The Syrian Desert Calling United States

Well, as anticipated United States President Obama has acknowledged the use of chemical weapons by the forces loyal to Syrian President Bashir al-Assad. Responding to the mounting avalanche of evidence presented by the British, French and Israelis, President Obama has declared there will be additional support provided the rebels in their efforts to dethrone al-Assad. Specifics were obvious in their absence but most believe that at a minimum the Americans will be supplying the rebels with arms including such items as small arms, ammunition, grenade launchers, and possibly also anti-tank rockets and even anti-aircraft missiles likely in the form of MANPADs (Man Portable Air Defense System). It is thus far unclear whether or not the rebels will also receive active allied air-support such as a No Fly Zone which would include destroying al-Assad’s air assets both on the ground and in the air while bombing the airports and runways making them unserviceable. President Obama has made it clear that he does not intend to place American troops on the ground in Syria. So, are we supposed to be all happy and throw down with al-Assad and up with the rebels’ parties? I think not and the reasons why will follow. 

 

Supporting the rebels very early on in the Civil War would have been something which at least would have had a slim glimmer of hope of placing better governance in Syria as at least a sizeable plurality of the rebel forces at that time were supportive of secular rule. As the Civil War has progressed there have been large numbers of casualties on all sides. This meant that the numbers in each faction have taken a severe toll. This has been ameliorated by al-Assad by incorporating both Hezballah irregular forces and IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) troops from Iran. The Islamist rebel forces have been reinforced by a sizeable influx of Sunni Islamists from the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and additional Mujahedeen from numerous other predominantly Sunni terrorist groups from numerous countries and organizations. The secular rebel forces have not had the luxury of a plentiful supply of new recruits and therefore seen their numbers impacted heavily by the fighting. This has led to the current situation where the two main groups vying for future control of Syria are the Sunni Islamists of Jabhat al Nusra who consist largely of al-Qaeda supporters against the Shiite Islamists who support either Bashir al-Assad and, should he be killed, the Ayatollahs of Iran. Even should the rebel forces prevail and defeat the Iranian Shiite forces, the fighting would not be finished. There would be a secondary struggle for full control between the secular rebel forces and the Sunni Islamist rebel forces. Such a fight promises to be extremely brief as the Islamists have near unlimited reinforcements resupplying their ranks while the secular rebels have no such pool of fighters from which to resupply their units suffering casualties. This has led to a weakened secular force while the Islamist forces remain relatively robust.

 

Now that President Obama has finally completed his many months of dithering, setting a Red Line and then sliding it one way then the other and is now prepared to aid the rebel forces, there is a serious consequence to his delaying the decision to send aid for over two years. It is a fact that the makeup of the rebel has drastically been shifted away from any possibility for a secular representative governance to result once al-Assad and Iran have been defeated, if that is even possible without placing United States and/or NATO forces on the ground. Judging from the manner that President Obama has committed to removing almost completely from Iraq and Afghanistan without regard for any consequences is a strong indicator, if not proof, that there will be no direct intervention. In the support of being candid and honest, the lack of the possibility for actual United States or NATO troops entering the Civil War in Syria is fortunate as that will prevent the intervention by the Russians who have warned there would be severe ramifications for any intervention by the West. The fact that the United States will be arming the rebels only serves to prolong the conflict as it will serve as a balance for the Russian weapons supplied to al-Assad and by implication to Hezballah and the IRGC. We can expect the Russians to at least consider moving up the delivery dates for the S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems which they have claimed would not be delivered until early 2014.

 

The losers due to this decision by President Obama are the Syrian people. Those who have fled to neighboring countries will be forced to remain for a far more prolonged time in the refugee camps. The neighboring countries can expect even more refugees to be fleeing the Civil War as the battles are likely to increase in intensity making life within Syria even more impossible. As mentioned earlier in the article, the length of the conflict could easily be extended for an indeterminable time as now both sides have outside logistical support from major weapons and other necessities virtually without end. The other losers will be the secular rebel forces as their numbers will continue to decrease which will soon make their influence inconsequential which will leave only the Shiite-Sunni Islamists battling for control of what has become the pivot point in their historical battle for preeminence over Islam. This will be proven by history as one more time where President Obama arrived at a decision just in time for it to be too little too late, mostly too late. It has become evident that President Obama has no taste for foreign policy and that evident revulsion only grows if there is any potential requirement for him to commit to an action and gets even worse if the action is of a military nature. The most glaring and by far most consequential evidence of President Obama’s inability to act definitively in the face of a crisis which potentially requires a military response was the debacle of Benghazi and the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and former navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Hamas Destroys Roman Temple for New Training Base

Hamas is in the process of constructing a training facility in order to train more youth to attack Israelis, civilians or military as Hamas sees no difference. The location of this new base will require the destruction of an ancient Anthedon Harbor which includes the ruins of a Roman temple and archaeological remains from the Persian, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine eras. Thus far almost all of the world mainstream press has been silent including much of the Israeli press much to their disgrace. The one news outlet Aretz Sheva has given it coverage as well as much of the new media. The seeming regularity with which terror groups destroy archeological sites is very disturbing. We need to remember things such as the Buddha Statues of Bamiyan which were intentionally destroyed in a malicious act of hatred by the Taliban in early 2001 simply due to their not being of Islamic origins. The real irony is the United Nations agency tasked with the care of such historical relics is UNESCO, the same agency which was the first to allow membership to be bestowed on the Palestinian Authority which was utilized as further certification that they represent a recognized nation among nations of the world.

There have also been sermons given by Egyptian Imams calling for the destruction of the un-Islamic relics of false gods in Egypt with references to the Sphinx and the Great Pyramid as well as the rest of the Pyramids bordering the Nile River. This is simply a continuation of historical records which document Islamic transforming religious buildings, temples, and cathedrals into Mosques and the destruction of other historical sites, ruins, mausoleums and other historical landmarks simply due to their lack of ties to Islam. Another modern such disregard for historical sites of great importance occurred recently when a new dam floods lands which include numerous Persian sites including the burial vaults of Cyrus the Great along with some sites which date back up to seven thousand years. The world should make all efforts necessary to preserve these important historical sites from senseless destruction simply because they are from a history independent from Islam. How much has to be lost permanently of our collective history before anything is even said and maybe possibly acted upon? Are our heritage sites and other treasures really so worthless that their destructions are not even newsworthy? A civilized world would preserve its historical sites, as few as actually survive to modernity, and take whatever measures required collectively assuring their futures.

Beyond the Cusp

A Few Facts Tying Syria to American Change in the Middle East and the World

The efforts originated in Iraq where the idea was to replace an evil dictator and inject democracy and free the people allowing them to live as they chose. That was supposed to be relatively fast and painless transition. Something went terribly wrong as it turned out the United States leadership did not understand some basic premises about the Middle East. The problem that plagued the efforts of the United States in Iraq were a direct result of European decisions made facilitating their rapid exit from the ever growing expense of holding on to colonies especially in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. The mistake was countries were formed with the advice from those who were to be placed in power when the Europeans departed and these new leaders each desired to assure they would rule over those who were historically their enemies. This led to borders including different sects, tribes, families and former national interests within each new nation with Europe choosing the rulers who would end up holding power through subjugation often of ancient enemies. This led to growing mistrust of Europeans and constant strife. Iraq was formed containing three distinct groups within its borders; the Sunni, the Shia, and the Kurds; along with a few smaller groups such as Christians and Jews. When the United States was presumably liberating Iraq it was also setting the tables for retributions of past injustices and ended up facing the dilemma of trying to make sense and peace of the mess which the Europeans had sewn when they hastily departed.

The exact same miscalculation was made by the same people who misjudged the situation and challenges of Iraq when dealing with the Palestinian autonomy when they decided to meddle in the Palestinian elections. Never mind that Mahmoud Abbas pleaded with President Bush and his point person, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, not to include the Hamas terror group in the election process as they would easily defeat any challengers. Never mind that the Israeli leadership unanimously agreed with Mahmoud Abbas and his warning about the imprudence of including the Hamas terror group in the election. Surprisingly, at least if you read the reports in the United States, Hamas won a significant majority of the legislative seats in the newly elected Palestinian Parliament. This caused the situation which exists today where the Palestinian Authority holds on to power in Judea and Samaria, aka West Bank, while Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in a quick and violent coup. Mahmoud Abbas, in order to retain any semblance of power, decided to cancel the elections for President of the Palestinian Authority as it was obvious that Hamas would easily win such an election. The two separate leaders of the Palestinian people, Abbas representing a nationalist influence and Hamas representing a theocratic influence, have been in opposition with every attempt to cobble together a ruling coalition agreement eventually collapsing as the two views do not mesh well.

So, was there any hope once the power in the United States changed and the new President, Barack Obama, came in promising a new vision to repair all the previous problems and to change the face that the United States showed the world? In his first term the new American President has most definitely charged through the Middle East and changed the face of the United States and done even more transformational face-work on the Middle East. Where there had been at least the semblance of cooperation forged in Iraq, the precipitous removal of the influence by the United States has allowed a regression in Iraq where the old Sunni-Shia animosities are running rampant and the Kurds have formed their own virtual state in the north severing most of their ties and concerns from the government in Baghdad. The picture in Afghanistan is not much prettier as the United States had begun secretive negotiations with what were termed the better interests of the Taliban. The government of Hamid Karzai was forced to attempt to forge his own agreement with those Taliban who might have been more friendly with his government and not completely defiant. The result has been the Taliban retreating from both negotiations and simply deciding to outwait the United States who has promised to completely leave Afghanistan when they can simply sweep into power either through election or other means. Meanwhile, for some unperceivable reason, sarcasm intended, the Afghans have steadily grown less and less friendly with their American counterparts and many feel betrayed while others prepare to return to their separate factions and Afghanistan is likely to return to the same problems that have plagued the remote lands since before Alexander the Great attempted to force some sense of order by marrying off daughters of his generals to the tribal leaders in order to allow Greek influence to be maintained. There are likely a number of general’s daughters in the United States who are very happy that the United States would never try the same approach.

The next grand step was the great speech of Cairo where the nascent President of the United States, Barack Obama, apologized for the sins of the United States and promised to stand with those who would choose to forge a new and people-empowering future throughout the Middle East. Egyptian President Mubarak pleaded with the American President not to make the speech and implored that he at least not invite the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned group in Egypt since the rule of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Needless to say, the President of the United States insisted that he knew best and was fully aware of what he was doing and that the President of Egypt should calm down and everything would be perfectly wonderful. Within a short period the world began to witness the changes which were birthed that day in Cairo with the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the Middle East much as Hamas rose to power after the previous Administration had meddled against the strident warnings of those who live in the Middle East. Since then we have witnessed the spread of Middle East democracy through North Africa and now into the heart of the Middle East. As the initial birth pains of democracy have spread around the Middle East it has spawned the birth of new governance which has meant the Muslim Brotherhood just as Egyptian now former President Mubarak has predicted. What has become evident is that there was a difference between the rise of Hamas through George Bush and his Administration’s miscalculations and President Obama and his Administration’s intentional empowerment of the Muslim Brotherhood. The rise of Hamas was not the intended result that the Bush Administration sought but it appears that the Obama Administration knew full well that their efforts would result in the empowerment of the Muslim Brotherhood. That leaves the world with a simple question; will the Muslim Brotherhood allow further free elections or will their rise to power result in simply the replacement of nationalist dictatorial rule with theocratic rule.

After the change in power in Tunisia and Egypt the wave hit a couple of snags in Libya and Syria where the removal of their dictators was not smoothly attained through a couple months of demonstrations as had been the case in Tunisia and Egypt; the changes in these countries took full blown civil wars. This also attracted al-Qaeda and other terror interests to join in the change of power and has spawned what one hopes was an unintended consequence, the arming of terror entities by the efforts of the Europeans and the United States. This has been most evident each time the Egyptians have prevented shipments of arms from Libya terror influences heading to Hamas in Gaza. There has been far less success in preventing the weapons injected into Libya from reaching their counterparts in Syria most often through Turkey. Recently the flow of weapons into the Syrian rebels has shown a marked increase and reports have mentioned that the logistics are being aided by the United States Central Intelligence Agency. The reports have also noted one troubling side effect; the arms are not necessarily ending up in the hands of the secular rebel forces and are instead being used to arm the Islamist rebel forces. This begs another question; is the arming of the Islamist rebel forces an oversight or intentional? It actually should not be all that surprising if this is a result of planned program instituted by the Arabist Islamic influences in the United States State Department and Muslim Brotherhood influences throughout various elements in the United States government.

This then may continue to play out much like the falling of dominoes across the Middle East with these same arms being transferred from one targeted country to the next. The current number one candidate for next is very likely Jordan. There will be no ability to prevent arms and Islamist influences from entering Jordan from the north once Syria has fallen, providing such is as inevitable as has been advertised. Where the transformation of the Middle East will finally run out of steam is anybody’s guess. The question which needs to be answered is whether the transformation of the Middle East and the empowerment of the Muslim Brotherhood will end in the Middle East or spread into Europe starting in the Balkans and Greek Islands. The other question is which influence will prove to be foremost in the Middle East, the Shia centered in Iran or the Muslim Brotherhood mostly in Egypt. Before anybody jumps to a decision, it might be best to reveal who is sided with each side. In the Iranian corner we have the Russians and Chinese while in the Muslim Brotherhood corner we have the United States and the NATO allies in Europe. This brings up another item of recent interest, Cyprus.

The bailout which has been implemented in Cyprus is tantamount to a declaration of financial war between the West and the Russians. The naked aggressive theft of as much as twenty-five-percent from deposits over one-hundred-thousand Euros from the Cypriot banks is a financial assault on the Russian interests who have deposited large quantities of presumably laundered monies with these banks. Whoever thought that was a good idea must have a large vacuous space between their ears. This move will not go unpunished and will possibly lead to a financial war between the Western nations and the Russian alliance of interests. The ramifications from this financial assault will be interesting to watch over the coming months. Also, is gifting Greece with ownership of some of the Cypriot banks really prudent seeing as Greece is not exactly the rock of economic strength. This appears to be a case of the blind leading the blind but it is a case of birds of a feather being flown into ruin together. Next we get to wonder how long before the Euro zone starts to collapse and throw out the weaker nations until only a select few remain and the European Union slowly sinks beyond the horizon and into history. Are we having fun yet?

Beyond the Cusp