The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend, or so we hope!

Let's begin with a little symbolism for Thursday.

First, we have now all heard of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or ISIS, a Sunni Islamist group bent on overthrowing the Shiate led government of Maliki in Baghdad.  At first, it looks like any other half-assed attempt at making a catchy acronym.  However, if we look at "Isis" we learn something more.

Isis- the Egyptian goddess whose name means "seat" or "throne"firmly points to her association with sovereignty (from "The Ancient Gods Speak; A guide to Egyptian religion" by Donald A. Redford).

It appears then the the group "ISIS" coined an acronym that harkens back to ancient times to tell the adepts that they are regaining sovereignty for the Sunnis.

What do you do about a bunch of pissed-off Syrians and Iraqis then that are envying ancient deities in their cause?  If you are the current White House, you look towards cozying-up to the Persians (Iran);

With options limited, the combination of crisis and mutual interest might make possible what many foreign policy experts once thought unthinkable: that the U.S. and Iran, archenemies since the taking of 50 hostages at the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, become partners, frenemies for the sake of Iraq.

“It may be an unholy alliance to some folks but countries don’t have allies, they have interests,” said retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, a senior adviser at the National Security Network, a liberal research center. “And in this case, Iran is a natural ally of the U.S. They want a stable country around them, and that’s what we want. From a purely realpolitik, Kissinger view of the world, we may have some strange bedfellows here.”--McClatchy DC

Obama, Kerry, Hagel and Rice are about to make the same mistake that Reagan, George H. Bush, George Schhultz and Caspar Weinberger did 30 years ago.  The former group is so worried about "radical terrorism" taking over Iraq that they are willing to pretend that Iran has the same interest.  The latter group of the Reagan administration thought that the mujahideen of Afghanistan hatred of the Soviets made them friends with the US.  For those that may not know, a prominent member of the mujahideen in the 1980s was a fellow named Osama bin Laden.  (The mujahideen became the Taliban and al-Qaeda of today.)

Obama and Kerry along with former Secretary of State Clinton have done everything in the power to bring sanctions and condemnation of Iran for pursuing a nuclear weapons program.  Of course they are just the most recent occupants of the White House to have jingoistic approach to Iran.  The US and UK favored the regime of Shah Pahlavi which led to the Tehran Embassy crisis.  Carter lost his re-election mainly because of the crisis (or you could say Reagan won because of it).  Since the Carter administration, Iran went from being an ally (quick, what air force still flies F-14 Tomcats?) to an enemy.

The Reagan administration supported a little known despot at the time named Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran.  This included the use of chemical weapons against the Revolutionary Guards when things got ugly for Saddam.  In only the manner in which Westerners can do, the White House has rewritten their view of this events to mean that Iran has an interest in helping them stabilize Iraq.

Iranians are Persians and I can't stress that enough.  The First Persian Empire dates back to 550 BC.  This is ancient and proud culture that hasn't survived this long by being duped by upstarts.  Tehran is not going to fall for the White House suddenly being nice.  The Iranians will capitalize on any support they offer and the US won't even see it coming.

Meanwhile, the troop drawdown in Afghanistan is having similar results as in Iraq;

Afghan government officials said Wednesday that at least 35 civilians, 40 government troops and more than 100 Taliban attackers had been killed since the offensive began Sunday in Helmand province's Sangin district. Fighting has since spread to four other districts along the restive border, driving more than 2,000 families from their homes, Interior Ministry spokesman Sediq Sediqi reported.--L.A. Times

First Afghanistan and then Iraq, the US track record in not compelling and I truly doubt Iran will enter into any kind of agreement without some serious concessions on the part of the US.  That or the US will end-up creating another version of al-Qaed in Iran.

Interestingly, Afghanistan could have been the exception to the rule.  A little know story has come out about a US soldier in Afghanistan, MAJ Jim Grant.  MAJ Grant was a Green Beret who used his skills and training in unconventional warfare to live amongst the Pushtan tribes to "win their hearts and minds".  He was so successful, he was dubbed "Lawrence of Afghanistan" and perhaps more than anyone else really understood what it was going to take to actually win over the people of Afghanistan.

All special forces are taught to think outside the box, known more so than Green Berets who combine the training of special forces with the knowledge of sociology, psychology and political science.  They are adept at becoming part of the culture.  Grant excelled at this and was eerily similar to the Colonel Walter Kurtz character in "Apocalypse Now".  Like Kurtz, his success was threatening to some.  In 2012, he was airlifted out of Afghanistan forced to shave off his bear and returned to Ft Bragg.  There he was stripped of his Green Beret status and reduced in rank to captain (Note, Grant appears to have been prior enlisted.  Normally prior-enlisted officers are busted back to enlisted for grievous offenses.  Busting a field grade officer back to company grade is almost unheard of).

What did Grant do to warrant this treatment?  While in Afghanistan, Grant was married.  He met and fell in love with former Washington Post report Anne Tyson (who was also married at the time).  They both fell in love and she ended living with Grant in Afghanistan clandestinely.  She became as successful as Grant at winning over the trust of the Pushtan women and children.

Grant having an affair with Tyson was a violation of the UCMJ, conduct unbecoming an officer.  Grant is not the first, not the last, officer to have an affair.  The military in general has come under intense scrutiny for the high number of sexual assaults that have occurred with commanders often reducing the charges or dismissing them altogether.  But Grant didn't assault or rape Tyson but his actions were inappropriate.  However, the Army seems to have really overreacted as well.

Grant was taught to think outside the box from day one and how to live amongst the indigenous people and become one of them.  He did that beyond all expectations.  That he had an affair with a married woman should not be ignored but to have stripped of all of his status and to call him a "disgrace" is hypocritical at best.  Gen David Petraeus did the same thing but no one stripped him of his status nor called him a disgrace.  Today he suffers from PTSD and his mental state is fragile after the events left him addicted to alcohol and prescription drugs.  Why was someone who was doing exactly what he was told to do treated so harshly?

I have a hunch that the success and status that Grant had achieved was a threat to some senior officers.  Or perhaps the fact Grant was winning a war without the use of high tech weapons and contractors was a threat to defense contractors.  Either way, to be summarily pulled out of a special operations like this and to by dealt with so summarily smacks of a hidden agenda.  Read more about MAJ Grant here.

Iran sees how we treat our own soldiers, they won't be duped into thinking they can trust the US.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/06/25/231463/a-us-iran-alliance-on-iraq-is.html#storylink=cpy

Algeria

Now that didn't take long. Reports are coming in about the "Battalion of Blood" storming a gas production facility in Algeria and capturing 41 foreigners. The Battalion of Blood is demanding a halt to military operations against Al Qaeda insurgents in Mali.

A local source told Reuters six foreign hostages were killed along with eight captors when the Algerian military fired on a vehicle being used by the gunmen. Mauritania's ANI news agency, which has been in constant contact with the kidnappers, said seven hostages were still being held: two Americans, three Belgians, one Japanese and one British citizen. It quoted one of the kidnappers as saying that Algerian ground forces were trying to fight their way into the complex. Reuters

After I wrote my blog about Mali, I was going to wrtie one abou the French and their involvement in Indochina (Vietnam) in the mid 1940s through 1950s. The French attempted to use conventional forces and tactics to fight unconventional forces (the Viet Minh) in a jungle. The result was the eventual defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu. You may recall US forces had a similar experience a mere ten years later fighting the Viet Cong with conventional forces with the end result being the same as the French.

In the 1980s, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Despite the long history of others who tried and failed (including the might 19th Century British Army), the Soviets had one thing up their sleeve that should have made the difference. The Mujahideen fighters loved to run up into mountain caves and fired down on their enemies. Works like a charm on infantry, cavalry and even armored troops. It doesn't work so hot against a flying tank better known as the Mi-24 Hind. A hovering gunship was not something the Mujahideen were ready for until the US gave them stinger missiles (through our former friend, Osama bin Laden). The carnage became too high even for the Soviets and they pulled out.

Then in 2002, the US thought it was worth a shot chasing Osama bin Laden around Afghanistan. Needless to say, the US faced the same challenges as the Soviets. Ten years later, and the Obama administration is pulling out and there is not a lot to show for all of the carnage (remember, Osama bin Laden was actually killed in Pakistan).

It seems to me the West (especially the United States) is being drawn slowly into another Vietnam, only on a much larger scale. The US has been focused on Iran and Syria but now is also involved in Mali and potentially Algeria. We are still trying to use conventional forces to fight a hit and run type of foe. We do not have the forces to deal with all of these pop-ups and our enemies know it.

The British and French for that matter aren't that well off militarily either. Protracted involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan have tired the populace and caused a depletion of much of their wartime spares. Escalating conflicts in Northern Africa is not something the West should be drawn into.

Since the Tehran Embassy crisis, the West has focused on the Middle East as the potential region for a major conflict. What this mindset overlooks is that pan-Islamism is actually rooted in Northern Africa (the very region we are now being drawn into). The more Western military forces are used, the more strength the movement to create an Islamic state becomes.

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.

'Rogue' US soldier kills Afghans

A close friend of mine, who I met back in 2004 when we were both in Qatar, is deploying again. This makes her fifth rotation over to the AOR since 2004. Think about that for a moment, she has basically go over almost once every 18 month since 2004.

Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom military members serve a 6-12 month rotation (depending on the branch of service) unlike counterparts from WWII or Vietnam. The good part is you get to stay connected to home. The bad part is going back, again and again. I've met Marines and soldiers who have deployed 10 times since 2002. These brave men and women have sacrificed a good part of their lives being away from loved ones. Yes they get to back for a while, but inevitably they go back missing important birthdays, graduations, or just family vacations.

The Department of Defense and Veterans Administration have been trying to deal with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as something that happens after your return home. What isn't as widely addressed is the stress of going back. Imagine an infantrymen, combat engineer, Marine, or security forces who has lived through an attack. Now you come home, try to become the person you can never be again only to be sent back over again. Ground Hog Day but without Bill Murray. Imagine the dread and anger many of our troops must dealing with as the face yet another deployment.

A warning came last year after another "rogue" soldier was convicted of leading a "kill team" in Afghanistan. The overtones of the case show a complete dehumanization of the Afghani people in the minds of the "kill team" members. Then just last month, apathy lead to soldiers burning Qurans from a detention center. Analyst suspected the holy books had secret messages written in them by the detainees. Rather then store them, it was thought the most holy book of Islam should be incinerated. The soldiers apparently never thought to ask, isn't this going to piss of the locals?

Now another soldier has murdered 16 Afghanis. He went outside his base and methodically executed innocent civilians. While this is still being investigated, I suspect we will see the same level of detachment from his crime as the previous kill team leader.

Our service men and women have fought valiantly for nearly 10 years but the strain is beginning to show. PTSD is not waiting to manifest at home, now we are beginning to see it in theater. I fear more cases will occur unless troops are brought home. The Afghani people are furious with the very troops who fought so hard to provide them a safe and secure country.


'BBC News

British force in Afghanistan was 'unacceptably' weak: report

As I've said before, military officers and NCOs in the US armed forces are required to attend and graduate various professional military education requirements throughout their careers. Over and over, officers and NCOs hear how battles were lost because the political leadership would not support going in with more troops. The incidents portrayed in "Blackhawk Down" were the result of the Clinton administration refusing to send in armor to support the ground forces. Vietnam holds multiple examples of civilian leaders in Washington D.C. selecting targets for the military in theater. The Bush Administration sent Marines into Iraq hundreds of kilometers beyond their doctrine and logistical lines could support (fortunately the Iraqi military did not present much resistance).

Now this report shows the British were sent in too light to handle Afghanistan. The results were high casualties.

Colin Powell believes you should only send in the military when all other options have been exhausted. Once you decide to send in the troops, you need to send them in so overwhelmingly that not only is victory assured but your enemy will regret ever resorting to war. Waging war on the cheap, or trying to minimize the presence of forces, only results in troops needless dying for no gain.

Yahoo! News

Barack Obama and Pentagon split on Afghanistan pullout

The pullout raises some questions. If the original purpose of OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM was to hunt down Osam bin Laden, then the mission was completed once he was killed. Why continue the military presence? Unlike Iraq which had its government destroyed by the US invasion, Afghanistan has a government in place. Continuing our military presence in Afghanistan invites escalation as Taliban forces or Al Qaeda plot revenge. Pakistan is an unpredictable environment and raises additional potential of escalation.

The other question is, are these troops needed elsewhere? The obvious is Libya but with Syria and Turkey having skirmishes, could the Obama administration be concerned about hostilities in the Middle East? Iran remains committed to their pursuit of nuclear weapons, however with now Germany, France, China and Russia all condemning the initiative the United States may feel it can deal with Iran on a more unilateral basis. Therefore, the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan becomes even more crucial.

The bump in poll numbers President Obama received as a result of the killing of Osama bin Laden seems to have faded. The elections are still a long way off and pulling troops out of Afghanistan, regardless of their eventual use, could be a way for the President to still make good on one of his campaign promises.

The Guardian

Pakistan Arrests C.I.A. Informants in Bin Laden Raid

At a closed briefing last week, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee asked Michael J. Morell, the deputy C.I.A. director, to rate Pakistan’s cooperation with the United States on counterterrorism operations, on a scale of 1 to 10.

“Three,” Mr. Morell replied, according to officials familiar with the exchange. --NY Times

Where to begin, where to begin? The relationship between Pakistan and the United States is a study of illusion and political posturing. If we go back to the 1980s, we meet a young Osama bin Laden fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. The United States felt a little payback was in order for all of the support the Soviet Union gave North Vietnam. The CIA began supplying the Mujahadeen (freedom fighters) Stinger missiles since the Afghanis were getting decimated by Soviet Mi-24 helicopters.

The recipient of these Stinger missiles was our then friend, and future most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden. The missiles took out the Mi-24s, and many feel, led to the Soviet withdrawal. So why then did Osama bin Laden attack the US? The Reagan administration, especially the CIA, assumed Osama bin Laden was an ally since he was fighting a common enemy. However, the whole reason the Saudi was in Afghanistan in the first place was because of his extreme Islamic beliefs. Osama bin Laden felt the United States had no more business being in Afghanistan than the Soviet Union.

Osama bin Laden fought in Afghanistan but was actually based in Pakistan. After the Soviet withdrawal, the Pakistanis gave the remaining Stingers to North Korea in the hopes the special batteries could be reverse engineered. You have to wonder what Pakistan received in return for those missiles (and sniper rifles).

Flash forward to earlier this year when a CIA "contractor" killed two ISI (Pakistani intelligence service) agents. The killings marked the previous months of bombings by US forces based in Afghanistan on tribal areas in Pakistan. The Pakistanis were not pleased.

Given the history of Osama bin Laden operating from Pakistan during the Soviet invasion, it is not so surprising to discover he was hiding out in Pakistan before the SEALs came knocking. The killing of Osama bin Laden publicly raised the question of just how committed Pakistan is to fighting Al Qaeda. There are public reports that Al Qaeda may have placed operatives in the Pakistani military.

Now Pakistan has arrested the CIA informants and in the media it looks like a surprise. In reality, this is a continuation of what has been developing between the United States and Pakistan going on 30 years. The real problem for the United States is Pakistan may not allow armed drones to be flown out of their bases forcing the US to relocated the drones to Afghanistan.

A story that seems to have already been forgotten is China's announcement several weeks ago that it will not tolerate any military action by the US in Pakistan.

The story of the United States and Pakistan is far from over and will not get resolved before the 2012 election.

NYTimes.com

US alarmed by David Cameron's push for early Afghanistan withdrawal

Killing Osama bin Laden will have many effects on the future for both the US and al Qaeda. If the United States reason for invading Afghanistan was to battle the Taliban who were protecting Osama bin Laden, then the his death conceivably means there is no more reason to have troops there. Simplistic perhaps but follow the logic for a moment.

David Cameron wants to bring UK troops home now. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have been politically disastrous for British prime ministers. A report last year had estimated combat operations in Afghanistan cost the UK approximately 20 billion British pounds (roughly $32 billion at today's exchange rate). There have been over 350 British soldiers killed in Afghanistan. Part of the reason NATO troops were brought in was the UK desire to draw down forces as far back as 2004. British forces are also committed to Odyssey Dawn, the no-fly zone in Libya. Cameron knows his political life depends on making good on his promise to bring UK troops home and with Osama bin Laden dead, there is little incentive to stay.

For the US, this means a split with a major ally at a time when al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah are renewing their efforts for attack. A split could be seen as an opportunity to strike at over-committed US forces. The recent scandal of IMF Chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) has most of Europe suspecting a US conspiracy to discredit DSK and thus pullout of the IMF. The US is losing much of its European support. The loss of support may embolden a terrorist attack.

Politically for both the UK and US maintaining troops in Afghanistan has become a hard sell. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and the potential for Taliban operatives to gain control is an unacceptable option for those in the Beltway. The average American is much more concerned about why gas prices remain high despite a drop in crude oil. The turmoil in Syria could renew the 1967 war with Israel. If a conflict erupts, the US may have to go in alone to support Israel and that could be exactly the move pan-Islamist have been needing.

Telegraph

NATO takes over no-fly zone

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was originally created to "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down", at least according to the first NATO Secretary General. NATO was more a political association than a military organization. The in-fighting between European members and the US caused the French to pull out in 1966 and create their own nuclear deterrent.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and subsequently the Soviet Union, the relevance of NATO began to wane. The Balklands war in the mid 90s led NATO to involve itself in matters beyond the member nations. Former Warsaw Pact and Soviet Republics were allowed to join.

The Berlin Plus agreement is a comprehensive package of agreements made between NATO and the European Union on 16 December 2002. With this agreement the EU was given the possibility to use NATO assets in case it wanted to act independently in an international crisis, on the condition that NATO itself did not want to act—the so-called "right of first refusal"

The September 11 attacks caused NATO to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter for the first time in its history. The Article says that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all. The invocation was confirmed on 4 October 2001 when NATO determined that the attacks were indeed eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty. In 2003, NATO took command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. For the first time in its history, NATO would take over a mission outside the NATO area of responsibility.

In 2009, NATO deployed warships in support of Operation Ocean Shield battling Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean.

Given this history, it is no surprise the AFA Daily Digest had this report:

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced Sunday that, effective immediately, the alliance would assume the lead role from the United States for all UN-sanctioned air and sea military operations in and around Libya. "This is a very significant step, which proves NATO's capability to take decisive action," said Rasmussen. This means the alliance will be in charge not only of the no-fly zone over northern Libya and the arms embargo, but also the air strikes meant to protect Libyan civilians from attack by Muammar Qaddafi's regime. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press that, within the next week, the United States "will begin to diminish [its] commitment of resources" to the Libyan mission. "[T]he idea was that, over time, the coalition would assume a larger and larger proportion of the burden," he said. He added, "Our air power has significantly degraded [Qaddafi's] armor capabilities, his ability to use his armor against cities like Benghazi." As of March 25, US aircraft had flown 529 sorties, coalition aircraft 346, since the air campaign began on March 19.

NATO involvement in the Balklands, Afghanistan, Libya, the Gulf of Aden, and Indian Ocean seems to eerily parallel European colonialism. Coalition campaigns make it easier to get approval for military operations but the implications for recovery become complicated at the least. For example, if Gaddafi steps down there is no obvious follow-on leader as the colonel has successfully suppressed any opposition for nearly 40 years. A NATO backed government in Libya could set-off an even bigger conflict in the Middle East.