Former NATO Commander Warns of Wider War in Middle East by Slobodan Lekic, Stars and Stripes
NATO’s former top military commander has warned that the widening sectarian conflict in Syria and Iraq could engulf a broader region in the Middle East, just as the religious wars in Europe did in the 16th and 17th centuries.
James Stavridis, who served as the alliance’s supreme commander until last year, said that although Syria and Iraq are the flashpoints of the conflict at the moment, Lebanon and other nearby nations could easily be sucked into a war. He said the conflicts present a direct security threat to Europe as well…
Comments
A (possible) overall perspective -- not limited to the Middle East:
When great nations, such as the United States during the Cold War and Russia today, seek to "contain" the power and influence of rival great nations, then we often see these "containing"/"obstructing" great nations (1) viewing the more-conservative elements of the various states and societies as their "natural allies" and (2) seeking to recruit and utilize these more-conservative elements in their containment cause.
Thus, during the Cold War, with the United States seeking to contain the power and influence of the former USSR, we often saw the more-conservative elements of various states and societies as our natural allies and sought to recruit and "weaponize" these more-conservative elements to help contain communism/the former Soviet Union.
Likewise today -- with Russia seeking to contain the power and influence of the United States -- we see Russia (1) touting itself as the champion of conservative values and conservative causes and (2) seeking to actively recruit and utilize the more-conservative/entrenched elements of various states and societies in its efforts to contain the United States.
(With regard to the former USSR then and the United States today, the Achilles heel of both of these entities would seem to be [1] their expansionist nature and [2] the radically different way of life and way of governance that they seek to install in other nations. This, tending to drive the conservative elements of various states and societies into their rival's arms.)
One additional thought: Given that Russian prosperity is heavily dependent upon the sale of Russian oil and gas, then does it (Russia) not benefit -- both with regards to markets and with regard to price -- from difficulties which present themselves (or are manufactured/aggravated) in the Middle East?
Madhu---part of the problem in Syria outside of the religious Sunni/Shia clash lies within our own foreign policy in the region.
Right now our foreign policy somehow exempts the fact that Russia is reasserting itself in the ME as Putin attempts to reestablish Russian "greatness" ie like the former Soviet Union---somehow our foreign policy has "forgotten" Putin's personal history.
Secondly, the Obama foreign policy has actually already "pivoted" away from Europe and the ME---check his speeches in Congress---this is the underlying concern of NATO, the Germans, and the French who are in fact picking up the slack in Africa and applying external pressure to the Israeli's via actual economic blockades which have actually caught their attention.
Thirdly--our foreign policy towards Iran is right now a total failure---yes they are talking about their nuclear side but in fact the global economic system is gearing up to come back into Iran even in the face of the recent "threat" by the US that the economic blockade still is in effect. IE in exchange for an initial agreement the entire economic pressure point has effectively been removed---now the Supreme Leader announced yesterday that he feels there will be no final agreement---THEN what will our response be?
We have basically somehow in our foreign policy "forgotten" that Iran is a thriving regional hegemon using religion as their excuse to drive regionally their hegemonic expansion.
Now when in Syria there is in fact a proven ongoing attempt by Assad to exterminate a portion of his population using chemicals, barrel bombs, starvation, rape, torture, and outright murder---by the way this includes Hezbollah---what is our response?
Absolutely nothing as our foreign policy is relying on diplomacy ie words when in effect actual military power should have been the underlying threat---which at one time it was then it was backed off proving to Russia, Iran, and Assad US foreign policy was just a hollow shell.
Now what is the latest response out of the KSA?---they realize that the US has basically failed towards Iran and by extension Syria and have openly stated they will move to become a nuclear power along side Iran.
Let's not even get into US foreign policy towards Kiev or even the EU---since we know what it is since the cell intercept---we were trying to implant our choice in Kiev and we do not give a F..... for the EU.
Is there anyone at home in the State Department or at the national command level that understands reality driven foreign policy?
Or worse yet---is there any national strategy at all other than "reaction".
Bless blogger Pundita, of course she's covered this angle ("Be less helpful or be less squeamish"):
<blockquote>The glitch in the plan is evident in today's Egypt -- where the generals have popular support for their accusation that Americans are meddling their country -- and in today's Libya. Earlier this week a BBC correspondent gave an eyewitness report that the nation's capital was now blanketed by armed militias roaming around the streets and representing various and presumably opposing factions in Libya.
<strong>You want to send election monitors into that? Hand out pamphlets on how stage a genuine democratic election? (Here; hold my AK-47 for a minute while I read.) Not without a contingent of U.S. Marines at your back, which the European Parliament very well knows.</strong>
So what to do, if the half-baked militarized approach to being helpful and the NGO approach carry such serious downsides that they're counterproductive? Well, there's always the combination militarized-NGO approach: send in Special Forces to sneak around and be helpful to the cause of democracy. (Kid, don't touch that box marked "Pamphlets" if you don't want to blow up half your village.)
<strong>Not a new approach, to be sure, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn it's being deployed in Libya or will be soon. But in this era, when it seems half the world's nations are selling weapons to the other half, and when it's easy to order enough light arms from the Internet to start a civil war, the combo approach presents the same fundamental problem as the other two half-baked approaches: again, Americans don't have the power to manage the inevitable unintended and often completely unforeseen consequences.</strong>
So in Libya, as in Afghanistan and other countries, the bloodbath your intervention was meant stop or avert easily touches off a bloodbath that can be harder to stop than the first because it's more diffuse than the one launched by the central governing authority you toppled, or flimflammed out of office. </blockquote>
The current configuration of NATO and the competing impulses within are a source of disorder. No one can tell which way it is meant to go. How can an alliance like that bring anything but instability? There is no predictability. The various internal factions combine with the American administration du jour and it lurches this way and that.
To my great horror, we have contributed to the violence and suffering in Syria.
And the militarized notions of the humanitarian community took the eye off of the suffering. They may not have meant to do that but that is the end result of suggesting that if only we had done such-and-such and helped the rebels, then, magically, all would be well. So we all argue about that instead of focusing on raising money for refugees.
A sad turn for the Western humanitarian community.
So the father of the writer of the Daily Beast article mentioned further down in the thread is Peter Ackerman? That thing was linked right and left and rarely saw that mentioned. Is that correct?
From Source Watch:
<blockquote>Ackerman suggests that civic groups can accomplish regime change by engaging in "strategic nonviolenc conflict". A succint explanation of his theories can be found here:
Indicative of the common objective are the comments of the theoreticians of the post modern coup, for example, Dr. Peter Ackerman, the author of Strategic Nonviolent Conflict. Writing in the National Catholic Reporter on April 26, 2002, Dr. Ackerman offered the following corrective to Bush's Axis of Evil speech targeting Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, which he otherwise approved: "It is not true that the only way to 'take out' such regimes is through U.S. military action."
Speaking at the "Secretary's Open Forum" at the State Department on June 29, 2004, in a speech entitled, "Between Hard and Soft Power:The Rise of Civilian-Based Struggle and Democratic Change," Ackerman elaborated on the concept involved. He proposed that youth movements, such as those used to bring down Serbia, could bring down Iran and North Korea, and could have been used to bring down Iraq – thereby accomplishing all of Bush's objectives without relying on military means. And he reported that he has been working with the top US weapons designer, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, on developing new communications technologies that could be used in other youth movement insurgencies.
"There is no question that these technologies are democratizing," he stressed, in reference to their potential use in bringing down China, "they enable decentralized activity. They create, if you will, a digital concept of the right of assembly." [9]
Some might suggest that when foreign powers get involved with the affairs of other nations they manipulate the outcome in their favor. On the other hand, giving people communications technology and teaching them about nonviolent strategy might simply be seen as empowerment of the masses.</blockquote>
Or you could open up Pandora's box, unleash greater violence than that already present.
At Tufts too? Interesting.
Our foreign policy and diplomacy often seems confused, clumsy, and increasingly coercive which is an indicator that we lack diplomatic skills and push policies that are in no one's interest to include our own. It is easy to see why foreigners find it troubling. I don't know how we would do it, but I can't help but think that democratizing our foreign policy by making it more visible to the average American would put an end to many of the shenanigans committed by our so-called elite. Policy would then be more in line with our values and true interests, instead of the influence of a policy wonk's philosophy. I suspect more and more countries assert their sovereignty if they don't see an advantage to falling under U.S.
I'm tracking the EU, Russia, and others rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific for economic reasons. A war there would be in no one's interest, while continued growth in everyone's interest.
Bill M---the Europeans are far more concerned with the Pacific out of several reasons---trade and the fact that they believe China and Japan are like two kids misbehaving similar to events that led to the stumbling by European powers into WWI.
Their concern is that they are not so sure the US gets it the WWI thing.
While many in the US get off on saying Europe should be involved in say Palestine, Syria, Iran, Iraq---when they do attempt it they get pulled back by the US, have their feathers ruffled, and are told "it is a US event".
Look at Kiev---the EU has done more in the last two years there and wow just yesterday the US signals they "might" do something---the Europeans have been signaling Putin is on the march to rebuilt the "old" Soviet Union and they US finally announces yesterday they are illegally missile testing. The EU has done more to stabilize the old Eastern Europe since the breakup than the US has done in words about the problem of the breakup---part of the problem with being at war other places for over 13 years.
First the first time yesterday in German politics a major politician called for true active German driven foreign affairs tied to German/EU needs.
Waiting for that news to hit the US---when Germany drives their economic power then they are "lectured" as recently shown by the US for "not buying more US products" and for being "to strong and not thinking of others".
We can no longer have it both ways--yet we still try do.
People who understand what our national interests really are and avoid being distracted by the noise of bush wars that are astrategic and in many cases irrelevant to our national interests. Amateurs run to whatever crisis is the media, strategists attempt to stay focused on what is really important. Conflict in Mexico is not new, and despite the violence our economic interests are protected in Mexico, we have multiple layers of local, state, and federal law enforcement augmented with the National Guard to secure our borders, and we can provide military advisors without impacting our rebalance to the Asia-Pacific. As for Syria, that reflects our interests in what way? If the government falls or stands how will it impact our interests long term?
I would really like to know who the genius is that came up with the idea of the "Pacific Pivot" as part of our National Defense Strategy.
The topic would make a great skit for Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update "Really" gag:
Really America? Your REALLY going to shift your focus to the Pacific while over 20,000 people were killed in Narco-Terror attacks in Mexico last year alone and over 100,000 people have been killed in the Syrian civil war and Iraq is on the verge of collapse after we just pulled out? REALLY?
Carl, I agree the CCP isn't noted for handling religious matters in any sensitive way.
However they are smart. And no one manipulates better than communists. With some thought, money and support, they can and will manipulate by any means necessary to achieve their goals... And their strategy is far longer term than anything we do.
Just as those killers you mentioned (and so have some brass and politicians) manipulate islam, they themselves can be manipulated. And have. All they need to do is create instability, in areas beneficial to China, to further long term goals.
We probably need to be in there and Africa as well, if for no other reason than to prevent Chinese influence and manipulation of Islam to further there own ends. But if so we are going to have to be honest about it. We can't deceive ourselves into saying it is for anything but a few reasons. Money, resources, trade, investment etc. And we can't lie about the enemy either, which for them it is a religious war.
NATO this and NATO that, LOL. NATO is at least occasionally useful, if imperfect organization. And a thousand times more useful than the UN on it's best day.
Here is the article I was talking about:
"These are not mere platitudes. The total disregard by external powers to the sovereignty of countries like Syria and Yemen played an important role in derailing the uprisings. This was mirrored by the attitude of the political elites who often reduced themselves to the role of spectators, unwilling and unable to take control of the uprisings and build political momentum towards decisive takeover of power. The unseemly sight of Syrian opposition leaders begging for intervention in Western and Gulf capitals and not putting any effort into political organisation on the ground was the starkest manifestation of this misplaced emphasis."
and
"But humanitarian interventionism has little patience for such considerations. It prefers to deal in existential absolutes: it was either the intervention or the annihilation of the Libyan opposition. This is a completely inaccurate and ahistorical view. One wonders how the Vietnamese or the Algerian people would have embarked on their long and bloody struggles against formidable imperial powers if this kind of logic had prevailed a few decades ago. The logic of interventionism is superficial and expedient; it prefers to portray people as victims in need of assistance rather than political agents capable of conducting their struggles independently and willing to pay the heavy toll of sacrifice to achieve their aims.
The real problem that faced the Arab uprisings was that the logic peddled by interventionists was mirrored and internalised by opposition leaders and activists as they regarded their struggles as fragile endeavours requiring external intervention in order to succeed. While the media always played its role historically in covering struggles in shifting public opinion, think of the Vietnam war, the emphasis shifted as appealing to the media acquired a far more central role. Much effort for example was expanded by Syrian activists on Twitter campaigns encouraging Western people and celebrities in particular to take interest in Syria and support the uprising."
I would be interested to hear what people think.
http://www.karlremarks.com/2013/12/essay-arab-uprisings-and-self.html#s…
I hear you. I don't buy the happy talk about Iranian reapproachment any more than I buy the nonsense coming out of our traditional Sunni "arc."
If there is a Green Crescent, then there is a Sunni Arc of Containment that has long been the business of the US, and, prior to that, the British and European imperial systems. Balance-of-power is in there too.
We are allied with the Israel-Saudi-Gulf Sunni alliance and long have been, first to keep the Soviets out of the Mideast and then, of course, our thirty year extravaganza with the Iranians.
Add oil, the US treasury, and a class of professional meddlers in DC and you've got the basic stance which somehow is supposed to last forever or until someone finally goads the US into toppling regimes they don't like.
Neither the Iranian nor Saudi leadership look like they are going to play primarily within their borders any time soon; each is living rent free in the others' head.
The US system was interested in Afghanistan and the Saudi-Pakistan alliance in its sort of defacto arc of containment which is why a lot of people ignored a lot of things maybe they shouldn't have.
That's why the a**-covering writing is coming out so much these days; pre-empting history's judgement, I suppose.
COIN discussion about Afghanistan was a complete waste of time; our real problems lay here, in the confusion of our system when our arc of containment or Mid East stability and energy doctrine collided with danger arising from our own allies.
We overreacted to terrorism, no doubt, as a society, but many in the national security community couldn't stop thinking in terms of the old orientations without stopping to ask why American interests were, how to achieve them at a reasonable cost, and whether our traditional Sunni Arc was as destabilizing as the Green Crescent.
We are on party among many but the many expect our blood and treasure to be the main source of whatever their little hearts desire, Natoists, Arabists, Saudis, Israelis, Gulfies, Chinese, what have you....
The American Conservative is reporting that a secret congressional vote has given funding via small arms and the like to the Syrian 'moderate' opposition. We have always been involved and will always be involved.
That we continued to pay for both counterinsurgency and insurgency in the Afghanistan has its roots in this thinking and all sides of the American "coin"--haha--are complicit. Even the anti-war dot com site routinely features the kind of journalist that describes himself as a great admirer of the late General Zia which is a strange thing for someone on an anti-war website. The non-nuclear proliferationists end up in funny intellectual places sometimes, and so did the Cold Warriors and the professional get Russia and get Iran crowds.
The last bit won't make sense to too many people around here but I am in too much of a hurry to flesh it out. Once again, don't be literal and don't be conspiratorial. Some things just are. Habit. No more, no less.
Madhu---you rise a number of interesting comments---should we be tied to Saudi forever---interesting in that the Saudi's have always viewed themselves the "natural leaders" of the Sunni worldwide community which the last time I checked is far larger than the worldwide number of Shia.
When Saddam was in place anchoring the Sunni flank we were not as close as many said we were to the Saudis outside of our drive to sell weapons and get a secure oil flow back to us.
Once Iraq fell then the Saudis recalculated and saw that the US itself did not seem to have a clue as to what to do and for a number of years "refused" to even concede publicly that was even such a thing.
The KSA was viewed by the US to be anchor in the ME that we could count on as not changing so at least there was some sort of stability as the KSA had deep ties to virtually all the ME Arab countries.
While we floated around in space trying to figure out what to do about Syria or even if Syria was of interest to the US--- Saudi money has flowed in massively in the last several months as well as weapons that are now making an impact---where has the US been? How many Syria refugees have been accepted by the EU and how many by the US?---that is an interesting question.
Then the Arab Springs occurred and Egypt imploded it astounded the Saudi's and they have been watching our policy as well slant towards Iran.
Why the slant---as Iran in a press conference stated in Davos---we are a country of 80M consumers and we want closer economic ties to the West. Another reason for the slant is the Iranian border to Russia---kind of goes back to the "old US Soviet containment policies of the 50/60/70s".
The Green Crescent---your comment on whether our leadership understands it is in my opinion not that clear as the moves we have been making since 1979 does not give me comfort that we in fact understand the hegemony drive of Iran both in the immediate area as well as the impact it has had from Pakistan to Lebanon.
An example of our lack of understanding what is driving Iran currently was just displayed in Davos---Iran went on a charm offensive basically enticing US oil companies to come back into Iran as "they" had assumed that since "they" had agreed to nuclear inspections and a throttling back on enrichment that the "sanctions had been lifted".
So were they correct in believing that "sanctions" had been lifted completely or were they stretching the truth to see where and how the US would react? Which the DoS did immediately in a press conference--they publicly corrected the "misconception".
This is an old Iranian negotiating tactic at work and we fall for it every time since 1979.
Iran wants regional hegemony plain and simple---while in Geneva II they claim that all foreigners fighting in Syria are terrorists and must leave before they will support a final Syrian outcome while they themselves send Iranian military/intelligence officers, supplies/weapons/oil on Russian tankers and Hezbollah into Syria from both Lebanon and Iraq and what they are not foreign fighters?
Have you honestly heard a open and direct challenge to the Iranian involvement on the ground inside Syria from anyone in the current US senior leadership---I mean open, public, and broadcast to the world.
The same goes to the massive weapons shipments of really modern weapons going from Russia to Syria---the rest of the world agrees the shipments are being made---the US hedges and tap dances on the topic---ever wonder why--it is those 80M customers and oil?
It is the drive by the US to lock in a future trading partner with 80M customers and oil that is in fact driving the US slant to Iran---what concerns me is that we are being "played" by a regional hegemony driven country and that hegemony will in fact upset the entire ME.
What is developing is an interesting twist---just how close do now Israeli and Saudi interests cross towards Iran. If one looks at the KSA they had modified their tone towards Israel in the last ten years and understand that the Palestinians must make compromises although they will not say that out loud.
For me proof of Iranian intentions are not the nuclear side but rather---are they willing to pull back into their own borders and stop regional expansion activities?
Think not---the Sunni/Shia divide is too deep.
Outlaw,
Another example of having a first rate mind is learning one's lessons and applying the past to current situations in a creative, not didactic, way.
Everyone and their mother understands the proxy conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran and the Sunni/Shia divide in terms of mobilizing and informing populations.
I doubt the current administration doesn't understand the Green Crescent concept, given that many of its anti-Iraq war officials understood that removing Saddam Hussein would disturb the regional balance of power.
Americans tend to have no trouble understanding situational allies and enemies; once we worked with the Jihadists in Afghanistan and then they turned into our enemy; Cold War enemies were WWII allies, etc.
It's a 2 plus 2 level concept.
What are the US national interests in allying in a proxy war with anti-Assad groups?
I understand the standard arguments, that to prevent Iranian hegemony and maintain balance of power we should help to topple Assad.
But being capable of having more than one thought in my head at a time, I understand that the world is a complicated place.
Do we want to topple Assad? Can we even do it without an big escalation? What happens in the aftermath? Will i lead to jihadi launching pad? How will that affect our relationships with China and Russia, and, even, other populations?
Do we simply want to bleed Iran? Why? To weaken Iran? To assuage the Saudis? To assuage the Israelis? To retain some semblance of balance of power?
Bleeding Iran will do what to the Iranian nuclear program?
How will bleeding Iran in Syria further destabilize the region? How will this play to foreign or domestic audiences?
How does this fit into larger American ambitions?
Will we suffer blow back as in Afghanistan? Will it happen either way?
Our system itself, meaning the people and her representatives, isn't quite sure what our main focus should be except to prevent another treasury draining war with its painful loss of blood.
How then should the Administration craft a strategy?
The old status quo cannot hold and we cannot hold it together. The more money we pour into the region militarily, the weaker our economy, and the more others benefit. A point will come when they won't want any part of Iran containment and they will have the economic strength to tell the US or the Israelis or Saudis to go take along walk off a short pier.
And there is zero chance we aren't working behind the scenes with a wider group of people than we are letting on.
It's good the guy writing that Mahdi piece is sincere; otherwise one might think it had all the flowery cadence of a Saudi Prince writing it.
Are we to be allied with the Saudis forever? Because another thing some civilians can see is that our forever-Sunni posture has hurt the Americans in many ways, and not simply on 9-11. Maybe we don't want to be at their beck and call forever, the blue-eyed mercenary soldiers, ready for hire.
I doubt we are going to agree on this subject, but, as always, I always learn much from you and value what I learn.
Learning to listen means learning to listen to more than just one or two voices.
Strategically, it seems to me that the American military needs to stop painting miniatures and start painting with a broader canvas. Centcom guys see a Centcom world, NATO guys see a NATO world, Pacom guys see a Pacom world....
Outlaw, I was suspect the author took a fair amount of liberty in writing this article to ensure it conformed to his view of the world, so I Googled the author and actually found him to be a very impressive young man. Not only earned a Silver Star in Afghanistan, but heavily involved in attempting to transform our political system away from the two political party system that is becoming increasingly dysfunctional. Anyway based on I read I think the author is sincere, so that even adds more credibility to this important article. Thanks for sharing.
Outlaw 09:
Boy you gave me a lot to work with so we'll take it from the top.
Nothing unique in talking with Iraqi insurgents. Lots and lots of our guys did that or we wouldn't have combined forces with them to kill and thoroughly suppress AQI.
No, Mr. Ackerman is not naive when it comes to leading Marines in combat, not a bit. He is obviously firmly and Politically Correct Naive if he believes an AQI guy, a takfiri killer's Mahdi will be anything but a reflection of a takfiri killers murderous predilections. Abu Hassar says as much when mentions that HIS Mahdi will receive a vision from God telling him how to destroy his enemies.
The AQI killer didn't shift his beliefs at all. He just expresses a willingness to take from them that will give. A bullet is a bullet after all no matter who you get it from. Stalin didn't turn into an advocate of multi-party democracy just because he accepted delivery of thousands of P-39s. This guy is the same, he'll take what we would give him and still be a takfiri killer.
I didn't hear Abu Hassar say he has turned his back on violence. I heard an Abu Hassar who is a little older now and not so eager to go back to fighting, or to prison. And I heard from one who was in a refugee camp in Turkey. If there was anything to read between the lines with what that guy said it was a product of wishful thinking.
But you should note some of the things Abed the translator said. Abed apparently was one of the original Syrian democratic activists. It was in response the those democratic activists that Assad let guys like Abu Hassar out of prison. Abu Hassar said he was only freed because of Abed's Revolution. In response Abed said to Mr. Ackerman "I regret the Revolution." That wasn't between the lines.
Abu Hassar was an AQI suicide bomber handler. There is nothing outside the gates of hell lower than that. Maybe he fought well in addition maybe not. But he was still an AQI suicide bomber handler. And AQI, I'll say again, was not well liked in in Iraq. For Mr. Ackerman to equate his service as a Marine captain with that of the 'service' of an AQI suicide bomber handler, as he does with the 'Two Iraq War veterans talk' angle, is the worst sort of moral equivalence and quintessentially Politically Correct.
IEDs were landmines, improvised munitions, booby traps etc. There is nothing new there. Those go back decades and decades. "...n engineering quality never seen by us", really? I suspect you are exaggerating just a bit. We did bring U-505 back to Chicago after all.
EFPs. I think the alternate spelling of explosively formed penetrator, EFP, is IRAN, as in made in, directed by or provided with by.
You are arguing both ways in addition. You say they fought us with primitive tech that showed an unparalleled engineering quality that are built by fourth graders that we couldn't find with our machines. Ok. I would note that the best way to hide something is to bury it in the dirt. Squirrels know that. Finding things buried in the dirt is very hard because you can't see through dirt. That is why squirrels have been burying nuts in the dirt and humans have been burying bombs in dirt since a long time ago. It is a very hard physical problem that armies from the Heer to the Red Army to the VC to us have been taking advantage of since a long time ago. The insurgents take advantage of it too. They find success until we arrange that they have to stop because the locals turn them in or tell them to knock it off or they'll kill them. Low tech approach. The number of IED attacks did go down after all.
Another fine example of the worst kind of moral equivalence, this time by you. You equate an AQI suicide bomber handler with US forces in the Revolutionary War. Poor old George Washington. Your history is a bit off too. The most important of our military forces in that war were the Continentals, and they fought using exactly the same tactics as the Redcoats.
If the takfiri killers are doing better in getting rid of Assad that we are-well they aren't, they are mostly working behind rebel lines to establish a murder state-where was I,...oh, if they were to be doing better than the US it is because the US policy is to do nothing at all. Not hard to beat that one.
"Think about it."? Oh, I have.
carl---if you listened to the American though -who was a MC officer who you cannot say he was naïve since he had spent time in the Syrian border/Ramadi/Fulluja---he did something that few Americans have done in the last 13 years---talk with the other side--notice I did not use the words talk to.
Notice how the jihadist can shift his beliefs if it fits the environment---meaning yes we fought together, then fought against each other but in this case why not fight together again as it is in both our interests--simple straight forward pragmatic if you ask me.
The core of the conversation is interesting in that the jihadi is tired and has decided to pull his family out of the fight and has settled in himself to wait out developments. Listen between the lines---he wants peace, stability for him and his family, and a job---what many in the ME have been demanding since the Arab Springs.
The jihadi always has been a good fighter---we just do not want to admit that as it does not fit in the theory of the mighty US Army.
He was right ---we had the tanks, the artillery, the long distance weapons---what did the Sunni or for that fact the Shia have-- the AK47, the 1938 Soviet sniper rifle, RPG, LPKs and the Diska. To level the playing field then came the IED in about 80 different variations some of which were of an engineering quality never seen by us. Have you ever seen what a EFP does to any armored vehicle we fielded in Iraq--not to mention the troops on the inside? The American public if shown that would have pulled us out far earlier.
After the US taxpayer paid the JIIEDO roughly 6B a year for the last seven years (42B) to defeat the IED --we are still losing to the IED in both Iraq and AFG---explain that single failure to the US public---what the greatest technological country in the world cannot defeat a device built by fourth graders---come on.
During the phase 2006 and 2008 in Iraq they managed to raise the level of IED attacks on us to levels never seen before in the world---over 2000 actual strikes per month at one point.
In Iraq they handed us our hats a number of times and if it had not been for the air support we would have had to explain to the American public why we would have had even higher losses.
Your last sentence is interesting as I would have suspected the British would have said the same thing about the US during our Revolution---just why does a bunch of rag tag civilians stand out on a field in front of the world's super power or why are they fighting from behinds trees.
"You are right, you got to listen to the individual and be receptive to what he has to say. What I heard was a takfiri killer who is on a bit of a hiatus but is still an unrepentant takfiri killer."
Unrepentant or not the Islamists in Syria are doing what the current US policy seems it cannot do although two days ago they openly stated Assad must go---attempt to remove Assad.
The Syrian Sunni's will sort it out in the end even if we do not like the outcome ----it is their outcome---just as the jihadi indicates.
What is really interesting is that while we the US claim we are against Assad remaining ---notice the increased abilities of all Islamists, the FSA, and the jihadi's--Saudi money and weapons have hit the battlefield in large amounts and it is making a difference---just where was the US? Sometimes we talk a great story but that is about it.
Think about it.
Outlaw 09:
You misunderstood, or I was not clear. Abu Hassar isn't the dope, Mr. Ackerman is. The point of my comment was not directed at Abu Hassar, he is what he is, a takfiri killer. The point of my comment had to do with Mr. Ackerman and the firmly established PC naivete that could lead him to believe a Abu Hassar's Mahdi will so little care that a half-Jewish former Marine is on a tourist visit to the Mahdist state.
I get the old veteran 'let bygones be bygones' angle too. But that only goes so far and Mr. Ackerman is able to indulge in it because he lives in North Amerikay. I doubt that a lot of Iraqis would sit down and have drink with a guy who brags about having carted suicide bombers around. Sort of like I doubt a lot of old Chinese would be very receptive of the stories told (and not told) at a reunion of the Imperial Japanese Army 37th infantry division.
You are right, you got to listen to the individual and be receptive to what he has to say. What I heard was a takfiri killer who is on a bit of a hiatus but is still an unrepentant takfiri killer.
carl---as someone who has used the Koran and Koranic verses in the interrogation process with hundreds of detainees and a number were Salafists and Takfiri---there are some things I have learned in this business.
1. listen to the individual
2. listen to the individual
3. listen to the individual
Then and only then--listen again---remember the average education level is not super high in the ME and with the Koran it is the verses that count as it is learned over and over until it sits---this is something we in the West do not take the time to do ie listen unless we were in Islamic studies. Remember he is as well working through an interpreter which adds a layer of interpretation into the conversation.
Jews and Christians were not in his mind when he was repeating the Koran----again that is something we in the West "read into" when someone reads jihadi comments.
The hardest thing to do when reading any jihadi (both Shia and Sunni)comments is to filter out one's own personal biases.
As a side comment---while you were sidelined by the "words" you did not "listen" to the tone of the conversation, listen to what is being said between the lines.
Those few that are really good interrogators have learned that listening to the flow of the language, listening to the tone of the language, listening to the story is far more important that the individual words being spoken.
Stand back and listen what the American and what the Syrian are both saying about Iraq---that is what is important in this article. Both were able to find a level of discussion without anger even though both were close to the current war front--- which by the way VN vets have been finding in their trips into Vietnam over the last years.
This thing called listening is something that is hard to do even for senior decision makers---there is an article today on Daily Beast concerning the failure in AFG by a active duty LTC who is saying the same thing over and over yet no one is "listening".
Remember this "dope" was not killed by us when he was making his runs into
Iraq from Syria starting in 2006 (looks likes JSOC missed him when they were working that area) and he survived three years in an Assad prison---so a "dope" he is not.
Outlaw 09:
The author of that interview is a fine example of somebody who is determined to be Politically Correct unto death. He is speaking to a Mahdist and he remarks that after the Mahdi prevails he and his family will come and visit the Mahdist in the peaceful and just Islamic state the Mahdi will usher in. He doesn't apparently choose to say what the definition of peaceful and just would be in a Mahdist state nor does he mention what would happen to the Jews and Christians along the way. Being a dope is one thing but being a dope with takfiri killers is another. This guy is another.
Madhu---the first half of the author's article covered a point that many inside the current government in their drive to slant towards Iran seem to forget and it is a point I have been repeating here often---the Sunni/Shia fight for 1) regional hegemony and 2) leadership of the Muslim world and the author nailed it. In Syria that divide has become the center of the dispute.
A second point that the current US leadership seems to also overlook is the Iranian foreign policy of the "Green Crescent"---by the way the Israelis and the Saudis fully understand this Crescent concept-it is one of the main points driving the Saudis and the Israeli's closer together than ever before.
I am extremely happy to see a former decision maker understand this as it is the core driver in the ME---and yes we the US have never seemed to "see" this divide.
The following is quoted out of a recent Daily Beast article that was an interview with a Syrian jihadi who had fought for AQI in Iraq in 2006 and then was imprisoned in Syria by Assad--the interviewer was a former MC CPT who had fought in Iraq in 2004---and eye opening interview and a must read by every single military member even if he disagrees with the article.
Sometimes it is interesting to notice that US military personnel who served in Iraq can on occasions agree with a jihadi---you will also notice that the interview has not been picked up by the US mainstream media.
Notice towards the end of the quoted material the Sunni Koran interpretation of the outcome in the Syrian events.
Notice also the comment on working with the US---it seems that Islamists can when needed overlook their attitudes towards the US if there are commonly shared goals---something that many politicians/political parties in the US seem to think is impossible since 9/11.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/21/the-fourth-war-my-lunc…
It has often been said that the test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in thought at the same time while still retaining the ability to function. Based on that criteria, the way most Syrian jihadists and activists thought about the U.S. made them some of the most intelligent people I’d ever met. Like most in the Arab World, they were deeply suspicious of U.S. interventions in the region—the invasion of Iraq was criminal to them. But held in opposition to this outrage, those same voices now clamored for a similar intervention in Syria.
“I don’t think we jihadists would have a problem receiving our weapons from the U.S.” he replied.
“It’s we Americans who would never accept it! We were just fighting each other two years ago in Iraq.”
Now it was Abu Hassar who laughed right in my face. “For your government, it’s no worse a position than the one they’re in now. We used to be friends, remember, in Afghanistan, in the ‘80s. If we went from being allies to enemies that means we can go from being enemies to allies.”
“Okay, so how does that end?” I asked. “My government arms the Islamists. Tell me how that ends?”
“You really want to know?”
I nodded.
“The Prophet predicted all this,” began Abu Hassar, speaking as if from some place of deep personal knowledge. “He said it begins with the boys, writing and speaking messages of a new future in the streets.” Abu Hassar stopped and looked at Abed for a moment. In that look, it seemed Abed and the democratic-activists of 2011 were the boys Abu Hassar was speaking about. “The messages spread, breeding outrage and a war fought by the men. This is what we see now. In that war, an Islamist Army rises, uniting to destroy all others. Then a tyrant is killed. This is Assad. His army will fall. Afterwards, among the Islamists, there will be many pretenders. The fighting among them will go on.”
Abu Hassar looked down at my notepad. I hadn’t been writing anything down. This seemed to bother him. “You know all this?” he asked.
“It’s all happening right now,” I said. “The infighting, the rise of the Islamists, how does that end?”
“The Syrian people thirst for an Islamic State,” said Abu Hassar. “After so much war, they want justice. After Assad falls and when there is fighting among the pretenders, a man will come. He is a common man, but he will have a vision. In that vision, God will tell him how to destroy His enemies and bring peace to all peoples. That man is the Mahdi.”
Yeah, you're right, Bill. My comment didn't make any sense as a reply or comment on the article. What was I thinking?
Even I can't figure out why I reacted that way. If the SWJ editors want to delete the comment as unhelpful, that is okay by me.
Syria's civil war is tough for the US as a member of NATO because the US isn't in the same position as many European nations; we don't have the same "connectivity" with the populations there, and, of course, our geography is different.
Plus, we are in a moment of transition. What is most important for the US? Thwarting Iran or Hezbollah? Disrupting the Islamists who are in opposition to Assad? Balance-of-power relationships with China and Russia where we have other overlapping interests and may not want to antagonize them?
There is no monolithic "Arab Street" that the US can win or lose definitively, and various populations view the US in radically different ways. Even within the Syrian situation, some want US involvement, others don't.
The UN is hurting for cash, apparently, too, in that donor nations are not matching their goals for the distribution of humanitarian aid.
What would NATO peacekeepers do and how would that differ from UN peacekeepers? Are UN peacekeepers predicated on the ouster of Assad? Because I don't think that is going to happen as easily as some predicted and the President has to keep in mind the US people are wary of involvement because they see Assad as a butcher, the moderates as sadly incompetent, and the Islamists as dangerous in the way that our dance-with-the Islamists in Afghanistan all those years ago hurt our nation and others in the region.
We have been involved PLENTY behind the scenes, we trained some of the opposition as democracy activists for YEARS, had regime change as defacto policy, and the EU dropped sanctions on weapons going to Syria. All outside parties--ALL--are fueling violence and the civil war. There was a RUSI paper criticizing the EU and British and French stance on all of this, in addition to Iran and Russia.
Nobody in the US system can decide was it most important and those most eager to get involved were the types that egged on the Iraq War so they have noone else but themselves to blame if the US public is skeptical. They lack credibility but are too stupid to realize it. Think tank world is a bubble and ideologues never understand how stupid they really are....
At any rate, you know all this and it's nothing new to you.
A blogger from the region--Karlemarks--wrote a beautiful post about why the Arab Spring failed in this instance. The rebels were so focused on bringing in the US that they forgot key things about engaging populations and expanding a rebellion. The desire to have the US as the outside bringer of magic meant that they didn't do the work they needed to do to convince local populations.
The desire to have the US do the heavy lifting polluted the moderate ranks intellectually, practically, conceptually--and weakened them. Successful rebellions have a certain character. It can't just be about bringing in a super power. The CIA types romanticized their part of what happened in Afghanistan. It wasn't half as do to them as they'd like to believe but people eat that Milton Bearden stuff up. It's popular, the great man of Cold War spying and blah blah blah.
This is the poison pill of the US's activist foreign policy; we can't make magic happen if local conditions are not right. The locals need to be the main force and only if they are well organized and have genuine local support will any help from us work.
I'll link it if I get the chance.
PS: Pat Lang at his blog once said that many American military men are simply incapable by temperament of understanding futures that are different from what they know. I am afraid I see strains of that from time to time around here (not pointing at you in this instance), that past experience is the only way to analyze or look at an issue.
But strategy isn't only about how a military is to engage; civilians leadership must take into account many other variables. This is a consistently missing theme around here.
Unless I missed it I didn't see anything where he recommended NATO get involved? He mentioned NATO could get involved if there was a peacekeeping mission, but added we're a long way off from that. The tone of article seems to be that we recognize the scale of the conflict on Europe's frontier, and that Europe needs to take a defensive position against returning jihadists. That seems like sound advice to me. As you pointed out he is a NATOist, so that was the focus of this article, but foreign fighters are obviously coming into Syria from the Middle East, North America, South and East Asia, so the defensive advice applies to those beyond NATO, perhaps more so based on the ethnic make up of their populations.
Ah, the NATOists. But that is a story for a different day.
Do you suppose we Americans will ever be free from the atlanticists? As presently configured, I mean? European security, eh? Why ever cut the cord.
The US will not survive another Middle East war, I mean, if we are dragged in. Like the British after WWII, we will lose any hope of an American century if we spend our blood and treasure in this way and become even more embroiled in the region.
It's game, set and match for the American Century or any hope for it if we allow ourselves to get dragged in. Note, I am not talking about humanitarian assistance or diplomacy. But more mucking around ending in another war?
The Chinese can begin cashing in.
I suggest some read John Batchelor....