Forsaken

While the world oocasionally weeps over 6 million Palestinians - the worlds most biggest bunches of stateless cats get forsaken as the Ottomans go to war...

Some of the most successful fighters against the Islamic State are being isolated and attacked by America’s new favorite ally in the region.

Kurdish militias are achieving the stated goals of the Obama administration — to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS — as well or better than any other fighting force. From Kobane to the recent liberation of Tel Abyad, Kurdish militias have won hard-fought victories against ISIS fighters in Syria, while preventing the advance of ISIS into northern Iraq.

What’s more, the Kurds in northern Syria have established a political order like few others in this region of the world. Known as Rojava, the Kurdish-controlled areas of Syria are governed through participatory decision-making forums that include councils made up of women, Christians, Yazidis and Muslims. David Graeber, a leading figure in the Occupy Wall Street movement, calls Rojava a “remarkable democratic experiment.”

But those gains are now in danger as Turkey, which has a long history of enmity towards ethnic Kurds and fears the potential for a Kurdish state to its immediate south, in northern Syria or Iraq, flexes its political muscle in Washington and applies its military might in the Middle East.

Behind the scenes, American lobbyists employed by Turkey started working to block U.S. military assistance to Kurdish fighters last year, lobbying disclosures show.

This past week, the Turkish government made two critical air bases available to U.S. forces, a long-sought concession that allows the U.S. military to launch anti-ISIS raids more quickly. And it began its own airstrikes against ISIS. But that move is increasingly being seen as something of a feint, with Turkey’s main focus being a new offensive against Kurdish militants.

Simultaneously with its announcement about U.S. access to the air bases, the Turkish government broke its truce with Kurdish militants. During the past week, the Turkish  military began attacking Kurdish bases in Iraq and allegedly in Syria as well.  The Turkish government says its campaign is simply a response to an attack by the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK), a separatist group, and has emphasized that it is also targeting ISIS.

On Friday, Turkey launched a series of mass arrests. Though some ISIS supporters were detained, the “vast majority” of arrests, according to the local press, were of leftists and Kurds. And on Tuesday, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called for a crackdown on the People’s Democratic Party, a Kurdish-leftist political party that gained seats in parliament for the first time last month.

Turkey intends to use the increased airstrikes to create a “safe zone” for Sunni Arab militias, which as the New York Times noted, would come at the expense of Kurdish fighters.

Rather than condemn the attacks on the Kurds, the Obama administration praised Turkey’s government for making its air base available.

Turkey’s role as a coalition partner in the campaign against ISIS has been and remains the subject of some controversy. For years, foreign jihadi fighters trickled through Turkey’s porous border to join the ranks of ISIS. The Guardian  reported on Saturday that a recent U.S.-led raid on an ISIS official responsible for selling black market oil to traders in Turkey revealed direct dealings between Turkish officials and ranking ISIS members

Vice President Joseph Biden remarked on this strange relationship with Turkey in a speech in October 2014. Turkey, Biden said, is “so determined to take down [Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government] and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war, what did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad — except that the people who were being supplied were al Nusra and al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.”

Biden quickly apologized, as good an example as any of the pressure to maintain long-standing U.S.-Turkey business and military relationships — and the intractable power of the Turkish lobby, which is among the biggest spenders on foreign lobbying in Washington and a major sponsor of congressional junkets.

Turkey employs an all-star lobbying team of former government officials, including former Democratic lawmakers Dick Gephardt and Al Wynn; former Republican Senator Tim Hutchinson; retired Central Intelligence Agency Director Porter Goss; and, until he was indicted in June and left the Dickstein Shapiro law firm, former Speaker of the House Denny Hastert. Others on the payroll include Brian Forni, a former Democratic aide, the law firm Greenberg Traurig, and Goldin Solutions, a media strategy firm.

A number of public relations firms and lawyers help sponsor junkets to American politicians and journalists to visit Turkey. Turkish Coalition of America, a Turkish interest group that helps to sponsor the trips, retained Brown, Lloyd and James, the lobby group that, in an ironic twist, previously represented Assad’s wife.

Recently, the Turkish lobby has worked to block military support to the Kurds working to defeat ISIS.

The battle has been over legislation that would allow President Obama to bypass the Iraqi government in Baghdad and directly provide Iraqi Kurds with the heavy weapons and armored vehicles needed to battle ISIS. In the House, Reps. Ed Royce, R-Calif., and Elliot Engel, D-N.Y., the House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman and ranking member, introduced a bill last November, and then again in March,  to provide the administration with the appropriate authority to arm the Kurds.

David Thompson, a former Capitol Hill staffer retained by the Turkish government, lobbied House Republican leaders on the Royce-Engel legislation in late 2014. The firm contacted aides to GOP leaders Kevin McCarthy and Steve Scalise regarding the bill, according to the statement filed by Thompson’s law firm, Dickstein Shapiro, with the Justice Department in January.

Turkish interests say they have legitimate concerns about the bill. “Supporting a militia for money and then unleashing them into the wild of terrorism we think is irresponsible,” said Gunay Evinch, a longtime attorney for the Turkish government and former president of the Assembly of Turkish American Associations.

“There are tidal wave kind of ripple effects that could be caused just by flooding a particular group within a broader group with heavy weapons and it could dwarf the ISIS problem or multiply it to many types of problems,” Evinch added. Evinch said that he was speaking only on behalf of the ATAA board of directors, not the Turkish government. He noted that he met with Turkish embassy officials, who said they had supplied information to congressional intelligence officials about the dangers of supplying Kurdish forces with weapons.

Human rights watchdogs point out that in some areas of Iraq, Kurdish forces have been linked with efforts to segregate Arab and Kurdish refugees.

Embassy officials and Thompson did not respond to multiple request for comment about the bill. The Turkish embassy later sent a fact-sheet claiming, “Though acting with different motivations, [ISIS] and the PKK share similar tactics and goals.”

President Erdogan has been clear about the threat posed by Kurdish militias. “I say to the international community that whatever price must be paid, we will never allow the establishment of a new state on our southern frontier in the north of Syria,” Erdogan said last month.

“Turkey has legitimate concerns about the international and American long-term policy towards Syria as well as in Iraq,” G. Lincoln McCurdy, the president of the Turkish Coalition of America, said in October. McCurdy, whose group organizes congressional junkets to Turkey and serves as the treasurer of a pro-Turkey political action committee, noted that he is working to improve Turkey’s image as a member of the anti-ISIS coalition, and stressed the need to highlight Turkey’s role as a major host country for refugees.

“We’re in a very strong position because of the PACs,” McCurdy explained to a gathering of Turkish American leaders and Turkish embassy officials in March. He pointed to the strong pro-Turkey sentiment of Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., a freshman lawmaker and a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

At the event, Boyle took the stage, praising Turkey as “one of our best friends, if not the best friend, in the region.” He went on to chide his fellow lawmakers for introducing “nine anti-Turkish resolutions,” a reference to legislation to recognize the Armenian genocide and condemn Turkey’s efforts to restrict Internet freedom. “This is wrong and counterproductive and bad for U.S.-Turkish policy,” he declared. About a week after Boyle’s remarks, McCurdy’s Turkish Coalition PAC contributed $1,000 to Boyle’s reelection campaign.

When the Royce-Engel bill to arm Kurds against ISIS was reintroduced this year, most members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee signed on as co-sponsors. Boyle was not among them. Asked why he did not sign onto the legislation, Boyle’s spokesperson declined to comment.

Earlier this summer, the Senate rejected a similar bill to arm the Kurds fighting ISIS, with opponents citing White House concerns that such an effort would sow division within Iraq’s unity government.
It’s not the first time Washington has turned its back on the Kurds.

China's 3 Fleet Exercise

The world's largest Collectivist nation state is busy doing a three fleet hook up military exercise in South China Sea

China's navy has carried out a rare joint exercise, involving its three fleets, in the South China Sea as regional tensions over territorial disputes mount.

The combined drill was carried out in southern waters by warships, submarines and the naval air force from the People's Liberation Army's North Sea, East Sea and South Sea fleets, national broadcaster CCTV reported on Saturday.

Meanwhile, three Chinese marine surveillance ships had monitored and obtained evidence before "expelling" boats manned by Japanese right-wing activists from waters near Diaoyu islands, or Senkakus as they are known in Japan, China's State Oceanic Administration said yesterday.

Japan's Foreign Ministry protested to China over the five-hour sailing by three Chinese official ships in the waters, the Kyodo news agency said yesterday. The Kyodo report denied the activists' ships had been driven away.

Chinese analysts said the South China Sea drill by the three fleets, which finished on Friday, was the first since 2010 when Beijing staged a similar exercise to protest against the involvement of the aircraft carrier USS George Washington in a joint anti-submarine drill with the South Korean navy in the Yellow Sea.

Last week's PLA Navy drill was intended to send a signal to the US and the Philippines, at a time when the carrier USS Nimitz was in the South China Sea, and amid a standoff between China and the Philippines over the Second Thomas Shoal, or Ayungin as it called in the Philippines, in the disputed Spratly islands.

"The joint military drill also meant to tell the Philippines that Beijing's tough stance towards them will continue," said retired PLA Colonel Yue Gang.

Meanwhile, Xinhua reported yesterday that another group of warships with the North Sea Fleet had left their port in Qingdao , Shandong province, for blue-water training in the western North Pacific Ocean.

The exercise involved at least 100 naval vessels, dozens of aircraft, missile launch battalions of the Second Artillery Corps and information warfare troops, Xinhua news agency said, citing navy sources.

Realignment Illusion

Hope springs eternal!

The latest fantasy train to pull up at the station is the notion that the recently concluded Iran deal is going to lead the United States to some kind of strategic realignment or rebalance, with Iran now playing a more central role in Washington's relations with the region.

The chain of logic tying this latest conceit together goes something like this: Iran is a critically important country sitting at the nexus of just about every problem in the region; the nuclear deal shows you can do business with Tehran; the Iranian public is more pro-American than those of many of America's Arab friends; so let's use the Iran deal to begin to create a new relationship with Iran. After all, it is not healthy for the United States to be so dependent on its traditional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Move over Jerusalem and Riyadh - here come the mullahs.

In a galaxy far far away this kind of thinking might actually translate into something real. But right or wrong, it won't work here on Planet Earth. And here is why.

The President Doesn't Really Believe in it

44 has sent decidedly mixed messages when it comes to the utility of engaging Iran. Yes, he believes in the power of diplomacy and the value of negotiating. Indeed, he has relentlessly and willfully pursued the agreement with Iran on the nuclear issue -- and in the view of his critics, to a fault. At the same time, almost everything he has said, before and after the deal, smacks of limited goals and of a transactional, not a transformational, approach. If he believes -- as with Cuba -- that he has started a process of engagement, it is one that he believes will pay its dividends only over time. As a self-styled Neibuhrian (find proximate solutions to insoluble problems), 44 has no illusions that Iran will change quickly, or perhaps even at all, as a result of the nuclear deal. And right now, selling the nuclear deal to a skeptical U.S. Congress demands that the president not appear naive about Iran's human rights violations, its holding of four Americans, and its behavior in the region. In the next 15 months he may well look to test Iran's readiness to cooperate on regional issues such as Syria and Iraq. But a combination of his own skepticism, the across-the-board opposition to Iran in Congress, and Iran's own need to remain aloof and detached from any putative American embrace, is likely to preclude any dramatic post-agreement moves toward Tehran.

And neither do the Mullahs

Even if the administration were ready to test the realignment theory, Iran's own behavior rules it out. Whatever the motives of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in agreeing to this nuclear deal may have been, one of them was not to undermine the revolution and the hardline authoritarian nature of the state's control. On the contrary, the purpose of the nuclear deal was to consolidate the regime's position and to manage public expectations by creating a stronger economy and garnering more international legitimacy.

It is the cruelest of ironies that the very nuclear issue that has made Iran an outlier has now given the regime an opportunity to begin to end its international isolation. But there are other factors that limit how fast and far this process can go. The Supreme Leader, who has yet to endorse the agreement, has a need to placate hardliners and counter the rise of pro-negotiations elites such as Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. The best way to do that is to keep at a distance from Washington, and perhaps even to demonstrate Iran's revolutionary credentials by toughening its image. Indeed, Iran is unlikely to accommodate U.S. interests by abandoning Syrian President Bashar al Assad, or by weakening its support for Hezbollah or for Shiite Iraqi militias. Countering the Islamic State does provide a tactical coincidence of interests with Washington. But given the Islamic State's recent setbacks in Syria, the threat from the group has yet to provide the basis for any kind of strategic alignment. Indeed, sanctions relief is likely to enable Iran to increase its support for its regional allies, not diminish it.

Buying off the Saudis and Israelis

In the Middle East, one man's floor is another's ceiling. Everything is closely related. The Iran deal has alienated America's traditional allies. But to compensate, Washington will do everything it can to reassure Israel and Saudi Arabia that it is taking their security concerns seriously. This is likely to create a chain reaction that will further minimize the odds of any kind of strategic alignment with Iran. On top of the billions of dollars in fancy military hardware the United States has already sold to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, the Iran deal will generate more. The reality -- and certainly the perception -- will be that these post-agreement goodies are designed to counter Iran's growing influence. Tehran will need to react accordingly to this cordon sanitaire, and that will make it very difficult to open up the kind of political space that is the stuff of major rapprochements. Indeed, curtailing Iran's nuclear ambitions might actually raise regional tensions, not lower them. Congress and all the presidential candidates will ensure that anti-Iranian and pro-Israeli rhetoric remains very high. And the administration will be under considerable pressure not to send signals that it is deserting its traditional allies as the price of the deal with Iran.

The bottom line seems clear. There is no doubt that the U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement is a profound development. But its consequences are at best uncertain. To use an arms control agreement to significantly realign U.S. policy with a repressive state that has expansionist designs in a turbulent region is a very long shot. The Iranian deal is not a peace treaty that has produced an end state with a nation that plays by internationally accepted norms and conventions. There are no Iranian heroic actors in this drama, no Sadats, Rabins, or King Husseins capable of transforming U.S. political or public attitudes about the Iranian regime. Should Iran change -- should it start to show real flexibility on regional issues -- that might provide an opening for real change in the bilateral relationship. Releasing the Americans the regime is holding would be a start. Right now, don't wouldn't count on it. The Middle East may be the a region of miracles, but don't expect one in the U.S.-Iranian relationship.

Panzer Day

Panzers Ho!

It all began 100 years ago when the armies fighting in the trenches of the Western Front during World War I were bogged down and both sides considered any and all options to break through. The horrific war led to the use of airplanes, poison gas and even the submachine gun. World War I can also be remembered for the tank’s introduction, with the debut of “Little Willie” in the late summer of 1915.

Earlier that year the British military, at the behest of the then First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill established the Landships Committee, which was composed mainly of naval officers, politicians and engineers. This small committee first proposed a strategy to develop large wheeled "landships" that were estimated to weigh as much as 300 tons and could roll over any terrain. However, it soon became apparent that the costs, complexity and logistics of creating these vehicles were unrealistic. The decision was made to go smaller with a vehicle that could carry a crew and pave the way for infantry breakthroughs.

Throughout the spring and summer of 1915 the Committee conducted a number of trials with wheeled and tracked vehicles. In July 1915 the War Office became aware of the project and its operations were transferred from the Royal Navy to the British Army.

Under the Army's direction the first completed tank prototype was developed. It was dubbed "Little Willie" and is today the oldest surviving individual tank in the world. It is housed at The Tank Museum in Bovington. Little Willie was truly a precursor of the tanks to come.

The British military planners opted not to go with the turret with the Mark I and its subsequent tanks – which used sponsons (projections on the sides of the tanks) instead. The rationale was that the turret would have made the center of gravity too high when the vehicle had to climb an enemy trench parapet. However with their light tanks the French did embrace the turret, which was seen in the Renault FT tank, also known as the FT 17.

The name “tank” came about thanks to the secrecy of the program, which tried to hide exactly what the military was building - "tank" suggested a container to transport fresh water to the front. In December the code word "tank" was officially adopted, and the Landships Committee officially became the Tank Supply Committee

While many hopes were pinned on the newly christened tank, it wasn't an instant success. At the Battle of Somme in 1916 some 40 tanks advanced over a mile into enemy lines. However, these lumbering vehicles, which did shock the enemy, proved too slow to hold their positions and many became bogged down in the mud. It has been argued that the military planners simply didn't know how to properly utilize these new machines.

However tank designs progressed quickly and by the end of the war the vehicle was used in massive attacks, allowing the infantry to break through. Specialized tanks were also designed.

One problem for the tank – as with many weapons – is that unlike the airplane, it had no civilian use and thus its interwar development was often slow.

Only after World War II did many western military planners even see the need to ensure that tank technology wasn't left to lag way behind. Prior to the advent of the M1 Abrams in the 1970s, the U.S. Army’s primary tank was the M60 Patton.

Yet throughout the Cold War and post-Cold War periods it has still been argued that the tank’s time has passed. At 100 years old, however, the tank continues to press on.

Just as the tank of 100 years ago was designed to protect the infantry, tomorrow's technology may also keep the tank crew out of the line of fire.

Enter The Ottomans

Türk Kara Kuvvetleri!!


Turkey straddles more than simply the continental divide between the West and Asia. A majority Sunni Muslim nation, it is also a Nato member and was once a trusted ally of Washington and London. Since the first poll triumph in 2002 of Tayyip Erdogan’s AK Party, however, ties with this crucial regional partner have become strained. Indeed, with the rise of Isil, Turkey has been accused of deliberately, if tacitly, helping the terrorists, by turning a blind eye to fighters crossing into Syria from Turkish territory, among other things.

Now

Turkey has suddenly reversed its position, announcing that it will both take the fight to Isil itself, and allow allied air forces to operate from its bases. This is a move that has the potential significantly to realign the pieces on the Middle Eastern chess board. It is undoubtedly a blow to Isil, as proximity to their targets will give Western strike aircraft greater potency and liberty of action. Many of Isil’s supply lines should also be cut off. For this reason alone, Turkey’s change of heart should be celebrated.

Long-standing diplomatic pressure, combined with elections in June that brought the end of AKP single-party rule, can be partly credited. But perhaps the greatest incentive for Turkey to act came earlier this week, when a suicide bomber killed 32 people in the Turkish town of Suruc. From Ankara to Riyadh, there are many in the Islamic world who now consider Isil every bit as threatening as officials do in Western capitals. If anything, their concern is greater.

Certainly, by getting involved in northern Syria, Turkey has another agenda – ensuring that Kurds there cannot carve out a mini-state and so encourage the separatist dreams of its own Kurdish population. But the very fact that there is once again a coincidence between Western and Turkish interests is a major advance – and one that could contribute to an Isil retreat.

WoW!!

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 2 1/3 votes!–How A Red Diaper Baby President Is Rigging Future Elections With Illegal Immigrants
• Second place *t* with 2 votes –The Right Planet – If You Like Your Opinion, You Can Keep Your Opinion … to Yourself!
• Second place *t* with 2 votes –Joshuapundit–The Roots Of The Jihad In Tennessee
• Third place *t* with 1 1/3 votes –The Noisy Room – Obama’s Diversity Police State and Government Mandated Racism
• Third place *t* with 1 1/3 votes –Don Surber – Dekanawida and the Iroquois Confederacy
• Fourth place with 1 vote –Nice Deb – Pentagon: No Guns, No Uniforms, and Closed Blinds At Recruitment Centers
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote –Ask Marion – Trump, Truth and the McCain Factor
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote –Bookworm Room – Washington DC
• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – The Razor – Emperor Valerian: What’s Past is Prologue
• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – VA Right! – This Veteran Says ‘Donald Trump is Right. John McCain is No Hero.’

Non-Council Winners

• First place with 2 2/3 votes! –Sultan Knish –Millions and Millions of Mohammeds submitted by The Noisy Room
• Second place with 2 votes –Dennis Prager/Truth Revolt –1938 and 2015: Only the Names Are Different submitted by Puma By Design
• Third place with 1 2/3 vote –SE Cupp – The Planned Parenthood And Abortion Debate We Won’t Have submitted by The Watcher
• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote –The Other McCain – Is the ‘Male Feminist’ Cuckold a Hoax? submitted by Don Surber
• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote –Thomas Sowell – A Historic Catastrophe submitted by The Watcher
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 votes – Krebs On Security – Online Cheating Site Ashley Madison Hacked submitted by The Glittering Eye
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 votes –Ilya Somin/Volokh Cospiracy –Obama, Anti-Semitism and Iran submitted by Rhymes With Right
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 votes –Gatestone Institute –Iran Deal: Europe’s Chief Negotiator Sympathized with Iran submitted by The Independent Sentinel
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 votes –Howie Carr/Gates Of Vienna – “The Evil That Men Do Lives After Them…” submitted by The Watcher
• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 votes –FOX News –Florida Gun Shop Owner Declares Store a ‘Muslim-Free Zone,’ CAIR Members Visit submitted by Ask Marion
• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 votes –Mark Thiessen/WAPO –Obama’s Disturbing Pattern Of Playing Down Islamic Terror submitted by Nice Deb
• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 votes –Life News – 10-Eye-Opening Quotes From Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger submitted by The Right Planet

See you next week!

Springtime For Enemies

As 44's tenure gets into the homestretch - one quiz pops up more often than your depressed addict friend always wanting to hit your vapor device.

Is it Springtime for America's enemies?

Dangerous and short-sighted U.S. diplomacy has empowered no one except state sponsors of terrorism and fascistic regimes.

 

There has never been a better time in history to be an enemy of the United States of America. While America’s traditional allies in Europe and the Middle East express confusion and frustration, 44’s White House delivers compliments and concessions to some of the most brutal dictatorships in the world. In the span of a single week, the U.S. has restored diplomatic relations with Cuba, pressured Ukraine to accept Vladimir Putin’s butchering of its eastern region, and brokered a deal to liberate Iran from sanctions.

These actions would represent a tremendous series of diplomatic triumphs if they improved human rights in these repressed nations, saved lives in conflict regions, or improved global security. That is, in fact, what the White House says these deals will do, despite copious evidence to the contrary. These negotiations represent willful ignorance of the fundamental nature of the regimes in question, especially those of Iran and Russia. Cuba is a political hotspot in the U.S. and remains a potent symbol of totalitarianism, but despite its regional meddling, especially in Venezuela, it isn’t on the scale of the global threats represented by Iran’s terrorism and nuclear ambitions and Putin’s nuclear-backed expansionism.

Regardless of the wishes of the Iranian and Russian people, their leaders have no interest in peace, although they are very interested in never-ending peace negotiations that provide them with cover as they continue to spread violence and hatred.

The favorite straw man of the “peacemongers” is that the only alternative to appeasement is war, which makes no sense when there is already an escalating war in progress. The alternative to diplomacy isn’t war when it prolongs or worsens existing conflicts and gives the real warmongers a free hand. Deterrence is the alternative to appeasement. Isolation is the alternative to years of engagement that has only fueled more aggression.

Money Shot!

Keeping a firm grip on power is the only thing that matters in a dictatorship. The consequences of losing power in an authoritarian regime rarely involve peaceful retirement and a long life. (Gorbachev is a notable exception, mostly due to his cleverly taking credit for the Soviet collapse he fought so hard to avoid, as well as to the shameful lack of appetite in Russia and the international community for holding Communist leaders accountable.) Both Khamenei and Putin have brutally cracked down on their own people to remove any challenges to their authority. Both rely on vicious propaganda to drum up nationalism and hatred for foreign enemies and “traitors” at home, i.e. anyone who opposes or criticizes the regime.

Both wage war and terror on their borders and beyond. Both hold sham elections to provide a distraction for their citizens and fodder for the global press to blather on about the potential for liberalization. And this week, both Putin and Khamenei have been rewarded by 44 with negotiations that will aid them in causing further suffering to their people and in making the world far less safe. 44 gets his “peace for our time” fanfare and the dictatorships continue with business as usual.

Valkyrie Tag

 

Valkyrie is an ancient viking superstition. When brave Norsemen fell in battle (often raiding parties) these hotties with their mammoth shields would appear on winged horses and tote off the fallen to heathen heaven - Valhalla.

Despite oathbreaking, defacing images of gods and wickedness in general - all would be forgiven by success in combat - especially if the offender died a heroic saga inspiring death.

Claus Schenk was a real European blue blood aristocrat. Awarded nobility back in the Holy Roman Empire days ( funny though - HRE was a triple no go - it was neither Holy, Roman or an Empire) the family became von Staffenberg.

In WWII time Deutschland, Valkyrie was code for the Nazi party to maintain control of the Reich in the event of a catastrophic disaster that killed or incapacitated the leadership.
By summertime 1944, 3rd Reich was facing the horrible modern era manifestation of von Gneisenau and von Scharnhorst's ultimate nightmare - the multi front war.

Allies had captured Rome and were grinding their way up the bloody Eyetye boot of Italy, Allies were fixing to bust out of the Normandy bocage and unleash Great Satan's panzer General Patton.

And the largest defeat in modern history - the destruction of Armee Gruppe Centre saw the annihilation of 20 irreplacable German divisions in a massive Soviet blitz that drove Germany out of Russia and vaulted the Red Army right outside Warsaw.

Despite Allied claims that only unconditional surrender would satiate the Allied and Russian thirst for righteous payback, a clique of Wehrmacht officers plotted a coup d'tat' against 3rd Reich in an effort to spare Germany ultimate defeat and dismemberment using the contingency plan of 'Valkyrie'.

Germany's armed forces had to swear a 'holy oath' - not to the state or nation or a constitution - but to der fuhrer personally. In order for the plot to work - der fuhrer had to be killed. Valkyrie also planned trying the wartime leaders of 3rd Reich for war and humanitarian crimes, working out reparations with the allies and bringing Germany back into the family of nations.

Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg was a panzer officer that had fought in Poland, France, Russia and with the famous 'Afrika Korps'.

Suffering debilitating wounds from combat - losing an eye, a hand and three fingers, Claus and his co conspirators - facing the truth of the regime they so valiantly served - tried in their own way to rectify their sins - singular and collective.

Valkyrie energized the evil leaders of 3rd Reich, anyone connected with the cats of the coup were ruthlessly hunted down, tormented and slain. The ground ran red with German blood. The regime was determined to fight to the last and like Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" heralded the final lo down ho down like Wagner's viking final, apocalyptic battle - "Gotterdammerung"

In the next 9 months Deutsche military fought 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.

Pic - "2 field marshals, 19 generals, 26 colonels, two ambassadors, seven diplomats, one minister, three secretaries of state, as well as the head of the Reich Police - all perished in the failed Coup d"etat of 20 July 1944".



Russia's Combat Robots

Rossiya-Matushka! 

The Russian Army has been showcasing state-of-the-art military equipment in the city of Sevastopol on the Crimean Peninsula, boasting its Platform-M combat robot which can be used both for patrolling and attacks.

Platform-M is a remote controlled robotic unit on a crawler, armed with grenade launchers and Kalashnikov rifles. It was revealed last summer during a Russian military drills near Kaliningrad.

According to its developer, Progress Scientific Research Technological Institute of Izhevsk, Platform-M can be used “for gathering intelligence, for discovering and eliminating stationary and mobile targets, for firepower support, for patrolling and for guarding important sites. The unit's weapons can be guided, it can carry out supportive tasks and it can destroy targets in automatic or semiautomatic control systems.”

It’s equipped with optical-electronic and radio reconnaissance locators, which enable the Russian robot to perform combat tasks during the night without unmasking itself. Platform-M is a universal platform that can be supplied “with a variety of defensive chassis and weaponry.”

According to some data provided by the Russian military, the Platform-M unit is supplied with "a differentiated defensive chassis and a firing platform and can carry out combative tasks during the night without unmasking instruments."

In 1973 the Soviet Union initiated the first state scientific and technological program devoted to the creation and implementation of industrial robots. Consequently, by 1985 the USSR had 40 percent of the world's industrial robots at its disposal, having surpassed the U.S. These units were guided by network-centric principles and artificial intelligence was embedded in the military sphere.

Still, many had believed that Russia was years behind the envelope when it comes to putting advanced robotic technology on the battlefield. Until today, when a video showcased Russia's latest military equipment in Sevastopol, ranging from the "Bastion" air defense and anti-ship complexes missile system to sniper rifles and special ops naval guns, also showed none other than the Platform-M combat robot mingling among the population of this most important Crimean city. 

Now all that is needed is for some hacker to penetrate the Platform-M firewall and take control of a small army of these units and then we can finally move the Terminator series into the non-fiction section.

 

Deterrence

One thing that is already clear about the future, is that deterrence will remain a pivotal goal of U.S. strategy toward Iran and other potential foes.

The cost of armed conflict against these adversaries are high, policymakers will look for ways to protect American interests without engaging in open warfare. In this context, it is useful to step back and take a larger look at deterrence and how it works.

The Department of Defense defines deterrence in similar, yet more specific, terms as “The prevention from action by fear of the consequences. Deterrence is a state of mind brought about by the existence of a credible threat of unacceptable counteraction.” Simply put, deterrence occurs when one can make an adversary believe that the consequences of behaving undesirably will outweigh the benefits.

Yet as history has shown, deterrence often fails; adversaries attack.

So what separates deterrence successes from these failures? The key is to establish the credibility of deterrent threats. That is to say, one must be able to instill a sincere belief in adversaries that the promise of counteraction will be carried out if they fail to comply with the threat.

Concerns about credibility are manifest in the actions that governments take to establish it. In large part, these strategies are consistent with advice provided by the Roman strategist Vegetius, who wrote, “Si vis pacem, para belum”; if you desire peace, prepare for war.

His premise was simple. A powerful military would have a greater chance of deterring an adversary from taking an undesirable action than a weaker military, because a stronger military could more easily punish a potential aggressor. Vegetius’ point is no less valid today than it was almost 2,000 years ago. The United States, for example, develops powerful weapons like tanks, aircraft carriers, and fighter aircraft not in the hope that it will have an opportunity to use them, but rather in the hope that their visible existence will deter adversaries from threatening our interests.

Chattanooga

Fallujah Redux

 

It's a laugh a minute in the New Middle East and the Caliphate Battles...

 

 

When the Americans set out to capture Fallujah in April 2004, it was under the control of al-Qaida in Iraq, the precursor of the Islamic State, whose fighters have held onto the city for the past 18 months.

This time, the Americans plan only a peripheral role in the coming fight. In the lead now are Iranian-trained and -equipped Shiite Muslim militias — some of whose members, ironically, fought against American forces during back in the day

The Iraqi Defense Ministry announced Monday that the militias and loyalist troops had surrounded the city of 500,000 and were beginning operations to capture it — a task that in 2004 took U.S. Marines two separate assaults six months apart and, in total, three months of hard fighting. By the time the 2-month-long Second Battle of Fallujah ended in December 2004, more than 100 Americans were dead and the city had been all but leveled by a torrent of artillery rounds, precision guided missiles and tens of thousands of bullets from automatic weapons. Enemy casualties were estimated at 1,500.

In a statement on state television, Iraqi military officials said that Monday’s assault, which began after six weeks of preliminary bombardment, had been greeted with heavy resistance from the militants, including no less than five suicide car bombs and a number of gunfights on various axes around the city.

No surprise. Fallujah has from the beginning of the American occupation been the heart of the Sunni insurgency, first against the American occupation and then against the Baghdad-based Shiite-led government that Sunni Muslims have long accused of mistreating them and ignoring their needs.

In its current incarnation, the Islamic State has controlled Fallujah since January 2014, months before the group became the focus of a U.S.-led international coalition after it captured Mosul on June 10, 2014, and swept across northern and southern Iraq, scattering fleeing Iraqi government troops.

Iraqi officials have been candid that the brunt of the fighting about to engulf the city will be borne by an umbrella group of Shiite militia groups formed under the supervision of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the elite of Shiite Iran. That’s raised dire concerns from American advisers that these sectarian groups — overtly hostile to American and Sunni Muslims — will break the already deeply frayed relationship between the Shiite government in Baghdad and the Sunni tribes that dominate the large swaths of Iraq currently under the Islamic State’s control.

The government claims that Sunni tribal fighters and local policemen from Anbar will join the militia-led assault. But many remain skeptical that Sunnis have joined in sufficient numbers to avoid the impression of a Shiite pogrom against Sunnis in Fallujah.

“The government says that it has trained 5,000 Sunni tribal fighters, but this number is not realistic,” said one Anbar tribal leader currently in Irbil, who asked his name not be used for fear of sectarian reprisals from the government.

“These Iranian gangs are going to take their revenge for Saddam and for Zarqawi on the innocent people of Fallujah and Ramadi,” he said, referring to the provincial capital of Ramadi, whose surprise fall to the Islamic State two months ago triggered the Shiite militias’ zeal to capture Fallujah.

Reached for comment, one militia commander disputed the lack of Sunni participation.

In a statement to McClatchy, Col. Mahmoud al Jumaili, who commands what is known as the Third Battalion of the Popular Movement, said he expected “good news of victory for the liberation of Anbar,” thanks to the combined efforts of the army, the police and “the sons of the tribes.”

Jumaili’s men are fighting north of Fallujah. They claimed that heavy artillery support had helped them kill at least 30 members of the Islamic State as the militia took control of the village of Asjr on the outskirts of Fallujah’s significant urban area.

The offensive is expected to last weeks, if not months. The Iraqi military and its Shiite militia allies have shown little ability to fight effectively in urban areas without taking huge casualties; the assault on Tikrit, another Sunni city that had been in Islamic State hands for months, claimed hundreds of militia lives in its first weeks.

Militants in Fallujah have had even more time to prepare their defenses — and can count on the sympathies of hundreds of thousands of Sunnis in the area.

How many men have rallied to either side of the conflict is uncertain. The militias probably number at least 10,000. The Islamic State opponents likely count their numbers in the hundreds.

American officials reportedly recommended that the government concentrate on retaking Ramadi before Fallujah because the Islamic State has controlled that city only since May. But Iraqi officials were intent on tackling Fallujah first because it lies just 40 miles from the Iraqi capital.

Despite the open discussion of the militias’ involvement in the Fallujah offensive, a Pentagon spokesman said that their participation had not been confirmed and that the coalition would assist with airstrikes and intelligence gathering.

“Our coalition airstrikes will likely match the pace and posture of Iraqi security force operations in Anbar,” a Pentagon official who asked not to be further identified because he was not authorized to discuss coalition operations.

On Sunday, U.S.-led warplanes conducted 29 airstrikes that the U.S. Central Command described as near Ramadi. The strikes hit 67 Islamic State staging areas and destroyed two excavators and one armored personnel carrier, according to a statement.

U.S. military advisers are helping the government wage the offensive from a Joint Operating Center at Taqaddum, a military base 70 miles west of Baghdad in eastern Anbar province.



Vooruzhonnije Síly Rossíyskoj Federátsii

CFR unleashes an indepth look at Commonwealth Russia's military abilities, strengths and challenges

The Russian military suffered years of neglect after the Soviet collapse and no longer casts the shadow of a global superpower. However, the Russian armed forces are in the midst of a historic overhaul with significant consequences for Eurasian politics and security. Russian officials say the reforms are necessary to bring a Cold War-era military into the twenty-first century, but many Western analysts fear they will enable Moscow to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy, often relying on force to coerce its weaker neighbors. Some say Russian interventions in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014–2015—both former Soviet republics seeking closer ties to the West—demonstrate that President Vladimir Putin is prepared to use military might to reestablish Russian hegemony in its near abroad.

Momma Russia's conventional military abilities...

Both in terms of troops and weapons, Russian conventional forces dwarf those of its Eastern European and Central Asian neighbors (see Table 1), many of which are relatively weak ex-Soviet republics closely allied with Moscow. Russia has a military pact with Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan through the Collective Security Treaty Organization, formed in 1992. Moscow also stations troops in the region: Armenia (3,300), Georgia's breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia (7,000), Moldova's separatist Transnistria region (1,500), Kyrgyzstan (500), Tajikistan (5,000), and Crimea (20,000).

Table 1

As part of defense reforms, most Russian ground forces are to be professionalized and reorganized into formations of a few thousand troops for low- and medium-intensity conflicts. But for the foreseeable future many will remain one-year conscripts with limited training (military service is compulsory for Russian men aged eighteen to twenty-seven). The Airborne Assault Forces, which comprises about thirty-five thousand troops and whose commander answers directly to Putin, is Russia's elite crisis-reaction force. A Special Operations Command, also a reserve of Putin, was created in 2013 to manage special operators outside Russian borders.

Moscow is intent on remilitarizing its Arctic territory and is restoring Soviet-era airfields and ports to help protect important hydrocarbon resources and shipping lanes. (Russia has the world's largest fleet of icebreakers, which are regularly required to navigate these waters.) In late 2013, Putin ordered the creation of a new strategic military command in the Russian Arctic.
Figure 1

Meanwhile, rearmament has been slow, and much of the military's equipment remains decades old. The once formidable Soviet navy is now little more than a coastal protection force. All of the navy's large vessels, including its sole aircraft carrier, the non-nuclear Kuznetsov, are holdovers from the Cold War. (By comparison, the United States has ten nuclear carriers and builds several new warships each year.) While Russia plans to reestablish its "blue-water navy," analysts say it won't be able to produce a new fleet of large warships for at least a decade. The navy's immediate focus is building nuclear submarines and smaller surface vessels for coastal defense and sea lane protection.

The Russian air force remains the second-largest in the world, with approximately 2,500 aircraft in service, but most date from the 1980s. New variations of the Sukhoi Flanker, a multi-role fighter, are expected to serve as Russia's main combat aircraft for at least the next the decade.

Meanwhile, Sukhoi is developing several more advanced warplanes, including a fifth-generation "stealth" fighter, the T-50. Russia does not yet operate armed drones, but military leaders say that research is underway. The current fleet of strategic bombers, which resumed regular patrols in 2007, is expected to fly for at least another twenty years, allowing designers ample time to develop replacements.

Pax Irania?

Will New Clear Mullahs usher in a new age for the ME - like - you know - a Pax Irania?

It is premature to speak of notions of a new ‘Pax Iranica’ in the region. While there may be dreams of fulfilling the demands of the Iranian revolution, which includes activity far beyond Iranian borders, the capacity for such wide-ranging pursuits is hardly evident. At the same time, it is clear that Tehran has designs on what it perceives to be its national interests in the region — and that fundamentally relates to Baghdad and Damascus, and to a lesser extent in Beirut (the Yemeni file is far less important in Tehran).

There is also the concern that continues to be raised by Arab diplomats time and again — and that is that the agreement with Iran is taking place against the backdrop of a nuclear power that already exists in the region. Israel has been suspected of holding a large nuclear arsenal for decades. If there is a fear about Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons after the deal's 10-15 year period is over, any efforts to pursue non-proliferation in the region will count for naught if Israel’s own status in this regard is not addressed.

Until now, Tehran, nevertheless, has essentially been shackled in the international community. A nuclear deal, accompanied by a relaxing of restrictions in how Iran engages on all kinds of levels, could very well change that. In Cairo, the capital of the largest Arab country, in 2011 and 2012, Egyptians were opening up new trade relationships with the Turks; in 2013 and 2014, new relationships begun with the Saudis and the Emiratis. In 2016 or 2017, might we see Iranians frequenting Cairene hotels? How far will Iran be able to project itself into the Arab world — and what repercussions will those have on those countries over the long term?

Iran’s closest Arab neighbours, the Arab Gulf states, are, predictably, the most worried. One critical question for these governments, regardless of the efficacy of their concerns, is: what will they do? As it stands at present, Iran has shown a great deal of resilience against a strict sanctions regime. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), under no such restrictions, is often critiqued by foreign diplomats and analysts for not doing enough. Much of the GCC has failed to invest in the human development of its populations, relying heavily on foreign labour and expertise — will any nuclear deal encourage the GCC to more aggressively develop the potential of their citizens?

Finally, the question ought to be raised — would an Iran unburdened in the same way strengthen the hand of those who would push Tehran in the direction of a more pluralistic order within the country, and a more just foreign policy outside it? Would an Iran more accepted in the international community be more of an ally for peace in Syria — or it would use its leverage to ensure the continued existence of the Assad regime?

Wake Up w/A Nuke Deal

The news...

After more than two weeks of marathon negotiations, Iran and six world powers were close to nailing down an historic nuclear deal that would bring sanctions relief in exchange for curbs on Tehran's atomic program, diplomats said on Sunday.

But Iranian and Western officials said it was highly unlikely they would be able to finalize an agreement on Sunday, saying the earliest an agreement could be ready was more likely Monday

Yet 

One of the truly irritating side effects of protracted negotiations like these is that it forces members of the punditocracy to repeat the same points over and over again in hopes someone will finally listen. There has always been, in my view, a significant chance that Khamenei could not take “yes” for an answer on a big deal that truly limited Iranian options, no matter how sweet the “yes” seemed to be. 

Why? Because hating America is part of the Mullahcracy’s raison d’etre. It is what enables the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) to command the sanctioned economy and hence fund and enrich its members. The IRGC reportedly owns about three-quarters of Teheran real estate, a phenomenon redolent of the modus operandi of “security mafias” in places like Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Algeria, and Burma—to mention only a few examples. The Qods Brigades, the IRGC’s military arm, trumps the Iranian military itself when it comes to resources and political access. If Khamenei makes a “big deal” with the Americans, he basically screws the regime’s own Praetorian guard.

There is more. The Iranian population is young and does not like its leaders. It boasts one of the most pro-American populations in this western part of our galaxy. The leadership, fearing the longer-term power of this large generational cohort, has relaxed or simply has been unable to enforce many social rules laid down in earlier years of the Islamic republic—whether these concern alcohol consumption, unmarried couples living together, how women dress in public and what sporting events they go to, and so on. But expectations have continued to rise and the regime is running out of wiggle room.

Things are sketchy enough right now, but there is no serious political opposition; a “big deal” with the Americans is very likely to be taken by a lot of Iranians as a signal of regime relaxations across the board. This Khamenei cannot afford, because no one can say where it would end. So if there ever is a “big deal”, expect a very harsh crackdown on a range of behaviors the mullahs do not like. The basij will go wild bashing heads. If you think the regime violates human rights (as we understand them) now—and of course it does—just wait.

And there is even more. What would as much as $150 billion in unfrozen assets pouring into Iran do to that economy and society? One has to wonder if the mullahs understand the real reason the Shah fell. The Shah was a victim of his own success, and that of his father before him. The White Revolution basically worked. The clergy was dispossessed of its vast land holdings, along with significant land reform. Women were given the right to vote, an episode, in 1964, that catalyzed Ruhollah Khomeini’s first arrest. But when the money rushed in after the doubling of oil prices in 1974—a development that the Shah himself engineered more than any Arabs—it spawned massive corruption and social dislocation. If Khamenei understood this, the last thing he would want is $150 billion rushing into the arms of a pent-up, socially explosive Iranian political economy.

In short, there are very good reasons outside the four corners of a prospective deal for the Iranian leadership to walk away.The most likely outcome, despite the fact that most experienced observers, a lot of them far wiser, disagree.

Maybe they are right, because what Iranian leaders would get from a “big deal” isn’t insignificant. That would include the tacit but still very loud blessing of the United States on Iran’s becoming a threshold nuclear power. That is no small symbol. They would get a lot of money, and they would be fully open for business—not that the sanctions regime has not been quite leaky anyway, especially lately. They may think that they would become more popular among younger cohorts, siphoning off discontent with largesse. And perhaps above all, they would be consummate wedge drivers, giving their Sunni Arab adversaries multiple laundry problems.

Certainly there would be money aplenty left over to feed the Assad regime, Hizballah, the Houthis, Shi‘a cells in Bahrain, and so on.

At the very least, even if the Iranians did no more mischief than they are already doing, they would confirm the worst fears of America’s longstanding Arab allies, and Israel too: The Americans don’t care about you and won’t come to your aid if you get in trouble.

WoW!!

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 2/3 votes!–Joshuapundit–Greece’s New Trojan Horse, And What It Means To America

Second place with 2 votes – The Noisy Room – Vapid Musings At Vox And Why The American Revolution Was NOT A Mistake

Third place with 1 2/3 votes –Bookworm Room – Wifebeater Patriotism

Fourth place with 1 vote –Ask Marion – Beating the Odds Part Two –

Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote –Nice Deb – Sweet Cakes By Melissa Refuses to Comply With Gag Order

Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote –The Razor – Time To Stand Up Against the Morality Police (Once Again)

Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote –The Right Planet – Mesmerized by the Bear: The Great Soviet Deception

Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote –The Glittering Eye –“Deutschland Über Alles“

Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote –The Independent Sentinel – Chicago’s Strict Gun Laws Show Promise, Only 64 People Shot Over July 4th Weekend

Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote –Puma By Design – BANNED: University of Wisconsin Ordains Phrase “Everybody Can Succeed” Racist Among Others

Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote –Don Surber – The real reason “Dukes of Hazzard” offends the loony left

Non-Council Winners

• First place with 3 votes! –Caroline Glick – The Iranian-American Nuclear Project submitted by The Watcher
• Second place with 2 votes – Robert Tracinski, Benjamin Domenech/The Federalist – Welcome To Culture War 4.0: The Coming Overreach submitted by The Watcher
• Third place with 1 2/3 votes –Judicial Watch –New Documents Reveal DOJ, IRS, and FBI Plan to Seek Criminal Charges of Obama Opponents submitted by Puma By Design
• Fourth place with 1 1/3 votes –Bill Whittle, PJTV –Pin the Tale on the Donkey: Democrats’ Horrible Racist Past submitted by Nice Deb
• Fifth place *t* with 1 vote –Tom Tancredo/Breitbart – Independence Day, Time to Think Radical Thoughts submitted by The Noisy Room
• Fifth place *t* with 1 vote –Zenpundit – Intellectuals and their Romance with Political Barbarism submitted by The Glittering Eye
• Seventh place *t* with 1/3 vote –The Free Beacon – FLASHBACK: Clinton Son-in-Law Bet Big on Greek Recovery submitted by Don Surber
• Seventh place *t* with 1/3 vote –The Interpreter – Russia has Reached Its Own Very Different ‘End of History’ and West has Failed to Recognize This, Pavlova Says submitted by The Right Planet
• Seventh place *t* with 1/3 vote –Victor Davis Hanson – Is the World Becoming Fed Up? submitted by Joshuapundit
• Seventh place *t* with 1/3 vote –Charles Johnson/Ramen IR – NATO Does Not Need to Expand Again submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD
• Seventh place *t* with 1/3 vote –Tea Party News Network –‘Lollipop Guild’ of RINO’s Goes On Attack; Trump Bites Back – submitted by Ask Marion
• Seventh place *t* with 1/3 vote – Red Alert Politics – Occupy Democrats thinks a Mexican laborer destroys Trump’s position. 14 dead Americans say otherwise. submitted by VA Right!
• Seventh place *t* with 1/3 vote –Rich Lowry/NRO– The Ignorant Freakout over Clarence Thomas submitted by Bookworm Room

See you next week!

Caliphate Shock Troops

Inghemasiyoun!

Bearded and wearing bright blue bandanas, the Islamic State group's "special forces" unit gathered around their commander just before they attacked the central Syrian town of al-Sukhna. "Victory or martyrdom," they screamed, pledging their allegiance to God and vowing never to retreat.

The IS calls them "Inghemasiyoun," Arabic for "those who immerse themselves." The elite shock troops are possibly the deadliest weapon in the extremist group's arsenal: Fanatical and disciplined, they infiltrate their targets, unleash mayhem and fight to the death, wearing explosives belts to blow themselves up among their opponents if they face defeat. They are credited with many of the group's stunning battlefield successes — including the capture of al-Sukhna in May after the scene shown in an online video released by the group.

"They cause chaos and then their main ground offensive begins," said Redur Khalil, spokesman of the U.S.-backed Kurdish People's Protection Units, which have taken the lead in a string of military successes against the IS in Syria.

Though best known for its horrific brutalities — from its grotesque killings of captives to enslavement of women — the Islamic State group has proved to be a highly organized and flexible fighting force, according to senior Iraqi military and intelligence officials and Syrian Kurdish commanders on the front lines.

Its tactics are often creative, whether it's using a sandstorm as cover for an assault or a lone sniper tying himself to the top of a palm tree to pick off troops below. Its forces nimbly move between conventional and guerrilla warfare, using the latter to wear down their opponents before massed fighters backed by armored vehicles, Humvees and sometimes even artillery move to take over territory. The fighters incorporate suicide bombings as a fearsome battlefield tactic to break through lines and demoralize enemies, and they are constantly honing them to make them more effective. Recently, they beefed up the front armor of the vehicles used in those attacks to prevent gunfire from killing the driver or detonating explosives prematurely.

Those strategies are being carried over into new fronts as well, appearing in Egypt in last week's dramatic attack by an IS-linked militant group against the military in the Sinai Peninsula.

Andreas Krieg, a professor at King's College London who embedded with Iraqi Kurdish fighters last fall, said IS local commanders are given leeway to operate as they see fit. They "have overall orders on strategy and are expected to come up with the most efficient ways of adapting it," he said. The group "is very much success oriented, results oriented." That's a strong contrast to the rigid, inefficient and corrupt hierarchies of the Iraqi and Syrian militaries, where officers often fear taking any action without direct approval from higher up.

IS fighters are highly disciplined — swift execution is the punishment for deserting battle or falling asleep on guard duty, Iraqi officers said. The group is also flush with weaponry looted from Iraqi forces that fled its blitzkrieg a year ago, when IS overtook the northern city of Mosul and other areas. Much of the heavy weapons it holds — including artillery and tanks — have hardly been used, apparently on reserve for a future battle.

Iraqi army Lt. Gen. Abdul-Wahab al-Saadi said IS stands out in its ability to conduct multiple battles simultaneously.

"In the Iraqi army, we can only run one big battle at a time," said al-Saadi, who was wounded twice in the past year as he led forces that retook the key cities of Beiji and Tikrit from IS.

Even the group's atrocities are in part a tactic, aimed at terrorizing its enemies and depicting itself as an unstoppable juggernaut. In June 2014, the group boasted of killing hundreds of Shiites in Iraq's security forces, issuing photos of the massacre. It regularly beheads captured soldiers, releasing videos of the killings online. It is increasing the shock value: Recent videos showed it lowering captives in a cage into a pool to drown and blowing off the heads of others with explosive wire around their necks.

The number of IS fighters in Iraq and Syria is estimated between 30,000 to 60,000, according to the Iraqi officers. Former army officers of ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein have helped the group organize its fighters, a diverse mix from Europe, the United States and Arab and Central Asian nations. Veteran jihadis with combat experience in Afghanistan, Chechnya or Somalia have also brought valuable experience, both in planning and as role models to younger fighters.

"They tend to use their foreign fighters as suicide bombers," said Patrick Skinner, a former CIA officer who now directs special operations for The Soufan Group, a private geopolitical risk assessment company. "People go to the Islamic State looking to die, and the Islamic State is happy to help them."

The group's tactics carried it to an overwhelming sweep of northern and western Iraq a year ago, capturing Mosul, Iraq's second-biggest city. Shortly thereafter, IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared a "caliphate" spanning its territory in Iraq and Syria.

In May, it captured Ramadi, capital of Iraq's vast western Anbar province, in a humiliation for Iraqi forces. In Syria, it seized the central city of Palmyra.

The elite shock troops were crucial in the capture of Ramadi. First came a wave of more than a dozen suicide bombings that hammered the military's positions in the city, then the fighters moved in during a sandstorm. Iraqi troops crumbled and fled as a larger IS force marched in.

"The way they took Ramadi will be studied for a while," Skinner said. "They have the ability to jump back and forth between traditional (military operations) and terrorism." He said a similar combination of suicide bombings ahead of ground forces was used in last week's Sinai attacks in Egypt.

Since US-led airstrikes in Syria and Iraq have made it more difficult for the group's forces to advance, IS has lost ground. Iraqi troops and Shiite militiamen retook areas to the south and northeast of Baghdad, the oil refinery city of Beiji and Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit north of the capital.

In Syria, Kurdish fighters backed by heavy U.S. airstrikes wrested the border town of Kobani from the IS after weeks of devastating battles. More recently, IS lost Tal Abyad, another Syrian town on the Turkish border.

Despite that loss, IS shock troops attacked Kobani last month. Around 70 of them infiltrated and battled a much larger Kurdish force for two days, apparently on a mission not to retake the town but to cause chaos.

They were all slain, but not before killing more than 250 civilians, including roughly 100 children, and more than 30 Kurdish fighters. At the same time, they attacked the northeast Syrian city of Hassakeh, driving out thousands of people and still holding out in parts of the city despite continued fighting. Last week, they carried out a bloody incursion into Tal Abyad, again fighting until they were all killed but demonstrating their relentlessness.

"We are still nursing our wounds in Kobani," said Ghalia Nehme, a Syrian Kurdish commander who fought in last month's battle. "From what we saw, they weren't planning to leave alive. It seems they were longing for heaven," she said.

The use of suicide bombings has forced IS's opponents to adapt. Al-Saadi defied his own Iraqi military commanders who demanded a fast assault to retake Beiji. Instead, he adopted a slow, methodical march from a base near Tikrit, moving only a few miles each day while clearing roads of explosives and setting up barriers against suicide attacks. It took him three weeks to go 25 miles to Beiji, fighting the whole way and fending off more than two dozen suicide attacks, then another week to take Beiji, but he succeeded with minimal casualties.

IS also has adapted, and recently began using remote controlled aircraft fitted with cameras to film enemy positions. It is believed to have agents within the military. It also has superior communications equipment, using two-way radios with a longer range than the Iraqi military's, said Maj. Gen. Ali Omran, commander of Iraq's 5th Division.

Omran said that when the extremists figured out the military was listening in on its radio frequencies, it switched to more secure lines but continued using the infiltrated frequencies to feed the military false information.

Even IS supply chains are robust. Its fighters' rations often include grilled meat kebabs and chicken, better than what Iraqi troops eat, Omran said.

But IS has its vulnerabilities, noted Skinner. It has no air force. And its open, state-like organization gives an opportunity for spies to infiltrate, something the group clearly fears given the many killings of people it suspects of espionage. It also faces internal strains, trying to control and direct its multi-national personnel.

"We think of them as this spooky faceless organization that runs seamlessly," Skinner said. "I imagine it's probably the hardest organization to run, because it's staffed with unstable, violent people."