skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Oh, it's true!
Consider - the most volatile regional powder keg already exploding.
And it's that wild wack 7th Century sectarian shiz
The fourth Great War is less "you know what slam against the West" (although that surely is there) than it is Sunni expansionists vs. Shiite expansionists. Neither is an appealing partner for Great Satan in the region, and neither has a natural claim on our politics or our interests. For reasons having to do with Iran itself, the U.S. will not choose to support Iranian-backed Shiites. However, Sunni expansionists are simply no better; Saudi and Qatari-supported Islamists run from the unacceptable Muslim Brotherhood to the even more unacceptable Wahabis, al Qaeda or Jabhat al Nusra – it is like a choice between cancer and a heart attack. (Second obligatory disclaimer: That is NOT to say the U.S. has no interests in the Middle East/North Africa/Southwest Asia, or that there is no humanitarian impulse due. It is to say both Sunni and Shiite expansionists have views and values inimical to Western liberal democracies, and neither is better than secular despots.)
In broad terms, the current fighting in the region is Sunni-Shiite: Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain, Yemen, Pakistan, and rumblings in Kuwait all have a Sunni-Shiite component. Turkey thinks of the Ottoman Empire, particularly after the freeing of the "Stans" from Russian control. Iran revisits the Persian Empire. The Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Jabhat al Nusra, and others all find patrons in the region rather than in the U.S. or Russia. Oil money, particularly Saudi, Iranian and Qatari, greases various paths.
As both Sunnis and Shiites try to expand both deeper into their own societies and move farther afield, they run headlong into other regional, tribal, ethnic, religious, and familial interests. Christians, particularly in Iraq, Egypt, and Nigeria, have been hard hit as intolerance increases; it is estimated that half of Iraq's Christians have left the country. As a corollary, the minority communities of Syria backed the secular Assad regime for fear of an Islamist takeover. The U.S. has been attacked and vilified, and Europe is being subverted through "no go" zones for police, the installation of elements of Sharia law, and rising Muslim anti-Semitism. Venezuela and Argentina are Iran's hoped-for proxies, and Hezbollah operates freely in several South American countries.
Long involved in the repression of Sunni Caucasian nationalists, although the Chechen war only took on religious overtones in its second incarnation (2002-2007), Russia has chosen the Shiite side of the larger war. Even the idea of a nuclear Iran does not disturb Russia as much as the idea of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weapons in the hands of Sunni terrorists. Russia preferred secular despots in the Middle East as well -- Saddam, Assad father and son, Nasser -- who would repress the Muslim Brotherhood and other internationalist Sunnis. The despots obliged. Nasser outlawed the Brotherhood, Assad killed tens of thousands in Hama, and Saddam ran a savagely secular state to ensure that his minority Sunnis could remain in power. Russia's commitment to Bashar Assad should not be underestimated.
And with shades of the Cold War, as Russia supports the Syrian regime, the U.S. has moved closer and closer to military involvement. Our first choice was to outsource the funding, arms and training of rebels to Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia who chose, naturally enough, expansionist Sunni groups hoping to push Iranian-supported Shiites out of power. American arms are intended to end up with the Free Syrian Army, but according to David Ignatius "Islamist fighters…have formed the backbone of the Free Syrian Army for nearly two years. The Syrian opposition is almost entirely Sunni Muslim, and the Islamists (especially al-Nusra's recruits) have been among the best fighters."
The clear implication is that regardless of what they say to the U.S. to win our support, their long-term aims may be incompatible with ours. The possibility remains for direct U.S. military involvement, although hard on the heels of Hagel's statement about arming rebels, U.S. Special Operations Commander Admiral William McRaven strongly warned against considering the use of U.S. troops.
If American policy in Syria seems feckless, it is because it is feckless.
44 initially tried to "win" Assad to the West by sending envoys and lifting parts of the embargo. But Assad was not "won," and when he turned his army on his people, the President, apparently trying to satisfy American sensibilities with rhetoric, demanded that he step down. But Assad did not step down and rebel bands struck back, which did not displease the President, who was perhaps hoping that the rebels could do what his words alone could not do -- get rid of Assad quickly and without American involvement. The discovery that some rebels have serious jihadist tendencies offended American sensibilities, so the U.S. declined to "arm the rebels." That refusal apparently satisfied American public opinion, which leans heavily against any involvement in Syria; but the grossness of the slaughter, particularly the use of chemicals, did offend American sensibilities. The President's sliding "red line" on the use of chemical weapons offended some parties and satisfied others. Claiming to find "moderate, secular rebels" will satisfy some, but the admitted interconnectedness of the rebels -- and the fact that the Islamists are far and away the best fighters -- will continue to worry others.
The administration's policy on Syria has been a series of visceral reactions to graphic events and horrific casualties, offset by a gigantic distaste for confrontation. Without a definition of America's strategic interests, such as a defeat for both Iran and the Sunni jihadists, the chance remains that America might be dragged into another front in the Fourth Great War. A war in which neither side is our friend.
Pic - "We are seeing signs of an unfolding region-wide sectarian conflict, as tensions from Syria spill over into Iraq."
Dongfeng!
Over the next 15-20 years, the U.S. and China are headed for a
confrontation in the western Pacific, with Japan caught in the middle.
And China, currently the underdog, could very well come out on top.
That’s the unnerving conclusion of a new report by the Carnegie Endowment
3 Scenarios are:
China’s 10-percent annual economic growth continues unabated despite
high debt, an aging population and vexing ecological concerns. The
People’s Liberation Army enjoys year after year of elevated spending.
Its homegrown ships, planes and missiles get better and better alongside improving Chinese military doctrine, leadership and training.
But on the opposite side of the Pacific, the United States succumbs
to its own internal problems. Economic growth slows to just 1.5 percent
per year, leading to what the Carnegie experts describe as “enormous
downward pressures on U.S. defense spending and U.S. military
deployments in Asia.”
The stealthy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, meant to rescue U.S. air power from obsolescence, instead falters,
as does an ambitious program to develop a new, affordable stealth
bomber. A shrinking American naval fleet runs low on floating sonobuoys
used to detect the new and improved Chinese submarines pouring out of the country’s shipyards.
Broke and demoralized, America retreats from the Pacific, leaving an
equally struggling Japan to fend for itself against its powerful
neighbor. Instead of ramping up its own military spending in order to
confront China, Japan strikes a conciliatory tone with the world’s new
Pacific hegemony.
This worst-case (for Washington and Tokyo) combination of events is
“highly unlikely but not entirely inconceivable,” according to the
Carnegie report. But if they or similarly bleak circumstances come to
pass, the Asia-Pacific in 2030 truly will belong to Beijing. “Needless
to say, this scenario would present an enormous potential for severe
crises.”
Best Case
The opposite extreme is an era of substantially increased U.S.
presence in the western Pacific. For Washington and Tokyo, a stronger
Asia-Pacific posture would result in “a more stable long-term regional
security environment,” according to the Carnegie authors. Especially if
American resurgence meets with a collapse in Chinese military
capabilities and strategy.
But this rosy scenario counts on a big boost in U.S. military spending,
amounting to a full four percent of GDP — an assumption that itself
hinges on a rapid economic recovery from today’s depressed levels plus
a sustained high birth rate. In addition to more spending, the
“America-wins” future assumes ideal outcomes across a wide range of
military initiatives. The F-35 fighter and the new stealth bomber come
in on time and on budget — and they both work as advertised. A U.S. plan
to expand its naval fleet also proceeds without a hitch.
At the same time, all the major trendlines towards a stronger and
more assertive Chinese military would have to reverse themselves — and
fast. The open spigot of weapons funding would have to close.
Technologies already in development would have to fail. Training
exercises currently growing more realistic would need to end or somehow
get dumber.
In short, this outcome is unlikely. “It is quite probable that the
United States and Japan will lack the financial resources, technological
capacity and political willpower necessary for such an ambitious
military response, especially in the next 15 to 20 years,” the report
warns.
So which scenario is probable?
America does not collapse
back into economic crisis but neither does yearly growth reach the
three-percent threshold policymakers desperately hope for. China also
enjoys moderate economic expansion sustaining continued improvement of
its air, sea, land, space and cyber forces.
Japan meanwhile navigates perilous domestic politics in order to
somewhat increase its own military investment, resulting in a more
powerful navy, a small number of stealth fighters for its air force and a
naval infantry force modeled on the U.S. Marine Corps.
This “slightly unstable” scenario is the “most likely” of those
studied, according to the experts. With relations between China and the
U.S.-Japan alliance slowly eroding year on year, “this situation would
result in a greater likelihood of tensions and incidents” compared to
now. But the chance of major flare-ups, to say nothing of a shooting
war, would be as remote as it is today.
This version of the western Pacific circa 2030 is also probably the
best that anyone in Washington should hope for, given economic, cultural
and strategic realities. It’s “manageable,” and its military balance
still “slightly” favors the U.S, according to the report.
If the Carnegie experts are to be believed, the likely future of
U.S.-Japanese-Chinese relations looks a lot like today, although more
volatile. In that sense the think tank’s report could be mistaken for,
well, accepted wisdom. It’s tempting to project current, short-term
trends in straight lines over decades, although in reality today’s
trends are often fleeting — and poor predictors of the future.
It should not come as a surprise, then, if the seemingly unlikely
fringe scenarios spelled out in the Carnegie report – both pro-U.S. and
pro-China — look a lot more realistic in just a few short years.
Between America and China, with Japan watching closely from the
sidelines in the world’s new strategic center of gravity, the future
could be a toss-up.
Nazi time Deutschland literally fought to annihilation -- until
there was literally no country left to defend. The Third
Reich - she died kicking and screaming, finally crashing down in an orgy of
pulverized, burning cities and a river of blood — civilian and military, German
and non-German. Military
history knows no year quite like 1944 -45 and if lucky, will never see
another. On May 7th the surviving ruling remnants of the once
powerful Dritten Reich finally screamed "GOD! PLEASE! STOP!"
May 8th is Victory In Europe Day.The legacy of VE Day is
with us still. Commonwealth Russia's paranoia about her near abroad - French,
Polish and Russian fears of a re hooked up, riled up rowdy Deutschland and there
never could have been a European Union - let alone a re unified Germany without
Great Satan's will power, staying power and fire power.And VE Day
would not have been possible without Great Satan, Great Britain, Canada,
Australia and the
Russian Red Army's incredible ability to absorb horrific losses, to bounce
back and win.Happy VE Day!Pic - "Bedingungslose Kapitulation der Wehrmacht"
GsGf"s cool kid at FPI unleashes an LOLable "Hello Batman" regrding knee jerking jerks who fear Great Satan"s aerial hyperpuissance is so last year over Syria
On Monday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the White House is hamstrung over the "formidable deterrent" presented by Bashar al-Assad's air defense system. Carried by such leaks as the disclosure of new details about the 2007 Israeli airstrike against a nuclear reactor in Syria, the story built up to one unnamed official's conclusion that "the issue is can you take out the entire air defense system and keep it down."
By that evening, MSNBC's Chris Matthews elaborated on the political subtext of these leaks, warning that if the United States were to intervene in the Syrian conflict, Assad "can shoot anything that goes overhead. So if we get in there, we start losing pilots and start losing planes and start getting captives - how can you bail out over Damascus?"
While it is prudent for U.S. decision makers to weigh the risks posed by Assad's air defenses, this panicked response is unhinged from the actual debate over U.S. options to intervene in the Syrian conflict.
Advocates of greater U.S. involvement in Syria have described three basic options: vetting and supporting moderate members of the armed Syrian opposition; creating safe zones to protect opposition-controlled portions of the country from the Assad regime's air and missile attacks; and conducting limited military operations to degrade Assad's air power. None of these options necessarily requires an immediate, all-out campaign against Syria's air defense system.
Here, Assad's air defenses are irrelevant to America's ability to deliver this assistance to anti-regime rebels, unless he plans to dramatically escalate the conflict by attacking U.S. aircraft over Turkey.
Where Assad's air power matters today is not in its ability to prevent the United States and its allies from aiding the opposition, but in the regime's use of aircraft and SCUD missiles to strike and destabilize rebel-controlled regions of Syria. It is because a stable and secure Syria cannot emerge from rubble that a growing number of lawmakers and experts have called for safe zones to end Assad's indiscriminate attacks against rebel-controlled areas.
At a bare minimum, Great Satan and our allies could use the Patriot missile defense batteries now deployed in southern Turkey to establish a credible threat against Assad's air power over parts of Aleppo and Idlib provinces, and even provide some limited defense against future SCUD missile attacks. This effort to establish a safe zone, like the effort to aid vetted Syrian rebels, would incur no immediate threat from Assad's air defenses, again unless Assad chose to directly attack our NATO ally, Turkey.
The last, immediately available option would be for the United States and its allies to conduct limited military operations to degrade and suppress Assad's air power, including his fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, ballistic missiles, and air defenses. As Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ) recently wrote in a March 21 letter calling on the President to consider such an effort, such precision strikes against Assad's air power "would not require American or allied pilots to fly into the reach of Syria's air defenses."
In contrast to these options, there is one scenario in which Syria's air defenses would clearly pose a major obstacle-if we were to launch a large-scale military operation in order to secure or destroy all of the Assad regime's chemical weapons stockpiles.
Such an operation would most likely occur if Assad engages in large-scale use of those weapons or loses control of them, forcing 44"s hand. Although Syria's air defenses would not hold U.S. forces at bay, they could buy just enough time for Assad to further utilize chemical weapons or distribute them to terror organizations like Hezbollah. This danger is punctuated by reports that the U.S. intelligence community has already lost track of Syria's chemical weapons.
Unfortunately, the longer Great Satan stands on the sidelines, allowing the Syrian conflict to spin out of control while the opposition is infiltrated by al Qaeda-linked extremists and Assad escalates to ever more deadly weaponry, the more likely this nightmare scenario will become.
The President has said for almost two years that he believes Bashar al-Assad's days in power are numbered. If that is the case, the question is not whether Assad will eventually use or lose control of his chemical weapons arsenal, but when and how.
The day that Assad finally falls, Syria may feature a U.S.-vetted and backed opposition, safe zones out of which American forces can operate as needed, and significantly weakened air power under Assad's control. Or, if we continue on the present course, the Syrian opposition will be further fragmented and radicalized, and we will have wasted the opportunity to degrade Assad's air defenses before it is too late.
Facing these options, the prudent course would be to utilize the options that have been debated in Washington for nearly two years: aiding the opposition, establishing safe zones from which a new Syria can emerge, and working to degrade Assad's air power before the United States and its allies may be forced to take direct action against his arsenal of chemical weapons.
For now, exaggerating Assad's air defenses to justify inaction will only serve to diminish our ability to shape the outcome of the conflict in Syria and will increase the likelihood that the war will end in the nightmare we all fear.
Pic - "In other words, post-post-Assad Syria is likely to be even more complicated, regionally dangerous and nightmarish than what we see now. "
WoW - the Watchers Council - it's the oldest, longest running cyber comte d'guere ensembe in existence - started online in 1912 by Sirs Jacky Fisher and Winston Churchill themselves - an eclective collective of cats both cruel and benign with their ability to put steel on target (figuratively - natch) on a wide variety of topictry across American, Allied, Frenemy and Enemy concerns, memes, delights and discourse.
Every week these cats hook up each other with hot hits and big phazed cookies to peruse and then vote on their individual fancy catchers.
Thusly sans further adieu (or a don"t)
Non-Council Winners
See you next week! And don’t forget to like
us on Facebook
and follow us Twitter
Recent gossip that the Posse of Allah is all combatty in ye olde Suriya al Kubra kinda means
Iran has made a strategic commitment not to lose Syria. That in turn means Syria will not follow the example of Libya. With Hiz"B"Allah fighting alongside the Alawites, it will be impossible for the rebels to defeat Assad, and sooner or later the rebels will understand that they must make a deal which will allow for power-sharing and the protection of Alawites and other minorities. The Kurds, who have created a virtually autonomous region, will likely follow the path of the Iraqi Kurds toward quasiindependence
HbA is the critical element in such a deal - which would not only end the civil war, but ensure Hiz"B"Allah's place in Syria - similar to its role in Lebanon.
As part of a new Syrian government, HbA will be protected and legitimized.
Backed by the EU, it will enjoy international support despite its involvement in terrorist attacks around the world, drug trafficking, counterfeiting and other criminal activity. With a significant presence in Syria and Lebanon, Great Satan will probably reconsider her relationship w/ Hiz"B"Allah.
And then look out Little Satan
A renewed Syrian-Lebanese axis under HbAe will provide Iran with a huge land base from which to extend its influence in the region and lead the fight for every inch of what many in the international community consider "occupied Syrian territory" - the Golan Heights.
A new, radical Islamist Syrian government will focus on a return of the Golan to Syria as a way of building national cohesion. Their efforts will be primarily diplomatic and media-oriented, intended to further isolate and condemn Little Satan
Guerrilla terrorist incursions and missile attacks, however, should be expected as part of a campaign to "liberate land stolen by Little Satan."
Little Satan"s northern border, therefore, will become "hot," like that with Egypt and the Gaza Strip. Since Iran supports Hamas and HbA, it is logical to assume these organizations are working together. Although it's unclear what Egypt's position will be in a growing confrontation with Little Satan in the north, one would expect at least approval if not active support. Egypt could, for example, allow HbA units to operate in the Sinai, along with Hamas, to create a second front. It would be a nice fit with Moslem Brotherhood interests.
Along with Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") and eastern Jerusalem, the Golan Heights will be on the negotiating table. This sets up a standoff that cannot be resolved without Little Satan"s capitulation.
Even Little Satan cats, like President Shimon Peres, who have advocated relinquishing the Golan, would be hard pressed to make that argument again.
The unpredictable danger regarding a future Syrian government that includes HbA is the massive stockpile of chemical and biological weapons which remain unsecured and are still available to President Bashar Assad and his regime. Presumably, these weapons of mass destruction would also be available to any future government, and perhaps to splinter groups and non-governmental rogue actors. The failure of the international community to eliminate this threat is at least on par with its failure to prevent Iran achieving nuclear capability.
The international community can and must take responsibility for removing all WMD from Syria.
Hiz"B"Allah's role in the Syrian civil war is ominous. Supporting Syrian rebels will have the short-term effect of prolonging the crisis, but will not end it.
OMG!! The humanity!!
Drone haters scored a few boring asseted inappropriate handwringing points w/ a guest drone hater resident from Yemenlicious drone magnet turf who made everyone cry at the recent Senate conference on How America Is Runing The World With Drones Gone Wild.
Late last year, I was with an American colleague from an international media outlet on a tour of Abyan. Suddenly, locals started to become paranoid. They were moving erratically and frantically pointing toward the sky. Based on their past experience with drone strikes, they told us that the thing hovering above us -- out of sight and making a strange humming noise -- was an American drone. My heart sank. I was helpless. It was the first time that I had earnestly feared for my life, or for an American friend's life in Yemen. I was standing there at the mercy of a drone.
What radicals had previously failed to achieve in my village, one drone strike accomplished in an instant: there is now an intense anger and growing hatred of America."
For almost all of the people in Wessab, I'm the only person with any connection to Great Satan. They called and texted me that night with questions I could not answer: Why was Great Satan terrifying them with these drones? Why was Great Satan trying to kill a person with a missile when everyone knows where he is and he could have been easily arrested?"
Now, however, when they think of America they think of the terror they feel from the drones that hover over their heads ready to fire missiles at any time.
LOL!!
Gee, Batman - AQiP did up an old school bomb blast in Yemen"s Cap Cap Capitol city Sana'a in 2012 that was like the scene of the most deadliest suicide bombing ever in Yemen's history (over 100 killed, 200 wounded). Ne"ry a worry bout that, eh?
And while it may be tempting to lol Skippy's expertise on Especial Ops or, uh, unconcur that it"s would be far more humane to launch Ranger Raids, Green Beret strikes or inserting SEAL Teams into the turf to tote off captured creeps - the truth
is the fact that many of those for whom there is reliable evidence of engagement in terrorism-related activities are located in places such as North Waziristan. In other words, these terrorists are in areas where they cannot be captured -- which of course is necessary for them to hauled before an American court -- without imposing very great risks on our troops, invading other countries, and risking considerable collateral damage. Do the critics really mean to suggest that if these suspects cannot be captured, they should be granted a free pass? If not, how do these critics suggest we deal with them?
Some critics worry that relying upon drones will engender significant resentment and potentially aid terrorist recruitment efforts. However, those who are inclined towards terrorism already loathe the United States for a thousand other reasons. Pew surveys show that anti-Americanism thrives in regions where there have been no drone strikes (for example, in Egypt) and, where drones have been active, high levels of anti-Americanism predated their arrival (for instance in Pakistan).
Most important, critics often conflate two distinct issues: Should we kill terrorists that cannot be captured and -- should drones be employed? I contend that once one agrees that kill we must, critics should acknowledge that drones are the much-preferred tool of warfare. Unlike cruise missiles and bombs (which, by the way, when first used faced the same criticism as drones), unpiloted aviation systems allow for long and careful surveillance before a strike. By using drones, one can wait until the children are away from the area, allow both multiple layers of command and lawyers time to review the life feed, and take other measures necessary for minimizing collateral damage.
As true as that may be in theory, the critics reply, in practice the use of drones has been reckless and caused significant collateral damage. However, it is difficult to reach conclusive judgments, as neither critics nor proponents of drones are actually there to observe the effects of drone strikes. Instead, we often have to rely upon reports from locals, who are notoriously unreliable. Contrary to these claims, the military insists that they take all possible precautions, and those on the front lines report that that the review process is rigorous to the point of causing delays that allowing terrorists to escape. Moreover, even if these claims are true, drones at least have the potential of being carefully reviewed; this cannot be stated about other means of warfare.
Finally, critics worry that drones make going to war too easy. Drones are said to represent "the final step in the industrial revolution of war -- a clean factory of slaughter with no physical blood on our hands and none of our own side killed." In response one must ask: Would the people involved in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and now in Africa be better-off if terrorists were killed in "hot" blood -- say, knifed by Special Forces, blood and brain matter splashing in their faces?
Would the world be better off if our troops, in order to reach the terrorists, had to endure improvised explosive devices blowing up their legs and arms and gauntlets of fire from AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers -- traumatic experiences that turn some of them into psychopath-like killers?
Beyond such considerations, there is so far no evidence that the extensive use of drones has made going to war more likely or its extension more acceptable. Anybody who has followed Great Satan"s withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq despite the recent increase in drone strikes should know better.
Still
"Drone strikes are the face of America to many Yemenis"
Excellent!! Maybe Yemeni cats can keep that in mind whenever AQiP treks to their hood to huddle and hang
Great Satan got fangs be- otche
Pic - "Now, we’re lighting these people up all over the place. Every drone strike is an execution."
