Note to the Syrian opposition - take the airbases!

A few weeks ago, I wrote an article about the Syrian air force's effective use of the L-39 trainer/light attack aircraft (Syrian air force attacks - effective use of the aircraft). At the end of the article, I commented:

Someone at Syrian air force headquarters knows what he is doing. Given the nature of the threat and the type of fighting, the right aircraft are being used.

I may have spoken too soon. In the past month, the Syrian opposition, the so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA), has downed several Syrian air force aircraft, including two MiG-23 fighters and at least two helicopters, and destroyed several dozen fighters and helicopters on the ground at several air bases.

Abu ad-Duhur air base

In March, members of the FSA used an RPG to destroy a MiG-23 on the ground at Abu ad-Duhur air base (35 44N 37 06E). Just this week, the FSA shot down a MiG-23UB (FLOGGER C) two-seat trainer as it was taking off from the airfield. The FSA also claims to have attacked the air base and destroyed another 11 fighter aircraft on the ground.

If that is true, that effectively reduces the inventory of aircraft at Abu ad-Duhur by half. If you look at the airfield, you will see it is built in typical Syrian fashion, with a squadron area at each end of the runway. I would guess that the rebels attacked one squadron area and destroyed all the aircraft at one end of the runway.

Afis air base, Taftanaz

The helicopter airfield at Taftanaz, also known as Afis air base (35 58N 36 47E) has come under attack by the rebels as well. Afis is home to two squadrons of Mi-8 (HIP) assault helicopters. You can see the layout of the airfield and two distinct squadron areas fanning out from the administrative area. Here is footage of an attack on Afis:

From the footage and the camera angle, it appears that this footage was shot from the farm to the north of the airfield. I have indicated the area being videotaped - the burning helicopter is sitting on one of the pads west of the hangar.

Afis air base - area of attack
Note: North is to the right

In addition to the attacks on Abu ad-Duhur and Afis/Taftanaz, there have been FSA attacks on 'Azaz airfield (also known as Minakh air base, 36 31N 37 02E) 25 miles north of Aleppo, and on Nayrab (the military ramp at Aleppo International airport, 36 11N 37 13E). The two bases have been used to launch air attacks - both fixed and rotary wing - on cities in northern Syria that are believed to be under the control of the FSA. The word used in the FSA reporting is 'ashwa'i (indiscriminate) bombing of residential areas of the cities. The footage seems to bear out their claims.

Here is where the Syrian air force needs to reassess their operations in the north. If they are going to use the bases in the local area of the attacks - some of these attacks are only a few miles from the airfields - they need to secure these bases from FSA attack. Airpower can be decisive, and it is taking a toll on the FSA - they admit that the airpower is what is hurting them the most. However, if you are going to have effective air strikes, you need secure bases from which to operate.

I wonder how the Syrian air force commanders are assigning targets to the pilots. Are they sending the pilots out to strike specific targets based on intelligence, or are they simply sending them to an area with instructions to engage anything they believe is hostile? If you believe the FSA, they are sent out simply to terrorize the populations of cities that support the uprising.

On the other side of the equation is the FSA. They know that the air strikes that have been so effective against them in the north are being launched from Minakh, Nayrab, Afis and Abu ad-Duhur air bases. Since they realize that they have limited air defense capabilities - the recent shootdowns have been more a matter of luck and are only a small percentage of the sorties flown by the Syrian air force - they have adopted the tactic of attacking the airfields in hopes of denying the Syrian regime secure bases from which to operate.

It shows a certain level of military thinking. They are getting better in their tactics, and the Syrian air force appears to be only the shadow of what it once was - an air force that trained to fight the Israeli air force. While it may work in the sort term, the Syrians can easily launch their attacks from bases further to the south and out of FSA reach.

Sderot, Israel - "Rocket City" opens new school

UPDATE: This morning, I read this headline:
Gaza rocket hits home in Sderot, causes damage to property
Qassam hits home in the the southern Israeli city, no one was wounded; rocket later lands in open field in Sha'ar Hanagev, no injuries or damage reported.

Sha'ar Haganev is the location of the new school complex. Are they specifically targeting a school?

New high school in Sderot

Sderot, Israel - few people have ever heard of it. The new headlines are not focused on this - there are too many stories about all the other crises in the region. The only ones who take note of events in this small town on the Israel-Gaza border are those of us who closely follow events in the Middle East. We call it "rocket city."

Sderot sits within Qassam rocket range of the Gaza Strip - less than a mile from the Gaza border and about three miles from the favorite launch positions inside the Gaza Strip at Bayt Hanun. Rocket attacks are not unusual here - they have become a fact of life - since Israeli forces withdrew from the Gaza Strip on September 12, 2005. The rocket attacks began that very afternoon and have been almost daily occurrence since. They are measured not in the hundreds, but in the thousands. Almost 450 have been fired this year to date.

I visited Sderot in 2009 in the aftermath of the confrontation between Hamas and the Israeli armed forces early that year. Here are a series of my photos to give you an impression of life in a city that has experienced daily rocket attacks since the Israeli withdrawal. The residents have adapted their homes and schools - even their bus stops - to defend themselves against the rockets.

When the residents hear the loudspeakers announce in Hebrew tsevah adom (color red), they have as little as 15 seconds to get to a sheltered location. Their buildings reflect the need for immediate safety.

Looking into Gaza from Sderot
The area by the trees is Bayt Hanun, favored for rocket launches

Old school with anti-rocket add-ons

Steel awning over school play area

Reinforced bus stop/shelter

Concrete bomb shelter in town 

IDF officer with typical homemade Qassam rocket

The new $27.5 million school complex features concrete walls, reinforced windows and a layout designed to absorb and deflect rocket fire. When there is an "color red" announcement, the students no longer dash for bomb shelters - they now remain in their protected classrooms.

I applaud the city of Sderot for their dedication to their children to build a secure facility for their education. What parent would not support that effort? That said, perhaps a better solution would be "curing the disease instead of treating the symptoms."

The real issue should not be constructing armored school buildings to protect students. The real issue is to stop the Hamas-backed 'Izz al-Din al-Qassam (the cleric for whom the rockets are named) Brigades and Islamic Jihad from launching rockets into Sderot.

The Israelis tried in 2009 and stopped short of the goal. Why? World opinion - they felt that continued military operations in Gaza might turn public opinion against them. Maybe, maybe not. Many of us who have children do not want to have to build an armored school so our children can get an education.

At some point, the base issue will have to be addressed. Hopefully, that will be via diplomacy - both sides will sit down and decide that Palestinian children and Israeli children should attend school in peace.

Unfortunately, history is not on my side. Most of these situations eventually are resolved through force of arms. I, as a retired military officer, wish it were not so - I did this for a living - but I fear we will have another round of violence before the children of Sderot go to school free of rocket attacks.

HIP action - Syrian style

Syrian Air Force Mi-8 (HIP) helicopter firing on opposition targets

Yes, HIP action, but this is not about belly dancing. It is about the Syrian air force using its Russian-built Mi-8 and Mi-17 (NATO: HIP) helicopters to great effect against the rebels in Syria.

While the Syrian armed forces have declined since the fall of the Soviet Union, they still possess a large inventory of weapons, including assault and attack helicopters. As with their employment of the L-39 trainer/light attack aircraft, they have used their fleet of Mi-8 and Mi-17 helicopters to devastating effect. (See my earlier article on Syrian use of the L-39, Syrian air force attacks - effective use of the aircraft.)

This short video the contains two clips which illustrates two uses of the HIP. The first shows the helicopter in the ground attack role, and the second in the air assault role. This is what the HIP was designed to do.

I will translate/gist the Arabic audio. In the attack sequence (time 0:04 to 0:28), the speakers are watching and speculating if the aircraft will attack here. When the pilot fires the 80mm rockets, they are surprised and shout allahu akbar (God is great). The narrator then states that helicopter - it looks to me like an Mi-8TBK (HIP F) - is attacking the city of Taftanaz. Taftanaz is located in at 36 00N 36 47E in Idlib governorate (northern Syria). Note: while you do hear repeated shouts of "Allahu akbar," it is more of an "Oh, my God" remark than an Islamic invocation.

The second sequence opens with children yelling excitedly about an aircraft landing in a town. The narrator then reports that a Syrian military aircraft has landed in the community of Ma'ara (36 02N 36 50E), gives the date as June 26, 2012, and notes special forces troops exiting the helicopter to kill the residents of the town. Automatic weapons fire ensues. From this clip, I cannot distinguish if this is an Mi-8 or an Mi-17. UPDATE: A colleague who specializes in Syrian air force aircraft tells me that this is an Mi-17. I defer to his judgment.

The helicopters involved in operations in this area are based at Afis air base, more often referred to by the locals as Taftanaz military airport. You can locate it easily on Google Maps or Google Earth at coordinates 35 58N 36 47E.

Afis air base - Taftanaz, Syria

Trying not to be parochial as a retired Air Force officer, the Syrians are demonstrating how important control of airspace remains. When you listen to the opposition forces, the first thing they want is a no-fly zone - they admit that the greatest impediment to their success is the Syrian air force's effective use of its light attack aircraft, assault helicopters and helicopter gunships. Quote, "The aircraft are killing us."

Assault helicopters over Al-Mizzih - ADDENDUM

On August 22, I wrote an article about Syrian Mi-8/17 (NATO: HIP) assault helicopters flying over the Kafr Susah and Al-Mizzih sections of Damascus. Well, it was bound to happen - today (August 27), the opposition was able to shoot down one of these helicopters over the city. The battle for Damascus is in full swing. Here is a video clip of the shootdown.

According to the narrators, the assault helicopter - they called it a "fighter helicopter" - was flying over Jawbar when hit. Jawbar is a section in the northeast part of Damascus about four miles east of the American embassy. The helicopter came down in the Qabun section of the city, just north of Jawbar.

The Syrian government has acknowledged that a helicopter crashed, but to most observers, it appears that it was shot down. The pictures clearly show the aircraft on fire as it plummets to earth.

The helicopter appears to be an Mi-17. The engine nacelles on the Mi-17 are further forward than on the Mi-8, and the tail rotor is on the port side of the tail boom, while the Mi-8 tail rotor is on the starboard side.

In any case, the opposition has upped the ante. I still have to ask - where are the much more capable and survivable Mi-25 (NATO: HIND) gunships? Has the Syrian air force so atrophied over the last decade that it cannot bring its most capable weapons systems to the fight?

Original article:

Assault helicopters over Al-Mizzih - I lived there....

This video clip is labeled "Helicopters attack Kafr Susah from the skies over al-Mizzih."

I used to live in al-Mizzih. Kafr Susah is the next section of Damascus to the east, both on the south side of the city. It is a neighborhood of small shops owned by relatively prosperous merchants, artist's studios, nice shops, good restaurants and fashionable apartment buildings. Along with al-Mizzih, it was considered one of the preferable residential areas of Damascus.

It is disheartening for me to watch these Mi-8 (NATO: HIP) assault helicopters flying over al-Mizzih. When I lived there in the 1990s, it was extremely rare to see these aircraft over al-Mizzih and Kafr Susah. There were the occasional flights as part of organized air shows, but for the most part, aircraft were prohibited from overflying the city - the regime was wary of any type of military aircraft near the center of power.

On one occasion, I remember driving home from the embassy and seeing these Mi-8 helicopters over 'Umayad Square - actually a traffic circle that we nicknamed "Oh My God circle" for the Syrian drivers careening through the intersection. I noted that the helicopters were flying low and dropping something in the circle - I was a bit perplexed. What was it? Chaff? An aircraft in trouble? A revolution in progress? A chemical warfare exercise?

I was immediately on alert. There are two airfields just outside the city that house Mi-8 helicopters, both to the southeast - Qabr as-Sitt and Marj as-Sultan. I used to watch the helicopters fly their routine training flights, but never over the city itself. What were they up to?

As the U.S. Air Attache to the American Embassy, it was my job to know what was going on in the Syrian Air Force - these aircraft were obviously military and performing some sort of operation. Using all of my training, I cleverly maneuvered my car into the circle and scooped up some of the material falling from the sky. Aha - an intelligence coup by the dashing Air Force major!

The material turned out to be paper leaflets advertising the Syrian national flower show.

Okay - not the intelligence coup of the century, but at least I could read the Arabic....

On a serious note, the sight of these armed assault helicopters over where I lived is saddening to me. I enjoyed living in Syria, in Damascus - the longest inhabited city in the world. It was my honor to serve at the American Embassy, despite the poor relations between Syria and the United States. I never in my wildest imaginings thought that at some point these assault helicopters would turn their weapons on the people who were my neighbors, and in some cases, my friends.

It is difficult to watch what is happening to Syria. I listen to the calls for a no-fly zone, and the opposing views that we should let the Syrians fight this without outside - or American - intervention.

I am torn between the two. I am aware of the "unintended consequences" that might arise from assisting the opposition with an Islamist adherence, but am deeply saddened at the unimaginable suffering of the Syrian people at the hands of their own government.

Does the humanity outweigh the political considerations? If you do a search of YouTube, there are hundreds of videos of the barbaric bloodletting that has become a civil war. It is unfathomable to me that the world stands by while thousands of people are slaughtered, yet we need to wait for the use of chemical weapons as our "red line." Did we learn nothing from Rwanda or the Balkans?

I don't have an unbiased answer to the question of a no-fly zone. Those assault helicopters are over my former house.

"Taliban John" claims his religious rights are being violated in prison

John Walker Lindh (AP)

I normally do not comment on legal cases unless they have some relation to the situation in the Middle East. I wrote recently about Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange and his source for hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic and military documents, U.S. Army Private First Class Bradley Manning. (See Julian Assange, PFC Bradley Manning and the Middle East.)

There are few cases for which I routinely make exceptions. The first is the case of admitted traitor and spy for Israel Jonathan Pollard, or as I prefer to call him, Prisoner #09185-016 (see my latest on this traitor, Obama, Peres and Pollard - any "flexibility?").

The other case is that of admitted terrorist John Walker Lindh, also known as the "American Taliban," "Taliban John" or as I prefer to refer to this traitor, Prisoner #45426-083. Lindh has served about just over half of his negotiated 20-year sentence, and is scheduled to be released in 2019. The plea bargain was a gift - Lindh had joined the Taliban in Afghanistan and took up arms against American troops in combat. He was at the facility and participated in the prisoner uprising in which a CIA officer, Mike Spann, was killed.

My view of Lindh is no secret - see “Taliban John” – His Father Speaks Out and John Walker Lindh wants out. I'll give you the bottom line - Lindh is a traitor to his country. He should have been prosecuted and given the death penalty. If it had been up to me, it would not have gotten even that far - he'd have been left dead on a battlefield in Afghanistan. Harsh? Maybe - let's ask Mike Spann's widow, who for that last 11 years has faced raising their son without a father.

The latest issue with #45426-083 is his claim that he is being deprived of his religious rights because the federal prison does not allow him to meet with other convicted violent Muslim felons for group prayer. The word "prison" keeps jumping into my mind. Isn't prison where you are supposed to be deprived of your rights?

Specifically, #45426-083 claims that the Hanbali school of thought (mathhab) to which he adheres requires group prayer "if it is possible." Short answer - you are in prison and it is not possible. Unfortunately, we have to have an ACLU circus to determine whether the inmates or the prison staff get to set the rules.

Lindh's parents have tried to mount a public relations campaign portraying their son as a victim of circumstances, a young man who made some bad choices. They rightly worry for #45426-083's safety once he is released from prison. His mother said recently, "It's critical for John's life at whatever point he gets out of prison that he is able to live without having to look over his shoulder for someone that wants to do him harm." I am surprised he's survived in prison.

I picked up on the "at whatever point he gets out of prison" wording. The family wants presidential clemency for their son.The family asked President Bush to grant clemency to #45426-083, which was refused. I hope that President Obama follows suit and stands fast in keeping this traitor locked up for the maximum period of the extremely lenient sentence his lawyers were able to negotiate. I am not sure if an Obama re-election will give him the same "flexibility" in this case as he hopes to have in dealing with the Russians.

The Free John Walker organization - yes, there is one - asks that you write to Lindh, but to "please keep it clean. He's taken enough s**t as it is over the past few years." Yes, I am welling up over poor John.

I encourage you to write to #45426-083 - I have. I want him to know that his mother's fears are true - he will always have to be looking over his shoulder.

John Walker Lindh #45426-083
FCI Terre Haute
P.O. Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808-0033

Julian Assange, PFC Bradley Manning and the Middle East

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange at the Embassy of Ecuador in  London

Legal cases are not my usual subjects for commentary, but these cases do involve American interests - diplomatic activities and military operations in the Middle East. The allegations against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange are well known, as is his source of hundreds of thousands of U.S. military and State Department classified messages and cables - U.S. Army Private First Class (PFC) Bradley Manning. There seems to be no question of the circumstances of the illegal release of sensitive American military and diplomatic information at the hands of PFC Bradley and Assange - that is not my point.

Ecuador - for whatever reason - has granted Assange political asylum, and the Australian national is now holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy in London. Since the British government has agreed to extradite Assange to Sweden to face sexual assault charges, the changes of his actually making it to Quito anytime soon are pretty slim.

Assange claims that if he is extradited to Sweden, the Swedes may then extradite him to the United States because of his role in publishing the classified diplomatic cables and military message traffic. I think his fears are misplaced. The United States government has filed no criminal charges against Assange, nor has it indicated any plans to seek his extradition to the United States.

So why is Assange concerned about possible extradition to the United States, and attempting use this in his defense on totally unrelated charges in Sweden? I think he is desperately grasping at straws because the Swedes may just have enough evidence to convict him of the charges.

That said, let's take a quick look at the legal aspects of this case. Although I am not a lawyer, one of my additional duties while assigned to an intelligence unit was as the special security officer. This required me to receive additional training on the handling of the most sensitive types of information, thankfully none of which I saw in the released documents. I got a pretty thorough education on the laws and regulations on handling all types of classified information.

As far as I can tell, Julian Assange (who I have no use for) has violated no U.S. laws. If he had, I believe there would have been an indictment and a request for him to be brought to the United States to be tried. Unlike in many, maybe even most countries, possessing or publishing classified information is not a crime in the United States. What is a crime is to have access to classified information, take an oath to protect that information and then violate that oath and RELEASE the information to an unauthorized party.

PFC Bradley Manning

Enter U.S. Army Private First Class (PFC) Bradley Manning. PFC Manning was an intelligence analyst with a security clearance that authorized him access to the diplomatic and military information that he subsequently - and I guess I need to say "allegedly" (although we all know he did it) - illegally removed from a secure American intelligence facility and provided them to Julian Assange's Wikileaks organization.


Manning broke the law; Assange did not.

Did Manning's and Assange's actions place lives, American and those of our allies, at risk? I believe so. While the diplomatic cables contained some embarrassing information for the United States, it generally showed American diplomats doing what they are supposed to do - representing the United States abroad and providing analysis of events in the countries to which they were posted.

It was the military traffic, the raw situation reports that included sensitive tactical and technical information that has caused operational security concerns, in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Analysis of this information may have given al-Qa'idah and the Taliban insights into military procedures that could be used to counter our effectiveness. In some cases, it identified persons cooperating with our military forces. This treachery will likely be the crux of the case against PFC Manning.

Would I like to see Julian Assange in an orange jumpsuit living in a concrete box for the rest of his life? Unless he breaks the law, I really don't. If it comes out in the Bradley court-martial that Assange conspired with Manning to illegally release the documents, then put him away.

Manning? To me, it is pretty straightforward, although I am sure some lawyer will try to paint is as whistle-blowing, act-of-conscience, lapse in judgment - whatever. I don't care. He took an oath, then violated that oath. He did the crime, now he can do the time.

After he is found guilty, I fully expect him to be sentenced to spend the rest of his life at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

Assault helicopters over Al-Mizzih - I lived there....

This video clip is labeled "Helicopters attack Kafr Susah from the skies over al-Mizzih."

I used to live in al-Mizzih. Kafr Susah is the next section of Damascus to the east, both on the south side of the city. It is a neighborhood of small shops owned by relatively prosperous merchants, artist's studios, nice shops, good restaurants and fashionable apartment buildings. Along with al-Mizzih, it was considered one of the preferable residential areas of Damascus.

It is disheartening for me to watch these Mi-8 (NATO: HIP) assault helicopters flying over al-Mizzih. When I lived there in the 1990s, it was extremely rare to see these aircraft over al-Mizzih and Kafr Susah. There were the occasional flights as part of organized air shows, but for the most part, aircraft were prohibited from overflying the city - the regime was wary of any type of military aircraft near the center of power.

On one occasion, I remember driving home from the embassy and seeing these Mi-8 helicopters over 'Umayad Square - actually a traffic circle that we nicknamed "Oh My God circle" for the Syrian drivers careening through the intersection. I noted that the helicopters were flying low and dropping something in the circle - I was a bit perplexed. What was it? Chaff? An aircraft in trouble? A revolution in progress? A chemical warfare exercise?

I was immediately on alert. There are two airfields just outside the city that house Mi-8 helicopters, both to the southeast - Qabr as-Sitt and Marj as-Sultan. I used to watch the helicopters fly their routine training flights, but never over the city itself. What were they up to?

As the U.S. Air Attache to the American Embassy, it was my job to know what was going on in the Syrian Air Force - these aircraft were obviously military and performing some sort of operation. Using all of my training, I cleverly maneuvered my car into the circle and scooped up some of the material falling from the sky. Aha - an intelligence coup by the dashing Air Force major!

The material turned out to be paper leaflets advertising the Syrian national flower show.

Okay - not the intelligence coup of the century, but at least I could read the Arabic....

On a serious note, the sight of these armed assault helicopters over where I lived is saddening to me. I enjoyed living in Syria, in Damascus - the longest inhabited city in the world. It was my honor to serve at the American Embassy, despite the poor relations between Syria and the United States. I never in my wildest imaginings thought that at some point these assault helicopters would turn their weapons on the people who were my neighbors, and in some cases, my friends.

It is difficult to watch what is happening to Syria. I listen to the calls for a no-fly zone, and the opposing views that we should let the Syrians fight this without outside - or American - intervention.

I am torn between the two. I am aware of the "unintended consequences" that might arise from assisting the opposition with an Islamist adherence, but am deeply saddened at the unimaginable suffering of the Syrian people at the hands of their own government.

Does the humanity outweigh the political considerations? If you do a search of YouTube, there are hundreds of videos of the barbaric bloodletting that has become a civil war. It is unfathomable to me that the world stands by while thousands of people are slaughtered, yet we need to wait for the use of chemical weapons as our "red line." Did we learn nothing from Rwanda or the Balkans?

I don't have an unbiased answer to the question of a no-fly zone. Those assault helicopters are over my former house.

Nicholas Burns: diplomacy is the answer in Iran - really?

Nicholas Burns when he was at the State Department

In a recent article, former U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs and former Ambassador Nicholas Burns advocates a new and bold approach to Iran, an approach based on diplomacy. Of course, we would all like a diplomatic solution to halt Iran's drive to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. I think that's what we have been attempting since Barack Obama assumed the presidency in 2009.

That approach has not worked thus far, so why might it in the future? First off, let me acknowledge that Nicholas Burns is a highly capable, highly educated and experienced foreign policy expert. That said, I am somewhat taken aback by his apparent naivete on this particular issue. He does have limited experience in the Middle East - he served at the embassy in Cairo and the consulate in Jerusalem over 25 years ago. For the most part, however, he has dealt with the Soviets/Russians, NATO and European issues, so it is easy to understand why he might have a penchant for negotiations. However, his previous dealings have been with partners who were reliable interlocutors - that description does not apply to the Iranians.

Ambassador Burns believes that the United States should do all it can to avoid war and find another way to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I agree wholeheartedly - no one wants to send young Americans into harm's way more than those of us who have been sent into harm's way. However, the United States government for years - through the Bush Administration and into the Obama Administration - has been clear in stating that we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. There have been some nuances about what defines that capability - actually producing a weapon or having the capability to produce a weapon, but everyone is in agreement that we will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic of Iran.

The nuanced stance is problematic. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has at one time said we will not tolerate Iran merely having the capability, in other words, enough highly enriched uranium and the technology to build a weapon. However, it is also difficult to pin the President down on his interpretation.

The difficulty in determining the exact American position is not lost on the Israelis. If they believe the Iranians are on the verge of developing the capability to build a nuclear weapon, they will act militarily. Ambassador Burns proposes that the United States take the lead to preclude such an attack.

That is a noble idea, but the Israelis are not convinced that we are willing to take the lead. The ambassador proposes a three-pronged diplomatic approach to make this happen. I have summarized them here:

- create a direct channel between Washington and Tehran for bilateral talks. Burns quips, "to attack a country before we have had our first meaningful discussions since 1979 would be shortsighted, to say the least."

- the United States must be ready to compromise by offering imaginative proposals that would permit Iran civil nuclear power but deny it a nuclear weapon.

- the United States needs to reaffirm our determination to protect Israel’s security, to slow down the Israeli timetable for military action.

He concludes his remarks with this paragraph:

"In the decade after 9/11, we reflexively turned to the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Shouldn’t we now restore diplomacy as our first responder to face our greatest international challenges? There is no guarantee that diplomacy will work. But before we launch a third Middle East war, we would be well advised to consider first how we might defeat the Iranian leadership by other means — at the negotiating table."

As I said, Ambassador Burns is a smart man, but we have tried almost all of this before. We have tried the direct approaches to the mullahs in Tehran - it was one of the cornerstones of the new Obama diplomatic initiative in the region, to "extend an open hand instead of a fist," I believe he put it. It was flatly rejected each and every time it was attempted. I have to conclude that the Iranians do not want to talk to us. That strategy seems to be working - they have been enriching uranium non-stop. The multilateral talks have only reached agreements on more talks - we have agreed to talk about talking.

Iran knows that the rest of the world cannot legally prevent them from pursuing peaceful uses of nuclear technology - that is not the issue. They are using it as cover to pursue nuclear weapons. How hard is that to understand? This has been explained to the Iranians time and time again, but they choose to make the confrontation about their right to nuclear energy to deflect from the real issue. No rational intelligence analyst believes that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapons capability.

I do take some issue with the ambassador's concluding remarks. I do not think we "reflexively" turned to the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Immediately after 9/11, we offered the Taliban-controlled government of Afghanistan a diplomatic solution - turn Usamah bin Ladin over to the United States. They refused, knowing full well what was about to happen to them. Three thousand Americans were killed in a senseless act of barbarism - it demanded an appropriate response. A United Nations resolution was not going to cut it.

As far as Iraq, we had been pursuing the diplomatic option since the end of the Gulf War in 1991. How many chances were you willing to give Saddam Husayn?

I do agree with your desire to exhaust all diplomatic options before we turn to the military option. Unfortunately, I think we are rapidly approaching that decision point.

Syrian air force attacks - some comments

Amateur video - excuse the retakes and mistakes

I was asked by a former colleague to watch and listen to this posting on YouTube. By way of disclosure, I was the U.S. Air Attache to the American Embassy in Damascus, Syria in the early to mid-1990s. It was my job to observe and report on the Syrian Air Force. 

These clips appear to be a compilation of events from various areas of Syria in late June and late July 2012. It is not a professional recording - it was made by Syrian rebels in the field facing overwhelming military force, an air force with all the resources of standing armed forces.

NOTE: For my Arabic speaking friends (مها، وهذا يعني أنك) - this is not a translation, but my analysis of what is being said. I am sure there are things I have omitted, mostly by choice, but yes, some things that were hard to understand - these are people under fire and stressed, and not speaking slowly or clearly.

The first series shows Mi-17 (NATO: HIP) assualt helicopter and Mi-25 (NATO: HIND) helicopter gunship attacks on the Sahil al-Ghab area, which is located about halfway between Khan Shaykhun and Latakia in Hamah governorate. The area has been a hotbed of rebel activity.

You will hear references to "Israeli." The narrator is not the person who referenced "Israeli-Asadi" aviation. The narrator said, "No, that's not right," and continued his narration. The speakers on the radios in the background are describing cannon and rocket attacks from the aircraft on the village of al-Huwayz (which is about a mile east of Sahil al-Ghab). The narrator says that Asad's (اسدي) aircraft are bombarding Sahil al-Ghab. There are shouts of "Asad, that son of a bitch."

The narrator states that the helicopters are attacking al-Huwayz village and the al-Ghab area. (There's not much out there but farmland and small villages.) The speakers on the radios keep reporting rocket strikes.

At about 4:45, I note what I believe are flares. The flare at 5:00 is pretty clear; the Mi-25 HIND is equipped with a flare ejector. At this point, the narrator reports intense bombardment. Flares are used to protect against heat-seeking surface-to-air missiles. The use of these flares indicates that the Syrian air force is concerned that the rebels might have some shoulder-fired missiles at their disposal.

Then we see the dead animals, which the narrator says were targeted along with people and farm land. The video shows the rockets used in al-Huwayz, in the Sahil al-Ghab area. There are a lot of them. I am not an expert on these munitions, but they appear to me to be S-8 80mm rockets, the kind carried in those helicopter rocket pods.

At 7:35, the venue changes. Date is 7/20/2012 - an Mi-17 HIP orbiting al-Ta'ibah village*.

At 9:22, an Mi-17 HIP orbited for an hour and attacked Ghazalah (30 miles northeast of Hamah).

At 10:22,in al-Na'imah near Dara' (about a mile east of the city) - an Mi-17 HIP circling the city. I have been there numerous times. The terrain is flat and well-suited for helicopter attacks.

At 11:30, in Nasib, "thick" flight activity (Mi-17 HIP visible) over the city (this is the border city at the toll gate with Jordan - no evidence of attacks).

At 12:35, narrator cites date 6/28/2012 in Dayr az-Zawr. Intense bombardment on the city (it sounds like it) - Mi-25 HIND visible.

At 13:18, a man is shown with what appears to be a 250KG bomb he says was dropped on a road near Hamah. He described it as a type 88, numbers written on it as 2-8-4 (numbers in English), lays down to show the length, compares it to mortar rounds, then harangues Bashar al-Asad for using a bomb intended to be used against Israel on his own people.

At 14:16, back to helicopter rockets in al-Ta'ibah*, rockets used against normal peoples' houses. Then there is a foreigner (some claim it was a United Nations observer, but all the dialog was in in Arabic) photographing the rockets - he is told they are from either Russia or Iran.

That's my quick take on the video.

Time for a no-fly zone? It seems to me that regime control of the air may be the downfall of the opposition in Syria.

__________________
* There is an al-Ta'ibah near Dayr al-Zawr, but I think the narrator said Hawran, which is in the south - I am not sure where he means.

Egypt and Syria - a tale of two armies

Egyptian army on the left - Syrian army on the right

The popular uprisings in Egypt and Syria began within days of each other in what many have called the "Arab Spring." The outcome of the situation in the two countries could not be more different. Much of that difference has to do with the actions of the Egyptian and Syrian armed forces.

Egypt
In Egypt, as the protesters took to the streets and demanded the end of the government headed by President Husni Mubarak, the Egyptian army was deployed into the streets and ordered to quell the unrest. They deployed as ordered, but after a few nonviolent confrontations with the protesters, refused to use he overwhelming firepower at their disposal. There were a few exceptions when small units loyal to Mubarak attacked the protesters, but for the most part, the Egyptian army refused to fire on its own citizens.

The senior Egyptian military leadership, including personal friends and long-time supporters of Husni Mubarak (himself a former air force general), refused to employ the armed forces to suppress the obvious will of the people. In the end, it was the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) that took power from Husni Mubarak and governed the country until the elections of earlier this year.

Following the election of Muhammad Mursi as the new president, Mursi removed most of the officers of the SCAF and replaced them with his own choices. Unlike in many countries in this part of the world, this was a peaceful transition and the Egyptian army remains loyal to the elected civilian leadership of the country.

That said, as like in most countries in this part of the world, the armed forces remain the final arbiter of power. It was the Egyptian military that oversaw the elections and the establishment of a new democratic order in the country. They alone have the power to remove that government should they deem it necessary.

The situation in Egypt is not completely resolved - issues remain. One of the most important is the relationship between the Islamists in Cairo and the Israelis. Should the new Egyptian government adhere to some of the more reckless rhetoric emanating from the Muslim Brotherhood - specifically that the government must abrogate the 1979 peace treaty with Tel Aviv - the military may feel inclined to intervene. No serious Egyptian general wants to return to a war footing with the qualitatively superior Israel Defense Forces.

Time will tell.

Syria
The situation in Syria is almost the complete opposite of what happened in Egypt. As soon as the initial Syrian protests began in the southern border city of Dara', Syrian troops were sent to disperse the protesters, which they did with overwhelming force. Unarmed protesters were fired on with automatic weapons, resulting in many deaths.

As the protests spread to cities across Syria, especially in the central of northern part of the country, the protesters began arming themselves and fighting back. Although their weaponry was far inferior to that of a standing organized army, they did inflict some casualties on the Syrian army.

The Syrian government then ordered more of its regime-protection units - primarily the Republican Guard and 4th Armor Division - into the fight. These units, equipped with the best armament in the Syrian armed force, are fully vetted and mostly officered by loyal members of President Bashar al-Asad's 'Alawite sect.

In contrast to the actions of the Egyptian army, the Syrian armed forces attacked their own people. Granted, the 'Alawites may not consider the majority Sunni and other minorities - Christian, Druze, Kurds, etc. - their own people, but they are all Syrians.

When the Syrian military moved against its own population in the cities of Homs, Hamah, Palmyra, Dayr al-Zawr, Dara', Duma, Harasta, Aleppo, Idlib, Talbisah, 'Az'az - the list goes on and on - it did so with a vengeance.

Syrian Air Force L-39ZA trainer/counterinsurgency attack aircraft #2136 (Reuters)

The Syrian regime used, and is using, its best weapons: T-72 main battle tanks, self-propelled artillery of various calibers (including 2S1 130mm and 2S3 152mm systems), 120mm mortars and armored infantry fighting vehicles, all supported by air power in the form of L-39 trainer/light attack aircraft, MiG-23 fighter-bombers, Mi-17 assault helicopters and the heavily armed Mi-25 helicopter gunships. (See my earlier article, Syrian air force attacks - effective use of aircraft.)

Bashar al-Asad did not build the Syrian armed forces as they exist today. He has had an impact over the last 12 years since he was ushered in to power upon his father's death in 2000 (See my description of this, Syria - Bashar al-Asad: Election of a Prince?), but the leadership of the military was honed by Hafiz al-Asad from 1970 to 2000.

The key elements of the Syrian armed forces, or at least the units that count, have all been thoroughly vetted over the last forty plus years. The commanders are mostly not only of the 'Alawite sect, but are either related to or business partners of the al-Asad family. They have gained status and wealth because of their relationship to the al-Asads. They are beholden to the current regime - if it falls, their livelihoods are in jeopardy. After the first shots were fired, at their orders, their very lives are now in jeopardy.

I was taken aback by the words of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. He seems to believe that a good outcome is the removal of President Bashar al-Asad with the retention of the Syrian military, ostensibly to maintain order in the country and facilitate the transition of power.

What is he thinking? These are the armed forces that are slaughtering their own people, the forces trying to maintain a "ruthless dictator"* in power. Do we really want the Syrian military - the armed forces with a mutual defense treaty with the Islamic Republic of Iran - to survive?

The Syrian military needs to be disbanded and replaced. There are many units of the Syrian military made up of loyal Syrians, just not loyal to this regime. They should be tapped to create a new military force dedicated to a new Syria, integrated with the Free Syrian Army. This will take some real diplomacy to make happen - I wonder if Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is up to the task.

Two militaries, two different paths. We'll see which model works.
____________
* I am not convinced that Bashar is acting solely on his own. Since he assumed power in 2000, he has consolidated his power base, but I believe it is more of an al-Asad family power base than that of this relatively junior president who really wanted to be an ophthalmologist in London.