Interesting Syrian Air Force Flight Activity

Syrian Air Force IL-76 YK-ATA

The Syrian Air Force (SYAF), officially the Syrian Arab Air Force, operates three Ilyushin IL-76T (NATO: Candid) heavy lift transport aircraft: YK-ATA, YK-ATB, and YK-ATD (shown top to bottom). A fourth aircraft (YK-ATC) has not been operational for almost 30 years.

These are older photos – all three aircraft are in need of depot-level maintenance, upgrade, and overhaul. This is done at at the Ilyushin facility in Ramenskoye, Russia. Based on publicly available flight tracking information, YK-ATD was overhauled in 2016, YK-ATB in 2018, and YK-ATA in 2019. 

I suspect that YK-ATD is in dire need of major maintenance - it has not flown since November 24, 2022, and then only for a short domestic flight. It appears to have become what we in the U.S. Air Force refer to as a “hangar queen.”

Do not let the colorful livery of SYRIANAIR (Syrian Airlines) fool you – I have flown on both SYRIANAIR and with the SYAF - they’re different. One is a second-tier Middle East airline with great passenger service, and the other is a third-rate air force transport operation that worried me. I have flown on SYAF Antonov AN-24 (NATO: Coke), Tupolev TU-134 (NATO: Crusty), and Yakovlev YAK-40 (NATO: Codling) aircraft – the condition of the YAK-40 and AN-24 was far below U.S. Air Force standards.

The three IL-76 aircraft are actually assigned to the 585th Transport Squadron of the Syrian Air Force 29th Air Transport Brigade, based at Damascus International Airport. 

The military ramp at the airport is southwest of the civilian terminal. I have been on the 29th Brigade ramp a few times to catch attaché flights on the extremely rare occasions when the Syrians included American officers in official attaché trips.

These transports were built in 1980 (YK-ATA and YK-ATB) and 1981 (YK-ATD) – I remember them in the original IL-76MD (military) configuration, complete with tail guns. In the early 2000s, all were converted to their current IL-76T configuration.

Over the past few years, the Syrian IL-76’s made almost daily resupply flights to the regime-controlled enclave of al-Qamishly in northeast Syria, and almost daily flights to Mehrabad airport in Tehran, Iran. Once in a while, one of the aircraft would fly to/from Moscow. 

That pattern has changed a bit.

I have noticed a massive increase of SYAF IL-76 flights between Damascus International Airport (read that as 29th Air Brigade) and Benghazi/Beninah International Airport (coincidentally also an air base at which SYAF fighter pilots were assigned to support Mu’amar al-Qadhafi in the 1970s). It is in the area of Libya controlled by Field Marshal Khalifah Haftar's Libyan National Army (LNA). 

Syrian media reported that Haftar’s armed forces have airlifted relief supplies to victims of the February 6 earthquakes that have devastated part of northern Syria. Some of that aid was delivered by LNA aircraft to the Russian-leased Humaymim air base south of Latakia.

Looking over publicly available flight records for the past three months, an interesting international flight pattern emerges. 

YK-ATA has flown 13 round-trip flights between Damascus, Syria and Benghazi, Libya, which seems to be its primary route. It did fly to Moscow three times, Beirut once, and once to, for whatever reason, Oral in northwestern Kazakhstan.

YK-ATB flew seven round-trip flights between Damascus, Syria and Benghazi, Libya. It also flew to Tehran/Mehrabad airport, using a ramp dedicated solely to the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), four times. Additionally, it was used at least six times for the routine domestic flight from Damascus to al-Qamishly.

In the last 90 days for the Syrian Air Force, there have been at least:

• 20 round trip flights to Benghazi, Libya (most before the earthquake)

• 4 round trip flights to Tehran/Mehrabad, Iran

• 3 round trip flights to Moscow/Vnukovo, Russia

• 1 round trip flight to Beirut, Lebanon

• 1 round trip flight to Oral, Kazakhstan

I am puzzled by the number of flights to Libya, specifically to the area controlled by Khalifah Haftar. If anyone has any insight into the relationship between Syrian President Bashar al-Asad and Khalifah Haftar, please inform me.

I will note that after the earthquakes that created catastrophic damage in northern Syria, all return flights from Benghazi to Syria stopped first in Latakia, and in at least one case in Aleppo, both areas that have suffered catastrophic earthquake damage. I have to assume that these aircraft were transporting relief supplies from Benghazi.

My question: What were the Syrian IL-76 aircraft moving between Damascus and Benghazi before the earthquake?

Tweet

What does withdrawal of US troops from Iraq mean? - American military expert explains

US Central Command Gen. Frank McKenzie paid an official visit to Baghdad for meeting with Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi on Tuesday. In the meeting, Gen. McKenzie announced a possible reduction of US troops in Iraq. Apart from this US withdrawal of Germany was announced previous months this year. Withdrawal or shifting military troops caused a great interest among experts and media. 

In order to find the answers about the US moves, Eurasia Diary took the opinions of military expert Rick Francona.

Rick Francona is an author, commentator and media military analyst. He is a retired United States Air Force intelligence officer with experience in the Middle East, including tours of duty with the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency. 

Q. Why does the US withdraw troops from Iraq and Germany? Does it mean Iran and Russia are not threats to the US like they were before? 

A. Let me address Germany—and Europe—first. The press release from the Department of Defense said the removal of troops from Germany will “enhance Russian deterrence, strengthen NATO, reassure Allies, improve strategic U.S. flexibility....” 

 The repositioning—not necessarily withdrawal—of American forces is long overdue. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, there has been no real need to maintain that much force presence in Germany. However, I am not advocating we return them to the United States. With the growing threat from Russia and the expansion of NATO to the east, I would hope that the United States is going to move the forces forward to either Poland or Romania or both. 

 Move the troops closer to where they will be needed, send a message to the Russians that we’re there to support/strengthen NATO while bringing the families and the accompanying unnecessary support infrastructure home. If we are going to have forces deployed opposite the Russians, keep them lean and mean—more tooth, less tail. 

As for Iraq, American troops returned to Iraq for one reason, to assist the Iraqis in their fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Remember, after what I believe was the premature withdrawal of US forces from Iraq by President Obama in 2011, the Iraqi Army was basically hollowed out by corruption, mismanagement, and a lack of leadership epitomized by the disastrous government of Nuri al-Maliki. That army collapsed as ISIS took the city of Mosul in 2014.

As ISIS continued to move south towards Baghdad and expand its territorial holdings in the country, it was clear that Iraqi security forces were incapable of stopping the group without external assistance. That assistance came in the form of a small US ground presence supported by massive amounts of coalition airpower. 

Unfortunately, al-Maliki also requested, and received, support from Iran, in the form of a series of Public Mobilization Units (hashed)—Iraqi Shi’a militias trained and armed (and I maintain, led) by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The hand of IRGC-Qods Force commander Qassem Solimani was readily apparent. 

With the increase in the capabilities of the US-revitalized Iraqi security forces (police, counterterrorism units, and military), a continued presence of American forces in the presence of an Iranian-dominated Iraqi government, has become no longer viable. Most Arab Iraqis don’t want a continued US presence, and there is little stomach in the United States for keeping troops there. Yes, Iran remains a regional threat to American interests in the region, but it will have to be addressed in other ways. The US does not need forces in Iraq to maintain freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf. 

Q. We observe that the Middle East has become a Russian-Turkish battlefield. Does the US think it is better to withdraw and let two powers weaken each other? 

A. We now have Russia and Turkey involved in two proxy wars in the region: Syria and Libya. While we have serious issues with Turkish “adventurism” on the part of President Erdoğan in both theaters, the bottom line remains: Russia presents a threat to the United States across a variety of fronts; Turkey is a key NATO ally. 

That said, Turkey has been singularly unhelpful in the US-led coalition fight against ISIS since the beginning of the effort in 2014. Erdoğan’s efforts were more focused on anti-Kurdish operations in Syria than on defeating ISIS – it was as if that the Turkish leader was supporting ISIS at the expense of the Kurds. Virtually all of Turkey’s incursions into north and northwest Syria did nothing to promote the defeat of ISIS, only to create what appears to be a semi-permanent Turkish and Turkish-backed Islamist presence in the country. 

Are we looking at the reintroduction of the Ottomans? Hardly, just a quagmire/standoff between Erdoğan and Putin, at the expense of the Syrian population caught in the crossfire. 

Libya is no better. While Turkish intervention has turned the tide of the fighting in favor of the GNA over the LNA, nothing seems to have been resolved. You have the Turkish-supported GNA on one side against the Russian-backed, Haftar-led LNA, which is now also supported by US allies Egypt and the UAE. Add what now appears to be Syrian government support to the LNA, while Turkey deploys Syrian mercenaries to fight for the GNA. 

This is a recipe for escalation. Elsewhere in the region, Erdoğan has acquired a military base in Qatar. This is more unnecessary and unhelpful Ottoman adventurism from “Sultan Recep.” He should focus on cleaning up his current debacles before creating a third. 

Q. The FBI director says China is a threat to US security. Can we expect the US will shift troops from these areas to Asia-Pacific? 

A. China is emerging as the key long-term future threat to US security, likely to surpass the Russians in the not-too-distant future. Although President Trump has slowed down the Obama “pivot to Asia,” the United States will eventually have to increase either its own force structure in the region, or alternately enter into a broad multinational alliance with countries like Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, even India, and Australia to confront growing Chinese power and its seemingly willingness to use it. 

Chinese handling of the coronavirus has cost them some goodwill. The US and its allies should capitalize on Chinese malign behavior directed at the rest of the world and attempt to isolate Beijing to make them pay a price for unleashing—wittingly or unwittingly (although many believe it was the former)—the virus on the rest of the world. 

Interviewer: Ulvi Ahmedli

Tweet

Requiescat in pace - Lt Gen Bernard Trainor, USMC (Ret)

Lieutenant General Bernard "Mick" Trainor, USMC (Ret)

It is with profound sadness that I acknowledge the passing of a legend and personal mentor.

Lieutenant General Bernard E. Trainor, United States Marine Corps (Retired), has died at age 89 of cancer. Time has taken its toll on yet another of America's finest warriors, those who we as a country send forward to fight our wars. The general was a combat veteran of the Korean War and two tours in Vietnam. I was honored to know Mick, as he was called by his friends, although I never called him anything but General.

There will be enough articles and recitations of his accomplishments that I will not review them here. I will merely recount my personal recollections of the general.

Shortly after returning from an overseas tour (was that vague enough?) in 1987, I was assigned to an office at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) responsible for operations and analysis of the various situations in the Middle East and South Asia. Our office was authorized to provide background information to the press - General Trainor at that time was a correspondent for the New York Times.*

In late 1987 and early 1988, there were several major issues facing the United States - Afghanistan and our support for the mujahidin, the Iran-Iraq War and our nascent support for the Saddam Husayn government, and the threat posed by the Libyan government under Mu'amar Qadhafi's acquisition of chemical weapons. It was a busy time. Our office routinely provided interviews to General Trainor.

American support for the Iraqis in the Iran-Iraq War had just begun when I met the general for the first time. He was by all accounts a legendary U.S. Marine three-star general now writing for the New York Times. I was intrigued by the thought of retired senior military officer now working as a member of the Fourth Estate. For many of us serving in the military, it seemed a bit incongruous.

At that time, our program to support the Iraqis through the provision of U.S. military intelligence was very close-hold. Few members of the government were aware of the Presidential-directed program to give the Iraqi military the information they needed to stave off an expected Iranian offensive that we believed would lead to the eventual fall of the Iraqi government.

I was one of the officers tasked with going to Baghdad and working with the Iraqi Directorate of Military Intelligence as part of that program. According to the Los Angeles Times, the program was known by the code names "Elephant Grass," "Druid Leader" and "Surf Fisher." I will neither confirm nor deny.

Imagine my surprise while on a flight from Paris to Baghdad running into General Trainor. Since the flight was headed for Baghdad, there was no sense in denying that I was headed for the Iraqi capital. I tap-danced around the obvious question, "What are you going to be doing in Baghdad?" with a "visiting our defense attache office at the embassy."

I am not sure he bought it, but extending professional courtesy from one military officer to another, he did not pursue it. I was glad he did. I did not want to lie or mislead him - but as a professional intelligence officer, I was prepared to do so.

Years later, I again worked with General Trainor, but in a different capacity - we were both on-air analysts for NBC News, which included the cable outlets CNBC and MSNBC. He was always a gracious analyst, even when we disagreed. My experiences in Iraq were markedly different, so it was reasonable that our analyses varied. In every instance, he was personable and willing to listen to a much junior officer.

I will mourn the passing of a fine officer. General Trainor - "Mick" - served his country well as a warrior, and later as a journalist and author.

Salute.

________________
* I have chosen to not acknowledge the obituary from the Times as I disagree with the political spin attached to it. I knew General Trainor and believe that he would not have not been pleased with it.

Tweet

The capture of Ahmad Abu Khatallah - what took us so long?

Ahmad Abu Khatallah

Last weekend, a team of American special operations forces and FBI special agents conducted a covert mission into Bengahazi, Libya, and captured the most wanted suspected leader of the Islamist group responsible for the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate and a CIA facility in that city. Four Americans were killed in that 2012 attack.

It has taken 21 months to capture Ahmad Abu Khatallah. Yet, the media is abuzz with recriminations and accusations, decrying how long it has taken, pointing out that Abu Khattalah was available for interviews with several journalists, including CNN's Arwa Damon last year. (Disclosure: As I write this, I am a paid CNN military analyst.) Arwa is an excellent journalist, has excellent Arabic language skills, and was able to get a good interview. I listened to the interview in the original Arabic - to me, Abu Khatallah sounded arrogant and condescending.

As I sit in the CNN New York bureau, I am watching almost every network and cable outlet repeatedly point to their journalists' meetings with Abu Khatallah and ask that if it was possible for their journalists to find him, why couldn't the United States armed forces, intelligence community or FBI do the same?

The short answer is, of course, that they could - he wasn't lost. Knowing where someone is not the same as being able to seize him, transport him and then - an important point - successfully convict him.

Now for the long answer. The days of capturing illegal combatants and taking them to Guantanamo is over. The Obama Administration is trying to close the detention facility at Guantanamo, not increase the inmate population. The preferred method of bringing these types of individuals to justice is via the U.S. federal court system.

Prosecuting a case in federal court, subject to the rules of evidence and judicial procedure, requires evidence that will prove Abu Khatallah's guilt to the standard required in criminal case - beyond a reasonable doubt. Gathering that evidence in an area known to be hostile to the United States is problematic, and thus takes time.

Only when you have gathered the required evidence for a successful prosecution can you mount an operation to seize the accused. This is when the months of surveillance become critical. Knowing where someone is not the hard part; extricating him is.

Being able to arrange an interview for a journalist is not difficult when the subject is not afraid of being captured. A journalist meeting with a subject in an area that the subject controls is not a threat - it is his security, his schedule, his location. Conducting a covert special operations mission is a different matter. It is not simply a matter of taking a camera and recorder to a meeting in a coffee shop.

The essential ingredient for a successful operation is accurate intelligence. That intelligence has to be precise and specific, gathered via a variety of sources and methods - human, electronic, visual, including any information gleaned from the journalists' interviews.

Examples of the types of intelligence information required for these types of operations: where does he live, where does he work, how does he travel, does he vary his routes, does he always use the same vehicle, what is his security situation at home and work, and during the period when he travels back an forth? Are the potential locations where an operation could be mounted, what is the local security situation, will a local police force or a security organization respond, how long does that response take, are their medical issues with the subject? - the list goes on.

Developing a file on one person to this level of granularity takes time and resources. In Libya, it is complicated by the fact that there is virtually no American presence in the area.

Once you have the intelligence required to mount an operation, then you have to plan the operation itself. Who is going to do it, how many special operations personnel are required for success without creating a alerting signature? Deploying a large number of assets to an area could very well tip off the target that an operation may be in the works. How do you safely get into and out of the designated target location? What type of transportation will be required, where will helicopters or boats stage from, what are the defenses in the area, where will the subject be taken once seized, etc.? Again, the list goes on and on. The goal is to have as much of the situation controlled as possible.

I have some experience with this type of operation - I was the deputy chief of a team hunting war criminals in Bosnia. After that operation concluded years later, I wrote a book about it. Warning: unabashed plug here - Chasing Demons - My Hunt for War Criminals in Bosnia.

Here is what I wrote about a similar situation during our successful hunt for five indicted war criminals, which took a few years:

Quote from Chasing Demons

The Hunting Party

The Hunting Party is the title of a movie made in 2007 starring Richard Gere, Terrence Howard, Jesse Eisenberg and James Brolin. According to the movie plot, three war correspondents embark on an unauthorized mission to find the most wanted war criminal in Bosnia. The villain is easily representative of Ratko Mladić. The group finds themselves in serious jeopardy when they are mistaken as a CIA hit squad and their target decides to come after them.

The movie had authentic scenery and was entertaining, but the producers could not just provide us with entertainment. No, they had to end the movie with a political statement ridiculing the actual hunt by Razorback and Buckeye bases (subject of the book).

Their ridicule was misplaced and inaccurate. I know the effort that went into hunting down these dangerous men; they do not. It is easy to make unfounded statements and shoot a movie. It is quite another thing to pick up a weapon and go forth into the fray, or as my Navy friend Tony Harper said, "where angels have second thoughts about treading."

End Quote

Bottom line

Criticizing the intelligence community, special operations forces and law enforcement agencies about the length of time it took to mount this high-risk successful operation is a cheap shot. There are valid reasons for being critical of these organizations - this is not one of them.

Obama and the Middle East - the first four years

The "fiscal cliff" debate is now behind us ( الحمد لله ) and we are about to begin the second term of the Obama Presidency. Looking at the various crises in the Middle East, it would appear that the President has inherited a mess. Unfortunately, most of it is a mess of his own making - the days of blaming the previous president are over.

Let's take a look at how the Administration has done in the past four years. I have omitted Israel from this article - that deserves a separate accounting. If you are looking for good news, there is little to be had here.

President-Elect Obama began the transition to his Administration with the commitment to close the detention facility at Guantanamo, Cuba, to end the war in Iraq and begin the "responsible" end to the war in Afghanistan. So let's start with these three promises.

Guantanamo
The detention facility is still open with no foreseeable end to its operation. If you believe the Administration's rhetoric, the mere existence of the facility generates anti-American hatred in the Middle East and is a recruiting tool for Islamist groups.

The President would prefer to transfer the prisoners to federal facilities and try them in federal court. Obama wrote that the "prosecution of terrorists in Federal court is a powerful tool in our efforts to protect the nation and must be among the options available to us." I doubt most rational people believe that any potential terrorists are deterred by the threat of having a court-appointed lawyer make a circus of the American justice system while he enjoys much better treatment than he would get at Guantanamo.

That said, if the President is correct, he has failed in one of his key promises. I'll score that an F.

Iraq
The President vowed to end the war. What he really meant was he vowed to end the American commitment to the Iraqis. He quit, he walked away, despite a provision in the status of forces agreement to keep American forces there if the security situation warranted. No analyst (except any who are fans of the Obama kool-aid) was of the opinion that conditions in the country pointed to a stable future without an American troop presence.

Soon after all American forces were withdrawn in 2011, violence exploded and thousands of Iraqis were killed as the various sects and tribes rekindle old animosities. The Shi'a-dominated government of pro-Iranian prime minister Nuri al-Maliki seemed to start take its marching orders from Tehran. The Iraqis began allowing Iranian aircraft to overfly Iraq in an effort to resupply Syrian dictator Bashar al-Asad.

Walking away - that gets him an F from me, but probably an A- from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Afghanistan
Announcing a withdrawal schedule is a recipe for disaster. You have told the enemy how long they have to wait before they will have the opportunity to operate without the threat of American military might being brought to bear.

Combine that with low-balling your commanders' requests for resources while opening secret talks with the Taliban - this is not leadership worthy of an American president. Mr. Obama is turning Afghanistan into another Iraqi "solution." We're quitting and going home, saying to President Karzai (arguably one of the most corrupt leaders on the planet), "You're on your own, Hamid."

I'll score that a D- for now, but suspect that in the end, it will be an F.

Having failed on all three of his campaign commitments, how did the President do in some of the other trouble spots in the region?

Iran
I have been fairly vocal about my thoughts on President Obama's policy on Iran. After four years, the President has been able to secure an Iranian commitment to agree to talk about having talks about its nuclear program. During this four years, the President has made repeated attempts to open a dialogue with people who have repeatedly demonstrated that they do not wish to talk to him.

While spurning his advances, the Iranians have unceasingly carried on its aggressive uranium enrichment program and what many of the world's analysts believe is a nuclear weapons program (again, except those intelligence analysts who favor the Obama kool-aid).

However, you say, we have imposed the strictest sanctions on Iran ever. True, all over the objections of the President. For his inability to recognize Iran's successful efforts to play him for time, he gets an F here as well.

Libya
Where do I start? Libya is the birthplace of the Obama "leading from behind" strategy." In all of my years in the military, I never once heard of this strategy. I never heard of it because there is no such thing. There was so much that could have been gained by engaging the Libyan opposition early on, giving us a position from which we might have been able to influence future events in the country. If we had been able to temper the rise of Islamism in the eastern part of the country, the debacle of Benghazi may not have happened. Benghazi and the loss of four talented Americans should haunt this administration for years. D-

Syria
The Obama Administration's lackluster support for the Syrian opposition will result in another potential Islamist-dominated state in which we have no influence. There will be change in Syria - do we want to stand by and watch as the Islamists gain the upper hand? Or do we want to engage the opposition leadership and attempt to mitigate the role of the Islamists? I suspect what we are seeing is either more "leadership from behind" or even worse, the head-in-the-sand strategy. D-

Yemen
I will have to give the President good marks here. As we saw the shift of al-Qa'idah operations out of Iraq and Saudi Arabia and into Yemen, the Obama Administration quickly deployed military and CIA assets to the region and began supporting the Yemeni government and armed forces in their operations against al-Qa'idah. This has included missile strikes from drones and other launch platforms. As I have always said, the way to deal with these committed true believers is to hunt them down and kill them. It appears we are doing just that. I give this performance a solid A.

Egypt
I was tempted to give the Administration a pass on Egypt. It happened fairly quickly and the outcome was not clear. Most of us are unhappy that the Egyptian electorate - those that voted - elected a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government, but the situation is far from resolved. That said, we need to hold President Mursi's feet to fire - demand protection for minorities, especially the Coptic Christians, better protection for women, and adherence to international treaties and obligations.

Key to our continued support to the Egyptian armed forces should be predicated on the new leadership's behavior. As I said, I was willing to give the President a pass on Egypt - then I learned that President Obama plans to send 20 F-16 fighter jets tot he country, paid for by American taxpayers with no requirements placed on Mursi to act responsibly. It send the wrong message. Here, I have to go with D-.

Overall, I will give the President and his Administration a solid D-.

This isn't Chicago - this is the big leagues. While you might be the master of the leftist elite, in the Middle East you are regarded as weak and ineffective. If you'd like to turn it around, call my office - I'm easy to find.

Libya and the "October surprise"

Al-Qaidah in the Magreb (AQIM) fighters

A lot of political pundits are claiming that the seemingly unending revelations over the Obama Administrations missteps in its characterization of the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, may constitute the "October surprise" that often accompanies presidential elections. It is a piece of news or an event timed to coincide with the election to influence the body politic.

Examples of an October surprise were the release of George W. Bush's driving-while-under-the-influence records just before the voting in 2000, and the 1992 implication of Ronald Reagan's Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger in the Iran–Contra affair.

Political commentator Dick Morris predicts that this election's surprise will be an announcement of a deal with Iran over its nuclear program whereby the Iranian regime will allow inspections in return for easing of sanctions, a political victory for President Barack Obama. Personally, I don't think anyone trusts the Iranians enough to view this as much of a victory, but it might be enough to sway enough undecided voters to give Obama a boost at the polls.

Here is my prediction of an October surprise that might work for the President. The President has not seen fit to take advantage of my keen observations and prescient advice in the past, so he might just ignore this as well.

The attack on the consulate in Benghazi was the result of a meticulously planned and well-executed terrorist attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility. I think the Administration's fantasy that the attack was an outgrowth of a spontaneous response to an obscure and unknown video have pretty much been shattered by now. The whole episode was an insult to the intelligence of most everyone. See my earlier article, Benghazi - spontaneous demonstration or planned attack? written five days after the event, weeks before the Administration owned up to the facts.

The President did commit to bringing the perpetrators to justice. All Americans agree with this notion, but once again, we see this Administration, as it has time and time again, seeking to treat terrorist attacks as criminal events. I find it ludicrous to believe that the FBI is going to be able to arrest up to 125 Islamist mujahidin (holy warriors)in Libya when they could not even access the crime scene for weeks after the incident.

For justice to be done - and it certainly needs to be done - we will have to take justice to the perpetrators. The best way, perhaps the only way, to do this is, Mr. President, is to act in accordance with the title you have often cited in your political campaign - commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces.

I believe the intelligence community is aware of the groups who conducted the attack in Benghazi - they have not been shy about it. We know where their camps are in Libya, Algeria, Mali and Niger, and we know who their leaders are. As you are aware, Mr. President, I have repeatedly advised you that you cannot talk to these people, you cannot reason with these people, you cannot negotiate with these people, and you cannot realistically arrest these people - you have to hunt them down and kill them.

I repeat, hunt them down and kill them. The hunting part is probably done by now, so it's time for the killing. There is your October surprise - kill these murderers, or should I say, bring justice to them.

Obama and his military strategies

US Soldier in Afghanistan (US Army photo)

As the United States prepares to decide who will be the commander in chief for the next four years, President Obama's performance in that role is under scrutiny. While the President is basing his military leadership prowess primarily on the killing of al-Qa'idah leader 'Usamah bin Ladin, perhaps it is more useful to examine the totality of his military strategy - or more correctly, strategies - over the last three and a half years.

This should be read in conjunction with my earlier analysis, President Obama and the "end" of two wars.

Iraq

In Iraq, the President pursued a strategy of basically quitting, declaring victory and going home. There was an agreement in effect, negotiated with the Iraqis by the Bush Administration, to withdraw U.S. troops by the end of 2011, with the possibility of extension based on the security situation at the time. Although the security situation was not conducive to a complete American withdrawal, the President opted to pull out the troops anyway.

While that premature withdrawal gives Mr. Obama the opportunity to claim that he kept a campaign promise to end the war in Iraq - I think he even added the word "responsibly" - all he did was pave the way for the resurgence of al-Qa'idah in the Sunni heartland and for increased Iranian influence in the Shi'a areas - not to mention increased Iranian influence in the Shi'a dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. There has been an increase in bloodshed in the country since in the absence of American troops.

Libya

Possibly the defining military strategy of his Administration, his so-called "leading from behind" has become more of a joke than a serious serious strategy. The reason? You can't lead from behind. It was an attempt to downplay the U.S. role in the military operation that ultimately gave victory to the Libyan rebels. I am not sure why the President was reluctant to openly acknowledge the American role in the operation. Perhaps the left-wing of the Democratic Party - his power base - would not approve of his use of force, although that has not stopped the President's exponential increase in the use of armed drones to attack targets with increasing numbers of "collateral damage." That is a euphemism for civilian (innocent) casualties.

The problem with the Administration's use of the term "leadership from behind" is that the operation succeeded. It succeeded because of the superb efforts of American airmen to get the job done despite the absence of leadership from Washington.

Afghanistan

In addition to the strategies of quitting in Iraq and "leading from behind" in Libya, in Afghanistan we see yet another Obama strategy - warfare by timetable. The President has declared that the mission will be accomplished and we will withdraw our forces by the end of 2014. In the President's own words, "We are bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. And I've set a timetable. We will have them all out of there by 2014."

I have already expounded on the absolute idiocy of this policy (see the earlier article referenced above). Can you imagine President Roosevelt or Prime Minister Churchill announcing that World War II would end on a specific date in 1945? Ludicrous. You should fight wars until you win or achieve your objective. Specifying an end date merely tells the enemy when he wins.

Syria

Now we come to Syria. The strategy here seems to be "ignore the problem and maybe it will go away, as long as it does not affect my chances for re-election." Syria is fast turning into a humanitarian disaster. The world looks to the United States and the West for leadership, yet we seem to be paralyzed by the involvement of Iran and the unwillingness of Russia and China to rein in their favorite Middle Eastern tyrant-dictator.

I will call this strategy the "deer in the headlights" campaign. It fits in with the President's overall leadership doctrine of abdication. Why lead if you can be re-elected without it?

Benghazi - spontaneous demonstration or planned attack

The Administration's definition of a spontaneous demonstration

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, there are two versions of what happened at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last week. The Obama Administration, which apparently failed to provide adequate security for its diplomatic personnel, would have us believe that the attack that resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his staff and wounded many others, was the result of a spontaneous demonstration over a movie trailer posted on the internet.

I have already asked about the obviously flawed decision for the U.S. ambassador to be in an unprotected facility far from the embassy in Tripoli on the 11th anniversary of arguably the most devastating attack on the United States since World War II. See my earlier article for my comments on that mistake, US Ambassador to Libya killed - the response?

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said on Sunday that "preliminary information indicated that the consulate attack was not planned." She invoked past violence in the Middle East associated with cartoons about Muhammad, and Salman Rushdie's book The Satanic Verses, concluding with the rather definitive statement that "this has been the proximate cause of what we've seen."

I understand that the Administration is trying to excuse its bad decisions as regards the safety of American diplomatic personnel in Libya on the anniversary of September 11, 2001, but their explanation - echoed by all the Administration mouthpieces - in the face of what happened is ludicrous. First of all, there are relatively few actual spontaneous demonstrations in the Middle East - most of the governments in the region tightly control these types of gatherings. This isn't a flash mob in Los Angeles.

Secondly, who brings AK-47 assault rifles and RPG grenade launchers to a "spontaneous demonstration?" Actually, I know the answer. No one. Who brings AK-47 assault rifles and RPG grenade launchers to a planned operation? Al-Qa'idah.

Let's also consider the remarks by Libyan President Muhammad Magareif (al-Maqariyaf) - and remember he is on-scene with the benefit of the interrogations of 50 individuals arrested by the Libyan security and intelligence services. Magarief claims that the attack was planned and executed by foreigners linked to al-Qa'idah. I would point out that the eastern provinces of Libya have been a fertile recruiting ground for al-Qa'idah for years, so some of the perpetrators may have fact been Libyan.

The Libyan president allowed that there may have been local sympathizers and affiliates - Libyan nationals. In any case, those locals were part of a planned attack and not a ""spontaneous" demonstration in reaction to an internet post. How many of those people seen in the videos of the attack routines do you think routinely surf the internet?

President Magareif's version of reality makes more sense to me. Spontaneous demonstrators do not engage in a four-hour firefight to make their point. This was a calculated, planned attack on an unprotected U.S. diplomatic facility that was hosting the U.S. ambassador on the anniversary virtually sacred to al-Qa'idah.

The timing was not a coincidence. The terrorist group meant to mount an attack on September 11. They obviously had good intelligence - they knew the ambassador was visiting the consulate - an unprotected building in a residential compound in Benghazi - rather than remaining at the better-protected embassy in Tripoli. Personnel at the consulate had warned of surveillance of the facility in the weeks prior to the attack. Al-Qa'idah saw an opportunity to exploit an error in judgement and took it. The result: four dead American diplomats.

Ambassador Rice's comments: “What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent. And those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya, and that then spun out of control.”

The Administration needs to stop insulting the intelligence of virtually everyone but those in it. It was a planned attack. Even if you choose to believe Ambassador Rice's non-nonsensical version of what happened, it still indicates an attack by extremists that must be dealt with.

I am afraid "outreach" isn't going to cut it. As I have said before, these are committed Islamist jihadists. You cannot reason with them, you cannot negotiate with them, you cannot talk to them - you have to hunt them down and kill them.

US Ambassador to Libya killed - the response?

Following in the footsteps of their Egyptian brethren, a Libyan mob attacked the U.S. Consulate in the eastern city of Banghazi, killing U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others of the consulate staff.

Given the milk-toast response from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo following the attack in Egypt (see my article U.S. Embassy attacked in Cairo - the blame game), one must wonder how the Obama Administration will handle this situation. It is reminiscent of Tehran and Kabul in 1979?*

Given the revelation that Muhammad al-Zawahiri, brother of al-Qa'idah's heir to the late 'Usamah bin Ladin, was present at the demonstration in Cairo, and the well-planned and executed attack in Banghazi bears al-Qa'idah's level of expertise, one could conclude that the two incidents are related. We may never know, but the fact that two U.S. diplomatic facilities were attacked on the 11th anniversary of the September 2001 attacks seems to me to be beyond coincidental.

Although the situation is still developing, what is known is disturbing, and raises many more questions. Here are some that I'd like to see the media ask President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - and I'd like the media to hold them accountable for their answers.

- Were American diplomatic facilities and military installations on a higher state of alert or readiness for the September 11 anniversary?

- If so, why was Ambassador Stevens not in the more-defensible U.S. Embassy in Tripoli (the capital)? Why was he at the undefended consulate in Banghazi, basically a house in a residential compound?

- Why were there no U.S. Marine security guards at the consulate, especially given the presence of the ambassador on September 11?

And the last, probably most important question is: What will be the American response? "Working with the Libyan government" is fine for a start, but they may not have the wherewithal or desire to bring the perpetrators to justice. We need to determine who did this, and bring justice to them - that's Rick-speak for hunt them down and kill them. It is the only thing they understand.

___________________
* In 1979, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Adolph Tubbs was murdered in Kabul, and in Tehran, Islamic militants loyal to Ayatollah Khomeini seized the American Embassy in Tehran - both with seemingly little consequence from the Carter Administration.

"Lockerbie bomber dead" - more questions than answers

Now that former Libyan intelligence officer 'Abd al-Basit al-Maqrahi, convicted for his involvement in the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, has died, more questions remain about the entire affair.

These are my thoughts on the issue. I have a unique perspective on this, having served as an intelligence officer for virtually my entire professional career. There are many holes in the official version of what happened with the downing of the airliner and the deaths of 270 people. Many of my readers are familiar with my skepticism about this case, and know that I am not prone to conspiracy theories.

I have excerpted relevant portions of an article I wrote when al-Maqrahi was released from a Scottish prison, ostensibly for health and humanitarian reasons - he was expected to die within 90 days of his release. That was in August 2009. Is Scottish medicine so bad that they could have so badly diagnosed his condition? Hardly - it was corruption on an international scale, a deal with Libya for a lucrative oil contract with the UK's BP oil. (See Thoughts on the release of the "Lockerbie bomber" for the article.)

EXCERPT
I have often expressed skepticism that al-Maqrahi was a major actor in the bombing attack that destroyed Pan Am 103, killing 270 people in December 1988. If that is the case, who do I think did it?

To answer that, I want to recall a few events that led up to the attack on Pan Am 103. In 1987, Iran and Iraq had been at war for seven years - casualties from the bloody conflict were approaching one million. Although there had been U.S. Central Intelligence Agency efforts to assist the Iraqi armed forces with intelligence information as early as 1984, these never proved to be effective, owing to mistrust on both sides. By late 1987, however, the Iraqis were beginning to falter under the relentless attacks by the numerically superior Iranians who mounted fanatical human wave assaults on Iraqi troops positions.

In early 1988, the Defense Intelligence Agency prepared an assessment that concluded Iran would likely emerge victorious if the conflict continued another year. Present Reagan declared that an Iranian victory was unacceptable to American interests - he directed the Department of Defense to take steps to ensure that victory did not happen. The result was a Defense Intelligence Agency effort to provide intelligence information to the Iraqi Directorate of Military Intelligence. I was one of two officers assigned to execute this effort.

The effort was successful. With American intelligence information, along with the Iraqi use of modified Scud (al-Husayn) missiles and chemical weapons, Iraq was able to force the Iranians to accept a cease-fire in August 1988.

Just a month earlier, there was a critical event in the Persian Gulf. On July 3, an Iran Air passenger jet on a flight from Bandar Abbas to Dubai was mistakenly identified as a fighter aircraft by the USS Vincennes and shot down, killing all 290 passengers and crew.

I have met with several Iranian officers since that incident - they all believe the shoot down was intentional and intended to send a message to Tehran that the United States would not permit Iran to prevail in the war with Iraq.

When Iran accepted the ceasefire in August, they declared that they were capable of defeating the Iraqis, but not both the Iraqis and the United States. The Iranians have never forgotten our assistance to the Iraqis and the shoot down of Iran Air 655. Those are two reasons we should not have been surprised when Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officers and Iranian-made weapons showed up in Iraq following the U.S, invasion in 2003.

Having failed to defeat the Iraqis, the Iranians wanted revenge against the "Great Satan." How better to avenge the death of 290 passengers and crew on an Iranian airliner than to destroy an American passenger jet. What better target than an airline that has the word "American" in its name?

Here is where the story - let's call it my analysis - takes on truly "bazaar" and bizarre dimensions. There are countries and groups that wish us ill, many for our support of Israel. One such group is the Damascus-based Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), headed by Ahmad Jibril. Jibril's group had long been supported by the IRGC.

Who better to turn to than a known terrorist group with experience in explosives and hijackings? At some point in the fall of 1988, IRGC officers met with members of the PFLP-GC, possibly with Jibril himself. The Iranians certainly have enough money and other means of support that would be of interest to Jibril. In return, Jibril agreed to bomb an American airliner. In other words, the Iranians contracted out the hit, hoping to hide the Iranian role in the operation.

The PFLP-GC is in its own perverse way a very talented organization. Their bomb-makers have exhibited expertise in constructing improvised devices that are hard to detect. To bring down a pressurized commercial airliner flying at high altitude does not require a large explosive device. The trick is getting the device onto the aircraft and ensuring that the detonation occurs after the aircraft has reached a suitable altitude for a small device to be effective. The PFLP-GC bomb makers in Syria constructed at least five suitable devices - four were found, and I believe the fifth was the bomb that brought down Pan Am 103.

The explosive device used was concealed in a Toshiba cassette tape player. The explosive material was Semtex, the preferred explosives of terrorist organizations world wide. Until recently, the principal chemical components of Semtex, RDN and PETN, were hard to detect. It was also sold in huge quantities to Libya and Syria, among others.

In order to get the bomb onto the aircraft, the PFLP-GC may have enlisted the help of 'Abd al-Basit al-Maqrahi and another Libyan intelligence officer accused but not convicted, al-Amin Khalifah Fahimah. The investigation revealed that the bomb, hidden in the Toshiba cassette player, was packed in a Samsonite suitcase. That suitcase was placed into the interline baggage system at Malta International Airport earlier that day aboard Air Malta KM180 which moved the bag to Frankfurt, where it was placed onto Pan Am 103A (a feeder flight), flown to London and later transferred onto the Boeing 747 that operated as Pan Am 103.

'Abd al-Basit al-Maqrahi's cover position was as chief of security for Libyan Arab Airways (LAA); his intelligence service colleague Fahimah's cover was as LAA station manager at the airport in Malta. Certainly they played a role in routing the bomb-laden suitcase onto Pan Am 103. What is not known is whether al-Maqrahi and Fahimah acted alone for the PFLP-GC - who would not be adverse to recruiting the Libyans - or whether Libyan leader Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi sanctioned their participation.

The fact that Qadhafi gave up the two intelligence officers is persuasive to me that this was a rogue operation. If Qadhafi authorized the Libyan intelligence service to conduct the operation with the PFLP-GC and then gave up two of its officers, he broke faith with his intelligence service.

We intelligence officers routinely broke the laws of other countries, knowing full well that our government would never break faith with us. For that reason, I tend to believe that the two were operating on their own, probably for a large amount of money, and got caught. Qadhafi gave them up and took the blame to make peace with the West.

Is al-Maqrahi guilty? Yes, of course. Is Fahimah also guilty? Most likely - their airline covers were crucial to getting the bomb on board the Pan Am jet. That said, it was probably not sanctioned by Qadhafi. The money Libya paid in compensation is minor compared to the benefits resulting from the subsequent suspension of sanctions and later restoration of diplomatic ties with the West, including the United States.

The bottom line: the unproven culprits who have never been brought to justice for the murder of 180 American and 90 others live free in Damascus and Tehran.
END EXCERPT

Since I wrote that article, the Libyan people have overthrown, and unfortunately killed, Mu'amar al-Qafhafi. During the Libyan revolution, Libyan intelligence chief Musa Kusa (photo) defected to the United Kingdom. Kusa served as the chief of Libya's external intelligence service, the mukhabarat al-Jamahiriyah, from 1994 to 2009, thus during the Pan Am 103 operation. As part of his debriefings, Scottish authorities questioned him about the attack.

Shortly afterward, the European Union dropped all sanctions and restrictions on Kusa, and he is reportedly living well in Qatar. I would like to know just what his answers were to those questions. I suspect that my version of what happened is closer to the truth than the official version. If that is the case, there is a concerted effort to end this affair with no further blame.

There is more. Former Libyan internal security chief 'Abdullah al-Sanusi and al-Qadhafi's son Sayf al-Islam are in custody. They will likely be tried in Libya, although the International Criminal Court has indicted both of them and want to try them in The Hague. They certainly have new information on the bombing of Pan Am 103.

Given the Obama Administration's penchant for publicizing successful intelligence operations and ignoring failures, I believe that if we had learned that the official version was correct - that this was solely a Libyan operation ordered by Mua'mar al-Qadhafi and we now have the word of the Libyan intelligence chief at the time - we would have heard about it. The fact that we have not tells me there is much more to this case than we are being told.

I remain skeptical.

The ICC and Sayf al-Islam al-Qadhafi - not so fast!

Sayf al-Islam al-Qadhafi before and after the Libyan revolution

A legal battle is shaping up between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Libyan National Transitional Council over the future of Sayf al-Islam al-Qadhafi*, son of the late Libyan dictator Mu'amar al-Qadhafi. The question is not if he will be put on trial, but where. The ICC wants him extradited to its headquarters in The Hague to face charges of crimes against humanity levied in an ICC indictment of last year. Libya has insisted he should be tried by a Libyan court.

The ICC believes it has the authority to try Sayf al-Islam based on United Nations Security Council 1970, which imposed sanctions on the al-Qadhafi regime, gave the ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed in Libya, and required the Libyan government to comply with ICC demands. The two sides are working on a compromise where Sayf al-Islam will be tried in Libya with ICC supervision (the ICC charter allows for it to hold proceedings anywhere it wishes). That's probably what will happen.

That said, this could be a slippery slope for the future. Should the United Nations or the ICC be able to dictate to sovereign nations where their citizens will be tried? How would we react if either organization attempted to order the United States to extradite an American citizen for trial at The Hague? For example, if the ICC indicted an American soldier for what it believed to be a war crime, would the United States feel compelled to extradite him or her?

The ICC was established as a permanent tribunal in 2002 to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. It has limited jurisdiction - it can exercise jurisdiction only in three cases: if the accused is a national of a state party, if the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party, or if a situation is referred by the United Nations. The last instance is in play with Libya. Libya is not a signatory to the ICC. Neither is the United States.

The ICC is supposedly has jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute the crimes. Libya has stated a willingness to try Sayf al-Islam and claims that it can do so. What then gives the ICC the authority to impose its jurisdiction on Libya? Of course, UNSCR 1970 provides the required referral, but the ICC should only prosecute when the local nation cannot.

If I had to make the call, I'd say the ICC was overreaching its authority. They should allow Libya to exercise justice in this case. Otherwise, it appears to be just another case of European arrogance.
________________
* The name translates as "The Sword of Islam"

Libyan militia desecrates WWII cemetery in Benghazi

The recent desecration of a World War II cemetery in Benghazi, Libya by what appears to be members of an Islamist militia underscores the difficulty in reconciling East and West in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. It also serves as a warning to other Arab countries what can happen when you remove the sitting government, be it good or bad.

The video is pretty self explanatory. I have listened to it a few times - my Libyan dialect is not as good as my Syrian/Lebanese, but I'll share with you some interesting excerpts.

Mostly they are just egging each other on, yelling things like "Break them, they're Crusaders* and dogs," "God is great," and "Let's start with that cross (the cenotaph)" interspersed with profanity.

At about time code 1:00, one militiaman dislodges a headstone inscribed with the Magen David, the Shield of David (often called the Star of David), indicating the grave of a fallen soldier who was a Jew. The speaker remarks that this is "the grave of a Crusader." Everyone else appears to be focused on the large cross and knocking it down. Then the speaker realizes the grave is marked with the Shield of David and says, "Look at the flag on the front of it, this one was one of the Israeli battalion, it's Hebrew." Note that Israel was not yet a country when this soldier was killed.

The militiamen then turn their attention to the large cross. The speaker tells the man on the ladder to break off the sides of the cross. Others shout break it, God is great, etc. with more profanity. At some point, they appear to give up on knocking down the cross, one remarking that "it isn't breaking."

The video has made its way to other Arab countries. I received an email from a friend in Syria, a supporter of the regime of Bashar al-Asad. He is a physician who believes in secular government and although not a fan of the ruling Ba'th Party, believes it is better to maintain the current government than risk a takeover by the Islamist al-ikhwan al-muslimin (the Muslim Brotherhood).

The text of his email:

That is what we don't have in Syria; that is what they are trying to do to my country. But I think that we Syrians have more open minds than to let something like that happen here. What we are seeing in Damascus now are people from Afghanistan, Libya, Lebanon and Africa - it's not normal. We don't want what happened there (Benghazi) to happen in our country and I think the people will fight to keep our beautiful Damascus - Muslim, Christian and Syrian Jews.

As as aside, there is a large British Commonwealth cemetery in Damascus with graves of 1077 soldiers from both world wars. The Commonwealth Countries hold a somber ceremony at the cemetery on Remembrance Day (November 11). I have attended these as a representative of the U.S. Air Force - quite moving.

The Libyan government (or what passes for it) has pledged to find and punish those responsible for this outrage, and to restore the cemetery to its original condition. I hope they mean it, since it was the airmen of the United Kingdom and at least one of the Commonwealth countries - Canada - and their NATO allies that liberated them from the regime of Mu'amar al-Qadhafi. Otherwise, they will appear to be a nation of ingrates.

We'll see.

________________
* The actual word is صليبي - salibi, or "of the cross." It is commonly used as a derogatory term for Western troops, which they regard as Christian.

The resurrection of the caliphate?

Libyan rebel military commander 'Abd al-Hakim Balhaj,
an associate of the late al-Qa'idah leader Usamah bin Ladin

As their forefathers did over 1,300 years ago, the forces of militant Islam have swept across North Africa. Ridding the world of dictators and corrupt regimes is a good thing, but there are always unintended consequences.

In the case of those initial countries who have liberated themselves in what is known in the West as "the Arab spring" - Tunisia, Egypt and Libya - it appears that the replacement governments are going to be Islamic. They are going to be not only Islamic, but likely militant Islamist. Some of the leaders of the emerging governments seek a return to the caliphate of old.

The term caliphate derives from the Arabic khilāfah (خلافة, succession). The caliphate is primarily a Sunni Muslim construct and is the existential difference between the Sunnis and the Shi'a Muslims. The two sects evolved because of their differences over the issue of succession when Muhammad died in 632 – who would follow Muhammad as the leader of the faithful?

Many believed that the successor to Muhammad should be a family member, someone in the bloodline of the prophet. However, Muhammad had no son, so there was no male heir to assume the caliphate. Muhammad did have a daughter, Fatimah, who was married to Muhammad's cousin 'Ali bin Abu Talib. The people who favored the selection of 'Ali as the caliph were called the Shi'at 'Ali, the "partisans of 'Ali," hence the name Shi'a.

The other school of thought, held by many prominent Muslims of the day, was that the caliph should be drawn from one of the senior and learned members of the faith, the ummah or "community." These were the Sunnis, the traditionalists.

The Sunni position prevailed and the first three caliphs (Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman) were not of Muhammad's bloodline. Finally, a convergence occurred in 656 when 'Ali (regarded by the Shi'a as the first imam) was named the fourth caliph. 'Ali was soon murdered and his son Hasan became the second Imam.

Real political power at this time rested with the Sunni caliph in Damascus. Hasan abdicated in favor of these 'Umayyad rulers. Following 'Ali, the succession took on the form of dynasties - the Umayyad, followed by the 'Abassid, the Fatimid and finally the Ottomans. The caliphate was abolished with the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1924.

In the aftermath of World War One and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the Middle East was carved up by Western powers. Regions in which Arab tribes lived were divided up. Lines were drawn on maps by people that did not live in the area. Countries that never before existed were created - Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan were established.

The Gaza Strip, West Bank and the area that is now Israel were administered by the United Kingdom under a United Nations mandate. In 1947, the United Nations voted to allow the partition of the Palestinian mandate into an Arab and Jewish state - this led to the creation of the State of Israel in 1948.

The creation of Israel was a watershed event in the Middle East. Many Arabs, especially the Palestinians, viewed this an attempt to assuage guilt for the actions of the Nazis, a misplaced attempt to create a homeland for the Jews at the expense of the local Arab population. I will not explore the merits of those beliefs - it is the perceptions that are important since they are the basis for Arab reaction.

Fast forward to the Yom Kippur war of 1973. When it was apparent that Israel was in danger of suffering a defeat at the hands of the Egyptian and Syrian armed forces, the United States military executed Operation Nickel Grass, the airlift/delivery of fighter aircraft, armor, artillery, munitions and other supplies to the the Jewish state. The operation turned the tide and the Israeli army soon moved to within 60 miles of Cairo on the Egyptian front, and to within less that 20 miles (well within artillery range) of Damascus on the Syrian front.

The American resupply of Israel led to a confrontation between the superpowers - the United States and the Soviet Union. Both countries put their armed forces on alert for possible intervention in the Middle East. On October 24, I remember going on alert for immediate deployment to counter Soviet moves in the region - it was the first time in 11 years, the first time since the Cuban missile crisis, that American forces went on worldwide alert.

At 11:41pm, the Joint Chiefs of Staff ordered all U.S. armed forces to assume DEFCON (Defense Condition) III which meant putting nuclear-armed units on the "highest state of peacetime alert." The next step, DEFCON II would ready the nuclear triad - strategic bombers, and land and submarine-based nuclear missiles - for imminent launch. The Pentagon alerted the 82nd Airborne Division and ordered the movement of aircraft carriers toward the Eastern Mediterranean. It was a scary time - trust me. Things were happening very quickly as young men from the armed forces of two nuclear-armed powers began to square off over events in a far-off corner of the world.

Cooler heads prevailed and both nations stepped back from the brink. Yet another United Nations resolution was adopted and life returned to the new normal. However, the incident indicated that events in the Middle East were not solely under the control of the people that live there, including the Arabs. When the Arabs and Jews/Israelis came to blows, it was the West and East blocs that actually called the shots (no pun intended).

Over the years following the Yom Kippur war, there were other smaller American/Western military interventions in the region, such as the Marine operation at Beirut airport, American deployments in support of Egypt and the Sudan, U.S. operations against Libya, and American support for Iraq against Iran, all in the in the 1980's. However, it was the 1990's that brought about the greatest confrontation between the West and the descendants of the Muslim caliphate.

In August 1990, Iraqi forces invaded the neighboring State of Kuwait, overpowering the capital city in less than five hours. In two days, there were substantial Iraqi forces on the northern border of Saudi Arabia. Any threat to the oilfields of Saudi Arabia were, and are, a red line for the United States. In what was another watershed event for the region and particularly its Muslim residents, the Saudi royal family asked the United States to deploy armed forces to defend the Kingdom from a potential Iraqi invasion. In the end, over half a million American troops deployed to defend Saudi Arabia and eject Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

It was the deployment of American troops to Saudi Arabia that germinated the seed of hatred among many Islamists. Saudi Arabia is home to the two holiest sites in Islam, the Ka'aba/Grand Mosque in Mecca and the Mosque of the Prophet in Medina. Note that the official title of the Saudi king is actually "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques." This responsibility forms the social contract between the monarchy and the people of Saudi Arabia.

The introduction of American forces into what many Islamists consider holy ground caused a backlash among several groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood (al-ikhwan al-muslimin), and an organization of Arabs who had fought against the Soviets in Afghanstan, al-Qa'idah, led by a Saudi, Usamah bin Ladin. In 1996, bin Ladin issued a fatwa, an Islamic legal pronouncement, entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."

We are all aware of al-Qa'idah's operations between 1996 and 2001. Following the American invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, al-Qa'idah moved its operations to Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Somalia. While their primary tactical goal was to kill Americans, the strategic goal always was the fall of current and corrupt Arab governments and the establishment of an Islamic state, or the forerunner to a caliphate.

In a bizarre and somewhat unexpected coincidence of events, the so-called "Arab Spring" brought new hope to the Islamists. It began in Tunisia and quickly spread to other venues, including Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria and Libya. North Africa is well on its way to becoming an Islamist bloc. Elections in Tunisia, Egyptand Morocco saw victories by Islamist parties. The new governments of Tunisia and Egypt will be dominated by these parties. Libya will likely follow after elections in April.

In the Kingdom of Morocco, an Islamic party gained a plurality in the hastily called elections and King Muhammad VI named its leader as prime minister. In Algeria, elections this spring will likely result in increased Islamist participation in the government - the campaigns are already underway. If you are an Islamist, you have to consider things to be looking good for your cause in North Africa.

Looking elsewhere in the region, Islamists are also likely pleased with events in Yemen. President 'Ali 'Abdullah Salih is about to renege on a deal that would grant him immunity in exchange for stepping down and leaving the country. This is a temporary reprieve for Salih; he is on his way out. After he eventually departs, there will be a power vacuum - look for al-Qa'idah in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) to consolidate its power and lead the country toward an Islamic state.

In Iraq, the fortunes of al-Qa'idah in Iraq (AQI) appeared to be on the decline until the scheduled - and some would say, premature - withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. No sooner were the Americans gone than a wave of sectarian violence re-ignited. While the Obama Administration bandies about claims of "success" in Iraq, the country is on the verge of another round of Sunni-Shi'a bloodshed.

As many Middle East analysts (including this one) predicted, AQI merely waited out the Americans to stick to an announced withdrawal timetable. This is what happens when you have a President with no military experience who refuses to listen to his military advisors. (See my earlier thoughts on that: Betrayals - Obama and the withdrawal from Iraq.)

In Turkey, the longstanding absolute separation of church and state is coming under attack. The Justice and Development Party (AKP) under Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is an Islamist party and is slowly attempting to replace secular democracy with Islamic law. Note that the terms "Justice and Development" are common to Islamist parties throughout the region.

There is some push back in the region as the Islamists seek to take power. In Syria, the opposition group calling itself the Syrian National Council is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. There is fear among some segments of the Syrian population that an Islamic government will seize power if the regime of Bashar al-Asad is overthrown. In an unlikely alliance against an Islamist takeover, the government has garnered support from secular Sunni groups, Christian residents and the Druze of the al-Suwayda' area. However, Islamists can still be hopeful that the government will fall, ushering in their successful takeover in Syria. It could go either way.

Looking to other locations as well, such as Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria and Mali, may give Islamists hope that their star (and crescent) is on the rise. Is there a chance we could see a new caliphate in the Middle East?

Let's hope not.

Mu'amar al-Qadhafi dead in Libya - what took so long?

Screen capture from the Al-Jazeera web site announcing
the killing of al-Qadhafi and the end of his regime

October 20, 2011 - According to Libyan officials former "Brother Leader" Mu'amar al-Qadhafi has been killed and photos of his bloody corpse broadcast on various news media around the world. This, of course, is welcome news. Not only does it end a 42-year reign of terror in Libya, it presents an opportunity for the Libyan people to at long last determine their own future.

This culminates a revolution that began on February 15 of this year - eight months of fierce fighting between al-Qadhafi loyalists hoping to hold onto power and a variety of armed groups seeking the end of the regime that has been in power since September of 1969. These rebel groups have been supported by NATO air power since March 19. The five-week delay by NATO, which includes the United States, to take action almost doomed the rebellion from the start and cost many more Libyan lives than was necessary.

Later today, no doubt President Obama will make another speech in which he will claim victory and vindication for his policy on Libya, specifically his ludicrous "leading from behind" military strategy. The delays in taking actions in February and the limited American involvement, leaving the bulk of the air operation to our NATO allies, prolonged what should have been a very short, weeks-long engagement rather than an eight-month bloodbath that has not only killed thousands of Libyans but decimated the infrastructure of the country.

We should be happy that the regime of Mu'amar al-Qadhafi is gone, and we should salute our forces and those of our NATO allies who played a critical role in that process. We should also, however, demand an analysis of how many lives could have been saved had we exercised better political leadership and employed much more capable American air power with more appropriate weapons systems for this type of fighting. This particular episode of timid operations execution turned out well albeit delayed; next time we may not be so fortunate.

This entire affair should have been over in weeks with much less loss of life. Remember that when Caesar comes forth for his accolades.