Fast-roping toward war in the Middle East
Fast-roping toward war in the Middle East, Washington Times, Ken Allard, October 8, 2015
(Oh well,
— DM)
Home to the Arab world’s largest population and the region’s geopolitical crossroads, Egypt had been a key American strategic ally ever since Anwar Sadat. But Mr. Obama backed the Islamist dictatorship of Mohammed Morsi, even after 30 million Egyptians took to the streets in July, 2013 to force his overthrow. When Mr. Obama cut off military ties with the new Egyptian regime of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the Russians swiftly stepped in to reverse a generation of American statecraft. Unlike the amateurs in the West Wing, Russian strategists and diplomats have no difficulty connecting dots or reading maps.
Neither do our few remaining allies in the Middle East, who can be forgiven for drawing their own conclusions, given the Egyptian reversal, those Syrian red-lines, the recent Iranian arms control deal and the steady expansion of Iranian influence throughout the region.
*****************************
The Russians are rapidly reinforcing their bridgehead in Syria, adding ground troops to their air, marine and naval forces. It is a classic air, land and sea intervention by a military establishment that understands how combined arms build synergies and broaden capabilities. As Jed Babbin pointed out in these pages on Wednesday, the broad-shouldered Russian intervention is the direct counterpoint to the “inaction, indecision and dithering” that have long characterized President Barack Obama’s foreign policy.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has called Mr. Obama’s bluff. He has also deployed a Russian expeditionary force bristling with robust anti-aircraft and ground-attack weapons, even firing cruise missiles from warships in the Caspian Sea. Such a deployment is precisely what Mr. Putin believes necessary to insure that Russian jets and helicopters dominate the skies over Syria. Fox News reports that Russian jets have already shadowed U.S. Predator drones on three occasions, a quiet but unsubtle message that the unmanned aircraft are flying only because of Russian forbearance.
Depending solely on Mr. Putin’s strategic objectives, that prevailing restraint can vanish in an instant. Union and Confederate commanders, for example, routinely practiced counter-reconnaissance throughout the Shenandoah Valley campaign of 1864. When planning a surprise attack or defending a vulnerable position, their first objective was to prevent enemy cavalry from having an unobstructed view of one’s own dispositions. What cavalry did back then, air forces and satellites do today.
Updating an ancient principle for the digital age, Norman Schwarzkopf destroyed Saddam Hussein’s radars, reconnaissance systems and intelligence assets before American airpower launched the opening salvos of Operation Desert Storm. Today’s Russian generals grew up practicing the basic principles of Soviet electronic warfare: Intercept the enemy’s communications, jam him or destroy him. Above all: Use the electromagnetic spectrum and state-of-the-art Russian air defenses to offset hi-tech American airpower. In Syria, that campaign has already begun.
Pandering to an American public that is militarily and strategically illiterate, some presidential candidates have reflexively called for “no-fly zones” to be set up in Syria. Predictably, Donald Trump has even expressed enthusiasm for Mr. Putin’s alleged intent to combat ISIS. But seriously, folks, why would Vladimir Putin go to the considerable trouble of staging the largest foreign deployment of Russian forces since the Cold War only to cater to western conceits about no-fly zones? Even if he did, who would set up and enforce them? Having made a power play to control Syria (and therefore a major chunk of the Middle East) why on earth would Mr. Putin content himself solely with attacking ISIS? (If you are having trouble following this logic, then you probably are a member of the White House staff “perplexed” by Russian objectives.
As a highly trained KGB apparatchik, Syria is not Mr. Putin’s first rodeo. While it has become obligatory in Washington policy salons to deplore Crimea and eastern Ukraine, Egypt’s recent history offers a better clue to Russia’s long-range goals.
Home to the Arab world’s largest population and the region’s geopolitical crossroads, Egypt had been a key American strategic ally ever since Anwar Sadat. But Mr. Obama backed the Islamist dictatorship of Mohammed Morsi, even after 30 million Egyptians took to the streets in July, 2013 to force his overthrow. When Mr. Obama cut off military ties with the new Egyptian regime of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the Russians swiftly stepped in to reverse a generation of American statecraft. Unlike the amateurs in the West Wing, Russian strategists and diplomats have no difficulty connecting dots or reading maps.
Neither do our few remaining allies in the Middle East, who can be forgiven for drawing their own conclusions, given the Egyptian reversal, those Syrian red-lines, the recent Iranian arms control deal and the steady expansion of Iranian influence throughout the region. Because it is a tough and unforgiving neighborhood, where would you place your bets if you lived there? Do you ally yourself with the rising regional power or the one seemingly intent only on defeat and retreat? As a friend points out, “Obama only attacks oilmen, Wall Street, the police, pro-lifers, the NRA, Christians, conservative Republicans, and traditional U.S. allies. Remember when they were the good guys?”
In this confusing world, it is important to remember that things can get worse, particularly given the fog of war with lots of heavily armed aircraft moving at high speeds over surprisingly small operating areas. War is justly famed for confounding the best intentions, for proving that the only assumption which holds true is the one you were certain could never happen.
How ironic that the place where three of the world’s great religions were born might yet spark a global confrontation where no holds are barred.
Explore posts in the same categories: Assad, Egypt, Foreign policy, Iran scam, Morsi, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama - Middle East, Obama's foreign failures, Obama's legacy, Putin, Reform Islam, Russia - Middle East, Syria warTags: Assad, Egypt, Foreign Policy, Iran Scam, Middle East, Morsi, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama's foreign failures, Obama's legacy, Putin, Reform Islam, Russia, Syria war
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
WarSclerotic 
October 11, 2015 at 5:42 AM
You hit the nail on the head with your “Not on Our Side” jpg Dan Miller.
I’ve seen this as a big part of the fundamental problem for a long time, but here I’ve found that Pat Buchanan had it all wrapped up with a bow on it ten years ago.
Nationalism versus Globalism – Pat Buchanan – 2005
http://www.spearhead.co.uk/0003-pb.html
And it’s not just Obama who is a traitor to the American people. American presidents stopped looking out for the best interests of the American people a long time ago when they began to dream of a One World Government.
Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, even both George Bushs were more committed to “Globalism” than to American nationalism.
From the article “Nationalism versus Globalism”:
Jimmy Carter
Early in the 1970’s, Zbigniew Brezinski, later Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, wrote:-
“A global consciousness is for the first time beginning to manifest itself… we are witnessing the emergence of transnational elites… composed of international businessmen, scholars, professional men and public officials. The ties of these new elites cut across national boundaries; their perspectives are not confined by national traditions.. and their interests are more functional than national.”
The one big force that can derail the rise of this new elite, warned Zbig, is the politically activated masses, “whose nativism could work against the cosmopolitan elites.”
Brzezinski knew that the creation of any New World order would have to proceed by stealth. As Richard Gardner, Carter’s ambassador to Italy wrote in 1974:-
“The ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up. An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than an old fashioned frontal attack.”
Bill Clinton
“…we are on the road paved by Bill Clinton when he said that he hopes to leave America tied down in a web of global institutions.”
President H. W. Bush
“In October 1991, President Bush told the UN that a New World order was America’s goal. In 1993,…”
Obama
We see his treason every day, although most people still can’t believe that an American president would care more about a One World Government than the interests of his own citizens.
Israeli nationalism is also slated for destruction by the Globalists.
Who else do you think the enemies of Israel are?
It’s the Globalists who are flooding Europe with immigrant / invaders to destroy the nation-states of traditional Europe, to eliminate the last resistance to the creation of their New World Order.
And who exactly are these “Globalists”?
They’re not one group, they are many.
Islam is a globalist force and intends to conquer the whole world.
The elites of the US intend to turn the Super Power status of the US into a Globalist control of the whole world.
Putin of Russia speaks of his dream of a Eurasian Union or reconstituting the Soviet Union and probably thinks that may give him a chance to rule the whole world.
China was once the “Middle Kingdom” and there are powerful people in China who see their chance to re-gain world domination again in the near future.
Even the Christian Church at one time sought to conquer the whole world for Christ, although they did that partly by evangelism, and partly by other means, just ask the Aztecs.
And there are other forces bent on Globalist world domination.
All these groups compete and cooperate, and then compete again, to see who will eventually come out on top in the war for king of the world.
They’re like the various groups in the Bolshevik Revolution, yesterdays allies forever are today’s firing squad victims.
I agree with Pat Buchanan, a One World Government will be good for only one person, the dictator at the top, a la Stalin or Mao, and it will very bad for the people of the world.
The alternative to this is for all nations that wish to continue to survive to fight for the principle that the world must be founded upon the fundamental building block of the nation-state and the various nation-states of the world must tend to be national ethno-states composed of a homogenous people of one race or ethnicity and the purpose of that nation-state is to defend and advance the interests of the people of that nation-state. Examples of such national ethno-states are Japan, South Korea, Israel and some others that have managed to escape, for the time being anyway, … have managed to escape destruction by the ongoing Globalization.
This is the most important choice for the people of the world today, Nationalism – or Globalism ?
October 11, 2015 at 11:43 AM
Great comment Tyrannovar.
NATIONALISM.
With capital letters.
October 11, 2015 at 1:51 PM
Nationalism with a global awareness that we have to share this world, that awareness baked into the meme of the world population.
So we don’t fight each other longer, but working together to make it a better place.
Can you imagine what will happens if we where able to get rid from the huge investments in the military machine, the amazing amount of freed up resources what than can be used to make it a better place .
Forced unification does not work, if forced it will not become a part of the meme and it will be a source for more violence . it must be done by awareness, knowledge and understanding and NOT forced on or based on falsehood .
A slow process, but if successful , it will become a part of our meme , in this way there will be no resistance .
A new world order , an elevation from our primitive being to a real human kind .
Let us be honest what is really changed the last 100 years with all our technological progress ?
We are still killing each other, people still dying from diseases and hunger.
The gap between technological progress and social progress becomes wider and wider , people get the feeling that they are living in an orphaned society .
A healthy form of a nationalism can help to turn this around, but with the awareness as i mentioned above .
As i see it now, there is no thinking or actions in this direction anymore, just forced globalization from all sides, and a fight who will be the big controller with all means available .
2 cents for my thoughts .
October 11, 2015 at 4:56 PM
Amen.
October 11, 2015 at 3:43 PM
Insider: EU-U.S. Must Take More Refugees, Get Rid of Sovereignty
Peter Sutherland (shown), the United Nations special representative of the secretary-general for international migration, is hopping from one pulpit to the next, preaching the message that the refugee tsunami proves national sovereignty is an “illusion,” a mere shibboleth” that must be done away with. Moreover, says Sutherland, the United States and the European Union “have not merely a moral but a legal obligation to protect refugees.” And that means, he makes quite clear, that the United States and EU are obligated to take in an unspecified quota — but potentially millions — of refugees and migrants, most of whom are currently streaming out of the Muslim countries of the war-decimated Middle East and Africa
Lot more here
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/21730-insider-eu-u-s-must-take-more-refugees-get-rid-of-sovereignty
October 11, 2015 at 4:13 PM
Th technological aspect that you mention is very important, as it’s going to be one of the most (if not THE most) important factors in the future reshaping of our world.
As I see it, we are entering an era of massive changes (social, economical, political, military, religious…) all over our planet, that will generate big imbalances all over, and that will only start to settle in about twenty years.
The impact that technology is going to have in our societies is not big… it’s massive!!!
Not sure if everyone understands the seriousness of this point, but hey, time will wake everybody up.
Regarding Sutherland and its minions, you know, all the fuckin’ globalists, as I’ve stated here before, they call go to hell.
I’m in favor of going back to the nation-states, with peaceful economic cooperation.
Nothing more.
Yes tu cooperation, no to assimilation.
Finally, on how and why this shitty invasion of Europe was planned long time ago, read Plan Kalergi.
It’s free online.
October 11, 2015 at 4:57 PM
Sounds like “Responsibility to Protect”.
The battering ram the Leftists/Globalists use to destroy nation-states.
October 11, 2015 at 5:08 PM
The are different fractions under the globalist thinkers .
Only to blame it on the left makes it not more clear.
The dogma of left and right is long passed, and jut a tool what they keep alive to keep us divided.
It is so to say on both sides of the aisle or if you want the dark alley of politics
October 11, 2015 at 5:18 PM
Tyrannovar,
agreed.
October 11, 2015 at 8:32 AM
So, on which side is he ? What are his goals ? Connecting the dots of his actions brings us to an ugly picture / answer : He wants to destroy the USA as the free,western, democratic,judeo-christian superpower – the main pillar of the free west. Who else cant stop repeating to speak out these same goals ? Its the muslims…..Barak Hussein Obama (or whatever his name may be) was once talking about his muslim faith : if it walks like a duck, it IS a duck…
The US citizens of today are chosing how their future looks : If they let BHO continue to destroy their once great nation for another 1,5 years then the outcome looks very grim. On the other side if they remove him quickly from office, maybe the USA can recover….
US citizens decide – even if they remain passive, this itself is a decision :
to let the USA become a dictatorship !
You wanna live in a dictatorship – stay silent in your couch ! You wanna be free – get out of your couch and DO what has to be done !