Memorial Day 2014

Note: I wrote this in 2007 while a military analyst at NBC News. The situation has changed a bit, but I think the sentiment still is true today.

'On behalf of a grateful nation'
Do not forget our fallen men and women

COMMENTARY
By Lt. Col. Rick Francona, U.S. Air Force (Retired)
Military analyst - MSNBC

Lt. Gen. Ed Soriano, left, presents Jessica Hebert, sister of Spc. Justin Hebert who was killed in Kirkuk, Iraq, with an American flag during his military funeral (AP Photo/The Herald, Meggan Booker). Ed and I served together in Desert Storm - this must have been his toughest duty.

Memorial Day weekend – most people associate that with the start of the "summer driving season" or a chance to buy appliances on sale. The constant news coverage of still high gasoline prices tends to overshadow the real meaning of the holiday. It is not about driving or shopping – it is about remembering the men and women or our armed forces who died while in service to the country. It is important that we not forget that – after more than a decade, we are still at war and we still lose some our finest young men and women every week.

Yes, we are still at war. No one knows this more than the families of those who have fallen on battlefields far from home with names most of us cannot pronounce. Unlike most of the wars America has fought in the past, we are fighting with an all volunteer force – there has been no draft since 1973. Every one of the fallen volunteered to serve this country, and deserve a moment of remembrance. Less than one-half of one percent of Americans serve in uniform (in World War II, it was over 12 percent) at any one time.

In the draft era, a much higher percent of the population entered the service, creating a large pool of veterans. Veterans understand the unique demands of military service, the separation from loved ones, the dangers of combat. With far fewer veterans or a veteran in the family, community and government, it is easy to lose sight of the demands military service requires of our men and women in uniform – and to forget too quickly those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Sometimes one could get the feeling that foreign countries – especially those that have been liberated by American forces in the past – pay more tribute to our fallen troops than we do. I will never forget standing in a church in rural France – not a fancy cathedral, not a tourist spot, nothing architecturally significant, just a small village church. I would not have paid much attention until I spotted a well-maintained corner with a small American flag and a plaque.

I walked over and read the simple but powerful words in French and English, "In gratitude to the United States of America and in remembrance of her 56,681 sons that now and forever sleep in French soil." A elderly parishioner sitting in a pew nearby saw me reading the inscription and asked if I was an American. I said that I was – she slowly rose, nodded at the memorial and said, "You are welcome in France."

Over the years, over a million American troops have died in military service. Each fallen warrior is afforded a military funeral. Military funerals symbolize respect for the fallen and their families. Anyone who has attended a military funeral will never forget it – the American flag draped on the coffin, an honor guard in full dress uniform, the crack of seven rifles firing three volleys as Taps is played on the bugle, the snap of the flag as it is folded into the familiar triangle of blue, the reverence of fellow warriors.

Before his final salute, the officer in charge presents that folded flag to, in most cases, a young widow. He makes that presentation "on behalf of a grateful nation."

At some point on this day, let us make sure that we do not forget our fallen men and women, and that we are in fact a grateful nation.


© 2007 MSNBC Interactive and Rick Francona

Iranian nuclear talks fail - the kabuki dance continues

So why are we talking to these people?

It came as a surprise only to those few in the Obama Administration who are naive enough to believe that Iran is serious about curtailing its nuclear enrichment activities and halting its quest to develop nuclear weapons - the May 16 round of talks in Vienna were at best a failure. Nothing was accomplished, except that the Iranians agreed to, yes, meet again to talk about the talks.

While this kabuki dance continues, the centrifuges in Iran continue to spin unabated. Yet, President Barack Obama, National Security Advisor Susan Rice and Secretary of State John Kerry remain confident that they can convince the Iranians to give up their ambitions to acquire a nuclear weapons capability.

The talks were obviously such a disaster that the negotiators, the EU's Catherine Ashton and Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif, were joined by Secretary Kerry in an effort to salvage something, anything, positive. It does not appear that was successful - in typical Iranian fashion, Iranian deputy foreign minister Abbas Araghchi stated that although "there was no tangible progress in this round of the talks" and the differences between the two sides were too great to begin drafting a final agreement - due by July 20 - the talks would continue next month.

This is what the Iranians do - present an unrealistic, non-negotiable position that is rejected by the P5+1 (the permanent five members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany), and then agree to continue the talks. In case Mr. Kerry does not recognize this tactic, it is called buying time. We wait for the next round of talk, the Iranians continue to enrich uranium. Am I missing something here?

The talks will continue - a day here, a day there. As the July 20 deadline approaches, the two sides will exercise the six-month extension provision that is part of last year's "temporary agreement" to continue to try and reach a final agreement. In that temporary agreement, the West agreed to lift some sanctions on Iran and release some of its assets that had been frozen in the United States. In return for what? Yes, an agreement from the Iranians to talk and to limit its enrichment of uranium to the five percent level.

Unwittingly, Secretary Kerry tacitly granted the Iranians something that up until that time they did not have under their international treaty obligations and at least six UN Security Council resolutions - the right to enrich uranium at all.

The remarks of current and former Obama Administration officials have been interesting.

- Speaking to the American Jewish Committee, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that "no deal is better than a bad deal." Considering the audience, was she supposed to say (truthfully), "We are doing nothing and will worry about an Iranian nuclear weapon after the fact. After all, they are not a threat to us - yet." She also said she was "personally skeptical" that Iran would agree to a comprehensive deal to remove its nuclear weapon capabilities but that the Obama administration faced a promising opportunity that required it to "give diplomacy space to work." Really? Just what is this "promising opportunity?"

- Ambassador Rice, speaking at an Israeli Embassy event reiterated the American commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Again, considering the audience, what else could she say?

- Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, speaking in Israel, stated that United States "will do what we must" to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I don't think the Iranians are frightened by Hagel's thinly-veiled threat of use of military force - they have assessed the Obama Administration as weak and indecisive.

I also don't think the Israelis believe or trust the Obama Administration. The American officials (I originally used the word "leaders," but thought better of it) say all the right words, but they seem desperate to reach some sort of agreement with the Iranians. That would give them at least one foreign policy success after a parade of stunning failures, the last of which was the embarrassing collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks while Secretary Kerry was directly involved.

I hope the Administration remembers Hillary Clinton's words, "no deal is better than a bad deal." So far, this is a bad deal.

Upcoming Syrian Presidential Election - A Prediction

Bashar al-Asad supporters in Damascus

Syrian President Bashar al-Asad, who has been in office since his father's death in 2000, is nearing the end of his second seven-year term. A quick reminder of how Bashar came to be the president will provide some insight into the Syrian electoral process. Bashar, second son of Syrian strongman Hafiz al-Asad, was called back from his ophthalmology studies in the United Kingdom when his older brother Basil was killed in a car accident in 1994. The poster in the above photograph refers to "the eye doctor."

After his return, the tall, introverted physician was groomed to succeed his father, much as Basil before him. That entailed a direct field-grade commission in the army, imaginary graduation from the war college, command positions, etc., most in name only. It was no secret to anyone in the country that Bashar would be the next president of Syria, but that was never mentioned out loud.

Although many Syrians objected to what amounts to a dynasty in the country, they have had no say. Despite the trappings of a republic, Syria is a dictatorship ruled by the Ba'ath Party, a party dominated by the minority Shi'a-offshoot 'Alawi sect and the al-Asad clan. Complaining about the al-Asad family out loud in Syria usually results in the complainer going wara' al-shams (behind the sun, meaning they just disappear).

In 2000, Hafiz al-Asad died, putting Syria into somewhat of a constitutional crisis. The Syrian constitution, regarded by most Syrians as merely hibr 'ala waraq (ink on paper), required that the Syrian president be 40 years of age, and a Muslim. At that time, Bashar was only 34 years old. The Syrian parliament went into emergency session and within one hour changed the Syrian constitution to change the age requirement to 34 years of age. You can't make this stuff up.

A referendum was held, asking the electorate to vote for or against Bashar al-Asad as the new president. With a turnout of 94.6 percent, Bashar was approved with 99.7 percent voting yes. The joke in Damascus at the time: when told of the results and asked what more he could ask for, Bashar replied, "the names of the 0.3 percent...."

Bashar was re-elected to a second term in 2007 with "only" 97.62 percent of the vote, with a 95.86 percent turnout. Although the numbers appear to be a slight decrease in support for Bashar, the internal numbers reveal almost the same impossible numbers. There were only 0.17 percent against Bashar's re-election - the remaining 2.21 percent were declared invalid ballots. It's all a sham.*

Voting in Damascus's fifth election precinct in 2012

In 2012, under pressure from the rebels who were on the verge of overthrowing the al-Asad government, Bashar ordered the drafting of a new constitution, which to no one's surprise, was overwhelmingly approved in a referendum.** The voter turnout was only 57.4 percent (remember - this was during a civil war), and 89.4 percent voting in favor.

The new constitution changes the selection of the president from a referendum on one candidate to an election with multiple candidates. A law adopted by the Syrian parliament in 2014 (at Bashar's direction) prohibits candidates who have not lived in Syria for the past 10 years - this removes self-exiled opposition leaders from eligibility.

For the election which will be held on June 3, a total of 24 potential candidates have applied to be on the ballot. Of these 24, only three have been determined to meet all the eligibility requirements and will appear on the ballot. It is meaningless theater - Bashar al-Asad will be re-elected in a landslide.

Yes, you heard it here first: Bashar al-Asad will be re-elected in a landslide.

I have a good Syrian friend, a doctor - we will call him Dr. Walid - who described a voting experience a few years ago. He went to work at the hospital on election day. He was summoned to the hospital administrator's office, where he was introduced to two Ba'ath Party "officials" - his description of them was more akin to "enforcers." They explained that since the doctor was very busy with patients, they had taken the liberty of bringing his ballot to him and had already filled it out. How considerate, no?

This will be another sham (pun intended) election, Bashar will be re-elected by a huge margin, and the dictatorship in Syria will go on. The civil war will continue, more civilians will be killed.
___________________
* This is a play on words for my Arabic-speaking readers. The word sham in Arabic means Syria or Damascus, depending on the word preceding it. See also another use of the word at my earlier article, What's in a name? - the Syrian-Iranian car company.

** The military situation has changed dramatically since 2012. With the introduction of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fighters and advisors, plus fighters from Lebanese Hizballah, the Syrian armed forces have regained the upper hand.

Russia to deliver military trainer/attack aircraft to Syria

Yak-130 trainer/light attack aircraft

Pravda, the virtual public affairs arm of the Russian government, reported this week that the Russian government-owned arms merchant Rosoboronexport and the majority state-owned United Aircraft Corporation will deliver the first batch of Yak-130 (NATO: Mitten) jet trainers to the Syrian air force later this year. The Russians will deliver nine jets to Syria before the end of 2014, an additional 12 in 2015, and the final 15 in 2016.

The delivery of the 36 aircraft will fulfill a 2011 contract between the two countries; Russian sources claim this is the last arms contract between the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Asad and the Russians. The timing of the delivery comes at a time when the Syrian air force needs better capabilities to deal with the ongoing revolution in the country, however, the delivery will no doubt generate loud protests from the United States and European nations.

(The following is from an article I wrote in September 2013 - Syria: What does Bashar al-Asad get for giving up his chemical weapons?)

Prior to the outbreak of the civil war, the Syrians contracted for a replacement trainer aircraft for their aging fleet of 1980s-era Czech-built L-39 trainers. The L-39 was used in the initial months of the civil war by the Syrians as a light attack aircraft - it is equipped with a gun pack and hardpoints on the wings to carry bombs and rocket launchers.

The L-39's have largely been marginalized because of increasing shoulder-launched air defense capabilities of the opposition forces (some seized from Syrian army depots and some provided by foreign countries), and the fact that most of the L-39 operating bases have been overrun or are under siege by the rebels.

The aircraft purchased - but not yet delivered - to replace the L-39 is the Yak-130 (NATO: Mitten), built with involvement of the Italian aircraft manufacturer Alenia. The Syrians have contracted for an initial lot of 36 of the aircraft. The Yak-130 can carry an external load of three tons (bombs, missiles, cannon pod, or fuel tanks).

In addition to the Yak-130, the Syrians have ordered between 10 and 24 MiG-29M2 (NATO: Fulcrum E), the newest version of the 1980's-era (fourth generation) fighter aircraft. Unlike the estimated 48 MiG-29 (NATO: Fulcrum) air-to-air fighters currently in service with the Syrian Air Force, the newer version is a multirole aircraft that adds a significant air-to-ground capability, including precision guided munitions (PGM).

The two aircraft represent a generational advance for the Syrian Air Force, giving them a heretofore nonexistent capability to deliver precision guided munitions. When equipped with PGM (either laser of GPS guided), the aircraft will be able to remain outside the threat envelope of the shoulder-fired air defense missiles available to the opposition forces, while being able to place weapons accurately on specific targets rather than dropping them near suspected rebel locations or indiscriminately on civilian populated areas.

In the absence of a no-fly zone, the addition of the capability to deliver PGMs will be a quantum leap in the effectiveness of the Syrian Air Force against the opposition. While these are not state-of-the-art fighters in the Western sense, they can be highly effective in the Syrian battlespace.

Iranian Television Interview - American Support to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War

Iraqi military attache Brigadier Nabil Sa'id with the author in Washington (1987)

As many of you know, I served as a liaison officer to the Iraqi directorate of military intelligence during the last year of the Iran-Iraq War, making numerous trips between the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. I was part of the then-highly classified relationship between the United States and Iraq to ensure that the Iranians did not emerge as the victors in the eight-year bloodbath known to us as the Iran-Iraq War. The Iraqis refer to it as the First Persian Gulf War, and by the Iranians as the Imposed War.

I have been interviewed on numerous occasions about American support for the Saddam Husayn regime in 1987 and 1988 - usually the final reporting is flawed, out of context, or just plain inaccurate. I am not sure how this interview stacks up against the rest - it is in Farsi. I have included the finished interview in Farsi for those of you who can understand it - the interview is preceded by a short clip entitled "Introducing Rick Francona," but from my limited understanding of Farsi, it could have been entitled "Portrait of a Spy."

The Iranian TV station (IRIB4) provided me with the raw footage in the original English, which I have included here (lower video). At least these are my words - of course, that means any mistakes are solely mine....

Francona to Speak at Cazenovia Forum - May 2, 2014

I will be speaking about the situation in Syria at the Cazenovia Forum in Cazenovia, New York on Friday, May 2 - if you are in the Syracuse area, please come!

As many of you know, I am not a fan of the term "expert" - there is always more to learn. I prefer specialist.

Read the article.

American arms to Syria? Too little, too late?

BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missile

At least two videos posted on YouTube show Syrian rebels firing U.S.-manufactured TOW missiles at Syrian army tanks. This not only represents a quantum leap in the rebels' capability to engage the Syrian army's Russian-made T-72 tanks and other armored vehicles, it also indicates a decision on the part of whoever supplied the missiles to the rebels to provide more effective weaponry.

Up until the last summer, the rebels were using Russian-manufactured anti-tank weapons (AT-3, AT-5, AT-13 and AT-14) captured from the Syrian army. Starting in June of 2103, we started seeing videos of the rebels using - effectively - the Chinese-manufactured HJ-8 Red Arrow. The Red Arrow is not in the Syrian army inventory, so obviously these have been supplied by the rebels' foreign supporters, most likely Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Now we see the American-made state-of-the-art TOW in the hands of the rebels.

President Obama has been under pressure for over a year by Gulf Arab allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar to provide man-portable air defense systems, or "MANPADS," and anti-tank missiles (such as the TOW) to the rebels. These weapons systems are critical for the lightly-armed rebels to fight the relatively well-equipped Syrian armed forces. While the Syrians are no match for Western or Israeli militaries, they possess a large number of Russian tanks, armored fighting vehicles, artillery, rockets and surface-to-surface missiles, backed by hundreds of fighter-bombers and attack/assault helicopters - all of which have been used on the rebels.

Last August, the regime of President Bashar al-Asad even employed chemical weapons against rebel-held areas in the suburbs of Damascus, firing rockets carrying warheads filled with the nerve agent Sarin. See my articles on that event: Syrian Chemical Weapons Strikes - Random Attacks or Viable Military Targets? and Syria: UN report does not blame the regime for chemical weapons use - really?.

The Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons forced President Obama reluctantly into action - he had earlier stated that the movement of chemical weapons or their use constituted a "red line" that would result in consequences. The American threat to employ military force resulted in a Syrian agreement to rid itself of chemical weapons. That is a good thing, however, we immediately saw Syrian Air Force cargo planes making a number of flights to Iran - I wonder what was on those aircraft. I digress...

The presence of the US-manufactured TOW may represent a compromise on the part of the United States. The Obama Administration is reluctant to provide MANPADS to the rebels for fear that they might end up in the hands of Islamist jihadists also fighting in Syria, rather than the group the United States has opted to support, the secular Free Syrian Army.

Every time someone suggest MANPADS, both State and DOD officials remember the problems that arose years after the CIA provided the extremely-capable American-made Stinger MANPADS to the Afghan mujahidin. The missiles later showed up in the hands of the Iranians, thanks to our erstwhile allies, the Pakistani Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (yes, the same intelligence officers who claim not to have known that Usamah bin Ladin was living right under their noses).

Earlier this year, President Obama met with Saudi King 'Abdullah to discuss Syria. After the meeting, the President's deputy national security advisor reiterated the administration's concerns over supplying MANPADS to the rebels, but made no mention of anti-tank weapons. This comes just after the disclosure that the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG) took delivery of almost 16,000 TOW missiles late last year. The SANG is a force of about 100,000 men (organized into eight brigades) separate from the Ministry of Defense and Aviation structure and is a counterbalance to the Royal Saudi Land Forces.

Coincidence? Maybe not.

Let's look at this. That is a huge quantity of TOW missiles for that size force and for the potential threats the Saudis may face in the region. If you combine the armies of Israel, Iran and Iraq, you have a total of about 8,000 tanks. Even if you double that to account for armored fighting vehicles, acquiring 15,000 TOW missiles for the SANG seems a bit high. That does not include the well over 20,000 TOWs in the Saudi Land Forces inventory. Now we have TOW missiles showing up in Syria - it just seems too convenient.

For the record, let me state I am in favor of supplying the secular opposition forces in Syria with the money, weapons and training that they need to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Asad - I have always been in favor of the removal of the Ba'th Party government. We had an opportunity to do just that in 2012 and failed to do so.

In the aftermath of the beginning of the "Arab Spring" in early 2011 and the Syrian regime's brutal suppression of demonstrations in the southern Syrian city of Dara', hundreds of military officers defected from the Syrian armed force and began the resistance under the banner of the secular Free Syria Army. Although they had the military training, they did not have the weapons required to effectively fight the Syrian military - and thus turned to the outside world for assistance. Although they did receive some materiel support from the Saudis, Qataris and Turks, the United States and its western allies provided only small amounts of non-lethal aid.

The assistance was not enough. The deteriorating military situation called for desperate action - when various al-Qa'idah affiliated Islamist groups offered to bring fighters and weapons into Syria, the FSA reluctantly agreed. Unfortunately, they also brought their own agenda, that being to remove the al-Asad regime and replace it with an Islamic state. There have been clashes between rival Islamist groups, and between the FSA and the Islamists as well. This internal fighting has allowed the Syrian armed forces to regain the upper hand, from almost being defeated in 2012 to now systematically reasserting control over large areas of the country formerly controlled by the opposition.

It may be too late to help the rebels overthrow the regime. It is certainly too late to do it without the Islamists in the picture. Should the rebels be successful, the next fight will be between the secularists and the Islamists.

Had we been proactive in 2011 and backed up our rhetoric that al-Asad had to go with the wherewithal to effect change, we might have actually been able to change the course of the Middle East. (More on that later.) I am afraid it may be too late.

Sectarian violence in Iraq increases - just as predicted

As Iraqis prepare for the upcoming parliamentary elections, violence has increased to a greater level than what we have seen over the last few months. This current level of violence has not been seen since the bloody Sunni-Shi'a sectarian fighting of 2006-2007, which ended with "the surge" - a short-term increase in the number of American combat troops in the country. Since the beginning of 2014, almost 2,500 people have been killed, and over 400,000 displaced.

The violence has not been unexpected. Following the failure of the Obama Administration to secure a suitable Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that would have allowed the presence of American combat troops in the country beyond 2011 to confront just this eventuality, it was obvious to anyone with a modicum of experience in the region that it was only a matter of time before Iraq was once again torn apart by sectarian violence. Shortly after the departure of American forces in late 2011 - premature in my opinion - the violence began, slowly at first, and steadily increased.

The violence was not hard to predict.

As the Shi'a-dominated Iraqi government - a factor of the size of their majority in the country - took over almost all elements of political power in the country, it was no surprise that the pent-up anger at how the Shi'a were treated under the Sunni-dominated regime of former President Saddam Husayn led to a marginalization of Sunni influence in the new administration. No matter how bad the economy and conditions were in the country, it was always worse in the Sunni areas. The Sunnis bristled at this treatment, and at some point, groups of Sunnis decided they had no choice but to take up arms against what they regard as an Iranian-directed government.

The Iranian role

As a consequence of the numerical advantage enjoyed by the Shi'a in Iraq, it was logical that they would dominate any democratically elected government. It is also logical to expect that the new government would be friendly towards Iran - Iran has emerged as the de facto leader - and self-appointed protector - of the region's Shi'a Muslims. Although there is a U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, a U.S. diplomatic mission to an insecure Iraq without the backing of American combat forces leaves us with almost no influence in the country.

The election of Nuri al-Maliki as prime minister also fit nicely into Iran's plans for Iraq. Known derisively as "Nuri al-Irani" (Nuri the Iranian), he has constantly made pro-Iranian decisions that are a slap in the face of the United States. For example, shortly after the departure of American forces, al-Maliki permitted Iranian Air Force transport aircraft and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) charter aircraft to overfly Iraqi airspace in their resupply flights for Hizballah, and also now resupply of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Asad.

Iran has sent combat units to advise, train and participate with Syrian troops in the ongoing civil war. If were not for Hizballah and IRGC fighters, the Syrian regime may have fallen in 2012. Also, at Iranian insistence, Iranian-trained Iraqi Shi'a militias have shown up on the battlefields of Syria.

As many analysts have feared - this one included - we are seeing the emergence of a "Shi'a crescent" extending from Hizballah in Lebanon, to the 'Alawi-dominated Ba'th Party in Syria, through Nuri al-Maliki's pro-Iranian government in Iraq, and ending with the mullahs in Iran.

Spillover from Syria

Again, without the presence of American combat units in Iraq, there has been a resurgence in jihadist violence, much of it tied to the fighting in Syria. A group affiliated with al-Qa'idah emerged, calling itself the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). This group began attacking elements of the Iraqi government in al-Anbar province, including the violence-prone cities of al-Fallujah and al-Ramadi. True to its name, ISIS also moved into northeastern and north-central Syria, where it attempted to set up Islamic enclaves ruled by Sharia' courts meting out harsh Islamic punishments.

ISIS's goal is to establish an Islamic state in the areas now occupied by both Iraq and Syria, eliminating the border and the governments in Baghdad and Damascus. Unfortunately, this has diverted the Syrian opposition, mainly the Free Syrian Army, from its fight against the Bashar al-Asad regime and started internal battles among the rebels. Although ISIS has lost some ground, it remains a force in part of Syria, and still diverts the secular opposition's efforts from the real fight.

It is the presence of ISIS and another jihadist group, Jabhat al-Nusrah (the Victory Front) that has caused Western governments from providing lethal arms to the rebels for fear that the sophisticated weaponry the rebels need - especially anti-tank missiles and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles - will fall into the hands of the jihadists. It is a reasonable concern.

The failed SOFA

As I have stated, I believe most of Iraq's current problems are the result of the premature departure of American combat units in late 2011. Without a SOFA, it was impossible for American troops to remain in the country. SOFAs are complex agreements that require detailed negotiations.

Many analysts (count me as one) believe the Obama Administration did not want the negotiations for a SOFA to be successful, thereby giving the Administration the excuse it was looking for to withdraw American forces. The Americans left the table and withdrew their troops, leaving unprepared Iraqi military and security forces to fend for themselves.

Mr Obama has taken credit for "ending the war in Iraq." Sorry, Mr President, all you did was end our involvement in the war. The fighting continues, which I believe is the result of your failure to WIN the war in Iraq. Thousands of Iraqis, and now Syrians, are paying the price.

Saudi Arabia succession issue - it's coming....

Muqrin bin 'Abd al-'Aziz Al Sa'ud (مقرن بن عبدالعزيز آل سعود)
the man who would be king....

Saudi Arabia announced this week that King 'Abdullah has appointed Prince Muqrin bin 'Abd al-'Aziz Al Sa'ud* as the kingdom's deputy crown prince. Muqrin now is second in line for the Saudi throne following the death of the current King, his older brother 'Abdullah. 'Abdullah is now 89 and in poor health. When the king dies, he will be succeeded by another brother, Crown Prince Salman.

Salman is now 78. I think it safe to assume that it will not be long before King 'Abdullah passes and Prince Salman ascends to the throne. At that point, Prince Muqrin will become the crown prince. Muqrin, at age 68, is the third youngest son of the founder of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 'Abd al-'Aziz Al Sa'ud - and the youngest surviving son.

Muqrin is a former captain in the Royal Saudi Air Force - an F-15 pilot - and was recently the chief of the Saudi General Intelligence Directorate (the "mukhabarat"). During his tenure at GID, Saudi Arabia defeated an al-Qa'idah insurgency and drove the militants out of the Kingdom (most went to Yemen). The prince is hawkish on Iran and has encouraged the United States to take a harder line with Iran and the Shi'a state's ambition to develop a nuclear weapons capability.

When the kingdom was founded in 1932, King 'Abd al-'Aziz established the succession to be among his sons, from brother to brother, not from father to son. Normally the oldest surviving son was the first choice, but not always. When kings have died, the surviving sons of King 'Abd al-'Aziz have gathered and selected the new king by consensus.

This system has been in place since the death of King 'Abd al-'Aziz in 1953. With 37 sons that reached adulthood (there were 45 total), there did not seem to be any urgency to provide for further succession. However, since the youngest of the surviving sons, Prince Muqran, is now 68 years old, the family will need to come to terms with selecting a monarch from the next generation - that may cause divisions in the family. There are already rivalries among the various groups based on their different mothers - 'Abd al-'Aziz had 22 wives.

Given the close relationship between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia over the past 70 years - although somewhat strained during the Obama years - it is in America's national interest that there continue to be smooth transitions of power in Riyadh. The Saudi leadership and the Obama administration have differing thoughts on the issues of Iran, Syria and Egypt.

To address the succession issue, in 2006 King 'Abdullah created the Allegiance Council, comprised of 35 princes charged with determining, in consultation with the king, the line of succession. With the selection of Muqrin as the deputy crown prince, they have exhausted the supply of brothers, the first generation sons of 'Abd al-'Aziz. Then the real issue will surface - who in the second generation becomes the king following Muqrin?

No matter who is chosen from the hundreds of men that make up the second generation - the grandsons of founder King 'Abd al-'Aziz - there will be a power struggle in Riyadh. Hopefully, it can be resolved without lasting damage to the monarchy and threatening the stability of the Kingdom.

______________
* Please note the difference in the transliterations of the Arabic al- and Al. In the name 'Abd al-'Aziz, al- is the Arabic definite article "the." The word Al in Al Sa'ud, Al is the word for "house of" or "family."

A pardon for Jonathan Pollard - a bargaining chip?

Note to my readers: This will be short and to the point. You all know my thoughts on Jonathan Pollard (I have provided links to my previous articles on him below). He is a traitor to this country - he spied for a foreign power and did irrevocable damage to the American intelligence system.

The fact that the foreign power is an ally is immaterial. Beyond the fact that Pollard violated his oath of loyalty to the United States - the country for which he betrayed the United States, Israel, is believed to have passed critical intelligence to our enemies. The resulting damage was permanent; the sources and methods Pollard compromised have never been recovered.

Unless there is a massive transplant of spine into the current American administration, Pollard will be released to the Israelis in the fall of 2015. He will fly to Tel Aviv to a hero's welcome and live until he dies in the country for which he became a traitor to my country. There is a provision in U.S. law that could require him to remain in the United States on parole for another 15 years, but that won't happen. He would jump parole and flee to Israel - I expect that the Israelis would probably assist him.

The specter of the possible release of Jonathan Pollard raises its ugly head yet again, almost on its yearly cue. This time, it is not in response to repeated Israeli requests, but as part of a desperate attempt by the Obama administration to achieve a success - any success - in the Middle East after a series of embarrassing failures. These failures extend former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's litany of failure into what appears to be the continuing clueless bumbling of current Secretary John Kerry.

According to Israeli Army Radio, Kerry made the offer to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in an effort to revive the about-to-collapse Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. The Israelis have balked at the release of the final group of Palestinian prisoners that had been agreed to as part of the continuation of the talks. If the prisoners are not released, the Palestinians will not continue the talks, and John Kerry will suffer yet another policy failure. In exchange for Pollard's release, the Israelis will release 26 more prisoners, and the Palestinians will agree to continue talks until the end of 2014.

Let me understand this. We are going to release an admitted traitor to the custody of the country for which he spied, and for that we get an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians to continue talks? That does not seem like a good deal for the United States - how does this further our national interests? It seems that we are doing Israel two favors here, and getting nothing in return - only in John Kerry's mind could this make sense. Of course, Kerry can't make this commitment without the express consent of President Obama - only the President can pardon Pollard.

Mr President, keep Inmate #09185-016 at the medium-security Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, North Carolina for as long as possible. I realize that due to a court ruling changing life sentences, he will be paroled late next year - let's not reward him or Israel by releasing him one day early. To do so would be to break faith with those of us who served in the intelligence community. Any short-term gain - which is likely to be short-lived - so that you and Secretary Kerry can claim at least some sort of foreign policy success is not worth releasing an admitted traitor.

To my Israeli friends (and I have many): 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.

--------------------
My previous articles on Pollard:
Obama's visit to Israel - will this be Pollard's last chance? (February 2013)
Obama, Peres and Pollard - any "flexibility?" (April 2012)
Israeli leaders depart without spy Pollard - good! (March 2012)
Release a traitor in exchange for a settlement freeze? (September 2010)
Israelis ask for release of Jonathan Pollard - again (January 2008)