Category Archives: Terrorism

I posted my Syria plan ideas at the Small Wars Journal, under a piece from War on the Rocks, “A New Plan for the United States in Syria“, by Ben Jonsson which starts off with this shift in strategy:

“As the Obama administration rethinks its Syria strategy, it should start by redefining U.S. interests in the face of an increasingly fractured Syrian conflict and adopting a new strategy that seeks to immediately reduce the level of violence by enforcing a pause on offensive operations by all sides in Syria.”

That goal is lofty, but at this point there’s nothing to induce that Syrian/Russian/Iranian alliance nor the assorted Syrian rebel groups to agree to a ceasefire.  I wrote my plan in the comments, it’s a repeat, so just skip it if you’ve been reading my posts the last couple weeks:

libertybelle October 20, 2015 – 12:08pm

The US calling for a ceasefire will fall on deaf ears at this point. I believe we should be formulating a plan to attack ISIS from the east, as the Syrian/Russian/Iranian alliance moves eastward from western Syria. We should discuss our plan to roll back ISIS with our allies and the Russian led alliance and while we should not become part of the Russian alliance, we should maintain open dialogue with Putin on our aims. It’s imperative that we talk to Putin, but the US must maintain total control over our plan. We should emphasize the urgency of getting to a ceasefire in Syria quickly with the more “moderate” Syrian rebels and the US should work with Putin to insure that safe zones can quickly be set up, with the aid of the international community, to protect civilians and those who put down their arms. Pouring more arms in to “moderate Syrians” will prolong the carnage.

We must recognize that Assad is a second tier problem compared to ISIS. If a “Russian-friendly” regime is in the wings to replace Assad, then Putin may be willing to let the good folks in Brussels deal with Assad. Syria has been a Russian client-state for decades and we lose nothing if a Russian-friendly government replaces Assad, but we will lose a great deal if ISIS fills a power vacuum should Assad fall first.

If we demonstrate an ability to implement a plan to work with forces in Iraq to really tackle ISIS, many of our traditional allies may prefer to align with the US rather than the Russian/Iranian/Syrian alliance, and this would counter the growing Iranian influence. We might be able to restore American credibility in the process too, which would aid us long-term. This plan would require deft diplomacy, speedy action and a willingness to use adequate military force to a clearly defined mission – defeat the Islamic State.

A pitfall to avoid would be to invest too many American boots on the ground and end up in an occupying mode in Iraq again, which would not help our long-term strategy in the region, which should be promoting REGIONAL STABILITY.

There was a 2014 paper in SSI by General Huba Wass de Czege ( http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Issues/Winter_… ),which had some ideas on how to prevent power vacuums as we progress, by relying on local and tribal leaders to create grassroots law and order as we learn and grow our capacity. We need to utilize new ideas and be open to change, while keeping in mind that as ISIS is rolled back, quickly establishing local security capacity is vital and since the “national government” has demonstrated no ability to do this, in addition to the ethnic divide between the national government and local population in ISIS territory, perhaps working with local leadership might work better. This is just an idea. There was July 2015 SSI paper by Dr. Robert E. Lamb,”Strategic Insights: Fragile States Cannot Be Fixed With State-Building” (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/index.cfm/articles/Fragile…), which explains this common pitfall with international efforts at “nation-building”.

Expecting a ceasefire, absent any real US plan, especially with the US reputation at a low-ebb, will get us nowhere.

https://libertybellediaries.com/2015/10/08/my-plan-for-the-syria-mess-inc…

I believe this “ceasefire first” plan relies on magical thinking and a lot of glossing over the serious problems with our Bosnia efforts, which this author seemed to be unaware of or ignored. “Moderate Syrian” rebels will not agree to a ceasefire immediately and frankly, the Assad regime, in an existential struggle, likewise, at this point has no incentive to agree to one. It seems to me like a retread of the Bosnia Plan. My idea apparently seems too controversial for consideration – oh no, we can’t talk to Putin, but the only way to have a seat at the table or to counter the Russian/Iranian moves is to be relevant. Expecting the “international community” or in this case, the writer listed regional powers, to tighten the diplomatic screws enough to force compliance to a ceasefire seems unlikely to work, imho.

Posted two comments at National Review this morning at a piece titled, “Henry Kissinger: Is nuclear catastrophe inevitable?”, by James Lewis. Lewis dissects Kissinger’s op-ed from the Wall Street Journal and he ends up advocating:

“Bottom line: To avoid the “catastrophe” of a hot nuclear arms race in the Middle East, a practical alliance of the West with Russia might save the world.”

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/10/henry_kissinger_is_nuclear_catastrophe_inevitable.html#ixzz3p1FqT5Do
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

The idea of “REGIONAL STABILITY” as an American national security strategy sure seems to be taking hold…  As they say, what’s old becomes new again, all the time.

Here are my two comments, with the comment I responded to included – it’s some vintage stuff from the LB archives on Ukraine and a repeat of my plan from two weeks ago, so just skip it if you’ve read my previous posts:

feralcat Monday, October 19, 2015 2:27 AM

“Bottom line: To avoid the “catastrophe” of a hot nuclear arms race in the Middle East, a practical alliance of the West with Russia might save the world.”

Then at a minimum, neither Rubio, Fiorina nor Christie can ever become President as they all want to not only not even talk to the Russians but they want to shoot down their planes which would not be at all conducive to any kind of alliance, although it would go quite well with starting WWIII between America and Russia.

susanholly Monday, October 19, 2015 8:40 AM

They lost me on the foreign policy end. For two weeks I’ve been saying we should work with the Kurds and other groups in Iraq and come up with a real plan to roll back ISIS from the east as the Russian/Syrian/Iranian block pushes them them eastward from western Syria. We could coordinate with the Russians, while still retaining complete autonomy in our planning and decisions. We should have already consulted with the Russians and established a hot line to protect our pilots and avoid air accidents, like the Israelis did.

John McCreary, a foremost intelligence analyst who retired from DIA and now puts together KGS Nightwatch (a subscription report – https://www.kforcegov.com/solu… on Oct. 14th wrote:

“A significant divergence of policy and strategy between
the US and Russia is now apparent in Syria, Iraq and other Mid-eastern countries. The US strategy since 2011 mostly has focused on building up opposition entities to replace authoritarian governments with democratic systems. That has backfired by contributed to widespread instability; civil war and state fragmentation; legitimation of elected Islamist regimes and a backlash among the local populations in favor of stability, exemplified by political developments in Egypt.

Notable exceptions to this strategy are Afghanistan and Yemen. The
Afghanistan conflict predates the current US administration whose policy has been to reduce the US presence to an embassy by the end of 2016. In Yemen, the US tends to support the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia against the Houthis, possibly because all the Gulf state air forces fly US combat aircraft.

The Russian strategy is built on supporting the governments in power in order to stabilize the existing order. Russia lacks the resources of the US, but President Putin has used his limited resources prudently and maneuvered deftly to advance Russian military presence and influence. Putin’s timing has been almost superb.

For old hands, the Russians and Americans appear to have reversed their traditional roles and swapped strategies and roles. Twenty-five years ago, the Soviets were destabilizing regions by supporting opposition elements in states friendly to the US. Now they are on the side of regional stability.“(Italics are mine)

I’ve been saying since Oct. 5th( http://libertybellediaries.com… , http://libertybellediaries.com…, http://libertybellediaries.com… ) Regional Stability should be our policy, imho, because there are worse things than despots and dictators – like anarchy and power vacuums, which seem to be our trademark end product in the ME these days.

and then:

KlugerRD Monday, October 19, 2015 8:20 AM

Kissinger is brilliant and also identifies what is the obvious.

Back when the Ukraine crisis began he wrote an op-ed about what Obama should do. It was not on ESPN so Obama never saw it,

Kissinger basically said that we should speak to Putin and find out what his interests are. Had we done that Crimea would never have happened. Ukraine was all about economics and their investment in gas pipelines throughout the country.

Putin is not a communist – he is a capitalist – and has spoken extensively about creating a EurAsian economic bloc to compete with the E.U. If you believe in free market capitalism there is nothing wrong with country’s seeking their own interests.

In regard to the Middle East, unless we wish to engage in a major regional war, dealing with Russia in the proper way is the answer to avoiding a nuclear war.

Obama is incompetent which is why we are where we are and will need a new President.

susanholly Monday, October 19, 2015 9:55 AM

Back during Ukraine, to see how the Russians saw things, they leaked an intercepted phone conversation in western media that was between our ambassador in Ukraine and Victoria Nuland at the State Dept, – discussing which opposition leader we wanted to put in Kiev ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/… ). To understand the Russian reasoning, just think how they interpreted the US trying to install a US puppet government in Kiev, that would isolate them from the their Navy’s warm-water port in Sevastopol in Crimea. ( http://libertybellediaries.com… ).

Putin told Charlie Rose to please make sure his comments were aired without editing in that CBS Charlie Rose interview, 9/27/15 ( http://www.charlierose.com/wat… , start about minute 14). Someone should pin down President Obama on our actions around the world, from Ukraine, Libya (Benghazi too), Iraq and what in the heck our strategy really is in regards to defeating ISIL. Putin laid out his position clearly. And to avoid major misunderstandings and escalating to war before actually talking is insane – we need to try to resolve conflicts by talking first, but instead we’ve got politicians all screaming for military escalation as our first diplomatic option.

Posted two more comments at National Review – WOW is all I can say, Charles Krauthammer’s lost on Syria – he’s still stuck on Assad must go and can’t see the forest for the trees.  He claims Russia is helping ISIS regain lost territory in Syria.  My comments are regurgitated from previous LB posts, so nothing new, but I am posting them here to keep a sort of log of my “commentary” and also a time stamp too.  I identified REGIONAL STABILITY as our strategic goal, loud and clear, since October 5, 2015.  Maybe, I should be Secretary of State, rofl….  Here are my two comments:

susanholly Friday, October 16, 2015 11:28 PM

The first Russian airstrikes, which the US media, WH and neocons wailed about hit targets north of Hama in a “rebel controlled area”. The Institute for the Study of War seems to be the only map source, since the State Dept., CNN and FOX all use their maps. I have screenshots of 3 ISW maps on my blog http://libertybellediaries.com… and http://libertybellediaries.com…. The one from CNN, one from the Kelly File and one from Chris Wallace on Oct 4th with GEN Keane describing the strikes -all 3 maps show a different story on that rebel area – especially the area with the most Russian strikes north of Hama – on one map it’s an ISIS controlled area, on another it’s a al Nusrah (Al Qaeda) area and on the Kelly file map it’s all yellow colored denoting “rebel forces” – which fit this narrative of “Syrian moderates”. The Long War Journal blog (http://www.longwarjournal.org/… keeps track of the Islamist goings on in the region and you can read through their archives on who is who in Syria and the advances of the Al Qaeda/ISIS groups, but also the ongoing collusion between so-called Free Syrian Army (Islamists) and the hardcore Islamists like ISIS – the line is very blurred and Mr. Krauthammer would likely not want to invite any of these so-called “Syrian moderates” to Sunday dinner… That rebel leader, who cut the heart out of a fallen foe and ate it, a couple years ago was from a “Syrian moderate” rebel group…

The best outcome would be for the US to plan to work with Sunni/Kurds in Iraq to attack ISIS from the east and encourage the “Syrian moderates” to agree to a ceasefire quickly and then focus on defeating ISIS and establishing safe zones in Syria. The goal should be to help restore order as quickly as possible. International pressure could then be brought to bear to deal with Assad. Assad is not the #1 concern – it’s the spread of ISIS, which will be assured if Assad falls first. The US has NO PLAN to deal with what happens if Assad falls.

To quote John McCreary, a foremost strategic analyst who worked for decades in the DIA and now publishes Nightwatch (https://www.kforcegov.com/solu… October 14, 2015:

“The Russian strategy is built on supporting the governments in power in order to stabilize the existing order. Russia lacks the resources of the US, but President Putin has used his limited resources prudently and maneuvered deftly to advance Russian military presence and influence. Putin’s timing has been almost superb”.

“For old hands, the Russians and Americans appear to have reversed
their traditional roles and swapped strategies and roles. Twenty-five years ago, the Soviets were destabilizing regions by supporting opposition elements in states friendly to the US. Now they are on the side of regional stability.“

Anyways, Henry Kissinger penned an excellent plan out of this mess: http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-… and it doesn’t involve arming “Syrian moderates”, thank God! It’s a plan to promote REGIONAL STABILITY…. Finally, a voice of reason in the strategic wilderness!!!

and then:

susanholly • 17 minutes ago

If Dr. Krauthammer wants to get on a soap box, how about urging the President to set up a hotline with the Russians in Syria immediately to avoid air accidents or escalation over Syria. Our pilots’ lives matter more than playing some male, ego-driven game of “chicken” in the skies over Syria, to no strategic purpose!!! The Israelis were smart enough to do that and here again, l’m quoting Nightwatch (https://www.kforcegov.com/solu… from October 15, 2015:

“Russia-Israel: On 15 October Russia’s defense ministry announced that its forces in Syria had set up a “hotline” with Israeli forces to avoid air accidents over Syria.

An “information-sharing” mechanism “has been established through a hotline between the Russian aviation command center at the Humaymim air base in Syria and a command post of the Israeli air force,” the ministry said in a statement. The statement also said that the two sides were undergoing training on how to cooperate.

Comment: The Israelis and Russians wasted little time in establishing a hot line. This is a prudent and practical measure that does not imply recognition or acceptance of the other sides’ political views. It recognizes the new conditions in which combat aircraft are operating.

Israel’s decision to establish a communications link to the Russians near Latakia highlights Israel’s resolve to retaliate against Syria for every spillover effect from the Syrian civil war that lands in Israeli territory.”

Update: I posted a response to another comment:

susanholly Saturday, October 17, 2015 1:02AM
There’s a neocon cabal that includes the likes of the Kagan/Kristol clans and they strategize together. Kimberly Kagan runs the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), which pours out bad maps on the disposition of Syrian forces- that everyone, to include the US State Dept, John McCain (who hired the former ISW liar, O’Bagy and she serves as a foreign policy legislative aide to McCain now) and FOX and CNN use. GEN Keane gives the ISW gravitas and I am not sure if he is aware of the bad maps…. Unfortunately for America, the ISW seems to be the only map-maker…. I still would like to know the full background of Elizabeth O’Bagy and how this young woman who lied about her credentials became the source the media and our government officials began using, without any fact-checking in 2013??? Kerry and McCain quoted her by name in 2013 and her op-ed in the Wall Street Journal almost got us more heavily involved in the Syrian civil war. That the ISW maps are still accepted as a reliable source is just incredible!

For an even more disturbing memory jog – O’Bagy was serving as the political director for the Syrian Emergency Task Force in 2013 and that lobbying group took McCain to Syria in early 2013 on a “fact-finding” trip, where he was posed with some “rebels”, who are alleged to be Islamist radicals. His staff brushed that off, but then in the Fall of 2013 when the ISW fired O’Bagy – McCain hired her. Bryan Preston at PJmedia (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013… wrote a lot of stuff about O’Bagy’s background. I wonder if she underwent a complete background check when she went to work of McCain or if it was waived. O’Bagy also showed up as signing a sworn affidavit for an alleged American jihadist, Eric Harroun, in Arizona, who was facing a possible life sentence for joining Al Qaeda, but O’Bagy vouched that he was a “Syrian moderate” fighting for the Free Syrian Army (http://www.debbieschlussel.com…. Harroun got a $100 fine and probation. I’ve been following and writing about this on my blog (http://libertybellediaries.com… since 2013.

Harroun’s story – http://www.newyorker.com/magaz…

He got involved with the Islamic Center of Tucson (http://www.clarionproject.org/…, described as:

“At least a dozen terror-linked individuals have been tied to the Islamic
Center of Tucson (ICT). The mosque and the state of Arizona are
mentioned 59 times in the 9/11 Commission Report.[1] The mosque is considered to be “basically the first cell of al Qaeda in the United States.”[2]”

Henry Kissinger weighs in on the Syria mess with clear-sighted reasoning, “A Path Out of the Middle East Collapse”.  Definitely read the entire article at the Wall Street Journal, because Dr. Kissinger explains the situation succinctly.  He begins with an honest assessment of US policy failure to date:

“American policy has sought to straddle the motivations of all parties and is therefore on the verge of losing the ability to shape events. The U.S. is now opposed to, or at odds in some way or another with, all parties in the region: with Egypt on human rights; with Saudi Arabia over Yemen; with each of the Syrian parties over different objectives. The U.S. proclaims the determination to remove Mr. Assad but has been unwilling to generate effective leverage—political or military—to achieve that aim. Nor has the U.S. put forward an alternative political structure to replace Mr. Assad should his departure somehow be realized.” (my italics)

Further in the article he lays out key points to consider for future policy”

“Too much of our public debate deals with tactical expedients. What we need is a strategic concept and to establish priorities on the following principles:

• So long as ISIS survives and remains in control of a geographically defined territory, it will compound all Middle East tensions. Threatening all sides and projecting its goals beyond the region, it freezes existing positions or tempts outside efforts to achieve imperial jihadist designs. The destruction of ISIS is more urgent than the overthrow of Bashar Assad, who has already lost over half of the area he once controlled. Making sure that this territory does not become a permanent terrorist haven must have precedence. The current inconclusive U.S. military effort risks serving as a recruitment vehicle for ISIS as having stood up to American might. (italics mine)

• The U.S. has already acquiesced in a Russian military role. Painful as this is to the architects of the 1973 system, attention in the Middle East must remain focused on essentials. And there exist compatible objectives. In a choice among strategies, it is preferable for ISIS-held territory to be reconquered either by moderate Sunni forces or outside powers than by Iranian jihadist or imperial forces. For Russia, limiting its military role to the anti-ISIS campaign may avoid a return to Cold War conditions with the U.S.

• The reconquered territories should be restored to the local Sunni rule that existed there before the disintegration of both Iraqi and Syrian sovereignty. The sovereign states of the Arabian Peninsula, as well as Egypt and Jordan, should play a principal role in that evolution. After the resolution of its constitutional crisis, Turkey could contribute creatively to such a process.

• As the terrorist region is being dismantled and brought under nonradical political control, the future of the Syrian state should be dealt with concurrently. A federal structure could then be built between the Alawite and Sunni portions. If the Alawite regions become part of a Syrian federal system, a context will exist for the role of Mr. Assad, which reduces the risks of genocide or chaos leading to terrorist triumph.

• The U.S. role in such a Middle East would be to implement the military assurances in the traditional Sunni states that the administration promised during the debate on the Iranian nuclear agreement, and which its critics have demanded.

• In this context, Iran’s role can be critical. The U.S. should be prepared for a dialogue with an Iran returning to its role as a Westphalian state within its established borders.

The U.S. must decide for itself the role it will play in the 21st century; the Middle East will be our most immediate—and perhaps most severe—test. At question is not the strength of American arms but rather American resolve in understanding and mastering a new world.”

I think he’s got it right and I italicized that key flaws in the Obama policy wonks’ and the neocons’ reasoning – there is no plan in place to replace Assad, if he falls first and dealing with ISIS takes precedence.  So, perhaps I passed  Mid-East foreign policy strategy 101, LOL.

Posted a comment at National Review,

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/425518/krauthammers-take-we-need-help-free-syrian-army-topple-assad-nr-staff

susanholly • 3 minutes ago

There’s a lot of misinformation and propaganda being spread. The Institute for the Study of War seems to be the accepted “expert” on the rebel forces in Syria, just like in the lead up in 2013 to “arm the Syrian moderates – with everyone relying on a young woman, who turned out to have lied about her credentials and was also the political director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force. Her op-ed in the Wall Street Journal was quoted by the media, the Secretary of State and John McCain, and her map was the de facto – accepted source – NOT US intelligence sources. Check the ISW maps floating around – I have three linked on my blog two from FOX news and one from CNN. http://libertybellediaries.com… and also here – http://libertybellediaries.com… Look closely at the rebel area the media and the Obama narrative railed on about – there was ISIS or Al Nusrah in those first Russian strikes on two maps and one has just rebel forces in the SAME area. Their maps fit their propaganda. – The Long War Journal tracks all the fighting and you can follow along on the Syrian opposition, which sure differs from what the ISW reports.

IHS Jane’s and our own intelligence identified this early: Here’s a McClatchy DC article from August 2015, explaining the 2013 propaganda – http://www.mcclatchydc.com/new...

Here’s a UK Telegraph 2013 link,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new..., giving IHS Jane’s assessment, but everyone seems to listen to the Kagan clan. We are being fed a narrative and sorry, Mr. Krauthammer and the media haven’t paid any attention to FACTS.

Here’s my ideas of what to do: http://libertybellediaries.com… and http://libertybellediaries.com... and here, http://libertybellediaries.com…

Hey, perhaps my idea is taking hold: “Will Obama Respond to Russia in Syria? by Michael Curtis.  He recognized that the US policy is more concerned with Assad than with dealing with ISIS – how about that “revelation”, lol.  Same old, same old – just like with the Elizabeth O’Bagy situation,

I posted this in comments at the American Thinker under my susanholly name:

Yes, the US should talk to Putin – wrote this on my blog since October 5th- (http://libertybellediaries.com…, http://libertybellediaries.com…, http://libertybellediaries.com… and I have posted it in comments here and at National Review several times. Chaos or ISIS will seize control if Assad falls first in Syria. There is no plan to prevent that from happening. Obviously, if the Russians and Iranians help the Assad regime retake more territory in Syria, ISIS will be pushed eastward. We should work with forces from the east and in Iraq to push against ISIS from that direction. Rather than all this saber-rattling about Putin, we should be in serious talks about Our Plan to degrade and defeat ISIS.

In grade school long ago, they used to teach kids about various forms of government and at the far end, the worst thing is not a despot – it’s anarchy and that is what we left in Libya and when we pulled out of Iraq too. Libya is still in chaos, ISIS filled that power vacuum in Iraq and is poised to do so in Syria if Assad falls. Syria has been a Russian client state for 40 years, so big deal if it remains a Russian client state. The big threat to the US is not Russia in Syria, it’s Russia being successful in Syria and replacing the US in influence in the region. We can regain American credibility, by moving to help restore REGIONAL STABILITY

If Assad goes as seems to be the US policy at the moment, there is no plan in place to fill that power vacuum. The Islamic State and radicalized Sunnis will seize control. Our policymakers have offered nothing that makes any sense at all.

Now we could talk to Putin like sane people and come up with a real plan to defeat ISIS as the Russians push them eastward toward Iraq. Then after some stability and order is restored in Syria and Iraq, international pressure could be brought to bear from Brussels to deal with Assad. The Russians might be inclined to give up Assad if a Russian-friendly government is in Syria, international pressure could then promote safe zones and actually make them work in Syria for a return of displaced refugees. And the US and Russia might be viewed as adults on the world stage for a change, instead of treating the rest of the world like pawns in some geopolitical chess game (which the US plays badly btw).