United States Picks Between Wrong Sides in Syria

President Obama’s Administration reached a decision to, in theory, begin to send small arms directly. This is being sold as the United States will begin to send arms to the rebels in Syria. This implies that the United States was not arming the rebels before this decision. If only they were that discerning in their decision making. What this is actually announcing is that with Turkey now falling into chaos with riots in every major city across the nation, the United States has lost their go between which had allowed them to funnel arms to the Syrian rebels, mostly originating out of Libya, through Turkey while being able to pretend in the domestic news to appear to not being at all involved in the Syrian Civil War. The question the American public needs to decide is has their country chosen the right side to support. The obvious answer is they have not but the reality is that there was no correct side to choose. All that is being chosen in Syria is which terror groups will lead the Islamic world for the immediate future in any future engagements with the rest of the world. Perhaps some inspection and tracing the history behind this decision will make things more understandable.

 

Perhaps the first item would be to attempt to discern who gets the credit or blame for deciding to support the rebels in Syria. The first item we need to state is that, like or hate the choice, President Obama really did not have much of a choice in which side to support. He chose whether or not to support a side in the Syrian Civil War, but the side was chosen all the way back in 1953 and possibly even earlier. It was that year the United States backed Mohammad-Reza Shah Pahlavi in the 28 Mordad coup, date of the coup in the Persian calendar, with Operation Boot under the title of the TPAJAX Project during the end of the Truman Presidency, replacing the democratically elected government in Iran which was proposing to ally with the Soviet Union. Needless to point out that this alignment and access to the oil fields were the driving motivations for the United States and no altruistic reasons were present. This was purely a case of we will put our man in for the oil and to spite our adversary, the Soviet Union. Perhaps it was attempting to make amends for the previous devious actions that inspired President Carter to back the revolt which brought the Ayatollah Ali Khomeini to power establishing an Islamic religious regime which remains in power today under the second Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The miscalculation by President Carter was quickly made evident as the new leadership in Iran chose to ally with the Soviet Union soon after coming to power. Perhaps there was just a bit of schadenfreude felt by the Iranians and Soviets from these turns of events. This resulted in the current alignment with Russia aligned with the Shiites and Iran and the United States aligned with the Sunnis and Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Hopefully that is sufficient historical reference.

 

The current excuse for a Civil War in Syria has in all actuality become a power struggle for preeminence of the Muslim world between its two main groups, the Sunnis and the Shiites. The Alawite Ruler of Syria, President Bashir al-Assad, is backed predominantly by Iran which has provided him with troops from the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) and Hezbollah terrorist troops from Lebanon, another satellite of the Iranians. These are the Shiite Islamic forces in Syria. The rebels originally consisted of one side representing secular interest and the other representing Islamist interests. The secular rebel forces have basically been all but removed from the conflict and have virtually no hope of prevailing in the conflict. That leaves the Islamist forces which consist of two camps, those with the Jabhat al-Nusra Front which has declared their alliance with Ayman al-Zawahiri and al-Qaeda and those supported by the Muslim Brotherhood. The challenge in this is to find which side consists of the good sides, or at least the less bad side. President Bashir al-Assad has utilized intimidation, torture, rape, and other equally abhorrent instruments of oppression to retain his hold on power and his two supporting groups are equally renowned for cruelty and ends justify the means reasoning. This does not necessarily make the rebels any more benign. There is not much that needs to be said about al-Qaeda beyond World Trade Center terror strike and the horrors of a fateful day in September 2001 and their compatriots in the conflict, the Muslim Brotherhood, are not the choir boys who have, according to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “…an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam.” In truth they are exactly the opposite but somehow possibly still preferable to al-Qaeda as long as one ignores such aligned subgroups such as Hamas. So, this pretty much defines the adversaries from which President Obama has now presumably chosen one side to support. Perhaps he simply chose the side which was not supported by the Russians, but one might hope that such a decision was made with deeper concerns that just that.

 

So, President Obama has chosen to back the al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood in their attempt to be the preeminent guiding force in Islam while the Russians are supporting the Iranian sponsored terrorist out of Lebanon, oppressive dictator of Syria and the terror specialists out of Iran, the IRGC. The problem is deciding which side is populated with people who deserve the support of the nation which claims to be the bastion of freedom and human rights in the world. Truthfully, the reasoning behind President Obama backing the rebels is more realistically stated as backing Saudi Arabian and Egyptian interests and opposing Iranian interests, not to mention opposing Russian attempts to rise to power over the Middle East. As mentioned before, the sides were chosen far before the Civil War broke out in Syria and goes back to two fateful choices in Iran, the 1953 coup that brought the Shah to power to prevent Soviet Union preeminence in Iran and the 1979 coup that placed the Ayatollahs into power who then chose to join the Soviet Union block of nations despite the attempts by President Carter to make amends for the perfidy under the administration of President Truman. Now all that remain is to have one side prove out victorious and gain, for the moment, the leadership of the Muslim world. Will it be the Shiites with their Russian allies or the Sunni with their American allies? Why does it matter? That is the problematic part of the equation. Which side of this conflict would present the higher likelihood to bring peace to the Middle East? The Sunni Muslim Brotherhood has benefitted greatly from the Arab Winter which was initially represented as the rise of democracy in the Arab and Muslim world but really has simply changed the prearranged winners in every election from some nationalist dictator to some Islamist dictatorial party such as the Peace and Justice Party in Egypt which is nothing more than the Muslim Brotherhood political influence. The Sunni Muslim Brotherhood has risen to power across Northern Africa in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya all with backing and praise from the United States. Those changes in leadership were of no consequence to the power structures as the dictators were Sunnis as are the Islamists who have replaced them. Syria is the first place where the Sunni and Shiite both have a serious shot at controlling Syria. Syria is vitally important to Iran as it represents a critical nation in the Shiite Crescent which currently exists starting in Iran and the Persian Gulf and proceeding through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to the Mediterranean Sea. Saudi Arabia has the most interest in neutering of Iran and breaking their control through the heart of the Middle East would be an impressive first step. If, on the other hand, the Shiites prevail and retain their control over Syria, the potential for the Shiites to continue their slow spread across the Middle East and, more importantly, the greater oil fields in the center of the Middle East, Iran will continue to spread its strangling tentacles across the Muslim world. Iran had made an attempt at expanding during the Arab Winter revolution in Bahrain in direct opposition to the Bahraini Monarchy, Saudi Arabia. The Shiites were repulsed by heavy Saudi Arabian troops which were sent across the causeway which connects Saudi Arabia with the island nation of Bahrain. This was the second part of the Sunni-Shiite contest for preeminence in the Middle East after the Shiite taking control over Iraq after the United States war to remove Saddam Hussein. Syria will be the deciding battle. Should the Shiites and Iran prove successful the spread of the Iranian influence is likely to continue while should the Sunnis and the Saudi Arabian-Egyptian alliance will present a more stable future.

 

So, what does this mean we should look for in the future that might signal a change in the status quo? Should the Sunni win out in Syria there will be relative quiet, is the Middle East ever really completely tranquil, and the first sign of trouble coming would be the overthrow of the Saudi Arabian monarchy by either the Wahhabi or the Muslim Brotherhood. This would soon result in the final contest to begin for who will lead the Muslim forces in any eventual contest. Should the Shiites prove victorious in Syria their next target appears to be Turkey followed by Jordan. After Turkey and Jordan, choosing their next target will be problematic as their preference would appear to be Saudi Arabia and their satellite nations they provide protection for such as Bahrain, Kuwait, the Emirates, Qatar and Omar or Egypt in order to begin a march across Northern Africa. Iran is being patient with their slow and inexorable march to gain the preeminent position at the head of the Muslim world. But the first stop of this creeping revolution is in Syria. The worst result that could result in Syria would be actual Russian or American troops intervening in the Syrian Civil War. Should either of these nations transit from arming their chosen side to actual boots on the ground or even fighters in the skies, the other will be obliged to also enter the war. Where that leads is unimaginable and something to be avoided at all costs. The critical point of no return will come when one side appears poised to prevail and defeat the other side and the United States or Russia will have to either accept defeat of their surrogate or intervene. Intervention should be avoided but I seriously doubt that either President Obama or President Putin is capable of accepting defeat. That means that the only end to Syria may be decided across the entire planet and that should scare any reasonable person greatly. This does not bode to end well or even to end any other way than a devastating conflagration.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Immigration Reform and Illegal Immigration

Jeb Bush speaking at the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference stated, “Immigrants create far more businesses than native-born Americans.” Where this may be backed by statistics it is of no importance in addressing illegal immigration. Nobody has been arguing against overhauling the current Immigration Laws in order to allow faster approval for those who wish to immigrate to the United States and meet the criteria we set. The current backlog where it takes on average a decade or more in order to obtain approval to enter the United States does nobody any measure of service. Much of this obstruction to legal immigration is very likely a reason behind some measure of those who simply choose to enter the United States illegally or by any visa they can obtain and then simply not leave when it expires. But Jeb Bush’s argument that immigrants create more businesses than native born Americans does not apply to illegal immigrants and as such is not a pertinent argument for granting amnesty to twelve to fifteen million illegal immigrants. There are great doubts that illegal immigrants are responsible for starting even a paltry dozen businesses as getting licensing and all the other required approvals to start a business is not something an illegal immigrant is likely to apply for as it would really be drawing way too much attentions and inspection by government agencies. Let’s say this and say it loud enough that all these politicians who constantly insist on making references to the great contributions made by legal immigrants and then try to pass off that the illegal immigrants would be just as productive if only they were made legal. Anybody who has attained the permits and gone through the entire gambit of government hoops and hurdles has shown simply through such perseverance that they are very likely to have the drive to succeed at any venture they may take on which would translate to their greater propensity for starting a business and making it an unadulterated success. On the other hand, an illegal immigrant has entered the United States through an illegal act and has shown a disregard for the rule of law and actually following rules and keeping the obligations expected of a legal immigrant which are not exactly the most desirable traits for somebody who is starting a business.

 

The truth of what is going to be implemented under the title of Comprehensive Immigration Reform is really a mistitled piece of legislation. The three areas which make up a comprehensive overhaul of the mess which is immigration law and the illegal component of immigrations would require enforcement of the border, streamlining and simplification of immigration law and lastly some form of either amnesty, path to citizenship or deportment for as many illegal immigrants as possible in a continuing effort to locate them. Everybody very probably will agree that we should commit to streamlining and simplification of immigration law and border enforcement. Where there is a great deal of disagreement and debate is what path we should take in dealing with the twelve to twenty million illegal immigrants currently thought to be within the United States. If one wishes to be technical about enforcement they would demand that ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) put forth whatever efforts were required to locate and deport every single illegal immigrant no matter how long it would take. The only debate that people in this group might have is whether or not local and state law enforcement officers should be included in the search and detention of illegals in order to assist ICE and how much leeway should be allowed if their assistance is desirable. Then there is the debate for the more lenient who believe that the vast majority of the illegal immigrants deserve to be allowed to remain and become citizens. The question here is whether these illegal immigrants deserve blanket amnesty or should be required to go through a procedure in order to attain citizenship and exactly what such a path to citizenship should be required. The one requirement that those who would prefer deportation of all or the vast majority of illegal immigrants would likely demand that there be no possibility for blanket amnesty but that there should be an arduous and intricate set of requirements and some monetary fee imposed in order for any illegal immigrant to attain citizenship. It is also likely that other than those for blanket amnesty would also desire that any illegal immigrant who has a felony record be deported or passed through some very serious and in depth assessment before being rewarded with a chance for citizenship.

 

The considerations over how to treat the existing illegal immigrants should not be undertaken before the border has been hermetically sealed. The reason should be obvious even to the most casual of observers, but just in case, closing the border first and preventing any further increase to the numbers of illegal immigrants, and especially if amnesty is still being considered is absolutely necessary to prevent a flood of new illegal immigrants attempting to gain entry and try to utilize the amnesty system to gain citizenship. Should amnesty be granted it must be the absolute amnesty ever granted and the amnesty offer should have a set time limit after which the offer be withdrawn. There should be a path necessitating each undocumented immigrant to perform certain actions, meet certain specific requirements and possibly pay back taxes and/or pay a processing fee or fine for having broken United States immigration laws. No matter what is chosen as the way the illegal immigrants will be handled, the offer should require voluntary reporting within ninety days or some similar period after which any illegal immigrant caught will not be offered any deal and will be deported. As far as closing the border to future illegal immigration, this should be done with the utmost intentions and seriousness.  A double or even triple fence completed with raked sand between the fences which will immediately show any crossing making detection of trespass readily detectable should be erected. There should be sensors placed liberally throughout the border areas which are capable of detecting tunneling and there should be randomly scheduled ground-penetrating-radar sweeps conducted along the borders so that no matter how deep any tunnels are excavated they will be detected. And as the final deterrent that will demonstrate that the United States border is most definitively to be inviolate, place the United States Army and Marines stationed on the borders. This could be easily accomplished simply by placing every Infantryman and Marine on the border for six months immediately after they have completed their basic training. The ranking NCOs and Officer Corps would be chosen to assure that these troops have absorbed their training and understand military rules and discipline which was intended to be imparted by their basic training. This would benefit the newly trained troops as they would get practical experience utilizing the tactics and disciplines of their initial training by carrying out a set of tasked missions before they might be required to be placed in a far more hostile environment. This is not an unusual manner in border enforcement as it is the method used by many countries, if not most countries. By utilizing well trained Military troops the Border Patrol Forces would be freed to operate and man border crossings and free others up for ICE enforcement as well as allowing for increased border enforcement at our ports, airfields, and other entry points for cargo and people. Also, finally the Immigration and Custom Services would have sufficient personnel freed up to actually monitor those here on student visas, temporary work visas, visitor’s visas or other limited term visas such that we no longer have foreigners overstaying their visas or violating the limitations of their visas such as the thousands of people with student visas who never reported to the school in which they were presumably to be registered with. But since for disparate reasons both parties appear to have a fairly large percentage of politicians who desire and approve of allowing illegal immigrants to violate the laws of the land we can expect the final solutions they implement will have two very distinct properties, first they will have either straight amnesty or unenforced minor requirements defining the path to citizenship and second there will be no honest intent to seal the borders to the extent that it will either be unimplemented or not even defined by the bill and promising to address the border at a later date, a date that will never arrive. My bet is those who honestly care about immigration already know who the miscreants are that will refuse to serve their country and protect the Constitution that sit in Congress. My question is will those who know reveal these traitors and make sure they do not get reelected and no longer cross into the floor of the House of Representatives or the Senate.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

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