver. Now here is where things get complicated. Please, please hang with me, folks. You will be glad you did. Lets talk about centrifuges.
Centrifuge: A machine with a rapidly rotating container that applies centrifugal force to it's contents, typically to separate fluids of different densities. After uranium has been mined, it is processed to separate the pure uranium from the ore, which results in uranium oxide. Uranium oxide contains two types of uranium: U-235 and U-238. U-235 is what you need if you want to make a bomb or fuel a nuclear power plant. But the uranium oxide from the mine is about 99 percent U-238. So you need to somehow separate the U-235 from the U-238 and increase the amount of U-235. The process of concentrating the U-235 is called enrichment. Having the capability (and the centrifuges) to enrich uranium is the key to creating a nuclear weapon. The United Nations repeatedly expressed to Iran that a demonstrably peaceful plant would be no problem, but the Iranians have other plans. if Iran were not interested in nuclear weapons, then this issue would be complete.
The plant is almost operational, and the contract with the Russians is in place (and unnecessary, as Iran already has enriched uranium). The questions remain: will the plant come on-line with some form of Inspections Protocol in place, and will the existing sanctions continue? Although we have yet to examine even the slightest detail (why not?), the issue of inspections must be addressed because, frankly speaking, it is the most important. No doubt the treaty includes an Inspections Protocol, but does it contain the necessary elements to guarantee that Iran is not making use of higher grade uranium? Basically, the treaty must address a handful of unavoidable issues:
1) Who is responsible for the Inspections Protocol? Is it an international organization?
2) Does the protocol include on-site inspections or rely on instrumental data collection?
3) Who will measure the total amount of uranium utilized and the energy produced?
4) Since Iran has no need for the centrifuges, will they be destroyed, or delivered to an outside agency for destruction?
5) If the treaty is violated, what options have been included that will allow for the immediate cessation of all unauthorized activity?
From the moment of the initial announcement, my concern has been with the Inspections issue. We went through the same bullshit with Iraq; in fact, in the last few years, Iran has been using some of the same excuses and explanations that Hans Blix must have known by heart. And to think that Saddam Hussein was only hiding his chemical and biological weapons research. At the end of the day, the person with something to hide is the one who is most likely to delay, and obfuscate, and distract. When I have the opportunity to review the treaty in detail, I hope that I'm wrong, and that the Inspections Regime is up-to-par. This would mean that Iran does not get to choose the Inspectors (sorry, Russia and China). And its imperative that the Iranians agree to some mechanism that will allow for an international agency to have the ability to shut down whatever activity is taking place, that violates the treaty.
Excuse my cynicism, but what will probably occur, is that the Treaty will be full of loopholes, and before long, the Iranians will be in possession of at least one nuclear weapon (you don't normally make just one; I assume the first batch will include at least two). And let's face it, folks, this is the ultimate "fait accompli". Its tricky issuing orders to a country with a nuclear weapon. And then the dominoes appear, as Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E., for defensive purposes only, offer to spend whatever it takes so they can have a few bombs as well. The Sunni are convinced that the Shi'a can't be trusted with that kind of power, therefore, at least for deterrence sake, a Sunni bomb is needed (Pakistan doesn't count; there is real concern that when the Pakistan delivery system is engaged, it will fly straight up for a mile, then fall right back down).
Let's have a look at the treaty.
B. Difficulty Of Inspecting/Verifying Iran's Nuclear Research
To no one's surprise, the Obama Administration's negotiators returned home with a Treaty that was acceptable to the government of Iran. This State Department, which has proven to be so woefully inept in the Middle East, Ukraine, South America, and everywhere else for that matter, manage to accomplish what no one in a decade has been able to do: get the Iranians to agree to a Treaty which would prohibit (through verification) the weaponizing of Iran's nuclear capabilities. Up to this point, the Iranians have been claiming that their only interest in nuclear research is to create energy for peaceful purposes (electricity). This type of research would be easy to monitor and verify. But the Iranians do not want Inspectors. Tehran argues that the United States, Russia, India and Pakistan achieved nuclear power without having "their sovereignty insulted", therefore why should Iran be made the exception? The last few years have borne a disturbing resemblance to the games of Saddam Hussein, with a mixture of diplomacy and indignation used to propel the Iranians ever so closer to their goal. Obviously the goal of the Iranian government is to develop a nuclear weapon not that free electricity wouldn't be a useful side benefit. Tehran would become the first Shi'a nation to achieve this goal, and the second Muslim country after Sunni Pakistan.
On its face, this issue appears to be all about the security of Israel. Over the years, various different governments in Tehran have expressed the same desire, to participate in the destruction of Israel. The most recent government has toned things down a bit, but that hasn't relaxed anyone in Tel Aviv. But the issue goes much deeper. Iran has bitter enemies in the Muslim world, especially in the Persian Gulf. Once the Obama Administration announced that discussions were taking place with Iran, their Saudis immediately ratcheted up their interest in nuclear power/weapons. The Saudis understood, just as we did, that the announcement of negotiations was nothing more than a warning that the deal was on its way. The idea that this team of negotiators would come back empty-handed was, frankly, ignorant. Obama needs this Treaty badly, as his opportunities to build some sense of a Legacy to his two-terms in office are dwindling. We have Obamacare, The end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", and the removal of military forces from Iraq. We are somewhat in the midst of an effort to reform the Immigration system, but I'm not clear on how things will work themselves out, so I can't add that to the Legacy just yet. But a signed treaty with the Islamic Republic of Iran, that provides the Iranians with peaceful nuclear power and no weapons, something the United Nations was unable to do, would be a very nice platform on which to start building that Legacy.
I do not pretend to understand much about physics, and atomic energy was never my strong suit at University. But understanding the basics of the Iranian conundrum is not difficult. In order to produce nuclear power, enriched uranium is necessary. Because Russia has a ten-year contract to fuel Iran’s only power reactor at Bushehr, Iran has no present need for enriched uranium to generate civilian nuclear energy. But Iran has enriched uranium, and its stockpile is growing. Why, you ask, would Iran want enriched uranium if their "peaceful ambitions" (i.e., the amount of enriched uranium needed for peaceful purposes) are met by a contract signed with Russia? The reality is, nuclear weapons require uranium that has been enriched at a higher grade that what Russia is contracted to deliver. Now here is where things get complicated. Please, please hang with me, folks. You will be glad you did. Lets talk about centrifuges.
Centrifuge: A machine with a rapidly rotating container that applies centrifugal force to it's contents, typically to separate fluids of different densities. After uranium has been mined, it is processed to separate the pure uranium from the ore, which results in uranium oxide. Uranium oxide contains two types of uranium: U-235 and U-238. U-235 is what you need if you want to make a bomb or fuel a nuclear power plant. But the uranium oxide from the mine is about 99 percent U-238. So you need to somehow separate the U-235 from the U-238 and increase the amount of U-235. The process of concentrating the U-235 is called enrichment. Having the capability (and the centrifuges) to enrich uranium is the key to creating a nuclear weapon. The United Nations repeatedly expressed to Iran that a demonstrably peaceful plant would be no problem, but the Iranians have other plans. if Iran were not interested in nuclear weapons, then this issue would be complete.
The plant is almost operational, and the contract with the Russians is in place (and unnecessary, as Iran already has enriched uranium). The questions remain: will the plant come on-line with some form of Inspections Protocol in place, and will the existing sanctions continue? Although we have yet to examine even the slightest detail (why not?), the issue of inspections must be addressed because, frankly speaking, it is the most important. No doubt the treaty includes an Inspections Protocol, but does it contain the necessary elements to guarantee that Iran is not making use of higher grade uranium? Basically, the treaty must address a handful of unavoidable issues:
1) Who is responsible for the Inspections Protocol? Is it an international organization?
2) Does the protocol include on-site inspections or rely on instrumental data collection?
3) Who will measure the total amount of uranium utilized and the energy produced?
4) Since Iran has no need for the centrifuges, will they be destroyed, or delivered to an outside agency for destruction?
5) If the treaty is violated, what options have been included that will allow for the immediate cessation of all unauthorized activity?
From the moment of the initial announcement, my concern has been with the Inspections issue. We went through the same bullshit with Iraq; in fact, in the last few years, Iran has been using some of the same excuses and explanations that Hans Blix must have known by heart. And to think that Saddam Hussein was only hiding his chemical and biological weapons research. At the end of the day, the person with something to hide is the one who is most likely to delay, and obfuscate, and distract. When I have the opportunity to review the treaty in detail, I hope that I'm wrong, and that the Inspections Regime is up-to-par. This would mean that Iran does not get to choose the Inspectors (sorry, Russia and China). And its imperative that the Iranians agree to some mechanism that will allow for an international agency to have the ability to shut down whatever activity is taking place, that violates the treaty.
Excuse my cynicism, but what will probably occur, is that the Treaty will be full of loopholes, and before long, the Iranians will be in possession of at least one nuclear weapon (you don't normally make just one; I assume the first batch will include at least two). And let's face it, folks, this is the ultimate "fait accompli". Its tricky issuing orders to a country with a nuclear weapon. And then the dominoes appear, as Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E., for defensive purposes only, offer to spend whatever it takes so they can have a few bombs as well. The Sunni are convinced that the Shi'a can't be trusted with that kind of power, therefore, at least for deterrence sake, a Sunni bomb is needed (Pakistan doesn't count; there is real concern that when the Pakistan delivery system is engaged, it will fly straight up for a mile, then fall right back down).
Let's have a look at the treaty.
Saturday, August 30, 2014
Extremist Recruitment and Who is Qatar?
Links:
Islam's New Recruiting Methods
Qatar's Role as U.S. Ally At odds With Claims it Sponsors Terror
Fed's Bulletin Describes Threat of Imminent Terrorist Attack on Southern Border
Two days ago I commented on an issue which should be at the forefront of domestic counter-terrorism efforts. Islamic extremists are here in our communities, folks, and they are looking for disaffected young people to join their causes. I hope that all Federal Law Enforcement personnel affiliated with counter-terrorism operations will take the time to read the Brigette Gabriel piece that I have linked. Ms. Gabriel is one of the most brilliant, well-spoken persons who put themselves at risk by regularly commenting on Islamic Extremism. Because of her heritage, Gabriel brings immediate bona fides to her perspective. Unfortunately her heritage also makes her a target for extremists who believe that Muslim women are not worthy or intelligent enough to discuss these matters. Let's get one thing straight: Gabriel is not shrinking violet. She will go toe-to-toe with the best of them, and wins her arguments through honesty, wisdom and integrity.
Islamic extremists have been recruiting in certain American communities for decades. Particular groups of disaffected young people have shown a willingness to listen to the jihadist point of view. Most of the targets are young men, so the traditional argument that women should be kept covered, quiet, out of sight, and compliant usually meets with approval. And then we have the "40 virgins" (or whatever) that are alleged to be waiting in Heaven for those who "die for the cause". I have no intention of turning this blog into a discussion about faith. In my world, faith is a very personal issue, and excuse the cliché, but buttholes come in all shapes, sizes, and religions. For many years my mantra was "mind your own business". But the spread of Islamic extremism has made things a bit tricky. The jihadist believes so strongly in the righteousness of his/her cause, that mosques and schools have become great places to hide missiles, weapons and ammunition. Mosques are ideal for spreading particular messages, and recruiting for extremist causes. Intelligence Agencies in the United States and in Europe (and also in China and East Asia, I had been informed) have no difficulty determining links from one extremist mosque to the next. With the advent of a "borderless" Europe, people, money, and even weapons can be transported from a mosque (or religiously affiliated schools, etc.) in one country to a mosque on another. There is usually a main mosque with an Imam who considers himself a big shot (egos know no bounds with some of these Imams). Mosques affiliated with extremist beliefs are usually easy to find because these Imams just can't keep quiet. They have to shout their hatred of all things "western" louder than the guy at the mosque down the street. It would behoove them to preach a quieter more peaceful brand of Islam
so as to avoid attention. But they just can't seem to help themselves.
I won't go into detail regarding the efforts to recruit in the United States and Europe, because the main points are relatively simple. Educated persons are in high demand, and also persons with a particular trade (IEDs can be tricky). At this stage, groups like ISIS/ISIL are looking for recently retired soldiers (I'm sure they would welcome an active duty soldier as well, God help us all) who have been trained on particular weaponry. I'm sure they are looking for folks who have first-hand knowledge of Russian-made weaponry as well. A recent Google satellite shot of Al-Taqbah Airbase in Syria revealed at least 10 Mig-21s sitting on the tarmac. This is the airbase that ISIS/ISIL captured this last week. From what I understand, the Migs were still there (who knows what condition they're in). So keep your eyes peeled in the classifieds of Pravda for ads "looking for persons who can fly Mig-21s". I'm more interested in what else they picked up at that airfield. Hopefully nothing that can help them mount a biological agent delivery-system.
I assume that the inner cities of the United States, places with rampant unemployment and urban blight, are prime locations for jihadi recruitment. I imagine the Russians need to look closely at Chechnya and some of the other former Soviet Republics, if they even give a shit at this point (its been at least a few months since someone blew themselves up in Moscow).
My second link deals with the frequent accusations that Qatar is involved with supporting Islamic extremist groups. This is not a simple matter. There are a handful of obscenely rich royal families in the Gulf, and each family has hundreds if not thousands of obscenely wealthy members. The ruling Shaykh of each family is traditionally burdened with keeping everyone square, but in truth it is impossible to know who is giving money to whom. There was recently an incident at an airport in one of the U.A.E. Emirates (yes, I know I said "Emirates" twice in a row) during which a number of jumbo jets were left unclaimed. These people literally do have money to burn. As for the Shaykh of Qatar (from the Al-Thani clan), I have no reason to believe that he or his government have any financial dealings with groups like ISIS/ISIL. Since Hamas is considered by many to have social and political functions, I would expect Hamas and the Qatari government to have an official relationship. But the Qataris have hosted the U.S. Fleet for many years without incident. I'm sure some members of the royal family do financially contribute to the bad guys. Personally, though, I believe it pales in comparison to the "support for extremists" activities of some of the other royal families of the Gulf.
My final link of the day is an article about possible terrorist activity on the Texas border, namely El Paso. In all honestly, the article didn't really shake me up. It appears that Judicial Watch is quoting from a Department of Homeland Security release of some sort. I would not be surprised to see attempts to destabilize our cities with IEDs, etc., but not with a singular attack in El Paso. I'm more concerned with a series of pre-planned, well-organized and coordinated attacks in Metro areas. I don't think we have any idea how many operatives are currently sitting in place. Hopefully none.
Islam's New Recruiting Methods
Qatar's Role as U.S. Ally At odds With Claims it Sponsors Terror
Fed's Bulletin Describes Threat of Imminent Terrorist Attack on Southern Border
Two days ago I commented on an issue which should be at the forefront of domestic counter-terrorism efforts. Islamic extremists are here in our communities, folks, and they are looking for disaffected young people to join their causes. I hope that all Federal Law Enforcement personnel affiliated with counter-terrorism operations will take the time to read the Brigette Gabriel piece that I have linked. Ms. Gabriel is one of the most brilliant, well-spoken persons who put themselves at risk by regularly commenting on Islamic Extremism. Because of her heritage, Gabriel brings immediate bona fides to her perspective. Unfortunately her heritage also makes her a target for extremists who believe that Muslim women are not worthy or intelligent enough to discuss these matters. Let's get one thing straight: Gabriel is not shrinking violet. She will go toe-to-toe with the best of them, and wins her arguments through honesty, wisdom and integrity.
Islamic extremists have been recruiting in certain American communities for decades. Particular groups of disaffected young people have shown a willingness to listen to the jihadist point of view. Most of the targets are young men, so the traditional argument that women should be kept covered, quiet, out of sight, and compliant usually meets with approval. And then we have the "40 virgins" (or whatever) that are alleged to be waiting in Heaven for those who "die for the cause". I have no intention of turning this blog into a discussion about faith. In my world, faith is a very personal issue, and excuse the cliché, but buttholes come in all shapes, sizes, and religions. For many years my mantra was "mind your own business". But the spread of Islamic extremism has made things a bit tricky. The jihadist believes so strongly in the righteousness of his/her cause, that mosques and schools have become great places to hide missiles, weapons and ammunition. Mosques are ideal for spreading particular messages, and recruiting for extremist causes. Intelligence Agencies in the United States and in Europe (and also in China and East Asia, I had been informed) have no difficulty determining links from one extremist mosque to the next. With the advent of a "borderless" Europe, people, money, and even weapons can be transported from a mosque (or religiously affiliated schools, etc.) in one country to a mosque on another. There is usually a main mosque with an Imam who considers himself a big shot (egos know no bounds with some of these Imams). Mosques affiliated with extremist beliefs are usually easy to find because these Imams just can't keep quiet. They have to shout their hatred of all things "western" louder than the guy at the mosque down the street. It would behoove them to preach a quieter more peaceful brand of Islam
so as to avoid attention. But they just can't seem to help themselves.
I won't go into detail regarding the efforts to recruit in the United States and Europe, because the main points are relatively simple. Educated persons are in high demand, and also persons with a particular trade (IEDs can be tricky). At this stage, groups like ISIS/ISIL are looking for recently retired soldiers (I'm sure they would welcome an active duty soldier as well, God help us all) who have been trained on particular weaponry. I'm sure they are looking for folks who have first-hand knowledge of Russian-made weaponry as well. A recent Google satellite shot of Al-Taqbah Airbase in Syria revealed at least 10 Mig-21s sitting on the tarmac. This is the airbase that ISIS/ISIL captured this last week. From what I understand, the Migs were still there (who knows what condition they're in). So keep your eyes peeled in the classifieds of Pravda for ads "looking for persons who can fly Mig-21s". I'm more interested in what else they picked up at that airfield. Hopefully nothing that can help them mount a biological agent delivery-system.
I assume that the inner cities of the United States, places with rampant unemployment and urban blight, are prime locations for jihadi recruitment. I imagine the Russians need to look closely at Chechnya and some of the other former Soviet Republics, if they even give a shit at this point (its been at least a few months since someone blew themselves up in Moscow).
My second link deals with the frequent accusations that Qatar is involved with supporting Islamic extremist groups. This is not a simple matter. There are a handful of obscenely rich royal families in the Gulf, and each family has hundreds if not thousands of obscenely wealthy members. The ruling Shaykh of each family is traditionally burdened with keeping everyone square, but in truth it is impossible to know who is giving money to whom. There was recently an incident at an airport in one of the U.A.E. Emirates (yes, I know I said "Emirates" twice in a row) during which a number of jumbo jets were left unclaimed. These people literally do have money to burn. As for the Shaykh of Qatar (from the Al-Thani clan), I have no reason to believe that he or his government have any financial dealings with groups like ISIS/ISIL. Since Hamas is considered by many to have social and political functions, I would expect Hamas and the Qatari government to have an official relationship. But the Qataris have hosted the U.S. Fleet for many years without incident. I'm sure some members of the royal family do financially contribute to the bad guys. Personally, though, I believe it pales in comparison to the "support for extremists" activities of some of the other royal families of the Gulf.
My final link of the day is an article about possible terrorist activity on the Texas border, namely El Paso. In all honestly, the article didn't really shake me up. It appears that Judicial Watch is quoting from a Department of Homeland Security release of some sort. I would not be surprised to see attempts to destabilize our cities with IEDs, etc., but not with a singular attack in El Paso. I'm more concerned with a series of pre-planned, well-organized and coordinated attacks in Metro areas. I don't think we have any idea how many operatives are currently sitting in place. Hopefully none.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)