Bombs Away in Syria

For John, BLUF:  It appears we are back in the Middle East game, maybe not for the good.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Middle Easterners Begin Painting Transgender Flag Colors On Doorposts To Avoid Biden Drone Strikes

From The Babylon Bee, 26 January 2021.

Here is the lede plus one:

Facing the coming wrath of President Biden, Middle Easterners turned to the only possible means of escape:  painting their doorposts with the colors of the transgender flag.

"Please, O Angel of Death, pass us by!" cried one man as Predator drones flew by, raining the wrath of Biden from above.  "I support your social justice causes, see?  You can pass right on by!  No problems with you here!  We love you, President Biden!  So proud to be bombed by a female vice president of color for the first time! Historic!"

Why are we bombing Syria?  And Iranian targets in Syrian?  How is that working in helping us re-enter the nuclear non-proliferation agreement with Iran?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Ignoring Human Rights

For John, BLUF:  It used to be we, as a nation, worried about the downtrodden of the world.  It now appears the bureaucrats are against such thinking.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Career Officials Thwart Aid to Christian, Yazidi Genocide Victims

From Real Clear Politics, by Ms Susan Crabtree, 11 December 2019.

Here is the lede plus four:

In the summer of 2014, the vicious Islamic State campaign against Yazidis and Christians in Iraq convinced President Obama to order airstrikes to try to save them from extermination.  The Obama administration would officially declare the ISIS slaughter of those same religious minorities a “genocide,” a State Department designation that conveyed the urgency of protecting these groups and maintaining religious freedom and pluralism in Iraq and Northern Syria.

Five years after those ISIS massacres, however, bureaucratic factions within the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development are acting as though the genocide declaration never occurred – even though it made the survival of these religious minorities in the homeland they’ve occupied for more than a thousand years a clear U.S. foreign policy priority.

During the Obama administration career and political appointees shared an aversion to awarding government assistance to local faith-based groups. They largely channeled U.S. funds for rebuilding efforts in Iraq and Syria through the United Nations Development Program, or UNDP, which maintains a “religious-blind” policy that bars funds going to faith-based organizations.

These U.S. officials also aggressively opposed efforts to direct some U.S. funding to help local Catholic Church groups and other religious organizations that were providing almost all of the subsistence assistance to the Christian, as well as Yazidi, communities.  The resistance has continued three years into the Trump administration – despite a presidential directive to fund faith-based groups and a year after the unanimous passage in both the House and the Senate of bipartisan legislation requiring the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, to channel some existing funds directly to these religious minority communities.

That legislation, HR 390 – The Iraq and Syria Genocide Relief and Accountability Act, co-authored by Reps. Chris Smith, a Republican, and Anna Eshoo, a Democrat -- had 47 co-sponsors in the House, including seven Democrats, attracting such political opposites as conservative GOP Reps. Jeff Fortenberry and Mark Meadows, as well as liberal Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, who is leading the House impeachment charge, and fellow California Democrat Brad Sherman.

The story goes down hill from there.

This is the Deep State saying my way or no way, and being in your face about it.

A longish article, because the Reporter did her homework.  Are we becoming a Bureaucracy with an unruly Citizenry, a disobedient Legislature?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Democrats on Trump Force Withdrawals

For John, BLUF:  This is one person's view, but one that resonates with me.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The 'Liberal' Foreign Policy Establishment's Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds

Here is the sub-headline:

Make no mistake, the Democrats have been tacking to the right on foreign policy and burgeoning their tough-guy-interventionist credentials for decades now

From Common Dreams, by Mr Danny Sjursen, 11 January 2018.

Here is the lede plus three:

If anyone else were president, the “liberals” would be celebrating.  After all, pulling American soldiers out of a couple of failing, endless wars seems like a “win” for progressives.  Heck, if Obama did it there might be a ticker-tape parade down Broadway.  And there should be.  The intervention in Syria is increasingly aimless, dangerous and lacks an end state.  Afghanistan is an unwinnable war – America’s longest – and about to end in outright military defeat.  Getting out now and salvaging so much national blood and treasure ought to be a progressive dream.  There’s only one problem: Donald Trump. Specifically, that it was Trump who gave the order to begin the troop withdrawals.

Lost in the haze of their pathological hatred of President Trump, the majority of mainstream liberal pundits and politicians can’t, for the life of them, see the good sense in extracting the troops from a couple Mideast quagmires.  That or they can see the positives, but, in their obsessive compulsion to smear the president, choose politics over country.  It’s probably a bit of both.  That’s how tribally partisan American political discourse has become.  And, how reflexively hawkish and interventionist today’s mainstream Democrats now are.  Whither the left-wing antiwar movement?  Well, except for a few diehards out there, the movement seems to have been buried long ago with George McGovern.

Make no mistake, the Democrats have been tacking to the right on foreign policy and burgeoning their tough-guy-interventionist credentials for decades now.  Terrified of being painted as soft or dovish on martial matters, just about all the “serious” baby-boomer Dems proudly co-opted the militarist line and gladly accepted campaign cash from the corporate arms dealers.  Think about it, any Democrat with serious future presidential aspirations back in 2002 voted for the Iraq War – Hillary, Joe Biden, even former peace activist John Kerry!  And, in spite of the party base now moving to the left, all these big name hawks – along with current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer – are still Democratic stalwarts.  Heck, some polls list Biden as the party’s 2020 presidential frontrunner.

More disturbing than the inconsistency of these political hacks is the vacuousness of the supposedly liberal media.  After Trump’s announcement of troop withdrawals, just about every MSNBC host slammed the president and suddenly sounded more hawkish than the clowns over at Fox News.  Take Rachel Maddow.  Whatever you think of her politics, she is – undoubtedly – a brilliant woman.  Furthermore, unlike most pundits, she knows a little something about foreign policy.  Her 2012 book, Drift:  The Unmooring of American Military Power was a serious and well-researched critique of executive power and the ongoing failure of the wars on terror. Drift was well reviewed by regular readers and scholars alike.

Exactly.

Well, I did think "clowns" was a little harsh in describing the folks at Fox News.

Regards  —  Cliff

Pondering the Way Ahead in the Middle East

For John, BLUF:  I would chip in that I am much less impressed with a bureaucracy in Foggy Bottom, and the Pentagon, that didn't figure out where the President was going and get ahead of him to give him decent options—or maybe they did, which is why there is, apparently, Sunni Arab backfill in Syria.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Ours to reason why

From PJ Media, by Mr Richard Fernandez (Wretchard), 21 December 2018.

The discussion is about withdrawal from Syria, but it is also about the larger regional and global strategic issues.  Then it ends with this thought:

With any luck the Syria controversy will jolt the public awake and restart a debate on these issues.  We must learn to re-recognize our world.  One of the biggest dangers for a purposeless hegemon is getting tied down in outposts purely for legacy reasons.  The MENA region probably still remembers how Lawrence of Arabia beat the Ottoman Empire.  Lawrence's amazing counsel to to Faisal to avoid capturing Medina is instructive even today:

We must not take Medina.  The Turk was harmless there.  In prison in Egypt he would cost us food and guards.  We wanted him to stay at Medina, and every other distant place, in the largest numbers.  Our ideal was to keep his railway just working, but only just, with the maximum of loss and discomfort....  [His] pride in his imperial heritage would keep him in his present absurd position -- all flanks and no front.

The great danger is that someone -- there is an enemy right? -- is playing the same game on Washington's bureaucrats.  The conflicts accumulated over the War on Terror years may have become America's Medinas.  Trump may be wrong about withdrawing from Syria, or he may be right.  The important thing to understand is why.

MENA is "Middle East and North Africa".

Ponder away.

Hat tip to Ms Sarah Hoyt, at the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Syria Troop Question

For John, BLUF:  Does opposition to President Trump now define how the Left approaches foreign policy?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

On 21 December 2018, the Althouse Blog has this post:  Glenn Greenwald calls Rachel Maddow on her hypocrisy.

Glenn Greenwald
Follow @ggreenwald

Glenn Greenwald Retweeted Michael Tracey
The most bizarre aspect of Rachel @Maddow's deep anger over troop withdrawal from Syria is that she wrote an entire book in 2012 denouncing illegal US Endless War without congressional approval - exactly what Syria is.  I interviewed her about it here: https://www.salon.com/2012/04/04/interview_with_rachel_maddow/ …Glenn Greenwald added,

Michael Tracey
@mtracey

MSNBC coverage of the Syria/Afghanistan withdrawals is just sickening. It's legitimately difficult to watch.  I am angry that liberals are being taught by former Bush lackeys (Nicole Wallace, Bill Kristol) that removing troops from pointless wars must be some corrupt Russian plot.
5:02 AM - 21 Dec 2018

Yes, I am very concerned about the Kurds in Syria, but this is a much more complex issue than just the Syrian Kurds.  For one thing the Kurds sit on junction of several nations.  There are Kurds in Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran.  There is the question of what happens if Turkey, claiming Turkish Security issues, goes after the Syrian Kurds?  Will the United States expand by a factor of ten or twenty our forces in Syria to protect the Kurds?  What happens to our US forces on Turkey's Incirlik Air Base?  Do we pull out our troops and equipment and tell our NATO Ally Turkey to go pound sand? 

Then there is the question of the impact of US presence on Sunni led nations trying to work with Syrian President Assad to reduce tensions and rebuilt the nation (parts of which look like 1945 Berlin), thus allowing people to return home and rebuild their lives.

I think President Trump is right to try and wind down US involvement in this particular imbroglio.  Is it the intention of Ms Maddow that the US be involved in asserting the rights of all minorities, everywhere?  What about when they are in conflict?

Hat tip to the Althouse Blog.

Regards  —  Cliff

Pushing Back on Russia

For John, BLUF:  In case you thought this poisoning in England was not a big deal, we have folks trying to make it a bigger deal than it is.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Don’t create an international armed conflict between the UK and Russia

This is from The Lawfire Blog, written by Duke Law Professor Charlie Dunlap, on 13 March 2018.

Here is the lede plus two:

Yesterday the British Prime Minister Theresa May stated that “it was highly likely that Russia was responsible” for the March 4th poisoning attack on a former Russian spy and his daughter in Salisbury, England.  May also said that in the absence of a “credible response” from Russia, the UK “will conclude that this action amounts to an unlawful use of force by the Russian State against the United Kingdom.”

According to a new essay by respected scholars Ryan Goodman and Alex Whiting, if an “unlawful use of force” is the conclusion, the two nations were, as a matter of law, in an “international armed conflict.”  My view is that international law should avoid construing events like this which are essentially criminal in nature as creating an armed conflict between two nuclear powers.

Prime Minister May was careful to use the words “use of force” and not “attack” in describing the incident.  Why would that be important?  Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter says that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nation.”  Obviously, a “use of force” violates the Charter.

In response to a comment on the article, saying "As terrible as these crimes were, do they really sound like enough to declare that 200 million people were in an armed conflict?"

To which Charlie replies:

You make excellent points, and I'm not dismissing the seriousness of the actions, but at the end of the day, I can't agree with you. The fact of the matter is that as bad as it is that three people were injured, a state of armed conflict between two nuclear powers carries more potential for harm. The UK can do lots of things to counter and punish Russia without being in an armed conflict with it.

So, there you have it.  Serious things happening, but with a little statesmanship we can avoid armed conflict between nuclear armed nations.

Regards  —  Cliff
-, Wed 3.0

Poking the Bear

For John, BLUF:  President Putin seems to think he is free to do as powerful men do, but it turns out he may have been reading too many US Democratic Party press releases.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Fourteen days

From the article:

Part of Haley's message was an American threat to counter Russia where its forces and foreign policy were most over-extended:  in Syria.  “Sixteen days ago, we came to an agreement.  Russia cast its vote in favor of the agreement. And with that vote, Russia promised its support for a 30-day ceasefire, as did the rest of the members of the Security Council…During the negotiations, the United States put all parties on notice that we needed to act if the ceasefire was not honored, and members of the Security Council agreed.  And now that day has come.  The ceasefire has failed. The situation of the civilians in eastern Ghouta is dire.  And the United States is acting.  We have drafted a new ceasefire resolution that provides no room for evasion.  It is simple, straightforward, and binding. It will take effect immediately upon adoption by this Council.”

It's a deadline with about fourteen days -- thirty minus sixteen -- to run.

This is from The Belmont Club,♠ via PJ Media, by Mr Richard Fernandez, 14 MARCH 2018.

Here is the meat of the issue:

The Red Line shoe is now on the other foot.  By issuing a warning against infringing his freedom of action Putin has drawn a Red Line and Haley just threatened to cross it in the most public possible way.  Radio Free Europe writes “the United States has said it is ready to act in Syria to end chemical attacks and “inhuman suffering” if Russia, Iran, and Syria continue to allegedly ignore a 30-day cease-fire approved by the United Nations, prompting a warning from Moscow that it will strike back if the lives of its servicemen are threatened”.

What Russia will do when the clock counts down remains to be seen.  The US threat is both asymmetric and strategically calculating.  The US has power dominance over Russia in Syria.  In almost any scenario except the use of nuclear weapons or nerve gas, Russia is likely to be badly worsted in Syria.  Striking at Assad and Iran will be supported by Saudi Arabia and Israel.

It is dangerous but also profoundly psychological.  Vladimir Putin has now been threatened twice by women, Theresa May and Nikki Haley, even as [he] stands for election as the Macho Man.  The Kremlin strongman can hardly back down now without immense loss of face, which is perhaps the point.  Putin is in a tight spot.  He can either eat crow or roll the dice.  His first reaction in past situations has been not to yield but double down.  This will make the next two weeks extraordinarily dangerous.  It’s a big data point.  The administration has taken the risk.

We are looking at the United States Ambassador to the United Nations♥ drawing a line in the sand, with Russia, Syria and Iran on the other side.  Now the winds of the desert could obscure that line, but with the First Round of the Russian Presidential Election scheduled for this Sunday, 18 March 2018, it could impact how the voters react.  And it could impact how the Candidates react.

As an historic side note, poison gas is classified as a weapon of mass destruction (WMD).  And, it is classified as a WMD because the Old Soviet Union (now Russia) pushed the idea to include chemical and biological weapons along with nuclear weapons as weapons of mass destruction.♦

The comment from Blogger Glenn Harlan Reynolds is "Wait, I thought Trump was Putin’s puppet."

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  As in Belmont, Massachusetts.
♥  And my pick for GOP Presidential Candidate in 2024.
♦  I wonder if they now regret that move from the 1980s.

The President's Powers to go to War

For John, BLUF:  The President can start a military action, but Congress can cut it off.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Trump Doesn't Need Congress to Strike in Syria

From Bloomberg and Law Professor Stephen L. Carter,♠ on 7 April.

Here is the Bottom Line, Up Front (BLUF):

The result is that the commander in chief can order the U.S. military into action whenever it suits his judgment.  Many people, myself included, are uneasy with that hard truth.  For better or worse, however, it’s been our practice for a very long time.  Clinging to the long-dead notion that Congress must first declare war might be comforting, but it has nothing to do with reality.

But, back to the beginning, here is the lede plus two:

So now President Donald Trump is a war leader.  His decision to launch 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles across an international border is an act of war.  And, like most of America’s wars, it will never be declared by Congress.

Immediately upon the news of the Syria strike breaking Thursday night, Twitter erupted with complaints that the U.S. Constitution vests the power to declare war only in Congress.  This common worry misapprehends both the structure of the Constitution and the historical understanding of the declaration of war.

Let’s start with the obvious:  Every U.S. president, all the way back to the founding, has at some point used military force without first obtaining the approval of the legislative branch.  A few snippets: George Washington fought the so-called Northwest Indian War to subdue the native people of Ohio.  James Monroe sent forces to conquer Amelia Island, off Florida.  James Buchanan sent Marines to halt the civil war in Nicaragua.  In 1893, U.S. forces overthrew the government of Hawaii, although apparently without White House permission.  Still, the overthrow stuck.  On the eve of World War I, Woodrow Wilson ordered the Marines into Mexico.  Half a century later Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada.  Most prominently, in the Cuban Missile Crisis, President John Kennedy took the nation to the brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

I too would like to tighten up Congress' control of the President's war making authority, but I think practical facts suggest it would be a bad idea.

If North Korea starts pummeling South Korea the President shouldn't have to wait for Congress to gather back from vacation to act.  He needs to act now.  If not for our commitment to our friend and ally South Korea, then for our US forces stationed in South Korea.  In modern warfare, if "A" is attacked, it may require "B" to act so that "C" can do something to help "A" protect itself.  This isn't the right to self defense inherent in any soldier's Rules of Engagement.  This isn't just a home owner defending herself with a pistol.  It is the neighbor down the street attacking a pickup truck which is shooting rockets from around the corner.

Here is the other side.  Congress, through the power of the purse, has the ability to end any military action, and has.  I have personally experienced this.  I was stationed at Korat RTAFB in 1973, flying missions into Cambodia, supporting the legitimate government against the insurgent Pol Pot.  The US Congress cut off the money for those missions.  Because I was so disgusted, I took leave and went home to Florida, where I watched on TV Lt Col Paul Schwim crawling out of the back seat of the Wing Commander's airplane, after the last official USAF mission into Cambodia.  Given that I was the Wing Commander's Instructor Pilot,♥ that would have been me flying with Colonel Bob Crouch if I had been there.  My war protest.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Professor Carter is a Bloomberg View columnist.  He teaches law at Yale University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.  His has several fiction and non-fiction books to his credit.
♥  In those days the Wing Commander flew with an Instructor Pilot.  By the time I became a Wing Commander I could fly solo.  Which was more fun.

Don't Be Confused

For John, BLUF:  President Trump continues to befuddle the press.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Some are suggesting that President Trump, who campaigned against getting involved in Syria, has now switched to the position of being involved.  Please don't be confused by the media and punditry.  This is the President taking specific action in regard to a specific situation.

For example, there is this article from The Old Gray Lady, by Reporter Peter Baker, from yesterday.

The Emerging Trump Doctrine: Don’t Follow Doctrine

Here is the lede:

As he confronted a series of international challenges from the Middle East to Asia last week, President Trump made certain that nothing was certain about his foreign policy. To the extent that a Trump Doctrine is emerging, it seems to be this: don’t get roped in by doctrine.

The Punditry and the Think Tanks seem to be populated with people with short term memories.  Does no one remember that during the primary election and the general election Candidate Trump always responded when he thought people were disrespecting him.  That is the case here.

The President had signaled that we could live with a President Assad.  That was part of the President preparing to move on.  Part of the President preparing to reduce our profile in the Middle East.

Then President Assad (mistakenly) takes the signal from Washington as a Green Light to do as he sees fit.  That was a mistake.  President Trump took President Assad's actions as trampling on his (President Trump's) willingness to move along.

If you are looking for a "doctrine" to describe President Trump's approach, try "Don't Tread on Me".

Regards  —  Cliff

Quo Vadis re Syria

For John, BLUF:  We were week in Syria and most now see it as being feckless.nbsp; Our policy for Syria is now at the mercy of others.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Danish student faces six months in prison as she goes on trial for fighting ISIS in Syria

This is a little old (13 December 2016), but still timely.  The reporter is Ms Cheyenne Roundtree and the source is the UK's Daily Mail.

A young Danish-Kurdish woman who fled her homeland to fight ISIS in Syria could receive up to six months in prison for fighting against the extremist group.

Joanna Palani, 23, is facing punishment from Copenhagen City Court after she violated Denmark's 'foreign fighter' rule, which aims to stop Danes who fight alongside terror groups.

Miss Palani is being tried under that same law, although she was ironically fighting against the jihadis.

I think it is sad that Western Nations are going after their citizens who go to the Middle East to fight on the side of right and good.  However, this can of national level action is not much different from the confusion these nations have WRT their foreign policies.  For example, what is our mid-term goal for Syria?  Where do President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry see us, and see Syria, in three years?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Food Aid for Syria, et al

For John, BLUF:  Refugees are best served in situ.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

U.S. Food Aid's Costly Problem

The sub-headline, and focus of this article in the magazine Foreign Affairs is "Why It's Time to Eliminate Cargo Preference"> The authors are Messrs Vincent H. Smith and Ryan Nabil. They are both from the American Enterprise Institute. Here is the key paragraph:

It should come as no surprise that when competitive bids by foreign companies are permitted, food aid becomes less costly to ship.  U.S. Marine Administration data indicate that shipping food aid on U.S.-flagged vessels under cargo preference costs 46 percent more than aid shipped at internationally competitive rates.  Cargo preference alone increases annual shipping costs by at least $60 million.  Combined with the United States’ food sourcing requirements, the policy adds up to $300 million a year to food aid transportation expenditures, according to studies by scholars at Cornell University and the American Enterprise Institute.

I agree with the authors about the costs of the US providing US food in US bottoms, but I believe that is the cost for getting buy-in from members of Congress.  And, shipping US food means US farms and farmers are sustained.  And, shipping in US flagged ships is important for keeping the US Shipping Industry going, an industry we need if we decide that we are going to send lots of US forces overseas. The US Navy doesn't have the ships needed, just as the Air Force doesn't have enough aircraft for such a deployment and thus has contracts with airlines to help out—The Civil Reserve Air Fleet, or CRAF.

This is the case of better being the enemy of good enough.  Should we do more?  Yes.  Should you write your Representative and two Senators?  Yes, but the sausage making factory♠ needs to accommodate a lot of interests.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  The US Congress.  German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck captured it:  "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made."

Refugees in the Heartland

For John, BLUF:  Checking on Backgrounds is like when we used to check on the health of immigrants.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Anniversary of Yazidi Genocide event marked in Moorhead

That would be Moorhead, Minnesota, a few blocks east of the Red River.

The web publication is Inforum, part of Forum Communications Company, a media firm based in Fargo, North Dakota.

The lede:

MOORHEAD—A remembrance of the genocide by ISIS of the Yazidi people will be held at 11:30 a.m. Wednesday, Aug. 3, at Trinity Lutheran Church, 210 7th St. S., with members of the Fargo-Moorhead Yazidi community.  Learn about the fate and faith of the Yazidi and how to support them in an effort to maintain their traditions.

Providing refuge to those who have been oppressed, those from communities suffering genocide, is something we should do, as Americans.

Remember the line?

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Yes, that one, from the poem by Ms Emma Lazarus.

Which doesn't mean they shouldn't have to go through the regular paperwork.  Heck, when I fly back into the States I have to stand in line and "present my papers".  Is that just part of the burden of Citizenship that doesn't have to be borne by those who just jump the fence?  And, I assume the risk of the Yazidi returning to the Middle East to fight with Daesh is a lot lower than for other immigrants in Minnesota.

Regards  —  Cliff

Post Sykes-Picot

For John, BLUF:  The solution isn't to be found in DC or Turtle Bay, but in the Middle East.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

"Does the Middle East Need New Borders?"  The question is from Ms Marina Ottawa, writing in Foreign Affairs Magazine.  The issue is "The Legacy of Sykes-Picot, 100 Years On.

Sykes-Picot.  That is probably an unknown subject for most of us, as it dates back to The Great War, World War I.  But, it is one of the items blamed for the turmoil in the Middle East.  I agree with that assertion, to a point.  The problems is that such a view soon becomes ethnocentric.  The fundamental issue is the people in the Region deciding on what they want and then voting for it and protesting for it and fighting for it.♠♥

At any rate, here is the lede plus two paragraphs:

On May 17, 1916, France and the United Kingdom signed the Sykes-Picot agreement, named after the two diplomats who conducted the negotiations.  The agreement was the first in a series of treaties that would eventually create the modern states of the Middle East following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.  One hundred years later, analysts such as Robin Wright and Jeffrey Goldberg predict that the region’s borders will soon be redrawn once more.  Indeed, in Iraq and Syria, where proto-states outside the government’s control have already emerged, the idea of new borders does not appear so far-fetched.  In Iraq, for example, the Kurds have already announced that they will hold a referendum on independence before the end of 2016.

New borders will not restore stability, however, because the present ones are not the cause of the region’s turmoil.  The states themselves must change if there is to be any sort of peaceful order that can accommodate the demands of the region’s diverse populations.  Yet the prospects for such a transformation are dim.

Often denounced as artificial lines in the sand drawn by ignorant European diplomats, the borders in the region are no more artificial than those established by conflict.  Even the most ardent critics of the status quo have given no indication of where the region’s natural borders lie, because there are no natural borders.  The Kurds, for example, aggrieved by a partition of the region that did not give them their own country, even disagree on whether there should be one Kurdistan or several Kurdish states.

Here is the conclusion:

The deep political reform that could possibly allow Iraq and Syria to become stable countries has not begun in either country. Abadi tried to take some modest steps and failed. Assad did not even try, insisting that all his country needs is new elections. And progress in the fight against ISIS may only make the Iraqi and Syrian governments more repressive and provide additional incentives for those who see new borders as the only solution. The region is stumbling toward the end of Sykes-Picot, but it is no closer to the end of turmoil.

What do you think about this?

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  We can help, but the locals have to want it.

♥  And they can't really do that from Europe, the UK or the US or Canada.♦
♦  Why are these folks not fleeing to Mexico, or are they?

Striking Photo

For John, BLUF:  Can't judge by the cloths being worn.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Just being a "light" Knight (of Columbus), when I saw the cover photo of the April issue of Columbia Magazine I was a little taken aback.

I wondered if it was a picture of Caliph al Baghdadi.  The picture of those about to be beheaded drew my eye, not the American Flag in the background.

But, it is not Dr al Baghdadi.  It is Coptic Orthodox Bishop Anba Angaelos, hoping a report on genocide in the Middle East.  The picture is from a 10 March 2016 press conference, after the report had been submitted to the Department of State the day before.

Here is a 10 March 2016 article on the issue, from NewsMax.

But, it isn't like this is new.  HERE is a UN Commission Report from a year ago.

So, for hundreds of years this was not a problem, although there was slavery.  Then, as one caliphate passed away we got genocide.  And it continues, a century later.

Regards  —  Cliff

SecState Kerry Acknowledges Genocide in Daesh Controlled Areas

TRIGGER WARNING:  Suggests a specific form of Islam is killing whole groups of people.
For John, BLUF:  No change on the ground, but puts us on record as seeing what is happening.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

"Kerry determines IS group committing genocide in Iraq, Syria", per Mr Matthew Lee of the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary of State John Kerry determined Thursday that the Islamic State group is committing genocide against Christians and other minorities in Iraq and Syria, meeting a congressional deadline for a decision.

The declaration, while long sought by Congress and human rights groups, changes little.  It does not obligate the United States to take additional action against IS militants and does not prejudge any prosecution against its members.

A day after the State Department said Kerry would miss the deadline because he needed to gather evidence and act deliberatively, Kerry said he had completed his review and determined that Christians, Yazidis and Shiite groups are victims of genocide and crimes against humanity by IS militants.  The House earlier this week passed a nonbinding resolution by a 393-0 vote condemning IS atrocities as genocide.

Regards  —  Cliff

Sweden Becomes More Like Saudi Arabia

For John, BLUF:  Is the European Enlightenment over?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From a Swedish English Language newspaper, The Local (SE), we have "Police defend warning for solo women in northern Sweden".

It seems the burg of Östersund (Population of 44,000) has had six reports of assaults on women since 20 February, none attributed to Swedish men (or women).

Refugees bring their own culture with them.  They are not looking to become like the citizens of their host nations, the way one might expect of immigrants.  Where there is a cultural difference some will default to their native culture.

We need to accept and welcome refugees, fellow humans who are fleeing oppression and violence, but we also need to help them understand that they are in a new place, a place with different boundaries.

Given the lack of transparency that surrounds refugees coming to these United States, the Citizens are right to wonder if there is proper screening of refugees and if they are provided with the kind of introduction that enables them to understand that what might have been acceptable in the old country may not be acceptable here in the States.

The alternative situation is that where the refugees settle they do not acculturate, or at least adapt, but, instead, reject the host nation, and its culture, and create an enclave that is culturally the same as the nation they were fleeing.

What isn't clear is if in Östersund it is sufficient that women walk in pairs, or more, or if they must travel with a male escort.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Strategic Tokenism

For John, BLUF:  Smoke and mirrors and Hillary too.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Writing for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, DC, long time strategic thinker Anthony H. Cordesman (holder of the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at CSIS) gives us "More Special Forces For Iraq and Syria: Tactical Asset or Strategic Tokenism".

I think Mr Cordesman has put his finger on what is happening with our policy in the Middle East.  We don't really take action, but make token moves that look like we are taking action.  But, we aren't.

And, there are only so many special forces we can dispatch to the area.  They are "special" because of who they are and their training.  Eventually one runs out of special forces and is down to the regular forces.  Then one either commits troops on the ground or one says the candle isn't worth the game or one engages in more strategic tokenism, hoping that time can be purchased cheaply.  The President only needs to buy time until 20 January 2017, some 394 days and less than two hours hence.  The rest of us will be hoping for time until this long war in the Middle East stops impacting us here at home (or in our vacation spots).

Regards  —  Cliff

After Daesh?

For John, BLUF:  What is beyond the next ridge?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From The Soufan Group we have a review on "Defeating the Islamic State".  The Soufan Group is headed by former FBI Agent Ali Soufan. Here is the Bottom Line Up Front:

• The tremendous effort required to topple the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq will pale compared to the effort necessary to prevent its return
• The end of 2015 sees the Islamic State in worse shape than at the start of the year, but the group’s defeat in the long term is far less certain
• Destroying the Islamic State militarily will prove inadequate towards addressing the local divisions and regional sectarianism that fueled its rise
• There must be clear paths for moderates in Syria, Iraq, and other conflict zones to deliver tangible improvements following military victory over extremist groups.

The first bullet should be the one to attract our most attention.  Which of the Candidates for President has mentioned this little problem?

Regards  —  Cliff

Seymour Hersh Cries Treason

For John, BLUF:  .  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From the London Review of Books we have Mr Seymour Hersh accusing senior officials in the Department of Defense of treason—"Military to Military", "Seymour M. Hersh on US intelligence sharing in the Syrian war".

Barack Obama's repeated insistence that Bashar al-Assad must leave office – and that there are 'moderate' rebel groups in Syria capable of defeating him – has in recent years provoked quiet dissent, and even overt opposition, among some of the most senior officers on the Pentagon's Joint Staff.  Their criticism has focused on what they see as the administration's fixation on Assad's primary ally, Vladimir Putin.  In their view, Obama is captive to Cold War thinking about Russia and China, and hasn't adjusted his stance on Syria to the fact both countries share Washington's anxiety about the spread of terrorism in and beyond Syria; like Washington, they believe that Islamic State must be stopped.

While the I think suggesting President Obama "is captive to Cold War thinking about Russia and China" is flat out wrong, there has been a recent flap about intelligence out of the Middle East being "adjusted".  And, there is the fact that President Obama has fixated on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in a way that has allowed the nation to descend into chaos.  The fact is, President Assad has been the protector of minorities in Syria.  Yes, the Arab Spring came to Syria, but it died there.  But, Daesh did not.  It lives.  It thrives on opposing the Shia Bashar Assad.

And, the area is so complex and intertwined that there is no way to sort out the good guys from the bad.  Each faction is working to achieve its own goals and they may not be the same goals as other factions they align with.  As an example of the problem, Turkey is against Daesh, but it is also against the Kurds, who are also against Daesh.  Here is a sample from The Huffington Post, "The U.S. Found The People Who Can Beat ISIS.  The Only Problem Is Everyone Hates Them".  This would be the Syrian Kurds.  This article doesn't address the leakage of young Sunni Kurds to Daesh.  What a mess.

Then there is this "bottom line up front" from the Soufan Group today:

The tremendous effort required to topple the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq will pale compared to the effort necessary to prevent its return.

Read the whole thing from the Soufan Group.  It is bracing.  If Ms Hillary Clinton thinks that Donald Trump is the recruiting tool for Daesh she is in way over her head and electing her would just give us more of the same clueless avoidance of discussing the real issues.

Regards  —  Cliff

Screening Refugees and Following Up

For John, BLUF:  There are reasons people are nervous about refugees.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From the Telegraph, by Reporters Matthew Holehouse, and Henry Samuel in Paris, in Brussels.  "Terrorist ringleader got into EU as 'refugee'".  The sub-headline is "Thousands of jihadists not being monitored".  Interesting.

The lede is:

The mastermind of the Paris attacks was able to slip into Europe among Syrian migrants, it emerged last night, as police on the continent admitted they are unable to monitor thousands of suspected jihadists.

This is different from the idea that he was a "home grown" terrorist.

And, it brings us to Republican Candidate Marco Rubio, who noted today that maybe we should prioritize those coming from Syria in terms of the threat to their lives, Christians, etc being at most threat.

Regards  —  Cliff