# Visiting the way stations of a new 'long war'



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2006)

Here is a piece from _Globe and Mail_ columnist Jeffrey Simpson, it is reproduced in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060822.wsimpson22/BNStory/National/home  





> Visiting the way stations of a new 'long war'
> 
> *JEFFREY SIMPSON*
> From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
> ...



Simpson has *part* of it right, but only a bit.

This new war will be long, at least as long as the liberal West vs. fascist/communist Europe one.  It will also be asymmetrical.

The UN report on human development in Arab nations is, indeed, instructive.  The Arabs are abysmal failures at nation building and statecraft.  There are many reasons for this, almost all cultural: beginning with a distaste for education, beyond religious education.  This is the main _medieval_ aspect of parts of the 21st century Islamic world.  It is reported (I cannot find the reference at the moment) that religious studies are overwhelmingly dominant in almost all Middle Eastern universities – even in Cairo and Amman; the exception is in Palestine where commerce, engineering and medicine (the ‘trades’ of _academe_) predominate.  One need only to look at Saudi Arabia: it has a large_ish_ modern air force which would be grounded the day after all the foreign, mostly Anglo-American _ex pat_ tech reps left.

But, being a journalist, Simpson is terribly short-sighted; being a Canadian he is required, culturally, to go off the rails and blame George Bush for almost everything.  Ditto his views on the Arab/Israeli ‘dilemma’.  It is not a dilemma at all: one side or the other must win.  *Historically*, it probably doesn’t matter all that much which one does.  I rather hope the Israelis win, I rather expect both to lose in the short term, with an eventual completely (and literally) pyrrhic victory going to the remnants of the Arabs.

The _Globe and Mail_ invites readers to comment.  I often do – despite a very user unfriendly system which limits both size (not a bad idea) but does not allow paragraphing.  Here is my offering:



> Simpson is a typical journalist: short sighted.  He recognizes that we are in yet another long war but then, because he cannot resist, he drags in the current, short term, American administration.  The group which will lead the West to yet another victory, this one over Islam - militant or not, (see Victor Davis Hanson for some historical, classical perspective on the long, long list of wars and Western victories) is the "Anglosphere" - which has been rising, and continues to rise, for about 400 years.  (It replaced the essentially Asian hegemony started by Timor and completed by Babar’s Mogul Empire.)  The zenith of the Anglosphere's power is still in the future, but maybe not even 100 years in the future; the nadir of its power is 500+ years away.  In the interim it will defeat the Islamist threat and, possibly, hopefully stimulate a necessary reform and enlightenment within Islam and the Middle East.  It will also contain and moderate China which will join it, perhaps supplant it, as the leader of an equally powerful "Sinosphere".  Long term, strategic and historic thinking is required for a long war: not immediate journalistic navel gazing.


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Aug 2006)

Bush bashing and foot shooting aside- it is  a long war and it may be accelerating  in pace towards some sort of major bench mark moment which will influence the war for some time to come. I personally consider 911, the current Iraq war  and the simmering Israeli-Lebanon issues to be small fare in the long run and therefore fairly minor events, tragic consequences notwithstanding. 

In my opinion, there will be one or more major collisions between the Anglosphere and Islam of truly epic proportions far surpassing the current skirmishes in scale and scope before the long war takes any course one way or the other.  One or more Anglosphere nations will be lost or essentially destroyed in the process however I think the price to be paid by the global Muslim population [including subjugated Muslims] will destroy extreme Islam in the long run.

Cheers


----------



## a_majoor (23 Aug 2006)

I'm not sure what you mean by an Anglosphere nation being lost or destroyed, Whiskey, unless you are referring to an attack by WMD smuggled into a major Western city. In terms of military effectiveness, only the Anglosphere West has the ability to project power on a global basis (and according to VDH [Carnage and Culture], this is the only civilization which ever had this capability).

If you want to draw the battle lines for open military action in WW IV, start with Somalia, move north along east Africa (the Sudan, Egypt); cross into SW Asia via Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Kashmir region, then go south and east into the Phillipines and Indonesia.

Terrorist attacks against Europe, Russia and North America can be seen as economy of force efforts to drive nations out of the "Coalition of the Willing" (i.e. Spain) and break the Western will to fight, although I suspect it will harden the resolve of more people than it will break them.

In terms of how we should fight, a combination of containment, "3D" and kinetic effects is needed. The most dangerous players are State actors like Iran and Syria, which have resources to fuel the fires; neutralize them and the problem becomes essentially local and disconnected. Taliban like militias in Somalia won't last very long without outside support, and AQ cells in Indonesia will have their range of action limited for the same reason. Smart "3D" work takes away the local support and they will eventually dry up. Each locality can be dealt with individually, and regional solutions (i.e. an East African strategy, one for the Levant, one for SW Asia and so on) can be adopted and prosecuted on the basis of urgency and resources available. Side prediction: SW Asia will get the bulk of the resources and attention, although in my opinion, Pakistan should be the real focus of attention after Iran and Syria are sorted.

Pakistan is worrying, since they are the only known nuclear power, have a fractured and unstable society and are also supported by an outside player: China; who may have motives to enter the game to keep the Anglosphere off balance for their own reasons. Pakistan and India also have a dynamic which is separate from India's participation in the Anglosphere, which also adds uncertainty.


----------



## 1feral1 (23 Aug 2006)

A good post Arthur!

cheers,

Wes

PS - Anglosphere West, at the ripe ole age of 46, I must fess up and say thats a new word, or at least to me


----------



## TCBF (23 Aug 2006)

I don't see why a few 'Good Ole Boys' can't have a fun time in all of this.  We get a bunch of military superannuates together and form a 'communications consulting' firm. It then specializes in mass un-manned balloonings of special dispensers that individually parachute millions of copies of The Bible and The Koran - all translated into Korean - over North Korea.  Just for fun.  Financing should be easy - the Saudis (as usual), and maybe that Robertson fellow.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Aug 2006)

From VDH

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson082806.html



> *Relearning Lessons in the War on Terror*
> by Victor Davis Hanson
> Tribune Media Services
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Aug 2006)

I read an apocalyptic piece today on what the world might look like with a nuclear Iran and a post-proliferation world. The prospect of a nuclear middle east with a jihad bent on an islamic takeover of much of the world isnt comforting. There will be countries that will submit and a few will fight. The stage will be set for armageddon. Maybe.

Iran cannot achieve its nuclear ambitions without oil and money. If it comes to a strike on Iran I would include its oil infrastructure on the target list. No way we could locate and strike all its secret nuclear facilities,but we can take out the reactors and heavy water facility, as well as their oil facilities. If oil hits $80 or 100 a barrel they wont see any of that money. Their Chinese friends will have to look elsewhere for oil. I would set their oil industry back 20 years if I could. There will be less risk in hitting civilians than trying to get nuclear facilities located in civilian neighborhoods.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWU4MDMwNmU5MTI5NGYzN2FmODg5NmYyMWQ4YjM3OTU=


----------



## a_majoor (15 Nov 2006)

More on how the regional conflicts are converging into a true global conflict, just like the various conflicts in Asia, China, Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean converged into WW II:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378402808&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull



> *Report: 700 Somalis aided Hizbullah*
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> JPost.com Staff, THE JERUSALEM POST  Nov. 15, 2006
> ...



The state players can provide funds and equipment, the poor nations and non state players provide the "foot soldiers"


----------



## dglad (15 Nov 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> In terms of how we should fight, a combination of containment, "3D" and kinetic effects is needed. The most dangerous players are State actors like Iran and Syria, which have resources to fuel the fires; neutralize them and the problem becomes essentially local and disconnected. Taliban like militias in Somalia won't last very long without outside support, and AQ cells in Indonesia will have their range of action limited for the same reason. Smart "3D" work takes away the local support and they will eventually dry up. Each locality can be dealt with individually, and regional solutions (i.e. an East African strategy, one for the Levant, one for SW Asia and so on) can be adopted and prosecuted on the basis of urgency and resources available. Side prediction: SW Asia will get the bulk of the resources and attention, although in my opinion, Pakistan should be the real focus of attention after Iran and Syria are sorted.
> 
> Pakistan is worrying, since they are the only known nuclear power, have a fractured and unstable society and are also supported by an outside player: China; who may have motives to enter the game to keep the Anglosphere off balance for their own reasons. Pakistan and India also have a dynamic which is separate from India's participation in the Anglosphere, which also adds uncertainty.



Well put.  However, "neutralizing" nation-states like Iran and Syria is going to take a degree of political will that will be challenging to muster in the West.  Personally, I think Iran is the key; the country has a well-educated population, by regional standards, and a reasonably progressive, forward looking youth demographic.  The theocrats are a relatively minority that aren't really in step with most of their people.  If it was possible mobilize popular change in Iran, push them into a more moderate leadership role in the region and thereby separate them from Syria, a major step forward would occur.  Syria alone is still a problem, but a much smaller one than Iran and Syria combined.

I'd put MORE emphasis on Pakistan.  This country is almost the opposite of Iran...a relatively moderate and pragmatic secular leadership who are the minority in a country with a largely impoverished, under-educated population contaminated by extremist elements.  And they have nuclear weapons, are forever on the brink of a shooting war with India, and are aligned with China who, as you point out, also has a rocky relationship with India.  Frankly, short of solidifying Musharraf's rule with massive infusions of aid and development resources, I'm not sure what you could do about "neutralizing" Pakistan.


----------



## Journeyman (15 Nov 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> *One or more Anglosphere nations will be lost or essentially destroyed in the process*


I'm not sure which nations you're considering, but the central Western European block of say, France, Holland, Germany - - are all facing increasing radical Islamist problems, at rates faster than most other Western countries. 

This may provide, a) signposts of our future, and hence, possible courses of action, and b) adequate warnings if they face imminent crises while we still dither.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2006)

The situation in Eastern Africa is heating up, and could become even more interesting given this is only a stone's throw from the Sudan, and several of the interested parties in the war are operating in the area as well:

It has been rumored that Somali fighters have received training and weaponry from Iran. The AQ had used the Sudan as a training/stageing area in the past, and may still be doing so. China has extensive interests in the Sudan, especially the oil, and the United States operates some Special Forces in Kenya and Djibouti, and is rumored to be supporting the provisional government of Somalia against the Union of Islamic Courts. 

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A327413



> *Islamists mass troops on Ethiopian border*
> 
> MOGADISHU — Somalia’s powerful Union of Islamic Courts began massing thousands of troops on the border with Ethiopia over the weekend, days after Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said he was ready to confront the Islamic militants in Somalia.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2006)

I believe that Iran is the key to the puzzle, and here might be the action that brings everything out into the open at last:

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2006/12/show-of-force-in-persian-gulf.html



> *Show of Force in Persian Gulf *
> 
> The United States will make a show of force in the Persian Gulf as a warning to Iran. Iran has continued its illegal nuclear program in defiance of the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA). It is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment despite threats of sanctions from UN member states. However, the threats have been hollow ones because of reluctance by China and Russia to agree on a strict sanctions regime against the Islamic theocracy.
> 
> ...



If the Iranians take the bait and attack the US forces deployed in the Gulf, the Americans can use their long suits: Naval power and Air power, without risking too much engagement on the ground. It also provides a means to puth the crunch on the Iranian economy by disrupting the flow of oil (a naval blockade and perhaps disabling the oil infrastructure). Since the vast majority of Iranians will not see the actual presence of US forces, it will be much more difficult for the Theocracy to either whip up the population against the Americans or deploy against them either.

If things go badly for US forces in the Gulf, or should other factors make it desirable, the US can launch a "head shot" at the key government and revolutionary guard targets, removing the props which hold the theocracy up and taking Iran out of the Long War. This will have positive consequences in Iraq, Lebanon, Palistine and moderate consequences in East Africa as well.

Stand by


----------



## a_majoor (21 Dec 2006)

A veiw of the shape and form of this war:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2006/12/new-cold-war.html
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/16224448.htm



> *A New Cold War?*
> 
> The Left's favorite whipping boy on the "War on Terror", a term he dislikes:
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Dec 2006)

Also consider that from the time that comminsium fell in the USSR to now, is the longest period Russia has played with a real democracy. It would seem to falling backwards for now, but I think the Russians have the taste in their mouthes and will not forget it. As much as China is building up it's power, they need regional stability to maintain their economy, and will likely not do anything to rash unless pushed. Hard to say about Iran, the government is a bunch of nutbars, but the people don't really want a major conflict as the 10 year war is still fresh in their minds.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Dec 2006)

I couldn't agree more.  Perhaps the biggest mistake that any of us make is in trying to make sense of things by organising the world into a small number of boxes.  Linnaeus tried to something similar with organizing and naming plants and animals but eventually discovered he kept having to break things down further and further from Kingdoms, Phylums, Sub-phylums, Families, Genera, Species, Sub-Species, Sub-Sub-Species and eventually races and breeds.  Ultimately it boils down to the individual.

By accepting the Enemy as Islam and agreeing that there is one individual that speaks for Islam then we empower that individual - even though Islam may not have chosen that individual on their own  (Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians is a good example - Nasrullah, Ahmadinejad and Osama are well on the way to achieving the same end).

The solution is NOT to look for the ONE leader that can deliver all of Islam.  The solution is to appeal to individuals and those Minor leaders than can be brought over to your way of thinking.  Given the success of Bollywood videos and Nike runners I think it is fair to say their is a solid market for those ideas.

But this also ties into this: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/55276/post-504720.html#msg504720


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jan 2007)

Certainly a "cultural offensive" has the greatest power of all the tools in our tool box, and "we" are not even employing it an any sort of focused fashion! The corporate whiz kids and advertising agencies are our "Al Qaeda", operating in a totally decentralized fashion across millions of separate "operations" and "fronts". The only possible defence against this is to attempt to exclude Western influences, as the communist nations attempted during the Cold War, and looking at things like the "Great Firewall of China" and governments across South West Asia attacking and arresting people for wearing "western" clothes or listening to "western" music and watching "western" TV and movies today gives a good indication of how well "we" are really doing.

Rather than attempting to bring a cultural offensive under government control (which is not only counterproductive, but ultimately self defeating), "we" should use our power and attempt to maintain open channels of communication through every media possible, openly and covertly (slipping instructions on how to bypass internet filters in China is not an "overt" operation, for example). Obviously this is not the only means available to us, economic weakness can be examined and exploited (Iran, for example, has a very poorly maintained oil industry and even has to import gasoline; sanctions against Western oil companies that do business with Iran and manipulating the gasoline market to draw gasoline imports elswhere will certainly have an impact), and "kinetic effects" remain a viable (and in some cases the only) option.

Given the limited resources available, as well as looking at some real time constraints, does mean forcing the issue at selected times and places of our own choosing. Finding and disabling "key" players in the axis of evil will certainly have to be done at some point, I would suggest sooner rather than waiting for some deadly nuclear "later" myself.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jan 2007)

Status report. Follow link for maps, pictures etc.

http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/12/the_state_of_jihad.php



> *The State of the Jihad*
> A look at the state of the major theaters, and some under the radar, in the Long War
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jan 2007)

In line with my known fondness for historical analogues, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act,  is a comment, from today’s (15 Jan 07) _Globe and Mail_, by Alan G. Jamieson, a Canadian (Alberta) author:
  
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070115.wcowar15/BNStory/specialComment/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20070115.wcowar15 


> America's Eighty Years War?
> 
> ALAN JAMIESON
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...



It is interesting to remember that the Dutch rebels were, actively, supported by England – sometimes with troops, mostly with money.  That seems to be the case today for the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Jamieson also reinforces my view that both Iraq and Afghanistan are but ‘way stations’ on the long, arduous journey from Islam’s founding to its final clash with the dominant secular, liberal Western and secular, conservative Asian civilizations.  It is my *belief* that such a clash is inevitable – not between _civilizations_ but, rather, between civilization, as we understand it, and a barbaric, medieval, Arab/Persian theocracy.

Some commentators, including Jamieson, argue that the Arabs and Persians (and West Asians and North Africans and Indonesians and, and, and …) are too deeply divided amongst themselves – on religious, linguistic and cultural grounds – to come together any time soon (say within the next two or three generations) to and launch an all out war between Islam and the West or the East.  That may be the case but strong leaders _*have*_ united most of Islam in the past and I believe there is a cultural proclivity for many (most?) Muslims to _submit_ to a high religious authority and _submerge_ their religious and social differences in pursuit of a ‘greater Islam’ – Osama bin Laden’s _caliphate_.


----------



## Journeyman (15 Jan 2007)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> *It is interesting to remember that the Dutch rebels were, actively, supported by England...*


But to continue the analogy, the British and the Dutch then went on to fight four distinct wars following Dutch secession (at one point [1667] the Dutch Navy, under De Ruyter, occupied the Thames River!).

Today's insurgent ally (Iran? Pakistan?) may soon be the insurgent's foe. If the analogy holds true, it suggests withdrawal (I know, a whole different can-of-worms/thread) to let them at each others' throats. _Then_, we take on the winners for the "Civilization Stakes"


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Jan 2007)

To take another tack though "-isms" didn't seem to matter much when Francis I, Christian King of France and acting on behalf of the Medici-Valois-Bourbon-Stewart interests allied himself with the Muslim Sultan Soliman in Istanbul (not much appreciated by Arab Muslims as he was a Turk) against the Hapsburg faction in Rome. 

I think we take "belief" too much to heart, whether it is belief in a philosophy, a country or a person.  The people in the crowd change as they die and move on.  Each individual's belief changes. I am not a big fan of the notion of natural progression.  The Great Man theory commends itself to me as people with a desire for power follow Ralph Klein's dictum of finding a parade and getting out in front of it to lead it where they want it to go.  Although perhaps it should be the Great People theory to account for Elizabeth I as well as James VI & I, also to account for Dynastic Oligarchies such as the Medici-Bourbon-Stewart already mentioned, and the perennial power of certain cities dominated by certain families or groups.

I must be in a more pessimistic/cynical frame of mind because I don't think it matters whether we stay or go.  The best any group of people has done in the past is bought local peace for themselves for a generation or two.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jan 2007)

[/quote]
Jamieson also reinforces my view that both Iraq and Afghanistan are but ‘way stations’ on the long, arduous journey from Islam’s founding to its final clash with the dominant secular, liberal Western and secular, conservative Asian civilizations.  It is my *belief* that such a clash is inevitable – not between _civilizations_ but, rather, between civilization, as we understand it, and a barbaric, medieval, Arab/Persian theocracy.

Some commentators, including Jamieson, argue that the Arabs and Persians (and West Asians and North Africans and Indonesians and, and, and …) are too deeply divided amongst themselves – on religious, linguistic and cultural grounds – to come together any time soon (say within the next two or three generations) to and launch an all out war between Islam and the West or the East.  That may be the case but strong leaders _*have*_ united most of Islam in the past and I believe there is a cultural proclivity for many (most?) Muslims to _submit_ to a high religious authority and _submerge_ their religious and social differences in pursuit of a ‘greater Islam’ – Osama bin Laden’s _caliphate_.
[/quote]

You have keyed into the main weakness of radical Islam, most Muslims inhabit a world quite different than Arabia and for the most part are not radicalized. They must be constantly maintained in their state of radicalization. Most governments are keying in on the radical leaders as they realize they are a threat to themselves regardless of their opinion of the US position. 
The west must continue to promote moderate Islam in these countries and find ways to funnel money to moderates without contaminating them. It was through money that the Whabbi’s bought their way through the Muslim world, the average mosque and Iman preaching tolerance could never compete with a Saudi run Mosque and if they did, more earthly and violent techniques were used to shut them down.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2007)

The war might carry on in a series of spasms as our "attention" is raised or lowered

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/btFrameset.php?URL=http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/will-to-win.html&title=The%20Will%20to%20Win

[/quote]
It All Comes Down to Will

Mark Burnell (author) ~ “The most valuable commodity of all is time and … patience is control. The reason time is so valuable is that it’s the one resource the poor have in abundance and the rich can’t buy. The West worries about the next financial quarter [or next election]; in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever there are many poor – that’s not a pressing concern. So when dealing with the West this is what they understand; that if they wait long enough they will prevail by default.”

Any sports fan knows that whenever two teams meet the outcome is unpredictable if neither side holds a massive advantage either in skill or training. Most often the outcome is a matter of will; victory goes to the side which can gain psychological momentum and maintain it. How often do sports commentators speak of momentum? … as in “the Eagles have momentum going into the second half!” The concept is so prevalent that we take it for granted and assume that when all things are equal, or not even that equal, the right psychology can win the game.

When it comes to war or even cultural clashes, those who study these know and understand that “will” is likely the most important factor in winning and losing. Sure, technological, numerical, or professional superiority play a vital roll, but in the end, clashes of this sort only end when one side loses the will to keep fighting. As long as the will to fight remains, conflict continues.

John Keegan in The Face of Battle, put it as follows:

    “Battle therefore … is essentially a moral conflict. It requires … a mutual and sustained act of will by two contending parties and, if it is to result in a decision, the moral collapse of one of them” 


In a nutshell then, wars are won or lost when one side loses the will to fight.

Consider now the global war being waged by Islamic Totalitarianism. Consider it’s fanaticism; consider its unifying doctrine; consider the willingness of its followers to perish; consider its disregard for suffering and hardship; consider its historical grounding; and, consider its far reaching dispersal throughout the world. Then, consider Western Liberal society, with its short attention spans, its divisive political systems, its decadence, its nay-sayers, and its inner turmoil.


If the War on Islamic Totalitarianism comes down to a battle of wills, who do you think holds all the cards? Just this past year Canadian support for the mission in Afghanistan waned when Canada began taking casualties … since then there has been calm, and support has once again rebounded. The same can be said of American support for the mission in Iraq. It remained relatively stable until civilian casualties and military casualties in Baghdad escalated and became the daily sado-pornography in the media. Then, instead of increased determination, the American public recoiled and today support for the mission is at an all time low.

The lesson for Islamists is this: Kill civilians in any way possible in the most public way possible, and the Western democracies will lose the will to prevail. No matter the training, the weapons, or even superiority in numbers, the West does not have the will to fight a conflict in which death can be broadcast via the media.

Europe lost her will prior to World War 2; in fact, it can be argued that Europe experienced World War 2 simply because she had lost her will after World War One. America lost her will in Vietnam where she buried 57,000 brave soldiers, mostly draftees, and where she spawned an isolationist and pacifist bent that permeates her culture and media to this very day. Canada lost her will after decades of peace and almost total saturation of her institutions with leftist utopianism.

If Keegan is correct, as I believe he is, *then we in the West won’t muster the will needed to defeat Islamic Totalitarianism until a true cataclysm assails us.* It may take any number of forms, but until then, it is only a minority of Westerns who have the will to prevail. The rest want to go back to a blissful September 10th slumber, where they can focus on concocting myths about American hegemony, Global Warming, and International Zionist conspiracies. Not until they face cultural extinction will they muster the will to fight; and perhaps not even then.
[/quote]


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2007)

From Celestial Junk





> 05 March 2007
> Might, Will, Sacrifice
> 
> What does it take to win a war? A young Canadian soldier thinks out loud.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Apr 2007)

http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html#1356420745443012906



> FROM IRAQI BLOGGER ALAA, a mixed assessment of U.S. security strategy. "However, between the extreme course of total withdrawal and the present detailed involvement with daily operations; there is a middle way that few are talking about. Complete abandon and retreat by the Americans would indeed constitute defeat and a victory for the enemy, and would turn the tables completely and ignite a larger conflagration in the region. On the other hand the level of involvement of American and other allied foreign troops with detailed street to street policing, house searches etc. etc. should not continue indefinitely. . . . What must be realized is that as long as the U.S. is strategically present, the enemy has no hope of achieving any of his objectives. This enemy knows this only too well; and his prime objective is to bring about this withdrawal and retreat by all means. He pins his hopes on the internal situation in the U.S., and this is his most potent weapon. Therefore most of his actions and attacks are basically publicity stunts aimed primarily at the MSM and American and western public opinion."


----------



## a_majoor (5 Aug 2007)

The arc of decision

If the United States leaves Iraq or not, (or even if the invasion had never happened in the first place) there is a broad outline to what the next 20 to 30 years are going to look like. Given the current political situation in the United States, I can forsee a series of regional wars in the arc, with pressure being applied during some administrations and being withdrawn during others (this is not a slap at the two parties, although consistency would be nice, domestic considerations will determine if an administration commits to war or not).

The arc runs from Somalia in East Africa, north through the Sudan and Egypt, then arcs across the Levant and into Southwest Asia. It passes through the Tran caucus, the “’Stans” and then curves south into the Philippines and Indonesia.

Within the arc are multiple pockets of resistance, from Ethiopia and Kenya in East Africa, and Israel, Christian Lebanon, secular Turkey and “Kurdistan” in SW Asia. Many of these pockets will resist radical Islam for their own survival, but the reality is they are particularistic in outlook and in many cases will not be inclined to cooperate amongst each other (indeed, may even look on each other with suspicion or as potential enemies). Alliance with these nations is fraught with difficulty due to their mutual antagonism as well as the great disparity of force between the radical Islamists and the individual nations concerned. Too little support will not change the situation, but attempting to carry the load for them is a recipe for disaster.

The rest of the population inside the arc is divided by overlapping religions and ethnic divisions, most of which are also mutually hostile. Much of the violence is inter communal, as the main factions are fighting to achieve regional hegemony. The victor of this contest will also have the ability to control the flow of oil from the region to Europe, India, Japan and China. Access to this wealth will provide the victor with a flow of wealth to carry out a broad range of actions to maintain their position.

The ability to control the flow of energy to major markets will have several potential consequences. For the consumers of oil, this may be an inconvenience or it may be intolerable and lead to a new series of conflicts for access to energy. For Russia, the ability to cash in on increased oil and resource prices will provide funds to remain solvent, but the long-term demographic decline of Russia and the proximity of large Islamic populations in the “Near Beyond” will certainly factor in Russian policy during the coming decades. It is quite possible Russia will provide overt or covert backing to Europe, India, Japan or even China to keep Dar al Islam destabilized and divert attention away from itself.

Where does the United States fit into all this? The key advantage the United States has in this conflict lies in the use of naval power to dominate the Indian Ocean, and using this ability to operate interior lines of communications against the arc of decision. Should America withdraw from Iraq, they still have the ability to operate containment missions, including strikes, SOF missions and even raids against any portion of the arc from the sea.

A radicalized Islam, especially if one faction gains regional hegemony and control over the energy supplies will require a response by the United States, although the nature and scope will be dictated by domestic political considerations. Using the naval power of the United States for force projection will allow flexibility of response, but relying exclusively on naval or air power will limit the United States to a policy of containment. Forces on the ground are still needed to influence events and maintain ongoing control of the situation. 

It is possible that the Indian Ocean will become the focus of effort on both sides, with the Islamic radicals attempting to deny entry and operations through blockading the western approaches, terrorism and even the use of missiles to deny entry of American forces. American responses could include greater levels dispersion, stationing ABMs in Diego Garcia and mobile ABM systems on Aegis class cruisers and their successors.

Should American find an inspirational and unifying leader (another Ronald Reagan or FDR perhaps), there is the possibility of taking the war back to the enemy heartland. Potential allies exist, including Australia and India, which have certain affinities to the West as part of the Anglosphere, and Japan. Even if traditional ties of alliances and shared values are not enough, there is the overwhelming factor of national self interest, including protection against the forces of radical Islam and the need to access energy resources. These nations have relatively large and modern forces to contribute to the alliance as well.

Utilizing the interior lines of communication that the Indian Ocean basin provides, alliance forces are able to carry out actions anywhere in the arc of decision at the time and place of their choosing. While actions ranging from raids to campaigns are possible, it is likely that the alliance will have developed tools to accurately map the “human terrain” and the ability to apply force based on these social, political and economic “maps” to destabilize enemy societies and change institutions and modes of thinking to support or at least be neutral to the goals of the alliance.

Will there be peace at the end of all this? Like all major conflicts, this will reshuffle the deck, ending some of the causes of conflict but setting up the parameters for new conflicts to come.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Oct 2007)

Spreading the conflict. Should the Western response be to try to engage on all cylinders, or to prioritize and only expend blood and treasure where it "counts". I am fairly certain that Somalia and the Horn of Africa can only be an active theater with the cooperation and support of one or more State powers; just look at how fast the so called Islamic Courts Union collapsed when Ethiopia sent a small contingent of troops into Somalia.

A bit of support for African nations threatened by Jihadis hosted by failed States, some SF and SOF "kinetic action" to keep the heads of the Jihadis down and provide detailed intelligence and most importantly, discovering the links between the Jihadi groups and their State sponsors and breaking the links (one way or another) should keep this area quiet. I stand by my prediction that without a State sponsor many theaters will devolve into regional conflicts with more limited impact on us.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/22/wqaeda122.xml



> *Al-Qa'eda target west from Horn of Africa*
> 
> By David Blair in Addis Ababa
> Last Updated: 2:38am BST 24/10/2007
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jan 2009)

The cultural alliance of the "Progressives" and the Islamists:

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/03/ichneumon-wasp-european-left-has.html



> *The Ichneumon Wasp*
> 
> The European left has reacted to news that the suspects in the March 3 Madrid train massacre were Moroccans by blaming the United States, representing it as the vengeance of Al Qaeda which Spain brought on itself for helping America in Iraq. It was natural that Osama, who remembers the fall of the Abassid caliphate well, should recall how the Mongols erected a tower of skulls before every city sacked before sending word ahead that any resistance would suffer the same fate. And so the Spanish victims caused their own deaths by being tardy in submission. The Left is now the messenger boy of Islamofacism. They know their place.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Mar 2009)

The roots of WWII were planted at the end of WWI, and the war can be said to have started in 1937 with major conflict breaking out between Imperial Japan and China, or perhaps with the Spanish Civil War, with Fascist forces aided by Germany and Italy and Republican forces aided by the USSR and an ad hoc coalition of "progressive" organizations.

The Long War looks like it has far deeper roots than commonly accepted:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2009/Q1/view562.html#Friday



> Meanwhile, Hilaire Belloc wrote on Islam in his book _The Great Heresies_ in *1936*, and had this to say:
> 
> These things being so, the recrudescence of Islam, the possibility of that terror under which we lived for centuries reappearing, and of our civilization again fighting for its life against what was its chief enemy for a thousand years, seems fantastic. Who in the Mohammedan world today can manufacture and maintain the complicated instruments of modern war? Where is the political machinery whereby the religion of Islam can play an equal part in the modern world?
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Mar 2009)

Knowing and understanding that we are fighting against State actors who use Asymmetrical war is important to formulate effective responses:

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/13/osama-bin-elvis/print



> *Osama bin Elvis*
> By Angelo M. Codevilla from the March 2009 issue
> 
> All the evidence suggests Elvis Presley is more alive today than Osama bin Laden. But tell that to the CIA and all the other misconceptualizers of the War on Terror.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Sep 2010)

Fracturing the Islamic world and cleaning up the pieces might well be easier than what we are trying now. It might even be quite easy to do...

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LI14Ak01.html



> *Terry Jones, asymmetrical warrior*
> By Spengler
> 
> Asymmetrical warfare was supposed to benefit the insurgents. For the price of a few flying lessons a gang of jihadis brought down the World Trade Center, a terrorist with a bottle of hydrogen peroxide and powdered Tang can blow up an airplane, and a few pounds of plutonium can cripple a major city.
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Sep 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Fracturing the Islamic world and cleaning up the pieces might well be easier than what we are trying now. It might even be quite easy to do...
> 
> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LI14Ak01.html



Oh.... I like this  >


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jan 2011)

Another confused American response. If the pro democracy faction does not get some sort of support or encouragement, then the most ruthless may well become the winners in Egypt. If it is the government, they will probably be even less accommodating towards US interests while concentrating on keeping the lid on things.If some species of islamist hard liners come to power, then things only get worse.

The Bush administration's strategy of supporting democratic movements and allowing them to unfold is starting to look prescient:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/revolution-is-in-the-air-but-us-sticks-to-same-old-script-20110128-1a8e6.html



> *Revolution is in the air but US sticks to same old script*
> January 29, 2011
> Ads by Google
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (29 Jan 2011)

I would argue that the media reporting on Egypt may be a tad oversimplified. It's not simply protesters, 'Oliver-like,' asking for more.

With the Egyptian police no longer patrolling the Rafah border crossing into Gaza, Hamas is pouring in personnel and weapons for the Muslim Brotherhood, which is fully engaged in the rioting -- in addition to supplying demonstrators with food, drinks, and first aid.

I've heard reports (unconfirmed) that government security forces in plainclothes are destroying public property in order to support the premise that the protesters represent a public menace, 'justifying' further military intervention; currently it remains an internal security-led response.

This morning al-Jazeera reported that Mubarak has designated Ahmed Shafiq as the new prime minister. Shafiq is the former commander of the air force and minister for civil aviation. This follows immediately after having appointed Omar Suleiman, former Egyptian intelligence chief, as vice president, a position that has been vacant for the past 30 years.


So rather than seeing this as "oh those poor oppressed people, against that nasty old dictator," I suspect there are several games afoot. 

One is that there is a great influx of radical islamists behind the protests, given Mubarak's ties to the Americans and his willingness to deal with Israel. 

Concurrently, I suspect that the military is managing Mubarak’s exit; he is losing control, while the military is ascendant (and messing with Mubarak's plans to be succeeded by his son, Gamal). The military will try to keep confrontations with the demonstrators a police/internal security matter, while juggling the the political infighting.


----------



## observor 69 (29 Jan 2011)

New York Times

 January 29, 2011
Urging Restraint, U.S. Military Faces Test of InfluenceBy ELISABETH BUMILLER
WASHINGTON — The officer corps of Egypt’s powerful military has been educated at defense colleges in the United States for 30 years. The Egyptian armed forces have about 1,000 American M1A1 Abrams tanks, which the United States allows to be built on Egyptian soil. Egypt permits the American military to stage major operations from its bases, and has always guaranteed the Americans passage through the Suez Canal. 

The relationship between the Egyptian and American militaries is, in fact, so close that it was no surprise on Friday to find two dozen senior Egyptian military officials at the Pentagon, halfway through an annual week of meetings, lunches and dinners with their American counterparts. 

By the afternoon, the Egyptians had cut short the talks to return to Cairo, but not before a top American Defense Department official, Alexander Vershbow, had urged them to exercise “restraint,” the Pentagon said. 

It remained unclear on Saturday, as the Egyptian Army was deployed on the streets of Cairo for the first time in decades, to what degree the military would remain loyal to the embattled president, Hosni Mubarak. 

But among the many fears of the United States was the possibility that, despite the army’s seemingly passive stance on Saturday, the Egyptian armed forces would begin firing on the protesters — an action that would probably be seen as leading to an end to the army’s legitimacy. 

“If they shoot on the crowd, they could win tomorrow, and then there will be a revolt that will sweep them away,” said Bruce O. Riedel, an expert on the Middle East and Asia at the Brookings Institution, who predicts that in any event, Mr. Mubarak will step down. 

A possible successor — and a sign of how closely the military is intertwined with the ruling party — is Omar Suleiman, head of military intelligence, who state media said had been sworn in as the new vice president. 

Mr. Riedel, a former C.I.A. official who led the 2009 White House review of United States strategy in Afghanistan, said that the Egyptian military would be a critical player in any negotiated settlement to remove Mr. Mubarak from power. 

At the Pentagon on Saturday morning, American military officials said that the Egyptian Army was acting professionally and that they had no indications that it had swung over all to the side of the uprising. At the same time, the officials noted, the army has not cracked down on the protests. 

“They certainly haven’t inflicted any harm on protesters,” said Capt. John Kirby, a spokesman for Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “They’re focused mainly on protecting the institutions of government, as they should be.” 

United States military officials said there was no formal line of communication between the Joint Chiefs and the Egyptian military, although they said there might be conversations if the crisis deepens. Admiral Mullen had been scheduled to meet on Monday in Washington with Lt. Gen. Sami Hafez Enan, who is both the Egyptian defense chief and the chief of staff of the Egyptian Army. But General Enan was the leader of the delegation of senior Egyptian officials at the Pentagon and had left abruptly for Cairo on Friday night. 

The question now is how much influence the United States has on the Egyptian military and exactly what, given the chaos on the streets of Cairo, it would like the Egyptian armed forces to do other than exercise restraint. 

“Are relations good enough for us to raise questions about excessive repression?” said Anthony H. Cordesman, an expert on the Egyptian military at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Yes. Is it a force that will listen to us if there is a military takeover and we want them to move to a democratically elected government as soon as possible? They will listen. But this is a very proud group of people. The fact that they will listen doesn’t mean we can in any way leverage them.” 

American military officials said on Friday that they had had no formal discussions with their Egyptian counterparts at the Pentagon about how to handle the uprising. “No guidance was given,” said Gen. James E. Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “In other words, we didn’t say anything to them about how they should handle it, and they didn’t tell us about how they were going to handle it.” 

But, General Cartwright said, “hallway” discussions did take place with the Egyptian military about the protests, and American military officials said contingency plans had been made should American Embassy in Cairo have to be evacuated. 

Unlike the feared Egyptian police forces, which had mostly withdrawn from central Cairo on Saturday, the army is considered professional, not repressive and a stable force in the country’s politics. Egyptian men all serve in the army, which for the most part enjoys popular support. 

But the military is also loyal to Mr. Mubarak, who led the air force before becoming president. The three other presidents who served since the 1952 military coup that overthrew the monarchy have also been generals. 

“The Egyptian military is the regime, and the regime is the Egyptian military,” said Kenneth M. Pollack, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. “Mubarak’s successor is likely to either be his son, someone else from the military or someone blessed by the military.” 

Since 1978, the United States has given Egypt $35 billion in military aid, making it the largest recipient of conventional American military and economic aid after Israel. 

Egypt now receives about $1.5 billion in United States aid annually; the Obama administration warned Mr. Mubarak on Friday that it would review that aid. 

Most recently, Egypt bought 24 F-16 fighter jets from the United States as well as a Patriot surface-to-air missile battery.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/world/middleeast/30military.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print


----------



## Journeyman (30 Jan 2011)

As noted above, the internal security forces have been replaced by army troops, tanks, and APCs. During the day, the F16s overflew Cairo several times, (showing presence, not threatening).

Again, from following on al Jazeera, the crowd seems to be largely milling about and chanting....with people taking their pictures in front of the armoured vehs. While the Egyptians have a very high opinion of their military, things can obviously get ugly in stand-off situations.

The military is representative of the society as a whole. There is concern about the number, and radicalization, of islamists in the ranks -- particularly at the LCol/Col rank level, where they could do the most damage. The fact that their presence is known, but they've not been purged, suggests that they're not particularly radicalized. However, this may be an opportunity to rise up against policies they believe to be wrong, ie - ties to the US and Israel.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Jan 2011)

in my opinion, no one can make any sort of prediction of how this will turn out with any degree of certainty. It is late afternoon there now, no leader seems to be emerging, the US administration is, so far, keeping quiet, and all we can do is wait and see. A wild card is the Israelis. Their ideal situation is probably a return to the staus quo, but they too should probably keep a low profile.

I wonder what the executive jet traffic out of Egypt looks like?


----------



## Journeyman (30 Jan 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> in my opinion, no one can make any sort of prediction of how this will turn out with any degree of certainty.


 :+1:

As for a non-military leadership candidate, while I avoid betting on anything that can talk, my money would be on Mohamed ElBaradei -- Nobel Prize; former DG of the International Atomic Energy Agency; outspoken democracy campaigner within Egypt. 

I suspect the various factions are looking for an "interim" leader, post-Mubarak, until 'their' group can take control. ELBaradei seems to be one of the few with high enough stature, and who is least offensive to most factions.

Of course, free opinions are worth every penny


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Jan 2011)

Our combined opinions and ten bucks will get us started at the Brew Pub. After I posted, I mused to myself that many post-revolutionary phases in countries without a democratic tradition begin with a moderate being appointed. He is soon overthrown by whichever bunch of thugs can gain the upper hand, and they in turn clamp down on the population and run the country for their own benefit. The Russian revolution and at least one of the Mexican revolutions are examples of this, as is the French Revolution to a lesser extent, at least in the lack of looting of the treasury. Others, of course, have the strong man take over from the onset, usually because of his bloc's overwhelming power. See Mao and Castro.

I wonder if there is any group in Egypt able to gain enough control to cement its position. Maybe the army will step in to "protect the nation" a la Pakistan, or even Ghana a few decades past.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jan 2011)

Another working model would be Turkey, where the Army works behind the scenes to maintain a secular democracy (or at least their version of one). The Army (and Armed Forces in general) has the ability to operate on its own and enough clout in the society/economy/culture etc. that they could take on this role while various poltical parties acceptable to the military are allowed to contend for office, pass laws etc.


----------



## Old Sweat (31 Jan 2011)

The following story from the online expat edition of the Daily Telegraph is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Egypt crisis: Will Barack Obama trust 80 million Egyptians?
Mubarak's days are numbered and the US is in a quandary: can it trust a new regime's foreign policy – the implications are huge for the West and Israel, writes Richard Spencer. 

It started with a doctored photograph. On show were the statesmen of the Middle East, all the big players. Resolute of brow, they marched purposely up a White House red carpet last September towards the waiting cameras. In the middle was President Obama. To his right was the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and to his left, President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority and King Abdullah of Jordan. 

And there, two steps in front of the others – the clear leader of the group – was President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. 

Egypt is historically the leader of the Arab world, so maybe his position seemed justified. But when the picture was carried by the Egyptian state newspaper Al-Ahram it caused hilarity. Everyone knew Mubarak was not at the front because they had seen it on television. He was beyond Mr Netanyahu, and if anything slightly behind his colleagues. The attempt to give him face, courtesy of Photoshop, was laughable. 

So, too, as it now turns out, was Mubarak's determination to stay in power after 30 years in office by rigging a series of presidential and parliamentary elections. In December, his ruling party won a landslide of Saddam Hussein proportions. Yet Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, issued nothing more trenchant than some mildly deprecating remarks and President Obama gave the diplomatic equivalent of a wry shrug even as the man who for decades had been a lynchpin of US policy in the Middle East cut an increasingly absurd figure. In Washington, they are now playing a panicked game of catch-up as mobs on the street say what America failed to see – that it was time for Mubarak and his chums across the region to go. 

There are similarities between Tunisia and Egypt; but even by Middle Eastern standards the spectacle of an 82-year-old president pressing for yet another term while entering his fourth decade in office was extreme. There is little doubt that Mubarak will now go. The appointment of his security chief as vice president (the post he held himself before taking power) hints that he has given up the idea of installing his son Gamal as successor. The only question is whether he flees in the next few hours or days, or holds on for a more controlled transfer of power. That timing will be crucial for Egypt's short-term interests – from basic questions of law and order to the foreign investment and tourism which provide so many jobs. 

America, though, will be looking at the wider picture. The concern in Washington and European capitals is to maintain Egypt's difficult, but broadly stable, alliance with the West. 

What comes next? Ask the young men thronging the streets and squares of the capital, and nobody seems to have a clue. "We don't hate Americans," said Ali Abunil, 30, yesterday, a marketing executive for a pharmaceutical company who had defied the curfew to spend the night in Tahrir Square. And this was reflected in posters held up by marchers all week. "America, we don't want to hurt you," they said. Nearby, a middle-aged man screaming "America out" was hauled away by friends. "We are not Iran," said Mr Abunil. "We are not Afghanistan. Egypt is different." 

However, probe a little further and the picture becomes more problematic for President Obama, and the country the United States is sworn to protect, Israel. Khaled Awad, 38, an electrical engineer, was typical in his views. "Most people believe that as long as a country supports Israel that much, people cannot be happy with America," he said. 

What would he do with Israel? "It cannot survive. Sure, I don't want to terminate the Jews, but this is not their country." 

For most of his rule, Mr Mubarak has portrayed himself as a bulwark against two Middle Eastern forces; anti-Israel militarism, and Islamist politics, whether in the semi-establishment guise of the Muslim Brotherhood or the radical form of al-Qaeda. The latter's second in command, Ayman Zawahiri, is Egyptian. The protesters say this argument is wearing thin. Egypt's variegated society, its liberal, secular middle classes, its bloggers and tweeters, and its religiously devout shopkeepers and farmers all want democracy, however it turns out. 

"The regime says that if the Muslim Brotherhood governed the country it would be a monster, so bad," Mr Awad said. "But they are themselves that bad." 

Many people do not like the Brothers but, rightly or wrongly, believe they can be trusted to enhance, rather than limit, Egypt's freedoms. In free elections they would win a substantial number of seats. 

In a novel of another great American dilemma, A Quiet American, Graham Greene invented a protagonist, the hapless agent Pyle, who tries to engineer a third way in Vietnam between pro-Western dictatorship and communist revolution. There is something familiar and appealing about the idealism of those demonstrators who think that a third way can be found for Egypt and the wider Middle East. Proud nations could pursue independent policies, legitimised through the ballot box. Egypt has, after all, 7,000 years of history. 

President Obama and, in his own way, George W Bush before him, are also Pyles. Bush argued vociferously for democratic reform in the Middle East. Obama, in a speech in Cairo in 2009, presented a more pragmatic approach – support for the citizenry, but less criticism of the dictators. Much has been made of that difference, and the argument has been made that Obama's shift put him behind the march of history, first in Iran after the 2009 elections and now in Egypt. 

It is true that Washington's responses seem tame, but in reality the difference is overplayed. America faces the same fundamental dilemma that the former power Britain failed to resolve in the decades leading up to the Suez Crisis. Do you trust 80 million Egyptians to determine their own foreign policy, in this most vital of regions? It takes a braver superpower than Britain to say yes. 

In a former age, British armour surrounded the royal palace to stop the king siding with Nazi Germany. Now the balance of power is maintained in more subtle ways, but another turning point has arrived nevertheless. 

As for Egypt, so for America's other allies. Consider that doctored photograph once more. Mr Abbas has presided over some economic growth in his small West Bank fiefdom, but he and his Fatah movement do not speak for Hamas-run Gaza, and still less for the angry millions of Palestinian refugees across the Middle East. In Jordan, King Abdullah rests on the laurels of his astute father, the late King Hussein, and the West loves his telegenic Queen. But the Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition in Jordan, as in Egypt, stands above such sentiments. 

And that leaves Mr Netanyahu. In an idealist's world, democratic legitimacy in its neighbours would impel Israel's leaders into concessions they have hitherto been unprepared to offer and the elusive Middle East peace deal would finally be struck. President Obama may still believe that. Neo-Conservative ideology under Bush was said to be driven by the idea that lancing the boil of tyranny would create an environment in which Israel could breathe more freely. 

It is hard to see how ejecting Mubarak will achieve that. Israel rarely turns conciliatory in the face of uncertainty. This makes the choice for Obama all the more stark; not just between democracy and stability in the Middle East, but between democracy in the Arab world and his mastery of America's most visceral alliance. 

In the real photograph in September, it was Obama who was, naturally, a pace ahead of his visitors from the Middle East. The old joke had it that when Western leaders came to office and told men like Saddam Hussein it was time to quit, invariably it was they who had gone while the dictators remained. With President Obama facing re-election next year, the others in the picture must have thought a few weeks ago the same outcome was likely. Now they are not so sure. The big question for Western policy is this: will a similar gathering of leaders still be possible once the Egyptian crisis has resolved itself?


----------



## Journeyman (31 Jan 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Egypt crisis: Will Barack Obama trust 80 million Egyptians?
> Mubarak's days are numbered and the US is in a quandary: can it trust a new regime's foreign policy


Well, that's pretty much a textbook example of putting the cart before the horse.

Let's see what the new regime is.
Let's see if the new regime lasts.
Let's see what, if any, changes to their foreign policy occur

...before worrying about whether "US trust of the regime" is an issue.


----------



## Old Sweat (31 Jan 2011)

I think we are still quite a ways from knowing how this will work out. (It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall in the Israeli Defence Ministry. They must be concerned that all at once their only secure flank might not be so secure.) Again, that is premature, but I am sure many of us have noticed that many of the Egyptian protestors are of the westernized ilk, and may not necessarily be those who support the Islamist view of the world. This same demographic made up the bulk of the protestors in Iran a while back, but were beaten down by the regime. These people might be able to support a more democratic government which maintains the status quo (quietly) in international relations. 

The question might be what will the mass of the poor, down trodden masses do, especially if a leader appears who seems to offer them a solution? I also wonder about the attitudes of the rank and file of the military, as opposed to the senior officers who are living quite well off of the current regime. 

The punditry would be well advised to heavily weasel their words. It's too bad the German octopus that predicted the World Cup results died.


----------



## Journeyman (31 Jan 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ......many of the Egyptian protesters are of the westernized ilk, and may not necessarily be those who support the Islamist view of the world.


True enough, but as noted earlier, moderate interim leaders often show up in revolutions.... before a more powerful group takes over. 

In 1917, the Mensheviks were wringing their hands that Lenin and the Bolsheviks _unfairly_ 'stole' the revolution, but the outcome was the same. (Hmmm....some similar conditions: ideological minority behind protests [many islamist groups present]; country facing financial bankruptcy [exacerbated in Egypt by investors fleeing and tourism collapsing]; wide-spread strikes [called for tomorrow]; army called out to quell protests [yesterday, although that appears to be a _bizarre_ fight between the Ministries of Internal Affairs vs Defence] ). 

The westernized protesters should be careful what they wish for. While I believe the country has no desire for a radical islamic government, turmoil has facilitated stranger moves.

Damn, didn't that octopus have any friends or relatives??


----------



## Old Sweat (31 Jan 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> moderate interim leaders often show up in revolutions.... before a more powerful group takes over.
> 
> The westernized protesters should be careful what they wish for. While I believe the country has no desire for a radical islamic government, turmoil has facilitated stranger moves.



You'll get no argument from me.

For whatever reason, intuition or deduction, I don't have a warm, fuzzy feeling about this.


----------



## dapaterson (31 Jan 2011)

Hopefully the Canadian Embassy is getting ready for some "unexpected" visitors... not that history ever repeats itself.  Not that a somewhat Westernized country would ever overthrow its American-supproted dictator, and end up a religious dictatorship instead.


----------



## observor 69 (1 Feb 2011)

BBC
Huge protests fan Egypt unrest

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has said that he will not stand for re-election in September, as protests against his rule grow.

Speaking on state TV, Mr Mubarak promised constitutional reform, but said he wanted to stay until the end of his current presidential term.

The announcement came as tens of thousands rallied in central Cairo urging him to step down immediately.

The demonstration was the biggest since protests began last week.

The BBC's Jim Muir, among the protesters in Cairo's Tahrir Square, says the crowd erupted in jubilation after hearing the president's speech.

Egyptians are patient, he says, and may be prepared to wait for a few more months for his departure.

Mr Mubarak said he would devote his remaining time in power to ensuring a peaceful transition of power to his successor.

But he criticised the protests, saying what began as a civilised phenomenon turned into a violent event controlled by political cowards.

He said he had offered to meet all parties but there were political powers that had refused dialogue.

Leaders of the protests had called on Mr Mubarak to step down by Friday, when demonstrators were planning to march on the presidential palace.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12340923


----------



## Journeyman (2 Feb 2011)

Congressional Record *Research* Service reports provide background information to the US Government, rather than info on 'breaking news,' which are archived by the Federation of American Scientists.

If you're interested in some background info on Egypt and Tunisia (because, he said harpingly, _informed_ opinions are better than mere opinions   ):





> See the newly updated report "Egypt: Background and U.S. Relations,"January 28, 2011:  http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33003.pdf
> 
> On events in Tunisia, see "Tunisia: Recent Developments and PolicyIssues," January 18, 2011:  http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS21666.pdf


  


Edit:


----------



## Journeyman (2 Feb 2011)

An interesting view on Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood from STRATFOR's Reva Bhalla:

[Relevant copyright warning]



> The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is playing a very careful game right now. I think the Brotherhood is very well aware that the romanticism of the revolution in the streets could wear off the longer the people go without a regular supply of food, without security, and most important without results. It’s become clear so far that Mubarak does not have any intention of leaving anytime soon.
> 
> At the same time, the Muslim Brotherhood needs to sustain the momentum in the streets right now. What they want to avoid is having people think that “Look, I waited three decades to get rid of Mubarak, I can wait another eight months until September elections for him to be deposed.”
> 
> At the same time, the Muslim Brotherhood is very conscious of the negative connotations associated with its Islamist branding and for that reason it’s trying to reach out to certain secularist leaders for example, Mohamed ElBaradei, who may lack credibility but at least he’s a secular leader that a lot of people can at least look to for some sort of leadership while the Muslim Brotherhood works on creating this political opening that they’ve been waiting for for decades.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jan 2012)

An interesting article that attempts to tie all the pieces together. How much of this is true and how much is speculative remains to be discovered, but certainly there are various webs being spun to evade the sanctions and hobble the Western Alliance:

http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2012/01/22/world-war/?print=1



> *World War*
> 
> Posted By Michael Ledeen On January 22, 2012 @ 12:54 pm In Uncategorized | 26 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (25 Feb 2012)

Israel has surrounded the Arab world with their strategy. An interesting way to outflank your opponents:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/02/24/lawrence-solomon-israels-oil-diplomacy/



> *Lawrence Solomon: Israel’s gas diplomacy*
> Lawrence Solomon  Feb 24, 2012 – 9:07 PM ET | Last Updated: Feb 24, 2012 9:43 PM ET
> 
> Israel: ‘Gas is our strategic interest for new partnerships’
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 May 2012)

This is rather disturbing, although it should have been expected that a minority view such as this would exist and possibly work its way through the system. My take is this sort of thinking is born out of frustration with the apparently chaotic and slow pace of the current "Long War", and the lack of easily identifiable metrics to demonstrate success or failure. Certainly this is an extreme option for the end game should we be in danger of losing the "Long War", but most military, politcal and economic metrics would place us either ahead of the game, or tied at worst. If we were to actually engage with our full power, militarizing our societies like we did in WWII, there would be no way the enemy could effectively respond. Even now, without breaking out more than a small fraction of our GDP, the West can project power globally to any place that it is thought appropriate and engage and disengage at will. The fact that public opinion and political will is lacking to achieve a clear cut "victory" in any of these deployments is what drives these fantasies:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/total-war-islam/all/1?pid=1194



> U.S. Military Taught Officers: Use ‘Hiroshima’ Tactics for ‘Total War’ on Islam
> By Noah Shachtman and Spencer Ackerman Email Author May 10, 2012 |  4:00 am |  Categories: Crime and Homeland Security
> | Edit
> 
> ...



Slideshow here: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/total-war-islam/all/1?pid=1198&viewall=true


----------



## a_majoor (11 Sep 2012)

One thing that seems very clear is that *we* don't seem to have any clear understanding of what we are fighting against, and indeed, may people do not eithyer take this seriously or do not believe we are at war at all. We may not be "at war" by oldd metrics, but there is indeed an enemy out there who believes thay are at war with us. A new book which talks about this...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743257499/ref=ase_wwwviolentkicom/103-1545606-9973455?v=glance&s=books



> Forgetfulness occurs when those who have been long inured to civilized order can no longer remember a time in which they had to wonder whether their crops would grow to maturity without being stolen or their children sold into slavery by a victorious foe....They forget that in time of danger, in the face of the enemy, they must trust and confide in each other, or perish....They forget, in short, that there has ever been a category of human experience called the enemy.
> "That, before 9/11, was what had happened to us. The very concept of the enemy had been banished from our moral and political vocabulary. An enemy was just a friend we hadn't done enough for yet. Or perhaps there had been a misunderstanding, or an oversight on our part -- something that we could correct....
> 
> "Our first task is therefore to try to grasp what the concept of the enemy really means. The enemy is someone who is willing to die in order to kill you. And while it is true that the enemy always hates us for a reason, it is his reason, and not ours."


----------



## Journeyman (11 Sep 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A new book which talks about this...
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743257499/ref=ase_wwwviolentkicom/103-1545606-9973455?v=glance&s=books


Bearing in mind that the book's author is openly gay and has said repeatedly that "radical Islam would have him killed in the worst possible way." 

I haven't read that particular book, so cannot judge or comment on it; just be aware that its author may have an anti-Islam axe to grind.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Sep 2012)

A possible new strategic direction, if only the West was willing to seize it:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/09/14/lawrence-solomon-let-middle-easts-minorities-go-free/



> *Lawrence Solomon: Let Middle East’s minorities go free*
> 
> Lawrence Solomon | Sep 14, 2012 8:00 PM ET | Last Updated: Sep 15, 2012 9:19 AM ET
> More from Lawrence Solomon
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Sep 2012)

Another view which spports what has been said on this board; a regional war will reset the board and (hopefully) lead to a new era of relative stability. As for an Islamic reformation, we can only wonder:

http://atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/NI18Aa01.html



> *All-out Middle East war as good as it gets *
> By Spengler
> 
> TEL AVIV - It is hard to remember a moment when the United States' foreign policy establishment showed as much unanimity as in its horror at the prospect of a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2012)

Good catch, Thucydides; I agree with David Goldman (Spengler) on almost every point.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2012)

Another "way station" is to be the subject of the UN's (brief and ineffective) _attention_ according to this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Los Angeles Times_:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/09/extremists-cut-off-hands-fear-mali-coup-united-nations-human-rights.html


> Strategy to improve 'alarming situation' in Mali expected at U.N.
> 
> September 26, 2012
> 
> ...




Mali is one of the poorest countries in the world (per capita GDP is $1,099 according to the Wordl Bank), but it "matters" because its problems - and there are many - threaten to spill over into its neighbours (Senegal (per capoita GDP of $1,981), Mauritania ($2,571), Algeria ($8,715) and Niger (at $732 even poorer than Mali!) (amongst others) all of which are, like Mali, predominantly Muslim countries and many of which are facing take overs by fundamentalist _Islamist_ factions.

But the UN will consider Mali's problems so every thing will be OK ...


----------



## a_majoor (9 Dec 2012)

Events are taking on a momentum all of their own now, and it looks like enough players have entered the game to really call this as a regional war; even the religious war that Edward has predicted. Perhaps it has stayed "under the radar" to us because we have been mentally thinking of high intensity combat in the WWII/Gulf War 1/OIF mode, even though experience should have told us that warfare has evolved towards insurgencies and "4GW". (History should be a guide as well, the 100 years war or the 30 years war did not involve decades of constant combat....)

Walter Russel Mead lays out many of the players in this short piece, and demonstrates how the American Administration may have been burned by placing their trust in the wrong people (or at least not providing enough oversight to understand what was really happening):

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/12/07/arms-allies-and-the-horror-in-syria/



> *Arms, Allies, and the Horror in Syria*
> 
> Last year, the United States okayed a weapons shipment from Qatar to Libyan rebels. Now the New York Times is reporting that some of these weapons fell into the hands of Islamist militants:
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 May 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In line with my known fondness for historical analogues, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act,  is a comment, from today’s (15 Jan 07) _Globe and Mail_, by Alan G. Jamieson, a Canadian (Alberta) author:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070115.wcowar15/BNStory/specialComment/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20070115.wcowar15
> It is interesting to remember that the Dutch rebels were, actively, supported by England – sometimes with troops, mostly with money.  That seems to be the case today for the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> ...




I'm not sure if this should be here, or in a humour thread in _Radio Chatter_, but the _clash_ between the increasingly _Arab_ or _Iranian_ influenced versions of Asian Islam and the more traditional Buddhist or Confucian cultures is a well reported problem in Burma (Myanmar). In this report, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Guardian_, we see an interesting way of trying to maintain some social _balance_:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/25/burma-muslims-two-child-limit?CMP=twt_fd


> Burmese Muslims given two-child limit
> *Rakhine state officials say limit on children will help ease tensions with Buddhists, whose population is growing at slower rate*
> 
> Associated Press
> ...




See, also, my comments about how the Chinese plan to deal with their Muslim Uyghurs ~ by "breeding" them into irrelevance.


----------



## George Wallace (25 May 2013)

But ERC, the proliferation of Muslims through procreation is one of their more subtle strategies of world domination.  Perhaps the Burmese Government has woken up to this fact and are taking a proactive stance in protecting their culture and way of life.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jul 2013)

For many Islamists, the Long War is religious in character, and Christians are bearing the brunt of it on a global scale. The plight of the Egyptian Copts is simply one aspect of a much larger issue. Since Islam is also in the process of a convulsive internal religious war, we can only expect to see more of this religious persecution as fallout from the wider war. It also suggests possible strategies for intervention; Christians compose @ 10% of the Syrian population; enough to form a power block of their own in the region with the right kind of support (the Kurds make up 9% of the Syrian population and the ruling Awalites make up 16%, to  put it in perspective):

http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/152651



> *Christian Tragedy in the Muslim World*
> 
> by Bruce Thornton (Research Fellow and W. Glenn Campbell and Rita Ricardo-Campbell National Fellow, 2009–10, 2010–11)
> We are living through one of the largest persecutions of a religious group in history.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jul 2013)

The Muslim Brotherhoods get knocked back across the region. In Egypt, an estimated 35 million people come out in support of the new regime (even more than came out to demand the overthrow of the Brotherhoods in the first place), and there is a laundry list of nations where the Brotherhoods are being sset back. This sin't to say that they are down and out; the Brotherhoods have a strong internal structure, international reach (even in Canada and the United States), have built a system of parallel governments in many regions and have backing from Turkey. They are also not shy about using force to achieve their goals, coupled to their strength, backing and organization they will be a powerful force in the region for decades to come:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/07/27/a-bad-week-for-the-muslim-brotherhood/?singlepage=true



> *A Bad Week for the Muslim Brotherhood*
> 
> by
> PATRICK POOLE
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Jul 2013)

I do enjoy reading about the Bros and the Beards getting kicked in the goolies, however temporary.   Hopefully there's more where those setbacks came from.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jul 2013)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I do enjoy reading about the Bros and the Beards getting kicked in the goolies, however temporary.   Hopefully there's more where those setbacks came from.



Perhaps so. From today's Kingston Whig-Standard:

http://www.thewhig.com/2013/07/28/the-backlash-against-islamism



> *The backlash against Islamism   *
> By Louis A. Delvoie
> 
> Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:25:08 EDT PM
> ...


----------

