The Iran Mess Here at Home

For John, BLUF:  I have been reading The New Yorker since from around 1950—or at least reading the cartoons.  It was in the living room of the house behind ours, the DeHarts on Lincoln Street.  I think it would be fair to characterize Clara DeHart as the intellectual on South Lincoln Street.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Real Backstory of Why Trump Ordered the Killing of Suleimani Is Becoming More Clear

From The New Yorker, by Writer John Cassidy, 10 January 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

The Trump-Iran story continues to develop in alarming ways.  On Thursday, reports that Western governments believe Iranian military forces mistakenly shot down a Ukrainian passenger jet, killing a hundred and seventy-six passengers and crew members, produced a predictably divided reaction.  “Innocent civilians are now dead because they were caught in the middle of an unnecessary and unwanted military tit for tat,” Pete Buttigieg, the Democratic Presidential candidate, said, on Twitter, immediately drawing cries of outrage from Trump supporters who insisted that Iran was entirely responsible.  Iran’s government dismissed the reports as disinformation.  But, if it does turn out that the Iranian military made a terrible blunder amid the frightening escalation in long-running tensions between Tehran and the Trump Administration, it will be ever more imperative to get a full account, not only of that blunder but also of the escalation.

On that subject, more disturbing details are emerging by the day.  The picture we are getting is of the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and Vice-President Mike Pence both egging on an impetuous President to launch the January 2nd drone attack that killed the Iranian military commander Qassem Suleimani at Baghdad International Airport.  None of Trump’s other senior political or military advisers, meanwhile, appear to have urged restraint, despite the near-certainty that the move would inflame the entire Middle East and provoke reprisals.  Any deliberative policymaking process appears to have been replaced by a combination of belligerence, toadyism, and saluting the Commander-in-Chief.

Really, Mr Cassidy is supporting Mayor Pete Buttigieg's contention that President Trump is responsible for the downing of the Ukranian airliner on takeoff from Tehran?  Is he willing to take it to the next step, which is, as Senator Warren suggests, that the President ordered the attack on Major General Suleimani because of the Impeachment action, a sort of Wag the Dog scenario.  Is Speaker Pelosi ultimately responsible for this?

But, more fundamental is the question of if the attack on Major General Suleimani was "an unnecessary and unwanted military tit for tat"? History tells us that this kind of targeting is not unknown:

• There was the British assisted attack (Operation Anthropoid) on Nazi SS-Gruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich, the leader of the Einsatzgruppen killing groups and the Chairman of the January 1942 Wannsee Conference, which gave us the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question"; the rounding up of all Jews in Germany and German occupied Europe, with deportation and genocide to follow.  From our perspective, a very bad person.
• There was the shootdown of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who, as Japanese Pacific commander-in-chief commanded both the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Midway.  Operation VENGEANCE, based on highly classified intelligence,♠ resulted in 339th Fighter Squadron P-38s being sent to intercept the Admiral's aircraft over Bougainville Island.♥

Notwithstanding the hagiography to be found in leading US newspapers and media outlets, General Saleimani was in fact an enemy of the United States and a very effective one.  The Iranian catch phrase, "Death to America" is a phrase from Iran familiar in the US.  Here is a Wall Street Journal article, "The Sinister Genius of Qassem Soleimani."  The sub-headline is "The Iranian commander harnessed both Shiite extremists and Sunni radicals, even as he built a 'foreign legion' to project Iran's power."  We are talking about a genius, a genius who kept us hopping for two decades.  We have heard the line about him being responsible for 600 American dead.  The real issue is the thousands of Iraqis who died because of General Suleimani's genius for irregular warfare.  Taking him off the table only makes sense.

"Why now" asks Senator Warren and others.  Why now is that it is time to put a stake in the ground over the increasing escalation of actions by Iran over the last nine months:

• 7 May — United Arab Emirates claims four commercial ships “were subjected to sabotage operations.”
• 13 June — Two oil tankers near strategic Strait of Hormuz hit, leaving one ablaze and adrift as 44 sailors are evacuated from both vessels.
• 20 June — Iran’s Revolutionary Guard shoots down a U.S. military surveillance drone.  President Trump lets it pass.
• 1 July — Iran follows through on a threat to exceed the limit set by the nuclear deal on its stockpile of low-enriched uranium, which is used for civilian applications
• 14 Sept. — A drone attack on Saudi oil facilities temporarily cuts off half the oil supplies of the world’s largest producer, causing a spike in prices.
• November — Protests break out in some 100 cities and towns in Iran after authorities raise the price of gasoline.  Scale of protests and resulting crackdown hard to determine as authorities shut down internet for several days.  Amnesty International estimates more than 300 people killed.
• 27 Dec. — A US contractor is killed and several American and Iraqi troops are wounded in rocket attack on a base in northern Iraq.  US blames the attack on Kataeb Hezbollah, one of several Iran-backed militias operating in Iraq.
• 29 Dec. — US hits Kataeb Hezbollah positions in Iraq and Syria, killing at least 25 fighters and bringing vows of revenge.
• 31 Dec. — Hundreds of Iran-backed militiamen their supporters barge through an outer barrier of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and hold two days of violent protests, smashing windows, setting fires and hurling rocks.

I will admit there is a down side.  Per The Daily Mail, out of the UK, "Protesters in Tehran clash with riot police as they demand the Ayatollah RESIGNS and call for regime change after Iran finally admits to shooting down jet and killing 176 people."  I blame President Trump.  Heck, protestors were even avoiding stepping on the US and Israeli flags.  And, to stir up the problem, President Trump even tweeted out a greeting to the protestors ("To the brave and suffering people of Iran:  I have stood with you since the beginning of my presidency and my government will continue to stand with you.  We are following your protests closely.  Your courage is inspiring").  The Democrat Presidential Candidates?  Crickets.

Did it make us safer?  Yes.

There has been questions as to if the President has done the appropriate notices to the US Congress.  I think that the answer is yes, both in terms of the law and in terms of precedent, set by those who occupied the Oval Office before him.

Opponents of the President have asserted that he, and his Administration, has no strategy.  It appears to me to be restraint, but responses to attacks targeting Americans and killing them.  We will support our allies, but at the same time, scale down our deployments in the Middle and Near East. 

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  The British were very concerned about the use of ULTRA signals intelligence for this particular raid.  It caused tension in the ULTRA intelligence sharing arrangement.
♥  There has been some controversy in the award of credit for shooting down Admiral Yamamoto's aircraft.  This Blogger was part of a three member panel that reviewed the evidence back in the mid-1980s.

Best Hope For Peace

For John, BLUF:  I think, if this works, and we are generous with Palestine, that other problems may also yield solutions.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Trump: Two-State Solution 'More Difficult Because It's a Real-Estate Deal' But Better for Peace

From PJ Media, by Ms Bridget Johnson, 26 September 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

President Trump said today that he thinks a two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians could be "more difficult because it's a real-estate deal" but "works better because you have people governing themselves."

Trump indicated at his UN press conference in New York that he'd "love to be able to make a deal with the Israelis and the Palestinians."

"You know, my whole life I was told that's the toughest deal.  And I disagree, I think healthcare is probably tougher, OK, you want to know the truth," he said.  "...Every possible thing is tough about that.  I think we're going to make a deal."

Trump added that senior advisor Jared Kushner, who is overseeing Middle East peace talks, "loves Israel but he's also going to be very fair with the Palestinians."

"He understands it takes two people to be happy, two groups of people to be happy," he said.  "Everybody's got to be happy and that's why it's so tough, because there's been so much hatred and anger for so many years, that's what probably the number one ingredient of toughness is."

The Poster at InstaPundit, Mr Stephen Green, says:

On the outside chance the Palestinians are willing to sit down for genuine negotiations, it will be because Trump was the first U.S. President willing to disabuse them of their notion that all of Israel could be theirs for the taking.

Yes, the President is trying an alternative approach.  Breaking the mold means a chance for peace.  On the other hand, some don't like the idea of peace in the area.  Frankly, the alternative is moving Israel, lock, stock and Wailing Wall to the US.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

New Problems in the Middle East

For John, BLUF:  Another crisis only hours away.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Warning Update:  Economic and Political Instability in Egypt

From the Institute for the Study of War and author Wesam Hassanein.  Trouble is brewing in Egypt.

Here is the lede:

Key Takeaway:  The Muslim Brotherhood called for mass protests on Friday, November 11 in response to harsh economic reforms by the Egyptian government.  Egypt is at risk of major economic and political instability following President Sisi's decision to implement severe economic policies in pursuit of a loan from the IMF, which he hopes will stabilize Egypt's turbulent economy.  Egypt's dire economic situation is compounded by geopolitical tension.  Most notably, Saudi Arabia's decision to halt oil shipments put the Egyptian government in a very precarious financial and political position.  Islamist and militant groups will likely take advantage of this instability, and use it as an opportunity to gain power in Egypt.

This is a sticky situation.  We, as Americans, should be concerned.

• We should be concerned because Egypt's Suez Canal is an important link in international trade and thus in keeping people employed and economies humming.
• If Egypt goes sideways the new government might elect to not work with our ally, Israel, but to threaten it, which means a major diplomatic, and perhaps military, problem for the US.
• An economic or governmental meltdown in Egypt will only add to the refugee crisis in Europe, and thus in the United States.

Regards  —  Cliff

Turkish Coup Comment From UK

For John, BLUF:  When all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here is a Tweet from Labour MP Chris Bryant:

Turkey is now and has long been a lynch pin in European and wider security.  Ludicrous Brexit lies undoubtedly contributed to destabilising

Brexit!  Is there any evil it can't bring to us?

Hat tip to Guido Fawkes of Order-Order.

Regards  —  Cliff

Palestinian Involvement in the Holocaust

For John, BLUF:  As hundreds of thousands of refugees pour into Europe, keeping past history straight is important.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

It being Saturday, here is an item from Israel.

"Netanyahu Retracts Assertion That Palestinian Inspired Holocaust".

The reporter is Ms Jodi Rudoren, the Bureau Chief for The Old Gray Lady.

This dustup is about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stating, on 20 October, that then Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, advised Chancellor Adolf Hitler, in November 1941, to burn all the Jews, so they would not immigrate to then Palestine.  The implication was that it was the Mufti who put the idea of the death camps in the mind of Chancellor Hitler.

The historic fact is that Chancellor Hitler was already on his way to the Holocaust and the Mufti was just another person along the way willing to support the German conclusion that eugenics allowed the extermination of certain peoples.

One of the reasons this comment was roundly criticized is that some felt it would provide a wedge for Holocaust Deniers.  That would create its own problems.

After ten days the Prime Minister took to Facebook and admitted he was wrong in his characterization of the meeting between the Palestinian Leader and Chancellor Hitler.

Here, per The New York Times, is the text of the Facebook posting:

“The decision to move from a policy of deporting Jews to the Final Solution was made by the Nazis and was not dependent on outside influence,” Mr. Netanyahu posted on Facebook, in Hebrew and English. “The Nazis saw in the Mufti a collaborator, but they did not need him to decide on the systematic destruction of European Jewry, which began in June 1941.”

He went on:  “Contrary to the impression that was created, I did not mean to claim that in his conversation with Hitler in November 1941 the Mufti convinced him to adopt the Final Solution.  The Nazis decided on that by themselves.”

Too right.

Regards  —  Cliff

Word on the Street

TRIGGER WARNING:  In which I suggest the world is complicated, or at least the Middle East.
For John, BLUF:  And it doesn't even mention the Kurds, Turkey or Armenia.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

A friend of mine linked to this item on Facebook:

It comes from the Facebook page titled "Karl remarks".

The cutline is "Political analysis on the 'Arab street' goes something like this."

Regards  —  Cliff

Target Lebanon

For John, BLUF:  This will get worse before it gets better.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Freelance Reporter Michael Totten, writing in World Affairs talks about Lebanon as "ISIS' Next Target".

ISIS has announced that Lebanon will be the next state to fall under the sway of its “caliphate.” According to Beirut's Daily Star newspaper, the only reason ISIS hasn't attacked yet in force is because they haven't decided on the mission's commander.

The Lebanese army is one of the least effective in the Middle East—and that's saying something in a region where the far more capable Syrian and Iraqi armies are utterly failing to safeguard what should be their own sovereign territory.

So France is going to send a three billion dollar package of weapons to Lebanon and the Saudis are going to pay for it.  It won't solve the problem any more than a full-body cast will cure cancer, but it beats standing around and not even trying.♠

Reporter Totten is optimistic over the long run, mentioning seventeen invading armies that came a cropper in Lebanon.  But in the short term the Christians, Shia and Druze who make up Lebanon's population will face the genocidal tendencies of Daesh.  The Daesh enjoy killing like Pol Pot and his Khymer Rouge, or Mao, or the 1939 Armies of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany taking down Poland and destroying the Polish Intelligentsia.

The good news, according to our Secretary of State, John Kerry, is that we have never been safer.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I wonder what or who he was thinking about when he wrote "it beats standing around and not even trying".

Chanukah is a Holiday of Resistance.

For John, BLUF:  Chanukah should be a Christian celebration also.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From the Blog Sultan Knish (Author by Mr Daniel Greenfield) we have a meditation on Chanukah, "A Dangerous Holiday"

Holidays are a calendar. They mark points in emotional and physical time. They remind of us who we are.

Many of those celebrating Chanukah celebrate a holiday that does nothing more than celebrate 'celebration', the rituals and rites of entertainment, a special food, a symbol whose meaning they don't remember and a little family fun.

Chanukah is many things but it is not a safe holiday. It is a victory celebration in a guerrilla war. It is a reminder that Obama's war on Jerusalem was preceded long before him by Antiochus's war on Jerusalem. It is a brief light in a period of great darkness.

I have always, since I read Macabees, understood that this is about revolution and the overthrow of oppressors.

And, I see it as a precursor of the freedom promised by Christmas.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Reaction Overseas to Torture Report

For John, BLUF:  Torture is wrong and the US should not do it.  In a crisis, in a panic, it might be resorted to.  Probably needlessly.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

One of the arguments against the release of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on Enhanced Intelligence Techniques is that it will put our Diplomatic and Military personnel overseas at risk.♠  One example of this thinking is found in an article by Reporter Richard Sisk of Military Dot Com, on Monday last.  The headline is "Military Braces for Possible ISIS Backlash over CIA Torture Report".

Here are the first two paragraphs:

The U.S. military was on guard Monday for a possible violent reaction from ISIS and other terror groups to a report on alleged use of torture by the CIA in interrogations of terror suspects.

"There is certainly the possibility that the release of this report could cause unrest, and therefore the Joint Staff has directed the combatant commands to take the appropriate force protection measures," said Army Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman.

Aside from the fact that those two paragraphs don't really track well, there is the question of why anyone would think this report would really intensify the planning of Jihadists?

I am no expert on Middle East Psychology, but I wonder if with ISIL Central focused on expanding their rule from Lisbon in the West to Mandalay in the East,♥ focused on killing prisoners who don't conform, and conducting ritual executions of "Westerners", focused on subjugating women by murder, slavery, rape, etc, focused on negotiating with various tribes, while fighting Syria, Iraq, Iran, the Kurds, the US and maybe Turkey, they will even really register DiFi's release?

And, there is the question of if the people in those lands even see our Enhanced Interrogation Techniques as all that deviant from what they experience in their own lives.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  And, yes, tourists overseas, but they haven't been ordered to be there, but went of their own volition.
♥  Based on their published map.

He Said What?

For John, BLUF:  When seeking favors from a nation one should be careful not to insult their leaders at the same time.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

MSN says that the Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is unhappy with an interview Vice President Joe Biden gave while he (Biden) was visiting Harvard's Kennedy School.  President Erdogan is demanding an apology from Vice President Biden.♠  Incidentally, Turkish President Erdogan was in the United States for the 69th session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters.  He spoke during the session.

But, to the article:

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Saturday demanded an apology from U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and warned he would become "history for me" over comments in which he said the Turkish leader had admitted that Turkey had made mistakes by allowing foreign fighters to cross into Syria.

Erdogan denied ever saying that and told reporters in Istanbul that Biden "will be history for me if he has indeed used such expressions."

Responding to questions following his speech at the Harvard Kennedy School on Thursday, Biden described Erdogan as "an old friend."  Biden added: "He (Erdogan) said:  'You were right.  We let too many people through.'  Now they're trying to seal their border."

I think the Vice President is just unlucky.  While he described the situation accurately, his remarks were infelicitous.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Appears he got it.

Israel

For John, BLUF:  I believe we have a special responsibility toward the Jews and Israel.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

With Ms Marine Le Pen and her Party threatening the current French Government, we have to consider issues such as why so many Jews are leaving France.  Of course Ms Le Pen denies the Holocaust, but then so do the Muslims living in France and elsewhere across the Maghreb and the Middle East.  One wonders why denial is such an important thing to some people.  One of the things that shows that Dwight D Eisenhower was pretty bright is the fact that he recognized the danger of denial right away the camps were liberated and thus documented what was found.

Which leads to the question of why folks are unhappy with Israel being where it is.  Here is a blog post on the issue, "Embracing the obvious truth".  The Blogger is Ms Caroline Glick.

Regards  —  Cliff

ISIS v ISIL

For John, BLUF:  Getting the terms right helps with communication.

---

The media tends to use the acronym ISIS and the White House ISIL.  I am with the White House on this.  Here is an explanation.

ISIS vs. ISIL, they're really the same thing.  "ISIS" should be understood as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham rather than the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, thus encompassing the same geographic space as the acronym "ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).

You probably have to be on Social Security to have heard the term Levant used, either Oscar or Geographically.

Regards  —  Cliff

Palistine Not Recognize Israel?

For John, BLUF:  Even without Lord Balfour, would we still have the same problem, somewhere?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Deep down, inside, I always thought the Palistinian Authority "recognizing" Israel, and it's right to exist, was part of the peace process.  If Israel has no right to exist, what does it have?  Maybe a peace guarantee, such as the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances.

The United States believes there is no need for the Palestinian Authority (PA) to recognize Israel as a Jewish state as part of a peace agreement, State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Saturday.

Psaki, who spoke to the PA-based Arabic-language Al-Quds newspaper, said, “The American position is clear, Israel is a Jewish state.  However, we do not see a need that both sides recognize this position as part of the final agreement.”

What about the Oslo Accords? There is this item from last July's Algemeiner:

Speakers at the international Palestinian solidarity conference called “Palestine:  Manifestation of Muslim Ummah’s Unity,” held in Karachi, Pakistan, this week said that Israel is an illegitimate state that must cease to exist.

Mohammad Zazeh, who is described as one of the leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the international Palestinian group headed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, said the PLO has never recognized Israel as a legitimate state, and that the 1993 Oslo Accords should not be misunderstood to have constituted Palestinian recognition of Israel.

“Israel is an illegitimate state. Palestine belongs to Palestinians. An independent state of Palestine is what the Palestinians will get recognized,” Zazeh said, according to Pakistan’s largest financial daily, the Business Recorder.

Zazeh added, “Palestine and al Quds belong to all Arabs and Muslims. This is sacred land.”

The U.S.-mediated preliminary peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians are set to begin soon in Washington, DC.

Zazeh added, “Palestine and al Quds belong to all Arabs and Muslims. This is sacred land.”

The U.S.-mediated preliminary peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians are set to begin soon in Washington, DC. So, I asked the Department of State Press Offce and they helpfully linked me to this Monday Press Conference by Ms Jen Psaki.&nbs; In part it reads:

QUESTION: There seems to be some confusion over some comments that you made on Friday about the whole recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I’m wondering if you can address those. Has the Administration changed its position on this?

MS. PSAKI: We have not. Our position has been for quite some time that Israel is a Jewish state.

QUESTION: Okay. And is it also your position that the Israeli demand for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is something to be determined in the negotiations?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: It’s not a precondition?

QUESTION: And that is not a precondition?

MS. PSAKI: We’re not going to negotiate, I’m not going to negotiate what should or should not be in a framework. Obviously, that’s going to happen between the parties. Our position has remained the same.

QUESTION: Okay. But your position that Israel is a Jewish state does not in any way preclude, let’s say, a different outcome by the two parties, correct?

MS. PSAKI: That is our position. I’m not going to comment further.

So either the Palestinians are going to have to invent a term they can live with or there will be no peace.  What can the Israelis offer in exchange?  Secretary of State Kerry and his team have their work cut out for them in helping to broker an agreement.  But, at the end of the day, the Palestinians and Israelis are going to have to want this.  Mr Kerry's desire, by itself, will not be enough.

These are going to be interesting negotiations.

Regards  —  Cliff

Doing Something About Syria

For John, BLUF:  Stay out of Syria.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From The American Interest and Mr Walter Russell Mead we have "Slaughter in the Cities, Ineffectual Mumbling in the White House".♠ 

The President can only count his one remaining blessing:  the press is still busy trying to shield itself from understanding the full damage this administration’s painfully inept Syria policy has done.  Our Syria response has harmed America’s position, our alliances in the Middle East, and our relationships around the world — to say nothing of the humanitarian disaster we’ve implicated ourselves in.

To bluster heroically about how ‘Assad must go’, then do nothing as he stays; to epically proclaim grandiose red lines and make military threats that fall humiliatingly flat; to grasp with pathetic eagerness an obviously bogus Russian negotiating ploy; to sputter ineffectually as the talks collapse…it is rare that American diplomacy is conducted this poorly for so long a period of time.

OK, that is the indictment, and Mr Mead is not the only one doing the indicting.  We have Analyst Max Boot, who on 10 February wrote in The Financial Times, "Obama’s Syria policy is a deadly mistake".♥  Author Max Boot is no lightweight. He is the Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, in New York City.

Someone I know commented on Mr Boots article thusly.

No one has commented on the feasibility of Max's military courses of action in achieving his aim.  I am of the opinion that no fly zones, safe havens etc, will not stop the war, they will only change it.

Good for AQ that they want to attack America.  The last guys they sent couldn't light gasoline on fire in Times Square.  Better Assad fights them there.  If they do win, we can target their camps and drop the new version of a BLU-82 on their heads.  Cruise missiles are so 1998.

I think our obsession with moderate, secular, democrats is ridiculous.  Nice people don't fight house to house.  Hardcore, extremists do that.  Marines do that.  The US Army is rumored to have a few in hiding who claim they can.  The point being, like a grand plan of stopping the violence via "safe zones," winning via moderates doesn't pass the tactical reality filter.

My life has been unchanged by Srebrenica.  If everyone in Syria dies, I'll still be able to get the double chocolate brownie at Starbucks.  If the Jordanians, Saudis, Turks and other regional players won't fight, why should we?  Our track record in this sort of thing is terrible and in the last 30 years we've fought in Syria's eastern and western neighbors to no avail.

Falling into the trap that limited force as a third party can positively change another's total war damages American credibility more than fake red lines or from behind leadership.

And, as stated, it is "total war" for them, while it is a "limited war" for us.

The other thing about Mr Max Boot is he is pretty casual about the President sidestepping Congress with regard to acting in Syria.  It is time for the US Congress to stop playing lap dog to the President on issues of war (or conflict, if you prefer).  That said, President Obama did right when he checked with the Congress over Syrian Chemical Weapons.  In fact, the President has generally done well with Syria, notwithstanding his "red line" and his "Assad must go" statements.  I am sure there is a lot of pressure on him from the "Responsibility to Protect" contingent in the Administration.  That he is resisting is a credit to him.

Nowhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence does it say we have to sally forth to protect the citizens of other lands.  We have done such things in the past, but with a mixed record.

This is not the Holocaust, with the victims trapped inside the country and being rounded up and gassed and their bodies burned to ashes.  There are, in fact, hundreds of thousands of refuges in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon.  President Obama recently told Jordan's King Abdullah II that we would continue to provide $660 million a year in aid and $1 billion in loan guarantees, to help out with refugee relief.

The President is on the correct course.  Let us not encourage him to jump off this approach.  Work with others and see if we can find common ground.  Americans killing Syrians to save Syrians doesn't make much sense at this point.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I wonder if that is an indirect reference to Professor Anne-Marie Slaughter and her time as Director of Policy Planning at the Department of State, which she left in February of 2011.  She is also known for her Atlantic article, "Why Women Still Can't Have it All".
♥  There is a paywall, but you can sign up for eight articles a month free.

Check Under the Bed

For John, BLUF:  Even paranoids have enemies.

---

Over at the blog Fortuna's Corner♠ we have this opening:

As the late Herman Kahn once put it (from one of my readers who worked for him) “paranoids have a high false-alarm rate; but, they find all the plots.”

Turkey Releases Bird Suspected of Spying for Israel.

After X-Raying it, looking for collection devices, that is.  The source is Reuters.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Where the motto is:  "You can never have too much information – knowledge is your best weapon!"

Wrong Reaction to President's Proposed Visit to Holy Land

For John, BLUF:  The US, EU, Canada and Japan list Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Night Watch for the night of 8 March 2013 has this item on Hamas' reaction to President Obama's itinerary for his visit to Israel.  Hamas seems to be a real all or nothing kind of outfit.

Hamas:  Regarding President Obama's scheduled Mideast visit, Hamas official Mushir al-Masri said today at a Gaza rally:  "We affirm that Obama's visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque under the occupation's authority and sovereignty will constitute a declaration of war on and provocation against our Arab and Muslim nation."

Comment:  This is the second time a Hamas official has urged the US President to not visit the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem with an Israeli security escort.  The difference is that the latest warning is much more shrill

You try to do something right and it turns out to be wrong.  Actually, in this case I am applying that to Hamas.  The US President is doing the right thing to visit the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Regards  —  Cliff

Elections Contested

For John, BLUF:  There are contested elections out there, just not so much here.

From Intelligence Analyst John McCreary and Nightwatch we have this item:

Jordan:  Jordanians will hold parliamentary elections on 23 January.  Some 1,400 candidates are contesting the 150 seats in Parliament.

If this was our election here in Lowell this year that would be like 140 candidates for City Council and School Committee combined.  That might be a little too many, but what about a total 35?  That might be interesting, as the field got winnowed down.

The interesting thing is that Mr McCreary reports the Jordanian electorate as apathetic.

Regards  —  Cliff

Syria's Near Future

For John, BLUF:  The situation in Syria could be building to be like the Thirty Years War.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Yesterday I posted on the long run chances for peace in the Near East.  If Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov is to be believed, the future is almost here.  On 13 December he said, about Syria:♠

The opposition's victory, regrettably, cannot be ruled out…. We need to face the truth. A current tendency is that the regime and the government keep losing control over an ever-growing territory.

One of the issues we now face is who will succeed Syrian President.  At the blog of the Long War Journal is a post suggesting that the leading insurgent group is Al Nusrah Front for the People of the Levant, al Qaeda in Iraq's affiliate in Syria.  From the blog post:

The terror group, which was designated as such by the US on Dec. 11, has now claimed credit for 43 of the 52 suicide attacks that have taken place in Syria in the past 12 months [see LWJ report, US adds Al Nusrah Front, 2 leaders to terrorism list, for information on the designation].

The group has become one of the most powerful and effective units in the Syrian insurgency, and it has begun to absorb elements of the supposedly secular Free Syrian Army.  The Al Nusrah Front also conducts joint operations with the Free Syrian Army and other so-called secular groups, and has numerous foreign fighters in its ranks.  Earlier this week, Al Nusrah and two other jihadist groups seized a Syrian military base thought to be involved in the chemical weapons program [see LWJ report, Al Nusrah Front, foreign jihadists seize key Syrian base in Aleppo].

So, where are we if President Assad goes away?

The first question is if the United States cares if the new Government engages in expulsion of religious or ethnic minorities, genocide against same, or other activities?  We are talking about a combination of Armenians, Arab Christians, Druze, Shia Muslims and other groups.

If we are repulsed by a Rwanda like situation, do we go to the UN for agreement to intervene?  If we intervene, will it be to protect or just to evacuate the endangered minority group(s)?

If intervention is for the purpose of evacuation, to where do we evacuate the people?  The US?

The second question is if Al Nusrah will be busy trying to establish control in Syria, distribute food and collect trash or will it act to divert the attention of the Syrian population by starting trouble with Israel?

If it is an aggressive conventional attack across the border, will the United States be willing to intervene on Israel's behalf?

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Of course, now the Russians are denying they actually said that.

Long Run Peace Chances

For John, BLUF:  "US policy in the Middle East appears to be promoting an increased threat to Israel by uniting the new Islamist regimes against Israel under Iranian leadership.  This is the one issue on which they can agree and this is a warning."

The 12/12/12 edition of Night Watch has an opinion piece by Analyst John McCreary regarding the long term prospects for peace for Israel.  Israel's current security situation is good, but with the Arab Spring and Iran close to having a nuclear weapons capability the situation could well change.  We could well ignore the impact of these developments, but to do so could leave the United States less well off in having to deal with future crises.  That is to say, a small investment now could pay good dividends in the future.

NightWatch Special Comment:  (This is a NightWatch editorial opinion.)  The US is helping to destabilize the government of Syria, just as it did the government of Egypt.

US interests generally favor stable governments, whether elected or not.  The Chinese take the same approach to North Korea.  They judge that instability in Northeast Asia is contrary to China's national interests.  It is bad for business, investment and development projects.  Thus, even the Chinese would consider the current US policy as confusing because it promotes instability with no clear end state in mind.

In the Syrian case, the US is acting as a proxy for Saudi Arabia, which is determined to block the spread of Iranian influence in Arab countries.

The US has no high-minded moral interest in this fight, as if it were helping the downtrodden struggle against an authoritarian government.  Were that the motivating factor, the US might have denounced Egyptian president Mursi's assumption of dictatorial powers on 22 November.  Asad has no comparable powers.  The US has said nothing about Mursi's personal coup d'etat.

The big winner from instability in Syria and Egypt will be Iran because its policy of hostility towards Israel is a magnet for all Arabs.

The Saudis lost the struggle to influence or control the direction of the Arab Spring states when Hamas survived eight days of Israeli air attacks, owing exclusively to Iranian, Egyptian and Sudanese help.  Saudi Arabia, with all its $billions, was irrelevant.

The US and Saudis appear to be on the wrong side of history, because Iran already appears to have made contingency preparations for supporting an anti-Israel, fundamentalist, Sunni regime in Damascus, just as it did with the Mursi government in Egypt.

US policy in the Middle East appears to be promoting an increased threat to Israel by uniting the new Islamist regimes against Israel under Iranian leadership.  This is the one issue on which they can agree and this is a warning.

What adjustments do you think we should consider in our approach to Israel and the rest of the Near and Middle East?

Regards  —  Cliff

Syria Endgame?

For John, BLUF:  As General David Petraeus once asked, "Tell me how this ends".♠

Someone out there asked:

And after Assad falls, then what?

Good question.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Tell Me How This Ends is the title of the other Patraeus biography, the one by Ms Linda Robinson.