• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Iran Super Thread- Merged

Part II

Left Flank: Turkey

In addition to the aforementioned problems with the PKK and the build up by the Turkish Army on the Kurdish border Turkey has other problems.

The Islamic government and the Seculars, strongly backed by the Army, don’t get along.  There is a political and constitutional struggle under way with mass demonstrations in Istanbul against the government.  Unfortunately for government propagandists its support base is dispersed through out the hinterlands and can only get to the cameras in Istanbul over roads controlled by the Army.

Perhaps that is why the Government has only invited the Army to take what measures it sees fit on the border.  If it gave an order to assault into Iraq would the Army obey it?  Which is a greater threat to the Army?  The Kurds, the Islamists or loss of “contact” with the Americans?

Interestingly, by moving to the Iraqi border the Turks may also be close to the Syrian border.

Left Flank: Lebanon

The big news out of Lebanon is the fact that the Hariri Investigation is going ahead, much to the chagrin of Syria.  Despite a successful dodge last summer by employing Hezbollah against Israel, and an unsuccessful attempt this summer by inserting a group of Al-Qaeda foreigners into Lebanon. The investigation will proceed.  Assad is apparently annoyed and suggesting a dire future for Lebanon.

The “foreigners” are a few hundred Wahhabists with ties to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan and the other usual suspects.  What is most interesting though is that Lebanon is claiming to have captured a double agent with both Syrian and Al Qaeda ties as well as a lot of intelligence connecting Syria and the group of “foreigners” that seem to have taken the name Fatah – Al Qaeda.  At least some of them are believed to be Jordanian Palestinians that have splintered from the Palestinian Fatah and are also geographically associated with the late Al-Zarqawi.

Meanwhile in all of this Iran’s proxies, Hezbollah, are being vewwy, vewwy quiet.  I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that the French troops sitting on top of their bunkers in Southern Lebanon have a new Commander.  I have no doubt that the French troops will shoot whoever they are told to shoot.  And Sarkozy is leaving little doubt of where he stands.

As are the Americans (supplying military aid to the Lebanese Army) and as importantly, if not moreso, the Arabs are supplying moral support to the Army that is seen to be Christian dominated.  Another group that is notable by their absence are the Palestinians in the camps in Lebanon.

Left Flank: Israel/Palestine

Over the border in Israel/Palestine/West Bank/Gaza the usual chaos continues with some minor nuances.  Hamas seems to have worn out its welcome on the street.  Fatah and Hamas are fighting in the streets.  Israel’s actions are supporting Fatah (the locals) against Hamas (the Syrian supported locals). They are arresting or killing Hamas officials.  Egypt is also supporting Fatah and thus implicitly supporting Israel.  Hamas, and Syria, can’t really expect any let up because while Olmert is under pressure to do more his rivals (Netanyahu and Barak) are even more inclined than him to be hawks.

Which brings us to Syria itself.

Left Flank: Syria

As noted previously Syria seems none too pleased about the Hariri investigation going ahead.  Apparently it was deserted at the UN by Russia and China, who decided to abstain. The turn-around vote seems to have been France’s.  With Sarkozy in charge now it seems that the veto count is 3-2 for the West.

The old Frenchman seems to be heading for a date with the judges in France for past indiscretions.   That trial could be interesting – but there again maybe not – one of his co-conspirators (tried, convicted, sentenced and served) Alain Juppe is now Sarkozy’s Environment Minister.  By the way Sarkozy used to be an “associate” of Chirac’s as well.  Some things are better left unsaid.

Interestingly one of the abstentions by the non-permanent members of the Security Council was by South Africa: the same country that routinely comes between Zimbabwe and sanctions.  Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is a Chinese client of very long standing.

And as if this isn’t enough yet another Al Qaeda clone has sprung up.  This time targeting the Alawites and Druze of Syria as apostates even more vile than Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Jews and Shia (I do hope I have the order of vileness correct – I wouldn’t want to offend anyone).  Unfortunately for President Assad – he and his clan are Alawites.

I guess that is the problem with franchising. Unless you have strong contracts with strong enforcement you never know who will end up using your brand name.  A sure way to lose market share.

For a change of pace we will shift to the right flank countries.

Right Flank: Pakistan

India and Pakistan are still juggling Kashmir (although now it seems China might want to get back into the game directly – more later).

Poor old Musharraf seems to be being assaulted by Judges, Lawyers, Punjabis and Sindis for being too Islamic and the ISI and the Pashtuns for not being Islamic enough.  The Baluchis don’t want to be Pakistanis (or Iranians) at all.  And the mountains, including the Pashtuns, are as they ever were.  Ungovernable.

Riots in the streets.  Assassination attempts.  Loss of influence in Afghanistan.  That Chinese port at Gwadar is looking more tenuous by the day.

Right Flank: Afghanistan

North and West stable.  Eastern mountains a mess.  The South in the process of being pacified.  At least there is a functioning plan for three-quarters of the country. 

The Taliban and Warlords will likely fold when they decide, like the Sheikhs of Iraq, that they can no longer afford the additional costs associated with doing business in an unsettled environment.  Progress is being made village by village.

NATO is having to move out to try and secure the borders.

Right Flank: Pashtunistan

As noted the mountains are chaotic but even here change is happening.  Afghan friendly Pashtuns appear to be pushing back against ISI support Taliban Pashtuns in the mountains and towns claimed by Pakistan.  More troubles for Musharraf than Karzai.

And then back to the Centre.

Centre: Iran

Ahmadinejad is the face of Iran.  Unfortunately his party couldn’t carry local elections.  He also has problems with support in the Council of Guardians.  His parliament voted to reduce his term in office from five years to four.  Not exactly an endorsement.  In parts of Iraq he can’t fill a stadium even when the schools are turned out for him.

Internally he has students and teachers demonstrating against laws on campus, labour demonstrating against high unemployment, women demonstrating against the crackdown on attire, people generally demonstrating against high gas prices and corruption and, of course, he has to deal with border unrest.

He has Baluchis to the east, Arabs to the south, Kurds and Turkmen to the north, not to mention the displaced Afghan refugees Iran has been sheltering these past years.  Apparently the refugees have become more trouble than they are worth and are being returned to an Afghanistan not ready to receive them.  I believe the Pakistanis are doing something the same in the east of Afghanistan.

Externally his allies Syria (Hamas) and Hezbollah are nowhere near as useful as they have been and it looks like a whole bunch of people in Iraq are in the process of going "hands up".  Even Sadr and Hakami are proving unreliable.

In the middle of all of this his ambassador gets invited to the one thing he has been waiting for: a face to face meeting with an American ambassador.  27 years and his ambassador finally gets an invite.

I wonder if coffee was served.  The fact that the Theatre Commander, Admiral Fallon, arranged an old-fashioned display of gun-boat diplomacy by stuffing two carriers (Stennis and Nimitz) along with the Bonhomme Richard through the Straits of Hormuz suggests “maybe not”.

That and the fact that there was that “leak” about the President authorizing “covert activities short of lethal” by the CIA suggests it wasn’t necessarily friendly.  The Iranians seem to be taking it seriously.  They arrested three Iranians with American passports as spies, claiming they were working for George Soros and trying to stage another “Velvet Revolution” (see Czechoslovakia, Bosnia, Georgia, Ukraine and Lebanon for examples – primary tactic: lots of flags and good looking young girls – hey, that fits with enforcing a coverup by Iranian girls – they are more deadly than guns).

I would suggest that Iran is being pressed on all fronts.  It doesn’t have the cash reserves to compete with the US in the long haul (and neither do its supporters).

Consequently there is little they can do except make loud noises to little real effect.  Remember the last act of the invasion of Iraq:  Comical Ali denying the presence of Americans in Baghdad as a Bradley drove along the riverbank behind him.

Which brings us to the Support.

Support: Russia

Russia sat out the Hariri decision.  I wonder if things would have gone the same way with Chirac calling the shots?  Would it be too blatant to outright oppose “the west” without the cover of France?

What would Russia do in the event that it found itself to be losing influence?  Might it resort to making loud noises?  Threatening a new arms race? Threatening to withdraw from the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty?

Would those noises become louder if there seemed the likelihood that they weren’t going to be able to cash in on those Kyoto Carbon Credits after all?  Now Europe and Russia are not of one mind and on this issue China (and India) find themselves aligned with the US.

Support: China

And like Russia, China, Chirac’s other good pal, sat out the Hariri decision.  And it took South Africa with it.  Unlike Russia, I don’t believe that China is inclined to become noisy when thwarted.  I seem to recall either Mao or Sun Tzu advising to advance with steel until you encounter steel, then retire.  I think that China’s likely response to a set back would be to gracefully retire and wait for the next opportunity.

However, just to remind the neighbours to maintain good manners, and possibly to redirect some pent up military tension at home, they seem to be rattling sabres with the Indians in Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh, not to mention ongoing activity by Maoists in Nepal.

Summation:

As stated in the title – this may be a pollyannaish view of the current state of affairs – it leaves the US and the West with a fairly good looking hand – if they have the time to play it.

Personally I think that the true tipping point occurred on May 25 with the vote on the supplementary bill on war funding.
The House voted 280 to 142 in favour of George Bush.
The Senate voted 80 to 14 in favour of George Bush.

Whatever the Sturm and Drang in the press might be, whatever games presidential candidates might play, I believe that the power brokers in the US delivered a cold shower to the power brokers in the opposing camps.

The opposition believed that by turning the people they could turn the state.  That is the essence of “true” democracy.
That is democracy as Cindy Sheehan and Moveon.org understood it.

However the power brokers in the US demonstrated the difference between mob rule, which the enemies of the US believed ran the country, and a functioning, managed, democracy, where the institutions are in place to ensure that the security of the nation comes first, last and always.

And that strength, I believe,  people like Al Duri, Khamenei and Putin understand.   Cindy may not understand the value of that strength, but she understands the strength – and has gone home.

Thank you for allowing me the pleasure of speculating.

Cheers.
 
Understood George - unfortunately each line would have at least two links

If required I am willing to go through the exercise but it might take another two or three days to get them all.
 
Kirkhill said:
Understood George - unfortunately each line would have at least two links

If required I am willing to go through the exercise but it might take another two or three days to get them all.

I'm not coming down on you.  I just think that it would give us an idea of where you are coming from in order to reach the conclusions that you have made.
 
Kinda put things in prespective.....overall, the big picture does not seem as bad as the "doom and gloom" sayers are going on about.
 
George Wallace said:
I'm not coming down on you.  I just think that it would give us an idea of where you are coming from in order to reach the conclusions that you have made.

C'mon, George ... he explained that at the beginning.

Kirkhill said:
...
I swear that the statements made without qualification come from articles I have read.  I don't swear to the authenticity of every article but most were from what I consider reputable sources.
If you want to challenge me on a point I shall endeavour to find the reference ...

There must be limits to how many references we demand.  I use I think over and over again - as often as not just to avoid having to go search for citations.
 
I'm not insisting on 'footnotes'.  I am just wondering what kind of sources he has been using.  He doesn't have to qualify every sentence, just give us an idea of where he was finding his research materials; what publications - not necessarily the exact quotes/notes.
 
George, I apologize to you for getting you in the middle of a discussion you didn't deserve.  There are rules to this site and the requirement you put forward is fair.

I bottled on this one.  To be honest the task of looking through the references was interfering with my train of thought and I was losing the thread.  That's why I said I could deliver the references but it would take a few days.

As far as the sources themselves are concerned all the data is open source and gleaned from various press outlets.  In some cases I have found links on blogs but I don't use blog material unless they can come back to a widely published article.  I am restricted to English language press but I review English language versions of non-english language papers.

And to the other chaps that have come to my defence......many thanks.

Cheers all.
 
As a first instalment on my promised references - herewith my reading list:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/index.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/home.html
http://www.thestar.com/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/global/
http://www.thesun.co.uk/section/0,,2,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.strykernews.com/

Blogs
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ (on this site I trust the contributions by the authors Omar and Mohammed, and one of their regulars Hameed - I ignore the rest of the commentary but often find interesting links to real articles amongst the comments.

Real Clear Politics and the Iraq the Model links lead to articles that seem to be under-reported in my view.

Another interesting blog is that of Michael Yon
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/

As an example - gleaned from today's Iraq The Model (ITM) - this link:

http://dwb.thenewstribune.com/24hour/religion/story/2557567p-10964919c.html

Muslim scholars consider who can issue fatwas

The Associated Press
Thursday, July 14th, 2005 09:18 AM (PDT)


AMMAN, Jordan (AP) - A major international meeting of Muslim scholars agreed that religious edicts called fatwas should be issued only by clerics bearing recognized authority - a position that implicitly opposes calls for violence from militants like those spearheading Iraq's insurgency.
The three-day meeting of some 180 experts from 40 nations was said to be the first representing Islam's eight major Sunni and Shiite schools of thought.

"The issuance of religious edicts is limited to qualified Muslim clerics in the eight schools of jurisprudence," according to a conference statement released July 6.

The Amman meeting also said believers cannot label other Muslims as "apostates," as Iraq extremists have done to justify killing police and civilians.

Jordan's King Abdullah II called the meeting to implement last November's "Amman Message," a Jordanian initiative urging Muslims to reject extremism and tolerate other religions. The meeting was sponsored by a foundation partly financed by Jordan's ruling dynasty, which claims direct descent from the Prophet Muhammad.

Prior to this month's conference, 10 top Muslim clergymen, including Egypt's Grand Imam Sheik al Azhar Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi and Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, had also ruled that fatwas must only be issued by qualified clerics recognized by the eight schools.

Based on my biases and prism this could perhaps be seen as having an equivalent in the British experience in the meetings of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland that finally decided that the state had an interest in the staffing of the church and the message it preached.  It signalled the end of the wars between the "purely democratic" Covenanters (who recognized democracy only within terms of their own small parish or village) and the "divinely inspired" Episcopalians who demanded that the message be controlled from above - either by the King or by the Peers.  The compromise (that still left Catholics and the Wee Free out of the equation) set the stage for the Scottish Enlightenment which in turn set the stage for the British Empires and America.....over the next few centuries.

I don't claim that this is a momentous occasion, or that things will all turn out right in the end, I just look for signs of change.  And you don't find those in the "bleed to lead" stories that dominate the press and public debate.


 
Here's another example of rapprochement.
http://www.islamicamagazine.com/issue18/openletter18_lowres.pdf

It is the Muslim response to Pope Benedict's reference to a discussion stating that Mohammed had nothing to offer.  In contrast to the press reports of the time that inflamed Islamic opinion, and in fact created the situation by selectively quoting the Pope, this is a reasoned conciliatory response.

These people are not all Wahhabis and they are respected voices in their communities.  ALL of their words - not just the inflammatory words of some - need to be taken into account.

And here are another couple of articles about operations:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20070531-1552-iraq.html
"U.S. battles al-Qaeda gunmen in west Baghdad after Sunnis revolt against terror group" - This references that Red on Red situation (Mohammed and Omar - they live in Baghdad - are apparently of the understanding that "the Sunnis" that revolted are actually Al Duri's Baathists - http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/)

Edit: Further comment on this battle from MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18950252/

And on reviewing my sources I realize that through the links this has become one of my regular reads:
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
The Multi National Force Iraq site.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12109&Itemid=1
"Joint operation successful in Al Kut"
This comes right after 70 policemen in Kut "resigned" claiming they were at risk from the Mehdi Army. 
Seeing a losing cause - they step out of the line of fire, switch sides, supply intelligence to take out the "bosses"  and wait for developments?  Pure supposition but when you see enough of these types of incidents with a constant drip of 3 or 4 incidents a day where 2-40 insurgents are engaged and killed or detained, where caches of a couple thousands rounds of SAA as well as a couple of 155mm, a drum of ANFO and a bunch of det cord and caps are discovered one gets a different sense of things than listening to the latest bang on the news.

As long as there is one idiot with access to fertilizer and diesel there will be bangs - Timothy McVeigh comes to mind as well as the buggers at Omagh.  These do not indicate a society out of control.

What I find most noteworthy is:

The size of the parties being engaged are decreasing - Corps and Armies in 2003, Battalions and Companies as recently as 2006, Platoons, Sections and Teams currently.

In addition the weapons hauls are decreasing - WMDs and Army Distribution Points in 2003, stores for multiple IEDs and Battalion/Company assaults in 2006, and now they caches consist of scrounged and improvised explosives, single artillery and rocket rounds, more mortar fuses than bombs, RPGs with more tubes than sights and more motors than warheads and 1-2000 rounds of SAA for a group of 40 men.  I would suggest that a number of our members on this site blat through those allotments on a weekend for personal enjoyment.

It isn't much to sustain an insurgency.

Anyway - hope that gives some insite into my thinking on how I came up with my appreciation.

Oh, by the way, another regular read for me is this:
http://www.archaeologica.org/NewsPage.htm
In addition to having a personal interest in archaeology - it also impacts on the global warming debate - it helps me keep track of the culture wars.  Turkey, Egypt, Syria and Iran (Iraq's kind of quiet right now) are all fighting for bragging rights on who is the oldest and who has the longest continuous occupancy.  Israel is in the fight with China and India coming up hard on the outside.
Russia, the West, North American Natives and Australian Aborigines are all in the game as well.  History is just another round in the arsenal.

Edit: and another blog I am finding to be an interesting source of links is http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/



 
Kirkhill,

You know when you've become good at what you do when the criticism, not the praise, begins.  I agree with ER Campbell and will add this rejoinder; please don't take heed of your critics.  Those of us who've read your threads already know your work and I, for one, can attest to the sincerity and thoughtfulness of your writing.  I used to do the exact same thing for a living.

As to the use of footnotes, I agree they are of importance.  If this had been your first posting on the site I too would have been concerned as to your veracity.  However, this was not your first time ashore, as it were.  You have footnoted before and, to be fair, this was your first try at such a magnus opus.  On the plus side however, no one seems to have any trouble with your thread's content, so you must have done something right.

I can add nothing more than to say 'keep it up'.

PS:  To quote the Pride of Orange County, California: "Never apologize, it's a sign of weakness."
 
Further to both the discussion on this thread and on "Turkey keeps nervous eye on Kirkuk" (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/56384.0.html)

Some more indicators of improvements in Iraq and increasing pressure on Al Qaeda and its allies that suggest both American successes (not Coalition - everyone is laying failure at the feet of the Americans - they may as well get the credit when things are moving in the right direction)

Compare the size of the crowd that Sadr is able to command
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/06/iraq_report_sadrs_small_samarr.asp

Iraq Report: Sadr's Small Samarra Protest
Violence in Baghdad and greater Iraq remains low as the Iraqi government is enforcing a curfew in the major population centers where the threat of sectarian backlash from the Samarra mosque bombing remains high. There have been one confirmed report of a mosque attack and no major clashes on the streets. A Sunni mosque in Basra was destroyed on Friday, and a curfew is now in place in the city. The Iraqi Security Forces, along with a Coalition advisory team, have deployed an additional 650 soldiers and police to Samarra, including "Approximately 300 Iraqi Army soldiers from 4th Battalion, 1st Brigade, 4th Iraqi Army Division, 140 National Policemen from the 3rd Battalion, 3rd National Police, and 150 other National Policemen," noted Multinational Forces Iraq.

The supporters of Muqtada al Sadr, the leader of the fractured Mahdi Army, held a protest today in Sadr City, home to an estimated 2 million Shia. The protests drew "more than 2,000 eastern Baghdad residents," according to Multinational Forces Iraq, which closely monitors large gatherings. The poor turnout for today's demonstration speaks volumes about Sadr's power on the street. One year ago, Sadr drew hundreds of thousands into the streets....

And this from Bill Roggio on Securing East Anbar (Fallujah and the suburbs of Baghdad)  They are trying to build on the success in developing relations with the Tribes in the rural areas as they push in towards Baghdad.  The same method is being applied in Diyalla, Salahudin and Babil.
http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/06/securing_eastern_anb.php

And finally, with respect to the Kurdish/Turkish situation - Iraq has reassigned a Kurdish Brigade to Diyalla to control/protect local Kurdish population centres mixed amongst the Arabs, both Sunni and Shia.  That isn't suggestive of tensions on the Kurdish border.

I think that this is the push year.  Ahmadinejad is running as thin on the ground for support as Bush.  More importantly he doesn't have the weight to push back in a militarily significant fashion.  The best he can hope for is to play for a Tet victory and create the impression of chaos with low level attacks in multiple places.  He can't do it as effectively in Iraq as he could because there is  a more effective employment of American, Coalition and Local forces concentrated in Iraq.  Accordingly he has to act more peripherally, hopefully dispersing the American effort or, as I said, playing for a Tet win.

Edit: and this isn't going to help Ahmadinejad's popularity.

Oil giant Iran begins fuel rationing with official cars
EDMUND BLAIR
IN TEHRAN
IRAN started its first phase of petrol rationing yesterday, limiting the fuel that drivers of government cars can buy, but many Iranians are still confused about how and when the full rationing plan would be in place.

Filling station workers said they were now limiting government-owned cars to 300 litres a month. But one said he was not sure what would happen if drivers of such cars wanted to buy fuel above that amount.

Despite big energy reserves, Iran lacks refining capacity to meet domestic fuel demand, which analysts say is rising at about 10 per cent a year. Heavy subsidies which drain state coffers make fuel so cheap it encourages waste, analysts say. ....

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=936272007

From "The Scotsman" via  Bill Roggios Fourth Rail.









 
Another sign of progress - from Memri - A Qatari defending the American presence in Iraq on the same grounds that the Gulf Cooperation Council justifies hosting American bases.  He also criticizes all suicide bombing .....


(Al-Ansari: ...) Have suicide operations, throughout their long history here and elsewhere, achieved any political goal? Never. Suicide operations have never achieved any political goal or benefited the Muslims.

Interviewer: At the very least, they strike terror in the hearts of the enemies.

Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari: On the contrary, they become even more vicious, and we lose our good reputation, the image of Islam, and the sympathy of world public opinion. The American presence [in the Persian Gulf] is legal.

Interviewer: You believe that the American presence in Iraq is legitimate...

Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari: It is legitimate and legal, because of the Security Council resolution, and the consent of all the countries in the region.

Interviewer: You don’t consider it occupation?

Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari: No, I don’t consider it to be occupation now, because it is not in the interests of the Gulf countries or of the Iraqis for the Americans to leave now. In addition, when can you call it occupation? When it runs counter to the will of the people. If ten million Iraqis elected the current government, it is a legitimate government, whether you support it or not. This legitimate government invited the Americans, and it renews this invitation every year. The American presence in Iraq is exactly like the American presence in the Gulf countries. I wrote an article about it, and I say so here too. Iraq needs the American presence for its stability and defense more than we, in the Gulf, need the American bases to protect our interests.

[...]

Interviewer: You, Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, a lecturer on Islamic law in the law faculty of Qatar University, have often been called as an American collaborator. Forgive me for saying so, but you have been described sometimes as one of the writers of the Marines Corps, who spread the "good tidings" of the American presence.

Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari: I don’t know what to say. Look, the tendency to blame anybody who disagrees with you...

Interviewer: But this view...

Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari: No, it is the nature of our culture...

Interviewer: But you support the Americans more than they support themselves.

Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari: Let me be honest with you.

Interviewer: It is not about the culture, because there are reasons...

Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari: We are all being accused... Why should I be prevented from being a collaborator, if it serves the interests of my country, and stems from patriotic motives? I am one of the supporters of the alliance with America. If you want to call this “collaboration”... I support the strengthening of the alliance with America – military, cultural, and economic alliance – because I believe that the Gulf has no future without this alliance. All the leaders of the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council have declared that their alliance with America is strategic.

[...]

Am I supposed to be a collaborator with Bin Laden? If they accuse me of being a collaborator, I accuse them that by defending terrorism and justifying it, they are collaborators with Al-Qaeda.

Interviewer: In your opinion, collaborating with America is better with Bin Laden?

Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari: Of course, if it serves the interests of my country. Am I supposed to be a collaborator with backward people?

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1450
 
And so it continues …

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is a story about how some senior Arab leaders plan to implement their governance plan:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070616.wgazaplan16/BNStory/International/home
Fatah planning Iraq-style insurgency against Hamas

MARK MACKINNON
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
June 16, 2007 at 1:13 AM EDT

RAMALLAH, WEST BANK — Hunched forward on a couch in the lobby of Ramallah's Grand Park Hotel Friday, his cellphones buzzing with updates from Gaza and his hands quivering with rage, Colonel Baha Balusha plotted his bloody revenge on Hamas.

The battered Fatah movement's strategy, revealed in a series of interviews, is two-pronged. On one front, the Palestine Liberation Organization will appeal to the United Nations Security Council to rapidly dispatch international troops into Gaza to forcibly put the coastal territory back under the control of president Mahmoud Abbas.

But while they wait hoping the international community will act, Fatah fighters plan to wage a violent Iraq-style insurgency against the Islamists who now control Gaza.

The task will fall to men like Col. Balusha, a top officer in the Palestinian Authority's intelligence apparatus in the Gaza Strip.


“Fatah is not done with in Gaza yet. When the Baath Party fell in Iraq, the resistance continued,” he said, making an effort to keep his voice level as his shaking hands nearly dropped a cup of tea. “Gaza is a minefield. In every house there are five rifles, not one. If Hamas owns one rifle, there are four others.”

A lot of Fatah supporters are furious with Hamas in the wake of their swift military takeover of the Gaza Strip. But no one can quite match the depths of Col. Balusha's hatred. His war with Hamas started last September, when Hamas militants tried to kill him, and escalated three months later when they shot and killed his three young sons – aged 6, 7 and 9 – on their way to school.

Now they've seized control of the place that Col. Balusha calls home. And he's planning to take it back.

He said that Hamas won the recent round of fighting by paying thousands of mercenaries – essentially, poor, unemployed Gazans willing to fight for any cause that pays – to supplement their own forces in the strip, and by remaining mobile while Fatah forces defended police stations and other stationary positions.

Those same tactics can now be used against Hamas, he said, since the Islamists are the ones who will have to defend their bases. With international financial aid expected to come pouring in to the new crisis government appointed by Mr. Abbas, Fatah can use some of that money to buy back the loyalty of fighters who turned against them this week.

Col. Balusha harshly criticized the West for freezing the flow of funds to the Palestinian Authority for the past 1½ years. With the PA bankrupt and unable to pay salaries to its security services, tens of thousands of armed men were left angry and desperate for money. And while the West froze Gaza out, Iran smuggled in as much as $1-billion over the past 18 months, Col. Balusha said, allowing Hamas to pay and equip more men than ever in preparation for this week's battle.

“Hamas bought the people who did not have anything to eat. Many joined Hamas just because they wanted to live. The thousands who surrounded the Palestinian security positions, didn't come from Hamas, they were just mercenaries.”

Col. Balusha refused to speculate on how many fighters he might be able to mobilize to counter Hamas, but said that most of the 58,000 members of the PA's formal security services had no interest in living in a Hamas-run Gaza. He suggested the tables could turn as quickly against Hamas as they had against Fatah.

“Hamas took over the Palestinian security positions because we were in fixed positions, while Hamas was mobile. Now it is the opposite – Hamas is fixed and we are mobile. Nothing is safe in Gaza, I know that from experience.”

It was clear that Col. Balusha would have powerful friends as he planned his counterattack. He fielded calls all afternoon from his men still in Gaza, and with Israeli help, managed to get a half dozen of his top operatives out of the strip – which Israel had completely sealed off because of the violence – and across Israeli territory to Ramallah for an evening strategy session.

The Fatah counterattack will proceed simultaneously with a diplomatic push by the PLO, an umbrella group of Palestinian organizations that Hamas never joined, to get the UN to take action. The plans were rapidly being assembled in the smoke-filled lobby of Ramallah's three-star Grand Park Hotel, where more than 20 Fatah-affiliated exiles from Gaza are currently lodged, their families still trapped in the war zone of Gaza.

“We want a UN force under Chapter 7, as they did in Kosovo,” said Abu Ali Shaheen, a senior Fatah leader in Gaza who, like Col. Balusha, was out of the territory when the recent violence began. Chapter 7 resolutions give the Security Council the option of using military force to deal with “threats to the peace” or “acts of aggression.”

“Many states have contacted Abu Mazen [Mr. Abbas] and said ‘we are with you.' Anyone who is with Abu Mazen must send international troops to Gaza, because this is a coup d'état.”

Mr. Shaheen, a founding member of the PLO and a key adviser to the Palestinian president, said that Mr. Abbas's decision Thursday to fire prime minister Ismail Haniyeh, a Hamas member, and declare a 30-day state of emergency in the West Bank and Gaza, was intended to remove any legal ambiguity for the United Nations about which forces were legitimate and which were illegal in the power struggle. Hamas won legislative elections early last year, but Palestinian basic law gives Mr. Abbas, who was elected separately in a 2005 vote, the power to fire the prime minister.

Mr. Shaheen, who survived a Hamas assassination attempt last fall, acknowledged that any international force would likely suffer heavy casualties trying to wrest control of Gaza from Hamas guerrillas embedded in the population. But he argued that a single, hopefully decisive, battle was better than the “many battles” he predicted would lie ahead if the Islamic militants were allowed to retain control of the strip.

Sitting separately from the other Fatah men in the Grand Park's lobby, Col. Balusha made it clear that the fighting in Gaza would go on, whatever the politicians decided.

“The Palestinian infighting has caused 1,000 deaths since 2006, and the Palestinian society has a habit of revenge. Will anyone just overlook losing a relative, a mother, a child, a friend?” he asked.

His angry glare made clear that his answer was no.

I am having a bit of difficulty imagining that countries like France and Italy, which might have said to Abbas ‘we are with you,' are interested inserting themselves into the middle of another Iraq style civil war – no matter how much their domestic anti-Israel constituents might plead.

I think Col. Balusha is right: when the West, led by Canada, cut off aid in the wake of a Hamas electoral victory we left the door open for Iranian funded Hamas to buy ‘fighters’ willing to gun down eight year old boys.  That being said it would be quite wrong for the West, especially Canada, to turn the financial taps back on so that Fatah can shoot sever year olds.

I have argued that the Arabs (and Persians) are about to embark on their very own Thirty Years War – probably bloodier and, in the end, just as historically important as its 350 year old European counterpart.  I think we should look on this turn of events with equanimity – pity, to be sure, but equanimity all the same because it is an essential step towards creating the sorts of socio-political structures which will allow the Arabs/Persians and West/Central Asian to survive in and beyond the 21st century.  If the Arabs, Persians and West Asians persist in embracing a medieval-theocratic socio-political system then I believe they will be destroyed – largely by their own internal conflicts.

In any event, I am sure there will be calls, from all the usual suspects, for a Chapter 7 UN force.  I am equally sure that all the nations capable of contributing, effectively, to such a force will roll their eyes and hide under the tables in the UNSC meeting room.

 
I think we have to do a bit of splitting between "Cause" and "Effect"

There are lots of stressors in Dar-al-Islam; a demographic surge which is stressing internal economies and resources (primarily fresh water), changes in the external environment caused by globalization and the rise of regional powers like India and China, and the communications revolution (Internet, cell phones, global media like CNN), which bring disruptive new influences into Dar-al-Islam.

These factors are present to one degree or another in every part of the world, but social chaos and collapse into inter or intrastate war is not the response in the West, the Anglosphere, China, India or Edwards "Conservative Democracies" in Asia. The cause of the chaos is the brittle and authoritarian regimes present in most of Dar-al-Isam. You will notice that the regimes least affected are also the least authoritarian, such as Turkey and Indonesia..

As stresses mount, the authoritarian regimes (be they dictatorships, monarchies or theocracies) are less and less able to come up with solutions to the problems, and with the communications revolution are now unable to deflect blame on foreign powers with the ease they did in the past.

The growth of sub-national and supra national movements (groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and the more general squaring off between the Shiite and Sunni divisions of Islam) can be seen in one sense as an attempt to get inside the "Boyd cycle" of the national governmentsand deliver some sort of solution to the followers of these groups (mostly at the expense of everyone else). This means that even if there was never a 9/11 or some alternate US Administration had taken no action in SW Asia, the region of Dar-al-Islam would still be sliding into chaos and war. Only the details would change.

The US actions served two purposes: they were the trigger that broke the entire mess into the open, rather than seeing an ongoing series of conflicts like the Iran-Iraq war dragging out over decades, and the overarching "Purple Finger" strategy provides a purpose and direction not only for the West, but also for the people of  Dar-al-Islam itself. we know that there are many people in the region fighting against their local tyrants, and the mass turn out of voters in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon provides a glimpse of what might be, so long as we do not turn our backs on the region and offer political, economic and sometimes military help to back the democratic tide. Leaving these internal wars to fester will only create end by creatiing a powerful, embittered and determined winner who will challenge the West and the other regional powers, leading to a greater cycle of war and conflict.
 
I agree that the environment in which the current "discussion" is being had is one of "brittle" governments,  as glass is brittle.  Hitting glass results in random crazing, random effects, a chaos of broken glass that inflicts damage on all that come in contact with it.

My sense is that Ahmadinejad seeks chaos.  He sees himself as an agent of chaos because once the world is suitably chaotic then the 12th Imam will appear and set the world right.  Allah will be served and he will get his reward in the next world.

It doesn't matter to Ahmadinejad that the Great Satan is defeated by Iran, in fact that may be counter-productive as it may delay the appearance of the Iman, as that disorder prevails. 

He hopes to meet the 12th Imam in this life - I believe.

From this Ahmadinejad is capable of anything, as long as he can get everybody shooting at everybody, and incapable of being trusted on negotiations.


I do think that this Agent of Chaos is having the effect of precipitating Edward's Islamic (dare I say Arab) Reformation.  And equally that, like the Reformation and Counter-Reformation it will be an incomplete process of decades if not centuries with no clearly definable end state.

However rather than standing by pityingly, watching people kill themselves and praying that they don't bring the fight to our homes I think we need to get involved. 

Not in the centre though but on the periphery. 

Employ the inkblot/oilspot strategy by operating from the periphery and moving towards the centre.  Operate from secure locations and establish safehavens to which refugees can walk or drive.  Protect the routes they travel, supply cover, bring them into clean, safe, secure locations where they can raise their families - attract them away from the chaos.  Suck the support out from under the leadership.

Iraq is not a bad place to try and set up a "safe haven" except that it is too big, too isolated and has too many undefended borders. It reeks of "Hey diddle diddle, right up the middle". 

Perhaps a better strategy for engagement between the west and Islam would have been to engage Gaza and Lebanon First and prosecute the Basra safe-have/no fly zone as vigorously as the Kurdistan zone was defended.  Does anybody doubt that Gaza (smaller than Toronto) couldn't have been secured by a NATO force similar to that employed in Kabul?  Or that if the UN force in Lebanon in 1983 had had the same rules of engagement that  the troops in Kandahar and Helmand have currently that Lebanon could have been stabilized?

Yes, it might have caused Saddam and Hafez/Bashar Assad and Khomenei to come to us.  But we would be fighting a defensive battle in a just cause on ground of our on choosing with protected flanks. Turkey, Egypt and Israel would all be best served just to mass on their borders and sit out the fight.  There would be secure lines of communications across the Atlantic and through the Med with bases in Spain and Italy, not to mention Gibraltar, Malta and Cyprus.

Similar moves could be taken along the coasts of the Middle East and the Horn of Africa.  We might not be able to occupy the whole of Dar-al-Islam until they complete their current spasm but I think we could certainly establish and hold a number of Gibraltar/Gaza size "oilspots" around the region that would act as refuges for those seeking to escape the chaos.

But most importantly, as Ruxted pointed out it is necessary to recognize that this "war" will not end.  In fact I dislike even calling it a war.  This is not a struggle between two defined entities struggling over a bit of land or water or treasure, or even a body of people. 

This is not a limited engagement.  This is conducting operations necessary to maintain normal society - just like operating a police force, taking out the garbage, cutting the lawn or vacuuming the house.  And it has to be "budgeted" accordingly.
 
PS - just re-reading my last.  My comments are not meant to suggest that Iraq is unwinnable - just that by biting off a big chunk in the centre of the pie it has become messy and hard to chew.  I prefer to eat my pie with dainty little nibbles around the edges - leaving no crumbs behind.  ;D
 
Also I found this - http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28774 via the comments on Iraq the Model - about the formation of a Solidarity Iran.

What is interesting is that, if true, it follows a pattern seen with Charter 77 in Hungary, Solidarnosc in Poland, the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia,  the Otpor demonstrations in Bosnia, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange in Ukraine and the Cedar in Lebanon.  There have been less successful ventures in Russia and Belarus amongst other places but the attempts have been made.  There is also the Hong Kong based franchise.  It has been suggested that there is common backing - whether from George Soros, the Bilderbergers or the CIA is up for grabs. 

It is the pattern that intrigues.

June 14, 2007 – When you read these lines I will be in Paris, attending what promises to be a historic conference of Iranian opposition groups where they plan to announce a new initiative to support pro-democracy forces inside Iran.

They call themselves Solidarity Iran, a conscious reminder of the defiant labor movement inside Poland that helped bring about the end of the Cold War.

Solidarity’s leader, Lech Walesa, went on to become the first freely-elected president of liberated Poland. While the Solidarity Iran organizers do not plan to elect a single leader, they do anticipate the election this weekend of a representative council to represent the group in the months to come as it tours world capitals to build support for the freedom struggle inside Iran.....


 
Adopting the tache d’huile strategy does not require forming cantonments unless we either want to or are operating in out of the way areas like Afghanistan. Looking around Dar-al-Islam we see many areas which are relatively stable and under control of non brittle moderate governments (although not "Liberal" or "Conservative" democracies). Places like the UAE and Kuwait are in reasonable distance for the Gulf area and already take people in through a guest worker program.

Adapting that slightly to allow refugees into these nations so they have the opportunity to get employment and skills while sheltering is one part of the equation, these nations have a military force sufficient to defend their own interests, and they will have selfish reasons to support stability operations in Dar-al-Islam both to protect themselves and to send the refugees home.

On a larger scale, shoring up the legitimate government of Lebanon and giving them the opportunity of ejecting Hezbollah from the south and Syrian influence from the rest of the country to secure the Cedar Revolution would secure the Mediterranean flank, and Lebanon would serve as a magnet and example to Syria and (to a lesser extant) Iraq. Lebanese merchants already roam Dar-al-Islam so they are perfect agents of influence/agents of change even without explicit government direction, just their presence is a powerful example of what is possible.

Something similar on the Pacific flank to take advantage of the relative stability and prosperity of Indonesia would work a "sandwitch" on Central and SW Asia, and Eygpt is probably key to both North and East Africa, although I am not quite sure how to make that work.

 
I agree that cantonments are not the sole solution.  We should absolutely make best use of those malleable and robust societies in the area - and permitting trade is a big part of that.

We could do more on the 3D approach by financially supporting those friendly countries that border conflict zones and take in refugees. Make it financially rewarding to do the right thing.  Often the refugees from the neighbouring countries are relatives but the "safe" country is as poor as the battleground.

I am not a big believer in root causes but I am a big believer in people acting in their own best interest.  It is in our best interest to work with a country like Chad for example (corruption bedamned) and pay off the government of Chad so that we can build small self-sustaining communities.  I know it is subsidization but it would be cheaper in blood and money than conducting an endless campaign of Iraqs.  As well we would get the opportunity to acculturate the refugees so that they would be a better fit for a non-chaotic society.  We should also be prepared to deploy troops alongside the Kuwaitis and the Chadians etc - that way we strengthen their defences improving the quality of the safehaven,.  We add international legitimacy to the cause (with or without UN sanction - we are now helping a threatened country do a noble thing).  And we get an opportunity to improve the quality of operations of the defending force so that it is more compatible with non-chaotic values.

At the same time I do thing that cantonments can be part of an "aggressive" oil spot strategy - especially useful to get right in amongst the refugees and to get up the nose of offending government.  A useful provocation if you will. 

Also, once secured and accepted, like Hong Kong for example, we can expand outwards.

Often, as in the case of Hong Kong and Singapore, and for that matter Dubai, the cantonment itself acts as a magnet that doesn't just attract refugees but also realigns the power structure in the neighbouring country.  I think we can agree that despite the handover that Hong Kong has had a considerable impact on official thinking in Mainland China.  It certainly seems to have been studied and copied in places like Shanghai, Guangzhou and Beijing.  The same could be said for Taiwan and Japan: cantonments of different sizes if you like.

 
Back
Top