Russian intervention in Syria - what is the endgame?

Russian Air Force AN-124 (CONDOR) and IL-76 (CANDID) transport airlifters

It has been rumored for sometime, and it has finally happened - the Russians have deployed a sizable contingent of military personnel to Syria. At least seven Russian Air Force Antonov AN-124 Ruslan (NATO: CONDOR) jumbo airlifters have moved men and materiel to an airfield just south of the Mediterranean port city of Latakia.

The AN-124 is the largest military transport aircraft in the world. The aircraft can transport 255 tons of cargo, compared to the 135 ton capacity of the U.S. Air Force C-5M Super Galaxy, although the AN-124 has a much shorter range.

The airfield near Latakia is a joint Syrian air base (actually used by Syrian Navy helicopters) known as Humaymin Air Base and a civilian airport known as Basil al-Asad International Airport. The airport is named after the President Bashar al-Asad's late older brother - it was Basil who was supposed to be the successor to their father Hafiz. Basil's death in an automobile accident in 1994 led to Bashar's ascendancy to the presidency. The familial home of the al-Asad clan is just a few miles northeast of the airfield in the city of Qurdahah.

By way of disclosure, I was the Air Attaché to the U.S. Embassy in Damascus from 1992 to 1995. In that role, on several occasions I have been to Humaymim Air Base and what was then known simply as Latakia International Airport. Coincidentally, I was also at Damascus International Airport only minutes after the automobile accident in which Basil al-Asad was killed at the airport entrance.

The Russians have requested overflight rights for their military "air bridge" between Russia and Syria from September 1 to September 24. Although they have flown at least seven AN-124 sorties, we are unsure of the exact number of flights - no doubt there will be more. The United States has pressured NATO allies Bulgaria and Greece (and no doubt others) to deny the overflight requests. The two countries have acceded to the American request - good for them.

The Russians have an alternate flight route, however. Immediately after the two NATO members refused access to their airspace, Iran offered Russia the use of its airspace for flights to Syria. Of course, that will also require overflight of Iraq, whose Shi'a-dominated government will acquiesce to Iranian "requests" to facilitate the Russian airlift.

Like any military expeditionary force, the Russians deploy with mobility and air defense assets. According to various media reports, the Russians are airlifting armored personnel carriers and tactical air defense systems with their troops - this is typical and we would do the same thing.

The Russians have deployed the BTR-82 armored personnel carrier (APC, left) and the very-capable Pantsyr-S1 (NATO: SA-22 Greyhound) air defense system with its troops in Syria. The BTR-82 is a first-rate APC, and the SA-22 is a formidable mobile gun and missile platform - the Russians build excellent tactical air defense systems.

Interestingly, one of the first confirmations we had of Russian troops in Syria were "selfies" posted on Twitter and other social media by Russian soldiers who now find themselves in northwestern Syria. The Russians have yet to stop their troops from posting photos on social media that belie the official Kremlin position - the selfies posted last year with meta data indicating their presence in Ukraine should have been a lesson in operations security.

So now the Russians are in Syria. No matter your opinion of Russian President Vladimir Putin, you have to acknowledge the decisive nature of his actions. At some point, he and his advisers - no doubt with many years of experience in Syria since they have been Damascus's primary weapons suppliers and military trainers/advisers for half a century - assessed that Bashar al-Asad was in danger of being overthrown.

The removal of Bashar al-Asad is not in and of itself a major issue for the Russians, but continued access to Syria is.

Over the past four decades, the Russians have been edged out of the region as most Middle Eastern nations turned toward the West. The one exception has been Syria - the Russian naval facility at the Syrian port of Tartus is virtually the last Russian outpost in the Mediterranean. There have also been reports of Russian advisers working with Syrian military and air defense units.

I have no doubts that Vladimir Putin will want to maintain that Mediterranean presence, just as he has moved to re-establish the Crimea as a Russian navy base, and has deployed Russian navy ships to Cuba.

It is interesting that the Russians have deployed to the air base just south of Latakia. The northwestern coastal mountain range is the home of the 'Alawis, a quasi-Twelver Shi'a sect of Islam that has produced much of Syria's current leadership of the armed forces and ruling Ba'th Party. Membership in either organization has been seen as a way out of the poverty and persecution formerly experienced by the group.

When Syria was placed under a French mandate after the end of World War One, the 'Alawis were encouraged by the French to join the military as a counterbalance to the majority Sunni population. Since the "Correctionist Movement" in 1970 that brought Hafiz al-Asad to power, the 'Alawis have been the dominant power brokers in the country.

Hafiz al-Asad strengthened Syria's ties with the Soviet Union, a relationship that survived the collapse of the USSR and continues even today, although Russia's financial problems over the years have limited the amount of support provided to Damascus.

The deployment to the Latakia area may be an attempt to protect the 'Alawi homeland. Syrian rebel groups, both the Free Syrian Army and a loose alliance of Islamist groups including the al-Qa'idah affiliate in Syria - Jabhat al-Nusrah (the Victory Front) - have expelled the Syrian army and its supporting Iranian and Hizballah forces from Idlib province, located immediately to the east of the 'Alawi-dominated area.

The rebels have been vocal in their plans to move towards the coast and to seize Syria's three major ports (Latakia, Baniyas and Tartus) as well as the mountains that are home to most of the 'Alawis in the country. The loss of this region would be a major blow - possibly the fatal blow - to the regime of Bashar al-Asad. It is the fear of this loss and the real threat posed by the opposition forces that are likely driving the Russian deployment to this region.

Syria's armed forces are not capable of defending this area despite their control of the skies and relentless bombing of civilian areas. As they pull back for the inevitable battle for Damascus, they have ceded large areas of the country to the rebels or the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Thus far, the Russians have not engaged ISIS. At some point, however, propping up Bashar al-Asad may mean the Russians will have to do just that. While it sounds good to have another ally involved in the US-led coalition's fight against ISIS, and the Russians could certainly be helpful in the short term, the problem is the endgame. The Russians want to make sure that no matter what the political solution at the end of the civil war, Bashar al-Asad or someone as compliant remains in power. That assures them access to their remaining naval facility in the Mediterranean.

Failing keeping Bashar al-Asad in power, the Russians want to have the defining voice in who runs the country. Before we start to talk to them about joining the effort against ISIS, we should remember that a previous alliance with the Soviet Union against a common enemy 70 years ago led to an endgame of fifty years of Communist repression in Eastern Europe known as the Cold War.

Secretary of State John Kerry has made several overtures to his Russian counterpart warning the Russians about their intervention in Syria. Mr. Kerry, the Russians no longer take you or the Administration you represent seriously. We have done nothing to stop Russian adventurism in Ukraine, have capitulated on the anti-missile defense system in Poland the the Czech Republic, have sat and watched as Russian ships and aircraft probe our defenses at levels not seen since the end of the Cold War, and caved in to late Russian demands in the Iran nuclear talks to lift sanctions on ballistic missiles after just a few years.

The Russians have assessed that they can do almost anything they wish and there will be no consequences from the United States. They will pursue their own objectives, whether or not those objectives are compatible with American interests.

They will be more involved, not less, in Syria. They mean to have the final say in Syria's future.

Tweet

The United Kingdom and France to attack ISIS in Syria?

French President François Hollande hints at impending French airstrikes in Syria

In welcome developments, two of the United States' closest allies announced that they have expanded, or are in the process of expanding, their offensive operations against the Islamic State (or ISIS - the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), to include targets in Syria. Both countries have been members of the US-led coalition since the beginning of air operations in the summer of 2014, but have only allowed their pilots to attack targets in Iraq.

That appears to be about to change. Both countries now appear to be on the verge of taking the fight to ISIS in its key strongholds in Syria, joining pilots of the United States and its Arab allies who have already been conducting air operations in Syria.

This is a welcome development - while the air forces of the Arab participants in the coalition are certainly capable partners, the British and French air forces are among the finest in the world and have long experience in conducting joint operations with American forces. They can also bring excellent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities to the fight. The coalition partners now participating in the air operations in Syria are almost totally reliant on American ISR capabilities.

French President François Hollande announced on September 7 the impending commencement of French reconnaissance flights over Syria and the possible subsequent authorization for French combat aircraft to begin attacks on ISIS in Syria.

The President justified the possible French expansion of its operations into Syria on recent attacks against targets in France, including the attack of the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and the recent - thankfully failed - attack on a French high speed train. According to Hollande, those attacks were planned in Syria, and the perpetrators had a connection to ISIS in Syria - the train attacker fought as a part of ISIS in Syria.

Should the French president order airstrikes in Syria, it would be a welcome development to be sure, but it would be helpful if France would increase its overall level of participation in the air campaign. This far, the French have conducted just over 200 airstrikes. The vast majority of the airstrikes - in both Syria and Iraq - have been conducted by the United States. Of course, our forces are much larger than our allies, but the commitment of additional resources would be welcome.

President Hollande seems to be on solid ground here - he has the authority to order French forces into action in Syria. The French have shown a willingness to take on Islamist fighters, as evidenced by France's lead in anti-terrorist operations in North Africa for the last two years. While it is a virtual certainty that French ground troops are not part of the equation in Syria, French air assets are a welcome addition.

Contrast the French president's position with that of the United Kingdom's Prime Minister David Cameron. Mr. Cameron surprised almost everyone with his announcement that the British military had used a drone to launch an attack in Syria that killed two British citizens and a third ISIS fighter. The Royal Air Force operates American-built MQ-9 Reaper armed drones - they have been used in Afghanistan and Iraq. While they have been used for reconnaissance operations over Syria since late last year, this is the first lethal strike by the drones in Syria.

The revelation of the attack on the two British subjects - considered by most a targeted killing - has rekindled the debate in Britain over UK operations in Syria. The House of Commons has in the past refused to authorize British military operations in Syria.

As with the possibility of French participation in the air campaign in Syria as well as Iraq, British participation would be welcome as well. In addition to the addition of very capable air forces, the combined participation of American, British and French air forces would send a strong message to the rest of the world that three of the West's leading powers are committed to finally making realistic attempts to - as President Barack Obama promised over a year ago - "degrade and defeat ISIS." It would also treat ISIS as a single target set rather than two separate operations in Iraq and Syria.

If I was handicapping this, I would say there is an even chance we will see French offensive air operations in Syria, and a one in three chance we will see British air operations there. I hope I am underestimating - I would welcome their participation in the fight.

Tweet

Classified information on Hillary Clinton's private email server - how did it get there?

One of many press reports on the email issue

Although I tend to limit my analysis and commentary to Middle East issues, my expertise in the region was gained from almost three decades of service as an intelligence officer - as both a clandestine case officer and a signals intelligence officer - with the Defense Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency, agencies probably better known by just the initials DIA, CIA and NSA.

All three intelligence agencies deal with the highest levels of classified information in the United States government. The proper handling and safeguarding of that information is taken extremely seriously in the intelligence community. Serious breaches of the federal laws and departmental/agency regulations are usually career-ending events.

I will not address the politics of the email controversy surrounding former Secretary of State and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. I will, however, address some facts about national security intelligence information and draw some conclusions about the presence of Top Secret/SCI information found in supposedly unclassified emails discovered on Mrs. Clinton's unsecured private email server.

SCI refers to Sensitive Compartmented Information and involves special handling requirements because of the sensitivity of the sources and methods used to acquire and produce the intelligence information bearing the SCI markings.

You will also see references to SI (Special Intelligence - a specific reference to information derived from signals intelligence, the exclusive purview of NSA) and "codeword" information in the emails - these are references to SCI. SCI can be at the Secret or Top Secret level - it can also be further restricted to limited distribution lists in the cases of extremely sensitive sources.

For example, if NSA was able to obtain information on Russian nuclear weapons capabilities and the intentions of the Russian leadership based on breaking an encrypted Russian military communications system, it would be very closely held - only a small group of senior military officers and national security decisionmakers would see that information.

If the fact that NSA had successfully penetrated these communications were to come to the attention of the Russians - or their allies - our capability to access that information would dry up immediately. This is the level of damage inflicted by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden - it will take many years and billions of dollars to recover from his treachery.

Because intelligence information is sensitive, the laws and regulations that govern how it is produced, marked, handled, transmitted, stored and ultimately used are very specific and not open to interpretation. Intelligence material is classified at its inception, at the very first stage of the acquisition of the raw intelligence information, and remains classified throughout its entire existence until it is destroyed or an authorized official declassifies it. Declassification authority rests with the agency or department that originated the information and determined the initial classification.

It is that last part that seems to be lost on people at the State Department. Even retired Admiral John Kirby (a fine officer by all accounts) seems to misunderstand the rules. Granted, for almost all of his Navy career, the admiral was a public affairs specialist and not involved in either operations or intelligence, but any senior officer in the armed forces should be aware of the basic rules of handling classified information.

Admiral Kirby's public pronouncements that Mrs. Clinton's emails contained information that was not classified when it was sent, but was classified later, defy not only common sense but the rules and regulations of both the Defense Department and the State Department. The admiral and I have a cordial relationship, but his position on this is untenable and bordering on the ludicrous.

Of course, the media doesn't quite get it either. I heard an anchor this morning describe the emails as "subsequently classified" - obviously she has accepted Admiral Kirby's fiction. It is ridiculous - the information was always classified; it was classified by the originator. What she should have said was that the emails contained classified information that had been improperly handled.

I think we can all stipulate certain facts, despite the State Department's claims to the contrary or their attempts to claim that information was not classified but now is (a virtual impossibility): it has been shown that Mrs. Clinton's emails or email server contained information deemed by the intelligence community - the agencies that originated the information - to be Top Secret/SCI. That information was classified when it was collected, analyzed, collated and disseminated - thus it was classified when it reached her private unsecured server.

Top Secret/SCI information is, and has been, restricted to either Defense Department, State Department or CIA communications channels authorized to handle such information. The firewalls between the intelligence community and unclassified networks are managed by NSA to guarantee that no classified information is introduced into unclassified and unsecured communications systems - Mrs. Clinton's private email server is a perfect example of a unsecured communications system. Having done this for a living, I can attest that it is virtually impossible to electronically move classified information to an unclassified network or server.

Yet classified information, including Top Secret/SCI information, was found in over 100 emails on Mrs. Clinton's private unclassified unsecured system. The question that immediately comes to mind is how is that possible? All classified information is prominently marked - on the document overall and on each paragraph separately. Although the exact paragraph markings differ by department/agency, each and every paragraph bears the classification of that specific portion of the information. It is the basic classification marking in all classified documents.

It fast becomes evident that the information resident on Mrs. Clinton's server and in some of her emails was transferred illegally and improperly from classified government servers across a firewall to that server. These are the emails that Mrs. Clinton initially claimed were unclassified, but has now altered that description to "not marked as classified." She is splitting hairs here.

Someone on the Secretary's staff - most of us believe it may have been either Huma Abidin or Jake Sullivan - took highly classified US intelligence information and wittingly ignored the classification markings and retyped or "cut and pasted" the intelligence information for relay to Secretary Clinton via the unsecured "clintonemail.com" server.

Technically, Mrs. Clinton can claim - disingenuously - that she received no information marked classified. The information was of course highly classified but improperly stripped of its classification markings - a felony. Either Mrs. Clinton knew about it, condoned it or chose not to report it, or she did not realize that sensitive intelligence information from DIA, CIA and NSA was classified. If the former is the case, she might be complicit; if the latter is the case, she might be incompetent. I doubt that she is incompetent.

The bottom line is that classified information was found on her unsecured server. It was never unclassified and later classified - it doesn't work that way, regardless of how Mrs. Clinton or the State Department spokespersons try to spin it. Someone deliberately put sensitive national security information at risk for the sake of convenience. Everyone involved needs to be held accountable - perhaps the FBI will do just that.

Tweet

Is your government lying to you about the war against ISIS?

ISIS fighters celebrate a battlefield victory

I thought we had put this issue to rest after the inflated body counts of Vietnam. Quite possibly the Obama Administration is playing a variation of that same alternate reality game. Virtually every assessment and announcement from either the White House or the Pentagon has told us that the military campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is going well and that the terrorist army of the self-proclaimed Islamic State is on the defensive.

As a military analyst for CNN, I follow the fighting in Iraq and Syria closely - I monitor a variety of media from all sides. That includes not only the American press, but official Syrian, Iraqi and yes, ISIS reporting, as well as a variety of social media sites that cover all aspects of the situation in the region.

As you can imagine, there are great discrepancies in the descriptions of the same events. At times, I have shaken my head at some of the pronouncements from the Pentagon press office and even from the U.S. Central Command, the combatant command conducting the military operations.

Normally the CENTCOM reports are factual accounts of sorties flown, weapons employed and damage assessments. On the other hand, Pentagon spokesmen tend to portray the Operation Inherent Resolve as stopping ISIS's advances and forcing them into a defensive posture. There was certainly a disconnect in the reports of low sortie rates and just a few weapons actually being employed emanating from the theater versus the rosy portrayal coming out of the Pentagon.

I remember the reports of the "success" of the Iraqi Army in ejecting ISIS from the city of Tikrit, when most of the actual fighting was done by Iranian-trained and led Shi'a militias. As the Pentagon assured us that ISIS was now contained, the Islamists mounted a successful assault on the city of al-Ramadi, the capital of al-Anbar province, located on the Euphrates River just 65 miles from Baghdad - all the while under attack from the air. This hardly fits the definition of "on the defensive."

Obviously there is a problem here - either the intelligence community can't figure out what is going on with ISIS or someone is misleading the public. Having spent a career in the intelligence business - most of it in the Middle East - I am opting for the latter.

In any case, the Department of Defense inspector general (IG) has opened an investigation. Unfortunately, from the wording of the available reporting it appears that the focus is going to be on professional military officers at CENTCOM rather than the political appointees (that means dyed-in-the-wool Obama supporters) at the Pentagon. Guess who is going to be thrown under the bus....

It is obvious that someone is taking the intelligence reporting and putting the best face on it. Actually, that is too kind - someone is cooking the intelligence to make it fit into the narrative dictated by the White House and the political leadership at the Pentagon.

The anemic air campaign - just 20 strikes today - is having an effect, to be sure, but the Defense Intelligence Agency estimates that ISIS is about as strong and capable today as it was when the air campaign began over a year ago. Much of that is due to the easy access to Syria via Turkey for supplies and the thousands of volunteers wishing to join ISIS. Hopefully Turkey's recent decision to participate in the U.S.-led coalition will staunch that flow.

I suspect that at each intermediate echelon between CENTCOM's forward headquarters in Qatar and the Pentagon, the intelligence and operational assessments of the military campaign against ISIS change slightly for the better. Everyone wants to cast the operation in a favorable light - accentuate the positive, downplay the negative. When it gets to the politicos at the Pentagon, I suspect it is tailored to fit the narrative emanating from the White House press room.

I applaud the Defense Department's decision to launch an IG investigation - it is easily warranted. The IG is supposed to be an independent investigative agency that deals in facts and lets the evidence guide the investigation. Pardon me if I am not filled with confidence - some colonel at CENTCOM will take the fall.

Is our government lying to us? I fear that it is.

Tweet

U.S. and Turkey to launch "comprehensive" operation against ISIS

Turkish Air Force F-16 fighters

The Turkish foreign minister announced that Turkey and the United States will soon commence what he called "comprehensive" air operations to force fighters of the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (more commonly called the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS) from a security zone to be established in northern Syria.

The establishment of this security zone has been a longstanding Turkish requirement for its cooperation in the fight against ISIS, and was no doubt a condition in the recent agreement by which American forces can conduct operations from three Turkish air bases just north of the Syria's border with Turkey. U.S. Air Force F-16's deployed to Incirlik Air Base near Adana have already conducted airstrikes in both Syria and Iraq. Armed Predator drones are also being flown from the base.

Turkish participation in the fight against ISIS is welcome, and according to some analysts (including me), long overdue. Turkey has been the primary conduit for thousands of foreign fighters to enter Syria and join ISIS. ISIS still controls a portion of the Syrian border with Turkey north of Aleppo. It is this area that the Turks want to declare a security zone. The Turks hope that the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees will return to this area and alleviate the huge burden on Turkish social services.

Declaring a security zone and establishing it are two different things. As can be seen on the map, the area designated as the security zone - a 50 mile stretch of land along the Turkish-Syrian border - is firmly under control of ISIS.

Given the generally anemic air campaign conducted over the past year, it is doubtful that even with Turkish Air Force participation air power alone will clear ISIS fighters from the area. At some point, some ground force is going to have to move into the area and occupy the territory.

This is a key piece of territory - again, it is the only remaining portion of the Turkish border that is still controlled by ISIS. Cutting ISIS's access to the border - now easily traversed despite the large presence of Turkish troops - will staunch the flow of arms and recruits to the Islamist group. Without this portal to Turkey, logistics support and manpower replacements become exponentially more difficult, as does the sale and transport of black market oil to unscrupulous Turkish dealers.

According to the announcement by the Turkish official, American and Turkish aircraft will provide air support for a force of "moderate Syrian rebels" who will remove ISIS forces from the area. This is laughable - thus far the United States has only trained somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 "moderate Syrian rebels" willing to forego their main objective of removing Syrian President Bashar al-Asad and confront ISIS on behalf of the United States.

These few untested troops constitute our "boots on the ground." Add to this the fact that many of the initial group of 60 have been killed or co-opted by the Jabhat al-Nusrah, the al-Qa'idah affiliate in Syria. Pitiful. To think they are going to remove ISIS from this rather large area is fantasy.

There are Kurds in the area willing to be the proverbial "boots on the ground" - in fact, they have functioned in that role in the areas to the east of the erstwhile security zone. The successful defense of Kobani with Kurdish forces on the ground and substantial American airpower shows how effective this match-up can be. The Turks have vetoed any Kurdish participation, fearing that Kurdish control of almost the entire border area will lead to either Kurdish autonomy or an effort to establish an independent Kurdish homeland.

As a CNN military analyst, I was interviewed about this subject. American and Turkish aircraft acting in concert can bring enormous firepower to the fight. However, someone is going to have to remove ISIS fighters - firmly ensconced in the area. The force of a handful of "moderate Syrian rebels" are not up to the task. I asked then, and I ask now, who is going to do it?

I fear that without the Kurds as our "boots on the ground," we will employ massive amounts of airpower and still not dislodge ISIS from the area. It is as if we are setting this up for failure. The Turks are going to have to either let the Kurds participate or they will have to introduce Turkish troops to confront ISIS.

More half measures - when are we going to get serious?

Tweet

US Air Force F-16's finally deploy to Turkish air base

U.S. Air Force F-16 fighters deployed to Incirlik AB, Turkey (USAF photo)

It has taken a long time, but the first six F-16 fighters of what I hope will be a sizable contingent of American combat aircraft arrived at Incirlik Air Base, Turkey today. The base is just 60 miles from the Syrian border and from front line positions of the so-called Islamic State, or what is usually referred to as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Here is the public announcement from the United States European Command (EUCOM) that accompanied the above photo:

Earlier today, the United States Air Force deployed a small detachment of six F-16 ‪‎Fighting Falcons‬, support equipment, and about 300 personnel to Incirlik Air Base - Turkey in support of Operation Inherent Resolve.

The detachment is from the 31st Fighter Wing based at Aviano Air Base, Italy. This follows Turkey's decision to host the deployment of U.S. aircraft conducting counter-ISIL operations. The United States and Turkey, as members of the 60-plus nation coalition, are committed to the fight against ISIL in the pursuit of peace and stability in the region.

F-16 forces arrive at Incirlik Air Base

Here's a small clip of the F-16s landing today!In support of Operation Inherent Resolve, Incirlik Air Base received six F-16 Fighting Falcons from Aviano Air Base, Italy, support equipment and approximately 300 personnel Aug. 9, 2015, here. #airpower #Incirlik #F16 #flyfightwin U.S. Embassy Ankara, TURKEY U.S. European Command (EUCOM) United States Air Force U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Air Forces Africa

Posted by Incirlik Air Base - Turkey on Sunday, August 9, 2015

I have been encouraging the Department of Defense for over a year to deploy American combat aircraft to Turkish air bases - and chastising our Turkish NATO allies for not allowing it sooner. The Turks changed their minds two weeks ago. See my article on that, Turks to allow coalition access to Turkish air base - finally (July 23, 2015).

If we want to take the fight to ISIS's self-proclaimed capital and its main strongholds in northern Syria, Turkey's air bases are well positioned for air operations. Pilots can now fly to their targets from bases only 75 to 200 miles away, rather than the long flights from Gulf bases or Jordan at least 800 miles away. Reaction time to emerging targets or critical situations can now be measured in minutes rather than hours.

While we all welcome the Turkish government's decision to allow American forces to use Incirlik, and we applaud the EUCOM decision to finally deploy six fighters, there are some concerns and questions still unanswered.

I note in the photograph that that F-16's deployed with the full range of air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions. I hope this means that these aircraft will be used, and used quickly, for strikes on ISIS targets in Syria. If they are there as some sort of quick reaction force to be used only in cases of emergency, or limited by Turkish authorities on what targets can be engaged, then it is a waste of an effective combat asset.

Now that we have "bomb-droppers" close to ISIS positions, are we finally ready to step up the up-to-now anemic pace of air operations? With F-16's at Incirlik, supported by aerial refueling tankers, we can put aircraft with full weapons loads and full fuel tanks over northern Syria at will. That, of course, requires the political will to use the combat power now just 60 miles north of the target area.

There are also four Predator reconnaissance drones and two armed Predator strike drones at Incirlik. I hope that the drones and F-16s will be used together - find the targets and destroy them immediately. This will require adjustments to the cumbersome, self-defeating rules of engagement currently in place.

This is a deployment of six F-16's - with a lot of media releases by EUCOM. While the F-16 is an extremely capable fourth-generation fighter aircraft, six aircraft will not to change the situation. Normally the U.S. Air Force deploys in squadron strength - 24 aircraft. I hope to see follow-on deployments to bring the American contingent at Incirlik up to wing strength - at least two squadrons. The initial deployment may be limited by the Turks or by logistics considerations.

Now that the Turks granted American access to the base, will the Turks participate in strikes against ISIS? It appears to many of us that the Turks are more concerned about airstrikes on Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) targets than hitting ISIS targets. That may have been the price for American access to Incirlik.

Bottom line: This is a welcome deployment - it could set the stage for drastic improvements to the thus-far mediocre air campaign. If we are going to take the fight to ISIS, Incirlik is a good venue to do just that. Bring in more combat aircraft - F-15E, A-10, AC-130, etc. Then unleash the pilots from the White House-dictated obstructive ROE.

ISIS has yet to meet real airpower - now would be a good time to introduce them to it.

Tweet

The Christie - Paul clash: some clarification for the Senator

Governor Chris Christie and Senator Rand Paul

For the most part, I try to avoid politics in this forum, and I will try to do so here - I am not advocating for or against any candidate in the Republican race.

At the August 6 debate the topic of privacy and the collection of what Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky believes is protected information was raised. The senator was challenged on his views by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

On this particular topic, Governor Christie seems to understand the issue and the danger posed by well-meaning critics of bulk meta data collection. That is what the two candidates were arguing, although neither of them clarified it sufficiently. Had Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper been a bit more articulate in the Senate hearings on this topic in 2013, this might not be an issue today.

The director needed to distinguish between storage of meta data versus the intelligence exploitation of that data. He failed to do so, leaving the senators with the impression that intelligence analysts are poring through Americans' phone calls.

Meta data is the term used to describe information about communications rather than the content of those communications - we old-timers in the signals intelligence business used to call these data "message externals." Using phone calls as the example, it would be information such as time of call, length of call, originating number and receiving number - basically the information on your telephone bill or online via your cell phone provider. You have heard references to "LUDs" (local usage details) on police shows - this is meta data.

In the world of domestic law enforcement, a court order is required to have a telephone company provide this information to the police. There must be a reason for that request, made to a judge who then authorizes the police to acquire the meta data on a particular phone line. In the era of online phone calls (like voice over internet protocol, VOIP) and services such as Skype, it becomes a bit more difficult, but the data is there if you know how to access it (we do).

This is predicated on the availability of the data, the meta data that is maintained by the phone providers. It is how they bill consumers. At one point, this information was also being provided to the intelligence community - specifically the National Security Agency (NSA) - and stored. Commercial communications companies cannot be expected to store meta data indefinitely. Here is the key point - the data was stored in massive servers to be available to intelligence analysts if it was ever needed.

Perhaps a scenario would be helpful - this particular scenario is loosely based on actual events.

----
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) chief of station in Islamabad, Pakistan is called to a meeting with the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISI. The ISI officer provides the station chief a stack of materials seized in an ISI raid of an al-Qa'idah safehouse in Quetta, a city near the border with Afghanistan. In that stack of materials are several laptop computers and a few cellphones.

The materials are forwarded to CIA headquarters where all the information is downloaded from each of the devices. Key intelligence information can be found in the call logs on the phones, as well as the email addresses in the laptops. The phone numbers are important in determining who else is involved in this particular al-Qa'idah cell. Several of the numbers are located in the United States.

In order to fully exploit this information, NSA officers, operating under a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - more commonly known by its acronym FISA - warrant, access the stored meta data to determine not only who is associated with the phone numbers recovered from the seized laptops and cellphones, but also what numbers were called from those phones, and further what numbers were called from that second set of phone numbers.
----

This is called network analysis, and is critical in determining al-Qa'idah members (or other group) or sympathizers present in the United States. Again, this is predicated on the availability of historic meta data - it is essential that analysts be able to "go back in time" to uncover these contacts. Only when there is such a requirement is the meta data accessed, and then only with a warrant. Intelligence analysts are not sifting through meta data on a routine basis - imagine the volume of data on the servers.

Senator Paul and others believe that intelligence community storage of this meta data is an invasion of privacy and illegal under the Constitution. They often say that if there is suspicion that someone is involved in illicit or terrorist activities, law enforcement agencies should obtain a warrant and then proceed to monitor the communications of that individual.

That sounds good, but to adequately and effectively analyze these terrorist organizations, you need historical data. Whenever there is an arrest of a key individual or a takedown of a cell in a terrorist or criminal organization, one of the first things these groups do is completely change their communications methods. The phone number on a newly issued wiretap warrant will likely be dead before the ink is dry on the warrant. We need access to the historical meta data to determine the extent of the network.

This access is a key analytical tool in the war on terrorism. Well-intentioned officials like the senator have passed legislation that restricts the intelligence community's storage of this information. The next time there is an attack on the United States, these same people will be blaming the same intelligence community whose hands they have tied. Senator Paul wants the intelligence community to connect the dots - the analysts must first have the dots to connect. Meta data are dots....

Sorry, Senator Paul. Governor Christie gets it - you don't.

Tweet

Turks to allow coalition access to Turkish air base - finally

US Air Force F-16 with both air-to-air and air-to ground munitions

After months of negotiations - and clashes between its troops and fighters of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) on the Syrian border - Turkey has agreed to allow the United States to launch airstrikes from the large NATO air base in Incirlik.

There were rumors last fall that the Turks were going to allow the Americans to use the base, but an agreement fell through because of Turkish perceptions of the lack of commitment on the part of the Obama Administration to the removal of the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Asad. The Turks have always wanted American support for its efforts to oust al-Asad.

It is not clear what, if any, concessions were made to the Turks other than an agreement to assist Turkey in creating a buffer zone inside northern Syria.

This is a welcome development - it significantly reduces the flight time from the airbases currently being used in Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Not only can the aircraft arrive in the target area faster, they are able to remain in the area for longer periods of time dropping significantly more ordnance. The shorter flight distance also reduces the number of aerial refuelings needed, lessening the demands on the heavily used tanker aircraft fleet.

Had coalition aircraft been able to stage from Incirlik during the fighting in the Kobani area last year and again early this year, the flight distance to target would have been as short as 165 miles versus the 800 to 1500 miles using bases in Jordan and the Gulf. The battle for the city may have been shortened significantly.

Access to Incirlik will allow increased air operations against ISIS's self-proclaimed capital at al-Raqqah in northern Syria, just 200 miles from the airbase. Translated into time, that means that American pilots can put weapons on targets in the ISIS capital in as little as 50 minutes.

Aircraft based in southern Turkey can also react more quickly to the changing situation on the ground in both northern Syria and western Iraq. The reaction time to fast-changing events on the ground in northern Syria can be measured now in minutes, not hours. This becomes even more important as ISIS forces move closer to Aleppo, Syria's largest city.

According to press reports, the United States will operate both manned aircraft and Predator drones from Incirlik - at least two of the Predators will be armed with Hellfire missiles. It was an MQ-1 Predator that recently (July 8) killed a senior al-Qa'idah operative about 20 miles west of Aleppo, or just 90 miles from Incirlik. These operations will be much easier to launch from the Turkish base - more quickly and likely more effectively.

The Turks have stated that they still will not participate in coalition air operations, using their air assets only in response to threats to Turkey, its people or its armed forces. They may provide tactical air controllers inside Syria to call in American airstrikes. Although we would prefer to have Turkish troops and pilots directly involved, use of Incirlik is a welcome change.

I have often complained about the lack of support for coalition operations by the Turks. My exact words were, "If Turkey wants to be a NATO ally, they need to start acting like a NATO ally." It appears that they are - finally.

Tweet

REDUX: "Fallout of a bad nuclear deal with Iran" and "The nuclear deal with Iran - the view from Riyadh"

As you all know, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany, also called the P5+1, concluded an agreement with Iran that the Obama Administration claims blocks all of the possible paths for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. Most analysts familiar with the Middle East and the Iranians believe this is fantasy.

I wrote an article about this when the announcement was made. You have probably read it - if not - Iran Nuclear Deal - Lingering Concerns.

Much of my opinion and analysis in that article is based on my writings earlier this year, although I have been writing about the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear weapons program (let's call it what it is, shall we?) for almost a decade. After the signing of what I consider a bad deal, I was asked to re-post two articles from earlier this year.

To preclude you having to connect to external links, I have included the text of the two articles here.

================

Fallout of a bad nuclear deal with Iran (March 17, 2015)

Fallout of a nuclear-armed Iran?

Recent polls taken in the United States indicate that an overwhelming majority of Americans - between 70 and 80 percent - do not believe that the proposed agreement between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the P5+1* (United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany) will prevent Iran from eventually acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Despite Presidential spokesperson Josh Earnest's claims to the contrary, few people believe President Obama "is driving a hard bargain."

The proposed agreement will provide Iran immediate sanctions relief, permit them to legally enrich uranium to the five percent level, and lift all restrictions on Iran's nuclear program after a ten year period of compliance. To most observers (including this one), that sounds like a great deal for Iran, and a bad deal for the rest of the world - not exactly the result of a "hard bargain."

The Administration realizes that neither the majority of the American people nor the Congress support the "hard bargain" the President's team is negotiating with Iran. Continuing in the vernacular, most Americans believe that instead of a "hard bargain," the President is "giving away the farm."

I believe that lack of popular support is the reason why the United States and some of its European allies are beginning talks in the United Nations (UN) to forge a Security Council resolution to remove UN sanctions on Iran if a nuclear deal is reached. The Administration, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, is trying to circumvent Congress and in effect the American people to make a deal with Iran. Perhaps the State Department deputy spokesperson was right in her condescension - we American people just don't understand the "nuances" of these negotiations.

I have been forthright and forceful in my condemnation of what I believe is an unwise agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Although the President has "convinced" (read: directed) his Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Jim Clapper to omit references to Iran (as well as its proxy in Lebanon - Hizballah) from the latest annual threat assessment delivered to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terrorism.

Coincidence? I have known General Jim Clapper for four decades - he does not often make errors of omission. This was a deliberate attempt to deflect attention from Iran at a time when the Administration is desperate to reach a deal, any deal, with the mullahs in Tehran. (Read DNI Clapper's statement.)

As I said, I have written on this topic on numerous occasions. The Administration's desire to appease the Iranians is not new. Here are a few of my previous articles, in chronological order, and a quote from each:

Off to the races - Saudi Arabia to develop nuclear energy (April 17, 2010). Quote: "Saudi Arabia is looking across the Persian Gulf at what is likely the world's next nuclear-armed nation. The Saudis, long-time American allies, are unsure of the direction of American foreign policy in the region and probably think they may need something to counter Iran's accession as a regional power. A Saudi nuclear energy research and development center is the logical answer - after all, that's how Iran's program got started."

Mr President - take a lesson from the UAE ambassador (July 7, 2010). Quote: "Here is where [the UAE ambassador] gets even clearer: 'We cannot live with a nuclear Iran. The United States may be able to live with it; we can't.' If the United States will not fulfill its traditional leadership role in the region - which includes protection for the Gulf Arab states - these states will be forced to either make an accommodation with Iran, or in the case of larger countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, acquire their own nuclear arsenal."

"Fallout" from the Iranian nuclear program (August 28, 2010). Quote: "As Iran continues to develop its nuclear programs - power and weapons - it is only logical for other nations in the region to do the same. It is just a matter of time before we see more nuclear-armed states in this volatile region. This is the 'fallout' of Tehran's program."

The coming nuclear arms race in the Middle East (December 5, 2011). Quote: "The King told [National Security Advisor] General Jones that if Iran succeeded in developing nuclear weapons, everyone in the region would do the same, including Saudi Arabia. The King is convinced that current U.S. engagement efforts with Tehran will not succeed."

The "fallout" of a bad deal, or possibly any deal short of Iran scrapping its nuclear program, is the triggering of an arms race in the region. The major countries in the region - Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey - two Arab and all three Sunni Muslim - are not going to sit idly while Iran develops the capability to develop nuclear weapons to mount atop its huge arsenal of ballistic missiles. The three powers are wary of a Persian, Shi'a state sponsor of terrorism armed with nuclear weapons.

This deal, a bad one in my judgment, does nothing to assuage those fears.
_____________
* The P5+1 group comprises the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China) plus Germany.

=================

The nuclear deal with Iran - the view from Riyadh (April 5, 2015)

King Salman bin 'Abd al-'Aziz Al Sa'ud

It appears almost inevitable that the Obama Administration is going to push through the completion of what many to consider to be a mediocre-at-best agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran over its nuclear program. Regardless of the hard sales pitches by both the President and Secretary of State John Kerry, the Iranians remain focused on the acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability. I believe they will ultimately be successful.

I am not the only one that believes that the Iranians will eventually have nuclear weapons - it already has the ballistic missiles to deliver them. One need only look to the west across the Persian Gulf to find the country (with the understandable exception of Israel) most concerned with the Iranian nuclear arms program - the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis have been wary of Iran since the 1979 revolution and Tehran's desire to export that revolution throughout the region. Since 1982 when Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Syria and Lebanon contingent (forerunner of today's Qods Force) began operations in Lebanon and created Hizballah, the Iranians have been a major force in the politics of both countries.

After the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent civil war, Iran has meddled incessantly in Iraqi politics - after the premature removal of American forces in 2011, Iran became the major power broker in the country. Some say it remains that to this day.

The recent and ongoing crisis in Yemen has Tehran's handwriting all over it. The Shi'a Houthi group is sponsored, equipped and funded by the Iranians. If you are sitting in Riyadh, you see Iran wielding significant influence in four Arab capitals - Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and now Sana'. Iran is constantly displaying new, indigenous weapons, including more capable and longer range ballistic missiles.

The Saudis have reason to worry - they, like most rational observers of Middle East events, are convinced that Iran will at some point in the next few years, possess nuclear weapons.

The Saudi concern with a potentially nuclear-armed Iran is nothing new. I wrote an article in late 2011 - The coming nuclear arms race in the Middle East (December 5, 2011). From that article:

QUOTE
Saudi Arabia
The former director of Saudi Arabia's intelligence service stated this week that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, then the Kingdom may be forced to as well. Although Prince Turki al-Faysal couched his remarks by first citing the world's failure to convince Israel to abandon its nuclear weapons, then casually adding "as well as Iran," his meaning was perfectly clear - if Iran develops them, we'll buy our own. Saudi Arabia is currently planning to build 16 nuclear reactors to generate electricity. The weapons program would be an easy add-on, although the Kingdom is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Saudi interest in a nuclear weapons capability is not new. In 1987, the Saudis purchased CSS-2 missiles from China; the missiles are designed to carry a nuclear warhead. Although the Saudis did not acquire that capability, they did express interest in a joint research and development program with Pakistan. If the Saudis decide to move ahead with a nuclear weapons capability, they have the requisite infrastructure already in place.

While I deplore the release of classified documents by the Wikileaks crowd, some of the information is interesting. Here is an excerpt from a February 2010 cable from the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh to the Secretary of State. (10RIYADH178, SCENESETTER FOR SECRETARY CLINTON'S FEB 15-16 VISIT TO SAUDI ARABIA, classified SECRET NOFORN. Read the entire cable here.)

9. (S/NF) COUNTERING IRAN: We expect that Saudi Arabia will continue to develop its ties with China, in part to counterbalance relations with the West. While the King's preference is to cooperate with the U.S., he has concluded that he needs to proceed with his own strategy to counter Iranian influence in the region, which includes rebuilding Riyadh-Cairo-Damascus coordination, supporting Palestinian reconciliation, supporting the Yemeni government, and expanding relations with non-traditional partners such as Russia, China, and India to create diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran that do not directly depend on U.S. help. The King told General Jones that if Iran succeeded in developing nuclear weapons, everyone in the region would do the same, including Saudi Arabia.

10. (S/NF) The King is convinced that current U.S. engagement efforts with Tehran will not succeed; he is likely to feel grimly vindicated in his view by Ahmadinejad's February 11 boast that having successfully enriched uranium to a level of 20 percent, Iran "is now a nuclear nation." The King told General Jones that Iranian internal turmoil presented an opportunity to weaken the regime -- which he encouraged -- but he also urged that this be done covertly and stressed that public statements in support of the reformers were counterproductive. The King assesses that sanctions could help weaken the government, but only if they are strong and sustained. The King will want you to elaborate on the President's statement that the time for sanctions has come. He will also want to hear our plans for bolstering Gulf defenses vis-a-vis Iran. (The King has invited General Petraeus to his desert camp for discussion on this topic on Tuesday.)

END QUOTE

Although some of the situation in the Middle East has changed since I wrote that, such as the hope that Syria could be part of a counter to Iran and the fact that there is a new king in Saudi Arabia, the rest still holds true. I assess that new Saudi King Salman has already given the orders to the new Minister of Defense and Aviation (his son), to scope out what it would take to acquire at least the same capability as Iran.

Of course, by doing so the Saudis may run afoul of the Obama Administration. However, the Administration has proven that they are willing to allow other countries to enrich uranium in contravention of international agreements with little consequence.

If you are living in the Persian Gulf region, the overly optimistic assurances from President Obama and Secretary Kerry that their agreement with Iran will prevent the Iranians from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability ring hollow.

If I was King Salman, I would do the same thing.

=================

Tweet

Iran Nuclear Deal - Lingering Concerns

The Obama Administration is touting the conclusion of "the historic deal that will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon." Preventing the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is critical to any hope for preventing the entire Middle East from erupting into a conflagration. The White House has issued a slick spin of the deal on its website. You can read the actual text for yourself.

While you read the White House version of reality, take a look at the photograph above. It tells us just who we are being asked to believe has negotiated in good faith - those are officially sanctioned Iranian demonstrations calling for death to America, Israel, United Kingdom, the House of Sa'ud (Saudi Arabia) and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Let me first say that I hope that this deal works. A nuclear weapon in the hands of the mullahs in Tehran would be a disaster, not just for the Middle East, but the entire world. That said, I am concerned that the deal as structured may not prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. I am not confident that this Administration has negotiated the type of agreement that will be successful.

Why do I say that? I have been straight-forward in my assessment that since he took office in 2009, President Obama sought to curry favor with the Islamic regime in Iran, despite the enmity and hostility from that regime. His attempts to make inroads with the leadership in Tehran were consistently rebuffed.

It was not until he directed his negotiators, including current Secretary of State John Kerry, to make concession after concession in the nuclear talks - caving on virtually every negotiating point - that the Iranians began to listen to Barack Obama. The Iranian leadership likely assessed - correctly, in my opinion - that Obama was desperate for a deal with Iran, for whatever reason.

It appears to me that the goal of the negotiations was to reach a deal - any deal - with Iran rather than actually achieving the stated objective of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Otherwise, Obama would have stood firm on what we were all told were non-negotiable conditions - sanctions relief only after compliance, anytime and anywhere inspections, continued arms embargo, etc.

So now we have an agreement, technically, a joint comprehensive plan of action. What has changed? Does anyone actually believe that the Iranians have given up their quest for a nuclear weapons capability? What is the end-goal of their nuclear research and development program? Is this Administration ready to believe that Iran is only interested in a nuclear electrical power generation system?

That thought might be the fiction that Kerry and Obama have bought into, but the analysis from specialists at the government's own research laboratories - specifically Frank Pabian at the Los Alamos National Laboratory - indicates that the Iranian effort is much too small for effective power generation, but perfectly suited for a nuclear weapons program. Pabian further postulated as far back as 2008 that if Iran was actually developing a civilian nuclear power program, there was no need to use front companies and locate the facilities in hardened underground bunkers.

What was the rush to conclude a deal? Sanctions were taking a toll on Iran - the Iranians needed this agreement far more than we did. I am struck by the timing of these hurried negotiations. Just a few months ago, President Obama told the American people that our 50-year old policy toward Cuba was not working and it needed to change.

Contrast that with our policy toward Iran - what we had in place was working. The sanctions protocols had brought the Iranians to the table - it was obvious to anyone with a modicum of experience in the Middle East that Iran was in a position of weakness.

The answer to my last question is tied to the U.S. presidential election cycle. In November 2016, the Americans will elect a new president. Barack Obama will leave office in January 2017 - what will he have to show for it? Thus far, he has enjoyed a few domestic policy successes, all of them controversial and under threat of repeal should the Democrats lose the White House next year.

Likewise, the President's foreign policy is in severe disarray, especially in the Middle East. This agreement with the Iranians - also a controversial "success" - will serve as his legacy assuming it is not overruled by a Congress representing an overwhelmingly skeptical American public, or cancelled by a Republican president in the future.

Here is how the Iranians see the agreement. This is from IRNA, the official Islamic Republic News Agency:

- World powers have recognized Iran’s peaceful nuclear program and are to respect the nuclear rights of Iranian nation within international conventions.

- The Islamic Republic of Iran is to be recognized as a nuclear technology power authorized to have peaceful nuclear programs such as complete nuclear fuel cycle and enrichment to be identified by the United Nations.

- All unfair sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council including economic and financial sanctions on Iran are to be lifted as per the agreement and through issuance of a new resolution by the United Nations Security Council.

- All nuclear installations and sites are to continue their work contrary to the early demands of the other party, none of them will be dismantled.

- The policy on preventing enrichment uranium is now failed, and Iran will go ahead with its enrichment program.

- Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, no centrifuges will be dismantled and research and development on key and advanced centrifuges will continue.

They did not mention that the arms embargo will be lifted in five years, and the missile embargo in eight years.

I don't see how this is a win for the United States. I fear this is a repeat of a similar deal struck by President Bill Clinton with North Korea in 1994; we all know how that turned out. Although there are a variety of issues that need to be addressed with Iran, we have now given up any leverage we had. For example, what about Iran's continued support for terrorism, and what about the Americans currently being held in Iran? Have President Obama and Secretary Kerry sacrificed them on the altar of legacy?

As I said, I hope this agreement stops the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons, but having worked in the region and on the Iran issue for decades, I fear the mullahs have outmaneuvered Messrs Obama and Kerry - again.

Tweet