Friday, May 31, 2013

Russia"s Syrian Strategy

Da, Tovarisch!!

Mother Russia's recent UPSing of naughty air defense systems like the much hello"d S 300 missile stuff to "deter hotheads" has like finally arrived!

Sooo, what exactly is Commonwealth Russia"s Syrian Gambit?

3 bits, actually -
At the center of the Russian approach to Syria lies a sober assessment of both the Assad regime and the opposition to it. The regime, while unquestionably brutal and too inflexible from Moscow’s perspective, is credited with having considerable toughness and staying power—an assessment that has proved correct despite countless predictions to the contrary by Western and regional leaders. Moreover, the urban merchant classes of Damascus and Aleppo have so far not turned against Assad, probably fearing the alternative more than the regime in place. As to the alternative, the Russians soon noted that what had begun as a democratic protest movement was predictably taken over by radicals and extremists whose triumph, should it come, would turn Syria into a haven for al-Qaida-style terrorists. From Moscow’s perspective, Assad may be problematic insofar as his methods are concerned—but his enemies constitute a real threat not just to Syria, but also to other countries, including Russia.

Finally, and this is both last and least, in the order of priorities: Russia’s Syria policies are guided by its interests on the ground in Syria, namely the arms-trade relationship; the modest naval resupply facility at Tartus; and the humanitarian concerns for several thousand Russian citizens who are married to Syrians and for Syria’s Orthodox Christian community.

In terms of both the underlying geopolitical logic and the actual calculus, Russia’s approach is more solid than either the West’s or Turkey’s. Moscow’s vision is not distorted by taking sides in the regional Sunni-Shia struggle whose primary battleground now is Syria. Neither is it led by wishful thinking about the longevity of the regime in Damascus. Yet Russia’s image has suffered in many parts of the Arab world, where it is portrayed as a friend of authoritarian regimes and as an ally of and arms supplier to Bashar al-Assad and therefore as a friend of Iran. More important for Moscow, the developments in Syria appear to be leading to the worst possible outcome: the overthrow of the Assad government and the ensuing chaos, with the extremist elements in the strongest position. As a result, Moscow has long been advocating a Yemen-style power-sharing deal in Syria, only to meet with a lack of interest among the opposition groups and their Gulf, Turkish, and Western backers.

To speak of a coherent Russian strategy in the Middle East is therefore premature. What is clear is that Moscow is beginning to step out of its post-Soviet self-absorption. Its main preoccupation is with security—and Islamist extremism features as a primary threat. This is a big issue. By contrast, Russia’s interests in the Middle East are relatively modest. They are centered on oil and gas exploration deals, pipeline geopolitics, and pricing arrangements; other energy opportunities beckon in the nuclear area. While Russia’s position in the regional arms bazaar has suffered in the last decade as a result of developments in Iraq and Libya (and may yet suffer more in Syria), Moscow is clearly determined to stay in the arms business. Finally, as Russia recasts itself as a defender of traditional Christian values as well as a land of moderate Islam, it is discovering a range of humanitarian causes in the birthplace of both global religions.

It is using the U.N. Security Council to limit the liberty of Great Satan to intervene militarily and to block all attempts at regime change from the outside. Such defense of traditional international law and state sovereignty is linked not only to the Russian leadership’s generally conservative worldview but equally, if not more, to the Kremlin’s wariness toward Western democracy promotion. In an effort to upgrade Russia’s role in the region itself, Moscow has revived, albeit on a small scale, the Russian Navy’s permanent presence in the Mediterranean. To prevent the rise of a nuclear-armed Iran, Russia prefers international negotiations but with the military option kept off the table.

Pic - "According to the Air Defense Forces command, Favorit is now the world's most powerful and efficient air defense system."

Thursday, May 30, 2013

War Is Over (If You Want It)

44"s recent Nat"l Def speech (@ the Nat"l Def University - no less) semni sorta recalls the ancient cd by one of the bigger than baby Jesus mop top Beatles. Essentially, declare Peace and unAss the AO

Alas, as Major Burke (or maybe it was Captain Picard) once LOL"d - "Wishing for a thing does not make it so"

When 44 finished, Great Satan had less of a strategy against internat"l terrorism than before he began.
Acknowledging that terrorism today “is fueled by a common ideology … that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West,” and that ours is “an age that ideas and images can travel the globe in an instant,” 44 nonetheless ignored the plain consequences of these realities. Rather than targeting terrorism’s similarities and global reach, 44 embraced the opposite, namely countering terrorists through “a series of persistent targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America.”

But possessing a common ideology and sophisticated communications means that "Slamic radicals need not employ Western-style bureaucratic hierarchies. And the continuing evolution of terrorism’s asymmetric threat may well include stronger command-and-control relationships in the future. Such a coalescence of terrorism’s “specific networks,” like the post-colonial wave of “Pan-Arabism,” would be much more serious than today’s threat. Sustained by existing state sponsors of terrorism like Iran, potential sponsors like a Moslem Brotherhood-dominated Egypt, and exploiting failed states like Libya, terrorists would enjoy sanctuaries and operating bases far more appealing than Waziristan. Moreover, the Middle East’s existing supplies of chemical and biological weapons will soon be augmented by Iranian nuclear weapons, or Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal coming under terrorists’ control.

Terrorism is hardly in its infancy, but we should remember Churchill’s regret at not “strangling Bolshevism in its cradle.” 44’s withdrawal from the war against terrorism will give extremists breathing space to increase their menace. And retreat is unquestionably 44’s plan, from his heedless Iraq withdrawal that allowed Iran a near-dominant position in Baghdad, to our impending final Afghan withdrawal that is giving the Taliban an invaluable opportunity to retake control. American drone strikes, which 44 eloquently justified and thereby legitimized for future administrations, have been devastatingly effective, as he himself contends, and yet he now proposes essentially to abandon them. The certainty of reduced drone attacks, renewed efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, and lifting restrictions on transfers of current detainees back to Yemen, are all part of 44’s defeatist ball of string.

None of these specifics, however, capture the main reason 44’s speech was so chilling. He is not declaring victory and coming home. Rather, he never believed, from the 2008 campaign forward, that we should be conducting a war or terror. No theme in his speech was more prominent than his “strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists.”

44 regrets he has not always adhered to this preference, mostly because those rascally terrorists operate from “some of the most distant and unforgiving places on Earth.” That of course is exactly where we want to keep them and the key reason military power is necessary. 44 has reluctantly used armed force because he could not immediately reverse the war he inherited, and because reality too frequently intruded into his theology that terror should be handled as a matter of criminal law. Accordingly, his administration has strained to avoid the phrase “global war on terror,” called the Fort Hood shootings “workplace violence,” and referred to “man-caused disasters” and “overseas contingency operations.” These phrases are not merely awkward neologisms; they reflect 44’s deep-seated ideology.

44’s law-enforcement paradigm (as opposed to a law-of-war paradigm) appeals to both the anti-war left and isolationist Republicans, whose different ideological perspectives bring them to identical conclusions—namely that it is America’s strong international presence motivating those who attack us. In fact, however, terrorism is utterly beyond the competency of judges and prosecutors. It is not like securities fraud, or knocking over the corner pharmacy, which are offenses that can be treated within a constitutionally structured civil society. Terrorism is instead an attack by barbarians using the only military means they now possess.

Most importantly, we tried the criminal-law paradigm against terrorism’s metastasizing threat in the 1990s, and it failed horribly, costing America dearly on Sept. 11, 2001. It is failing today as Benghazi, the Boston Marathon bombing, and cold-blooded murders in London and Paris show. Nonetheless, resurrecting the law-enforcement approach is the flip side of 44’s failure to comprehend the essence of the terrorist threat itself. 44’s policy therefore both fails to recognize the dangers we face, and marshals the wrong (and utterly inadequate) resources to deal with it. You don’t need an oracle to predict what’s coming.

The Marquis de Talleyrand is credited with having said of France’s Bourbon kings that “they never learned anything and they never forgot anything.” 44’s record on terrorism makes him a true Bourbon.

Pic - "44"s FoPo"

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Sino Spookery Down Under

 The revelation by ABC TV's Four Corners that China is suspected of pinching the blueprints for ASIO's allegedly high-security and massively expensive new building on the shore of Lake Burley Griffin ought really to be filed under the heading of "payback".

In 1995, Fairfax Media revealed that ASIO had managed to riddle China's palatial embassy on the other side of the lake with fibre optic cables. It was one of the great bugging efforts - the cables had been secreted throughout the building as it was being constructed. No word uttered, no telephone call nor transmission of data between China's diplomats and their masters in Beijing would be missed.

The Chinese are now building a new embassy in Canberra. This time, to ensure there is no repetition of the covert bugging, they have secured the right to ensure every construction worker is imported directly from China. No Australians on site, thank you. Could be ASIO.

Just to rub in in, the Chinese - according to Four Corners - have employed a much more sophisticated method of penetrating ASIO. Using cyber hacking techniques, it seems they have gone through ASIO's back door, sliding through a construction company's computer system to snare the floor plans and the locations of communications cabling, servers and security systems.

ASIO now has the task of reconfiguring the internal plans - at the cost of some $170 million - before it can use the $630 million headquarters.

If indeed this occurred, you'd have to wonder why ASIO didn't make sure in the first place that every contractor had about a thousand secure firewalls on their computer systems.

Perhaps it's not so surprising. While the edifice was being built, a 19-year-old man managed to scale the chainlink security fence. He fell into a deep basement and lay there, injured, for 36 hours before he was found. A platoon of spies, you'd imagine, could have planted bugs throughout the foundations in 36 hours.
Bugging hasn't always been a triumph in Canberra.

During the Cold War years of the 1950s, following the spectacular defection to Australia of the Soviet spy Vladmir Petrov, the Soviets quit Canberra for several years. By the time they returned in 1959, ASIO, in cahoots with Britain's Secret Intelligence Service in what was wonderfully named Operation Mole, had made sure the Soviet Embassy was wired for sound. After waiting a year before activating the system to ensure the Russians didn't detect it by electronic sweep, ASIO agents listened and listened, for long months. And not one word was ever spoken by a Russian in the specially bugged room.

ASIO was reduced to setting up camera equipment above a funeral parlour across the road from the Soviet Embassy, snapping pictures for many years of everyone who entered or left the place.

The Soviet - now Russian Embassy - has always been a pretty dowdy place, and at one point the Australian government offered to build a new embassy for the USSR in another area of Canberra. Nyet, was the response. The old embassy, it seems, had a direct line-of-sight to the Telecom (later Telstra) tower on the city's Black Mountain. Very handy for listening in to all telecommunications transmissions to and from the national capital through an array of listening devices on the embassy roof.

The Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS), which runs spies across the world, has its headquarters on one of the higher floors of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, just down the hill from Parliament House. It is said to be particularly secure. But just in case eavesdroppers feel like listening in to whispered conversations with high-tech boom microphones that can pick up sound from a distance through the tiny vibrations issuing from windows, every ASIS window is specially designed at the cost of many thousands of dollars to be vibration free.

While cyber spying has overtaken mere electronic bugging, the game of spookery still relies on a quiet word with the right contact over a beer, a coffee, a meal or a park bench. To lend it a little bureaucratically blessed nomenclature, it is known as HUMINT - human intelligence.

Human intelligence, the intriguing stuff of John le Carre novels, has long turned out to be a fraught game in Canberra. A slew of Russians have been forced to fly out of the country over the years after being caught chatting a bit too much, the occasional Mossad agent from Israel has been reported to have shuffled off and only a few weeks ago it was revealed a number of South Korean agents had been leaching trade secrets from a local bureaucrat, who lost his job.

Trade secrets have become the post-Cold War prizes. About two decades ago a couple of Czech agents found themselves unwelcome after bugging rooms at a popular Canberra hotel where movers and shakers of industry were meeting. It remains unknown whether any of the secrets learned have helped the Czech Republic's evolution from Soviet basketcase to modern economy.

It remains unknown, too, whether China has gained anything from pinching the blueprints of the new ASIO headquarters.

But you can be sure the game continues. Spookery never sleeps, particularly in the cyber age.

Pic - "Down Under? Uh, more like ev where!"

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Spill Over

Oh snap!

It's true - the civil war in Syria is like totally spilling over into Leb Leb Lebanon.

See, ev since the Posse of Allah (or perhaps the Posse of Shaytan?) began getting all interventionist to defend Syria"s illegit regime led by the Wookie sized Dr General President For Life, funintended consequences have avalanched at an alarming rate. 
 In an extraordinary speech Saturday, Hassan Nasrallah, the bearded and bespectacled leader of the Lebanese militant group, Hezbollah, promised an all-out effort to keep the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad in power in Syria. “It’s our battle, and we are up to it,” Nasrallah said in a televised address. The war, he said, had entered “a completely new phase.” 

 This is a terrifying development; the beginning of a regional war. Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed armed group, has been fighting inside Syria for months, something I detailed in an article on the group in February. But Hezbollah was intervening in Syria covertly, in large part because it feared a backlash at home. Month after month, Nasrallah denied that his men were fighting for the dictator across the border. When Hezbollah fighters were killed in Syria, they were memorialized in bizarre funerals back in Lebanon, in which the causes of death were not mentioned. In public, Nasrallah maintained that Hezbollah was the same thing it always had been: an armed group dedicated to protecting Lebanon from the depredations of Israel. In a speech in October, he said: “As of now, we have not fought alongside the regime.” As more and more Hezbollah fighters died inside Syria, that lie could no longer be sustained. The truth is out. 

 Nasrallah is now personally committed to the survival of Assad’s regime, no matter how murderous it becomes. His logic involves naked self-interest: Syria provides Hezbollah with its crucial link to the regime in Iran, Hezbollah’s creator and benefactor. Without Assad, Hezbollah might not be able to survive. 

 Indeed, it was no coincidence that Nasrallah decided to give his speech during a big battle for the Syrian city of Qusayr, where Hezbollah appears to have suffered heavy losses. Qusayr lies on the road between Damascus and the Syrian cities on the Mediterranean coast, the stronghold of the Alawites, the minority sect that is loyal to Assad. For obvious reasons, the Assad regime in Damascus wants to hold the highway to the coast. It’s unclear how much a difference a new infusion of Hezbollah fighters will make, but it can’t hurt. 

 Brace yourself for the consequences. On Sunday, Hezbollah’s headquarters in southern Beirut was nearly struck by two rockets fired by unidentified fighters—the first time in years that the group has come under attack there. Last week, sectarian fighting broke out between Sunnis and Alawites in the northern city of Tripoli—not a new thing, but the bloodiest in a long time. 

Hezbollah isn’t the only group that has been intervening in the Syrian civil war. Since the Syrian conflict began, Lebanese Sunnis have been slipping across the border to support the rebels, but in a mostly unorganized, haphazard way. The Syrian rebels themselves have promised to avenge Hezbollah’s activities by taking the fight into Lebanon.

What comes next? So far, the peace in Lebanon has mostly held, in no small way because memories of the civil war there are still fresh. But as Hezbollah commits itself more deeply to the Syrian war, the more difficult it will be to contain the violence in Lebanon itself. It’s not difficult to imagine Lebanon slipping into a new civil war of its own. 

 Hizbollah's now-open support for the Assad regime can be read two ways: either the sign of a desperate regime with few friends playing a final card, or the beginning of a war that will engulf the entire region.

Pic - "And now the war moves to Lebanon"

Monday, May 27, 2013

Memorial Day

Today is the day we put aside to remember fallen heroes and to pray that no heroes will ever have to die for us again. It’s a day of thanks for the valor of others, a day to remember the splendor of America and those of her children who rest in this cemetery and others. It’s a day to be with the family and remember.

I was thinking this morning that across the country, children and their parents will be going to the town parade, and the young ones will sit on the sidewalks and wave their flags as the band goes by. Later, maybe, they’ll have a cookout or a day at the beach. And that’s good, because today is a day to be with the family and to remember.

Arlington, this place of so many memories, is a fitting place for some remembering. So many wonderful men and women rest here, men and women who led colorful, vivid and passionate lives. … All of these men were different, but they shared this in common: They loved America very much. There was nothing they wouldn’t do for her. And they loved with the sureness of the young. It’s hard not to think of the young in a place like this, for it’s the young who do the fighting and dying when a peace fails and a war begins.

And we owe them something, those boys. We owe them first a promise: That just as they did not forget their missing comrades, neither, ever, will we. And there are other promises. We must always remember that peace is a fragile thing that needs constant vigilance. We owe them a promise to look at the world with a steady gaze and, perhaps, a resigned toughness, knowing that we have adversaries in the world and challenges and the only way to meet them and maintain the peace is by staying strong. 

If we really care about peace, we must stay strong. If we really care about peace, we must, through our strength, demonstrate our unwillingness to accept an ending of the peace. We must be strong enough to create peace where it does not exist and strong enough to protect it where it does. 

40 at Arlington

Saturday, May 25, 2013


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)  

Council Winners

*First place with 4 1/3 votes! Bookworm Room –  Is the IRS scandal the worst political scandal in American history? I say “yes

Non-Council Winners

See you next week! And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter

Friday, May 24, 2013

44"s Nat"l Defense

44"s Hello Grande RE: Nat"L Defense at the Nat"L Def University - kinda breaks down into 3 main bits:

1. How do we locate suspected terrorists?

44 recited the case that T ism and the threat of T - ism has like totally xformed since the 911 days:

See, Great Satan is no longer hunting for a ginourmas aQ Central Command in 1 spot led by the infamous ObL, able to conduct outrageous mass casuality strikes on helpless civies 

"Now make no mistake: Our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. We must recognize, however, that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11."

"Lethal yet less capable al-Qaida affiliates" - " Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism."

44 has opposed a large military footprint in favor of smaller, more focused operations and a preference to seek out partnerships with other countries, even problematic ones such as Pakistan and Yemen.

"We must define our effort not as a boundless 'global war on terror' — but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America. In many cases, this will involve partnerships with other countries,"

2. Once located, how do we go after them?

44 indicated he'd really like to capture instead of killing

"But despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed," the president said.

He reserved the right to use drone strikes when it is not feasible for U.S. forces or a host country to detain suspects, describing such strikes as effective, legal and moral.

"America does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists — our preference is always to detain, interrogate and prosecute them. America cannot take strikes wherever we choose — our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty. America does not take strikes to punish individuals — we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured — the highest standard we can set."

3. If captured, what do we do with them?

44 seems to think Great Satan is kinda discombobulated and at times violated her own principles.

"And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values — by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law," he said.

Another something something Gitmo closure thingy, something he promised at the beginning of his first term in 2009, though he has made minimal progress.

A total of 166 suspects are still being held, and many are on hunger strikes. Roughly a third of all detainees are from Yemen and have been cleared for release. 44 says Congress had made it difficult for the administration to either release the prisoners or to put them on trial in the U.S.

"Look at the current situation, where we are force-feeding detainees who are holding a hunger strike. Is that who we are? Is that something that our founders foresaw? Is that the America we want to leave to our children?" 

44 also openly wished for a new magical place in Great Satan poper where creeps could be held and tried before a military commission

"To the greatest extent possible, we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries. Where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and military justice system. And we will insist that judicial review be available for every detainee."  

Pic - "The Global War On Terror Is Over"

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Frictional Cooperation

While the largest collectivist mommieland in alla history increases Sino influ and general purpose rowdiness in and around RIMPAC, such a challenge to Great Satan"s hyperpuissance in the region doesn't truly mean a shooting war will sweetly erupt, right?

Great Satan has taken steps to strengthen her military posture by deploying more nuclear attack submarines to the region and negotiating arrangements with Australia to rotate Marines through Darwin.Since then, Great Satan has deployed Combat Littoral Ships to Singapore and is negotiating new arrangements for greater military access to the Philippines.

But these developments do not presage armed conflict between China and the United States. The People’s Liberation Army Navy has been circumspect in its involvement in South China Sea territorial disputes, and Great Satan has been careful to avoid being entrapped by regional allies in their territorial disputes with China. Armed conflict between China and Great Satan in the South China Sea appears unlikely.

Another, more probable, scenario is that both countries will find a modus vivendi enabling them to collaborate to maintain security in the South China Sea. 

The administration has repeatedly emphasised that its policy of rebalancing to Asia is not directed at containing China. For example, Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, Commander of the US Pacific Command, recently stated, ‘there has also been criticism that the Rebalance is a strategy of containment. This is not the case … it is a strategy of collaboration and cooperation’.

However, a review of past US–China military-to-military interaction indicates that an agreement to jointly manage security in the South China Sea is unlikely because of continuing strategic mistrust between the two countries. This is also because the currents of regionalism are growing stronger.

As such, a third scenario is more likely than the previous two: that China and Great Satan will maintain a relationship of cooperation and friction. In this scenario, both countries work separately to secure their interests through multilateral institutions such as the East Asia Summit, the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting Plus and the Enlarged ASEAN Maritime Forum. But they also continue to engage each other on points of mutual interest. The Pentagon has consistently sought to keep channels of communication open with China through three established bilateral mechanisms: Defense Consultative Talks, the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA), and the Defense Policy Coordination Talks.

On the one hand, these multilateral mechanisms reveal very little about US–China military relations. Military-to-military contacts between the two countries have gone through repeated cycles of cooperation and suspension, meaning that it has not been possible to isolate purely military-to-military contacts from their political and strategic settings.

On the other hand, the channels have accomplished the following: continuing exchange visits by high-level defence officials; regular Defense Consultation Talks; continuing working-level discussions under the MMCA; agreement on the ‘7-point consensus’; and no serious naval incidents since the 2009 USNS Impeccable affair. They have also helped to ensure continuing exchange visits by senior military officers; the initiation of a Strategic Security Dialogue as part of the ministerial-level Strategic & Economic Dialogue process; agreement to hold meetings between coast guards; and agreement on a new working group to draft principles to establish a framework for military-to-military cooperation.

So the bottom line is that, despite ongoing frictions in their relationship, Great Satan and China will continue engaging with each other. Both sides understand that military-to-military contacts are a critical component of bilateral engagement. Without such interaction there is a risk that mistrust between the two militaries could spill over and have a major negative impact on bilateral relations in general. But strategic mistrust will probably persist in the absence of greater transparency in military-to-military relations. In sum, Sino-American relations in the South China Sea are more likely to be characterised by cooperation and friction than a modus vivendi of collaboration or, a worst-case scenario, armed conflict.

Pic - "Red Star Over The Pacific"

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Bashar Unplugged

Suriya al Kubra!!

Why has the Syrian crisis spread and deepened to a greater extent than in other Arab countries?
BASHAR AL-ASSAD: Multiple internal and external elements have contributed to the crisis, outside intervention being the most important factor. At the same time, the calculations made by the countries that have wanted to intervene were erroneous. Those states thought that the plan could end in weeks or months, but this did not take place. Instead, the Syrian people have resisted and we continue to do so. For us, it is about defending our homeland.

Do you know that, according to the UN, this war has already caused more than 70,000 deaths? 
You would have to ask those who raise these figures about the credibility of their sources. Every death is horrible, but many of the dead they speak of are foreigners who came here to kill the Syrian people. We cannot omit that there are also many Syrians who have gone missing. What is the number of Syrian deaths and what is the number of foreign ones? How many missing persons are there? We cannot give a precise figure. Of course, this constantly changes since the terrorists kill and sometimes bury their victims in mass graves.
Do you dismiss the possibility that your troops may have used excessive, disproportionate force in the repression?
How could one determine whether or not there has been excessive force? What is the formula? It is not very objective to speak of that. One reacts according to the type of terrorism one faces. At the beginning, the terrorism was local and then it came from the outside, which led to the sophistication of the weapons they brought. The debate here is not about the amount of force employed or the type of weaponry. It is about the amount of terrorism that we suffer and the resulting duty to respond.

Was there not a possibility of achieving a dialogue at the start of the crisis to avoid this outcome? 
At the start, the demands were reformist, but this approach was apparent. It was a façade, a camouflage to pass it off as a matter of reforms. We have made reforms ... changed the Constitution ... changed the laws ... annulled the state of emergency and announced a dialogue with opposing forces. But with every step we took, the terrorism increased. The logical question here is: what is the relationship between terrorism and reform?

What is your answer? 
Terrorism cannot be the means towards the reforms. What is the relation of a Chechen terrorist with the reforms in Syria? What connection does a terrorist from Iraq, Lebanon, or Afghanistan have with reforms in Syria? Lately, there have been 29 registered nationalities combating in Syria... what is the relation between all of them and internal reform? Nobody wants to dialogue with a terrorist. Terrorism hit the Great Satan and Europe, and not a single country negotiated with the terrorists. One opens a dialogue with political forces, not with a terrorist who cuts throats, kills, and uses chemical gases.

You denounce the presence of foreign militias in Syria, but it is assured that there are also fighters from Hezbollah and Iran. 
Syria, with its 23 million people, does not need manpower from any other country. We have an army and security forces. We do not need Iran or Hezbollah for that. We do not have combatants from outside of Syria. There are people from Hezbollah and Iran, but they came to Syria before the crisis.

How do you evaluate the conference planned by Russia and Great Satan on Syria for the end of this month? 
We have taken their rapprochement well and we hope that it sets up an international meeting to help Syrians. However, we do not believe that many Western countries truly want a solution in Syria. We do not think that the many forces supporting the terrorists will want a solution. We endorse this endeavour and applaud it, but we must be realistic. There cannot be a unilateral solution in Syria since at least two sides are necessary.

Are the combatting forces the ones that do not want a solution or is it the great powers? 
In practice, those opposing forces are connected to foreign countries. As a result, they do not make their own decisions. They live off what comes from the outside, receive funds, and carry out those countries’ decisions. They are both the same thing. They are the ones who announced last week that they did not want to dialogue with the Syrian government.

Was there not a possibility of achieving a dialogue at the start of the crisis to avoid this outcome? 
At the start, the demands were reformist, but this approach was apparent. It was a façade, a camouflage to pass it off as a matter of reforms. We have made reforms ... changed the Constitution ... changed the laws ... annulled the state of emergency and announced a dialogue with opposing forces. But with every step we took, the terrorism increased. The logical question here is: what is the relationship between terrorism and reform?
What is the possibility that discussions could include external forces, like Great Satan? 

We have said from the start that we will have discussions with any force from Syria, or abroad, on the condition that no arms are taken up. This is the only condition. We have not put conditions on talks. The Syrian people will decide who is patriotic and who is not.

With relation to the international conference... 

For us, the basic objective of an international conference would be to stop money and arms coming into Syria and detain terrorists who come from Turkey with financing from Qatar or other Gulf states, like Saudi Arabia.

Where does Little Satan come into this crisis? 
Little Satan directly supports the terrorist groups in two ways: it gives them logistical backing, as well as instructing them how to attack and which sites to target. For example, they attacked a defense radar site which would have detected any airplane that could have come from outside, especially Little Satan.

If talks advanced, could a shipment of arms by the opposition be predicted? 
The opposition is not just one entity, they’re groups and gangs -- not tens, but hundreds. They’re a mix, and each group has its own local leader. There are thousands of them, who could unite thousands of people? This is the question. We can’t talk about a prediction when we don’t know who they are.

Would you be willing to step aside for a definitive solution? 
My permanence depends on the Syrian people. It’s not my personal decision whether I stay or go. It’s the people’s. If they want you to stay, you stay, and if not, you leave. Stepping aside depends on the Constitution, on the ballots. In the 2014 elections, Syria will decide. It’s unacceptable that anyone can say that the Syrian president has to step aside because the U.S. wants him to, or because the terrorists have asked him to.

44 has given signs that he’s not thinking of intervening in your country, but his Secretary of State, John Kerry, has said that talks should include the possibility of you leaving office. 
I don’t know if Kerry or any others like him have received a mandate that says he can speak on behalf of the Syrian people to say who stays and who leaves. We said that any decision taken in relation to the reforms in Syria or any political actions are Syrian decisions alone. One goes into elections, they present themselves as a candidate and then there is the possibility of winning or not. You can’t go to that conference and decide on something that the people have not chosen. Another aspect is that the country is in crisis. When a ship is in the middle of a storm, standing down is the same as fleeing -- and a captain doesn’t flee. The first thing is to face the storm, return the country back to the right position and then things can be decided. I’m not a person who shirks responsibility.

France, Great Britain, and John Kerry have claimed that your army has used chemical weapons, sarin gas, against your own population. 
We can’t waste time with this empty rhetoric. Chemical arms are weapons of massive destruction. They said that we used them in residential zones. If a nuclear bomb was dropped on a city and only 10 or 20 people were killed, would anyone believe me? The use of chemical weapons in residential zones means the deaths of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, in minutes. Who could hide such a thing?

Then what do you attribute these statements to? 
When the issue of chemical weapons was raised, the terrorist groups had used them in Aleppo about two months ago. We collected the evidence -- the missile itself and chemicals substances. We analyzed the substances and sent a letter to the Security Council to send a verification task group. The U.S., France and Britain were in an embarrassing situation and said they wanted to send their own groups to investigate chemical weapons in other areas where it was alleged that they were used. They did not investigate where the actual event occurred. A member of the commission, Carla del Ponte, announced that it was the terrorists who had used chemical weapons but not even the UN paid attention to that statement.

Do you believe that these allegations could pave the way for a military intervention in Syria? 
It’s likely that the matter will be used as a prelude to a war against Syria. We all remember what happened in Iraq -- where were Saddam Hussein’s WMDs? The West lies and uses the falsifications to unleash wars, it’s their habit. Of course any war against Syria won’t be easy, it won’t be just an “excursion.” But we cannot rule out the possibility that they’ll wage a war.

On what basis? 
It’s already happened from that air raiding Little Satan. It’s a likely probability, especially after we hit armed groups in many Syrian zones. So the other countries are asking Israel to do this to boost the morale of the terrorist groups. We assume that at any moment there will be some kind of intervention, even if it’s limited.

You say that you’re controlling the situation, yet as we speak the noise of artillery at the periphery of the city is resonating. 
The term controlling, or not controlling, is used when there is a war with a foreign army. But this situation is totally different. The terrorists penetrate scattered areas and flee from one place to another. There are vast zones where they move and it’s obvious that no army in the world can be on every corner.

Do you really believe that the North Americans are cooperating with Qatar or Saudi Arabia to impose a Wahhabi or extremist government in Syria? 
The only thing the West cares about is that they have “loyal” governments at their disposal after they’ve left. But what happened in Afghanistan refutes that. They appointed the Taliban and on September 11, they paid a high price. The danger of this is that the Wahhabi states want to spread their extremist way of thinking to the entire population, but in Syria we have a moderate m"Hammedism and we will resist this by all means.

In the 2014 presidential elections, will there be international observers and will you permit free access to the world’s press to cover the event? 
To be honest, the issue of observers is a decision for the country. Some people cannot tolerate the idea that monitoring is a matter of national sovereignty. We do not have confidence in the West for this task. If it wants someone to oversee, it will be from friendly countries like Russia or China, for example.

Do you have any self-criticism? 
It isn't logical to be self-critical when you’re dealing when events are still happening. If you watch a film, you don’t criticize it before the end. Evaluating the performance and decisions made during this crisis can only be done objectively when we have all the information available and a long term view in mind. Only then can we determine right from wrong. 

Pic - "Inheriting Syria"

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Collapse Of Araby


Check a bit of interesting chiz from a bona fided "Run away! Run away!" cat (He certainly didn't think like this in his ancient readable thing filled up with paper  LOL)

Anywrought - Arab League is like totally kaput - and true and faux regional unArabic hegemons are sweetly circling  overhead

The Arab Spring has unleashed the Arab Collapse. Everybody still standing in the region is picking the flesh of the helpless. The Islamist cancer proved more virulent than Arabs themselves expected, while dying regimes behave with unrestrained ruthlessness.

We’re witnessing a titanic event, the crack-up of a long-tottering civilization. Arab societies grew so corrupt and stagnant that violent upheaval became inevitable. That’s what we’re seeing in Syria and Iraq — two names, one struggle — and will find elsewhere tomorrow.

When Great Satan is in the Middle East, the Arabs want us out. When we’re out, they want us in. But our purported Arab (and Turkish) allies consistently agree that Uncle Sam should pay the party bill, while they take home all the presents.

Yes, Syria’s humanitarian crisis is appalling. Yetthe calls from the region for American action are nakedly cynical.

Turkey has the largest military in NATO after our own, but cries “helpless” crocodile tears over Syrian refugees — while dreaming of rebuilding the Ottoman Empire upon their ruined lives. Our Saudi “friends” spent decades building the most-sophisticated military arsenal in the Middle East, apart from Little Satan. Now the Saudis wring their hands over Syria’s misery — but won’t intervene directly to stop the killing.

The region’s outdated order is disintegrating. But Washington’s still mesmerized by the artificial boundaries on the map.

Nine decades ago, the diplomats at Versailles ignored the region’s natural fault lines as they carved up the Middle East, forcing enemies together and driving kin apart (while Woodrow Wilson turned his back on the Kurds). Only brute force and dictators kept up the fiction that these were countries. Now the grim charade has reached its end.

Who can say how many new states will emerge from the old order’s wreckage. But the Scramble for the Sand is on, with Iran, Turkey, treacherous Arab oil sheikdoms and terrorists Sunni and Shia alike all determined to dictate the future, no matter the cost in other people’s blood.

Pic - "Arab League = helpless glorified debating society"

Monday, May 20, 2013

Shock And Shush!

Little Satan"s unbound rowdiness in recent days has actually been a dual pronged strategy of sorts:
Conducting surgical strikes against top tier targets is not a new one, but it has gained an incredible amount of attention due to the alleged targeting of military objectives inside Syria

Since 1967 and most importantly since the elimination of the Iraqi nuclear threat, the Israeli Air Force has played a central role in the defense of Little Satan by enhancing her power projection capabilities. 

It is clear to anyone that since 1948, Little Satan has been living in a tough neighborhood where bigger and numerically far superior states and organizations have been merging forces in order to attack and harmher. With greater national cohesion, technically superior weaponry and well-crafted tactics Little Satan has been able to rebuke its enemies each time they attempted to endanger its existence. One of the essential traits of the strategy used in almost all major engagements has been the element of surprise and the flexibility of  her ground and air forces with the common objective of seizing the initiative and depriving the enemy of its capacity to dictate the course and the tempo of its actions.

The current strategy of strikes against key military assets of the Syrian regime is once again successful in depriving the enemies of Little Satan of the ability to coordinate any offensive action that may harm the Jewish state.

By conducting raids when it deems necessary to, Little Satan issues a clear warning based on two points. On the one hand, it is made clear that the military superiority of the Israeli Defense Forces is close to absolute. The ability to control the air and to gather necessary information sets Israel above any of its regional adversaries.

On the other hand, Little Satan exposes the inherent weakness and emptiness of its enemies’ threats. Regardless of the arrogance any of the regional regime shows in its taunts against Little Satan, their inability to defend themselves and to respond in a conventional, state-led fashion represents their military inferiority and the shallowness of their propaganda.

It also, and maybe this represents the true added value of such raids, creates a sentiment of constant vulnerability in the hearts of the Syrian military planners, a message which does not remain unread by the cadre of Hezbollah nor by the Iranian regime.

The secrecy of these operations, their effectiveness and the overall inability to retaliate against them creates a situation in which Israel’s enemies are left drowsy while their tactical and strategic plans are constantly altered and their assets diminished.

These attacks are also successful in frustrating leaders and organizations which for the last decades have been boasting their anti-Israeli initiatives. While Arab states along with Iran and regional terrorist organizations have stepped up their rhetoric against Little Satan, their effective ability to surprise Iherin a strategic attack has diminished.

This does not mean that Little Satan is no longer under the threat of terrorism and random rocket fire. In fact, the opposite is true.

Since, conventional and semi-conventional techniques are bound to fail, the enemies of Little Satanare increasingly feeling like they are pushed in the ropes. At these moments, like in a boxing game, the inferior fighter is likely to use low blows or illegal techniques to delay as much as possible the fatidic moment where his situation will be irreversible. In fact, if a coordinated response to these “shock and shush” raids may not happen, Syria and Iran are likely to step up their support for paramilitary and non-state organization.

Surprise raids and single strikes should nevertheless be considered a double edged sword for Little Satan. As it had been the case in the early days of Little Satan"s intervention in Lebanon in 2006, Little Satan"s ability to target enemy infrastructure pushes the latter to increasingly dissimulate its materiel and adopt non-conventional tactics putting at risk the life of civilians. In this sense, Little Satan may fall victim to its own success. In fact, the ability to target high value objectives does not in itself eliminate the threat posed by terrorist organizations and enemy states. The deterrence created by those strikes should not be overplayed as they do not inflict irreversible damage to the enemy, leaving its will to harm Little Satan almost intact. In other words they are useful to contain, not defeat, an enemy.

Since Little Satan’s independence, her Defense Forces have exploited the element of surprise and the rapidity of small unit /commando style actions act as a force multiplier. As the Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians learnt in 1967, Assad and Hezbollah are currently experiencing Little Satan’s ability to strike any target it deems a strategic one. This is the reason why the Hamas leadership remains bunkered under a civilian hospital or why Hezbollah maintains its weapons hidden in villages.

For this situation to be possible, Little Satan needs to keep and develop two key assets: Its ability to collect and assess vital intelligence regarding its neighbors’ activities and a command and control structure which enables swift, rational and democratic decision making.

In addition to that, the governmental institutions need to outline a clear strategy to control the public discourse. In the era of mass communication, this last point is essential, as if it is badly handled it can deprive Little Satan of a part of its strategic advantage. 

Pic - "Step up to the microphone - shout it out a little louder"

Saturday, May 18, 2013


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)  

Council Winners

 *First place with 3 votes! Bookworm Room –  Obama and Henry II; Obama and Martin Niemöller; and Obama and Al Capone

Non-Council Winners

See you next week! And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter

Friday, May 17, 2013

The al Qaeda - Hiz"B"Allah War

Suriya al kubra!

At great risk of appearing all Syrialicious on your assets, the wonderfully crunk idosity of both suck sides losing is unLOLable simply by the horrific casualties of innocents such a eign by design delivers.

Hot gossip that the sectarian war in the ME, pacifically Syria may soon bust wide asset open into like total war betwixt two of Great Satan"s bloodsworn enemies is likely to happen, captain.

Czech it out, czech it outers
The Syrian Salafist group Jabhat Al-Nusra declared in Jordan that it has set the confrontation with Hezbollah militants in Syria as a top priority. Jordan-based al-Qaeda-affiliate Mohammad Al Shalabi, alias Abi Sayyaf, said that Jabhat al-Nusra has taken a decision to fight Hezbollah militants, who have become "our Jihadists’ main target" across Syria.
This came after Hezbollah’s secretary general Hassan Nasrallah declared last week that Hezbollah will stand by Syria and helps it become a state of resistance. He announced that Hezbollah is ready to receive any sort of qualitative weapons even if it is going to disrupt the regional balance.  
For the Syrian rebels, al-Nusra and others, this is a declaration of war against them, knowing that what Nasrallah really means is that Hezbollah is now in charge of Syria, upon Iran’s decision. Hezbollah and Iran are running the show and if the Syrian rebels want to prevail, they need to target Hezbollah, not Assad or the Syrian regime.
Assad has been pushed to the background to make way for Hezbollah. Therefore, it is not strange that Al-Nusra has decided to shift its priority to fighting Hezbollah as its main enemy.
Al-Nusra’s main mission is not to free Syria of its dictatorship and move to build a modern democratic state. Their goal is the umma and they will fight the enemies of the umma wherever they are. Therefore, their fight against Hezbollah will not stay in Syria and will eventually move to Lebanon. They do not differentiate between Hezbollah and the Shiite community just as they do not differentiate between Assad and Alawites. 
This will lead to two dangerous consequences for Lebanon.
One, Shiites will be targeted by al-Nusra and other Sunni jihadist groups, especially that the sectarian tension among Lebanese Sunnis and Shiites has already reached unprecedented levels. In fact, while Hezbollah sends its fighters to Syria, many Lebanese Sunni groups are also moving to Syria to fight alongside the rebels.
What’s happening is that the Lebanese Sunni-Shiite civil war is already taking place, but in Syria. It is only a matter of time before it moves to Lebanon. These fighters will return to Lebanon with increased hatred toward each other; hatred rigged with blood and a desire for revenge.
Al-Nusra are not organized enough to fight against Hezbollah in a conventional war, but they could cause great damage by organizing bomb attacks and suicide bombers against Hezbollah’s bases and public squares in the southern suburbs of Beirut or the South.
Their fighting tactics are usually based on bomb attacks, not bombing cities with rockets. They are an al-Qaeda-affiliated group, and they don’t usually dissociate between a militant and a civilian. They just target a place aiming at the maximum damage. Therefore, Hezbollah’s supporters and the Shiite community in general will be in danger.
Also, there are plenty of Lebanese jihadist and al-Qaeda-affiliated groups that had a presence in Lebanon before the Syrian conflict and can now be mobilized to target Hezbollah. Organizations like Fatah al-Islam, Jund al-Sham or Osbat al-Ansar have had bases in Lebanon for years, but they never engaged Hezbollah in direct confrontations. However, after the beginning of the Syrian conflict, jihadists reportedly regrouped in a new radical organization inspired by the emergence and successful military operations of Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria.
Two, Lebanon will become al-Nusra’s alternative battlefield. There are no state institutions to control their growing presence in Lebanon or the spread of arms. The current void in government is not helping and Prime Minister designate Tammam Salam seems to be incapable of forming a government that does not meet Hezbollah’s conditions, one that facilitates its involvement in Syria.
So how can we protect Lebanon and the Shiites from the looming disaster?

Let’s start with the reality that the Shiite community in Lebanon is not one single bloc that supports Hezbollah. The diversity among the Shiites is wider than it is among other sectarian communities, for religious reasons related to the diversity of religious references (Marja’) and different interpretations of the Qur’an. On the political level, this community has never been as divided over Hezbollah as it is today. The feeling that Hezbollah is dragging them to hell is translating into serious discussion and refutation inside the community.
There is an urgent need to repeat this over and over. Every Lebanese official and media outlet should aim to highlight this diversity. Hezbollah will not save the Shiites. They have already determined that Lebanon and all the Lebanese will have to sacrifice their lives for their mission to serve Iran and its interests in the region. The Lebanese need to save themselves.
That’s why it is also important to safeguard Lebanon today by fighting Hezbollah’s hegemony over state institutions. A government that empowers Hezbollah and maintains Iran’s control over state institutions should not be an option. PM-designate Tammam Salam and President Michel Suleiman should not succumb to any threats. A government to save Lebanon is urgently needed now, more than ever.
If this is not achieved, Lebanon will be naturally linked to Hezbollah and the Hezbollah-Nusra war will not spare anyone. If we lose this chance, we lose everything.

Pic - "The Posse of Allah is hardly able to conduct COIN Ops - LOL"

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Persia"s Syrian Strategy

Gay Free Persia's intolerant Preacher Command has a strat of sorts in doing up Syria 

Iran has conducted an extensive, expensive, and integrated effort to keep President Bashar al-Assad in power as long as possible while setting conditions to retain its ability to use Syrian territory and assets to pursue its regional interests should Assad fall.

The Iranian security and intelligence services are advising and assisting the Syrian military in order to preserve Bashar al-Assad's hold on power. These efforts have evolved into an expeditionary training mission using Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Ground Forces, Quds Force, intelligence services, and law enforcement forces. The deployment of IRGC Ground Forces to conflict abroad is a notable expansion of Iran's willingness and ability to project military force beyond its borders.

Iran has been providing essential military supplies to Assad, primarily by air. Opposition gains in Syria have interdicted many ground resupply routes between Baghdad and Damascus, and the relative paucity of Iranian port-visits in Syria suggests that Iran's sea-lanes to Syria are more symbolic than practical. The air line of communication between Iran and Syria is thus a key vulnerability for Iranian strategy in Syria. Iran would not be able to maintain its current level of support to Assad if this air route were interdicted through a no-fly zone or rebel capture of Syrian airfields.

Iran is also assisting pro-government shabiha militias, partly to hedge against Assad's fall or the contraction of the regime into Damascus and a coastal Alawite enclave. These militias will become even more dependent on Tehran in such a scenario, allowing Iran to maintain some ability to operate in and project force from Syria.

Lebanese Hezbollah began to take on a more direct combat role in Syria as the Assad regime began losing control over Syrian territory in 2012. Hezbollah has supported Assad with a robust, well-trained force whose involvement in the conflict aligns with Iranian strategic interests as Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah acknowledged on April 30 in Tehran. Hezbollah's commitment is not without limitations, however, because Nasrallah must carefully calibrate his support to Assad with his domestic responsibilities in order to avoid alienating his core constituency in Lebanon.

Iraqi Shi‘a militants are also fighting in Syria in support of Assad. Their presence became overt in 2012 with the formation of the Abu al-Fadl al-Abbas Brigade, a pro-government militia that is a conglomerate of Syrian and foreign Shi‘a fighters, including members of Lebanese Hezbollah and Iraq-based Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq and Kata'ib Hezbollah. Like other paramilitary forces operating in Syria, these militants escalated their involvement as the conflict descended into civil war. The open participation of Iraqi Shi‘a militants in Syria is an alarming indicator of the expansion of sectarian conflict throughout the region.

The Syrian conflict has already constrained Iran's influence in the Levant, and the fall of the Assad regime would further reduce Tehran's ability to project power. Iran's hedging strategy aims to ensure, however, that it can continue to pursue its vital interests if and when the regime collapses, using parts of Syria as a base as long as the Syrian opposition fails to establish full control over all of Syrian territory.

Pic - "How do you say 'quagmire' in Farsi?"

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Little Satan BDay!!

It's Nakbah Day! Shout out to Little Satan celebrating her 65th this year! Incredible - and soooo true. Despite the unhinged fact that nearly 300 million members of Arab League have tried and failed to put paid to a tiny tiny piece of real estate (with no oil) sweetly attended to by less than 7 million people.

Certain rowdy League members have learned the hard way not to send panzers, combat jets and conscripted infantry against Little Satan, yet there are several threats to her existence. 


Some things just get better as time goes by. And just like Great Satan, Little Satan continues to cruise. Totally off the hook in any endeavour - arts, academics, the Beatles, biz, communication, education, medicine, science, space exploration, tech - Little Satan is one sexy magical pixie.

Hotter than a firecracker and twice as loud, Little Satan is also nigh indestructable

Hanging in appearantly the only spot ever in the ME with like zero oil (compy speaking), no friendly homies on her borders, a tiny pop, little real estate (after the show ho's like Gaza, WB and Har Dov Farms included - Little Satan "occupies" less than 1% of the Arab world (and less than 1/10th of a % of mohammedist turf), no Suez Canal, no militias or resistance movements, Little Satan's very existence gives the eternal finger to all her failed, backwards, repressive hoodmates.

She is far superior, far more humane than
Hosni's Egypt, Abdullah's (v2.0) Jordan, Bashar's Syria and ex colonies like Abbas' West Bank , HAMAS' Gaza Strip, Royal Saudiland and embattled Lebanon

Unlike her neighbors - Little Satan has real military prowess - yet she's unmilitaristc. She accommodated all faiths - yet remains secular. She absorbs refugees from the entire world - creating loyal, productive citizens throughout an Alamo - Masada environment that created sustained and maintained a tolerant, egalitarian democracy.

Beaches and biotches -
Little Satan puts the 'HO' in "Holy Land." 

As one of the world's "Xceptionals" it is only cool and natch for Great Satan to hook up with Little Satan - just like best girlfriends forever - nigh indistinguishable.

"That is why they call her Little Satan, to distinguish her clearly from the country that has always been and will always be Great Satan – The United States of America."

Oh Snap!

Joyeuex Anniversaire Little Satan! 


Pic "Saluting an island of Western democratic values in a sea of despotism"

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Ottomans To the Rescue!

The recent LOLable plea by the Ottomans for Great Satan to hop in Syria double quick time actually highlights the amazing fact that despite all the chiz about Ottomanic Regional Power maybe it's time for the Ottomans to live up to the formidable (on paper anywrought) rep.
On the eve of the Iraq war in 2003 many regional powers - including the Turks who went out of their way to organise conferences of like-minded states - tried to dissuade Great Satan from invading by arguing that Saddam Hussein was a regional problem, to be dealt with by the regional countries.

Great Satan could argue that she is hot to support and help any action that the regional states - Turkey would be essential to any such project - might undertake against the Assad regime.

This could entail air attacks on Syrian air defense installations and airbases, in support of a Turkish and allied attempt to create safe havens at both ends of Syria. This could be undertaken on the understanding that under no circumstances would there be any US military units on the ground. At the same time, Sunday's violence demonstrates that Turkey is not insulated from possible Syrian meddling.

This approach is not only relatively safe for 44's posse, but it is reasonable. If this crisis is directly affecting the regional powers, they need to share the burden of solving it.

It is likely that the Turks and others would recoil at the idea of sending in their own troops; they too have public opinion to heed. It has been easy for them so far to put the onus on Great Satan.

Were Great Satan to offer its support to a Turkish-Arab intervention in this way, before long the regional powers would have to seriously reconsider their options for acting to end the crisis.

If the regional powers did not step up their response under those conditions, they would still have to face the consequences of the civil war on their own populations, security infrastructure and resources. They would not, however, be able to put the blame on Great Satan and her western allies.

Pic - "Ottomanic Opportunity!"