Russia and France equals a softened position on Syria

"We believe the Syrian leadership reacted wrongly to the first appearance of peaceful protests and ... is making very many mistakes," Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, told local radio station Kommersant-FM. Al Jazeera

The quote supports my thought that the Russian counter-terrorist Marines indicate a concern Assad may be overthrown by a coup. Russia has stood by the Assad regime but their deployment of troops would indicate their are losing their faith or patience with him.

The article also had this comment:
"In a bid to win Russian and Chinese support, France has watered down a proposed UN Security Council statement calling on the Syrian government and the opposition to immediately implement proposals by international envoy Kofi Annan to end the year-long bloodshed." Al Jazeera

This seems to paint the March 11th shootings in Toulouse, France where 3 French paratroopers, 3 children and a rabbi were killed.

The suspect is 24 years old, of French nationality and says "he belongs to al-Qaeda," Gueant told reporters. He said the suspect "wants to take revenge for Palestinian children" killed in the Middle East, and is angry at the French military for its operations abroad. The man was known to authorities for having spent time in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The shooting suspect is "talking a lot, claiming his jihadist convictions" and calling himself a "mujahedeen," Gueant said. USA Today

Could the shootings have convinced France to take a less hard-line stance against Syria? While I was researching the shooting, I came across this "A bomb blast outside Indonesia's embassy in Paris on Wednesday caused serious damage to surrounding buildings but no injuries...The bomb exploded around 5:45 am (0445 GMT), when the streets of western Paris were relatively quiet, blowing out windows in a 50-metre (54-yard) radius and setting fire to two cars."
Google News

If Paris was somehow coerced (either real or imagined) into changing their position, then we may see more attacks. It also casts recent events in Afghanistan in a new light. I still am unconvinced US military personnel (who have been engaged in Muslim countries since Desert Storm) would not know the books seized from the prisoners were Qurans. I think someone, somewhere was hoping that burning the Qurans would create enough of a backlash to pull the troops out. Do I have proof? No. I just have my experience that says someone would have pointed the importance of those books.

Then there is the strange case of Army Staff Sergeant Robert Bales who killed 16 Afghani civilians. According to the reports in media, Bales was scarred by several tours of duty, had recently watched a fellow soldier have his leg blown off, was facing marital problems back home and, on the day of the massacre, had been drinking heavily. But then there is this new report surfacing "Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, the Norwood native accused of killing 16 Afghan civilians, was ordered in 2003 to repay more than $1.5 million to a Carroll couple after it was alleged that he stole the couple's money as a financial adviser."Newark Advocate

Bales had been a financial advisor prior to joining the US Army. Somehow this finding did not concern the US Army, even though troops who have excessive debt are considered a security risk. Bales had also been recently denied a promotion. My point is this case seems to be the perfect storm to accelerate the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. Whether by design or by accident, the Quran burnings and Bales massacre will have a major impact on US policy.

Russian Anti-Terror Troops in Syria

Now the Russian Black Sea fleet's Iman tanker has arrived in the Syrian port of Tartus on the Mediterranean Sea with an anti-terror squad from the Russian Marines aboard according to the Interfax news agency. The Assad government has insisted it is fighting a terrorist insurgency. The Russian news reports did not elaborate on the Russian troops' mission in Syria or if they are expected to leave the port.
ABC News

Now we are are getting somewhere. Rebel forces must be getting to Assad or Russia is afraid Assad is out-matched. In either case, Russian troops on the ground in Syria changes the dynamics. The Russian troops check any airstrikes by the US or NATO. If a guided bomb or missile goes awry, and they still do sometimes, and strikes a Russian troop there will be consequences. I don't know if President Obama and Secretary Clinton get Putin is a hardline Soviet (not a typo). As such, he is playing high stakes poker here and will put his troops in the way of US weapons if just to bolster anti-US feelings back home. Could be why there was a report of three carrier battle groups being dispatched to the region.

We should also pay attention to Iran. If Iran remains silent, it will prove that Tehran and Moscow have been in collusion. North Korea is providing the needed distraction to all of this keeping US forces spread thin, not to mention the turmoil now in Afghanistan.

North Korea rocket launch plan sparks US threat

Iran and Syria have been keeping the attention of the Obama Administration and the media for the past months. That could only mean that our latest "fearless leader", North Korea's Kim Jong-un, would have to claim some of the headlines for himself. The best way to do that is to of course shoot off a missile.

He plans to that exactly that next month. The Taepodong-3 is classified as an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) with a range of 10-20,000 kilometers and is able to carry an estimated payload of 500-1,000 kilograms. The stats translate to a missile easily capable of striking the United States with a warhead and unlike Iran, we know North Korea possesses nuclear warheads.

Worse, North Korea doesn't even need to worry about developing nuclear warheads anymore. Iran has the ability to produce the miniaturized components necessary to make the warheads. Iran also has the reactors necessary to produce the nuclear material. North Korea was able to achieve its advanced rocket technology through the acquisition of parts and technology from parts and technology from North Korea include Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam. Of course Libya stopped selling components earlier this century but not before North Korea developed its capability.

Kim Jong-eun gains both press as well as Assad's gratitude for giving the US much to think about. It puts the Obama Administration in a really bad position going into an election cycle.

Yahoo News

North Koreas missiles

Airstrikes may not be the right decision

Hezbollah was formed in the early 1980s in response to Israel's invasion of Lebanon. Of course one nation's terrorist group is another nation's resistance movement. Hezbollah is considered a terrorist group by the US, UK, Australia, Canada and of course Israel. Most Arab and Muslim nations consider Hezbollah to be a resistance movement. The group wants the destruction of the "Zionist entity" more commonly referred to as Israel.

Although based in Lebanon, Hezbollah receives much of its weapons, training and finances from Iran through Syria. I was reminded of this linkage while reading about the latest events in Syria. The Assad regime has now killed over 8,000 people with no end in sight. There are increasing calls for airstrikes by the US to support the rebels.

By understanding the relationship of Iran and Syria to Hezbollah, it makes any military actions a potential flashpoint for Israel. Any attack on Syria risks pushing forces into either Lebanon (which borders Israel), Turkey or Iran. This could ignite conflicts outside of Syria with unforeseen outcomes. Forces fleeing into Lebanon could link up with Hezbollah and Hamas to create havoc in Israel. A huge influx of refugees from Syria into Turkey could destabilize the NATO country. Refugees fleeing into Iran could lead Iran into some type of armed response to forces attacking Syria.

The US and NATO have led airstrikes with the intended result of ousting Qaddafi but also created the unintended consequence of allowing the Muslim brotherhood to ascend to power. There is no guarantee that whoever comes in behind Assad will be friendly towards the West. Some may argue that the mixed results in Libya were due to the lack of boots on the ground. The current situation in Afghanistan disproves the notion that having boots on the ground will result in a stabilized situation. In fact, recent events in Afghanistan (the kill team, Quran burnings, and rogue soldier) have empowered a return of the Taliban.

Unlike Afghanistan, military operations could make Iran or Israel nervous. Syria shares a border and political connections with Iran meaning any conflicts could spillover. Iran could take the involvement of US forces in Syria as a prelude to an attack and put their military on high alert. In turn, this heightened state of alert by Iran could cause the Israelis to strike first as their tolerance for a nuclear Iran is much lower than the US.

Russian and Chinese vetoes prevented the U.N. Security Council from passing a resolution to condemn the Assad regime on October 4, 2011—and yet again on February 4, 2012. Secretary Clinton has been unable to convince either to change their position. For Russia, the need for a port in the Mediterranean means it will be unlikely that Moscow will allow the West to intervene. For China, it risks losing access to abundant oil reserves should hostilities break out in the Middle East.

People such as Senator John McCain are calling for intervention in Syria. Watching thousands die is certainly not what human beings should die. However, we must act with our minds and not just our hearts. The short-term goal of ousting Assad will have long-term implications that no one is really discussing. The Arab League has thus far only been a paper tiger. The US and Europe need to push them to broker a long-term solution, preferably one that does not mean further use of US military forces.

Panetta Safe After Nearby Truck Crash at Afghan Base

What a bunch of BS!

General Gurganus told reporters later that he had wanted a consistent policy for everyone in the tent, and that “I wanted to have the Marines look just like their Afghan partners,” noting, “You’ve got one of the most important people in the world in the room.”

First, they are US Marines and should be treated as US Marines and NOT as partners! US service members work for the President and by extension, the Sec Def. By disarming his own Marines, it implies Secretary Panetta felt uncomfortable with they very people he and his boss have sent into harm's way. Monarchs would have their knights disarm whenever there was a fear of a insurrection. Shoguns would have samurais remove their katanas (which is where the shorter wakizashis and tantos came in handy).

The Obama Administration, especially the Sec Def, seems to be very concerned about the increase violence being committed by their warriors. Now if they only would show the same level of concern for the incidence of suicide and domestic violence being committed by US veterans.

According to the New York Times, "Joint Base Lewis-McChord had 16 soldiers commit suicide last year, the most of any Army post, Army statistics show. Since 2003, 68 soldiers from the base have killed themselves, among the higher totals for the Army in that period, but still below Fort Hood, Fort Campbell and Fort Bragg."

NY Times

Afghan government team attacked, Taliban fume over massacre

"The Islamic Emirate once again warns the American animals that the mujahideen will avenge them, and with the help of Allah will kill and behead your sadistic murderous soldiers," Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said in a statement, using the term by which the Islamist group describes itself.

In 1992, US forces arrived to provide humanitarian relief to Somalians who were starving as a result of the warlords. Then the following year, President Clinton ordered the capture of Mohamed Aidid setting in motion the events portrayed in the movie "Blackhawk Down". The former heroes who brought food were now seen as the enemy.

The US forgot, once again, a lesson from the past. Afghanistan did not ask us to come in an free them from the Taliban. We invaded their country looking for Osama bin Laden, then tried to couch the invasion by claiming we were there to liberate the Afghani people from the tyranny of the Taliban. After thousands of Afghani civilian deaths over the 10 years of the war, Osama bin Laden is shot in Pakistan. Is it any wonder that neither the Afghani people or military wants to be there anymore?

In the Boy Scouts, we are taught to leave the area better than you found it. The US is not going to be able to say that about Afghanistan. The Taliban is rebounding and will be stronger now than they were 10 years ago.

Reuters

2014

From the Air Force Association Daily News: "The international community must sustain a "fairly robust aid network" in Afghanistan after US troops withdraw in 2014 in order to ensure that the country doesn't revert to a safe haven for terrorists, said Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, head of US Central Command. Speaking before the House Armed Services Committee last week, Mattis said the process of helping the Afghans reach self-sufficiency has been difficult since Afghanistan was a nation "where literacy and any kind of governmental organization [was] totally lacking." However, the need for foreign aid will eventually taper off as the Afghan economy grows, he noted. "Afghanistan is starting to get some economic vitality showing up from extraction industries," said Mattis. Its education system, he continued, is starting to churn out people "directly employable to do things that are more than just subsistent farming." He said the United States and its coalition partners have helped build logistics schools for the Afghan military so that it can "maintain the military infrastructure and equipment we're giving them."

Given the murders this past weekend, the Quran burnings, and last years "kill team" it seems unlikely that Afghanistan will become any other than a haven for terrorists.