Tuesday, July 5, 2016
Did you ever see a hyperactive dog chasing every car that passes and wonder if the dog had ever thought about what would happen if it actually caught the car?
Did you see the end of the movie "The Perfect Storm" when the seasoned captain doesn't bother to escape the ships' bridge as it sinks and the young sailor struggles to freedom and then pops to the surface and the camera takes a long shot of him bobbing alone among huge waves in the middle of the largest storm ever in the North Atlantic? He is alive but doomed. He had not thought it through.
Both of those scenarios describe Senator McCain and Company's push for troops on the ground in Syria.
The McCain Strategy's objective has never been defined:
Is it to only fight Daesh?
Does it have the authorization to engage Assad forces as well as Daesh?
Is it to first engage Assad and then engage Daesh?
Is it to first engage Daesh and then Assad?
To talk wildly about boots on the ground without these issues defined is reckless.
It is important to keep asking questions. Senators Graham and McCain both describe a coalition force of NATO allies and "Middle East coalition partners."
The first step is to examine the NATO coalition partners. The United Kingdom is in full austerity mode with a government in disarray. Tony Blair resigned in disgrace for following the United States into war. David Cameron, who was friendly to the USA, just exited stage left. They are completely occupied with Brexit. The United Kingdom has a significant Muslim population that voted out any MP that voted for the Iraq War. There is zero chance that the new government would devote one quid to another ill-fated American adventure.
Germany has a history of saying no. It will not happen. It depends on Russian natural gas for 30 percent of winter heating. It will not happen. Germany backing the coalition would risk its leadership position in the European Union.
France might, but it has a significant military presence in West Africa and the Sahel. It only has a total combat force of around 200,000, and so a deployment to Syria would leave them exposed in Africa and other regions. As in Libya they might lend aircraft and airpower but this is not really an area that the United States lacks. Remember Senators McCain and Graham are looking for boots on the ground.
Poland et al might but like in Iraq it will be meaningless in terms of troop strength.
This brings up the suggestion of Middle East Coalition Forces.
My only response is are you Flipping Crazy? Iran's General Soleimani of the Al Quds force, the greatest military leader since Salahuddin, last week threatened to wipe Saudi Arabia and Bahrain off the map. Saudi Arabia is widely unpopular in the region for the way they prosecuted their war in Yemen with human rights abuses piling up each day. The presence of Saudi Arabia troops would give Iran and Hezbollah a reason to attack, and it would give Iran justification to militarily enter the war directly.
I think it escapes the Senators, who should know better, that Iran has access to Syria on the ground through Iraq. This means the possibility of a full armor war and as well as missiles. It also means the complete and final destabilization of Iraq and the occupation of Iraq by Iran.
I think the Senators forget that it is a toss up whether the Saudi's hate Daesh or the United States more. Lets not forget that the last time the United States had any military presence in Saudi Arabia it was bluntly asked to leave. The presence of US Army on Saudi soil is a defilement of the two most holiest sites in Islam and further delegitimatizes the ruling government.
The United States already has a military base in Qatar and that is all they are going to get. The new Emir has backed away from his father's disasterous support of Syrian opposition. List this as don't hold your breath.
If Iran threatens, the Senators need to remember that Iran sits in the UAE's backyard. List this as don't hold your breath.
The United States already has a presence but based on interviews during my trip to Jordan and the constant threat of protests and demonstrations in Jordan I would say maybe but that is a big maybe.
My only response, once again, is are you crazy? First, the presence of Turkish troops brings up shades of ancient history. Second, it would draw the Kurds off sides and give them an excuse to open a Turkish front through a deal with Iran for control of their area if they fought Turkey. Third, do you think that Turkey can be trusted to withdraw. Fourth, it would also guarantee the entrance of Iran into the war.
Israel is pinned down in the West Bank as an brutal Occupation Force. It is pinned down containing Gaza. It is pinned down on the Lebanon border containing Hezbollah. It has a growing Ultra-Orthodox population that refuses national military service. A mass mobilization would cripple its economy, and finally, the entrance of Israel would be answering Iran's prayers.
Maybe. Egypt might want to shore up the Sinai. Maybe not. Honestly, largely, except for the Sinai troops, the Egyptian military has more practice gunning down protesters than fighting a war. It is too much of a gamble for General el-Sisi. If he loses, it spells the end of his hold on power by relatively peaceful means.
Two Vital Questions Must Be AnsweredWhat would Russia do?
What would Iran do?
Senator McCain once again is reckless without answer these questions. Once again the senator is acting like Iran would ignore the presence of United States troops in Syria, and the presence of its arch enemy, Saudi Arabia, effectively on its border. It is absurd to think that Iran would give up its route to support Hezbollah through Syria. The presence of Iranian troops in Syria is more to support access to Hezbollah than support Assad.
Finally, the loss of Syria retards its final goal which is the liberation of Jerusalem. Its also retards it long term goal of replacing the House of Saud as the guardian of Mecca and Medina, therefore, Iran would effectively, with Jordan, control the three most holiest sites in Islam. This would close the loop on Shia's claim to legitimate power.
Does Senator McCain actually believe that Russia would turn its back on Syria and Iran? Russia has a naval base in Syria. There are so many variables that Senators McCain and Graham have overlooked in their rush to war that it can only be seen as the same reckless spirit that dragged the United States into Iraq.
Getting Rid of Daesh
There are two key issues to consider with Daesh in Syria. First, there is no evidence that Daesh is directing attacks in the United States, at this time. The United States attacks are from alienated Americans--San Bernardino--yes he was an American--Orlando attacker born in America that makes him an American. The Fort Hood green-on-green shooting was another alienated American. Daesh is just an at-hand focus of the alienation not the cause of the alienation. (More explanation of the cause of terrorism in America)
Since there is no evidence that Daesh directed the attacks in the United States and it is highly possible that Daesh can continue their propaganda war from anywhere, in terms of the Islamic State Terrorism, is there a reason to risk full scale war and destabilization in the Levant? Daesh, by all accounts, is being slowly and systematically removed from the region. This is impossible to deny. Second, Assad is gaining strength every day and his removable would be very difficult with Iranian and Russian support.
Unless the above questions are answered to the satisfaction of the American people, the second and finally point reveals the proposal by Senators McCain and Graham to be loose reckless talk that it is. I respect the military service of both Senator McCain and Graham but this only makes the final point more puzzling.
The reason why the coalition in the Iraq invasion worked because the United States lead the coalition on the ground in terms of troop strength, tactics, and the coalition partners played an auxiliary role with the exception of the United Kingdom, who the United States trains with, has shared language and shared tactics. Both Senators promise that the United States would not play a major combat role and if this is true then who? Turkey? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Three different armies, two different languages, three different communications equipment, three different tactics.
Finally, in the fantasy of Senators McCain and Graham, there is no discussion how long it would take to equip, establish a battle plan, train, coordinate communications gear, establish command procedures, deploy, prepare for the attack, and then attack. Even if you could put three or four disparate militaries together, find a common language, get them to agree on a command structure, even though some of the armies have taken part in military exercises together, it would be a world record if that took less than three months.
In other words, at the rate Daesh is loosing ground today, it seems highly unlikely that the risks involved with the McCain/Graham proposal would remove Daesh any faster.
Considering the Commander-in-Chief along with the military leaders advise against this tactic and it could only be done with the vote of Congress if President Obama agreed not to veto. Considering that this Congress is the least productive in history, this places Senator McCain and Graham exactly in the political pundit arena that is beneath two distinguished United States Senators.
Centre for Infrastructural Warfare Studies
On Jul 5, 2016, at 8:32 AM, WTC <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On Jul 5, 2016, at 8:31 AM, Promenade Press <email@example.com> wrote: