American troops to remain in Iraq? Hopefully...

The author with Jalal Talabani in northern Iraq – 1996

Reality sets in

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has called a series of meetings to discuss the possibility of continued American troop presence in Iraq after the December 31, 2011 deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the country. The key players at the meeting will be Talabani, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and Foreign Minister Hoshyar al-Zebari.

There will be other political leaders in attendance at the meeting - a decision is needed fairly quickly if any American forces are to remain. The meeting is in probable response to calls by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden asking if a request for a continued troop presence was forthcoming. This is an interesting reversal from an Administration that could not remove American forces fast enough.

It appears that some of the senior Iraqi and American political leadership recognize that Iraqi military and security forces are not capable of maintaining order in the country. The Iraqi leadership does not want the situation in the country to deteriorate into a new round of sectarian violence, and the Obama Administration does not want to be blamed for squandering the gains made by American forces after the troop surge of 2007-2008. Both Iraqi and American officials concede that the situation in Iraq has worsened over the past year - about the same time when all U.S. combat forces were withdrawn from the country.

If there is a request for some American troops to remain, it will likely be framed as a request for “training and assistance” rather than a security presence. That is merely semantics, a fig leaf - the current American forces in the country involved in training and assistance operations are combat capable. Prime Minister Al-Maliki will want a parliamentary decision – that allows him political cover with his Iranian sponsors who want all American forces out of the entire Gulf region, not just Iraq. Al-Maliki is in a delicate position. While his Iranian sponsors are providing weapons and training to sectarian forces responsible for recent American casualties, he will likely have to adopt a position that counters Tehran's wishes.

The Kurdish dimension

There is another dynamic in play here. Both President Talabani and Foreign Minister Zebari are Kurds; Talabani was the Secretary General of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and Zebari was a senior official of the rival Kurdish Democratic Party. The Kurds, who have established the Kurdish Autonomous Region (KAR) in northern Iraq – the most stable and prosperous section of the country – view the Americans as the ultimate guarantor of their continued security and prosperity and want a continued American presence in the country. The Kurds’ continued security concern is not sectarian violence, but ethnic violence from the Arab majority of Iraq.

The Kurds have been at loggerheads with central government in Baghdad since they established the KAR in 2005 in accordance with the new Iraqi constitution. The Kurds have tried to negotiate oil contracts with foreign oil companies to exploit oil fields in the northern part of Iraq, including oil fields near the contested city of Kirkuk that technically are not within the current KAR boundaries. The Kurds are adopting a hard line on the future status of the city. They insist it is part – some call it the capital - of the Kurdish area, while the Iraqi government is concerned about the Arab and Turkoman minorities who also reside in the oil-rich city.

The American perspective

Despite the Obama Administration’s political agenda to remove American troops as soon as possible, it appears that some of Obama's advisors at the Pentagon and State Department realize that a continued American presence is desirable on several levels. First, to simply leave an unstable situation - it is unstable and getting worse - is not in the interests of either the United States or Iraq. It might play well for the Iranians, something this Administration has overlooked in the past.

Second, as long as the United States has interests in the Persian Gulf region, meaning as long as we are dependent on foreign oil, it will be necessary to have a viable American military presence in the region. Although the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet is headquartered in Bahrain, political unrest there may cause that venue to be untenable in the future.

There is no country in the Middle East more suitable than Iraq for an American military presence. The country has adequate infrastructure and is centrally located. It allows the United States to almost surround with allies two countries led by regimes of concern: Iran and Syria. Having American troops and combat aircraft in Iraq would provide a credible deterrent to these countries. Of course, that assumes this Administration is willing to review - and reverse - its failed "engagement" policies with Tehran and Damascus.

American troops in Iraq after the end of the year? It's a good idea.

Analysis of the Syrian Train Sabotage Attack

On July 24, unknown persons caused the derailment of a passenger train outside the restless city of Homs, about 100 miles north of Damascus. The city has been the venue for weeks of anti-government demonstrations and ruthless regime repression of those demonstrations. Sixteen passengers were injured in the incident; the train's engineer was killed. Unusually, the Syrian government did not try to portray this as an accident, going out of its way to show reporters bullet holes in the engineer's cabin.

Additional video (narration in Arabic)

The exact location of the derailing is 34º 45' 39"N 36º 38' 02"E, just outside the Ring Road around Homs. A search of satellite imagery and available news footage enabled me to find the location. It is close to the village of Quzhal, quite a distance from the reported location of al-Sawda. This is not surprising - the Syrians are notorious for not providing accurate locational data.



The spot selected for the train derailment smacks of amateur actors. A few rail sections appear to have been removed on the south side of a bridge over a small river. In the absence of using explosives to destroy the bridge, the perpetrators should have removed track sections on the bridge itself or on the north side of the bridge to cause damage to the bridge, possibly rendering it unsafe for future traffic. Tracks are easy to replace; bridges are not.


That said, the choice of a passenger train carrying almost 500 people is hardly a viable target for a groups of anti-government protesters - but who else would have done it? It would be impossible to know if the passengers on the train were regime supporters; more likely, many were not happy with the Ba'th regime of President Bashar al-Asad. Had this been a military train, that might be an acceptable target.

Given the timing of the derailing, this appears to have been Train 230, the night train from Aleppo to Damascus, hardly a train that would be used for military movements. According to the governor of Homs governorate, Ghasan 'Abd al-'Al, the train derailed between 1:00am and 3:00am. This coincides with the schedule below, showing Train 230 departing Aleppo shortly after midnight and scheduled to stop in Homs at 3:30am.


The governor's remarks are confusing, though. He said (translated), "The saboteurs learned the schedule of the train which passed Aleppo at 1:00 a.m. They dismantled the rails during the two hours before the train was due to arrive at Damascus at 3:00 am." This may be an error in translation; I have not been able to get the audio of the remarks in Arabic to allow me to determine exactly what he said.

First, "learning" the train schedule is not rocket science. Even in tightly-controlled Syria, the government has to tell people when the trains operate. Second, the train was scheduled to depart its origin in Aleppo earlier than the 1:00am time cited by 'Abd al-'Al, and the train was not due to reach Damascus until well after 6:00am.

The bottom line

This attack was exactly the wrong thing to do. An unprovoked attack on a passenger train that has nothing to do with the Ba'th regime other than the fact that it is part of a state-owned enterprise, is just wrong. it undermines the legitimacy and credibility of the anti-government demonstrators who up until this point have been nonviolent. The violence has been perpetrated by regime forces seeking to repress the demonstrations.

This violent attack plays right in to the hands of the regime. It now has a violent act that can be cited to justify further repression of the demonstrations. If there was a chapter on how not to protest successfully in a dictatorship, this would be among the major topics.

The leaders of the demonstrators need to denounce this senseless act.

Obama and the Middle East - Worse than Bush?

To say that the Middle East policies of the Obama Administration are different than that of the previous administration is an understatement. As we used to say in the Air Force, it's "180 out" from one to the other. I say the "policies of the Obama Administration" rather than attributing the policies to the President himself because I assume he is following the guidance of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and his other political advisors. If so, he may want to rethink his choices of Cabinet members and advisors should he be re-elected - this current group is not doing so well.

One need only look at public opinion polls being conducted where it counts - in the Middle East. Polls conducted here are meaningless to the people who live in the region and are directly affected by the Obama Administration's policies. One such poll was conducted by the firm of IBOPE Zogby International. The primary pollster for this firm is John Zogby, a Lebanese-American with a keen understanding of Middle East events, and a member of the Democratic Party.

The bottom line - the United States is less popular now in most Arab countries than during the Bush Administration. This must come as a blow to the Obama Administration, who touted its new "engagement" policies as the way to restore American influence and standing in the region in the aftermath of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

With the exception of favorable views in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon of Obama's decision to support the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya earlier this year, public opinion in Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates cites no improvement in U.S. relations in the Arab World since Obama took office in 2009. One alarming statistic is that except in Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Republic of Iran under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has higher positive ratings than does the United States under President Barack Obama.

President Obama’s attempts to engage Iran and Syria have not resulted in improved relations or improved perceptions of America. In fact, the opposite is true. President Obama is perceived as a weak leader, unwilling to confront the regimes in Tehran and Damascus, and incapable of resolving any regional issues, including the Palestinian issue, an issue on which the President has expended large amounts of real and political capital. This must be frustrating for the residents of the Middle East who hoped the election of President Obama would usher in a new era of American leadership in the region.

What we find in the region now are American withdrawals from yet undecided conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, an unwillingness by the Administration to put pressure on Syria for its brutal repression of its own people, no plan from Washington for progress on the Palestinian-Israeli issue, and a seeming lack of urgency is addressing the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons. There also seems to be confusion on how to deal with the popular uprisings - the so-called "Arab Spring" - in the region.

Please do not hold up Libya as the shining example of successful policy. The United States waited until it was almost too late, led some effective operations, but then abdicated its leadership role and assumed this puzzling "lead from behind" strategy. In my almost three decades of military service, I never was exposed to this "lead from behind" concept. That's because it is ridiculous.

Libya should have been over in three weeks. By prolonging the conflict through lack of American leadership, more Libyans have died than were necessary, and the situation is still not resolved. Imposing the no-fly zone was the right thing to do. How this Administration did it was not.

All of this is not lost on the Arab world. The perception that the United States is being led by a weak, indecisive President makes the area more dangerous, not less. Mr. President, please listen to the career Middle East specialists at State and Defense, not the political appointees who are harming American interests in the region. They are not serving you well.

Iran and al-Qa'idah - strange bedfellows

Sayf al-'Adil / سيف العدل‎

In the aftermath of the successful May 2011 U.S. special operations forces raid into Pakistan that resulted in the killing of al-Qa'idah leader Usamah bin Ladin, there has been a subtle shift in the traditionally uneasy relationship between the government of Iran and the al-Qa'idah terrorist organization. One of the key leaders of the terror organization is Sayf al-'Adil*, currently under supposed house arrest near Tehran.

Al-'Adil, like other senior al-Qa'idah leaders and bin Ladin family members, fled to Iran in the face of the American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. According to the Iranians, they were placed under so-called "house arrest" in a residential facility near Tehran. Despite the restrictions placed on these leaders, al-'Adil has been known to travel to Pakistan and probably Afghanistan.

Iran is using al-Qa'idah as a tool in its own fight with the United States and the West. There is no common ideology between the Iranian Islamic Revolution (enqelab-e islami) and the al-Qa'idah Organization (tanzim al-qa'idah) other than the fact that they are both Muslim and favor the imposition of their own interpretation of Shari'ah law. The Iranians follow the doctrine of the Shi'a sect of Islam, while al-Qa'idah is a Sunni fundamentalist group. This relationship is also complicated by the fact that al-Qa'idah is an Arab organization, while the Iranians are predominantly Persians - the animosity between the two runs long and deep.

So here we have two diametrically opposed, ethnically-different Islamic fundamentalist groups supposedly cooperating with each other. The differences go further than just ideology or belief system - it involves much bloodshed on both sides and includes attacks on sites holy to the other side. For example, in Iraq in 2006, the group known as "al-Qa'idah in the land of the two rivers" (more commonly called al-Qa'idah in Iraq, or AQI) under the leadership of the late Abu Musa'ib al-Zarqawi masterminded the beginning of a civil war in Iraq, a civil war between Sunni Arabs and Shi'a Arabs.

The event that triggered the internecine fighting was an attack on the al-'Askari Shrine in al-Samarra' that destroyed the golden dome of the mosque. An AQI attack the next year destroyed the two 100-feet tall minarets at the shrine. The shrine is the burial place of the 10th and 11th Shi'a imams and considered one of the holiest sites in Shi'a Islam. (It has since been restored.)

The attack was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Despite exhortations from Tehran and Iraqi Shi'a religious leaders, the Shi'a rose up and responded with violence - just as al-Zarqawi planned it. Al-Zarqawi's stated goal, although not supported by Usamah bin Ladin and al-Qa'idah number two Ayman al-Zawahiri, was to kill all of the Shi'a, whom he viewed as apostates to Islam.

The irony - Iran is now cooperating with a group that attempted to kill as many of its fellow Shi'a as it could. Why? The answer is simple. There is one common conviction shared by both al-Qa'idah and the Iranians - hatred of the United States. That hatred of the United States transcends their hatred of each other. It is strong enough to make the two enemies work with each other.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's recent remarks that intelligence gathered from the Abbottabad compound of Usamah bin Ladin has identified 10 to 20 al-Qa'idah leaders whose deaths or capture would "strategically defeat" the organization, may play right into Iran's hand. Iran has pretty much out-maneuvered the Obama Administration in virtually all aspects of the Iranian issue, be it the nuclear program, Iraq or Afghanistan. (See my earlier pieces on Iran going back several years, including during the Bush Administration.)

Since the Secretary has laid down the gauntlet and told these top leaders that if possible, their fate will be the same as that of Usamah bin Ladin, they may be looking for a safer place to hide than Pakistan. Pakistan's probably-complicit Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate has proven not as efficient as might have been thought prior to the May raid. The chances of the Obama Administration launching a similar raid into Iran is virtually non-existent, given its flawed and failed "engagement" policy toward the Islamic Republic.

Iran, for its part, gets to exert greater influence over the al-Qa'idah organization, fitting in with its goal to be the key power broker in the region as the United States all but capitulates its leadership position with the politically-motivated - and premature - withdrawal of its military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Note to political science majors and junkies - what the Iranians are doing is classic. They have turned a potential enemy into an ally in the fight against a common, larger threat - the United States.

The Iranians live by the Middle East adage, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

_________________
* Sayf al-'Adil is a nom de guerre. It is Arabic for "Sword of Justice."

Iran ups the ante in Iraq and Afghanistan

The Iranians are moving to replace the United States as the key power broker in both Iraq and Afghanistan as the Obama Administration withdraws American forces from those two countries. (See my earlier piece, Iran picks up the pieces - again.

That is to be expected, especially since the Obama Administration has in essence handed the area to the Iranians. The Iranians have assessed - correctly in my opinion - that the current Administration must please its voting base and withdraw its forces whether or not it makes sense militarily. It is difficult to blame the Iranians, after all, they are acting in their own national interest.

However, the Iranians have taken this effort to another level, one for which we can blame them. Not content to wait out the American troop withdrawal and simply ingratiate themselves with the corrupt governments of Nuri al-Maliki in Baghdad and Hamid Karzai in Kabul, the Iranians have upped the ante by providing additional and more effective weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan and three Shi'a militias in Iraq. These weapons have been tied directly to recent deaths of American troops both countries.

In somewhat refreshing declarations, American military leaders in Baghdad and Washington, as well as American ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey, have unambiguously identified the weaponry as originating in Iran, provided by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and tied directly to American casualties. This is a welcome change - in the past two years, no official would acknowledge what we all knew to be true, that Iranian weapons were killing American forces. To admit that would be to cast doubt on the wisdom of the Obama Administration's policy of engagement with Iran.

This policy has failed. In fact, it has gone beyond failure and led to a series of Iranian policy successes. One only need look at the status of the Iranian nuclear weapons issue to realize this. If you are still under the impression that Iran is developing a nuclear electrical energy generation capability, you may not care to read further. Iran is developing nuclear weapons - it already has the missiles to deliver them. If they did not have the missiles, the United States would not be seeking an anti-missile capability that specifically addresses Iran's capabilities.

Why has the Iranian leadership decided to provide weapons to the Taliban and Iraqi Shi'a militias, weapons they know will be used against American troops? Why not wait for the American troops to just leave?

In the case of Iraq, that withdrawal will be later this year, unless the Iraqis ask for the continued presence of American troops. The Iranians are astute followers of American domestic politics. They know that if they use their surrogates to cause increased American casualties, it will not matter if the Iraqi government asks for troops to remain because American public opinion will not support it. I view an Iraqi request for a continued American troop presence as unlikely as long as al-Maliki is in the pockets of the Iranians.

In the case of Afghanistan, the Iranians know that the war is becoming unpopular in the United States. They assess - again correctly in my opinion - that President Obama is making decisions based on politics and not the military situation. As the United States enters the 2012 Presidential election cycle, Obama will be even more prone to view Afghanistan through the political optic versus the military situation.

Now we have the failure of the "engagement" policy converging with the fact that President Obama wants to be re-elected. Given the abysmal state of the so-called economic "recovery," the last thing the President needs is continued involvement in two increasingly unpopular wars in which American casualties as perceived as rising. The Iranians are trying to create the impression in Afghanistan and Iraq that they are forcing the Americans out. They may be successful on both counts.

Mr. Obama, I am puzzled. One of two conditions exist in your Administration. Either you don't have anyone that knows much about the Middle East, or you are not listening to them. I have to believe it is the latter since I have worked with some of the Middle East specialists at the Pentagon, CIA and State - many are excellent analysts with years of experience.

Since you seem to have chosen to ignore their counsel, let me offer you some free advice. First, your engagement policy was misguided - you allowed the Iranians to take the lead on virtually every occasion. While in your mind this makes the United States the stronger, the more respected, the party willing to go the extra mile. That may be, but in the minds of the Iranians and Arabs that comprise the majority of the people in the Middle East, it makes the United States look weak, like we are caving in to their demands. They know you are not going to use military force, so any threat - and that includes your "nothing is off the table" rhetoric - you might make is meaningless. Perception is reality, and you are perceived as weak.

Mr. Obama, if you disagree with my analysis, please feel free to point out the diplomatic successes your "engagement" has brought us.

Iran picks up the pieces - again

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hosted a meeting with the presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan in Tehran recently. The focus of the meeting was the future of the region after the upcoming withdrawal of American and NATO forces from Afghanistan, Iran's neighbor to the east. Iran's concerns and plans coincide with its focus on the future of Iraq, its neighbor to the west, after the withdrawal of American forces from that country later this year.

Interestingly, all three nations represented are Islamic republics. The official titles of the three are: Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Despite the fact that Pakistan and Afghanistan are predominantly Sunni Muslim and Iran is over 90 percent Twelver Shi'a Islam, the leaders in Tehran believe that Islamic governments in all three countries can be a unifying factor. That includes unity against the West.

The truth is that both Iranian Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution (rahbare mo'azzame enghelab, literally "Leader of the Revolution") Ali Khamenei and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are positioning themselves to become the key power brokers in Afghanistan, much as they have done to the west in Iraq. Following the American invasion of Iraq and removal of the Saddam Husayn regime, the Iranians immediately began a campaign to solidify relations with the Shi'a majority in Iraq. As that Shi'a majority gained the prominent position in Iraqi politics by virtue of its sheer numbers, the Iranians were quick to offer all types of support.

The Iranians succeeded beyond their wildest expectations in Iraq. With the election of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, the Iranians got a virtual puppet in charge in Baghdad - al-Maliki is derisively known as al-irani, the Iranian. After his first term, he was able to retain the prime minister position despite not winning the most number of seats - it was Iranian influence that led to the formation of a new government with al-Maliki still in charge.

Although it was American military power that removed a ruthless dictator in Iraq - at great cost in terms of blood and treasure - it was ultimately the Iranians who benefited the most from that action. The brutality of the Saddam Husayn regime has been replaced by a new government allied with an equally brutal regime in Tehran.

With Iraq firmly in their sphere of influence, the Iranians are now turning their attention to the east. The Iranians have attempted to influence events in the Herat area of western Afghanistan for years, including dispatching elements of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to provide the same things the IRGC has done elsewhere in the region to destabilize situations - money, weapons and training to subversive elements.

Just as they have supported insurgencies and uprisings in Lebanon, Kurdish Iraq during the Saddam years, Croatia, Chechnya, Gaza and post-Saddam Iraq, the IRGC's al-Qods (Jerusalem) Force has provided material support to the Taliban. It is important to note that in the mid-1990's, the Taliban (Sunni Islamist) and the Iranians (Shi'a Islamist) were enemies. Mutual hatred of the United States transcends the differences between the two Islamist groups.

In Pakistan, relations between the United States and Islamabad are strained, especially in the wake of a U.S. special operations raid into Pakistan in which American troops killed al-Qa'idah leader Usamah bin Ladin under the noses of an either complicit or incompetent Pakistani intelligence service (I'm betting on complicit). Iran is attempting to exploit this ebb in the Pakistani-American relationship, with some success.

In the two years since Barack Obama took office and instituted his policy to engage the Iranians, Iranian influence in Iraq, the Persian Gulf and now South Asia has increased markedly. The Iranians are also pursuing the development of a nuclear weapon almost unchecked, yet there appears to be no change of strategy in Washington.

Mr. President, is that what you had in mind when you took office? Perhaps it's time to reassess this "engagement" policy - it's clearly not working.

Taliban Intelligence Report on Obama's Speech

President Obama announced his plans to begin the withdrawal of 10,000 American troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and as many as 33,000 by the end of next year.

This is how the Taliban's intelligence officers might assess Obama's remarks.
----------------------------------

DATE: 22 Rajab 1432 / 25 June 2011
FROM: Taliban Intelligence/Qandahar Sector
TO: Excellency Mullah Omar (Allah protect him)
SUBJ: President Obama's Plans to Withdraw Crusader Forces from Afghanistan

C O N F I D E N T I A L - INTEL/URGENT - BY COURIER

1. SUMMARY: On 19 Rajab 1432, Infidel crusader President Barack Obama announced his plans to reduce the number of occupiers by 10,000 by the end of this year. We expect to see one brigade (approximately 5,000 troops) beginning to retreat in Sha'ban, followed by another brigade nolater than at the time of the pilgrimage this winter. An additional 23,000 troops will be withdrawn by the end of next summer.

In essence, Excellency, the infidel crusaders have given up. Our strategy to counter the so-called American "surge" has been proven effective. Victory is within sight. Allahu akbar.

2. OUR ANALYSIS:

a. This report should be read in conjunction with our earlier report, "President Obama Provides Outline for Taliban Victory in Afghanistan" of Thu al-Hijjah 13, 1430 (December 1, 2009). That report detailed Obama's announcement of the so-called surge, but included a date certain for the beginning of the withdrawal of those troops. Thanks be to Allah that Obama has no military experience or training, and apparently no understanding of military strategy. He predicted his own defeat, and now that glorious day has come. As our friends and supporters in the hopefully temporary Kingdom of Saudi Arabia say, Obama has been hobbled by his own 'iqal.

b. Since Obama has no valid military reason to withdraw his troops, we assess that the announcement of the removal of 33,000 troops over the next year is a political decision based on American public opinion. Polls in the United States indicate that most Americans want the 10-year war to be over, and that the continued presence of American forces does nothing to further American strategic interests.

Just as our Vietnamese brothers did four decades ago, we have won the battle not on the battlefield, but via American public opinion. Although we cannot militarily defeat the cowardly Americans with their aircraft, drones and artillery, we have bested them in their own media. As Ho Chi Minh warned the Americans years ago, "We kill one of you, you kill ten of us. But soon you will tire of it and go home. We will still be here." The Americans are going home; we will still be here.

c. The infidel Secretary of State, the uncovered woman Hillary Clinton, claimed in a Congressional hearing that American and NATO forces have broken the momentum of our faithful mujahdin. Her fictional claims cause our beards to shake with laughter. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have allowed the crusaders to advance where we cannot stop them, and resist where we can. Yet, no areas that they have "secured" remain under their control without the continuous presence of their troops. The population is with us.

3. RECOMMENDATIONS:

a. As in our earlier report, Excellency, we encourage the mujahidin to continue to conduct low-level operations against the infidels using the calendar as our battlefield companion. We should continue to wait out the Americans and their NATO subjects as they begin their retreat from our mountains. At that time we will rebuild the Islamic state we all crave. Now that we have a timetable when the crusaders will leave, we can plan accordingly.

b. We further suggest that our mujahidin continue to infiltrate the ranks of the so-called Afghan National Army. When the Americans determine that this force is capable of maintaining "security" (as they define it) in the country, more of the foreign occupation troops will depart. When enough of them are gone and the so-called army is deployed, we will order our embedded mujahidin to rise up and seize control. The Americans, weary of the war, will not return. Witness again their actions in Vietnam as their allies were crushed. So it will be in the land of the Pashtun.

c. The apostate Obama has spoken many times about American cooperation with Pakistan, yet there seems to be little willingness on the part of the regime in Islamabad to work with the crusaders. We should continue to exploit the rift between the two countries in the wake of the dastardly murder of our Arab al-Qa'idah brother Shaykh Usamah bin Ladin (peace be upon him). Our contacts within the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate assure us that any further cooperation with the Americans - including allowing unpiloted aircraft attacks - is from the Punjabis and Sindhs - the Pushtuns remain in our camp.

d. We are aware that elements of our organization are "negotiating" with the occupation authorities. We assess this is bearing fruit, especially in light of Obama's virtual capitulation to American public opinion and the extreme left wing of his party. This tactic has been useful as it encourages the United States to continue to spend money in what they refer to as "nation building." Look for Obama to continue to appease his party as he grovels for re-election next year.

The more the occupiers build for us, the less reconstruction we will have to do when they leave - it will all fall under our control as we re-assert our authority over areas as soon as the crusaders depart. We especially appreciate their building of girls' schools. Since we have no need for education of women, these buildings will make excellent offices for our renewed administration of the country.

e. Excellency, we respectfully advise that as long as the crusaders are continuing to retreat and continue removing their forces, you do not invite our al-Qa'idah brethren to re-establish their presence in our country. A renewed al-Qa'idah presence will give the infidel Obama an excuse to stop the retreat and increase military operations against us. Further, we believe that the reintroduction of al-Qa'idah even after all infidel forces have departed will cause renewed American air operations over Afghanistan. Although we are capable of defending ourselves, the crusaders do have the ability to cause great damage to our forces, installations and infrastructure from the air.

f. Sadly, we have distressing news on the hell-hole known as Guantanamo. Although the apostate Obama promised to move our brothers to civilian courts in the United States, the American Congress has prevented that from happening. Unfortunately, it now appears that our heroic fighters will be tried by military courts. We can only assume that courts comprised of military officers who have been involved in the persecution of our people will be disposed to further illegal detention and possibly execution.

The jihad continues.

4. CONCLUSION: The American president, the apostate Barack Obama, continues swinging at a goat carcass much larger than his club can handle. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan - the truly Islamic state - will resurrect, thanks be to Allah. Then we will rid ourselves of the traitor Hamid Karzai and his ilk, and reform the status of women in accordance with the laws revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him) and bring our society back into compliance with shari'a law.

Another invader will leave and we will progress on the path of jihad.

In the service of Allah,
Mullah Istikhbar

The nexus of Syria's protests and Hizballah's future

The recent protests in Syria pose a real threat to the regime of President Bashar al-Asad, and by extension, to the very existence of the Iranian-supported Shi'a militant organization Hizballah in neighboring Lebanon. Hizballah was started by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in 1982, and continues to exist and flourish because of direct Syrian support and Damascus's acquiescence in allowing Iran to provide substantial amounts of money, weapons and training via Syrian airspace and highways.

The future of Bashar al-Asad and his Ba'th Party is unknown. Many analysts believe that he will be able to weather the current storm and successfully - and brutally - suppress the protests and demonstrations against his continued rule. According to human rights groups, over 1,400 civilians have been killed and 10,000 others taken into custody by the dreaded Syrian security services since the protests began in mid-March.

Common sense analysis would normally lead you to the conclusion that at some point, the Syrian military, intelligence and security services will refuse to continue the brutal oppression of their own people. It was similar refusals on the part of the Egyptian, Tunisian and to some extent Yemeni forces that led to the fall of the presidents of those countries.

However, what is happening in Syria is not your normal situation. If Israeli intelligence is to be believed - and they have excellent sources in Syria - it is not just Syrian forces involved in the suppression of the demonstrations. The Israelis claim that Iran and Hizballah have dispatched armed units to assist the Syrians. The reports of non-Arabic speaking officials is consistent with the presence of Iranian units; Iranians speak Farsi (Persian), not Arabic.

Reports that Hizballah may have deployed some of its members to assist Syrian units is credible, for several reasons. Being Lebanese, Hizballah has no real allegiance to the Syrian people. In fact, the converse is true - Hizballah does have an allegiance to the Syrian government, based on a longstanding relationship in which the Syrian government provides weapons and training to the group, and the group functions as a surrogate armed force in Lebanon targeted against Israel.

In the past, when tensions between Syria and Israel increased, Syria would often direct Hizballah to create a disturbance on Israel's northern border. This gave Damascus the option of confronting the Jewish state without using an overt Syrian hand.

In the event that the Syrian government falls, the new Syrian government, be it secular or dominated by the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, will likely not be favorable to continue the close relationship with Hizballah. That would be the best case. In the worst case for the Shi'a organization, Hizballah may well find itself confronted with a government hostile to its very existence. Further, if the new Syrian government distances itself from its primary sponsor - Iran - Hizballah's support might wither substantially. The organization will find it difficult or impossible to survive without Syrian and Iranian support.

There are rumors rampant in Lebanon that Hizballah is making preparations for a possible war with Israel to divert world attention from the situation in Syria. I have problems with this on several levels. Rumors are the favorite pastime of the Lebanese. If Hizballah wanted to start a war with Israel, and I doubt that after the damage Israel did to southern Lebanon and the Hizballah-controlled areas of Beirut in 2006, they cannot challenge superior Israeli firepower. While the results of that war were inconclusive and Hizballah has been fully rearmed by Damascus and Tehran, the organization was sharply criticized for exposing the infrastructure of the entire country of Lebanon to extensive damage at the hands of the Israeli air force.

Despite the fact that Lebanon now has a Hizballah-dominated cabinet, I doubt if the majority of Lebanese would support Hizballah starting a war with Israel in support of Syria. Starting such a war may spell the end of the organization's role as the key political power in the country.

Hizballah faces a difficult calculus. It needs to do all it can to ensure that the Bashar al-Asad regime in Syria survives, but is reluctant to risk its current political situation in Lebanon in a war with Israel. If it does nothing, however, it risks its very existence.

Pakistan - our "ally"

Usamah Bin Ladin compound - Abbottabad, Pakistan

In the aftermath of the successful U.S. special operations assault on the Usamah bin Ladin compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, there has been a chilling of relations between the intelligence services of the two countries. This is understandable since the United States and Pakistan are supposed to be allies, yet a team of U.S. Navy SEALs launched a covert raid from Afghanistan into Pakistan, conducted an attack on a residential compound and killed al-Qa'idah leader Usamah bin Ladin (among others) and removed his body from the country. How would we react to such a raid on American soil?

That said, it is important to consider the nature of the alliance between the United States and Pakistan as well as the intelligence cooperation aspect of that alliance. The American military and intelligence establishments have had a longstanding relationship with the Pakistani intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, more commonly known as the ISI. That relationship was very close in the 1980s during the American effort in support of the Afghan mujahidin fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Virtually all American support to the mujahidin, be it money, weapons or training, was funneled through the ISI. That was not without its controversies. Chief among these was the lack of strict accountability of the FIM-92 Stinger man-portable, shoulder-fired air defense missile system, regarded by many even today as the most effective system of its type in the world. Its use was one of the key factors that led to the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan.

The U.S. Defense Department was concerned that a lack of strict control of the Stingers might lead to them falling into the hands of potential adversaries, and that the missiles might in the future be used against American pilots. This is exactly what happened. At least one Stinger captured later from the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) was traced to a shipment sent to the the ISI for provision to the mujahidin.

Since the Stinger-IRGC issue, there has been a well-deserved skepticism of the trustworthiness of the ISI. That has been compounded by the ISI's role in the creation of the Taliban and that group's subsequent seizure of power in Afghanistan.

Following the Afghanistan-based al-Qa'idah attacks on the United States in September 2011 and then-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's decision to support American military operations against the Taliban and al-Qa'idah in neighboring Afghanistan, there has been suspicion of the ISI's true loyalties and allegiance. This suspicion on the part of the U.S. military and intelligence service extended to elements of the Pakistani military as well. Given the lack of alternative allies, working with the Pakistanis was the only, albeit unpalatable, option.

The recent successful hunting down and killing of Usamah bin Ladin has again called into question the loyalties and allegiance of our Pakistani "allies." The world's most wanted man was living in a city that is home to many retired military and intelligence officials, and home to Pakistan's military academy. Bin Ladin had been living there for as long as seven years. The thought that no one in the Pakistani military or intelligence services were not aware of his presence, or that he was not being assisted by some members of these organizations stretches the bounds of credibility.

We are left with one of two conclusions - either the Pakistani military and intelligence services are complicit, or they are incompetent. Neither conclusion is comforting.

I am voting for complicity. Governments, or more properly, regimes in this part of the world survive through the creation of excellent internal security services. To think that the Pakistani intelligence and security agencies were not aware of the presence of Usamah bin Ladin in their country is hard to believe. The recent arrests of those who supported the American operation against bin Ladin seem to bear out my theory.

How better to silence any witnesses that might be knowledgeable of Pakistani complicity than to place them under arrest? From reading reports of Pakistani treatment of suspects, being under arrest in Pakistan at the hands of the dreaded ISI is potentially life threatening. This is exacerbated by Pakistan's foot dragging on issuing visas for the American investigators with whom the Pakistanis have agreed to cooperate.

Al-Qa'idah's General Command (al-qiyadat al-'amah lil-jama'at al-qa'idah al-jihad)* issued a statement that Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri has been named as the new new leader of the organization, succeeding Usamah bin Ladin.

One has to ask the question - where is al-Zawahiri? Most analysts believe he is in Pakistan, just as was bin Ladin. Can we expect cooperation from our "allies" the Pakistanis in hunting down and killing Ayman al-Zawahiri? Probably as much as we got in the hunt for Usamah bin Ladin.

Call me cynical....

_____________
* The Arabic used in the al-Qa'idah statement is interesting. Normally they refer to themselves as tanzim al-qa'idah, or "the al-Qa'idah organization." This statement used the words jama'at qa'idah al-jihad, which translates to "the al-qa'idah jihad group." Does this indicate the organization describing itself as a parent group of subordinate terrorist entities?

"Covert" drone attacks in Yemen?

Recent press reports claim that the United States is about to begin a "covert" Central Intelligence Agency operation in Yemen. Much like a similar "covert" operation in Pakistan, the CIA will use armed Predator drones to launch missile attacks on al-Qa'idah militants in the country.

I have placed the word covert in quotes to indicate the irony that once the existence of an operation is made public, it can no longer be considered covert. In the cases of drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, it is probably a moot point. While covert operations are operations that are readily apparent - like a missile strike - the persons, agency and/or country conducting the operations usually remain unknown.

When Predator drones are used in countries without a U.S. military presence, it is likely, but not certain, that the operation is an American operation conducted by the CIA. (The Royal Air Force and the Italian Air Force also operate armed drones). The covert nature of the operation is likely compromised after the first attack evolution.

Expanding the CIA drone attack operation beyond Pakistan makes sense, and the Obama Administration should be applauded for doing so. No doubt there will be a great hue and cry from various civil liberties groups that we are not affording due process to the targets of these missile attacks. I believe that we are in a war, but let them show their ignorance and disdain for effective counterterrorist measures.

Al-Qa'idah moved its operations from Afghanistan to Pakistan after being decimated by the American invasion in 2001. After the "Anbar Awakening" and American troop surge in 2007, the organization moved most of its surviving fighters from Iraq to Saudi Arabia, where the Saudi security forces killed many of them and forced the remainder to relocate to Yemen.

Since al-Qa'idah is no longer in strength in either Iraq or Afghanistan, but is in Pakistan and Yemen, these are suitable venues for American attacks. Rather than fighting the Taliban and engaging in nation building in Afghanistan, we should be killing the real enemy wherever that enemy is located. That currently is Pakistan and Yemen.

Yemen is in a state of turmoil. President 'Ali 'Abdullah Salih and his regime are the targets of a popular uprising demanding that he step down. The President was wounded in an attack on the presidential compound and is currently in Saudi Arabia ostensibly for medical treatment. Whether or not he will return is unknown at this time.

The regional al-Qa'idah-affiliated group, al-Qaidah in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), is exploiting this power vacuum and is attempting to turn the country into a new Afghanistan, a venue for training operatives and planning attacks on the West, especially the United States. See my earlier piece, Yemen - fertile ground for al-Qa'idah.

Of major interest to the U.S. government is the presence of an effective al-Qa'idah leader, American-born Anwar al-'Awlaqi. Again, given al-'Awlaqi's status as a native-born American citizen, there will be protests that any orders to kill him violates U.S. law. it would appear that the Obama Administration, to its credit, has determined that al-'Awlaqi is a valid terrorist target and should be hunted down and killed by whatever means, be it a missile strike or a visit from SEAL Team Six.

In this case, the Administration is continuing to operate under the finding issued by President George Bush which directed the CIA to kill or capture al-Qa'idah militants. The American people have spent a lot of money developing the unique low-risk, high-impact capability of the armed unmanned aircraft. I applaud the President's decision to use it.