Links: A. ISIS a beneficiary of the Obama/Iran nuclear treaty.
B. Putin assisted with Obama/Iran nuclear treaty.
So, Vladimir Putin heartily approves of the treaty agreed to by the Obama Administration and the Islamic Republic of Iran. In fact, President Obama is quick to praise Putin for being helpful during the negotiations. How quickly we forget who we are dealing with. Have we forgotten the 298 dead civilians from Malaysian Airlines flight 17, whose lives were lost because Putin agreed to use advanced Russian military hardware in the Ukrainian conflict. Unfortunately, he didn't lend the experts who know how to use the equipment, and the result was a civilian airline being mistaken for a military flight. The world understands and excepts this reality, along with many others that show Putin to be a megalomaniacal dictator, intent on returning Russia to the military prominence of the Cold War. Every effort made by the United States on behalf of de-escalation of violence and the end of nuclear proliferation, up to now has been met with cold, hard opposition by Putin in Russia. The Russians never sided with the United Nations in its efforts to force Iran to steer away from militarizing its nuclear research. But now, because Putin approves of this treaty, he's become "a friend". And those of us in this country, including many who have served in uniform and sacrificed limbs for national security, are called "overheated and dishonest" by Obama. And now we are told that the Administration has been working on a "rapprochement" with Russia, and has started putting pressure on the Ukrainian government to be more conciliatory to the Russian-backed terrorists, I mean separatists, who are trying to detach entire pieces of Ukraine for annexation by Russia.
I have no doubt that this Administration did not spend one second considering the consequences of this treaty on the current unstable situation in the Persian Gulf and the Levant. All that mattered was to keep the goal in sight, and the goal in this instance was a treaty of some sort to allow Obama to leave office claiming credit for some foreign policy initiative. I don't understand why he just didn't focus on one of his other, previous foreign policy initiatives; he's had six years so there must be something, right? Fat chance. Our foreign policy over the past six years has been as knee-jerk as a reflex in a doctor's office. Under President's Reagan, Bush, and even Clinton, our government continued the tradition of initiating positive change in the world. The last six years have been singularly about responses, not initiatives. Now for a bit of simple, common-sense. ISIS is a religiously Sunni-affiliated organization, as is Al-Qaida. Iran, with the lifting a sanctions, which conservatively will release as much as one hundred billion dollars to the Iranian treasury, will rapidly become a dominant force in the Persian Gulf. The ballsy involvement with the Houthis in Yemen has already demonstrated this Iranian Administration's determination to expand its international influence. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, who are already suspected of having some funding connections to Sunni extremism, will look upon recent developments as a return to the Battlefield of Karbala. Even if the Iranians were to fulfill their obligations according to this treaty, in five years they would again be free to pursue whatever type of nuclear research they desire. There are a number of questionable facilities that are part of the Iranian nuclear research program, which can have no purpose other than the construction of a nuclear weapon. It would have been nice if our negotiating team had at least requested that the Iranians shut these facilities. But as far as I know, nothing was requested of the Iranians whatsoever, except the need for unannounced inspections. Well, we saw how far that demand went.
Lets welcome Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. to the nuclear arms race. Lets also congratulate Sunni extremists everywhere, who will now be able to use the growing power of Shi'a Iran as a recruiting and fundraising tool. This treaty is so flawed that I think its time I took a sabbatical from reviewing its contents. Instead, I will pick up another debate which is near and dear to my heart. In 1993, President Clinton signed a law making it illegal for active duty military personnel to be armed on base. I can't recall if this law was preceded by some incident involving firearms and active duty personnel, but I can tell you that the United States is not the same country as it was twenty-one years ago. Our Federal Law Enforcement and Intelligence experts stress the likelihood that Islamic extremists are living within our communities, waiting for the order or the opportunity to strike. On a number of occasions, we have already seen that military installations are prime targets. This is the world we live in today, 2015. Our young men and women who volunteer to put their lives in jeopardy for national security, should not be deprived of the ability to defend themselves. Are we supposed to tell these soldiers that we can trust them enough to die for their country, but they can't be trusted enough to carry a weapon on base? What an absurd law. I'm not afraid to state the obvious, and point directly to former President Bill Clinton: if that law had not passed in 1993, its probable that at least some of the victims of Thursday's attack would have been armed. I will leave the rest of that assumption up to the reader.....
Showing posts with label Yemen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yemen. Show all posts
Monday, July 20, 2015
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Jabhat al-Nusra: the evolution of Al-Qaeda and the need for conventional warfare.
Link: Tension between Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS in Syria.
We have always expressed the opinion that Al-Qaeda and its representative groups, including Jabhat al-Nusra (JN), were really not that far removed from motivations and intentions of the Islamic State terrorist group (ISIS). In fact, we have always been surprised and a bit frustrated at the mainstream media's obsession with separating each and every Sunni-based Jihadi group. No doubt Al-Qaeda and ISIS have done everything they can to perpetuate this idea that these groups work exclusively of each other. This impression encourages the idea that Sunni-based jihadism is much more entrenched in the Sunni community than it really is. We have argued that because of their mutual goals, orientation and teachings, that it was virtually impossible for ISIS and JN to be working against each other. In the last six months, both ISIS and JN have enjoyed tremendous success on the battlefields of Syria, as the regime forces have to defend from almost daily attacks, sometimes from different directions. Although we have gone to some lengths to illustrate the common ideology and genesis of ISIS and Al-Qaeda/JN, we have never discounted the probability that the groups would have disagreements that might lead to actual violence. But we continue to strongly believe that any such conflicts would be temporary (and have actually proven to be so).
An interesting trend that we have noted previously is becoming more visible on the battlefields of Syria. We have discussed in some depth the efforts of ISIS to create an effective conventional military, complete with departments, promotions and letters from home. We opined that the numerous former Ba'ath Party members who had found a home in ISIS, were useful to the group because of the organizational and planning experience and skills that they possessed. For a short time it was popular to consider the idea that the Iraqi Ba'ath Party had some level of influence within ISIS, when actually the opposite is true. These former bureaucrats and armchair Generals of the Saddam regime are survivors, and ISIS just happened to be in the hiring business. Believe me, it has nothing to do with ideology.
But the need for ISIS to recruit individuals with certain skills outside of bomb-making and decapitation is obvious. ISIS has created the first conventional terrorist army, and to keep that army supplied and effective, a support mechanism must exist. Their effort is evolving, and they have met with some difficulties, but their success can't be denied. We have previously explained the justification for the Islamic extremist cause to pursue a conventional army. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the United State Armed Forces proved time and again, that small groups if ill-prepared and inconsistently equipped tribesmen can't defeat a well-trained and well-equipped army and air force (Vietnam was a diplomatic failure but a military success; the American people lost the stomach for daily casualties highlighted by politically-driven new coverage). In 2009, with the apparent successes in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the decision was made to support the creation of a conventional fighting force loyal to Al-Qaeda, and Syria provided the ideal nursery. Al-Qaeda in Iraq had relocated from Iraq to Syria (or should I say they had been "booted out"), so the platform was in place. Fighters were recruited, many from Africa and the West, and equipment was either purchased or purloined from the Syrians. The group changed its name, probably as a purposeful effort to separate itself from Al-Qaeda and strengthen the suggestion that the region was full of Sunni-based extremist military groups. The head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, did move the group away from Al-Qaeda to a certain extent, a move which no doubt infuriated Ayman al-Zawahiri, hold up back in Pakistan somewhere (probably at the Pakistani Intel Service main headquarters), and the link indicates that the two groups are not necessarily coordinating their operations or sharing their battle plans. This mild declaration of independence by ISIS, forgive the phrase, is the reason JN has become so successful on the battlefield.
Al-Qaeda was the original genesis of the idea to create a conventional military capability to pursue the goals of international Sunni Jihad. When ISIS began showing bit of free will, JN, which was in direct contact with the Al-Qaeda leadership and much more representative of the group's most recent persona, began to follow the same plan which proved so successful to ISIS. JN, although on a much smaller scale, started to morph into a conventional military force. In the past, Al-Qaeda has relied on its small size to stay mobile, hidden, and able to strike targets and disappear. JN created a supply mechanism, mostly utilizing its popularity with the local population, that kept its fighters fed and well-equipped. Personnel were selected for various jobs according to background and training, and formalized planning became an integral part of every operation. Communications were strengthened, liaison to the local community were chosen by ethnic background and language skills, and as more fighter arrived on the scene, the variety of military hardware increased. Is it no surprise that JN has been just as successful on the Syrian battlefield lately, if not more, than ISIS. The one life-line that both ISIS and JN rely on seems to be flowing stronger than ever: the financial support from the gulf states. This support is not necessarily directly from the coffers of the various Emirates and Sheikdoms (some is), but it is coming from millionaire and billionaire families with loyalties to the extremist cause. The financial support has increased as of late as Iran and the despised Shi'a stretch their legs in Yemen and Iraq. No doubt some of these fanatics are expecting to re-fight the Battle of Karbala.
As things stand now, ISIS is a much more entrenched and evolved military machine. In size and in capabilities, JN can't hold a candle to the Islamic State forces. But everyday JN grows stronger, and JN has proven to be much more popular with the local communities than ISIS (probably has something to do with the burning of that young Jordanian pilot; families from the Hashemites in Jordan and the rural communities of Syria have a history of good relations). With JN and ISIS both trying to outdo each other in capturing former regime towns, and the Sunni and Shi'a threatening to start an Islamic Civil War in Yemen and Iraq, the West has a bit of breathing room. But once JN and ISIS merge, and they will, and the Iranians pull back behind the walls of secrecy they value so much, we will be faced with a tremendous foe.
We have always expressed the opinion that Al-Qaeda and its representative groups, including Jabhat al-Nusra (JN), were really not that far removed from motivations and intentions of the Islamic State terrorist group (ISIS). In fact, we have always been surprised and a bit frustrated at the mainstream media's obsession with separating each and every Sunni-based Jihadi group. No doubt Al-Qaeda and ISIS have done everything they can to perpetuate this idea that these groups work exclusively of each other. This impression encourages the idea that Sunni-based jihadism is much more entrenched in the Sunni community than it really is. We have argued that because of their mutual goals, orientation and teachings, that it was virtually impossible for ISIS and JN to be working against each other. In the last six months, both ISIS and JN have enjoyed tremendous success on the battlefields of Syria, as the regime forces have to defend from almost daily attacks, sometimes from different directions. Although we have gone to some lengths to illustrate the common ideology and genesis of ISIS and Al-Qaeda/JN, we have never discounted the probability that the groups would have disagreements that might lead to actual violence. But we continue to strongly believe that any such conflicts would be temporary (and have actually proven to be so).
An interesting trend that we have noted previously is becoming more visible on the battlefields of Syria. We have discussed in some depth the efforts of ISIS to create an effective conventional military, complete with departments, promotions and letters from home. We opined that the numerous former Ba'ath Party members who had found a home in ISIS, were useful to the group because of the organizational and planning experience and skills that they possessed. For a short time it was popular to consider the idea that the Iraqi Ba'ath Party had some level of influence within ISIS, when actually the opposite is true. These former bureaucrats and armchair Generals of the Saddam regime are survivors, and ISIS just happened to be in the hiring business. Believe me, it has nothing to do with ideology.
But the need for ISIS to recruit individuals with certain skills outside of bomb-making and decapitation is obvious. ISIS has created the first conventional terrorist army, and to keep that army supplied and effective, a support mechanism must exist. Their effort is evolving, and they have met with some difficulties, but their success can't be denied. We have previously explained the justification for the Islamic extremist cause to pursue a conventional army. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the United State Armed Forces proved time and again, that small groups if ill-prepared and inconsistently equipped tribesmen can't defeat a well-trained and well-equipped army and air force (Vietnam was a diplomatic failure but a military success; the American people lost the stomach for daily casualties highlighted by politically-driven new coverage). In 2009, with the apparent successes in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the decision was made to support the creation of a conventional fighting force loyal to Al-Qaeda, and Syria provided the ideal nursery. Al-Qaeda in Iraq had relocated from Iraq to Syria (or should I say they had been "booted out"), so the platform was in place. Fighters were recruited, many from Africa and the West, and equipment was either purchased or purloined from the Syrians. The group changed its name, probably as a purposeful effort to separate itself from Al-Qaeda and strengthen the suggestion that the region was full of Sunni-based extremist military groups. The head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, did move the group away from Al-Qaeda to a certain extent, a move which no doubt infuriated Ayman al-Zawahiri, hold up back in Pakistan somewhere (probably at the Pakistani Intel Service main headquarters), and the link indicates that the two groups are not necessarily coordinating their operations or sharing their battle plans. This mild declaration of independence by ISIS, forgive the phrase, is the reason JN has become so successful on the battlefield.
Al-Qaeda was the original genesis of the idea to create a conventional military capability to pursue the goals of international Sunni Jihad. When ISIS began showing bit of free will, JN, which was in direct contact with the Al-Qaeda leadership and much more representative of the group's most recent persona, began to follow the same plan which proved so successful to ISIS. JN, although on a much smaller scale, started to morph into a conventional military force. In the past, Al-Qaeda has relied on its small size to stay mobile, hidden, and able to strike targets and disappear. JN created a supply mechanism, mostly utilizing its popularity with the local population, that kept its fighters fed and well-equipped. Personnel were selected for various jobs according to background and training, and formalized planning became an integral part of every operation. Communications were strengthened, liaison to the local community were chosen by ethnic background and language skills, and as more fighter arrived on the scene, the variety of military hardware increased. Is it no surprise that JN has been just as successful on the Syrian battlefield lately, if not more, than ISIS. The one life-line that both ISIS and JN rely on seems to be flowing stronger than ever: the financial support from the gulf states. This support is not necessarily directly from the coffers of the various Emirates and Sheikdoms (some is), but it is coming from millionaire and billionaire families with loyalties to the extremist cause. The financial support has increased as of late as Iran and the despised Shi'a stretch their legs in Yemen and Iraq. No doubt some of these fanatics are expecting to re-fight the Battle of Karbala.
As things stand now, ISIS is a much more entrenched and evolved military machine. In size and in capabilities, JN can't hold a candle to the Islamic State forces. But everyday JN grows stronger, and JN has proven to be much more popular with the local communities than ISIS (probably has something to do with the burning of that young Jordanian pilot; families from the Hashemites in Jordan and the rural communities of Syria have a history of good relations). With JN and ISIS both trying to outdo each other in capturing former regime towns, and the Sunni and Shi'a threatening to start an Islamic Civil War in Yemen and Iraq, the West has a bit of breathing room. But once JN and ISIS merge, and they will, and the Iranians pull back behind the walls of secrecy they value so much, we will be faced with a tremendous foe.
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Back to the Sunni versus Shi'a, a bit of historical perspective.
Links: A. Wikipedia definition of Sunni Islam.
B. Wikipedia definition of Shi'a Islam.
C. Wikipedia's take on the all-deciding Battle of Karbala.
When I first arrived in Iraq, I had little background knowledge on the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'a Muslim. I assumed it would be similar to Roman Catholics and Protestants, and Heaven knows that those two Christian denominations have had a go at each other a few times. But receiving an education regarding the Sunni and the Shi'a in Iraq is just as much about observation as it is having a thick book open in front of you. Throughout Islam (and I'm generalizing; where billions of people are involved, there will always be exceptions), the Sunni have traditionally been perceived as well-mannered and better-educated, which leads to the next logical assumption, that the Sunni are better off financially. The Shi'a have traditionally been closer to nature; the farmers, the less-educated, less erudite. I had Shi'a friends in Iraq tell me that regardless of the Muslim country, the discrimination is waiting for you when you arrive, and it will hang around after you leave. Unlike the historic nastiness between Roman Catholics and Protestants, the schism in Islam has seldom led to large scale violence, at least not until Saddam Hussein decided to gas the Iraqi Shi'a after the first Gulf War in 1991. As a reminder, the Shi'a of Iraq were under the impression that the U.S. Army was going to finish the job and see that Saddam was retrenched for good. For some reason, they believed that if they participated in the fighting against Saddam's Army, that George Bush and the Americans would support their effort. The reality is, they received no support and Saddam used what air power he had available, followed up by T-72s, to gas and crush the Shi'a rebellion. It was never a fair fight, and as much as it pains me to say this, I can't help but believe that we let those people down.
But the cleft in Islam that leaves the Sunni on one side and the Shi'a on the other, is something much more ingrained than political differences. Many Sunni believe that they are intellectually superior to the Shi'a. This idea has been regurgitated for years, and resulted in Sunni communities being built in nicer locations, with nicer homes, better schools, and a better social support network. In Iraq prior to Saddam, the House of Hashim was Sunni, and it was business as usual. Saddam Hussein was very much a Sunni, being from Tikrit, and most of the development that occurred during his reign went into the Sunni community, Baghdad and Anbar Province in particular. This attitude has existed for a long time, with some scholars claiming that its genesis was the Battle of Karbala, between the small group of supporters of Hussein ibn Ali, grandson of the Prophet and the son of Ali, and the army sent by the ruling Ummayid Caliph Yazid I. The Shi'a of 2015 consider the date of this battle, the 10th Muharram in the year 61 AH (Anno Hijra, meaning after the departure of the Prophet and his followers from Mecca to Medina) in the Arabic calendar, and October 680 AD in the west, to be a day of mourning and sadness. If you've ever seen video of large groups of shirtless Muslim men beating themselves bloody with whips and chains, all while slowly marching in step, then you were probably watching an observance of the Battle of Karbala.
We've been speaking about Iraq, but the issue transcends national boundaries. The Shi'a Houthi in Yemen were so frustrated with years of discrimination that they violently removed the Sunni government. For centuries the Houthi of Yemen were subjected to discrimination, which manifested itself in 2015 as lack of access to good jobs, entrance into secondary education, and promotion in the civil service and the military. This glass ceiling exists for Shi'a in most if not all Muslim countries with a Sunni majority (and a few with a Shi'a majority). The point being, the Shi'a Muslims of the world have a chip on their shoulder, and they have reason to be pissed. On the other side of the coin, the Sunni have to be concerned, especially after events in Yemen and Iraq. Everyone is quick to blame Iran, but I think this has as much to do with indigenous frustration than any agitation provided by Tehran. In fact, I think the Iranians have really dropped the ball when it comes to supporting their fellow Shi'a. Iraq is a prime example. The current Iraqi government is pro-Shi'a, the Badr Corps and other Shi'a militias are fighting alongside the Iraqi Army, and the Americans, who have always been a last resort of friendship for the Sunni, are nowhere to be found (at least not in a military sense). The Sunni of Anbar, Diyala, and Salah al-Din Provinces, along with the Sunni of Baghdad, have no savior at the moment.
For all its nastiness, Daesh is a Sunni movement. As they continue to occupy Sunni communities in Iraq, I can assure you that they are telling horror stories about what will happen if the Shi'a take over. What little bit of deference that the Sunnis enjoyed over the Shi'a in the hell hole known as Iraq, will be ever. In fact, Daesh will tell the residents of Fallujah, Ramadi and Habaniyah that the Shi'a will expect a bit of payback. With the Iraqi Army currently co-opted by the Shi'a militias and laying siege to Ramadi, the Sunnis would be out of character not to consider the advantages of joining Daesh.
B. Wikipedia definition of Shi'a Islam.
C. Wikipedia's take on the all-deciding Battle of Karbala.
When I first arrived in Iraq, I had little background knowledge on the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'a Muslim. I assumed it would be similar to Roman Catholics and Protestants, and Heaven knows that those two Christian denominations have had a go at each other a few times. But receiving an education regarding the Sunni and the Shi'a in Iraq is just as much about observation as it is having a thick book open in front of you. Throughout Islam (and I'm generalizing; where billions of people are involved, there will always be exceptions), the Sunni have traditionally been perceived as well-mannered and better-educated, which leads to the next logical assumption, that the Sunni are better off financially. The Shi'a have traditionally been closer to nature; the farmers, the less-educated, less erudite. I had Shi'a friends in Iraq tell me that regardless of the Muslim country, the discrimination is waiting for you when you arrive, and it will hang around after you leave. Unlike the historic nastiness between Roman Catholics and Protestants, the schism in Islam has seldom led to large scale violence, at least not until Saddam Hussein decided to gas the Iraqi Shi'a after the first Gulf War in 1991. As a reminder, the Shi'a of Iraq were under the impression that the U.S. Army was going to finish the job and see that Saddam was retrenched for good. For some reason, they believed that if they participated in the fighting against Saddam's Army, that George Bush and the Americans would support their effort. The reality is, they received no support and Saddam used what air power he had available, followed up by T-72s, to gas and crush the Shi'a rebellion. It was never a fair fight, and as much as it pains me to say this, I can't help but believe that we let those people down.
But the cleft in Islam that leaves the Sunni on one side and the Shi'a on the other, is something much more ingrained than political differences. Many Sunni believe that they are intellectually superior to the Shi'a. This idea has been regurgitated for years, and resulted in Sunni communities being built in nicer locations, with nicer homes, better schools, and a better social support network. In Iraq prior to Saddam, the House of Hashim was Sunni, and it was business as usual. Saddam Hussein was very much a Sunni, being from Tikrit, and most of the development that occurred during his reign went into the Sunni community, Baghdad and Anbar Province in particular. This attitude has existed for a long time, with some scholars claiming that its genesis was the Battle of Karbala, between the small group of supporters of Hussein ibn Ali, grandson of the Prophet and the son of Ali, and the army sent by the ruling Ummayid Caliph Yazid I. The Shi'a of 2015 consider the date of this battle, the 10th Muharram in the year 61 AH (Anno Hijra, meaning after the departure of the Prophet and his followers from Mecca to Medina) in the Arabic calendar, and October 680 AD in the west, to be a day of mourning and sadness. If you've ever seen video of large groups of shirtless Muslim men beating themselves bloody with whips and chains, all while slowly marching in step, then you were probably watching an observance of the Battle of Karbala.
We've been speaking about Iraq, but the issue transcends national boundaries. The Shi'a Houthi in Yemen were so frustrated with years of discrimination that they violently removed the Sunni government. For centuries the Houthi of Yemen were subjected to discrimination, which manifested itself in 2015 as lack of access to good jobs, entrance into secondary education, and promotion in the civil service and the military. This glass ceiling exists for Shi'a in most if not all Muslim countries with a Sunni majority (and a few with a Shi'a majority). The point being, the Shi'a Muslims of the world have a chip on their shoulder, and they have reason to be pissed. On the other side of the coin, the Sunni have to be concerned, especially after events in Yemen and Iraq. Everyone is quick to blame Iran, but I think this has as much to do with indigenous frustration than any agitation provided by Tehran. In fact, I think the Iranians have really dropped the ball when it comes to supporting their fellow Shi'a. Iraq is a prime example. The current Iraqi government is pro-Shi'a, the Badr Corps and other Shi'a militias are fighting alongside the Iraqi Army, and the Americans, who have always been a last resort of friendship for the Sunni, are nowhere to be found (at least not in a military sense). The Sunni of Anbar, Diyala, and Salah al-Din Provinces, along with the Sunni of Baghdad, have no savior at the moment.
For all its nastiness, Daesh is a Sunni movement. As they continue to occupy Sunni communities in Iraq, I can assure you that they are telling horror stories about what will happen if the Shi'a take over. What little bit of deference that the Sunnis enjoyed over the Shi'a in the hell hole known as Iraq, will be ever. In fact, Daesh will tell the residents of Fallujah, Ramadi and Habaniyah that the Shi'a will expect a bit of payback. With the Iraqi Army currently co-opted by the Shi'a militias and laying siege to Ramadi, the Sunnis would be out of character not to consider the advantages of joining Daesh.
Saturday, May 9, 2015
Things heating up in Ukraine and Iraq, the Tories sweep elections in the UK, and my book is on sale!
Link: Official Website for Mukhabarat, Baby!
Sometime in the next few days, This blog will return to its usual format. The world just happens to be a very screwed up place at the moment, and there is no shortage of conflicts and social upheaval to write about. In fact, I believe that the wars in both Syria and Ukraine are about to expand, with a terrible price to be paid by the innocent civilians caught up in this mess (I overheard someone at a restaurant last week comment that civilians in the Ukraine have themselves to blame for any casualties because "they've had plenty of warning" that it was time to pack up and get out of Dodge; sometimes people wear their ignorance like an accomplishment). I imagine that the Obama Administration is aware of the worsening conditions on both fronts, as President Obama's legacy is truly in the crosshairs, AS IT SHOULD BE. Our military/diplomatic strategy in both the Levant and the Ukraine are a shambles. We have become a reactionary presence in international affairs, as opposed to proactive, which is what is expected from a world power. I have great difficulty trying to piece together a long-term plan in either engagement. But you can be sure of one thing: no ground troops. Mark my word, and remember, you read it here. We will have boots on the ground, but probably in Yemen before Syria or Iraq. U.S. ground forces (Marines) will be in combat before this Administration packs up and leaves DC. It really won't be that difficult of a political decision to make, because we parse words so effectively in DC nowadays. One can argue that "ground troops" implies regular U.S. Army, therefore, a Marine incursion does not require an admission of change in policy. One way or another, our involvement in international conflicts will increase over the next eighteen months, because the Pentagon and Congress will demand action. Which will provide the Administration with another way out of the "no ground troops" pledge. Just blame Congress....it's always worked in the past.
I spent most of the last evening watching French television air election results from the United Kingdom. I have something called a "French Bouquet" with my Satellite Dish package that allows me to have five channels of mainland French television. Normally French television is awful, especially the variety shows (Pardonnez-moi, grand mere, mais certains de ces actes de varieties francaises sont difficiles a regarder. And I beg your pardon, reader, for the lack of accents; I haven't determined how to change the keyboard just yet). But French documentaries and news programs are informative and usually well-made. Besides, not one U.S. news channel (its not like we don't have enough) was providing a live feed of election coverage. Maybe its because I'm a Satellite customer as opposed to cable, or because I live in the southwest; whatever the case, I was grateful to have French television hier soir. As for the results, I'm still trying to grasp the full meaning behind the near-complete disintegration of the Liberal Democrats and the internecine slaughter of Labour in Scotland by their best buddies, the Scottish Nationalist Party (who hate the Conservatives even more than Labour does). The astounding growth of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) was muted by the antiquated electoral process in the UK. The Liberal Democrats managed 2,415,888 votes, and came away with eight seats in Parliament. UKIP had 3,881,129 votes, and was fortunate to get the one seat that they currently have. But that was to be expected. The real question is whether the UK electorate is moving towards a more Conservative era of government (The Tories and UKIP combined equal 50% of votes cast), or is this a temporary reflex response to recent terrorist events in Europe. With the continued growth of Marine Le Pen and the National Front in France, and Right-of-Center political parties showing increased strength across the board, I interpret this development to be a serious effort on behalf of Europeans to demand a common-sense approach to issues of National Security and Immigration. The world is a much smaller place than it was in 1914 and 1939; television and satellite bring the battlefields of Iraq, Ukraine and Syria into the living rooms of middle-income families, where parents are struggling to ensure that their children will have the opportunity to live life free of constant fear from terrorism. Don't expect this move to the Right to end anytime soon.
I have managed to keep one eye on current events as I continue to sail my ship, the S.S. NewAuthor, through the reef-infested waters of book-marketing hell. When I made the decision to self-publish, I realized that the process would not be simple or free from headaches. But I assumed that self-publishing was one way to ensure that some giant publishing company would not devour eighty-percent or more of the profits from book sales. Early on, I was quite fortunate. I chose to use Booklocker to assist with the conversion process, the printing, and the dissemination of my book to the various booksellers out there. Booklocker has been fantastic and I can't recommend them highly enough. But at the end of the day, everyone who wants to sell more than a handful of books has to go through Amazon; and when it comes to devouring profits, Amazon is just as hungry as any publishing company. But the real difficulty for non-fiction authors who self-publish (I can't speak for fiction writers, who very well may suffer the same fate), is the struggle to become part of the conversation. Publishing companies have staff publicists who create book tours and speaking engagements for authors under contract. Self-published folks have to go knocking on doors, and believe me, you have to have a thick skin. I assumed (big mistake...never assume anything in life) that my personal story, of a career CIA Case Officer who was poisoned while operational, and continued a successful career into Iraq and other garden spots, even while the symptoms of toxic exposure manifested themselves, would be of interest to the mainstream media. Up to this point, I haven't created much interest. The truth is, my book is much more than a story of poisoning. In fact, it was never intended to be a focus on my particular circumstances. I wanted to write about people, the nameless faces who work in thankless environments to collect valuable intelligence for our country, and who seldom receive more than a pat on the shoulder in appreciation. These people are normal folks, just like the ones you go bowling with on Friday night, or sit next to at the local High School football game. It was important to bring a sense of humanity to these hard working people, and I have to say that I believe for the most part that I succeeded. Sure I detail the poisoning episode in my book, but its just one story among many, and I feel comfortable saying that after reading my book, you will have a much better understanding of the Agency's mission and the difficulties and dangers that officers face every in support of our national security.
Sometime in the next few days, This blog will return to its usual format. The world just happens to be a very screwed up place at the moment, and there is no shortage of conflicts and social upheaval to write about. In fact, I believe that the wars in both Syria and Ukraine are about to expand, with a terrible price to be paid by the innocent civilians caught up in this mess (I overheard someone at a restaurant last week comment that civilians in the Ukraine have themselves to blame for any casualties because "they've had plenty of warning" that it was time to pack up and get out of Dodge; sometimes people wear their ignorance like an accomplishment). I imagine that the Obama Administration is aware of the worsening conditions on both fronts, as President Obama's legacy is truly in the crosshairs, AS IT SHOULD BE. Our military/diplomatic strategy in both the Levant and the Ukraine are a shambles. We have become a reactionary presence in international affairs, as opposed to proactive, which is what is expected from a world power. I have great difficulty trying to piece together a long-term plan in either engagement. But you can be sure of one thing: no ground troops. Mark my word, and remember, you read it here. We will have boots on the ground, but probably in Yemen before Syria or Iraq. U.S. ground forces (Marines) will be in combat before this Administration packs up and leaves DC. It really won't be that difficult of a political decision to make, because we parse words so effectively in DC nowadays. One can argue that "ground troops" implies regular U.S. Army, therefore, a Marine incursion does not require an admission of change in policy. One way or another, our involvement in international conflicts will increase over the next eighteen months, because the Pentagon and Congress will demand action. Which will provide the Administration with another way out of the "no ground troops" pledge. Just blame Congress....it's always worked in the past.
I spent most of the last evening watching French television air election results from the United Kingdom. I have something called a "French Bouquet" with my Satellite Dish package that allows me to have five channels of mainland French television. Normally French television is awful, especially the variety shows (Pardonnez-moi, grand mere, mais certains de ces actes de varieties francaises sont difficiles a regarder. And I beg your pardon, reader, for the lack of accents; I haven't determined how to change the keyboard just yet). But French documentaries and news programs are informative and usually well-made. Besides, not one U.S. news channel (its not like we don't have enough) was providing a live feed of election coverage. Maybe its because I'm a Satellite customer as opposed to cable, or because I live in the southwest; whatever the case, I was grateful to have French television hier soir. As for the results, I'm still trying to grasp the full meaning behind the near-complete disintegration of the Liberal Democrats and the internecine slaughter of Labour in Scotland by their best buddies, the Scottish Nationalist Party (who hate the Conservatives even more than Labour does). The astounding growth of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) was muted by the antiquated electoral process in the UK. The Liberal Democrats managed 2,415,888 votes, and came away with eight seats in Parliament. UKIP had 3,881,129 votes, and was fortunate to get the one seat that they currently have. But that was to be expected. The real question is whether the UK electorate is moving towards a more Conservative era of government (The Tories and UKIP combined equal 50% of votes cast), or is this a temporary reflex response to recent terrorist events in Europe. With the continued growth of Marine Le Pen and the National Front in France, and Right-of-Center political parties showing increased strength across the board, I interpret this development to be a serious effort on behalf of Europeans to demand a common-sense approach to issues of National Security and Immigration. The world is a much smaller place than it was in 1914 and 1939; television and satellite bring the battlefields of Iraq, Ukraine and Syria into the living rooms of middle-income families, where parents are struggling to ensure that their children will have the opportunity to live life free of constant fear from terrorism. Don't expect this move to the Right to end anytime soon.
I have managed to keep one eye on current events as I continue to sail my ship, the S.S. NewAuthor, through the reef-infested waters of book-marketing hell. When I made the decision to self-publish, I realized that the process would not be simple or free from headaches. But I assumed that self-publishing was one way to ensure that some giant publishing company would not devour eighty-percent or more of the profits from book sales. Early on, I was quite fortunate. I chose to use Booklocker to assist with the conversion process, the printing, and the dissemination of my book to the various booksellers out there. Booklocker has been fantastic and I can't recommend them highly enough. But at the end of the day, everyone who wants to sell more than a handful of books has to go through Amazon; and when it comes to devouring profits, Amazon is just as hungry as any publishing company. But the real difficulty for non-fiction authors who self-publish (I can't speak for fiction writers, who very well may suffer the same fate), is the struggle to become part of the conversation. Publishing companies have staff publicists who create book tours and speaking engagements for authors under contract. Self-published folks have to go knocking on doors, and believe me, you have to have a thick skin. I assumed (big mistake...never assume anything in life) that my personal story, of a career CIA Case Officer who was poisoned while operational, and continued a successful career into Iraq and other garden spots, even while the symptoms of toxic exposure manifested themselves, would be of interest to the mainstream media. Up to this point, I haven't created much interest. The truth is, my book is much more than a story of poisoning. In fact, it was never intended to be a focus on my particular circumstances. I wanted to write about people, the nameless faces who work in thankless environments to collect valuable intelligence for our country, and who seldom receive more than a pat on the shoulder in appreciation. These people are normal folks, just like the ones you go bowling with on Friday night, or sit next to at the local High School football game. It was important to bring a sense of humanity to these hard working people, and I have to say that I believe for the most part that I succeeded. Sure I detail the poisoning episode in my book, but its just one story among many, and I feel comfortable saying that after reading my book, you will have a much better understanding of the Agency's mission and the difficulties and dangers that officers face every in support of our national security.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Is Yemen, 2015, a renewal of the Battle of Karbala, 680 AD?
Links: A. Saudi military on Yemeni border.
B. Is conflict in Yemen a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran?
No need to get out your history books or almanacs, unless you really want to. The Battle of Karbala was fought in central Iraq in 680 AD, with most religious scholars agreeing that the
violent clash went a long way to settling the question of The Prophet Mohammed's succession. This is important because the two opponents came to represent the Sunni and Shia elements within Islam. Until recently, the two groups seemed to co-exist within an awkward kind of avoidance, although on a few occasions, the international community has been given a glimpse of the emotions involved in the Sunni-Shia schism. Following the first Gulf War, once it became apparent that President George H. Bush was not going to force Saddam Hussein from power, Saddam fired-up what was left of his war machine and butchered thousands of Shia in areas south of Iraq. Saddam was legitimately concerned that the "Marsh Arabs", as these particular Shia were called, were rising up to possibly threaten his hold on power. This was the moment in life that I went over to an Encyclopedia and educated myself on the Sunni and the Shia. Having spent time in Iraq within the last decade, I became familiar with the two groups and the antagonism that basically defines their relationship. Simply put, since Karbala in 680 AD, the Shia have been looking for a little respect. For the most part, the Sunni are considered better educated, more intelligent, and wealthier. The Shia are more the "manual laborers and farmers" of Islam, and they have a tendency to carry a chip on their shoulder as big as Manhattan.
In the last fifty years, the Shia, who are the majority in only two countries (Lebanon being a plurality, folks), have fought fiercely for causes that they support. Following the revolution in Iran in 1979-1980, which deposed the Pahlavi Dynasty, the Shia-led government of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini threw everything but the kitchen sink at Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. Since then, the Shia seem to be more comfortable standing up for their interests. In Iraq in 2005, the Shia were quick to create militias to defend Shia communities and Holy Sites, when it became apparent that certain anti-U.S. groups were going to incite various causes to violence. The Iranians were more than happy to provide training and equipment to these militias, who are even more powerful and active today than they were during the insurgency. The Iranian government, and the Guardian Council in Qom, must be pleased by the expression of free will exhibited by the Shia Houthis of Yemen. The Houthis have been around for sometime, and to their credit, they tried a number of non-violent approaches to the former government over the years, in an attempt to end discrimination against the Houthi community. Eventually they were compelled to resort to violence, and the Yemeni government, already under siege from Al-Qaeda, was a bit of an easy target. Today, as April passes us by, The Houthis are in control of the capital city of Sana, and are strategically positioned to move against Yemen's second city (and port/economic lifeline), Aden. Interestingly enough, just to the east of Aden lies a reasonably large area which is controlled by (Sunni) Al-Qaeda. And just when things couldn't get any more confusing, the Royal Saudi Arabian Air Force, which continues to recognize the legitimacy of the recently removed Yemeni government, has started bombing Houthi forces.
Why do the Saudis care if the Houthis run the table in Yemen? Who knows, they may do a better job than the last few thugs that sat in Sana. Actually, the answer is simple: the Saudis cannot continence a Shia government on the Arabian Peninsula (Bahrain is an island, so it doesn't count), and certainly not with a common border. Publicly, the Saudis claim that they are only trying to restore peace and the democratically elected Yemeni government. The truth is, the Saudis and the Iranians can't stand each other, and the Houthis have been heavily supported by Iran since the beginning. Mark my word, the Saudis will do whatever is necessarily to guarantee that the Iranians do not have a presence on the Arabian Peninsula. Just as I was starting this post, I noticed a news report come across the wire (yes, folks...I'm so cool and important that I have one of those "news wires") that Iranian warships were headed for Yemen. Now that would be an
escalation along the lines of Kennedy and Khrushchev back in 1962. Then, as I was looking for an additional article, I came across The Times Of Israel piece titled, "Iran sends battleships to Yemen amid standoff with Saudis". I had to take a break, I was laughing so hard. A journalist actually WROTE that header, and then added a photo of a warship the size of a shrimp boat flying the Iranian flag! I guess "battleships" ain't what they used to be. Regardless of my welcome moment of humor, be assured that the Iranian navy only has a handful of ships that are capable of sailing as far as Yemen. The people of Aden need not lose any sleep; I can categorically guarantee that tomorrow morning when they wake up and look in the direction of the Indian Ocean, they will not see Iranian battleships on the horizon.
Which brings me to my next point of interest. This is something my friend Jennifer and I have been discussing for a few weeks now. Occasionally the media will release a story that mentions "Saudi ground forces", or "Saudi armor being moved to the Yemeni border". For the moment, this is the most important issue that comes to my mind. The Saudis have committed themselves to some level of conflict by conducting air operations against Houthi targets in Sana and other strategic locations. If the Houthis were to go head-to-head against the Saudi military, the result would be beyond ugly. It would be a monumental mismatch. As far as I know, what was the Yemeni Army is still making noise in and around Aden (Houthis on one side, Al-Qaeda on the other....one hell of a spot to be in). If so, then in all likelihood the Houthis have not taken possession of the most modern and useful military vehicles and equipment. So we are talking about Abrams tanks, state-of-the-art Artillery (trained in the Iraq war), fully-equipped infantry and special forces, support from helicopter gunships and guided missiles, etc., on one side, and the Houthis on the other. A few months back I commented that I had seen a video of the Houthis storming some government building in Sana, and actually saw a guy on a camel, with a musket. Holy Lawrence of Arabia, folks. Well, at least, historically, we are on the right continent.
The Saudis should make short work of the Houthis, and then what? Clean out Al-Qaeda from eastern Yemen? Now here is the potential complication that I have been discussing with Jennifer. Everyone keeps talking about a Saudi ground invasion as if its a simple operation. No way. The Saudi armor is normally home-based in the north of the country and around Riyadh (I'm sure some units are also deployed in the Mecca/Medina/Jeddah triangle). Would the Saudis transport their armor and artillery down west, to the coast, then down the coast road to Yemen? Or is there another route that skirts the Rub al-Khali? Whatever the case, for Saudi Arabia to relocate a military force large enough to finish the job at hand (the destruction of the Houthis), it would involve the mobilization of multiple divisions. All of this activity should be visible for the world to watch on satellite. I have yet to hear any media announce that a full-scale Saudi military build-up is taking place near Najran or Abu Arish. So if it hasn't been noted, then how can it be taking place? Now I'm taking a big chance with this post, because I'm writing it four days before it will see the light of day. Many things can happen since then which would resolve the issues I have pointed out. But as things stand today, from the perspective of this armchair general, I do not believe Saudi Arabia is preparing a full-out ground invasion of Yemen.
B. Is conflict in Yemen a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran?
No need to get out your history books or almanacs, unless you really want to. The Battle of Karbala was fought in central Iraq in 680 AD, with most religious scholars agreeing that the
In the last fifty years, the Shia, who are the majority in only two countries (Lebanon being a plurality, folks), have fought fiercely for causes that they support. Following the revolution in Iran in 1979-1980, which deposed the Pahlavi Dynasty, the Shia-led government of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini threw everything but the kitchen sink at Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. Since then, the Shia seem to be more comfortable standing up for their interests. In Iraq in 2005, the Shia were quick to create militias to defend Shia communities and Holy Sites, when it became apparent that certain anti-U.S. groups were going to incite various causes to violence. The Iranians were more than happy to provide training and equipment to these militias, who are even more powerful and active today than they were during the insurgency. The Iranian government, and the Guardian Council in Qom, must be pleased by the expression of free will exhibited by the Shia Houthis of Yemen. The Houthis have been around for sometime, and to their credit, they tried a number of non-violent approaches to the former government over the years, in an attempt to end discrimination against the Houthi community. Eventually they were compelled to resort to violence, and the Yemeni government, already under siege from Al-Qaeda, was a bit of an easy target. Today, as April passes us by, The Houthis are in control of the capital city of Sana, and are strategically positioned to move against Yemen's second city (and port/economic lifeline), Aden. Interestingly enough, just to the east of Aden lies a reasonably large area which is controlled by (Sunni) Al-Qaeda. And just when things couldn't get any more confusing, the Royal Saudi Arabian Air Force, which continues to recognize the legitimacy of the recently removed Yemeni government, has started bombing Houthi forces.
Why do the Saudis care if the Houthis run the table in Yemen? Who knows, they may do a better job than the last few thugs that sat in Sana. Actually, the answer is simple: the Saudis cannot continence a Shia government on the Arabian Peninsula (Bahrain is an island, so it doesn't count), and certainly not with a common border. Publicly, the Saudis claim that they are only trying to restore peace and the democratically elected Yemeni government. The truth is, the Saudis and the Iranians can't stand each other, and the Houthis have been heavily supported by Iran since the beginning. Mark my word, the Saudis will do whatever is necessarily to guarantee that the Iranians do not have a presence on the Arabian Peninsula. Just as I was starting this post, I noticed a news report come across the wire (yes, folks...I'm so cool and important that I have one of those "news wires") that Iranian warships were headed for Yemen. Now that would be an
 |
| Yemen |
Which brings me to my next point of interest. This is something my friend Jennifer and I have been discussing for a few weeks now. Occasionally the media will release a story that mentions "Saudi ground forces", or "Saudi armor being moved to the Yemeni border". For the moment, this is the most important issue that comes to my mind. The Saudis have committed themselves to some level of conflict by conducting air operations against Houthi targets in Sana and other strategic locations. If the Houthis were to go head-to-head against the Saudi military, the result would be beyond ugly. It would be a monumental mismatch. As far as I know, what was the Yemeni Army is still making noise in and around Aden (Houthis on one side, Al-Qaeda on the other....one hell of a spot to be in). If so, then in all likelihood the Houthis have not taken possession of the most modern and useful military vehicles and equipment. So we are talking about Abrams tanks, state-of-the-art Artillery (trained in the Iraq war), fully-equipped infantry and special forces, support from helicopter gunships and guided missiles, etc., on one side, and the Houthis on the other. A few months back I commented that I had seen a video of the Houthis storming some government building in Sana, and actually saw a guy on a camel, with a musket. Holy Lawrence of Arabia, folks. Well, at least, historically, we are on the right continent.
The Saudis should make short work of the Houthis, and then what? Clean out Al-Qaeda from eastern Yemen? Now here is the potential complication that I have been discussing with Jennifer. Everyone keeps talking about a Saudi ground invasion as if its a simple operation. No way. The Saudi armor is normally home-based in the north of the country and around Riyadh (I'm sure some units are also deployed in the Mecca/Medina/Jeddah triangle). Would the Saudis transport their armor and artillery down west, to the coast, then down the coast road to Yemen? Or is there another route that skirts the Rub al-Khali? Whatever the case, for Saudi Arabia to relocate a military force large enough to finish the job at hand (the destruction of the Houthis), it would involve the mobilization of multiple divisions. All of this activity should be visible for the world to watch on satellite. I have yet to hear any media announce that a full-scale Saudi military build-up is taking place near Najran or Abu Arish. So if it hasn't been noted, then how can it be taking place? Now I'm taking a big chance with this post, because I'm writing it four days before it will see the light of day. Many things can happen since then which would resolve the issues I have pointed out. But as things stand today, from the perspective of this armchair general, I do not believe Saudi Arabia is preparing a full-out ground invasion of Yemen.
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Western Christianity More Determined Than Ever to Self-Destruct
Link: Christians Attacking Christians
"But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another."
Galatians 5:15
I'm sure it happens all year long, but for some reason, I seem to notice it more during Lent. And there is no doubt I experience it more in the United States than anywhere else. I'm referring to the obsession Christians have with bashing each other. Up front, let me say that I have no intention of "being fair". I promise to be as honest as my life experience's allow. I will call it as I've seen it. But first, let's have a look at the Islamic community at war with itself. At present, the Christian world is being given a front-row seat into the eternal conflict between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. Internationally, the Sunni greatly outnumber the Shi'a, and consider themselves to be more enlightened, more educated and more refined. The Shi'a have endured a type of prejudice within the Muslim community which assumes them to be less-educated and backward. In the last few decades, the Shi'a have become much more vocal and aggressive, especially in Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon. The Shi'a Houthi group in Yemen has recently removed the Sunni government from power, and is threatening to draw Saudi Arabia into a conventional conflict in the streets of Sana'a. All the while, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have risen like a phoenix from the ashes, and inflicted repeated strategic defeats on the Islamic State forces in and around Tikrit. Why is this worth mentioning? Because for months, the ISF has been equipped and trained by the United States, and the U.S.-led air coalition has been attempting to provide air cover for operations against the IS; unfortunately for the U.S., during these months, the ISF had its ass handed to them. It was only after Iran provided military advisors and the Shi'a militia became more effective that the tide of battle changed.
Not surprisingly, Iran has received the credit for this change in fortune. An "Intro to Islamic Studies" course will teach even the most rudimentary student that Iran is a majority Shi'a nation, and the flag-bearer internationally and diplomatically for the Shi'a community. The Iranians freely admit to providing support to the Houthis, who were locked in a battle with both the Sunni-Yemeni government and Sunni-based Al-Qaeda, who controls a good part of southern Yemen, along the coast and right up to Aden. I have recently become convinced that Sunni Islamic extremist groups send new recruits to Yemen to receive training for the battlefields of Iraq and Syria. At present, the experience to be gained in Yemen is much more similar to Syria than the experience of fighting in Afghanistan. The established Sunni governments of the Middle East, especially the monarchies, are very disturbed by the spread of Iranian (read: Shi'a) influence and authority, and the timing couldn't be worse. Any day now, the Obama Administration will announce the successful negotiation of a Treaty with Iran, that allows the Iranians to peacefully pursue Nuclear research. No doubt the treaty will call for inspections, but something tells me that the Iranians will be inspecting themselves. So Iran seems to be hitting the crest of a wave, and now the world waits to see if they can successfully surf it on home.
In one form or another, I believe the organized religions of the world are going to have a confrontation. I am hoping it will be a diplomatic engagement that results in greater understanding and peace in our lifetime. If we look at the glass as half-empty, then we must consider a major military confrontation with forces that are attempting to forcibly convert the world to (Sunni) Islam. For practical purposes, the Muslims need to resolve their own issue between Sunni and Shi'a. But lets take look at the other side of the coin, the Christian West. Even though the hearts of Catholicism and Orthodoxy are in Europe, I can't speak for the European Christian community. I realize that pockets of devout believers exist in Eastern Europe, but let's face it, the European Christian actually seems ashamed of their beliefs. If Christianity is going to regenerate itself, in light of the potential threat of an organization like the Islamic State, it will have to take place in the United States. And this is where the real tragedy takes shape. In Europe, you can't find a full congregation anywhere in France, Spain, England or Sweden. Young people no longer get married, and the secular aspect of once-Christian holidays now dominate. Christmas is about Santa Claus and Rudolph, not the Christ-child. Further west, the Obama Administration appears to be hostile to the American Christian community, but they have been careful in their actions. The African-American community, which supports this Administration with over ninety-five percent of its vote, considers religion to be an important part of the family and daily life. So the attacks on Christianity have been subtle and infrequent, except, of course, for the ongoing "Gay Marriage" debate. But when I take a good look at what is taking shape in Syria, in Libya, In Nigeria, in Yemen, in Pakistan, in Egypt, and in Somalia, I shudder for the future of my faith. Regardless of what the left and the ACLU tell you, the United States was founded on Christian values. That is the reason you find God mentioned in the Constitution, and most other legal documents of the time. The founding fathers were not opposed to religion, they were opposed to a "STATE RELIGION". But in the last three to four decades, we have allowed this tiny minority of uber-left Christophobes to remove any mention of Christian values from our schools and from any building that has U.S. government affiliation. The Constitution speaks clearly about a separation of Church and State, which in my mind simply means we cannot have a state religion. The beginning of the war against Christianity in the United States really picked up steam with the campaign against prayer in school. The slippery slope has come into play in force, as now we can't pray for no injuries in H.S. sporting events, or allow religious based groups to make use of school facilities (library for meetings for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes) after school hours. Prepare to spend the night in jail of you attempt to put a Nativity Scene in front of a public school in December.
There is great strength in unity; I know this, and I'm no rocket scientist. The various Christian denominations in the U.S. are perfectly suited to rising together in opposition to the long-term plans of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, and setting the needed example. Where religion is concerned, the American people give generously of their time and money. We should be able to expect Roman Catholics, Baptists (Southern, et al), Protestants (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Unitarians, Anglicans), Mormons, Church of Christ, Pentecostal, Evangelicals of all shapes and sizes, Seventh Day Adventists, and whoever I've left out, to come together and meet this threat, united in our faith that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and that he died on the cross for our sins. I guarantee you, ALREADY someone has a problem with what I've just written. Argh. Recently, I attended a Sunday service of a denomination that is a bit of a mystery to me. They spend most of their Sundays in worship, which is great, and they constitute one of the larger Christian denominations in the United States. And as I listened to the sermon, I heard many things that were familiar to me. In fact, nothing seemed to conflict with what I had been taught as a Catholic. But then it happened. The commentary from the pulpit began to include negative observations about another Christian denomination. Things got back on track, but then it happened again. During the day, in between sermons and during, I noticed a certain amount of comfort in openly criticizing the beliefs/traditions/practices of other Christian denominations (heck, they probably don't even consider these other groups to be true Christians). Now I can tell you in complete honesty that in my entire life as a Church-going Catholic, I can't remember the Priest EVER mentioning another denomination. In fact, in times like these, I think its about time we started discussing Islamic extremism during Catholic services. But what I heard that Sunday, I've never heard in a Catholic Church, although I'm sure it happens. There is no doubt that every Christian denomination in the United States, will occasionally point out what the other "Christians" are doing wrong, "according to scripture". Now if we the opposing side were allowed to defend themselves, no doubt they would interpret that same bit of scripture differently. Its no big surprise that different people interpret religious text differently. No one wants to consider the possibility that all along, they've been thinking the wrong thing. The real nightmare begins when people start arguing about the multiple translations, and should be only translate Aramaic, or also Greek? Now is the time that I stand up in the middle of everyone, and just scream at the top of my lungs, to get everyone to shut up and listen to me.
When did we, as Christians, turn away from the many things that united us, and start focusing exclusively on the few things on which we don't agree? All of the groups I mentioned in the paragraph above (well, almost all) agree on the most important basic tenets of our faith. We believe that Jesus is Lord, and that he is the son of God and that he suffered and died for us on the cross. We believe in the resurrection; that he will return. Jesus is God, God is Jesus, and God is Love. Its wrong to lie, and to steal from your neighbor. Can we agree on that? Murder is arguably the worst crime that a person can commit, although rape and sexual assault is right up there. Are we still on the same page? The age of adulthood, for legal purposes, is eighteen, and we have a Constitution that we use to guide and protect us in our everyday social interaction with each other. We abhor discrimination of any kind, and believe a family is the best place in which to raise a child. See how easy this is? Am I on the right track? Our common beliefs are the glue that hold us together, and one day we very well may have that bond tested by the evil we are watching in Syria and Iraq today. There is no doubt in my mind that both Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State organization are evil. As such, they will use our own bad habits against us, which include our own intolerance of each other. "I don't like Baptists, they don't dance." "Catholics worship false idols". "Pentecostals speak in tongues and don't translate it properly". The list goes on, and on, and on. We have managed to live with each other, to marry one another, and to build families together, all these differences notwithstanding. And we built this country together. We are the only ones that can allow for this destructive process to be reversed. What we are required to do, for the love of our faith, our families and our country, is to search out our commonalities, our special bonds, and when the time comes, we must bring each other close together, so that, united, Al-Qaeda, or the Islamic State, or whoever, will find no quarter here, not as long as they seek to divide.
"But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another."
Galatians 5:15
I'm sure it happens all year long, but for some reason, I seem to notice it more during Lent. And there is no doubt I experience it more in the United States than anywhere else. I'm referring to the obsession Christians have with bashing each other. Up front, let me say that I have no intention of "being fair". I promise to be as honest as my life experience's allow. I will call it as I've seen it. But first, let's have a look at the Islamic community at war with itself. At present, the Christian world is being given a front-row seat into the eternal conflict between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. Internationally, the Sunni greatly outnumber the Shi'a, and consider themselves to be more enlightened, more educated and more refined. The Shi'a have endured a type of prejudice within the Muslim community which assumes them to be less-educated and backward. In the last few decades, the Shi'a have become much more vocal and aggressive, especially in Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon. The Shi'a Houthi group in Yemen has recently removed the Sunni government from power, and is threatening to draw Saudi Arabia into a conventional conflict in the streets of Sana'a. All the while, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have risen like a phoenix from the ashes, and inflicted repeated strategic defeats on the Islamic State forces in and around Tikrit. Why is this worth mentioning? Because for months, the ISF has been equipped and trained by the United States, and the U.S.-led air coalition has been attempting to provide air cover for operations against the IS; unfortunately for the U.S., during these months, the ISF had its ass handed to them. It was only after Iran provided military advisors and the Shi'a militia became more effective that the tide of battle changed.
Not surprisingly, Iran has received the credit for this change in fortune. An "Intro to Islamic Studies" course will teach even the most rudimentary student that Iran is a majority Shi'a nation, and the flag-bearer internationally and diplomatically for the Shi'a community. The Iranians freely admit to providing support to the Houthis, who were locked in a battle with both the Sunni-Yemeni government and Sunni-based Al-Qaeda, who controls a good part of southern Yemen, along the coast and right up to Aden. I have recently become convinced that Sunni Islamic extremist groups send new recruits to Yemen to receive training for the battlefields of Iraq and Syria. At present, the experience to be gained in Yemen is much more similar to Syria than the experience of fighting in Afghanistan. The established Sunni governments of the Middle East, especially the monarchies, are very disturbed by the spread of Iranian (read: Shi'a) influence and authority, and the timing couldn't be worse. Any day now, the Obama Administration will announce the successful negotiation of a Treaty with Iran, that allows the Iranians to peacefully pursue Nuclear research. No doubt the treaty will call for inspections, but something tells me that the Iranians will be inspecting themselves. So Iran seems to be hitting the crest of a wave, and now the world waits to see if they can successfully surf it on home.
In one form or another, I believe the organized religions of the world are going to have a confrontation. I am hoping it will be a diplomatic engagement that results in greater understanding and peace in our lifetime. If we look at the glass as half-empty, then we must consider a major military confrontation with forces that are attempting to forcibly convert the world to (Sunni) Islam. For practical purposes, the Muslims need to resolve their own issue between Sunni and Shi'a. But lets take look at the other side of the coin, the Christian West. Even though the hearts of Catholicism and Orthodoxy are in Europe, I can't speak for the European Christian community. I realize that pockets of devout believers exist in Eastern Europe, but let's face it, the European Christian actually seems ashamed of their beliefs. If Christianity is going to regenerate itself, in light of the potential threat of an organization like the Islamic State, it will have to take place in the United States. And this is where the real tragedy takes shape. In Europe, you can't find a full congregation anywhere in France, Spain, England or Sweden. Young people no longer get married, and the secular aspect of once-Christian holidays now dominate. Christmas is about Santa Claus and Rudolph, not the Christ-child. Further west, the Obama Administration appears to be hostile to the American Christian community, but they have been careful in their actions. The African-American community, which supports this Administration with over ninety-five percent of its vote, considers religion to be an important part of the family and daily life. So the attacks on Christianity have been subtle and infrequent, except, of course, for the ongoing "Gay Marriage" debate. But when I take a good look at what is taking shape in Syria, in Libya, In Nigeria, in Yemen, in Pakistan, in Egypt, and in Somalia, I shudder for the future of my faith. Regardless of what the left and the ACLU tell you, the United States was founded on Christian values. That is the reason you find God mentioned in the Constitution, and most other legal documents of the time. The founding fathers were not opposed to religion, they were opposed to a "STATE RELIGION". But in the last three to four decades, we have allowed this tiny minority of uber-left Christophobes to remove any mention of Christian values from our schools and from any building that has U.S. government affiliation. The Constitution speaks clearly about a separation of Church and State, which in my mind simply means we cannot have a state religion. The beginning of the war against Christianity in the United States really picked up steam with the campaign against prayer in school. The slippery slope has come into play in force, as now we can't pray for no injuries in H.S. sporting events, or allow religious based groups to make use of school facilities (library for meetings for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes) after school hours. Prepare to spend the night in jail of you attempt to put a Nativity Scene in front of a public school in December.
There is great strength in unity; I know this, and I'm no rocket scientist. The various Christian denominations in the U.S. are perfectly suited to rising together in opposition to the long-term plans of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, and setting the needed example. Where religion is concerned, the American people give generously of their time and money. We should be able to expect Roman Catholics, Baptists (Southern, et al), Protestants (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Unitarians, Anglicans), Mormons, Church of Christ, Pentecostal, Evangelicals of all shapes and sizes, Seventh Day Adventists, and whoever I've left out, to come together and meet this threat, united in our faith that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and that he died on the cross for our sins. I guarantee you, ALREADY someone has a problem with what I've just written. Argh. Recently, I attended a Sunday service of a denomination that is a bit of a mystery to me. They spend most of their Sundays in worship, which is great, and they constitute one of the larger Christian denominations in the United States. And as I listened to the sermon, I heard many things that were familiar to me. In fact, nothing seemed to conflict with what I had been taught as a Catholic. But then it happened. The commentary from the pulpit began to include negative observations about another Christian denomination. Things got back on track, but then it happened again. During the day, in between sermons and during, I noticed a certain amount of comfort in openly criticizing the beliefs/traditions/practices of other Christian denominations (heck, they probably don't even consider these other groups to be true Christians). Now I can tell you in complete honesty that in my entire life as a Church-going Catholic, I can't remember the Priest EVER mentioning another denomination. In fact, in times like these, I think its about time we started discussing Islamic extremism during Catholic services. But what I heard that Sunday, I've never heard in a Catholic Church, although I'm sure it happens. There is no doubt that every Christian denomination in the United States, will occasionally point out what the other "Christians" are doing wrong, "according to scripture". Now if we the opposing side were allowed to defend themselves, no doubt they would interpret that same bit of scripture differently. Its no big surprise that different people interpret religious text differently. No one wants to consider the possibility that all along, they've been thinking the wrong thing. The real nightmare begins when people start arguing about the multiple translations, and should be only translate Aramaic, or also Greek? Now is the time that I stand up in the middle of everyone, and just scream at the top of my lungs, to get everyone to shut up and listen to me.
When did we, as Christians, turn away from the many things that united us, and start focusing exclusively on the few things on which we don't agree? All of the groups I mentioned in the paragraph above (well, almost all) agree on the most important basic tenets of our faith. We believe that Jesus is Lord, and that he is the son of God and that he suffered and died for us on the cross. We believe in the resurrection; that he will return. Jesus is God, God is Jesus, and God is Love. Its wrong to lie, and to steal from your neighbor. Can we agree on that? Murder is arguably the worst crime that a person can commit, although rape and sexual assault is right up there. Are we still on the same page? The age of adulthood, for legal purposes, is eighteen, and we have a Constitution that we use to guide and protect us in our everyday social interaction with each other. We abhor discrimination of any kind, and believe a family is the best place in which to raise a child. See how easy this is? Am I on the right track? Our common beliefs are the glue that hold us together, and one day we very well may have that bond tested by the evil we are watching in Syria and Iraq today. There is no doubt in my mind that both Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State organization are evil. As such, they will use our own bad habits against us, which include our own intolerance of each other. "I don't like Baptists, they don't dance." "Catholics worship false idols". "Pentecostals speak in tongues and don't translate it properly". The list goes on, and on, and on. We have managed to live with each other, to marry one another, and to build families together, all these differences notwithstanding. And we built this country together. We are the only ones that can allow for this destructive process to be reversed. What we are required to do, for the love of our faith, our families and our country, is to search out our commonalities, our special bonds, and when the time comes, we must bring each other close together, so that, united, Al-Qaeda, or the Islamic State, or whoever, will find no quarter here, not as long as they seek to divide.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Just How Much Separation Really Exists Between Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State? (Part II)
Links: A. Conflict Between Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.
B. Are Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State at War?
I believe that Yemen and Iraq, and possibly locations in Pakistan and Africa, are currently being utilized as training locations for the IS foot soldier. Intelligence services have already located a number of locations in Iraq which are suspected of being training centers of IS, but I believe that Yemen should be added to the list. Those who disagree with me with point out that AQ already uses Yemen as a "breaking-in" location for its members. No doubt AQ continues to conduct certain types of training in Yemen, alongside the IS. In fact, I believe that they are one and the same. We will know soon enough. Eventually a few IS prisoners of war from the Iraq and Syria conflict will, during interrogation, mention travel to Yemen for training purposes. If I'm correct, hopefully this will be the catalyst for the west to stop the damaging and wasteful routine of differentiating between these Sunni Muslim extremist groups. I do not buy into the narrative that the leader of Khorasan is angry at al-Baghdadi, so the IS and Khorasan can't be friends, or that AQ is embarrassed by the number of young men who were decapitated by IS this week, so AQ can't be tainted by association. Believe me, at the end of the day, that AK47 will be pointed at you and I and our children, it will not be pointed at another extremist. I might be a bit more sympathetic to the argument that major rifts exist between various Sunni Muslim extremist groups, if I could be presented with hard evidence. Social media captures aren't worth a bucket of shit, and neither are rumors that someone from one group shot up a few people from another group.
Islamic extremism is a giant of a beast, but at present, it has only one head, and that is Ayman al-Zawahiri. Beneath that head, a number of phalanges are jockeying, positioning themselves to move into the void once the sixty-three year old Zawahiri finally floats off to meet his virgins (we might just find him as well). For anyone who argues that these groups are not fighting together with a unique, singular goal in mind, I would ask them to please have look at the state of affairs in the world today. I cannot recall a time in my life when terrorism was so rampant and so conventional. Our military is handicapped by an Administration made up of political appointees and outright amateurs, and every move we make is reactive. Not surprisingly, the same can be said for our efforts and strategy in the Ukraine. When IS originally became aggressive in Iraq, our attempt at being an ally resulted in an entire Iraqi Army Corps deserting the field of battle, and people scurrying out of Baghdad as if it were Atlanta before Sherman came to town. The Iranians step in, and IS appears to be in retreat. The case is different in Syria, which is almost impossible to evaluate effectively. The IS (and AQ) are active in Tunisia, Libya, and various other countries in Africa. Its interesting to note that the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram recently declared its allegiance to the IS. Well guess what folks; Boko Haram has already declared its loyalty to AQ. Really, what is the difference? Both groups are working in the same arena towards the same goal: the destruction of the west and Israel. You can put all that Caliphate bullshit into the backseat. No doubt Mr. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi envisions himself as the Caliph in such a manifestation, but Zawahiri sees it for what it is: just another story in a sea of distractions, that keep the infidels from unifying their aim at the singular target.
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.
Monday, February 23, 2015
Why Has ISIS/ISIL Been So Successful? (Part II)
(Part II)
Another reason that the IS has been successful is that it Islamic Extremism does not consist of a handful of disparate, arguing, selfish groups that can't ever get on the same page. I believe that once we get past all the bullshit, we will discover that one command structure exists for Khorasan, Al-Nusra and the IS. The little identity game they play has already caused problems for the "air campaign" coalition, as certain Gulf States have refused to participate in targeted bombing raids because they weren't comfortable with the target. The reality is, the IS has grown stronger because the Extremist cause has learned the importance of supporting one another. AQIM will support Boko Haram, just as the Taliban support Al-Qaeda. Unfortunately, the bad guys are finally grasping the ancient cliché that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (from a Muslim prince, by the way). Recently, the world was focused on Yemen (for about seven minutes). Al-Qaeda, who control a good part of the southern coast east of Aden and up to the border with Oman, have been utilizing Yemen as a training environment for new recruits. Once we are in a position to interview (we don't use the word interrogate anymore)some of the IS soldiers who surrender in Syria after a battle, it will be fascinating to determine just how many of them had previous training assignments in Yemen. Any Islamic Extremist who has trained in Yemen is affiliated with Al-Qaeda, so the discovery of a Syrian battlefield of veterans of the AQ training module in Arabia Felix, will destroy the myth that Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are distinctly separate terrorist groups.
I believe that the willingness and ability of Islamic Extremist groups to modernize and take full advantage of the advances made in telecommunications has been the most important part of their success. That, and their use of Social Media has positively affected just about everything else they try to accomplish. I am saving another important factor for last. The Islamic Extremist cause was forced to adapt in a constantly evolving, modern world. George Bush recognized this fact, and following September 11, 2001, Bush (and the Pentagon, I assume) realized that to force Al-Qaeda into a conventional war would require all of its resources and would eventually cripple the organization. And the only way to force Al-Qaeda into a conventional war, was to take the conflict to a Muslim country. Iraq was the perfect patsy, and even provided justification (let's face it, Saddam had been breaking U.N. prohibitions for years). The United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and although things did not always go smoothly, (Abu Ghraib, the Sunni Insurgency) The U.S. military left Al-Qaeda crippled and down for the count. Unfortunately, the American people voted for an Administration with an entirely different perspective regarding U.S. obligation and debt to the Muslim world. The message that we would be basically inactive for some time (with the exception of finding Bin Laden, which was nothing more than a political tool) was telegraphed to the Gulf States, North Africa and beyond. Al-Qaeda was allowed to lick its wounds and rebuild. Bin Laden structured his organization so that his death would not impact the long-term plans of the group. At this point, something pivotal occurred: Ayman al-Zawahiri became the go-to man. Why is this so pivotal? Because Zawahiri is arguably brilliant, and he spent his cave-time as number two, analyzing the history and strategy of the conflict, and creating a map to victory. First and foremost, the Islamic Extremist cause had to create a conventional military element; and army, for lack of a better term. AQIM had risen from the dust or far west Iraq and had inserted itself into the Syrian conflict, as "the Islamic State for Iraq and al-Sham", and later to "the Islamic State for the Levant"; but make no mistake - Baghdadi or no Baghdadi, this group looks west to the mountainous region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, to a shrunken, tiny old Egyptian Doctor, for their guidance and leadership.
The decision to adopt a more formal approach to the struggle was not accomplished overnight. In fact, it would be wise to assume that the Islamic Extremist cause continues to keep a smaller, discreet more typical capability on hand. But after embracing the move to a more conventional model, the call went out for recruits. A legitimate army must have soldiers, and Yemen was the location chosen to train the new recruits. Why else would Al-Qaeda be devoting so many resources to that rocky, barren, stinky, qat-obsessed little dump? The Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Iraq have provided training-under fire at one time or another. The options have become a bit more limited as of late, with Yemen and Iraq getting special attention. Surprisingly (at least to me), the bad guys have taken to the idea of conventional warfare quite quickly. IS units in the field appear to be well-fed, supplied and rested. Just last week, the IS launched a mini-offensive in Anbar Province that took the Iraqi military by complete surprise. This offensive was coordinated with attacks south of Tikrit and Samarah. The IS is attempting to cut off Iraqi military units and Shi'a militia in place around Baiji, and the manner in which the offensive was conducted (the IS waited until the weather was overcast, to limit the impact of coalition air attacks. As you read this, the IS is causing some serious headaches in Tehran, which is really such a shame. Just when the Iranians were preparing to storm our embassy a second time (on this occasion, in the guise of a treaty with the United States regarding Iranian nuclear ambitions), the IS has to start making noise in a province that borders the Islamic Republic Of Iran. What is truly interesting is that all of the Islamic Extremist groups are beginning to show signs of military discipline and planning. Certainly Boko Haram and AQIM function in this manner. After the death of Bin Laden, I believe Zawahiri made the decision to start infusing techniques of modern warfare and the benefits of the twenty-first century into the Islamic Extremist gameplan. Does the current environment support my theory? Isolated attacks in Paris, London, Boston, Sydney and Copenhagen, Boko Haram acting with impunity in Central and West Africa, the IS running a bit wild in Iraq and pushing the envelope in Syria, and real concerns about a well-funded, organized (surprised?) IS beginning to stretch its legs in Libya. I guess they were just waiting for the dust to clear. Certainly the almost complete disappearance of the United States in the battle against Islamic Extremism has contributed to this high-water mark, but the changing of the guard must have had an impact as well.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Why Has ISIS/ISIL Been So Successful? (Part I)
Links A. Stratfor Assessment Of The Islamic State
B. IS Tweets Itself To Success
C. Obama Haunted By Yemen Comments
Please take the time to visit the links I have chosen. Today in particular, they are very useful in support of our discussion. Is this really a discussion? Well,.....I hope the post will stimulate conversation between you and your colleagues/family/friends, during which you present my perspective, which inserts me into your discussion. Ideally, that's the way it works. To be honest, I wouldn't want to be present during everyone's conversations, because people might yell at me and call me a fascist, which would hurt my feelings.
Next to the debate about Bruce/Belinda Jenner, I think the most pondered question has been, how did the Islamic State become so powerful? Its a truly fascinating issue, one that involves many factors. I will approach the subject with the confidence of a blogger with six months of my own attitude and opinion to back me up. Our society has seen Terrorist Groups come and go. Some have died away, others have ended up in jail. A few have re-made themselves into peaceful political participants (the Sandinistas, Hamas, Hezbollah), but the peaceful part seems to be a flexible description, especially in the case of Hamas and Hezbollah. Our friends with Hezbollah have managed to involve themselves in the conflict against the Islamic State (IS). You see, Hezbollah has been snuggling with de facto Syrian President Bashir al-Assad for some time, and his father before him (gross!). When Lebanon became a proxy state for Syria, Hezbollah flourished at the discretion of Assad in Damascus. To their credit, Hezbollah has been on the front lines in Syria, bleeding by the bucketful for Assad. The IS has given heartburn to just about everyone at one time or another, including the Peshmerga, Syrian Kurds, SAF, IAF, Shi'ite militias, and even the Iranians. As we've pointed out previously (and was repeated word for word by numerous sites with no attribution......assholes), the Islamic State used to be Al-Qaeda in Iraq, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was still breathing. So even the United States military has had its run-ins with the IS. Another point that I continue to make repeatedly but has yet to catch on, is that all of these Sunni-based Islamic Terrorist Groups are connected. Assigning different names and creating the impression that one group is actually ten or fifteen, increases fear and knee-jerk reactions from the west, which usually leads to mistakes of one kind or another. The leader of Al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian physician and former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, is the top dog as far as I'm concerned. Since these groups operate with such apparent independence, I don't expect Zawahiri to act as the CEO or CIC of Islamic Extremism. But they do work together. Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) is aware what is happening is Syria, and Boko Haram is in regular communication with bad guys in Libya. Al-Shabaab in Somalia and Kenya follows the company line, and has been doing yeoman's work as of late recruiting in the townships of Nairobi. I see the military wing of Islamic Extremism to be one entity fighting on many fronts, and the sooner our leaders accept this reality, the better off we will be.
When International Terrorism fist made itself known to the west, it was through the hijacking of airplanes, the kidnapping of bankers and industrialists, and attacks in airports. Even though I was still in short pants, I remember the 1972 Munich Terrorist Attacks. But even the horror of Munich did not truly bring the reality home (unless, of course, you were Israeli). September 11, 2001 made everyone feel vulnerable; this was a group of twenty determined young men, who must have been supported by a much wider network. Terrorism could no longer be thought of as four men with Uzis and one woman with a floppy hat, sun glasses, and a pistol. Terrorism has arrived into the twenty-first century with a resounding thud. They network, the plan, they recon, and they practice. Advances made in telecommunications have made everything easier. If an operation planned for Lagos is short one explosives expert, relief is a phone call (or text, or email, or Skype) away. The bad guys have turned Twitter into a huge propaganda loudspeaker, and the ability of just about every cell phone to take and share videotapes has been invaluable as well. The IS can announce that a hostage was just beheaded, and to expect a video within twenty minutes. The press gets prepared, and the video shows up, right on schedule. Islamic Extremists use social media to incite fear; they are thrilled with the idea that their disgusted videos are causing people to no longer feel safe in their homes. Social Media has also been a boon with regards to recruitment. Today I learned that supporters of the IS (or bored, sick people) have been tweeting the wives of soldiers, and you can imagine what is being said. Social Media has made planning, organizing, supply, communication, recruitment, and the spread of propaganda so much easier than before. This is a big part of their success.
Click here to continue on to Part II of this post
B. IS Tweets Itself To Success
C. Obama Haunted By Yemen Comments
Please take the time to visit the links I have chosen. Today in particular, they are very useful in support of our discussion. Is this really a discussion? Well,.....I hope the post will stimulate conversation between you and your colleagues/family/friends, during which you present my perspective, which inserts me into your discussion. Ideally, that's the way it works. To be honest, I wouldn't want to be present during everyone's conversations, because people might yell at me and call me a fascist, which would hurt my feelings.
Next to the debate about Bruce/Belinda Jenner, I think the most pondered question has been, how did the Islamic State become so powerful? Its a truly fascinating issue, one that involves many factors. I will approach the subject with the confidence of a blogger with six months of my own attitude and opinion to back me up. Our society has seen Terrorist Groups come and go. Some have died away, others have ended up in jail. A few have re-made themselves into peaceful political participants (the Sandinistas, Hamas, Hezbollah), but the peaceful part seems to be a flexible description, especially in the case of Hamas and Hezbollah. Our friends with Hezbollah have managed to involve themselves in the conflict against the Islamic State (IS). You see, Hezbollah has been snuggling with de facto Syrian President Bashir al-Assad for some time, and his father before him (gross!). When Lebanon became a proxy state for Syria, Hezbollah flourished at the discretion of Assad in Damascus. To their credit, Hezbollah has been on the front lines in Syria, bleeding by the bucketful for Assad. The IS has given heartburn to just about everyone at one time or another, including the Peshmerga, Syrian Kurds, SAF, IAF, Shi'ite militias, and even the Iranians. As we've pointed out previously (and was repeated word for word by numerous sites with no attribution......assholes), the Islamic State used to be Al-Qaeda in Iraq, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was still breathing. So even the United States military has had its run-ins with the IS. Another point that I continue to make repeatedly but has yet to catch on, is that all of these Sunni-based Islamic Terrorist Groups are connected. Assigning different names and creating the impression that one group is actually ten or fifteen, increases fear and knee-jerk reactions from the west, which usually leads to mistakes of one kind or another. The leader of Al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian physician and former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, is the top dog as far as I'm concerned. Since these groups operate with such apparent independence, I don't expect Zawahiri to act as the CEO or CIC of Islamic Extremism. But they do work together. Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) is aware what is happening is Syria, and Boko Haram is in regular communication with bad guys in Libya. Al-Shabaab in Somalia and Kenya follows the company line, and has been doing yeoman's work as of late recruiting in the townships of Nairobi. I see the military wing of Islamic Extremism to be one entity fighting on many fronts, and the sooner our leaders accept this reality, the better off we will be.
When International Terrorism fist made itself known to the west, it was through the hijacking of airplanes, the kidnapping of bankers and industrialists, and attacks in airports. Even though I was still in short pants, I remember the 1972 Munich Terrorist Attacks. But even the horror of Munich did not truly bring the reality home (unless, of course, you were Israeli). September 11, 2001 made everyone feel vulnerable; this was a group of twenty determined young men, who must have been supported by a much wider network. Terrorism could no longer be thought of as four men with Uzis and one woman with a floppy hat, sun glasses, and a pistol. Terrorism has arrived into the twenty-first century with a resounding thud. They network, the plan, they recon, and they practice. Advances made in telecommunications have made everything easier. If an operation planned for Lagos is short one explosives expert, relief is a phone call (or text, or email, or Skype) away. The bad guys have turned Twitter into a huge propaganda loudspeaker, and the ability of just about every cell phone to take and share videotapes has been invaluable as well. The IS can announce that a hostage was just beheaded, and to expect a video within twenty minutes. The press gets prepared, and the video shows up, right on schedule. Islamic Extremists use social media to incite fear; they are thrilled with the idea that their disgusted videos are causing people to no longer feel safe in their homes. Social Media has also been a boon with regards to recruitment. Today I learned that supporters of the IS (or bored, sick people) have been tweeting the wives of soldiers, and you can imagine what is being said. Social Media has made planning, organizing, supply, communication, recruitment, and the spread of propaganda so much easier than before. This is a big part of their success.
Click here to continue on to Part II of this post
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Review Of The Fight Against Islamic Extremism since 2009
Link: A. What Is Our Strategy To Defeat Terrorism?
B. After Paris, Will Obama Administration Move Against Terrorism?
Barrack Obama has been in office since January 2009. In 2008, his campaign for the White House targeted the Bush Administration's Foreign Policy, as opposed to the ideas and platform of his opponent, Senator John McCain. Obama had a field day going after Bush, who was an easy target. What is it about the Bushes, that they seem so incompetent when it comes to self-defense? I remember when Bush Senior, while expressing indignation at the Clinton Campaign in 1992, could find nothing harsher than "Bozos" to call his detractors. Ouch? Obama criticized the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and openly hypothesized that Bush's "personal" obsession with Saddam Hussein was the reason we had yet to catch Osama Bin-Laden. The Democrats were energized, and were absolutely focused and driven in recruiting new voters and getting them to the polls. I can recall Obama's criticism of Bush quite clearly; what I can't remember is an Obama anti-terrorism plan. Was he planning on pulling the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and using the resources to exclusively search for Bin Laden? Can anyone help me out here? In 2008, during the election, what were Obama's intentions regarding Al-Qaeda? It must have been in the Party Platform that was agreed upon at the convention. I am anxious to determine just how closely Obama followed his own plan.
The truth is, there wasn't a plan. What was important was getting the troops out of Iraq. I can't fault the Administration there; the American people were more than ready to turn the page on that chapter as well. But if my memory serves me correctly, the Democrats and the left never really separated Afghanistan and Iraq. The plan was to disengage from both countries at the earliest opportunity. Once Obama was in office, he realized that Afghanistan was going to be a bit trickier than Iraq, which explains why we are still there. Another issue that was important to Obama (and something he openly intended to do all along) was the closing of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. You can bet your last Cuban peso that Guantanamo will be closed before he leaves office. But aside from the departure from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the closing of Guantanamo, what policy or
plan did Obama have for dealing with Al-Qaeda and the like? The apology-tour must have been part of someone's plan, because something like that doesn't get decided over night. Strange that during the campaign, he didn't announce his intention to travel to the Middle East, apologizing about the brutish behavior and U.S. history of bullying, to anyone who would listen. And no doubt, behind closed doors, he also announced that Israel would no longer be getting a "free ride", and that the Arabs and Palestinians finally had a friend in the White House. I'm positive this message was shared, if not by Obama directly, then by Hillary and her team of State Department apologists. The coup de grace was Obama's speech in Cairo. Obama certainly has some strong feelings about the history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, but did he mention any of this during the campaign? I don't think the American people would have taken well to our president groveling in front of this particular group of people. Did I say grovel? Remember, this is only my opinion. I saw his attitude as an effort to make the United States appear as a racist, guilty, internally-broken country.
Instead of over-analyzing President Obama, let's get back to the review of terrorism in the world since he took office. Let's do this by continent, shall we?
B. After Paris, Will Obama Administration Move Against Terrorism?
Barrack Obama has been in office since January 2009. In 2008, his campaign for the White House targeted the Bush Administration's Foreign Policy, as opposed to the ideas and platform of his opponent, Senator John McCain. Obama had a field day going after Bush, who was an easy target. What is it about the Bushes, that they seem so incompetent when it comes to self-defense? I remember when Bush Senior, while expressing indignation at the Clinton Campaign in 1992, could find nothing harsher than "Bozos" to call his detractors. Ouch? Obama criticized the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and openly hypothesized that Bush's "personal" obsession with Saddam Hussein was the reason we had yet to catch Osama Bin-Laden. The Democrats were energized, and were absolutely focused and driven in recruiting new voters and getting them to the polls. I can recall Obama's criticism of Bush quite clearly; what I can't remember is an Obama anti-terrorism plan. Was he planning on pulling the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and using the resources to exclusively search for Bin Laden? Can anyone help me out here? In 2008, during the election, what were Obama's intentions regarding Al-Qaeda? It must have been in the Party Platform that was agreed upon at the convention. I am anxious to determine just how closely Obama followed his own plan.
The truth is, there wasn't a plan. What was important was getting the troops out of Iraq. I can't fault the Administration there; the American people were more than ready to turn the page on that chapter as well. But if my memory serves me correctly, the Democrats and the left never really separated Afghanistan and Iraq. The plan was to disengage from both countries at the earliest opportunity. Once Obama was in office, he realized that Afghanistan was going to be a bit trickier than Iraq, which explains why we are still there. Another issue that was important to Obama (and something he openly intended to do all along) was the closing of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. You can bet your last Cuban peso that Guantanamo will be closed before he leaves office. But aside from the departure from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the closing of Guantanamo, what policy or
 |
| Barak Obama at Cairo Univ. 6/4/2009 Source: The Official White House Photostream-Flickr |
Instead of over-analyzing President Obama, let's get back to the review of terrorism in the world since he took office. Let's do this by continent, shall we?
- North America: The attack at the Boston Marathon was handled brilliantly by local authorities and because of this, the casualty rate was low. The FBI has disrupted a number of planned domestic attacks; remember, the news media doesn't always know what's happening behind the scenes.
- South America: The Islamic Extremist community has been involved in criminal activity in South America for sometime. Both Hamas and Hezbollah have a history of operating in the Tri-Border Region (Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina), and recently Al-Qaeda has arrived. Since the 1994 terrorist attack at the Jewish community office in Buenos Aires, the majority of the Jewish population has emigrated from Argentina. And let's not ignore the fact that a number of South American governments are openly Socialist, and hostile to the United States (Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina).
- Africa: Al-Qaeda is having a field day in Africa. The organization is growing in size and influence in West Africa, and its surrogate Boko Haram has repeatedly embarrassed the Nigerian Army. In the East, Al-Shabaab has become more active in Kenya, taking advantage of the endemic poverty and lack of jobs, to recruit in the townships. In the last few years, Al-Shabaab has successfully conducted a number of high-casualty terrorist operations. They have no fear of operating in Mombasa, and enjoy shooting up the wealthier suburbs of Nairobi. The South African anti-terrorism unit of the SAP had better be keeping a close eye on its townships, especially the ones with high-immigrant populations. Al-Qaeda and ISIS are there as we speak, recruiting jobless, disaffected young men — especially those with military experience.
- Europe: Besides the highly-publicized recent episodes in Paris, the UK has also suffered through a number of terrorist-related attacks. No doubt the governments and police of Italy, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, etc., are keeping tight-lipped about the number of operations they have disrupted.
- Australia: Late last year, Australia suffered is own horrific pro-ISIS attack in a cafe in Sydney.
- Asia, which includes Iraq, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and is just too much for me to tackle in this post. Thank goodness the terrorists haven't reached Greenland…yet.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Where The Hell Is Yemen And Why Should I Care?
Links: A. Yemen on Wikipedia
B. CIA drone kills suspected CIA operatives
Yemen is the Muslim nation that occupies the strategic southwest corner of the Arabian
peninsula. Depending on your tastes, the landscape can be described in various ways. The coasts of Yemen include both barren, rocky cliffs and beautiful sand beaches. The interior of Yemen is mountainous in places, as the Al-Sarat Range bisects northern Yemen. The entire country is defined by a mountainous interior which falls to the sea on one side and to the Rub' Al Khali (the empty quarter) and Saudi Arabia on the other. Not surprisingly, Yemen reminds me of the Dodecanese Islands of Greece. Unless it was raining, Yemen always seemed to be sun-drenched, with little vegetation except for wait-to-shoulder high native shrubs. Principal agricultural commodities include fruit (mangoes), sorghum, grain, cotton, and qat. To use a favorite term from my childhood, the Yemenis grow a "buttload" of qat, and it gets exported everywhere. Travel to Somalia, Kenya, Mauritius, and they will tell you that Yemeni qat is the best. Heck, as far as I know, it may only grow in Yemen. I can't recall ever seeing a woman chewing qat, but I'm sure it happens. Its much like chewing tobacco. You take a few leaves, squeeze together and put them in your mouth, either between your bottom lip and gums or in the pouch of your cheek. When you collect enough spit, you do
what comes natural. Let me tell you, I've seen my share of stoners and potheads, but these qat chewers are just as dedicated. They chew while working, from sun-up until sun-down, and they partake when relaxing. I've been chewing tobacco (dipping) off and on for thirty-plus years, so I had to give it a shot. To tell the truth, I never noticed much except for a bit of a headache that lasted all afternoon. I've heard that its supposed to be a bit like marijuana, but I've never smoked pot, so I can't compare.
Taking a look at Yemen on a map, you can see why I call it "the elbow country": since the end of the civil war between north and south, Yemen resembles an elbow and a bit of a forearm. At one time, Yemen was a much-valued gem in the crown of the Ottoman Empire. The area has always been active in trading, and old history books make mention of the port city of Mocha as being an important location for bartering just about everything under the sun. This is what I love about places like Yemen; it's almost as if time has stood still. An ancient map of this area identifies Yemen as "Arabia Felix", which translated from Latin means "Happy Arabia". That same map, which may be centuries and centuries old, will identify cities that still exist today. No wonder Yemen is a playground for Geographers and Archaeologists. With the arrival of the Europeans, the usual scenario unfolded. Portugal wanted it, as did the British. It was part of the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman for many years, until the arrival of the Ottoman Turks, who created a national border of sorts. The Turks were removed following the end of World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1922), leaving Yemen in the cold, gluttonous hands of the English, who realized that the value in Yemen was strategic, not economic.
Between 1918 and 1967, the territory was in a constant disarray. The British garrisoned a few of the larger towns, but were unable to subdue the tribal forces who were under various different leaders and, of course, were also trying to slit each other's throats. Two treaties were signed with the British (in 1934 and 1940), which effectively decided the issue, although conflict continued. The Yemeni people were able to enjoy a few decades of peace that coincided with the second world war. But in 1967, the southern half of Yemen (Aden), split from the north. This led to a civil war which seemed to go on forever. In May 1990, both sides agreed to unification, and a treaty was signed. Things were looking up . . . and then Al-Qaeda arrived.
Shockingly, Al-Qaeda's presence in Yemen was not part of a plot to kill Americans. Al-Qaeda, which is based on Sunni teachings, became active in Yemen in opposition to the actions of the Houthis, (the Shia Muslims of Yemen). Yemen is one of those Muslim nations with a large population of both Sunni and Shia. As has been the model, for many years the Sunni were accused of keeping the Shia (Houthi) from succeeding in business or participating in government. With a bit of help from Iran, the Houthi armed themselves and started making demands at the end of an AK-47. The Sunni-led government was in a real pickle. Al-Qaeda was active in the southern coastal areas around Aden, but Yemeni President (and Sunni) Hadi could not ally himself and his government to Al-Qaeda because the United States was also in town, and up to that point, had been supporting Hadi in his efforts to stay in power. Believe it or not, the U.S. military largely avoided involvement in the Houthi/Hadi conflict. The U.S. presence in Yemen was for one purpose; to capture and kill members of Al-Qaeda. Your see, Al-Qaeda wasn't in Yemen just to represent Sunni interests militarily, Al-Qaeda was in Yemen to provide training to its operatives.
When George W. Bush and the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2003, we exposed Al-Qaeda's most glaring weakness. Since we forced the issue into Bin Laden's own backyard, he had no choice but to respond. The U.S. military engaged fighters from the Taliban, from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and from other loosely-named but directly AQ-affiliated groups. The bad guys had to funnel all their resources into the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there wasn't much time to plan and conduct another 9-11. But Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri (probably more Al-Zawahiri) realized that the struggle needed something resembling a conventional army. Recruitment drives went into action, especially targeting ex-military in the UK, France and the United States. Recruitment also increased dramatically in Africa. If Al-Qaeda was going to build an army, they needed soldiers. The recruits who showed intelligence were directed towards Al-Qaeda, who continued to be the cerebral part of the machine, while the rest were sent to Yemen, to learn how to be soldiers. The Houthi development complicated what was turning into a war between Al-Qaeda recruits and armed U.S. drones.
This past weekend, the Hadi government fell. The capital of Sana'a is calm, and the Houthi appear to be following through with their pledge to keep the peace. The Houthi are the majority in north Yemen, which bodes well for a bit of down-time to try and group (for all sides). Fortunately, the U.S. military has been extremely discreet when it comes to Yemen. A real effort is being made to locate, target, and kill Al-Qaeda operatives. I don't believe any chances are taken which involve civilians, which at this stage is the correct move. Why is Yemen important? Because Al-Qaeda has decided to use it as a training location for its operatives. As the war in Syria continues, and the connections between Al-Qaeda and ISIS become more apparent, intelligence analysts will start to notice that some ISIS fighters were trained in Yemen, and the overall picture will become much more clear.
B. CIA drone kills suspected CIA operatives
Yemen is the Muslim nation that occupies the strategic southwest corner of the Arabian
 |
| Man chewing qat in Yemen Source: |
Taking a look at Yemen on a map, you can see why I call it "the elbow country": since the end of the civil war between north and south, Yemen resembles an elbow and a bit of a forearm. At one time, Yemen was a much-valued gem in the crown of the Ottoman Empire. The area has always been active in trading, and old history books make mention of the port city of Mocha as being an important location for bartering just about everything under the sun. This is what I love about places like Yemen; it's almost as if time has stood still. An ancient map of this area identifies Yemen as "Arabia Felix", which translated from Latin means "Happy Arabia". That same map, which may be centuries and centuries old, will identify cities that still exist today. No wonder Yemen is a playground for Geographers and Archaeologists. With the arrival of the Europeans, the usual scenario unfolded. Portugal wanted it, as did the British. It was part of the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman for many years, until the arrival of the Ottoman Turks, who created a national border of sorts. The Turks were removed following the end of World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1922), leaving Yemen in the cold, gluttonous hands of the English, who realized that the value in Yemen was strategic, not economic.
Between 1918 and 1967, the territory was in a constant disarray. The British garrisoned a few of the larger towns, but were unable to subdue the tribal forces who were under various different leaders and, of course, were also trying to slit each other's throats. Two treaties were signed with the British (in 1934 and 1940), which effectively decided the issue, although conflict continued. The Yemeni people were able to enjoy a few decades of peace that coincided with the second world war. But in 1967, the southern half of Yemen (Aden), split from the north. This led to a civil war which seemed to go on forever. In May 1990, both sides agreed to unification, and a treaty was signed. Things were looking up . . . and then Al-Qaeda arrived.
Shockingly, Al-Qaeda's presence in Yemen was not part of a plot to kill Americans. Al-Qaeda, which is based on Sunni teachings, became active in Yemen in opposition to the actions of the Houthis, (the Shia Muslims of Yemen). Yemen is one of those Muslim nations with a large population of both Sunni and Shia. As has been the model, for many years the Sunni were accused of keeping the Shia (Houthi) from succeeding in business or participating in government. With a bit of help from Iran, the Houthi armed themselves and started making demands at the end of an AK-47. The Sunni-led government was in a real pickle. Al-Qaeda was active in the southern coastal areas around Aden, but Yemeni President (and Sunni) Hadi could not ally himself and his government to Al-Qaeda because the United States was also in town, and up to that point, had been supporting Hadi in his efforts to stay in power. Believe it or not, the U.S. military largely avoided involvement in the Houthi/Hadi conflict. The U.S. presence in Yemen was for one purpose; to capture and kill members of Al-Qaeda. Your see, Al-Qaeda wasn't in Yemen just to represent Sunni interests militarily, Al-Qaeda was in Yemen to provide training to its operatives.
When George W. Bush and the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2003, we exposed Al-Qaeda's most glaring weakness. Since we forced the issue into Bin Laden's own backyard, he had no choice but to respond. The U.S. military engaged fighters from the Taliban, from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and from other loosely-named but directly AQ-affiliated groups. The bad guys had to funnel all their resources into the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there wasn't much time to plan and conduct another 9-11. But Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri (probably more Al-Zawahiri) realized that the struggle needed something resembling a conventional army. Recruitment drives went into action, especially targeting ex-military in the UK, France and the United States. Recruitment also increased dramatically in Africa. If Al-Qaeda was going to build an army, they needed soldiers. The recruits who showed intelligence were directed towards Al-Qaeda, who continued to be the cerebral part of the machine, while the rest were sent to Yemen, to learn how to be soldiers. The Houthi development complicated what was turning into a war between Al-Qaeda recruits and armed U.S. drones.
This past weekend, the Hadi government fell. The capital of Sana'a is calm, and the Houthi appear to be following through with their pledge to keep the peace. The Houthi are the majority in north Yemen, which bodes well for a bit of down-time to try and group (for all sides). Fortunately, the U.S. military has been extremely discreet when it comes to Yemen. A real effort is being made to locate, target, and kill Al-Qaeda operatives. I don't believe any chances are taken which involve civilians, which at this stage is the correct move. Why is Yemen important? Because Al-Qaeda has decided to use it as a training location for its operatives. As the war in Syria continues, and the connections between Al-Qaeda and ISIS become more apparent, intelligence analysts will start to notice that some ISIS fighters were trained in Yemen, and the overall picture will become much more clear.
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
An Examination Of Al-Qaeda In 2015
Links: A. Who's Left To Lead Al-Qaeda?
B. Al-Qaeda (Arab. Peninsula) Attempts to Counter Drones
I can't recall who was chosen as Time magazine's "Person of the Year - 2014", but the Islamic State (IS) would have been as good a choice as any (as long as bad guys get to play as well). The frequent stories from northern Iraq about mass executions and starving children at least elevated IS to the "most despised" position. The stated goal of the Islamic State is the creation of a Caliphate somewhere in the Levant/Mesopotamia/North Africa/Arabian Peninsula, and in furtherance of that goal, the IS is engaged in a conventional war in both Syria and Iraq. It would appear that the IS has pushed Al-Qaeda not only from the front page, but all the way to the back next to Dear Abby. Our Air Force is in regular combat with the IS, and we are providing military aid to the Free Syrian Army, the Iraqis and the Kurds, so it only makes sense that 2014 came with a steady diet of news on the IS. For those of us who are obsessed with staying informed, the blogosphere is a miracle. I can hop over to www.longwarjournal.org at any time for an update on Al-Qaeda. The truth is, the death of Osama Bin Laden did not lead to the collapse of AQ. Long before Abbottabad, Bin Laden had restructured the Al-Qaeda network of communications and operations, to avoid dependence on any one leader. The virus that is Al-Qaeda is still very active in certain parts of the world. Let's take stock of Al-Qaeda as 2015 begins.
Pakistan/Afghanistan - it would be foolish for anyone to claim that Al-Qaeda is stronger anywhere else in the world than Pakistan and Afghanistan. For reasons of simplification, I consider the Taliban to be "Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan". Does the Pakistani government expect the American people to believe that no one in the Pakistani Intelligence Service or military was aware that Bin Laden and his immediate family were living in Abbottabad? Bullshit. The Pakistani Intelligence Service has a number of very dedicated, decent officers, many of whom are pro-West in political orientation. But it also contains a traditional, deep-rooted vein of support for both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. More importantly, it appears that the people of Pakistan support AQ. How long has it been since an international sampling/polling company like Gallup has provided numbers on the sympathies of the Pakistani people? No need to take a poll....just listen to the people on the street. They hate the British (even though it seems as if half of London is Pakistani), hate the United States and REALLY hate India. Lots of hate going around, which isn't surprising, given the perpetual state of endemic poverty the Pakistani people wake up to every morning. Sadly, I'm losing my sympathy in old age. Stop having so many damn kids, stop electing thieves, and stop spending over fifty percent of the nation's budget on nuclear research and weapons to aim at India. As is my habit, I've gotten off-topic; my apologies. The point is, Al-Qaeda is safe in Pakistan and Afghanistan. At times over the past ten years, we were close to eradicating AQ in Afghanistan. But the draw-down and the confusing policy of the Obama Administration has allowed for a full rejuvenation of AQ influence and control.
Iraq - I don't believe that AQ has any current interest in Iraq, although I have seen reports of recruiting efforts in the Sunni community and also training bases in the far west of the country. As MB pointed out last summer, the IS was actually born of an AQ parent. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, led by the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, began to lose steam in 2007-2008, as the Sunni people grew tired of the violence and constant warfare, and withdrew support. Al-Qaeda in Iraq eventually ended up in Syria and re-emerged with a different name and a different mission. But make no mistake - the IS is a Sunni-based group with numerous similarities to AQ. I have always suspected that the lines of communication between the IS and AQ are much more active than people are willing to admit. It behooves both organizations to make the west believe that the IS and AQ are two separate, very distinct groups working towards a different agenda. It leaves the impression that Islamic Extremism is a growing umbrella movement with room for many, many more, and that agreement on all issues is not required.
Yemen - Al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has been active for over a decade, trying to remove the current government and replace it with...well, AQAP. The conflict in Yemen is a microcosm of the conflict in Iraq. Not only are the Sunni fighting amongst themselves (the secular government against AQAP), but the large Shia population has armed itself and made its presence known. And in the middle is the United States, with a substantial military footprint in Yemen and drones flying around everywhere, looking for AQAP to blow to bits. I understand that the Shia are determined to keep AQAP from succeeding in Yemen, just as the continued presence of U.S. military in Yemen (that includes the U.S. Navy) will keep AQAP pissed off enough to stay in the fight. Yemen has provided Al-Qaeda with the perfect environment to train its new recruits, as AQAP has demonstrated that it is in possession of the latest weaponry (although I'm not sold on the Jiffy-Pop tablecloth as the best way to avoid a drone strike...see link #2).
Africa - Al-Qaeda is very active in Africa, and, unfortunately, very healthy. AQ has a definite presence in Libya, but I am guessing they are playing the same game as us; waiting for the dust to clear. Al-Qaeda has proven to be a very patient organization, which I believe is more the philosophy of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the crusty old psychopath who took over after Bin Laden took a couple bullets to the front right side of his head. Dr. Zawahiri is all about the methodology (he is a physician, after all), and he is probably the one who has orchestrated the "sleeper cell" operation, if one exists (scary thought). Al-Qaeda in Africa is most active under the moniker "Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb", with the Maghreb being that hard-to-define area that is basically west of Egypt and north of Mali, Niger, Mauritania and Chad. Actually, I consider the northern half of Mali, Niger and Chad to be part of the Maghreb. Al-Qaeda has used Islam to propel its message from oasis to oasis and campsite to campsite. In some of the struggling communities they have found a receptive audience. Al-Qaeda's most receptive audiences, though, are in the northern parts of Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, Mali and Niger. These people have been forsaken by their governments for one reason or another (usually because the president and the ruling party are from a tribe of economically successful southerners). Boko Haram, for all its radical ideas, and the Lord's Resistance Army, for all its insanity, have found recruits around every corner. Africa presents an opportunity for AQ to recruit heavily and to create a second base of security (after Afghanistan).
Southeast Asia - Al-Qaeda has always been comfortable in Indonesia and the Philippines, where the government is always in the midst of some new effort to root out the communist insurgency that has been active since Karl Marx was in short pants (or at least seems like it). Indonesia is another country which provides AQ the opportunity to spread its message through the mosques and Islamic educational centers on Java. In the last two decades, the transportation network in this part of the world has grown by leaps and bounds. Flying from Malaysia to Australia, or Singapore to Beijing, or Vientiane to Manila, is as simple as buying a ticket, and the arrival of the no-frills airlines (AirAsia being a good example) has made air travel affordable. This complicates matters for security personnel in every country. Its as if even Al-Qaeda can have conference calls in 2015. Indonesia also presents fertile ground for recruitment, and the mosques have a bad reputation for preaching some really nasty, anti-U.S., anti-Aussie propaganda.
My next post will focus exclusively on Al-Qaeda on Africa, with other geographic locations to follow. I consider Al-Qaeda, not the Islamic State, be the number one international terror threat to the United States.
B. Al-Qaeda (Arab. Peninsula) Attempts to Counter Drones
I can't recall who was chosen as Time magazine's "Person of the Year - 2014", but the Islamic State (IS) would have been as good a choice as any (as long as bad guys get to play as well). The frequent stories from northern Iraq about mass executions and starving children at least elevated IS to the "most despised" position. The stated goal of the Islamic State is the creation of a Caliphate somewhere in the Levant/Mesopotamia/North Africa/Arabian Peninsula, and in furtherance of that goal, the IS is engaged in a conventional war in both Syria and Iraq. It would appear that the IS has pushed Al-Qaeda not only from the front page, but all the way to the back next to Dear Abby. Our Air Force is in regular combat with the IS, and we are providing military aid to the Free Syrian Army, the Iraqis and the Kurds, so it only makes sense that 2014 came with a steady diet of news on the IS. For those of us who are obsessed with staying informed, the blogosphere is a miracle. I can hop over to www.longwarjournal.org at any time for an update on Al-Qaeda. The truth is, the death of Osama Bin Laden did not lead to the collapse of AQ. Long before Abbottabad, Bin Laden had restructured the Al-Qaeda network of communications and operations, to avoid dependence on any one leader. The virus that is Al-Qaeda is still very active in certain parts of the world. Let's take stock of Al-Qaeda as 2015 begins.
Pakistan/Afghanistan - it would be foolish for anyone to claim that Al-Qaeda is stronger anywhere else in the world than Pakistan and Afghanistan. For reasons of simplification, I consider the Taliban to be "Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan". Does the Pakistani government expect the American people to believe that no one in the Pakistani Intelligence Service or military was aware that Bin Laden and his immediate family were living in Abbottabad? Bullshit. The Pakistani Intelligence Service has a number of very dedicated, decent officers, many of whom are pro-West in political orientation. But it also contains a traditional, deep-rooted vein of support for both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. More importantly, it appears that the people of Pakistan support AQ. How long has it been since an international sampling/polling company like Gallup has provided numbers on the sympathies of the Pakistani people? No need to take a poll....just listen to the people on the street. They hate the British (even though it seems as if half of London is Pakistani), hate the United States and REALLY hate India. Lots of hate going around, which isn't surprising, given the perpetual state of endemic poverty the Pakistani people wake up to every morning. Sadly, I'm losing my sympathy in old age. Stop having so many damn kids, stop electing thieves, and stop spending over fifty percent of the nation's budget on nuclear research and weapons to aim at India. As is my habit, I've gotten off-topic; my apologies. The point is, Al-Qaeda is safe in Pakistan and Afghanistan. At times over the past ten years, we were close to eradicating AQ in Afghanistan. But the draw-down and the confusing policy of the Obama Administration has allowed for a full rejuvenation of AQ influence and control.
Iraq - I don't believe that AQ has any current interest in Iraq, although I have seen reports of recruiting efforts in the Sunni community and also training bases in the far west of the country. As MB pointed out last summer, the IS was actually born of an AQ parent. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, led by the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, began to lose steam in 2007-2008, as the Sunni people grew tired of the violence and constant warfare, and withdrew support. Al-Qaeda in Iraq eventually ended up in Syria and re-emerged with a different name and a different mission. But make no mistake - the IS is a Sunni-based group with numerous similarities to AQ. I have always suspected that the lines of communication between the IS and AQ are much more active than people are willing to admit. It behooves both organizations to make the west believe that the IS and AQ are two separate, very distinct groups working towards a different agenda. It leaves the impression that Islamic Extremism is a growing umbrella movement with room for many, many more, and that agreement on all issues is not required.
Yemen - Al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has been active for over a decade, trying to remove the current government and replace it with...well, AQAP. The conflict in Yemen is a microcosm of the conflict in Iraq. Not only are the Sunni fighting amongst themselves (the secular government against AQAP), but the large Shia population has armed itself and made its presence known. And in the middle is the United States, with a substantial military footprint in Yemen and drones flying around everywhere, looking for AQAP to blow to bits. I understand that the Shia are determined to keep AQAP from succeeding in Yemen, just as the continued presence of U.S. military in Yemen (that includes the U.S. Navy) will keep AQAP pissed off enough to stay in the fight. Yemen has provided Al-Qaeda with the perfect environment to train its new recruits, as AQAP has demonstrated that it is in possession of the latest weaponry (although I'm not sold on the Jiffy-Pop tablecloth as the best way to avoid a drone strike...see link #2).
Africa - Al-Qaeda is very active in Africa, and, unfortunately, very healthy. AQ has a definite presence in Libya, but I am guessing they are playing the same game as us; waiting for the dust to clear. Al-Qaeda has proven to be a very patient organization, which I believe is more the philosophy of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the crusty old psychopath who took over after Bin Laden took a couple bullets to the front right side of his head. Dr. Zawahiri is all about the methodology (he is a physician, after all), and he is probably the one who has orchestrated the "sleeper cell" operation, if one exists (scary thought). Al-Qaeda in Africa is most active under the moniker "Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb", with the Maghreb being that hard-to-define area that is basically west of Egypt and north of Mali, Niger, Mauritania and Chad. Actually, I consider the northern half of Mali, Niger and Chad to be part of the Maghreb. Al-Qaeda has used Islam to propel its message from oasis to oasis and campsite to campsite. In some of the struggling communities they have found a receptive audience. Al-Qaeda's most receptive audiences, though, are in the northern parts of Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, Mali and Niger. These people have been forsaken by their governments for one reason or another (usually because the president and the ruling party are from a tribe of economically successful southerners). Boko Haram, for all its radical ideas, and the Lord's Resistance Army, for all its insanity, have found recruits around every corner. Africa presents an opportunity for AQ to recruit heavily and to create a second base of security (after Afghanistan).
Southeast Asia - Al-Qaeda has always been comfortable in Indonesia and the Philippines, where the government is always in the midst of some new effort to root out the communist insurgency that has been active since Karl Marx was in short pants (or at least seems like it). Indonesia is another country which provides AQ the opportunity to spread its message through the mosques and Islamic educational centers on Java. In the last two decades, the transportation network in this part of the world has grown by leaps and bounds. Flying from Malaysia to Australia, or Singapore to Beijing, or Vientiane to Manila, is as simple as buying a ticket, and the arrival of the no-frills airlines (AirAsia being a good example) has made air travel affordable. This complicates matters for security personnel in every country. Its as if even Al-Qaeda can have conference calls in 2015. Indonesia also presents fertile ground for recruitment, and the mosques have a bad reputation for preaching some really nasty, anti-U.S., anti-Aussie propaganda.
My next post will focus exclusively on Al-Qaeda on Africa, with other geographic locations to follow. I consider Al-Qaeda, not the Islamic State, be the number one international terror threat to the United States.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)