Links: A. ISIS considered strong suspect in downing of Russian passenger jet over Sinai.
B. Russian action in Syria strengthens Iran.
C. Russian sending clear message to Syrian civilians about support for Assad.
Since the destruction of a Russian passenger jet over the Sinai on October 31, the international community was left to decide the veracity of claims of responsibility by ISIS. Although ISIS proved that it had influence in the Sinai last year when an ISIS group attacked an Egyptian military compound, many questioned their ability to actually carry out a successful attack on a passenger plane. Sadly, it seems to be more apparent everyday that ISIS was indeed responsible for this tragedy, which resulted in the deaths of 224 mostly Russians on holiday at Sharm el-Sheik in Egypt. In addition, experts now believe that an onboard bomb was most likely responsible for the crash. This event raises the stakes in the war against ISIS. As most European nations and the United States come to grips with the likelihood that open-border policies have allowed ISIS operatives into the EU and the U.S., security and inspection procedures at airports, ports, and other likely targets will have to be reviewed and increased when necessary. Any person having access to a passenger plane on the ground or a tourist cruise liner in port will have to be vetted and searched. This includes regular employees like pilots, cabin crew, ship officers and crew, maintenance and repair staff, medical personnel, refueling crews, and food and beverage suppliers, for a start. This necessary policy will cause a decided inconvenience for many, but ISIS has shown no regard whatsoever for civilian lives. If they can successfully access a Russian passenger plane on the ground at an Egyptian Airport (Egyptian Airport Security has a solid reputation), then western nations can not take chances.
Regarding the current conflict in Syria, the latest entrant into the war has decided hold a peace conference. Russia intends to invite all factions involved in the conflict to this conference in Moscow, including Syrian opposition to Russia's favorite, de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Two questions must be answered before the conference commences: will the Assad opposition boycott the conference? How many members of the Assad opposition feel safe to travel to Moscow, in light of the beating they have taken from Russian bombs in the last two weeks? As Russia continues to build its own anti-ISIS coalition, this conference is an important opportunity for Vladimir Putin to demonstrate that Russia is indeed a power-broker in the Syrian theater. No doubt the United States, which labeled the conference "premature", will send representatives, in order to not appear "unconstructive". Russia will use the conference as another chance to build up the credentials of its ally, Iran. The captive audience in attendance, diplomatic representatives of China, the United States, European nations, Israel, Turkey, and other concerned parties, will see Iran treated as the dominant regional power in the Persian Gulf. Russia wishes to perpetuate this idea as often as possible, hoping that the international community will eventually see it as a "fait accompli". How Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates respond will be pivotal. The Gulf monarchies understandably do not want to see Iran become the most powerful leader in the Persian Gulf region. Iran is tied to Shi'a fundamentalism like ISIS is tied to Islamic extremism. The Gulf states are quick to point out Iran's support for Hezbollah, and Iran responds with accusations of Saudi financial support for ISIS. Up to now, this effort to reform Iran's image has been basically diplomatic, but for the world to truly consider Iran in a new light, something monumental must occur. Russia is aware of this fact, and intends on Being the "Eastern Hammer" which will be used to destroy ISIS. Russia, of course, and her budding coalition, will be the "Western Hammer". Once Iran has isolated and minimized the U.S. presence in Iraq, then it will be free to deploy regular divisions from Iran into Iraq, to attack ISIS. By then, Russia will be in a position to fully engage ISIS in the west.
The stage is being set for Russia and Iran to deliver the world from the greatest threat since Nazism.
Wouldn't it be nice if someone else had stepped up to tackle this problem with the conviction of Vladimir Putin.
Showing posts with label UAE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UAE. Show all posts
Monday, November 9, 2015
Monday, August 31, 2015
Thoughts on the Nuclear Treaty with Iraq and partisanship in general.
Link: Netanyahu voices concern over removal of sanctions.
Ever year our nation seems to become more politically partisan, with everyone claiming to be independent, but Independent candidates getting no traction whatsoever. No doubt if an Independent (meaning not Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian) candidate arrived on the scene who had Donald Trump's bank account, we might see a very competitive election. But the system is built to support the two existing parties and the established methods for raising campaign funds. Independent candidates can never expect to come close to raising the kind of money that a serious Republican or Democrat can. Aside from that fact, we don't believe an Independent candidate would be representative of the United States electorate, anyways. In 2015, we are an opinionated nation, and people feel very strongly about the validity of their perspectives. w guess we're no different. When we hear someone expressing an opposite viewpoint, we do my best to give them a fair shake. But at the end of the day, after almost half-a-century on this planet, we have confidence in our opinions. And something important we've learned along the way: don't get mouthy and loud about issues in which you have no knowledge or experience. Here at "Mukhabarat, Baby!", we have made a point to avoid posting opinionated commentaries regarding the United States economy. Sure, we have opinions, but I'm not an economist. I do, however, consider myself to be knowledgeable on issues of diplomacy and foreign policy. Some readers may consider our site to be partisan, but you can be sure that we support our positions with evidence.
I recently read an article which introduced ten retired U.S. Army Generals who had come out in support of the Obama Administration's Nuclear Treaty with Iran. Its our understanding that the United States Army has hundreds of certified, true Generals among us, the vast majority of them retired. Something tells me, that if I made a bit of an effort (and you know, to protect this president, the media would make the effort), I could round up ten Generals who believe that the Reptilian People live amongst us. In other words, finding ten Generals to agree on something doesn't get you very far, especially when we are considering something as patently awful as this Treaty. The three issues that bother me the most about this treaty have nothing to do with the controversial subject of nuclear proliferation.
My first complaint has to do with a handful of U.S. citizens that are currently locked away in Iranian prisons. Not surprisingly, each one is being accused of having insulted Islam, being an enemy of the Islamic Republic, or a spy for the Zionists, or just a plain spy, period. The charges are bogus; they are in jail because they are U.S. citizens, and the Iranians thought that they might come in handy someday as bargaining chips of some sort. Normally, given the seriousness of the negotiations between the United States and Iran, you would have expected U.S. negotiators to have tried tooth-and-nail to make the release of our citizens part of any agreed-upon treaty. Can you believe that this president was so obsessed with the issue of his legacy that he allowed the Iranians to remove the subject of the prisoners/hostages from the negotiations, without the slightest complaint? How can a sitting U.S. president agree to a treaty with a foreign power that holds U.S. citizens in its jails, as hostages? The Administration has gone on record stating that the charges against the prisoners are false, and yet they were forsaken. What if that were your parent, or your sister, sitting in that Iranian jail? I wonder if they had promised to vote Democrat in the next election, if he might have tried a bit harder to have them included........
My second complaint: what steps has Iran taken that justify the lifting of weapons sanctions? A nation EARNS removal from a weapons embargo, at least that's the way it's been up to now. Does Iran continue to financially support terror groups around the world? Absolutely, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen (dumping the Houthis in with Hezbollah is a bit of a stretch...we ask your indulgence). Iran also provides tremendously important support to the flailing regime of Bashir al-Assad in Syria. Where else does Iran export weapons and warfare? Iraq is a good example; the Shi'a militias/Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs), which have become so important in the struggle against ISIS in Iraq, include the Badr Organization, Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, Mahdi Army, and Kata'ib Hezbollah. Each group is trained and supplied by Iran. As for the Iranian Armed Forces, they are in serious need of updated materials. The Iranian Air Force is still flying a combination of ancient U.S.-made F5s (from the days of the Shah), and Migs that it stole from Iraq during the initial Gulf War. And unlike the Chinese, Indians, Israelis and South Africans, the Iranians have had little success utilizing older equipment, and creating an indigenous weapon by incorporating home-grown innovations and technologies. The Iranians need radar, jets, bombers, cargo planes, tanks, armored personnel carriers, computerized targeting equipment, missiles, and artillery, and their navy needs submarines and frigates. Luckily, the economic sanctions will make it difficult for Iran to go on a shopping spree, now that the weapons-sanctions have been lifted. Wait....ALL sanctions are being lifted, aren't they? That means billions of dollars for Iran to buy what it wants. And once the Saudis and the U.A.E. realize that Iran is not only closer to a nuclear weapon, but that they are modernizing their Armed Forces as well, we will see a nice little arms race develop in the Persian Gulf. Its not Rocket Science, folks.
For all practical purposes, our last major complaint has already been covered. We believe that the Iranians should have been obliged to disavow the exportation of terror and the support of terrorist groups. It may have been just show, but at least we could make them look a bit foolish on an international stage. In reality, Iran should have been required to limit its aid to groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis to strictly humanitarian goods. In the end, nothing was asked of Iran. They were not asked to disavow terror, and they were not asked to dismantle certain facilities in Iran whose sole function is the processing of weapons-grade nuclear material. They were asked to halt all research into nuclear weapons-related projects, and to permit regular inspections. The Iranians refused to agree to the inspections, until Secretary of State John Kerry took a knife and severed the last set of balls that existed in this treaty, which was the option for unannounced inspections. What did Kerry agree to instead? The inspectors must request the opportunity to inspect each respective site, and that request must be made three weeks in advance of the actual inspection. To add to the absurdity, the Iranians reserved the right to DENY the request. In truth, what would we do? If the Iranians said, "we don't give you permission to inspect that particular site", would we automatically re-apply the sanctions? Would be take back the money that would have poured into Iran by then? And what about all the new upgraded military hardware....do you think they will return it, no questions asked?
Previously, we were convinced that the 2010 New Start Treaty was the worst treaty ever negotiated by a U.S. Secretary of State. John Kerry has proved us wrong, and in the same administration, no less.
Ever year our nation seems to become more politically partisan, with everyone claiming to be independent, but Independent candidates getting no traction whatsoever. No doubt if an Independent (meaning not Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian) candidate arrived on the scene who had Donald Trump's bank account, we might see a very competitive election. But the system is built to support the two existing parties and the established methods for raising campaign funds. Independent candidates can never expect to come close to raising the kind of money that a serious Republican or Democrat can. Aside from that fact, we don't believe an Independent candidate would be representative of the United States electorate, anyways. In 2015, we are an opinionated nation, and people feel very strongly about the validity of their perspectives. w guess we're no different. When we hear someone expressing an opposite viewpoint, we do my best to give them a fair shake. But at the end of the day, after almost half-a-century on this planet, we have confidence in our opinions. And something important we've learned along the way: don't get mouthy and loud about issues in which you have no knowledge or experience. Here at "Mukhabarat, Baby!", we have made a point to avoid posting opinionated commentaries regarding the United States economy. Sure, we have opinions, but I'm not an economist. I do, however, consider myself to be knowledgeable on issues of diplomacy and foreign policy. Some readers may consider our site to be partisan, but you can be sure that we support our positions with evidence.
I recently read an article which introduced ten retired U.S. Army Generals who had come out in support of the Obama Administration's Nuclear Treaty with Iran. Its our understanding that the United States Army has hundreds of certified, true Generals among us, the vast majority of them retired. Something tells me, that if I made a bit of an effort (and you know, to protect this president, the media would make the effort), I could round up ten Generals who believe that the Reptilian People live amongst us. In other words, finding ten Generals to agree on something doesn't get you very far, especially when we are considering something as patently awful as this Treaty. The three issues that bother me the most about this treaty have nothing to do with the controversial subject of nuclear proliferation.
My first complaint has to do with a handful of U.S. citizens that are currently locked away in Iranian prisons. Not surprisingly, each one is being accused of having insulted Islam, being an enemy of the Islamic Republic, or a spy for the Zionists, or just a plain spy, period. The charges are bogus; they are in jail because they are U.S. citizens, and the Iranians thought that they might come in handy someday as bargaining chips of some sort. Normally, given the seriousness of the negotiations between the United States and Iran, you would have expected U.S. negotiators to have tried tooth-and-nail to make the release of our citizens part of any agreed-upon treaty. Can you believe that this president was so obsessed with the issue of his legacy that he allowed the Iranians to remove the subject of the prisoners/hostages from the negotiations, without the slightest complaint? How can a sitting U.S. president agree to a treaty with a foreign power that holds U.S. citizens in its jails, as hostages? The Administration has gone on record stating that the charges against the prisoners are false, and yet they were forsaken. What if that were your parent, or your sister, sitting in that Iranian jail? I wonder if they had promised to vote Democrat in the next election, if he might have tried a bit harder to have them included........
My second complaint: what steps has Iran taken that justify the lifting of weapons sanctions? A nation EARNS removal from a weapons embargo, at least that's the way it's been up to now. Does Iran continue to financially support terror groups around the world? Absolutely, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen (dumping the Houthis in with Hezbollah is a bit of a stretch...we ask your indulgence). Iran also provides tremendously important support to the flailing regime of Bashir al-Assad in Syria. Where else does Iran export weapons and warfare? Iraq is a good example; the Shi'a militias/Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs), which have become so important in the struggle against ISIS in Iraq, include the Badr Organization, Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, Mahdi Army, and Kata'ib Hezbollah. Each group is trained and supplied by Iran. As for the Iranian Armed Forces, they are in serious need of updated materials. The Iranian Air Force is still flying a combination of ancient U.S.-made F5s (from the days of the Shah), and Migs that it stole from Iraq during the initial Gulf War. And unlike the Chinese, Indians, Israelis and South Africans, the Iranians have had little success utilizing older equipment, and creating an indigenous weapon by incorporating home-grown innovations and technologies. The Iranians need radar, jets, bombers, cargo planes, tanks, armored personnel carriers, computerized targeting equipment, missiles, and artillery, and their navy needs submarines and frigates. Luckily, the economic sanctions will make it difficult for Iran to go on a shopping spree, now that the weapons-sanctions have been lifted. Wait....ALL sanctions are being lifted, aren't they? That means billions of dollars for Iran to buy what it wants. And once the Saudis and the U.A.E. realize that Iran is not only closer to a nuclear weapon, but that they are modernizing their Armed Forces as well, we will see a nice little arms race develop in the Persian Gulf. Its not Rocket Science, folks.
For all practical purposes, our last major complaint has already been covered. We believe that the Iranians should have been obliged to disavow the exportation of terror and the support of terrorist groups. It may have been just show, but at least we could make them look a bit foolish on an international stage. In reality, Iran should have been required to limit its aid to groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis to strictly humanitarian goods. In the end, nothing was asked of Iran. They were not asked to disavow terror, and they were not asked to dismantle certain facilities in Iran whose sole function is the processing of weapons-grade nuclear material. They were asked to halt all research into nuclear weapons-related projects, and to permit regular inspections. The Iranians refused to agree to the inspections, until Secretary of State John Kerry took a knife and severed the last set of balls that existed in this treaty, which was the option for unannounced inspections. What did Kerry agree to instead? The inspectors must request the opportunity to inspect each respective site, and that request must be made three weeks in advance of the actual inspection. To add to the absurdity, the Iranians reserved the right to DENY the request. In truth, what would we do? If the Iranians said, "we don't give you permission to inspect that particular site", would we automatically re-apply the sanctions? Would be take back the money that would have poured into Iran by then? And what about all the new upgraded military hardware....do you think they will return it, no questions asked?
Previously, we were convinced that the 2010 New Start Treaty was the worst treaty ever negotiated by a U.S. Secretary of State. John Kerry has proved us wrong, and in the same administration, no less.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
The rise of a terrorist superpower: the Islamic State in 2015.
Most analysts and military strategists in the United States have focused on the activities of Daesh (Islamic State) in Syria and Iraq. After all, our equities appear to be most at risk in those two particular theaters. We have been conducting an Allied Air Campaign in both areas of conflict for roughly a year, and today, for the first time, we have learned exactly how aggressive this Air Campaign has been. The Allied Air Campaign (which includes the United States, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Bahrain) is averaging fourteen missions per day against Daesh targets. In comparison, the U.S. Air Force averaged 800 missions per day against Iraqi and insurgency targets in Operation Enduring Freedom. When questioned about the low number of missions, the Pentagon pointed out that the targets are more complicated, and the coalition is determined to avoid hitting civilian targets in error. I will leave that comment to stand on its own. Recently, Daesh has become more visible in its efforts to expand into other countries. Saudi Arabia has started to suffer from internal bombings conducting by Daesh operatives, and the presence of Daesh has been noted in Algeria, Mali, Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen, and Armenia (this includes countries with Islamic extremist groups who have declared their allegiance to Daesh). Currently, the Islamic State has the momentum in both Iraq and Syria. In fact, with only the remnants of the regime left to oppose their advance, Syria is beginning to look like a done deal, at least as far as Assad is concerned. Last week, Daesh operatives captured the Syrian/Iraqi border town of al-Tanf (al-Waleed in Iraq), which is a major victory for the extremist group. Controlling this entry point will allow Daesh to resupply its forces in Iraq more quickly, and vice versa. It solidifies their communication and transportation network between the two countries, and will undoubtedly bring more pressure on the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) in Anbar Province.
Outside of Saudi Arabia and a few isolated incidents in other countries, Daesh has yet to conduct a major operation in a theater other than Syria and Iraq....at least as far as we know. This group continues to impress with its planning and patience, and its ability to transform financial support into military equipment and supplies. No doubt its recent successes on the battlefield have increased the flow of volunteers. Last summer, when the United States appeared to be taking this threat seriously, there was hope that the Daesh movement would be limited to Iraq and Syria. But the organization has executed a much more successful military strategy than the United States and its allies. We celebrated when the Kurds won a few victories in northern Syria, and we rejoiced when the ISF recaptured Tikrit. But each minor Daesh setback was followed by a major military operation against weak targets. Although Ramadi wasn't thought to be a weak target. It became one when the ISF deserted its positions and equipment/vehicles, and left the people of Ramadi to fend for themselves. The example that the Iraqi Army continues to set (with the exception of a modest-sized number of well-trained, disciplined troops that get deployed whenever the government in Baghdad needs a headlining-grabbing victory somewhere) is only encouraging scores of Sunni in Anbar and elsewhere to back the winner, which at this stage is Daesh. Each little step east, closer to Baghdad, allows Daesh to seed Sunni communities with locals who have become supporters. No doubt, actual Daesh operatives are already in place in the bedroom communities of Baghdad.
From a larger perspective, the EU and the United States had better recognize the danger of Daesh "sightings" in Africa and in other Middle East countries. This extremist group is nothing like we have seen before, with the exception of the Taliban, on a much smaller scale. It has brought a conventional military capability to an extremist agenda. These groups feed off the poverty and misery of the third world to recruit and spread a message of hate and blame. Sadly, in 2015, they have no shortage of expansion opportunities. We have been concerned for some time with the activities of Al-Shabaab in East Africa, and the potential for recruitment in the townships of Kenya. There is no doubt that Al-Shabaab and Daesh are in regular communication, and that Daesh is already considering ways to tap into the mountain of discontent that exists in East African townships. Another troubling development is the easy manner in which Daesh seems to co-opt existing guerilla movements, sometimes even groups that are not Sunni in affiliation. One would have though that the mass executions and beheadings would have damaged the brand at least to some extent. But the reality is, at the end of the day, what really impresses is success, which at the moment, Daesh is enjoying in Spades. Anyone that is able to make the United States appear reactionary and unresolved will always attract a certain element of bad guys, but Daesh has managed to force the United States, Saudi Arabia, the EU, the Emirates, and even the Assad regime, stand behind the same target. As far as Daesh is concerned, they have one enemy that just happens to speak different languages and wear different uniforms. It would be in our best interest if we also adopted the same approach, instead of continuing with this obsession of separating the motivations of various extremist groups that all share the same goal: the expansion of Islamic extremism and the destruction of the western way of life.
Outside of Saudi Arabia and a few isolated incidents in other countries, Daesh has yet to conduct a major operation in a theater other than Syria and Iraq....at least as far as we know. This group continues to impress with its planning and patience, and its ability to transform financial support into military equipment and supplies. No doubt its recent successes on the battlefield have increased the flow of volunteers. Last summer, when the United States appeared to be taking this threat seriously, there was hope that the Daesh movement would be limited to Iraq and Syria. But the organization has executed a much more successful military strategy than the United States and its allies. We celebrated when the Kurds won a few victories in northern Syria, and we rejoiced when the ISF recaptured Tikrit. But each minor Daesh setback was followed by a major military operation against weak targets. Although Ramadi wasn't thought to be a weak target. It became one when the ISF deserted its positions and equipment/vehicles, and left the people of Ramadi to fend for themselves. The example that the Iraqi Army continues to set (with the exception of a modest-sized number of well-trained, disciplined troops that get deployed whenever the government in Baghdad needs a headlining-grabbing victory somewhere) is only encouraging scores of Sunni in Anbar and elsewhere to back the winner, which at this stage is Daesh. Each little step east, closer to Baghdad, allows Daesh to seed Sunni communities with locals who have become supporters. No doubt, actual Daesh operatives are already in place in the bedroom communities of Baghdad.
From a larger perspective, the EU and the United States had better recognize the danger of Daesh "sightings" in Africa and in other Middle East countries. This extremist group is nothing like we have seen before, with the exception of the Taliban, on a much smaller scale. It has brought a conventional military capability to an extremist agenda. These groups feed off the poverty and misery of the third world to recruit and spread a message of hate and blame. Sadly, in 2015, they have no shortage of expansion opportunities. We have been concerned for some time with the activities of Al-Shabaab in East Africa, and the potential for recruitment in the townships of Kenya. There is no doubt that Al-Shabaab and Daesh are in regular communication, and that Daesh is already considering ways to tap into the mountain of discontent that exists in East African townships. Another troubling development is the easy manner in which Daesh seems to co-opt existing guerilla movements, sometimes even groups that are not Sunni in affiliation. One would have though that the mass executions and beheadings would have damaged the brand at least to some extent. But the reality is, at the end of the day, what really impresses is success, which at the moment, Daesh is enjoying in Spades. Anyone that is able to make the United States appear reactionary and unresolved will always attract a certain element of bad guys, but Daesh has managed to force the United States, Saudi Arabia, the EU, the Emirates, and even the Assad regime, stand behind the same target. As far as Daesh is concerned, they have one enemy that just happens to speak different languages and wear different uniforms. It would be in our best interest if we also adopted the same approach, instead of continuing with this obsession of separating the motivations of various extremist groups that all share the same goal: the expansion of Islamic extremism and the destruction of the western way of life.
Sunday, March 8, 2015
How effective are the Armed Forces of the Persian Gulf? (Part II)
Links A. Global Firepower Ranks the Armed Forces of the World
B. World's Largest Armies, According to Global Security
C. Business Insider's 35 Most Powerful Armies
I am fascinated by the Saudi Arabian Armed Forces. This is a lean, mean, fighting machine, and most people outside of the business of war, don't seem to have a clue. Since getting involved in two ill-advised wars against Israel, the Saudis have kept a very low military profile. The Saudi military was content to follow the U.S. lead in the first Gulf War, although Saudi units were in the thick of the fighting and acquitted themselves well (especially armor). The Royal Family, closely associated with every aspect of the military take full advantage of the situation to create a sense of patriotism that the Kingdom had never previously experienced. Saudi soldiers were welcomed home with parades and children waving that confusing green flag with the sword and all the spaghetti. The Saudi's have 315 front line M-1A2 Abrams heavy battle tanks ready at the drop of a pin, and 200 more in storage. If necessary (however unlikely), they have 290 French-made AMX-30s ready to go, which have been re-conditioned for desert warfare and is a tight little tank in its own right. The Saudi forces are more than adequate when it comes to artillery, both mobile and stationary, and if you recall, during the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein started tossing some Scud missiles in the direction of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Since then, the Saudis have been determined to find a system similar to the Israeli "Dome", which blocks any incoming missiles. Until that technology becomes available to the Kingdom, they are more than sufficient with anti-missile and missile intercept systems. The Saudi ground forces are hardy and pride themselves on their regimen and training. The Air Force continues to fly U.S.-made F-15S bombers and F-15C fighters, but the mainstay of the Saudi fighter squadrons is the Typhoon Eurofighter. The purchase of the Eurofighter came as a bit of a surprise and involved some controversy with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who somehow was involved with negotiations. The U.S. had been hoping that the Saudi Air Force would upgrade to F-16s, F-18s, or possibly even F-35s. The Saudis can mobilize 250,000 troops in a matter of days. I read a news report recently which hypothesized that the Houthi issue in Yemen exposed a weakness in the Saudi military. In a way, the comment is accurate. If the Saudis wanted to military intervene in Yemen, I have no idea how they would pull that off. All of their armor is pointed in another direction, and PCS'd on the other side of the country. Fortunately, a handful of elderly Eastern European women with gas could wipe out the Houthis, so I don't think the Saudis really have much to worry about. I do think its a bit of a waste, the Saudi military being all shined up, trained, and ready to go, with the world's most modern equipment, but not having a war to fight. By the way, its important to remember that the stature of the military in the Kingdom has very little to do with any perceived threat from the outside. The impressiveness of the military is a direct reflection of the Royal family.
The military of the United Arab Emirates is similar in many ways to that of Saudi Arabia. Just to show off, lets name all seven of the Emirates: Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Fujairah, Umm al-Quwain, Sharjah, Ajman, and Ras al-Khaimah. The UAE is an amazing country and I highly recommend it to everyone except couples who like to kiss in public, and Gay folks. (Gay and like to kiss in public but want to stay in the Gulf? Try Oman.) The beaches are magnificent, the hotels and modern developments are awe-inspiring, the de-salinization plants are state-of-the-art, and the Russian prostitutes are everywhere....at least at night, in the lobbies of hotels. If you think you have seen wealth in Beverly Hills or the Hamptons, you haven't seen anything until you've visited Dubai. The Emiratis spend a great deal of money on the military and on the intelligence services. The UAE Air Force is exceptional. The government has approached this branch of the Armed Forces with a sense of import. Currently, the UAE flies roughly 60 recently refitted F-16S and 50 French Mirage 2000-9, which have also been refitted with the latest hardware. The Air Force has a superior support network and a budding Helicopter capability. The training is also exceptional, and the pilots have been receiving some valuable experience over the skies of Iraq and Syria, as part of the U.S. coalition of allies. In the late 1990s, the Emiratis chose a heavy battle tank other than the U.S.-offered Abrams. The UAE purchased 388 French-built Leclerc heavy battle tanks, which are, next to the Abrams, arguably the best heavy tank on the battlefield (I respect French military equipment...so shoot me). The Navy has 11 corvettes of three separate makes, all very fast and capable of offensive operations. The Navy lacks even one Frigate, which is probably a good thing...I can't imagine its use, in a coastline like the UAE's. Recently, the UAE has been focusing on fast attack craft and support vessels for naval operations. Overall, the navy meets all the requirements without really excelling in any particular area. The UAE does not expect to get invaded anytime soon, but the need to keep its heavy tanks in good performance order is essential. If Saudi Arabia suffers a border incursion of any kind (IS), the UAE will be determined to aid the Saudis as much as possible. Aside from the armor, the superior UAE Air Force will be welcome.
Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar shouldn't mind being thrown together into one paragraph. I'm sure its not the first time. Of the three smaller Gulf nations, Kuwait has the more prolific military. Following the first Gulf War, the Royal family was determined to put up a bit more of a resistance, should Saddam come knocking again. Even though the official statistics list the Kuwaiti army as having 11,000 soldiers, somehow they have managed to purchase over 200 U.S. 1-A2 Abrams tanks. to supplement the Abrams, Kuwait purchased 400 Humvees, roughly 100 self-propelled howitzers, over 200 anti-tank guided weapons, and, the cherry on the cake, 27 Russian-made BM-30 Smerch multiple launch rocket systems. Can they even fit all this shit into Kuwait? More reasonably, the Kuwaitis purchased 35 F-18 Hornets, along with multiple support aircraft, 18 Apache Attack Helicopters, and about 100 separate air defense system units (including SAM and the UK Starburst). Neither Qatar nor Bahrain pretend to have use for a major Armed Forces. Qatar does have 62 German-made Leopard tanks, which given the source are bound to be bad ass (and their reviews agree). Qatar relies on less than 20 French-made Mirages and a handful of older helicopters to round-out its Air Force. The standing army is somewhere near 13,000. Bahrain also has a small army, with no tanks (they used to have less than 100 M60s; current location, unknown). The Air Force is respectable, with 17 active and modern F-16s, and 4 squadrons (36 in total) of older attack helicopters. Both Qatar and Bahrain have sizeable and well-trained security services. If the U.S. or Saudi Arabia requested military assistance from Qatar and Bahrain, I see some useful Mirages and F-16s, possibly some attack helicopters, and 62 German Leopard heavy battle tanks. Both navies are negligible, although Bahrain is in possession of an older former U.S. Frigate and a handful of guided missile patrol craft.
Yemen is in a state of flux....the mechanism that controls the functions of state has yet to be determined for more than a few days at a time. The Yemeni military has collapsed and will have to be rebuilt. The Houthis are in hardly better shape. The last video I recall of Houthis celebrating in the streets included a man on a camel, carrying a musket that George Washington wouldn't have been seen with. I'm at a loss as to how these Houthi folks won out, although I suspect that they just waited longer. The real concern is for the well-being of the U.S. military (and clandestine/civilian) personnel still in country. Al-Qaeda is primed to take over, given that the U.S. military is exclusively limited to the use of Drones for offensive actions, and the Houthis don't seem to have much in the way of equipment. I thought the Iranians were trying to make some statement here? I say we take our young men and women out, and let Al-Qaeda or the Houthis have it. The Saudis will be forced to deal with the situation, and something tells me that they will make short-work of both the Houthis and Al-Qaeda. the Omani Air Force is a bit of a surprise, with 12 F/16C/D and 12 Eurofighter Typhoons on the way. 11 BAe 203 Hawks for ground attack, and lots of useful support elements. The Omani Army is built to suit its environment. The Royal Army still keeps 38 older Challenger British-made heavy tanks, but is focused more on a rapid-reply offensive capability. Somehow the Omanis came into possession of one (1) B1 Italian Centauro Monster with 120 mm weapon. More useful are the 175 Swiss-built Mowag Piranha armored fighting vehicles. The Royal Omani Navy is impressive, with five new Corvettes (2 built in 1994), 3 more ordered from BAe, 4 fast attack craft, 3 additional Al-Bushra French-made patrol craft, and an amphibious transport vessel. The Royal Omani Armed Forces have a very close relationship with both the United States and the United Kingdom, so security in Muscat is not an over-riding concern.
B. World's Largest Armies, According to Global Security
C. Business Insider's 35 Most Powerful Armies
I am fascinated by the Saudi Arabian Armed Forces. This is a lean, mean, fighting machine, and most people outside of the business of war, don't seem to have a clue. Since getting involved in two ill-advised wars against Israel, the Saudis have kept a very low military profile. The Saudi military was content to follow the U.S. lead in the first Gulf War, although Saudi units were in the thick of the fighting and acquitted themselves well (especially armor). The Royal Family, closely associated with every aspect of the military take full advantage of the situation to create a sense of patriotism that the Kingdom had never previously experienced. Saudi soldiers were welcomed home with parades and children waving that confusing green flag with the sword and all the spaghetti. The Saudi's have 315 front line M-1A2 Abrams heavy battle tanks ready at the drop of a pin, and 200 more in storage. If necessary (however unlikely), they have 290 French-made AMX-30s ready to go, which have been re-conditioned for desert warfare and is a tight little tank in its own right. The Saudi forces are more than adequate when it comes to artillery, both mobile and stationary, and if you recall, during the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein started tossing some Scud missiles in the direction of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Since then, the Saudis have been determined to find a system similar to the Israeli "Dome", which blocks any incoming missiles. Until that technology becomes available to the Kingdom, they are more than sufficient with anti-missile and missile intercept systems. The Saudi ground forces are hardy and pride themselves on their regimen and training. The Air Force continues to fly U.S.-made F-15S bombers and F-15C fighters, but the mainstay of the Saudi fighter squadrons is the Typhoon Eurofighter. The purchase of the Eurofighter came as a bit of a surprise and involved some controversy with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who somehow was involved with negotiations. The U.S. had been hoping that the Saudi Air Force would upgrade to F-16s, F-18s, or possibly even F-35s. The Saudis can mobilize 250,000 troops in a matter of days. I read a news report recently which hypothesized that the Houthi issue in Yemen exposed a weakness in the Saudi military. In a way, the comment is accurate. If the Saudis wanted to military intervene in Yemen, I have no idea how they would pull that off. All of their armor is pointed in another direction, and PCS'd on the other side of the country. Fortunately, a handful of elderly Eastern European women with gas could wipe out the Houthis, so I don't think the Saudis really have much to worry about. I do think its a bit of a waste, the Saudi military being all shined up, trained, and ready to go, with the world's most modern equipment, but not having a war to fight. By the way, its important to remember that the stature of the military in the Kingdom has very little to do with any perceived threat from the outside. The impressiveness of the military is a direct reflection of the Royal family.
The military of the United Arab Emirates is similar in many ways to that of Saudi Arabia. Just to show off, lets name all seven of the Emirates: Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Fujairah, Umm al-Quwain, Sharjah, Ajman, and Ras al-Khaimah. The UAE is an amazing country and I highly recommend it to everyone except couples who like to kiss in public, and Gay folks. (Gay and like to kiss in public but want to stay in the Gulf? Try Oman.) The beaches are magnificent, the hotels and modern developments are awe-inspiring, the de-salinization plants are state-of-the-art, and the Russian prostitutes are everywhere....at least at night, in the lobbies of hotels. If you think you have seen wealth in Beverly Hills or the Hamptons, you haven't seen anything until you've visited Dubai. The Emiratis spend a great deal of money on the military and on the intelligence services. The UAE Air Force is exceptional. The government has approached this branch of the Armed Forces with a sense of import. Currently, the UAE flies roughly 60 recently refitted F-16S and 50 French Mirage 2000-9, which have also been refitted with the latest hardware. The Air Force has a superior support network and a budding Helicopter capability. The training is also exceptional, and the pilots have been receiving some valuable experience over the skies of Iraq and Syria, as part of the U.S. coalition of allies. In the late 1990s, the Emiratis chose a heavy battle tank other than the U.S.-offered Abrams. The UAE purchased 388 French-built Leclerc heavy battle tanks, which are, next to the Abrams, arguably the best heavy tank on the battlefield (I respect French military equipment...so shoot me). The Navy has 11 corvettes of three separate makes, all very fast and capable of offensive operations. The Navy lacks even one Frigate, which is probably a good thing...I can't imagine its use, in a coastline like the UAE's. Recently, the UAE has been focusing on fast attack craft and support vessels for naval operations. Overall, the navy meets all the requirements without really excelling in any particular area. The UAE does not expect to get invaded anytime soon, but the need to keep its heavy tanks in good performance order is essential. If Saudi Arabia suffers a border incursion of any kind (IS), the UAE will be determined to aid the Saudis as much as possible. Aside from the armor, the superior UAE Air Force will be welcome.
Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar shouldn't mind being thrown together into one paragraph. I'm sure its not the first time. Of the three smaller Gulf nations, Kuwait has the more prolific military. Following the first Gulf War, the Royal family was determined to put up a bit more of a resistance, should Saddam come knocking again. Even though the official statistics list the Kuwaiti army as having 11,000 soldiers, somehow they have managed to purchase over 200 U.S. 1-A2 Abrams tanks. to supplement the Abrams, Kuwait purchased 400 Humvees, roughly 100 self-propelled howitzers, over 200 anti-tank guided weapons, and, the cherry on the cake, 27 Russian-made BM-30 Smerch multiple launch rocket systems. Can they even fit all this shit into Kuwait? More reasonably, the Kuwaitis purchased 35 F-18 Hornets, along with multiple support aircraft, 18 Apache Attack Helicopters, and about 100 separate air defense system units (including SAM and the UK Starburst). Neither Qatar nor Bahrain pretend to have use for a major Armed Forces. Qatar does have 62 German-made Leopard tanks, which given the source are bound to be bad ass (and their reviews agree). Qatar relies on less than 20 French-made Mirages and a handful of older helicopters to round-out its Air Force. The standing army is somewhere near 13,000. Bahrain also has a small army, with no tanks (they used to have less than 100 M60s; current location, unknown). The Air Force is respectable, with 17 active and modern F-16s, and 4 squadrons (36 in total) of older attack helicopters. Both Qatar and Bahrain have sizeable and well-trained security services. If the U.S. or Saudi Arabia requested military assistance from Qatar and Bahrain, I see some useful Mirages and F-16s, possibly some attack helicopters, and 62 German Leopard heavy battle tanks. Both navies are negligible, although Bahrain is in possession of an older former U.S. Frigate and a handful of guided missile patrol craft.
Yemen is in a state of flux....the mechanism that controls the functions of state has yet to be determined for more than a few days at a time. The Yemeni military has collapsed and will have to be rebuilt. The Houthis are in hardly better shape. The last video I recall of Houthis celebrating in the streets included a man on a camel, carrying a musket that George Washington wouldn't have been seen with. I'm at a loss as to how these Houthi folks won out, although I suspect that they just waited longer. The real concern is for the well-being of the U.S. military (and clandestine/civilian) personnel still in country. Al-Qaeda is primed to take over, given that the U.S. military is exclusively limited to the use of Drones for offensive actions, and the Houthis don't seem to have much in the way of equipment. I thought the Iranians were trying to make some statement here? I say we take our young men and women out, and let Al-Qaeda or the Houthis have it. The Saudis will be forced to deal with the situation, and something tells me that they will make short-work of both the Houthis and Al-Qaeda. the Omani Air Force is a bit of a surprise, with 12 F/16C/D and 12 Eurofighter Typhoons on the way. 11 BAe 203 Hawks for ground attack, and lots of useful support elements. The Omani Army is built to suit its environment. The Royal Army still keeps 38 older Challenger British-made heavy tanks, but is focused more on a rapid-reply offensive capability. Somehow the Omanis came into possession of one (1) B1 Italian Centauro Monster with 120 mm weapon. More useful are the 175 Swiss-built Mowag Piranha armored fighting vehicles. The Royal Omani Navy is impressive, with five new Corvettes (2 built in 1994), 3 more ordered from BAe, 4 fast attack craft, 3 additional Al-Bushra French-made patrol craft, and an amphibious transport vessel. The Royal Omani Armed Forces have a very close relationship with both the United States and the United Kingdom, so security in Muscat is not an over-riding concern.
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
The War Against ISIL Is Being Lost While Obama Vacations...Again
Links: A. Iranian Militia-Leader Killed In Iraq
B. ISIL Retakes Baiji In Iraq
C. Russia Steps Up Involvement In Syria
I read in today's Washington Post that President Barrack Obama's favorability rating had improved up to 47 percent. I guess we should infer that the American people approve of the President acting unilaterally for the sole purpose of creating voters to support his political ideology. And, if the Amnesty issue wasn't irksome enough, Obama has decided (again, UNILATERALLY), to start the process of normalizing relations with Cuba. Obama announced this effort in his usual fashion. By declaring that the United States would be making all of the compromises and that in order to gain our friendship, Cuba would have to do....nothing. No, they were not required to release political prisoners, or legalize opposition parties, or end detention without trail. They weren't even asked to end their campaign of terror against U.S. citizens living in Florida who happen to oppose the Castro dictatorship. Obama makes two huge unilateral decisions and goes on vacation, and his approval jumps to 47 percent. Obviously he has this country figured out and I'm living in the past.
Lets cool off a bit by discussing the Islamic State (ISIL) and its offensives in both Syria and Iraq. Link C details very recent Russian efforts to get diplomatic traction in Syria. Not surprisingly, the EU bent over and greased up for Putin, I guess to reward him for not snatching another piece of Ukraine this week (I shouldn't complain....and least it was the EU and not Uncle Sam taking it south-ways this week). Putin's recent interest in Syria comes on the heels of recent unexpected military disasters for the regular Syrian Army in battles with ISIL. Remember, you heard it hear first (at least two months ago); Putin will not forsake Bashir al-Assad, at least not until he can replace him with another sycophant who will provide the Russian navy with a full-size (read: ballistic submarines) naval facility on Syria's Mediterranean Coast. What were John Kerry and the U.S. State Department doing while Putin was snuggling up to the EU? Probably smoking celebratory cigars with the Castro brothers. Since Obama enjoys adulation so much, I predict a trip to Havana is in the planning stages (again, remember you heard it here!). I wonder if he will think twice about the hundreds, maybe thousands of political prisoners that are rotting in Cuban jails without any kind of due process, some as young as thirteen years old. While Putin was re-establishing his Bona Fides vis-a-vis the Syrian conflict, the United States was continuing its illustrious Air Campaign against ISIL. In all honestly, the ineffectiveness of this military initiative has been a shock. Knowing the capabilities of the U.S. Air Force, I fully expected that ISIL would be suffering by now from supply problems. Our Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan, using drones and ground troops to locate and verify targets, made it impossible for the enemy to move, let alone refuel, rearm and resupply. As I woke up this Sunday morning and read the news before Mass, I was reminded that ISIL has devastated regular Syrian Army positions in Eastern and Western Syria, and also retaken the town of Baiji, which was surrendered by the Iraqi Army without so much as fart in the direction of the enemy. But the Oil Refinery was heavily defended, which illustrates the priority of the Iraqi government. Let the people in Baiji get abused and in some cases, murdered by ISIL, as long as the money-maker keeps pumping.
Lately I've been very impressed with the willingness of the Iranians to take on ISIL in Iraq. The truth is, they recognize the threat that this group represents. Link A details the assassination of an important Iranian militia leader, who was active in Iraq's Diyala Province. Well, Diyala is in Eastern Iraq, just outside of Baghdad, and could not be more strategic. I was a bit perplexed by the number of individual Iranian-backed Shiite militias that were active in Iraq. These include, but are not limited to, the Mukhtar Army, Hezbollah Brigades (Hezbollah in Iraq, not Lebanon), Badr Brigades, Asaib al Haq, and something called the Peace Brigade. C'mon, Ayatollah whoever you are, don't you realize how much more effective to would be if you just merged these groups together? Each militia, fighting separately, with its own politically-focused leader, will have a miniscule impact on the conflict as opposed to what could be accomplished with one, well-equipped and properly led militia. At least the Iranians are recognizing the seriousness of the situation. The Iraqi Army cannot gain any traction. After publicizing the recapture of one or two towns, they pray that the local press won't also announced that four towns were occupied by ISIL during the same time period. Something tells me that the Iranians will be forced to launch a full-scale military intervention in Iraq. Its obviously something they would like to avoid, or at least delay until Obama finds a way to diplomatically allow them to enrich as much uranium as they want. Since Obama has been in office, the Iranians have moved closer and closer to complete independence for their nuclear program.
ISIL is on the offensive in Syria, and giving the Iraqi Army and the Iranian militias fits in Iraq. What about our bombing campaign? Where are the figures? I want to know how much ordinance has been expended and what the enemy has lost. You know the military has those figures at their fingertips. Normally I wouldn't care, but I'm trying to understand how a ragtag group of terrorists, totally without air support (except for a few drones, we're told), is moving around Iraq and Syria with impunity? How was ISIL able to reoccupy a town as large and strategic as Baiji, under the nose of the air coalition led by the United States Air Force, and including elements from France, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE? Anyone? I don't see any slowdown in ISIL, so how about we save the U.S. taxpayer billions of dollars and just pull out? John Kerry should understand the policy. Its what he advocated for when he returned from Vietnam, remember?
On a separate note, I want to acknowledge all the media reports of Fidel Castro announcing Cuba's refusal to move one inch away from its Communist principles. I'm shocked that anyone would be surprised. Cuba isn't going to change, folks. What will happen, is a bunch of rich businessmen who donated money to Obama (and possibly Rand Paul as well), will build new, flashy resorts around the island, and make a ton of money. The Cuban elite will get their cut, the black market that runs the Cuban economy will get its due, and Obama's base will hail their icon as the man who saved the Cuban people (from the mean, ol' USA). Folks, the reality is, no one gives a shit about Cuba or the Cuban people. If Obama thought about Cuba even once while trotting from the sixth hole to the seventh, I will eat my hat. The goal isn't to change Cuba. ITS TO CHANGE THE UNITED STATES. More damage has been done to our Constitution in the last six years than has been done in the previous two hundred. This Imperial Administration is allowed to ignore an obvious electoral mandate, and just sideswipe Congress to enact monumental legislation. And the nut-less wonders Boehner and McConnell got over on us again, as nothing as yet to be even suggested in opposition to Obama's actions. Well, the GOP will have a nice surprise come 2016. I'm not sure about the Presidential Election, but conservative and moderate independent voters will either split the primary or not vote. The GOP rhinos have called the bluff of their own voters one too many times.
B. ISIL Retakes Baiji In Iraq
C. Russia Steps Up Involvement In Syria
I read in today's Washington Post that President Barrack Obama's favorability rating had improved up to 47 percent. I guess we should infer that the American people approve of the President acting unilaterally for the sole purpose of creating voters to support his political ideology. And, if the Amnesty issue wasn't irksome enough, Obama has decided (again, UNILATERALLY), to start the process of normalizing relations with Cuba. Obama announced this effort in his usual fashion. By declaring that the United States would be making all of the compromises and that in order to gain our friendship, Cuba would have to do....nothing. No, they were not required to release political prisoners, or legalize opposition parties, or end detention without trail. They weren't even asked to end their campaign of terror against U.S. citizens living in Florida who happen to oppose the Castro dictatorship. Obama makes two huge unilateral decisions and goes on vacation, and his approval jumps to 47 percent. Obviously he has this country figured out and I'm living in the past.
Lets cool off a bit by discussing the Islamic State (ISIL) and its offensives in both Syria and Iraq. Link C details very recent Russian efforts to get diplomatic traction in Syria. Not surprisingly, the EU bent over and greased up for Putin, I guess to reward him for not snatching another piece of Ukraine this week (I shouldn't complain....and least it was the EU and not Uncle Sam taking it south-ways this week). Putin's recent interest in Syria comes on the heels of recent unexpected military disasters for the regular Syrian Army in battles with ISIL. Remember, you heard it hear first (at least two months ago); Putin will not forsake Bashir al-Assad, at least not until he can replace him with another sycophant who will provide the Russian navy with a full-size (read: ballistic submarines) naval facility on Syria's Mediterranean Coast. What were John Kerry and the U.S. State Department doing while Putin was snuggling up to the EU? Probably smoking celebratory cigars with the Castro brothers. Since Obama enjoys adulation so much, I predict a trip to Havana is in the planning stages (again, remember you heard it here!). I wonder if he will think twice about the hundreds, maybe thousands of political prisoners that are rotting in Cuban jails without any kind of due process, some as young as thirteen years old. While Putin was re-establishing his Bona Fides vis-a-vis the Syrian conflict, the United States was continuing its illustrious Air Campaign against ISIL. In all honestly, the ineffectiveness of this military initiative has been a shock. Knowing the capabilities of the U.S. Air Force, I fully expected that ISIL would be suffering by now from supply problems. Our Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan, using drones and ground troops to locate and verify targets, made it impossible for the enemy to move, let alone refuel, rearm and resupply. As I woke up this Sunday morning and read the news before Mass, I was reminded that ISIL has devastated regular Syrian Army positions in Eastern and Western Syria, and also retaken the town of Baiji, which was surrendered by the Iraqi Army without so much as fart in the direction of the enemy. But the Oil Refinery was heavily defended, which illustrates the priority of the Iraqi government. Let the people in Baiji get abused and in some cases, murdered by ISIL, as long as the money-maker keeps pumping.
Lately I've been very impressed with the willingness of the Iranians to take on ISIL in Iraq. The truth is, they recognize the threat that this group represents. Link A details the assassination of an important Iranian militia leader, who was active in Iraq's Diyala Province. Well, Diyala is in Eastern Iraq, just outside of Baghdad, and could not be more strategic. I was a bit perplexed by the number of individual Iranian-backed Shiite militias that were active in Iraq. These include, but are not limited to, the Mukhtar Army, Hezbollah Brigades (Hezbollah in Iraq, not Lebanon), Badr Brigades, Asaib al Haq, and something called the Peace Brigade. C'mon, Ayatollah whoever you are, don't you realize how much more effective to would be if you just merged these groups together? Each militia, fighting separately, with its own politically-focused leader, will have a miniscule impact on the conflict as opposed to what could be accomplished with one, well-equipped and properly led militia. At least the Iranians are recognizing the seriousness of the situation. The Iraqi Army cannot gain any traction. After publicizing the recapture of one or two towns, they pray that the local press won't also announced that four towns were occupied by ISIL during the same time period. Something tells me that the Iranians will be forced to launch a full-scale military intervention in Iraq. Its obviously something they would like to avoid, or at least delay until Obama finds a way to diplomatically allow them to enrich as much uranium as they want. Since Obama has been in office, the Iranians have moved closer and closer to complete independence for their nuclear program.
ISIL is on the offensive in Syria, and giving the Iraqi Army and the Iranian militias fits in Iraq. What about our bombing campaign? Where are the figures? I want to know how much ordinance has been expended and what the enemy has lost. You know the military has those figures at their fingertips. Normally I wouldn't care, but I'm trying to understand how a ragtag group of terrorists, totally without air support (except for a few drones, we're told), is moving around Iraq and Syria with impunity? How was ISIL able to reoccupy a town as large and strategic as Baiji, under the nose of the air coalition led by the United States Air Force, and including elements from France, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE? Anyone? I don't see any slowdown in ISIL, so how about we save the U.S. taxpayer billions of dollars and just pull out? John Kerry should understand the policy. Its what he advocated for when he returned from Vietnam, remember?
On a separate note, I want to acknowledge all the media reports of Fidel Castro announcing Cuba's refusal to move one inch away from its Communist principles. I'm shocked that anyone would be surprised. Cuba isn't going to change, folks. What will happen, is a bunch of rich businessmen who donated money to Obama (and possibly Rand Paul as well), will build new, flashy resorts around the island, and make a ton of money. The Cuban elite will get their cut, the black market that runs the Cuban economy will get its due, and Obama's base will hail their icon as the man who saved the Cuban people (from the mean, ol' USA). Folks, the reality is, no one gives a shit about Cuba or the Cuban people. If Obama thought about Cuba even once while trotting from the sixth hole to the seventh, I will eat my hat. The goal isn't to change Cuba. ITS TO CHANGE THE UNITED STATES. More damage has been done to our Constitution in the last six years than has been done in the previous two hundred. This Imperial Administration is allowed to ignore an obvious electoral mandate, and just sideswipe Congress to enact monumental legislation. And the nut-less wonders Boehner and McConnell got over on us again, as nothing as yet to be even suggested in opposition to Obama's actions. Well, the GOP will have a nice surprise come 2016. I'm not sure about the Presidential Election, but conservative and moderate independent voters will either split the primary or not vote. The GOP rhinos have called the bluff of their own voters one too many times.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Extremists On The Offensive In Syria
Links: A. Al-Nusra Front, Ahrar al Sham Advance In Syria
B. Islamic State Advances On Deir al Zour
Lately I've had to come to grips with the fact that I was wrong regarding certain events in Syria. Last month I repeatedly raised expectations that forces loyal to de facto Syrian President Bashir al-Assad would have had the opportunity to refit and reorganize. I opined that Russian military aid would have allowed the Syrian Armed Forces to reconstitute its armor brigades and possibly rebuild the Syrian Air Force. The Allied air campaign should have occupied the Islamic State (ISIL) and the various other armed groups enough to allow the regular Syrian Army an opportunity to regain the strategic initiative, I hypothesized. It appears that I was mistaken. Even though in late November the international media printed a number of stories indicating a slow down in ISIL military advances, the reality is that the extremist groups were on the move just about everywhere.
For some reason, the press and media continue to separate the groups who make up the Islamic extremist element in Syria. Wasn't there a recognition in October that Al-Nusra, ISIL, Ahrar al Sham (and whoever else wants to throw their hat into the ring) are loyal to Al-Qaeda? And yet we continue to see Al-Nusra being given the mantle of "Al-Qaeda's representative in Syria", as if we are referring to a Lodge meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Unless I see some usefulness in doing so, I will not refer to separate Islamic extremist factions in Syria. I have a good idea why the U.S. media (eager to do the bidding of this administration) continues to perpetrate the falsehood that their is some significant difference between these groups. Qatar (and possibly the UAE as well), who has a couple jets involved in the "anti-ISIS" air campaign, has been suspected of supporting some of these other groups in the past. Qatar wants to be seen as only bombing ISIL targets, because ISIL's message of an enlarged Caliphate is dangerous to the existing Gulf royal families. Qatar wants to continue its "clandestine" support for these other groups, though, so they will only participate in ther bombing of ISIL targets. If someone has evidence that Qatar and the UAE contingents in the air campaign have indeed participated in action against non-ISIL targets, please let me know. Actually, I'm not even sure of the United States is bombing non-ISIL targets (although you would think that "Al-Qaeda's representative in Syria" would be in line for some sort of attention).
What a mess. We can be certain of one thing: the regular Syrian forces have been taking a beating in the northwestern province of Idlib and eastern province of Deir al Zour. Interestingly enough, the extremists have been making effective use of American-made TOW anti-tank missiles in action against Syrian armor. Will I be the first to consider just how the TOW anti-tank missiles ended up the hands of the extremists? Were they originally the property of the Free Syrian Army that is being supported and armed by the United States? Assad can only be ringing his hands in despair as the U.S.-led air campaign seems to be having no impact on the Islamic extremists offensives against the few remaining government positions outside of Damascus. I'm one of those folks who likes to look at a big map and envision the various military elements and positions accordingly. I have spent a decent amount of time focusing on the regular Syrian Army, and I think I'm beginning to get a grasp on the three main groups that constitute the Islamic extremist forces. But I'm totally in the dark regarding the army that the United States government was planning on training in place of U.S. ground forces. Last summer we were told that the United States military would be training and equipping the "Free Syrian Army" (sometimes called the "New Syrian Army"). If my memory serves me correctly, this military force was led by a group of former regime officers who were both secular and opposed to Assad. Money was allotted for the training and equipping of this army, and I recall the Pentagon supposing that it would take somewhere around four months to stand-up the Free Syrian Army. In October, my understanding of the situation was shaken like an Etch-a-Sketch. The Pentagon released a statement declaring that the Free Syrian Army would be a force utilized for defensive operations only. Then a few days later, I recall news reports indicating that elements of the free Syrian Army had been involved in a battle with ISIS, and came away the worse for it. Was this a "defensive only" engagement?
If I could get the answers to a few simple questions, my understanding of the conflict would be increased measurably. What is the state of the Free Syrian Army? Does it exist, is it active, and will the Pentagon confirm its previous statement that the Free Syrian Army has definite rules of engagement that limit is capabilities to defensive action only? Is it true that the Qatari government requested rules of engagement for its contribution to the air campaign, which would exempt Qatari jets from bombing any targets other than ISIL? If so, does the UAE, Kuwait or Bahrain have the same prohibition sewn into their agreement to be part of the Allied air coalition? I can't help but feel a bit lost on the Syrian front. The last time I spent much time on this part of the map, the Kurds were besieged by ISIL in Kobane; has this situation in Kobane changed? Its true I have been keeping a closer eye on developments in Iraq, as the growing Iranian involvement has me reconsidering my prediction that Baghdad would eventually fall to ISIL. The Iranians have the capacity to defeat ISIL hands-down. At the same time, the Iranian government might decide to climb back into its hole and pull back its resources. When it comes to efforts to obtain weapons-grade Uranium, the Iranians are easy to predict. But when it comes to the deployment of its military, Iran can vacillate with the best of them.
B. Islamic State Advances On Deir al Zour
Lately I've had to come to grips with the fact that I was wrong regarding certain events in Syria. Last month I repeatedly raised expectations that forces loyal to de facto Syrian President Bashir al-Assad would have had the opportunity to refit and reorganize. I opined that Russian military aid would have allowed the Syrian Armed Forces to reconstitute its armor brigades and possibly rebuild the Syrian Air Force. The Allied air campaign should have occupied the Islamic State (ISIL) and the various other armed groups enough to allow the regular Syrian Army an opportunity to regain the strategic initiative, I hypothesized. It appears that I was mistaken. Even though in late November the international media printed a number of stories indicating a slow down in ISIL military advances, the reality is that the extremist groups were on the move just about everywhere.
For some reason, the press and media continue to separate the groups who make up the Islamic extremist element in Syria. Wasn't there a recognition in October that Al-Nusra, ISIL, Ahrar al Sham (and whoever else wants to throw their hat into the ring) are loyal to Al-Qaeda? And yet we continue to see Al-Nusra being given the mantle of "Al-Qaeda's representative in Syria", as if we are referring to a Lodge meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Unless I see some usefulness in doing so, I will not refer to separate Islamic extremist factions in Syria. I have a good idea why the U.S. media (eager to do the bidding of this administration) continues to perpetrate the falsehood that their is some significant difference between these groups. Qatar (and possibly the UAE as well), who has a couple jets involved in the "anti-ISIS" air campaign, has been suspected of supporting some of these other groups in the past. Qatar wants to be seen as only bombing ISIL targets, because ISIL's message of an enlarged Caliphate is dangerous to the existing Gulf royal families. Qatar wants to continue its "clandestine" support for these other groups, though, so they will only participate in ther bombing of ISIL targets. If someone has evidence that Qatar and the UAE contingents in the air campaign have indeed participated in action against non-ISIL targets, please let me know. Actually, I'm not even sure of the United States is bombing non-ISIL targets (although you would think that "Al-Qaeda's representative in Syria" would be in line for some sort of attention).
What a mess. We can be certain of one thing: the regular Syrian forces have been taking a beating in the northwestern province of Idlib and eastern province of Deir al Zour. Interestingly enough, the extremists have been making effective use of American-made TOW anti-tank missiles in action against Syrian armor. Will I be the first to consider just how the TOW anti-tank missiles ended up the hands of the extremists? Were they originally the property of the Free Syrian Army that is being supported and armed by the United States? Assad can only be ringing his hands in despair as the U.S.-led air campaign seems to be having no impact on the Islamic extremists offensives against the few remaining government positions outside of Damascus. I'm one of those folks who likes to look at a big map and envision the various military elements and positions accordingly. I have spent a decent amount of time focusing on the regular Syrian Army, and I think I'm beginning to get a grasp on the three main groups that constitute the Islamic extremist forces. But I'm totally in the dark regarding the army that the United States government was planning on training in place of U.S. ground forces. Last summer we were told that the United States military would be training and equipping the "Free Syrian Army" (sometimes called the "New Syrian Army"). If my memory serves me correctly, this military force was led by a group of former regime officers who were both secular and opposed to Assad. Money was allotted for the training and equipping of this army, and I recall the Pentagon supposing that it would take somewhere around four months to stand-up the Free Syrian Army. In October, my understanding of the situation was shaken like an Etch-a-Sketch. The Pentagon released a statement declaring that the Free Syrian Army would be a force utilized for defensive operations only. Then a few days later, I recall news reports indicating that elements of the free Syrian Army had been involved in a battle with ISIS, and came away the worse for it. Was this a "defensive only" engagement?
If I could get the answers to a few simple questions, my understanding of the conflict would be increased measurably. What is the state of the Free Syrian Army? Does it exist, is it active, and will the Pentagon confirm its previous statement that the Free Syrian Army has definite rules of engagement that limit is capabilities to defensive action only? Is it true that the Qatari government requested rules of engagement for its contribution to the air campaign, which would exempt Qatari jets from bombing any targets other than ISIL? If so, does the UAE, Kuwait or Bahrain have the same prohibition sewn into their agreement to be part of the Allied air coalition? I can't help but feel a bit lost on the Syrian front. The last time I spent much time on this part of the map, the Kurds were besieged by ISIL in Kobane; has this situation in Kobane changed? Its true I have been keeping a closer eye on developments in Iraq, as the growing Iranian involvement has me reconsidering my prediction that Baghdad would eventually fall to ISIL. The Iranians have the capacity to defeat ISIL hands-down. At the same time, the Iranian government might decide to climb back into its hole and pull back its resources. When it comes to efforts to obtain weapons-grade Uranium, the Iranians are easy to predict. But when it comes to the deployment of its military, Iran can vacillate with the best of them.
Friday, September 12, 2014
Oman, UAE, and Saudi Arabia...Gulf Royalty Deluxe
(As was the case yesterday, there will be no link(s) for today's post. Google is replete with information on all three nations.)
Oman is my absolute favorite Gulf monarchy. I used to have a hot love affair going with the UAE until I started working as an intelligence officer and took a peek behind the curtain. The current ruler of Oman, Sultan Qaboos, replaced his father in a familial coup in 1970. Until that time, the history of Oman read like something straight out of One Thousand and One Nights (Arabian Nights). During the mid-20th century Oman was a feudal territory under the protection of Great Britain. The territory we now know as Oman was ruled by both the Imam of the Imamate of Oman (Ghalib al-Hinai) and the Sultan of Muscat (Said bin Taimur), the father of today's ruler Sultan Qaboos. When oil concessions became a hot issue, the Sultan tried to squeeze out the Imam. The war lasted for some time, as the Imam and his supporters managed to disappear into the inaccessible Jebel Ackdar. With the help of a few companies of African soldiers and two used British armored cars, the Sultan was able to chase Imam al-Hinai into exile in Saudi Arabia. After deposing his father, Sultan Qaboos took firm measures to make Oman's wealth work for the Omani people. The nation was modernized, the economy was expanded, and resources were dedicated to Health and Education. I chose to provide a bit more historic background than usual because I don't really have anything dastardly to say about Qaboos or Oman. The Sultan has kept his country basically devoid of the type of Islamic fundamentalism that has invaded the aristocracy in Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Oman is a beautiful, safe country to visit, and a model for any Gulf nation serious about rejecting Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. If you want to meet all those peaceful Muslims President Obama keeps gurgling about, book a flight to Muscat.
The United Arab Emirates are a true Federation of seven separate Arab monarchies (Emirates). They are, in no particular order, Ras al-Khaimah, Umm al-Quwain, Ajman, Sharjah, Fujairah, Abu Dhabi and Dubai. Ostensibly all seven emirates are supposed to be equal. At is birth (1971), it was decided that the UAE would be governed by the Federal Supreme Council, which consisted of the ruling emir of each respective emirate. One of the emirs is selected as President. In reality, the UAE and its politics are dominated by Abu Dhabi. The first President of the UAE was Sheikh Zayed of Abu Dhabi, and the current President is his son Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan. The Emirates are incredibly wealthy and are fond of skyscrapers and modern shopping centers. The Emirates have become a prime tourist destination, particularly for the Brits. A great deal of money is spent on research, especially as it relates to desalinization and creating agriculturally productive land from desert. The Emiratis have accomplished a great deal in a very short time. Now for the half-empty part of the glass. The UAE has a very effective intelligence service, which is aggressively active both internally and externally. This service has very close relations with a number of western intelligence agencies, and likes to give the impression that it is anti-Islamic extremist. In reality, the UAE is just short of being a police state. Foreigners are watched closely, and natives are watched even more closely. Practices unbecoming a good Muslim are not allowed. No kissing in public, and Gays, please stay in Key West. Prostitution is illegal but widely available, usually serviced by women from the more destitute Russian Republics ("he promised me a job as a secretary"....you get the picture). The United States is heavily invested in its relationship with the UAE, who spend a great deal of money every year on U.S. manufactured F16s, tanks, and other various military equipment. On occasion the intelligence community will hear a rumor that maybe one or more of the royal families is secretly providing support to terrorist organizations. But no one wants to believe this kind of bad news. If any civil service and intelligence agency could keep that kind of secret, it would be the Emiratis. Although he is only Prime Minister of the UAE as opposed to President, keep your eye on Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum of Dubai; he is a very interesting multi-billionaire. He loves the horses and keeps stables in Australia. He is quite the charmer and very well educated (I would have guessed Eton and Oxford but I would have been wrong). Something about this guy rubs me the wrong way. I love all the good things that the Emiratis contribute to the world, but I'm just not ready to say I trust their leadership, at least not when it comes to possible confidential relationships with fundamentalist groups.
House of Saud: More than likely I will be writing a post that is totally dedicated to the Saudis before the year is over. The House of Saud was the victor in the early 20th century battle for the Arabian peninsula (The vanquished Hashemites had to settle for Trans-Jordan and Iraq). The Saudi monarchy has always been fiercely and unapologetically conservative and has cultivated a mutually beneficial relationship with both the United States and the United Kingdom. Everyone out of grade school is aware that the Saudis sit on a butt load of oil, and have a very small population on whom to spend its oil revenues. History has given the Saud family reason to be concerned about security. During the reign of Saddam Hussein in neighboring Iraq, Saudi Arabia had to consider the real possibility of an Iraqi invasion. When it comes to military supplies, the Saudis are a mirror of their Emirati cousins, with Abrams tanks and F16s filling out the Saudi military equipment ledger. The Saud family has been masters of cultivating a close relationship with the United States (a true example of civil liberties) while enforcing draconian laws that keep women from driving cars. The Wahhabi movement is often used to scare up enemies of Saudi Arabia, but few people ever take the time to learn what the term "Wahhabi" means. It is a conservative, Sunni doctrine which is no more invasive than a dozen other Muslim movements. The real problem with Saudi Arabia as I see it, is the size of the royal family. King Abdullah (and Faisal before him) do not want war a religious war with the west. But as the family grows larger and wealth proliferates, it has become impossible to keep track of everybody and every penny. And we aren't only taking about the Sauds. Other families closely related to the House of Saud (bin-Ladens) also exercise great wealth. Can Abdullah control extremist sympathies within his own family? Can he affect the flow of money out of the Kingdom? This isn't to say that Abdullah himself does not harbor dislikes in the Arab world. If a particular terrorist group were working against a perceived enemy of the Kingdom, no doubt Abdullah would send them a few bucks. All in all, I do not see Saudi Arabia as being a particular supporter of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. The Saudis are very fond of giving generously to various Islamic Aid and Educational Organizations. But who knows what might be happening under the guise of succor, which may be too deeply embedded to be seen from the top of the Saudi throne?
Oman is my absolute favorite Gulf monarchy. I used to have a hot love affair going with the UAE until I started working as an intelligence officer and took a peek behind the curtain. The current ruler of Oman, Sultan Qaboos, replaced his father in a familial coup in 1970. Until that time, the history of Oman read like something straight out of One Thousand and One Nights (Arabian Nights). During the mid-20th century Oman was a feudal territory under the protection of Great Britain. The territory we now know as Oman was ruled by both the Imam of the Imamate of Oman (Ghalib al-Hinai) and the Sultan of Muscat (Said bin Taimur), the father of today's ruler Sultan Qaboos. When oil concessions became a hot issue, the Sultan tried to squeeze out the Imam. The war lasted for some time, as the Imam and his supporters managed to disappear into the inaccessible Jebel Ackdar. With the help of a few companies of African soldiers and two used British armored cars, the Sultan was able to chase Imam al-Hinai into exile in Saudi Arabia. After deposing his father, Sultan Qaboos took firm measures to make Oman's wealth work for the Omani people. The nation was modernized, the economy was expanded, and resources were dedicated to Health and Education. I chose to provide a bit more historic background than usual because I don't really have anything dastardly to say about Qaboos or Oman. The Sultan has kept his country basically devoid of the type of Islamic fundamentalism that has invaded the aristocracy in Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Oman is a beautiful, safe country to visit, and a model for any Gulf nation serious about rejecting Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. If you want to meet all those peaceful Muslims President Obama keeps gurgling about, book a flight to Muscat.
The United Arab Emirates are a true Federation of seven separate Arab monarchies (Emirates). They are, in no particular order, Ras al-Khaimah, Umm al-Quwain, Ajman, Sharjah, Fujairah, Abu Dhabi and Dubai. Ostensibly all seven emirates are supposed to be equal. At is birth (1971), it was decided that the UAE would be governed by the Federal Supreme Council, which consisted of the ruling emir of each respective emirate. One of the emirs is selected as President. In reality, the UAE and its politics are dominated by Abu Dhabi. The first President of the UAE was Sheikh Zayed of Abu Dhabi, and the current President is his son Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan. The Emirates are incredibly wealthy and are fond of skyscrapers and modern shopping centers. The Emirates have become a prime tourist destination, particularly for the Brits. A great deal of money is spent on research, especially as it relates to desalinization and creating agriculturally productive land from desert. The Emiratis have accomplished a great deal in a very short time. Now for the half-empty part of the glass. The UAE has a very effective intelligence service, which is aggressively active both internally and externally. This service has very close relations with a number of western intelligence agencies, and likes to give the impression that it is anti-Islamic extremist. In reality, the UAE is just short of being a police state. Foreigners are watched closely, and natives are watched even more closely. Practices unbecoming a good Muslim are not allowed. No kissing in public, and Gays, please stay in Key West. Prostitution is illegal but widely available, usually serviced by women from the more destitute Russian Republics ("he promised me a job as a secretary"....you get the picture). The United States is heavily invested in its relationship with the UAE, who spend a great deal of money every year on U.S. manufactured F16s, tanks, and other various military equipment. On occasion the intelligence community will hear a rumor that maybe one or more of the royal families is secretly providing support to terrorist organizations. But no one wants to believe this kind of bad news. If any civil service and intelligence agency could keep that kind of secret, it would be the Emiratis. Although he is only Prime Minister of the UAE as opposed to President, keep your eye on Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum of Dubai; he is a very interesting multi-billionaire. He loves the horses and keeps stables in Australia. He is quite the charmer and very well educated (I would have guessed Eton and Oxford but I would have been wrong). Something about this guy rubs me the wrong way. I love all the good things that the Emiratis contribute to the world, but I'm just not ready to say I trust their leadership, at least not when it comes to possible confidential relationships with fundamentalist groups.
House of Saud: More than likely I will be writing a post that is totally dedicated to the Saudis before the year is over. The House of Saud was the victor in the early 20th century battle for the Arabian peninsula (The vanquished Hashemites had to settle for Trans-Jordan and Iraq). The Saudi monarchy has always been fiercely and unapologetically conservative and has cultivated a mutually beneficial relationship with both the United States and the United Kingdom. Everyone out of grade school is aware that the Saudis sit on a butt load of oil, and have a very small population on whom to spend its oil revenues. History has given the Saud family reason to be concerned about security. During the reign of Saddam Hussein in neighboring Iraq, Saudi Arabia had to consider the real possibility of an Iraqi invasion. When it comes to military supplies, the Saudis are a mirror of their Emirati cousins, with Abrams tanks and F16s filling out the Saudi military equipment ledger. The Saud family has been masters of cultivating a close relationship with the United States (a true example of civil liberties) while enforcing draconian laws that keep women from driving cars. The Wahhabi movement is often used to scare up enemies of Saudi Arabia, but few people ever take the time to learn what the term "Wahhabi" means. It is a conservative, Sunni doctrine which is no more invasive than a dozen other Muslim movements. The real problem with Saudi Arabia as I see it, is the size of the royal family. King Abdullah (and Faisal before him) do not want war a religious war with the west. But as the family grows larger and wealth proliferates, it has become impossible to keep track of everybody and every penny. And we aren't only taking about the Sauds. Other families closely related to the House of Saud (bin-Ladens) also exercise great wealth. Can Abdullah control extremist sympathies within his own family? Can he affect the flow of money out of the Kingdom? This isn't to say that Abdullah himself does not harbor dislikes in the Arab world. If a particular terrorist group were working against a perceived enemy of the Kingdom, no doubt Abdullah would send them a few bucks. All in all, I do not see Saudi Arabia as being a particular supporter of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. The Saudis are very fond of giving generously to various Islamic Aid and Educational Organizations. But who knows what might be happening under the guise of succor, which may be too deeply embedded to be seen from the top of the Saudi throne?
Thursday, September 11, 2014
The Arab Royal Families of the Persian Gulf (Part I)
(I have chosen to leave the link empty tonight. Anyone requiring additional information on these families can use Google, which is full of interesting, sometimes scandalous and often incorrect details.)
The Persian Gulf region is home to no-less than twelve royal families of Arab descent. I have chosen to not include the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, even though they descend from the Arabian Peninsula, because King Abdullah is not sitting on a mountain of oil. The royal families of Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman are in a class of wealth all to themselves. In the 1980s, when it became fashionable to flaunt money, media stories of Arab Shaykhs purchasing private jumbo jets, Beverly Hills property and entire retail store chains were a regular part of the news cycle. The environment has become a bit more discreet. The ruling families of the Gulf region are traditional and conservative, but it is an Islamic brand of conservatism that bears little resemblance to the Heritage Foundation and the Koch brothers. They must conduct a daily balancing act, between the need to be loyal to Islam and the fear of revolution from Islamic traditionalist within their own countries. All of the Gulf states have traditionally been allies of the United States and Europe. Americans and Europeans are the largest consumers of Arab oil (China may have moved into first place recently, but I don't think so), and the West has always more or less guaranteed the security of the various Gulf monarchies. One fact that you can bet on: the Gulf states close the wagons when necessary and will do what it takes to protect one another. In 1990 Saddam Hussein, claiming that the Emirate was actually a province of Iraq, invaded and occupied Kuwait. The other monarchies immediately began utilizing financial resources and diplomatic effort in order to send Saddam packing. They were successful. Today's post will focus on Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain, and tomorrow we will have a close look at Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE.
House of Sabah: The Kuwaiti royal family has extremely close ties to the United Kingdom (as do a number of other Gulf families). Not only does Kuwait sit on top of a significant amount of oil, it also happens to be located in a very sensitive and valuable piece of real estate. All sea-bound Iraqi oil must past through the Shatt al-Arab river at the northern shore of the Persian Gulf (the Shatt al-Arab is more of a confluence of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers as opposed to an actual river). If Iran were so inclined (and the west did not intervene), the Iranian military is more than capable of occupying both the Shatt al-Arab and Kuwait, which would give the Iranians control of a nice chunk of the world's exportable petroleum. The Sabah family is actually not nearly as conservative as some of the other Gulf families. Recently, women were allowed to stand for Parliament (a rump Parliament totally subservient to the Sabah family, but still, its a start) and suggestions have been made about granting more rights to the thousands of foreign workers in Kuwait (who do all the nasty work so the wealthy Kuwaitis don't have to get their hands dirty). After the nightmare of Iraqi occupation, during which many Kuwaitis were executed, Kuwait made efforts to expand its military and strengthen its border with Iraq. But its a question of manpower. Kuwait will never have a population large enough to support a legitimate army of national defense. So Kuwait stays on the good side of the United States, at least diplomatically. On the other hand, the Kuwaitis allow extremists and fundamentalists to recruit and purchase equipment openly, and appear to support ISIL efforts to depose Bashir al-Assad in Syria. Its a tough choice for Kuwait. The economy flourishes when they allow an open market for services needed by terrorist groups, and the Sabahs have never been fans of the Ba'athists in Damascus or Baghdad. But the Sabahs have gotten in trouble before by trying to play both sides of the fence. If they allow enough of a presence of terrorists and like scum into Kuwait City (ostensibly for business purposes), they just might find themselves thrown out of the Palace by ISIL or Al Qaeda. And I for one would leave them to their devices.
House of Thani: I have always had a particular fascination for the Thani family and Qatar. Similar to the royal houses of the UAE, the Thanis have been around since the invention of the wheel, and they have always worn the pants in Doha. When Saddam invaded Iraq in 1990, the Qataris were a bit worried that, if unopposed, Saddam just might swallow up little Qatar as well. History and a review of Saddam's true intentions reveal that they didn't have much to worry about, but the Thanis are firm believers in "never hedging your bets". While cultivating a strong relationship with the United States military (Qatar is home to the U.S. Air Force Al Udeid Base, whose location is strategic, to say the least), The Qatari royal family is quite large, in proportion to the total population of Qatar. It is believed that one branch of the Thani family supports the Islamic fundamentalist cause. Terrorists have been known to use Qatar as one giant safe house, with particular terrorists (wanted for murder by Interpol and the United States) actually allowed into the palace to meet the Emir! Qatar does appreciate the money they receive as rent for the large U.S. Air Force Base, and also the protection from the bad guys in Teheran (and Baghdad), but the royal family is very happy to play both sides. One can only imagine if the CIA of old was allowed to conduct one night of multiple renditions in Qatar, how many squealing terrorist pigs we could pick up. One can dream.....
House of Khalifa: The current head of the Al-Khalifa family in Bahrain is Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. Bahrain professes to be a teeny tiny bit democratic, in that issues pertaining to the state and the royal family are debated by the seventeen-strong Ruling Family Council. Unlike the other Gulf states, the Arab Spring of 2011 arrived in Bahrain with a vengeance. The people of Bahrain decided to join the party, and riots broke out in Manama, the capital city. The U.S. Naval Base (Naval Support Activity Bahrain) nor any other U.S. institutions were ever in any real danger. The anger that led to demonstrations seemed to be centered amongst students and young people. The Ruling Family Council, never very popular with the Qatari people, was taken by surprise. Although the situation was eventually brought under control, the Al-Khalifas were both scared and embarrassed. Since then the Prime Minister and government functionaries have been very patient with voices of discontent, and the family has made an effort to appear open to the public. Again, (interestingly enough), the anger of the demonstrators never really seemed focused on the American presence. The people were acting with one voice, asking for more authority in the government and more overall freedom. Bahrain seems more ripe for a Beatles revolution that it does an Islamic fundamentalist one.
The Persian Gulf region is home to no-less than twelve royal families of Arab descent. I have chosen to not include the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, even though they descend from the Arabian Peninsula, because King Abdullah is not sitting on a mountain of oil. The royal families of Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman are in a class of wealth all to themselves. In the 1980s, when it became fashionable to flaunt money, media stories of Arab Shaykhs purchasing private jumbo jets, Beverly Hills property and entire retail store chains were a regular part of the news cycle. The environment has become a bit more discreet. The ruling families of the Gulf region are traditional and conservative, but it is an Islamic brand of conservatism that bears little resemblance to the Heritage Foundation and the Koch brothers. They must conduct a daily balancing act, between the need to be loyal to Islam and the fear of revolution from Islamic traditionalist within their own countries. All of the Gulf states have traditionally been allies of the United States and Europe. Americans and Europeans are the largest consumers of Arab oil (China may have moved into first place recently, but I don't think so), and the West has always more or less guaranteed the security of the various Gulf monarchies. One fact that you can bet on: the Gulf states close the wagons when necessary and will do what it takes to protect one another. In 1990 Saddam Hussein, claiming that the Emirate was actually a province of Iraq, invaded and occupied Kuwait. The other monarchies immediately began utilizing financial resources and diplomatic effort in order to send Saddam packing. They were successful. Today's post will focus on Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain, and tomorrow we will have a close look at Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE.
House of Sabah: The Kuwaiti royal family has extremely close ties to the United Kingdom (as do a number of other Gulf families). Not only does Kuwait sit on top of a significant amount of oil, it also happens to be located in a very sensitive and valuable piece of real estate. All sea-bound Iraqi oil must past through the Shatt al-Arab river at the northern shore of the Persian Gulf (the Shatt al-Arab is more of a confluence of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers as opposed to an actual river). If Iran were so inclined (and the west did not intervene), the Iranian military is more than capable of occupying both the Shatt al-Arab and Kuwait, which would give the Iranians control of a nice chunk of the world's exportable petroleum. The Sabah family is actually not nearly as conservative as some of the other Gulf families. Recently, women were allowed to stand for Parliament (a rump Parliament totally subservient to the Sabah family, but still, its a start) and suggestions have been made about granting more rights to the thousands of foreign workers in Kuwait (who do all the nasty work so the wealthy Kuwaitis don't have to get their hands dirty). After the nightmare of Iraqi occupation, during which many Kuwaitis were executed, Kuwait made efforts to expand its military and strengthen its border with Iraq. But its a question of manpower. Kuwait will never have a population large enough to support a legitimate army of national defense. So Kuwait stays on the good side of the United States, at least diplomatically. On the other hand, the Kuwaitis allow extremists and fundamentalists to recruit and purchase equipment openly, and appear to support ISIL efforts to depose Bashir al-Assad in Syria. Its a tough choice for Kuwait. The economy flourishes when they allow an open market for services needed by terrorist groups, and the Sabahs have never been fans of the Ba'athists in Damascus or Baghdad. But the Sabahs have gotten in trouble before by trying to play both sides of the fence. If they allow enough of a presence of terrorists and like scum into Kuwait City (ostensibly for business purposes), they just might find themselves thrown out of the Palace by ISIL or Al Qaeda. And I for one would leave them to their devices.
House of Thani: I have always had a particular fascination for the Thani family and Qatar. Similar to the royal houses of the UAE, the Thanis have been around since the invention of the wheel, and they have always worn the pants in Doha. When Saddam invaded Iraq in 1990, the Qataris were a bit worried that, if unopposed, Saddam just might swallow up little Qatar as well. History and a review of Saddam's true intentions reveal that they didn't have much to worry about, but the Thanis are firm believers in "never hedging your bets". While cultivating a strong relationship with the United States military (Qatar is home to the U.S. Air Force Al Udeid Base, whose location is strategic, to say the least), The Qatari royal family is quite large, in proportion to the total population of Qatar. It is believed that one branch of the Thani family supports the Islamic fundamentalist cause. Terrorists have been known to use Qatar as one giant safe house, with particular terrorists (wanted for murder by Interpol and the United States) actually allowed into the palace to meet the Emir! Qatar does appreciate the money they receive as rent for the large U.S. Air Force Base, and also the protection from the bad guys in Teheran (and Baghdad), but the royal family is very happy to play both sides. One can only imagine if the CIA of old was allowed to conduct one night of multiple renditions in Qatar, how many squealing terrorist pigs we could pick up. One can dream.....
House of Khalifa: The current head of the Al-Khalifa family in Bahrain is Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. Bahrain professes to be a teeny tiny bit democratic, in that issues pertaining to the state and the royal family are debated by the seventeen-strong Ruling Family Council. Unlike the other Gulf states, the Arab Spring of 2011 arrived in Bahrain with a vengeance. The people of Bahrain decided to join the party, and riots broke out in Manama, the capital city. The U.S. Naval Base (Naval Support Activity Bahrain) nor any other U.S. institutions were ever in any real danger. The anger that led to demonstrations seemed to be centered amongst students and young people. The Ruling Family Council, never very popular with the Qatari people, was taken by surprise. Although the situation was eventually brought under control, the Al-Khalifas were both scared and embarrassed. Since then the Prime Minister and government functionaries have been very patient with voices of discontent, and the family has made an effort to appear open to the public. Again, (interestingly enough), the anger of the demonstrators never really seemed focused on the American presence. The people were acting with one voice, asking for more authority in the government and more overall freedom. Bahrain seems more ripe for a Beatles revolution that it does an Islamic fundamentalist one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)