Iran's endorsement of Obama for re-election

It was probably an endorsement presidential candidate Barack Obama would have welcomed four years ago, but might not be a plus this time around. Four years ago, Mr. Obama repudiated then-President George W. Bush's policies toward the Islamic Republic, claiming that a new policy was in order to address the issues with Iran's nuclear program. Mr. Obama at that time espoused a policy of "engagement" with the mullahs in Tehran, believing that he could reason with them and bring about positive change in their positions.

I have been either working or following events in this part of the world for almost four decades. I usually laugh to myself when a novice comes forward with his belief that merely talking, maybe using different words, is going to change long-held positions and ideas. The people of the Middle East have been dealing and double-crossing each other and the rest of the world since the world began. To think that an organizer from south Chicago was going to change the Iranian leadership by force of persona was naive at best, arrogant at worst.

Four years later, the Iranians have yet to slow their uranium enrichment program, and President Obama's policy of "engagement" had failed to yield any results. The only things that have impacted the Iranian quest to develop a nuclear weapon are the cyber attacks on the uranium enrichment effort itself and increased economic sanctions on the country. The sanctions are in place over the President's wishes - he must still think that at some point, he is going to be able to negotiate with the Iranian leadership.

Mr. President, we've been down this road how many times since you've been in office? What do we have to show for it? Nothing. Every time there are talks, it yields the same results. The Iranians agree to talk about having more talks. All the while, the centrifuges continue to spin and their stockpile of enriched uranium increases.

Mr. President, do you sense a pattern here? The Iranians have made it abundantly clear that they are not interested in talks - talks for them are merely a tactic to delay actions against them. To use one of your favorite phrases: let me be clear, they do not want to talk to you.

However, the Iranians do want to see you re-elected so you can continue your what many would describe as misguided policies. The fact that the speaker of the Iranian parliament Ali Larijani favors your re-election should give you pause - that endorsement essentially validates the failure of your position.

In Speaker Larijani's own words, "We are leaning more in favor of Barack Obama because he is more flexible and rational...."

Those are troubling words, especially coming from the leader of Iran. Yes, that Iran - the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism, the people who brought the world Hizballah, the people who killed American hostages in Lebanon in the 1980s, the people who seized the American Embassy in Tehran and took and held 52 American hostages in 1979-80, the regime that trained, funded and equipped anti-American militias in Iraq and Afghanistan (and may still be doing so), the people who have vowed to eradicate the State of Israel, the people who are hell-bent on acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and the means with which to deliver those weapons. Yes, them.

The thought that the Iranian leadership want you re-elected should concern you. It sure does concern me.

Syrian helicopter downed near Damascus

These three clips posted on YouTube by members of the Free Syrian Army document the October 5th shoot down of an Mi-17 (NATO: HIP H) just east of Damascus, in an area known as the Ghutah, directly north of Damascus International Airport. It is also very close to the Syrian air force's helicopter base at Marj as-Sultan (33 30N 36 28E). At 0:22 in the clip, the helicopter is hit, possibly causing a piece of the main rotor to sever the tail rotor from the aircraft, which constitutes non-recoverable damage. As the helicopter falls, the main rotor appears to separate from the aircraft as well. Watch:

The helicopter appears to have been downed by a ZPU-1 14.5mm anti-aircraft gun mounted in the bed of a pickup truck, and claimed by the so-called Abu Musa al-Ash'ari (أبو موسى الأشعرى) brigade.* Watch:

The wreckage fell in a field and burned. Watch:

The Syrian air force has relied on its Mi-8/17 (HIP) fleet for a variety of missions against the Free Syria Army. These missions include reconnaissance, artillery spotting, air assault, and ground attack (See my earlier article, HIP action - Syrian style.

The Syrian air force has developed a new tactic - dropping barrels of munitions from helicopters on populated areas. Here is a video clip of the aftermath of an attack near the central city of al-Rastan with what the population simply calls al-birmil ("the barrel").

My gist: the narrator begins with the assessment that the damage shown is the result of tank and mortar fire. When he asks the boy what happened, the boy responded that it was actually the result of "the barrel" dropped from a helicopter, that there was no tank fire. The boy also said that most of the residents have been forced out of their homes and have fled the area - they can't stay outside here as winter is coming, and they can't return to their houses.

Despite a few losses, the regime's dominance of the air - they have used L-39 light attack aircraft, MiG-23 fighter-bombers, Sukhoi-22 fighter-bombers, Mi-25 helicopter gunships and the Mi-8/17 assault helicopters - is having a devastating effect on not only the fighters of the Free Syria Army, but any civilian area suspected of harboring or merely sympathizing with the opposition.

___________

* The brigade is named for Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, was a companion of the prophet Muhammad and important figure in early Islamic history. He was at various times governor of al-Basrah and al-Kufah (both in present day Iraq), and was involved in the early Muslim conquests of Persia.

Saudi Arabia - driving and virginity....

Left: Yes to women driving cars - Right: The other opinion

You can't make this stuff up.

According to a report commissioned by the highest religious council in the kingdom ( مجلس الافتاء الأعلى / majlis al-ifta' al-'ala), allowing women to drive in the kingdom would "provoke a surge in prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and divorce."

I have spent too much time in "the magic kingdom," including working closely with the senior Saudi military staff during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, so I might be a bit critical of the Saudis. In fact, I have had numerous conversations with a variety of Saudis on the subject of women driving.

General Schwarzkopf and me in Saudi Arabia

The casual conversations were in addition to having to address the issue officially. Shortly after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, I was deployed to Saudi Arabia to serve as General Norman Schwarzkopf's Arabic language interpreter. I was chosen because I had served as a liaison to the Iraqi armed forces in Baghdad during the last year of the Iran-Iraq War. I was familiar with the Iraqi military and knew many of the senior officers American forces would eventually face on the battlefields of Kuwait and southern Iraq.

While the bulk of American troops and their equipment were arriving in a seemingly never-ending stream of heavy-lift aircraft and ships, there were limited duties for me as General Schwarzkopf's interpreter, so I was assigned liaison duties with the Saudi General Staff. It was frustrating and thankless.

One of the myriad issues that arose during the initial phases of Desert Shield was the issue of American military women driving. At first, the Saudis told us that the women could not drive while in the kingdom. Long (and frustrating) story short, after we explained that many of our transportation units comprised men and women drivers, and without the women, it would be extremely difficult to move the tanks, artillery, supplies, etc. from the ports to the unit garrisons, and later to the battlefields.

After some discussion, the Saudis issued a decree that "American military women while in uniform are not women." Issue solved, but as I said, you can't make this stuff up.

There have been instances when women have attempted to force the issue by driving, or holding rallies. All have met with resistance, failure, and in some cases, arrests and punishments. See my May 2011 article on this and other issues about Saudi women driving, Women driving in Saudi Arabia? I give up.

Now we have the study from prepared at the behest of the senior clerics in the kingdom that concludes that within 10 years of the women being allowed to drive, there will be "no more virgins" in the Saudi Arabia.

One of the so-called professors who authored the study recounted an encounter with a women at a coffee shop in another Arab country. His words: "All the women were looking at me. One made a gesture that made it clear that she was available. This is what happens when women are allowed to drive."

Driving leads to women attempting to pick up men in coffee shops? I don't know what to say - but it gets even better!

The kingdom is currently considering banning women, who must already cover their hair, faces, arms and legs, from allowing their eyes to show through their veils if the eyes are judged to be "too tempting."

Again, you can't make this stuff up. Well, I'm heading for the coffee shop.

Mortar attack on Turkish town - memo to Damascus

Below is a memo I am sending to Syrian President Bashar al-Asad. It concerns an exchange of fire between Syrian and Turkish military forces in a border city just over 250 miles northeast of Damascus.

Location of incident - 250 miles from Damascus

Mortar rounds fired by members of the Syrian army from Tal Abyad struck the Turkish city of Akcakale, killing five civilians and wounding at least ten others. You can view these two cities at these coordinates: Akcakale 36 42 50N 38 57 00E, and Tal Abyad at 36 41 52N 38 57 10E.

Akcakale, Turkey (above) and Tal Abyad, Syria (below)

Akcakale is located on the Turkish-Syrian border and is a busy transit station for goods moving between the two countries, and in transit through the two countries.

Akcakale, Turkey (top) - Tal Abyad, Syria (bottom) border station

In response, Turkish artillery batteries fired rounds on Syrian targets south of the border. The Turkish military spokesman made it clear that the Turkish artillery employed counter-battery radar to target its rounds in Syria. Counter-battery radar is used to calculate the position of missile, artillery and mortar batteries that have fired towards the radar.

The Turks have called for a meeting of NATO ambassadors at NATO headquarters in Brussels under Article 4 of the NATO charter which provides for consultations when a member state feels its territorial integrity, political independence or security is under threat. The charter states that an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries.

President al-Asad should really clamp down on his troops in the field. I am not sure why the Syrians would want to attack Akcakale - perhaps the border crossing is suspected of being used to smuggle weapons to the Free Syrian Army. Tal Abyad, the town from where the mortar attacks originated, is home to the Syrian military security training center. The military security force is loyal to the al-Asad regime.

In light of events, I believe it only fair to provide some free advice to the Syrian president.

memorandum

DATE: 3 October 2012

FROM: Rick Francona

SUJECT: Syrian Armed Forces Shelling of Turkish Border City

TO: President Bashar al-Asad, Syrian Arab Republic

Mr. President / سيادة الرئيس بشار الأسد

In case your advisors have not informed you, Syrian army units fired mortar rounds from Tal Abyad into Akcakale, Turkey. Given that the incident venue is over 250 miles from Damascus, and you likely have your hands full killing your own population throughout the country, it may not have risen to the level of interrupting your destruction of UNESCO World Heritage sites in Aleppo.

However, ignoring this incident would be the height of folly. While your armed forces may be capable of maintaining an edge in in the fighting over the ill-trained and poorly equipped Free Syrian Army, they are by no measure a match for the better-trained and equipped Turkish armed forces. Do not think that the downing of an unarmed Turkish RF-4 reconnaissance jet in possibly international airspace reflects the comparative capabilities of the Turkish and Syrian military forces.

You may also be aware that Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). While it is doubtful that NATO will respond with force to this provocation, it is technically provided for in NATO's charter.

Mr. President, you are playing with fire. You have enough on your plate right now without taking on the much superior Turkish armed forces, and certainly do not need to invite NATO to destroy much of your military infrastructure.

Up until now, NATO has remained wary of your actions but has not contemplated intervention. Keep attacking NATO members and that situation may change. Please do not make the mistake of other nations and underestimate the military capabilities of the members of the alliance. They have taken apart much more capable air defenses than those of the Syrian armed forces.

Mr. President, we met once in Damascus, right after the unfortunate death of your brother Basil. You seemed like a pretty intelligent man, but given your actions over the last 20 months, I am beginning to change that assessment.

Rick Francona
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Air Force (Retired)
Former Air Attache to the U.S. Embassy in Damascus

Destruction of a World Heritage site in Aleppo

The fighting in Aleppo is destroying irreplaceable world heritage sites in Syria. This video was taken in the old city of Aleppo in the al-Saba' Bahrat (Seven Fountains) neighborhood of the city. The fountains (visible on imagery at 36° 12′ 7″ N, 37° 9′ 21″ E) are adjacent to the ancient souk that has suffered major damage in the past week.

Estimates of destroyed shops in the souk range from 700 to 1000. The entire area is listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site - much of it is now gone.

Here is a gist of the narration (my translation):

September 30, 2012 - Mortar rounds have caused great destruction and many fires in the al-Saba' Bahrat neighborhood. Asad and his soldiers are burning the city. His regime, his tanks, his troops are systematically undertaking an operation to burn the entire city. Oh my God.

This type of damage is probably inevitable in a civil war like what we have now in Syria. As many as 27,000 people have been killed. Both sides are determined to win at any cost, regardless of the damage done to some of the world's historic treasures.

A few weeks ago, there were reports of army artillery batteries shelling the Qala'at al-Husn (also called the Crac des Chevaliers) - the 12th Century Crusader fortress west of the trouble city of Homs - the fortress is arguably the best preserved medieval castle in the world.

The situation in Aleppo will likely get worse before there is a resolution to the crisis. Since there seems to be no interest in the West in any action other than words denouncing the regime of Bashar al-Asad, the killing and destruction will continue.

The rebels must win in Aleppo if they are to continue the fight. The regime has surrounded the city and is attempting to starve the rebels out. Given the superior firepower of the Syrian Army and the complete dominance of the sky - the Syrian Air Force has been fairly effective in spreading fear and destruction - it may be only a matter of time until the revolution in Aleppo is crushed.

If Bashar al-Asad survives this revolution, it will likely by another generation or more before people again take up arms against the government in Damascus.

Obama and his military strategies

US Soldier in Afghanistan (US Army photo)

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

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

Iraq

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

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

Libya

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

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

Afghanistan

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

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

Syria

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

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

Benghazi - spontaneous demonstration or planned attack

The Administration's definition of a spontaneous demonstration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Ambassador to Libya killed - the response?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Embassy attacked in Cairo - the blame game

Islamist protesters at U.S. Embassy in Cairo - note jihadi flag

On September 11, 2012, the 11th anniversary of the al-Qa'idah attacks on the United States, hundreds of Islamist protesters scaled the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, tore down the American flag and replaced it with the black flag bearing the shahada' - "There is no God but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God." The flag is normally associated with al-Qa'idah and other jihadist groups.

The protesters scrawled profane graffiti in Arabic and English on the wall surrounding the embassy compound and demanded that the U.S. ambassador to Egypt be expelled from the country. Egyptian police surrounded the area, but did not stop the protesters from their actions.

The demonstrations and attack were purportedly in response to a movie being made by an American that criticizes Muhammad as a fraud. As we have seen with other unfavorable depictions of Muhammad, such as the Danish cartoon issue a few years ago, ultra-conservative Muslims react with death threats and violence. I have never understood how a religion whose adherents describe as one of peace, love and tolerance can be so violent, hateful and intolerant.

Having been assigned to several of our embassies in the Middle East, I am sensitive to these attacks. I am not only sensitive to this particular attack, I am outraged. Egypt is one of the largest recipients of American foreign aid, having received approximately $17 billion dollars just since 2001. Egypt is second only to Israel in the amount of American aid; the two countries account for fully one-third of all U.S. foreign assistance.

In response to what could have been a deadly situation in Cairo, the embassy issued a statement that is so off target that it rises to the level of insulting the freedoms that define us as a country.

Here it is in its entirety:

QUOTE: "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others." UNQUOTE

That's it? If I understand this, the U.S. embassy condemns an American citizen for exercising his right of free speech in his own country while saying nothing about an attack on sovereign American territory (the embassy), desecration of the flag, disgusting graffiti on the walls and demands that the ambassador leave Egypt. This is reminiscent of the non-response to the takeover of the U.S. embassy in Iran in 1979.

I am surprised, embarrassed and disappointed. The U.S. ambassador to Egypt, Anne Woods is a career Foreign Service officer with a reasonable amount of experience in the Middle East. It is inexcusable to not address and condemn the attack on the embassy.

I am sure the response was coordinated with the State Department in Washington. I ask Secretary Clinton - what say you? Who is to blame? An American citizen exercising his rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, or a group of marauding intolerant hateful Islamists? Still plan to send that $1.5 billion dollars to Egypt?

Syrian civil war - and the children

This is an internet video that someone sent me for my interpretation of what is going on - a child in some sort of cape standing in front of the flag used by the Syrian opposition, wearing a headband of that same flag, obviously being coached by a man (I assume it is her father, uncle or another relative).

When I saw the opening, I thought, cute little girl, sweet voice (my translations):

"I am 'Amurah from Syria."

She continued (with coaching for each phrase):

"I am sending a special greeting to the revolutionaries in Dayr Az-Zawr, the revolutionaries in Homs, the revolutionaries in Idlib as they face death, and Dayr Az-Zawr as they face death."

Okay, maybe a bit much to have a child send greetings to revolutionaries.

Then:

"By God, leave, Bashar! Leave, Bashar!"

No real problem with that, but I think she's a bit young to be indoctrinated with this political rhetoric.

Then I think it crosses a line:

"The people want the execution of al-Asad."

It ends with the chant:

"Syria - freedom! Syria - freedom! Syria - freedom!"

The sign around her neck is a bit blurry in the video, but I think it reads, "Youth of the Syrian Revolution - to Victory of the Syrian Revolution."

The flag is not the official flag of Syria. This flag was the official flag of the Syrian Republic (as opposed to today's Syrian Arab Republic) from 1930 to 1958, when it was changed to the current flag to reflect the brief union with Egypt. The opposition refers to this flag as 'alm al-istiqlal, the Independence Flag.

I was struck by this video. I support the Syrian opposition. That said, my youngest granddaughter Alexa is about 'Amurah's age - Alexa is not touched by civil war. Too often, we forget the psychological stresses and impacts on the children in these crisis areas. Much the same, I guess, as on the children in the Israeli town of Sderot who live with rocket attacks virtually every day. (See my article, Sderot, Israel - "Rocket City" opens new school.)

Something to think about.