The battle after the Battle for Damascus

Demonstration in Aleppo, Syria

I have recently written two articles, The Coming Battle for Damascus, and a follow-on piece, The Coming Battle for Damascus - Addendum. There will be a Battle for Damascus, and I predict when it is all over, the Syrian people will have overthrown the dictatorial party that has ruled the country for five decades. That is a good thing, but that victory will lead to the second battle for Syria, the "Battle after Damascus."

In the beginning of the Syrian revolution, which has just entered its third year, the various grass-roots opposition groups united under the banner of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). The FSA was a loose amalgam of local groups across the country. It was not long before military officers who had defected to the FSA, bringing with them military organizational skills, began to coordinate the disparate operations and begin to bring a quasi-military structure to the group, forming battalions, then brigades. Just this last week, we saw the creation of the FSA's First Infantry Division in the Damascus Countryside governorate.

Not long after the creation of the FSA, foreign fighters began to join the fight, and some elements of the loosely organized FSA began to appear more Islamist. Watching the hours of videos posted to sites like YouTube and LiveLeak, I noticed the clips showed increasing instances of Islamist chants and the appearance of the black Islamist flag normally associated with al-Qa'idah and its affiliates.

It came as no surprise when the Jabhat al-Nusra (Victory Front) declared its affiliation with al-Qaidah, followed by the joint declaration of the Front and the Islamic State of Iraq (also known as al-Qa'idah in Iraq) that they had formed a joint organization called The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

Why has the FSA decided to cooperate with the Islamists? Simple - they offered capable assistance and support while the West, including the United States, sat on the sidelines, or offered "non-lethal" aid. I watch hours of Syrian opposition videos everyday - the term ghayr qatali (non-lethal) has become a joke among the Syrian fighters.

Do the more secular Syrians who make up the bulk of the FSA want an Islamic state in Syria after the fall of the Bashad al-Asad regime? Probably not, but right now is not the time for that battle. The secularists and Islamists are locked into an uneasy alliance based on a common enemy - they have decided that they will cooperate for now, knowing full well that there will be a major ideological clash in the future. There will be a fight over the future structure of the follow-on government of Syria. That battle will follow the coming battle for Damascus - the future of Syria will be decided in the streets of Damascus.

The FSA is aware that they may have mortgaged a piece of their future to the Islamists. Many of their supporters are not happy about it and have expressed their displeasure with the FSA leadership. The Christians - Arab, Assyrian and Armenian - are wary of supporting the FSA, but many have thrown in with the FSA. Most of the Kurds have reluctantly gone along as well.

However, there are secularists who are taking a hard line against the Islamists. The picture above of a group of women holding a sign the northern city of Aleppo illustrates the point. For my fellow Arabic linguists, the language is a bit awkward - it is a poem and it must rhyme.

The sign reads:

"Oh, what a pity for the Al-Qa'idah [men]
The [FSA] men are in jail and the Muslim women are free
And to trample their dignity would make them (the al-Qa'idah) despicable."

There is no illusion among the secularists that there is not another fight ahead of them. It too will not be an easy struggle.

Iraq "inspects" Iranian cargo aircraft heading for Syria - color me skeptical

There is widespread reporting about Iraq's third inspection of Iranian cargo aircraft bound for Damascus in just the past three days. This particular flight was a Mahan Air Boeing 747, similar to the one pictured above.

These "inspections" are in response to the recent visit of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to Baghdad. On March 24, Kerry met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and almost demanded that Iraq stop Iran from shipping arms to Syria through Iraqi airspace. "Anything that supports President Assad is problematic,” Mr. Kerry said, adding that the Iranian flights were "sustaining the government of Syrian president Bashar al-Asad."

If it were not such a serious issue, Kerry's naivete would be humorous. A virtual neophyte in Middle East matters, Kerry presumes to explain regional politics to the prime minister of Iraq. Specifically, he tells pro-Iranian Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki - known in Iraq derisively as "Nuri the Iranian" - that allowing Iranian flights to transport weapons, supplies and personnel to Iraq is supporting the pro-Iranian regime of Bashar al-Asad.

Do we see a theme here? Iran, al-Maliki and Bashar al-Asad are on the same side. Why does Kerry not seem to know that?

Again, a neophyte in things Middle Eastern, Kerry probably believes the Iraqi accounts of what has happened this week. Three Iranian flights have been asked to land while transiting Iraqi airspace for inspection to ensure weapons are not among the cargo. In all three instances, Iraqi officials have found only "humanitarian goods" on the planes. True to form, the Iranian government has called the inspections “unacceptable," and vowed to continue its "relief operations" in Syria despite the inspections.

Mr. Secretary, surely you must know this is theater for your benefit. The Shi'a-dominated government of Nuri al-Maliki is in the pocket of the Iranians - al-Maliki takes his orders from Tehran. Iran is the Syrian regime's primary supporter - the two countries have had close relations since Syria supported Iran in its eight year war with Iraq in the 1980s.

The Syrian and Iraqi leaders have grown closer since the premature departure of American forces in 2011, completing what one could call a "Shi'a crescent" running from Damascus through Baghdad to Tehran. You can thank your President for that....

There are two scenarios that may be in play here. The Iranians may have told the Iraqis which planes are not carrying weapons and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fighters, and the Iraqis are selecting these for inspection. Alternatively, the planes are carrying weapons and the Iraqis have been told to look the other way. Either is possible, although I suspect it is the former.

I also question the use of Mahan Air for resupply to the Syrians. In the past, they have used Iranian air force Boeing 747 cargo freighters, just as they have for decades. If you honestly believe that your admonition to Nuri al-Maliki has stemmed the flow of weapons from Iran to Syria via Iraq, you really are naive.

The Coming Battle for Damascus - Addendum

Note: This is an addendum to my article of one month ago, The Coming Battle for Damascus.

Al-Tadamun section of south Damascus

The Syrian rebels - an amalgam of the the loosely-organized mostly Sunni Muslim Free Syrian Army and a few Islamist groups, notably the Jabhat al-Nusrah, have made significant advances against the armed forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Asad.

The rebels have been effective enough to seriously alter the military operations and planning of the Syrian government. Over the last month, the opposition has been able to down a number of armed assault helicopters as well as fighter-bomber aircraft using what I believe to be Chinese-manufactured shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles. Additionally, they have been able to take over a number of cities in the north of the country, some in the oil-rich northeast governorates.

At the same time, the rebels gathering around Damascus, despite being pounded around the clock by artillery, rockets and air attacks, have been able to push to within about a mile of al-'Abasiyin Square, considered to be a key target for the rebels. I believe that Bashar al-Asad has realized that the battle for Damascus is about to begin in earnest.

The Syrian general staff has made some alarming decisions to address the military situation. To understand the significance of these military moves, perhaps a quick look at Syrian defense strategy will be illustrative. The "normal" (pre-revolution) deployment of Syrian forces were to provide defense against what Syria considered its primary threat - Israel. Four divisions - the 1st Armor, 5th Armor, 7th Mechanized and 9th Armor were arrayed south of Damascus from the Lebanese border on the west, across the foothills of the Golan Heights to the Jordanian border in the east.

To protect the regime, there were two divisions stationed in the southern and western suburbs of Damascus whose primary mission was regime protection - the 4th Armor Division and the division-equivalent Republican Guard. These two units were officered almost solely by members of Bashar's 'Alawi sect.

As events unfolded this week, the Syrian general staff ordered the main combat units of the four divisions in the south to redeploy to defense positions in and around the capital city. In almost 40 years of watching the Syrian military, I have never seen these military units allowed into downtown Damascus. This leaves the borders with Israel, and to some extent Jordan, virtually unprotected. I believe the Syrian regime has determined that there is much less of a threat from either of these neighboring countries than the internal threat from the Free Syrian Army and the Islamists.

For President Bashar al-Asad to move these forces into Damascus indicates the level of concern over the gravity of the situation and the realization that his worst nightmare is about to commence - the bloody street battles that will determine the fate of Syria.

Bashar is also concerned for his minority 'Alawi sect, centered in northwest Syria near the Latakia coast. He has ordered additional army units to that area to protect this group from what might easily become a bloodbath of retribution for years of oppression. Deploying forces to this area lessens the number of forces to address the burgeoning revolution in the north and northeast - Aleppo, al-Raqqah, Dayr al-Zawr and al-Hasakah governorates. That area now has basically one armor division to quell the violence - it is not working. Bashar has likely made the calculation to cede this area to the rebels and concentrate on the defense of the 'Alawi homeland and the city of Damascus.

Things are happening quickly in the Levant. Syria is basically up for grabs. How far is Bashar and the regime prepared to go to remain in power? Would they rather see the country destroyed and have a chance at remaining in power, or will they opt for some way to prevent further bloodshed in return for a way out? I am guessing the former - it is going to get ugly.

Obama's visit to Israel - will this be Pollard's last chance?

Convicted spy Jonathan Pollard

President Barack Obama will make his first visit as president to Israel in March, assuming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can form a coalition to govern the country. According to the Israeli media, Israeli President Shimon Peres will make yet another request for the release of admitted and convicted spy Jonathan Pollard "on humanitarian grounds."

Pollard, a U.S. Navy intelligence analyst, was convicted in 1987 of espionage against the United States on behalf of Israel. He was sentenced - as he should have been - to life in prison, but because of laws in existence at the time, he will be eligible for parole and may be released on November 21, 2015.

Almost a year ago, Shimon Peres made the same request. Prior to a trip during which he was awarded America's highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Israeli president requested that President Obama release the convicted traitor. I wrote about that request - and the correct response, a refusal, from Mr. Obama. See Obama, Peres and Pollard - any "flexibility?"

Shimon Peres is an honorable man who has served his country in a continuous series of military, political and diplomatic positions that mirror the creation and development of the Jewish state. To have this icon of Israeli history grovel for the release of a traitor should be embarrassing for the people of Israel. A paragon of honor asking for the release of a spy - not exactly the legacy he would want. It is hard to believe the government of Israel wants one of its most respected citizens to compromise his standards to be associated with the ilk that is Jonathan Pollard.

Israeli requests for Pollard's release are nothing new. I am conflicted by the Israelis' continuous requests to excuse Pollard's treason. The intelligence officer in me respects the Israelis' desire to stand by a recruited spy who worked for them, while the American military officer in me would have supported the death penalty against a traitor whose perfidy may have led to the deaths of people who we, American intelligence, had recruited to work for us. It is a haunting duality. Do the Israelis really want to insult the only real ally they have?

What has changed in less than a year? For one, President Obama has been re-elected, and as such, may have what he believes is more "flexibility." He pointed this out to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev when discussing America's European-based missile defense system, that he will have more "flexibility" after the 2012 election.

What does this mean for Jonathan Pollard? President Obama's self-ascribed flexibility might just be the key to Pollard's early release. It is no secret that Barack Obama is not highly regarded in Israel - no wonder, he has done very little to engender confidence that his declared support for the Jewish state is genuine.

A decision by President Obama to pardon Jonathan Pollard might be the one gesture that would endear him to the Israeli people. I hope the President does not take this step, in effect placing political expediency above doing the right thing. You may take from that phrase that I believe Jonathan Pollard should rot in that jail cell - he did the crime, he is doing the time.

A presidential pardon for Jonathan Pollard would be an insult to those of us who have conducted intelligence operations on behalf of our country. That said, I am not confident that this president is above playing politics at the expense of propriety.

To my Israeli friends: I know we disagree vehemently on this issue. I will not change my mind, nor will I get involved in a drawn-out discussion when we are unlikely to resolve our differences. This is my view - you are free to voice your own. I just will not respond.

A man left behind - "Zero Dark Thirty" and the Pakistani doctor

Last year, I wrote an article (repeated below) about the inexcusable actions of this Administration by leaving a man behind during the operation that resulted in the death of al-Qa'idah leader Usamah bin Ladin. No, we did not leave a Navy SEAL behind, but an intelligence asset that was key to the success of the operation - Pakistani physician Dr. Shakil Afridi.

After the recent Academy Awards show, the cast of the movie Zero Dark Thirty publicly called for the doctor's release. They need to direct that call to the President and the Administration which left this man behind. It will take action at that level to put enough pressure on the Pakistani government to release Dr. Afridi. Failure to do so will prolong one of the most shameful actions of this Administration.

Oh, and I do realize that no one in the military says "zero dark thirty." It is, and always has been, "oh dark thirty."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breaking faith: the CIA and the Pakistani doctor

Pakistani television reporting of 33-year sentence for Dr. Shakil Afridi

It is inexcusable. It is the first and most important lesson case officers are taught at "The Farm"* - you have a moral and professional responsibility to safeguard the security of an asset. Security is the key part of any successful operation - it is the first and last thing you cover with your asset each and every time you meet or communicate. No security means no operation at best, a dead or imprisoned asset at worst.

Somewhere in the operation that led to the killing of al-Qa'idah leader Usamah bin Ladin, someone forgot that most basic of concepts. A CIA asset, Pakistani physician Shakil Afridi, has just been sentenced by a Pakistani court to more than 33 years in prison for "conspiring against the state." His crime? Working with American intelligence against bin Ladin. Our crime? Allowing him to get caught.

How did this happen? Why was he allowed to remain in Pakistan after the operation? Was there no plan to extract him and his family immediately after the raid? This is basic Agency tradecraft, but in this case, the basics seem to have been ignored.

That said, the use of a local physician to collect DNA samples of residents in the area of Abbottabad under the guise of a vaccination program to verify the presence of bin Ladin was brilliant. It will be a teaching point at The Farm for years to come - as it should be. The case officer who came up with this method was thinking outside the box.

Unfortunately, somewhere up the chain of command, someone dropped the ball on ensuring the safety of the asset. Was Dr. Afridi considered a throwaway? A local source to be sacrificed for the greater good, a small pawn in the larger game of taking down Usamah bin Ladin? If so, this is not the same CIA that I knew. If this is how we treat our assets, why would any potential asset ever agree to work with or for American intelligence agencies again?

What makes this case ever more egregious is that it appears senior Administration officials did not even attempt to protect the doctor's identity. From the press reporting and the Administration spin, I cannot tell how the Pakistanis learned of Dr. Afridi's involvement, but what has come out is troubling.

There were Pakistani press reports, what they call the results of their own investigation - more likely a feed from the Pakistani intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate. Plausible, since the ISI can be an effective internal security service.

However, here is where it gets disturbing. Two senior Administration officials made statements to the press about the doctor's identity and the role he played in vetting information that bin Ladin was in Abbottabad.

First was Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. Panetta was the CIA director at the time of the bin Laden raid. In January of this year, he appeared on CBS' "60 Minutes" and said, "I'm very concerned about what the Pakistanis did with this individual. This was an individual who, in fact, helped provide intelligence ... that was very helpful with regards to this operation. And he was not in any way treasonous toward Pakistan. He was not in any way doing anything that would have undermined Pakistan."

The second official was described as "a senior U.S. official with knowledge of counterterror operations against al-Qa'idah in Pakistan." This official stated, "The doctor was never asked to spy on Pakistan. He was asked only to help locate al-Qa'idah terrorists who threaten Pakistan and the United States. He helped save Pakistani and American lives. His activities were not treasonous, they were heroic and patriotic."

Given the tone and tenor of the statement, I assess that the "senior U.S. official" was none other than White House terrorism advisor John Brennan - it sounds just like him. Either John never attended the tradecraft course at The Farm (Brennan was a reports officer, not a case officer) or he missed the lecture on protecting your intelligence assets. You NEVER reveal the identities, access and most critically, the names of your intelligence assets. Never. The Farm - Rule Number One.

Now what?

Unfortunately, this colossal blunder does not leave the United States with many options to secure Dr. Afridi's release. First, let's disabuse ourselves of the notion that Pakistan is an ally. At best, they are a useful adversary and at worst complicit in the deaths of American troops in Afghanistan. The ISI was embarrassed by the raid and the fact that we have exposed them as either incompetents or complicit liars. I have worked peripherally with the ISI - they are not the former, so I have to go with the latter.

What would I do? I would not have missed the opportunity last week to address Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari while he attended the NATO summit in Chicago on Afghanistan. Rather than snub him as President Obama did, I would have had a private "come to Muhammad" meeting with the president and explained that unless the doctor was pardoned or released via whatever face-saving mechanism Zardari could work out, the relationship between the United States and Pakistan would undergo drastic changes.

First, the American ambassador in Islamabad would be recalled and our diplomatic presence downgraded to the chargé d'affairs level. Then all American financial aid (not the symbolic $33 million cut voted on by the Senate), military parts and supplies for Pakistan's American-built equipment and any military training assistance would be halted. Drone attacks would continue from American bases in Afghanistan, this time without Pakistani coordination. All Pakistani military officers attending courses in the United States would be returned to Pakistan, as would most of the Pakistani embassy staff. None of that would change until Dr. Afridi and family arrive in the United States.

Instead, the State Department tells us that "we have regularly taken up this matter with Pakistan" and will "continue to go forward." Forward? The man, an intelligence asset of the United States intelligence community was just sentenced to 33 years in prison, a virtual death sentence. Absolute drivel. Amateur hour.

Do something. Do it now.
___________

* "The Farm" is the CIA training facility "believed to be located at Camp Peary on the outskirts of Williamsburg, Virginia." Since I was trained at the facility, I can neither confirm nor deny that it is there....

Syria: Attempting to Neutralize the Air Force

Syrian Air Force MiG-23BN dropping two FAB-250 bombs

Throughout the two-year revolution in Syria, the Syrian Air Force has enjoyed dominance of the airspace - and used it relentlessly against the rebels. The regime has used general purpose bombs, white phosphorous incendiary cluster bombs, anti-tank cluster munitions, rockets and home-made "barrel bombs" against its own people. (See my article, The Syrian "barrel bomb" - a terror weapon).

For months, the Syrian rebels called out to the world, the West and NATO to impose a no fly zone over the country to prevent the massive destruction of the country, not to mention deaths and injuries. Although they have been able to down many of the regime's Mi-8/17 (NATO: HIP) assault helicopters and a few L-39 trainer/light attack fighters and MiG-23 (NATO: FLOGGER) fighter-bombers, the fixed wing aircraft operate virtually at will.

There have been a few instances in which the rebels have used captured shoulder-launched missiles to hit the higher-flying fighters - on February 17, 2013, they were able to down one of the air force's fighter-bombers.

Syrian Air Force fighter bomber downed over central Syria

One of the tactics I have encouraged is to attack the air bases from which the Syrian Air Force aircraft operate. See my earlier article, Note to the Syrian opposition - take the airbases! Either they are reading my articles (joking), or they have figured this out on their own (more likely).

Syrian air bases

Of the air bases shown on the map, some have already been seized by the rebels, others are under pressure and will likely fall soon, some are not in service, and a few are key to continued Syrian Air Force operations.

Thus far, the rebels have taken Marj al-Sultan, just outside Damascus, Abu al-Duhur, north of Hamah, Afis (Taftanaz), south of Aleppo, and Jirah, east of Aleppo. Marj al-Sultan was an Mi-8/17 assault helicopter base and a command and control center. Afis was used to launch Mi-8/17 and Mi-25 (NATO: HIND) gunship attacks, Abu al-Duhur was used to launch MiG-23 attacks, and Jirah was used to launch L-39 attacks.

The rebels are in the process of attacking the training bases at Minakh, Rasm al-'Abud, both near Aleppo, and the military ramp at Aleppo international airport. Minakh is a small training base, but the other two bases have been used to launch L-39 and MiG-23 sorties against the opposition. The rebels have also surrounded and are attacking Dayr al-Zawr in the east, and are conducting harassing attacks on the military ramp at Damascus International Airport. The attacks on the two international airports have severely restricted flights into Syria.

Of the remaining airbases, al-Nasiriyah, north of Damascus, is used to launch Scud missiles against opposition targets in the Aleppo area. Marj Ruhayil, just south of Damascus International Airport, is now used for Mi-25 gunship operations. Khalkhalah, a bit further south, houses MiG-21 (NATO: FISHBED) fighters, but they appear infrequently in the fight. Al-Suwayda' (al-Tha'alah) in the south, does not appear to be in use at this time.

Sayqal, east of Damascus, is home to the air force's premier air-to-air fighter, the MiG-29 (NATO: FULCRUM), which, given the nature of the fighting, has not been needed. Al-Qusayr, in the west on the Lebanese border, appears to be abandoned. The air base at al-Tabaqah, near the Euphrates Dam, does not appear to be used in the fighting. The international airport at Latakia, on the Mediterranean in northwest Syria, is home to the anti-submarine warfare helicopters and is not in the fight.

The most important bases remaining in service are located between Damascus and Hamah - al-Dumayr, Shayrat (Daghdaghan) and Tiyas. Al-Dumayr is home to a MiG-23 squadron and a Su-22 (NATO: FITTER C) squadron. Both squadrons have been used extensively in operations in the Damascus area. Shayrat is home to two squadrons of Su-22 fighter bombers, used heavily in operations against the rebels in the central Syrian governorates of Homs, Hamah and Idlib. Tiyas is home to the Syrian Air Force's two Su-24 (NATO: FENCER) squadrons. These fighter bombers have also been used in the central Syrian governorates. All three of these bases are easily defended and present a real challenge to the opposition. At this point, I do not assess the rebels as capable of shutting down these three major air bases.

The air base at Hamah has become a major logistics base for regime operations in the central governorates. IL-76 (NATO: CANDID) transport aircraft of both the Syrian Air Force (they have four) and the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force routinely deliver troops and materiel to the base, and transport high-value detainees to the intelligence and security services in Damascus.

Of the remaining bases in the Damascus area, 'Aqrabah is a small helipad in a congested and contested area - I have to assume the Syrians have moved the Mi-8/17 helicopters to the air base in the south Damascus suburb of al-Mizzih. Al-Mizzih will be important in the upcoming battle for Damascus. In addition to the helicopters, it is also used to fire artillery and rockets at rebels in the neighboring towns of Mu'adhamiyah and Daraya. (See my analysis - The Coming Battle for Damascus.)

The rebels will take the military ramp at Aleppo International (called Nayrab air base), Rasm al-'Abud, Dayr al-Zawr and Minakh in the near future. However, they will not be able to take the bases that are mounting the most devastating air strikes on their forces and the cities that support the revolution. They will have to win despite the Syrian Air Force.

The Coming Battle for Damascus

Aleppo

The two-year old civil war in Syria may be reaching a tipping point. Fighting rages across the country in almost all of the major cities and large portions of the countryside. It is hard to determine who is "winning" because it really does not matter. All that matters is who emerges as the victor at the end.

That end will be determined in the streets of the capital - the fighting elsewhere is important, but the fate of the Syrian people will be, as it always has been, in the streets of Damascus. It will be the battle FOR Damascus, not the battle OF Damascus.

The regime of Bashar al-Asad is keenly aware that Damascus is the center of gravity for control of the country. From what I can gather through viewing hundreds of videos posted by the Syrian media and the information offices of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), it appears that the Syrian armed forces have shifted their focus from defeating the FSA and its Islamist allies, to an aggressive defense of Damascus. The two army divisions tasked with protecting the regime from internal threats, the 4th Armor Division and the Republican Guard, have been re-deployed from operations in the south and north of the country to their home garrisons in Damascus.

The 4th Armor Division and the Republican Guard are the best-trained and best-equipped formations in the Syrian Army, and are made up mostly of 'Alawis (the President's Shia' Islam offshoot sect). The senior leadership of these two units reads like a who's who of the 'Alawi families in Syria. Their livelihood depends on the continuation of the al-Asad regime.

By re-deploying the 4th Division and the Republican Guard back to Damascus, President al-Asad has in effect ceded control of the large portions of the north and northeast to the opposition. While there are daily punishing air, artillery and ballistic missile attacks on the cities believed to be supportive of the opposition, the focus of the regime's operations is now to, if possible, prevent an FSA/Islamist assault on the capital, and failing that, to defeat that attack.

The situation is quite clear to anyone who has been following the fighting, as is the strategy of both the regime and the opposition. The combat is vicious and constant. Many of Syria's cities have been reduced to rubble - scenes of huge sections of Aleppo and Homs rival those of Germany's cities in 1945.

The opposition is pushing closer and closer to the city of Damascus itself. It is doing so on three sides (the fourth side is Qasiyun mountain), from the Harasta-Duma area on the northeast, the eastern suburbs known as the East Ghutah, and from the south near al-Mizzih air base and the upscale section of al-Mizzih.

The regime is relentlessly fighting the opposition on all three fronts with virtually every weapon (short of chemicals) in their inventory. There are constant bombardments from rockets, artillery, mortars, supported by armor assaults - all complemented by MiG-23 (NATO: FLOGGER) and Su-22 (NATO: FITTER C) fighter-bombers dropping thermobaric and white phosphorus cluster munitions.

Here is a graphic that illustrates the situation:

The red lines indicate the progress made by the opposition. The blue indicates the operations by the regime to disrupt that progress. In the Mu'adhamiyah and Daraya areas south of al-Mizzih air base, regime tanks conduct daily raids into the two cities. These 4th Division normally assaults (armor and artillery) Mu'adhamiyah since its home garrisons are just west of the city. The Republican Guard normally attacks Daraya in the same manner.

The regime is also trying to maintain control of the road to Damascus International Airport, although the airport has come under opposition rocket attacks. To the area east of the city, the opposition has made good progress, to the point that the regime does not venture much into the area, being content to hammer the entire region with artillery and air power.

The regime seems very concerned about an opposition assault into the 'Abasiyin section of Damascus itself (shown in black). This may be the opposition's best avenue of attack. The rabbit warren-like streets favor small bands of lightly armed fighters, although the regime has shown no reticence in basically flattening the entire area.

As I have said, it comes down to the "last man standing" in Damascus - everything has been leading to this fight. It is not a coincidence in the Syrian dialect of Arabic, the word for Syria (the country) and Damascus (the city) is one and the same.

A message to my readers

On the set of  Spike TV's "Who is the Deadliest Warrior?"

It has been my pleasure to expound, vent, explain, complain, praise, criticize - pick your verb - over the last few years my perpective of what is happening in the Middle East. However, circumstances require that I scale back my writing. I will still write comments when I can or feel that I must, but the tempo will be reduced.

Thanks to you all for your support, and even the occasional hate mail.

Rick Francona

President Obama's new leadership picks and the Middle East

President Barack Obama has made three controversial selections to be part of his leadership team as we begin the last four years of the Obama presidency. These are arguably three of the most important positions in the government and will play a key role in our policies and operations in the Middle East.

The selections are former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry as Secretary of State, and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I will start with Kerry's nomination, then Hagel's and wrap up with Brennan's, in order of severity of the choice.

John Kerry - Secretary of State
Nominally, the Secretary of State is the senior cabinet official and is considered a key player in the formulation of foreign policy. In this Administration, as we have seen with current Secretary Hillary Clinton, the policy is made at the White House and simply executed by the State Department. That must be the explanation for the abysmal state of relations with virtually every nation in the Middle East, be they Arab, Israeli, Iranian and possibly even Turkish.

From the moment the Obama Administration took office in January 2009, our policies in the Middle East have done nothing but make a bad situation worse. It began with the disastrous "reset" button embarrassing misstep with the Russian Foreign Minister and went downhill from there.

Although there are many in the media who believe John Kerry has vast foreign policy experience, he is generally regarded as a lightweight by both American and foreign policy analysts. That said, it really will make no difference. President Obama will continue his flawed policies in the region; John Kerry will merely be the well-dressed and polished mouthpiece.

For my assessment of President Obama's Middle East policies during his first four years, see my earlier article, Obama and the Middle East - the first four years.

Chuck Hagel - Secretary of Defense
The nomination of Chuck Hagel to be the Secretary of Defense is more problematic; the Defense Secretary is in the chain of command for the execution of military operations. Many people are not aware of the chain of command - it runs from the President as Commander in Chief to the Secretary of Defense, to the combatant commander, which in the case of the Middle East, is commander of the U.S. Central Command, currently U.S. Marine Corps General General James Mattis. Note the absence of the Vice President and the Joint Chiefs of Staff from the chain of command.

Many are touting Hagel's selection as a reach across the aisle, choosing a Republican to serve a Democratic president. Given Hagel's voting record, his consistent endorsement of Democratic candidates, a weak record of support for Israel and lack of resolve on Iran, he is hardly an across-the-aisle pick. Hagel's support of downsizing what he calls a "bloated" Department of Defense is troubling as threats in the region are increasing, not decreasing. Hagel may be a smart guy, but he is a neophyte - just like his future boss - in the Middle East.

That said, orders for military operations originate at the White House, for better or worse. It is no secret that I think this Administration is clueless on effective military operations. Again, see the article I mentioned above.

I assume that the Senate will not violate the professional courtesy afforded to fellow Senators and that both Hagel and Kerry will be confirmed. Again, they will only carry out the ill-advised policies of the President.

John Brennan - Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
Here is where I have a real problem with these selections. The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, while nominally subordinate to the Director of National Intelligence, is the President's spymaster and covert operations chief. The Director can cause real damage and should possess mature judgement. Thus far, I have not seen that from John Brennan - in fact, I think the opposite is true.

Supporters will claim that Brennan's years as an analyst and one tour as a chief of station in a declared position - meaning he was known to the host country as a CIA officer - qualify him for the position. Normally, that would be a positive, but Brennan's public faux pas make me think twice.

There has been a lot of media research into some of Brennan's nonsensical positions. I myself wrote an article in May 2010, Brennan wants to "build up moderate elements" of Hizballah? Some excerpted points I made then:

John Brennan proposes that the United States "build up moderate elements" within Hizballah. Yes, Hizballah, the same Iranian-created and backed Lebanese jihadist militia designated by the U.S. State Department as a foreign terrorist organization, the same Hizballah responsible for the murders of 241 U.S. Marines in Beriut in 1983. The list of Hizballah attacks is long and lethal. Yet, Brennan hopes to "diminish the influence of hard-liners" in the organization. John - they're all hardliners - that's why they are members of Hizballah.

Why does this guy still have a job? This proposal comes on the heels of Brennan's ridiculous media appearance in which he described our counterterrorism efforts as "we're not lucky, we're good" in the aftermath of the failure of a bomb to detonate in New York City's Times Square. A terrorist who was trained in Pakistan constructed a car bomb here, drove it to Times Square and tried to detonate it - the only reason there are not hundreds of dead and maimed Americans is that the bomb failed to properly explode - it has nothing to do with our obviously flawed homeland security system. More on that at Holder and Brennan - the "no-clue two".

Brennan's other misfires are quite well known in intelligence circles. Here are some examples:

- April, 2008: Brennan tells the New York Times that a government official must stop "Iran-bashing." If confirmed as the CIA Director, Iran will be one of the top targets for both espionage and covert action. The Iranians are bent on acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and are the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Don't want to speak ill of the one of the most dangerous regime's on the planet, John?

- February, 2010: Brennan defends the Obama Administration's decision to treat the so-called "underwear bomber" 'Umar Faruq 'Abd al-Mutalab as a criminal rather than a terrorist. This guy should be in an orange jumpsuit at Guantanamo, not lawyered up in a federal jail. He went so far as to accuse critics of the decision as "serving the goals of al-Qa'idah." John, that's almost as preposterous as it is insulting.

- September, 2010: a known Hamas operative was given an escorted tour of the National Counterterrorism Center. This could not have happened without Brennan's approval. I am sure all of you know that Hamas is a terrorist organization, but the proposed Director of the CIA does not care?

- May, 2012: After the U.S. and allied intelligence services penetrate an al-Qa'idah cell and disrupt an attack on the United States, Brennan is responsible for a leak about the operation that basically sells out an intelligence asset and ends our access to critical intelligence, all for some good publicity for the Obama White House. This sets a bad precedent for protecting our intelligence sources in any case, but from the future director of the CIA?

There's more. He supports trying Guantanamo detainees in federal court, and had a role in the release of Pan Am 103 killer 'Abd al-Basit al-Maghrahi, to name a few.

We've had some lousy CIA directors in the past, but confirming John Brennan to the post would cross new thresholds of irresponsibility.

My bottom line: I am not happy about any of these nominations. I can live with Kerry and Hagel because they are merely executing (bad) policies from the White House. I fear for our intelligence community if John Brennan is allowed to do even more damage that he already has.

Obama and the Middle East - the first four years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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