Obama seeks $500m for Syria rebels

[Morch]

Syrian Rebels = Al Qaeda / ISIS

I guess ISIS needs their supply lines replenished after the push to Bagdad...

This is the most insane thing the US has ever done, which is funding both sides of this disaster...

The Syrian rebels are comprised of more factions and groups then just AQ/ISIS.

Supporting anyone there is rather silly now, not only does not guarantee return on investment, can result it even

messier situation down the line. As it happened elsewhere.

Supporting both sides (or rather, alternating support to the currently weaker group) could be one way of keeping

them at each others throats. Not that nice for the local populace and for some of the neighboring countries, and

doubt it would be possible to keep such an endeavor under control, or to provide an acceptable moral justification.

[simple1]

What is missing from the commentary in this topic is the US has been training Syrian moderates from their bases in Jordan for months in intelligence and war fighting tactics. I would guess those being trained have undergone extensive security vetting. As you know many of the moderates were previously members of the Syrian Armed Forces who defected when Assad escalated detentions / killings of anyone who joined the Arab Spring movement.

It has been reported that if Congress approves the $500 million in funds, delivery of war fighting material will not reach the moderate forces until early 2015. Playing armature strategist just maybe US is planning for a reduction in extremist capability due to attrition in Iraq, thereby weakening their capability in Syria, thus providing an opportunity for anti-Assad moderate forces.

And now at least some of these "Syrian moderates" are using this knowledge to great effect in northern Iraq. Double

Other quotes removed to permit a response.

Other than conjecture, can you provide links to support your claim that Syrian moderates trained by the US (note not using quotation) are joining ISIS/attacking Iraqi forces? Don't truly understand the plan to only provide an additional $500 million, if approved, for arms, you would think it's a drop in the ocean for sustained war fighting capability.

A few links below that provide a bit of detail of traning provided for FSA moderates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/06/27/obama-wants-500-million-to-train-syrian-rebels-now-what/

http://www.vice.com/read/syria-deraa-USA-Jordan-FSA-regime-CIA

No one claims all go over and join Islamic groups. Some undoubtedly do. Its a calculated risk, no matter how many

security checks one runs.

500 mil. is a lot, considering a lot of the relevant gear isn't top notch, and the number of relevant warriors.

For reference, compare this figure to the panic reaction when headlines claimed ISIS got their hands on 400+ mil.

Not much of an issue providing logistic support, training, arms and funding - question is what's the point? Where is

this supposed to go from here? I don't think there are any good answers, and that it looks more like improvising.

As previouly posted it is estimated that US additonal assistance / materials funded by the $500 million will not reach the moderates until early 2015, god only knows what the situation on the ground in Syria will be by that timeline.

You're right doesn't appear there is a coherent policy unfolding, hopefully for the locals & the wider world will be proven wrong.

[coma]

What is missing from the commentary in this topic is the US has been training Syrian moderates from their bases in Jordan for months in intelligence and war fighting tactics. I would guess those being trained have undergone extensive security vetting. As you know many of the moderates were previously members of the Syrian Armed Forces who defected when Assad escalated detentions / killings of anyone who joined the Arab Spring movement.

It has been reported that if Congress approves the $500 million in funds, delivery of war fighting material will not reach the moderate forces until early 2015. Playing armature strategist just maybe US is planning for a reduction in extremist capability due to attrition in Iraq, thereby weakening their capability in Syria, thus providing an opportunity for anti-Assad moderate forces.

And now at least some of these "Syrian moderates" are using this knowledge to great effect in northern Iraq. Double

Other quotes removed to permit a response.

Other than conjecture, can you provide links to support your claim that Syrian moderates trained by the US (note not using quotation) are joining ISIS/attacking Iraqi forces? Don't truly understand the plan to only provide an additional $500 million, if approved, for arms, you would think it's a drop in the ocean for sustained war fighting capability.

A few links below that provide a bit of detail of traning provided for FSA moderates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/06/27/obama-wants-500-million-to-train-syrian-rebels-now-what/

http://www.vice.com/read/syria-deraa-USA-Jordan-FSA-regime-CIA

No I cannot provide a link. It is not public knowledge.

[coma]

What is missing from the commentary in this topic is the US has been training Syrian moderates from their bases in Jordan for months in intelligence and war fighting tactics. I would guess those being trained have undergone extensive security vetting. As you know many of the moderates were previously members of the Syrian Armed Forces who defected when Assad escalated detentions / killings of anyone who joined the Arab Spring movement.

It has been reported that if Congress approves the $500 million in funds, delivery of war fighting material will not reach the moderate forces until early 2015. Playing armature strategist just maybe US is planning for a reduction in extremist capability due to attrition in Iraq, thereby weakening their capability in Syria, thus providing an opportunity for anti-Assad moderate forces.

And now at least some of these "Syrian moderates" are using this knowledge to great effect in northern Iraq. Double

Other quotes removed to permit a response.

Other than conjecture, can you provide links to support your claim that Syrian moderates trained by the US (note not using quotation) are joining ISIS/attacking Iraqi forces? Don't truly understand the plan to only provide an additional $500 million, if approved, for arms, you would think it's a drop in the ocean for sustained war fighting capability.

A few links below that provide a bit of detail of traning provided for FSA moderates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/06/27/obama-wants-500-million-to-train-syrian-rebels-now-what/

http://www.vice.com/read/syria-deraa-USA-Jordan-FSA-regime-CIA

No one claims all go over and join Islamic groups. Some undoubtedly do. Its a calculated risk, no matter how many

security checks one runs.

500 mil. is a lot, considering a lot of the relevant gear isn't top notch, and the number of relevant warriors.

For reference, compare this figure to the panic reaction when headlines claimed ISIS got their hands on 400+ mil.

Not much of an issue providing logistic support, training, arms and funding - question is what's the point? Where is

this supposed to go from here? I don't think there are any good answers, and that it looks more like improvising.

Look how many ISAF trained Afghanis took their weapons and training, went on a rampage killing ISAF soldiers then running off with the Taliban. Let's not be naive here please. Anybody who has experience with or is an Arab knows well and good how these things go down. Armchair spectators will have to wait for Wikileaks to provide them with a source cuz the US government will not provide any facts or figures I can assure you that.

[Morch]

And now at least some of these "Syrian moderates" are using this knowledge to great effect in northern Iraq. Double

Other quotes removed to permit a response.

Other than conjecture, can you provide links to support your claim that Syrian moderates trained by the US (note not using quotation) are joining ISIS/attacking Iraqi forces? Don't truly understand the plan to only provide an additional $500 million, if approved, for arms, you would think it's a drop in the ocean for sustained war fighting capability.

A few links below that provide a bit of detail of traning provided for FSA moderates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/06/27/obama-wants-500-million-to-train-syrian-rebels-now-what/

http://www.vice.com/read/syria-deraa-USA-Jordan-FSA-regime-CIA

No one claims all go over and join Islamic groups. Some undoubtedly do. Its a calculated risk, no matter how many

security checks one runs.

500 mil. is a lot, considering a lot of the relevant gear isn't top notch, and the number of relevant warriors.

For reference, compare this figure to the panic reaction when headlines claimed ISIS got their hands on 400+ mil.

Not much of an issue providing logistic support, training, arms and funding - question is what's the point? Where is

this supposed to go from here? I don't think there are any good answers, and that it looks more like improvising.

Look how many ISAF trained Afghanis took their weapons and training, went on a rampage killing ISAF soldiers then running off with the Taliban. Let's not be naive here please. Anybody who has experience with or is an Arab knows well and good how these things go down. Armchair spectators will have to wait for Wikileaks to provide them with a source cuz the US government will not provide any facts or figures I can assure you that.

Considering the USA been involved in Afghanistan for a while now, should actually be some figures (official or otherwise) on desertion rates, or at least a total count from media sources of known cases where locals turned on friendly troops.

Wonder how much that amounts to out of the total trainees by ISAF. Could be a real issue, could be more a media coverage issue. Really couldn't say - but sure that some do, and that the longer things drag on and clear cut success isn't in the cards, things get worse. Even a few cases could severely damage trust and morale.

[coma]

Look how many ISAF trained Afghanis took their weapons and training, went on a rampage killing ISAF soldiers then running off with the Taliban. Let's not be naive here please. Anybody who has experience with or is an Arab knows well and good how these things go down. Armchair spectators will have to wait for Wikileaks to provide them with a source cuz the US government will not provide any facts or figures I can assure you that.

Considering the USA been involved in Afghanistan for a while now, should actually be some figures (official or otherwise)

on desertion rates, or at least a total count from media sources of known cases where locals turned on friendly troops.

Wonder how much that amounts to out of the total trainees by ISAF. Could be a real issue, could be more a media coverage

issue. Really couldn't say - but sure that some do, and that the longer things drag on and clear cut success isn't in the cards,

things get worse. Even a few cases could severely damage trust and morale.

The ratio of deserters in Syria can be expected to be far greater than in The Afghan. For what it is worth Afghan soldiers were part of a real government sponsored military organisation.With reasonable vetting processes and accountability. These thugs in Syria are not and are accountable to nobody. And they accept all comers to join their rank regardless of religion, race or gender. Easy to be 'infiltrated'.

No matter how one looks at it. It stinks to high heaven. Arabs are turn coats. And will turn on you or each other in the blink of an eye. DO NOT arm Arab under ANY circumstances. Never never ever.

[simple1]

Whilst it’s somewhat off topic, the Afghan situation concerning their armed forces does have some similarities. Some info on ‘Blue on Blue’ attacks in Afghanistan.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/08/green-on-blue_attack.php

It is claimed Afghan Army desertion rates have deceased, but currently running at 50,000 p.a, out of overall numbers of approx. 350,000.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-22886263

Allegedly there are a number of cultural & economic factors contributing to the high desertion rate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/more-afghan-soldiers-deserting-the-army/2011/08/31/gIQABxFTvJ_story.html

[simple1]

Look how many ISAF trained Afghanis took their weapons and training, went on a rampage killing ISAF soldiers then running off with the Taliban. Let's not be naive here please. Anybody who has experience with or is an Arab knows well and good how these things go down. Armchair spectators will have to wait for Wikileaks to provide them with a source cuz the US government will not provide any facts or figures I can assure you that.

Considering the USA been involved in Afghanistan for a while now, should actually be some figures (official or otherwise)

on desertion rates, or at least a total count from media sources of known cases where locals turned on friendly troops.

Wonder how much that amounts to out of the total trainees by ISAF. Could be a real issue, could be more a media coverage

issue. Really couldn't say - but sure that some do, and that the longer things drag on and clear cut success isn't in the cards,

things get worse. Even a few cases could severely damage trust and morale.

The ratio of deserters in Syria can be expected to be far greater than in The Afghan. For what it is worth Afghan soldiers were part of a real government sponsored military organisation. With reasonable vetting processes and accountability. These thugs in Syria are not and are accountable to nobody. And they accept all comers to join their rank regardless of religion, race or gender. Easy to be 'infiltrated'.

No matter how one looks at it. It stinks to high heaven. Arabs are turn coats. And will turn on you or each other in the blink of an eye. DO NOT arm Arab under ANY circumstances. Never never ever.

Based upon what assumptions have you based your claim "the ratio of deserters in Syria can be expected to be far greater than in Afghanistan". You claim to have inside knowledge, so what are the approximate desertion rates from the FSA and affiliated non Islamic extremist groups. What are the desertion rates from the Syrian government Armed Forces and militia, they would definitely come under the heading of "thugs".

[coma]

Look how many ISAF trained Afghanis took their weapons and training, went on a rampage killing ISAF soldiers then running off with the Taliban. Let's not be naive here please. Anybody who has experience with or is an Arab knows well and good how these things go down. Armchair spectators will have to wait for Wikileaks to provide them with a source cuz the US government will not provide any facts or figures I can assure you that.

Considering the USA been involved in Afghanistan for a while now, should actually be some figures (official or otherwise)

on desertion rates, or at least a total count from media sources of known cases where locals turned on friendly troops.

Wonder how much that amounts to out of the total trainees by ISAF. Could be a real issue, could be more a media coverage

issue. Really couldn't say - but sure that some do, and that the longer things drag on and clear cut success isn't in the cards,

things get worse. Even a few cases could severely damage trust and morale.

The ratio of deserters in Syria can be expected to be far greater than in The Afghan. For what it is worth Afghan soldiers were part of a real government sponsored military organisation. With reasonable vetting processes and accountability. These thugs in Syria are not and are accountable to nobody. And they accept all comers to join their rank regardless of religion, race or gender. Easy to be 'infiltrated'.

No matter how one looks at it. It stinks to high heaven. Arabs are turn coats. And will turn on you or each other in the blink of an eye. DO NOT arm Arab under ANY circumstances. Never never ever.

Based upon what assumptions have you based your claim "the ratio of deserters in Syria can be expected to be far greater than in Afghanistan". You claim to have inside knowledge, so what are the approximate desertion rates from the FSA and affiliated non Islamic extremist groups. What are the desertion rates from the Syrian government Armed Forces and militia, they would definitely come under the heading of "thugs".

I deliberately cut your quotes out of the conversation I am having with Morch. And leave assuming and assumptions to your like.

[EyesWideOpen]

Sigh, sometimes I feel I come from a country of lunatics..... So let's recap here briefly.

Borrow 500 million dollars from China ( with America 17 trillion dollars in debt) ,

buy arms with it, and send the arms over to support rebels in another <deleted> up sand

country. When will we ever learn... :-(

[Robby nz]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

It still looks like a multi-pronged plan to goad Putin into a fight. The international community imposes many more sanctions, Russia defaults on its EU debts and has to sell his gas and oil to China and India under terms of the sanctions. Not that big of a problem because Putin knows what is going on and will not bite. An early loser in all this is the EU, they will be faced with a huge gas shortage and will have to buy expensive and logistically more difficult US gas. Pay attention to Putin, he is totally aware of this plan.

The sixth BRICS conference is scheduled for next month and the plan is to be fully operational by next year. China is starting a world bank as I type. Soon, the BRICS countries and their 75 country alliance will be free of the IMF and World Bank. With a gold backed currency, and no interest owed to a private central bank, the US goose is cooked. I hate it because my pension is paid in dollars. If we are going to do something, we have to do it now. We can't let him get financially secure, it will be too late and we are done. We have to make a preemptive strike if we are going to survive this. Perhaps maintain would be a better word than survive but, it will be ugly.

Germany, France, and Japan are looking to jump ship as they watch their gas supply face a huge cut off. Even Israel is doing some fence sitting. This is an ugly time and I feel that many are not taking this seriously enough by not seeing it for what it really is.

Sincerely, Chicken Little

What you are saying is that once again the US should attack someone to protect the dollar.

As they attacked Saddam when he wanted Euros for his oil and Gaddafi when he wanted gold for his.

If that is what you are suggesting then it would mean that the US Dollar cant stand on its own merits as a currency without being the reserve and oil trading currency.

The dollar can stand alone but not provide the wealth to the IMF and the World Bank as it has done since 1946. With BRICS in full operation and a gold backed currency the dollar will struggle to survive. This is mostly about BRICS and the IMF in a snit and Putin is going to be vilified as long as he keeps plugging away at his own world of banking. I don't want anything to happen but I need protection for my income and way of life as an American passport holder. If we must enter a war with Putin, we should do it when we are the strongest which is now.

Under BRICS, there are today, 80 countries who would not have a privately owned central bank based upon the Rothschild model. The number today stands at less than 10

Imagine what happens if the Mafia learns that a rival is going to take over half their income. Are they going to just sit back and take it as just one of those things.

Something that has been in place for 70 years (IMF) is not going to sit back and take Putin getting half of their income. Overly simplified of course. Putin is just one of the players but the guy who is running the show. The controlling shareholders of the IMF have more money than the total of the world GDP and will spend freely to keep control.

So you are suggesting that the US should start a war with Russia.

Seems to me this would quickly develop into a world war for the US would call on its allies to stand by it and Russia would do the same.

Asia would be called upon for the uses of the US bases which would make them a target.

Dear leader (who is reported to have nukes of a sort) would take it as a great opportunity to attack the south thereby opening a second front, where China and Japan would stand on that is anyone's guess.

There would be no staying at home and watching from a distance as previously, for now all sides have the capability of reaching each others countries.

Who would fire the first nuke is a matter of conjuncture.

Do you think your income would be safe then ?

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies have been deleted.

[Morch]

Considering the USA been involved in Afghanistan for a while now, should actually be some figures (official or otherwise)

on desertion rates, or at least a total count from media sources of known cases where locals turned on friendly troops.

Wonder how much that amounts to out of the total trainees by ISAF. Could be a real issue, could be more a media coverage

issue. Really couldn't say - but sure that some do, and that the longer things drag on and clear cut success isn't in the cards,

things get worse. Even a few cases could severely damage trust and morale.

The ratio of deserters in Syria can be expected to be far greater than in The Afghan. For what it is worth Afghan soldiers were part of a real government sponsored military organisation. With reasonable vetting processes and accountability. These thugs in Syria are not and are accountable to nobody. And they accept all comers to join their rank regardless of religion, race or gender. Easy to be 'infiltrated'.

No matter how one looks at it. It stinks to high heaven. Arabs are turn coats. And will turn on you or each other in the blink of an eye. DO NOT arm Arab under ANY circumstances. Never never ever.

Based upon what assumptions have you based your claim "the ratio of deserters in Syria can be expected to be far greater than in Afghanistan". You claim to have inside knowledge, so what are the approximate desertion rates from the FSA and affiliated non Islamic extremist groups. What are the desertion rates from the Syrian government Armed Forces and militia, they would definitely come under the heading of "thugs".

I deliberately cut your quotes out of the conversation I am having with Morch. And leave assuming and assumptions to your like.

Only Morch is not usually into bigotry and racism, so guess it will be a one sided conversation.

If you'd care to qualify your broad statement or share your own personal experience in these matters, might be a

different thing.

[Morch]

Sigh, sometimes I feel I come from a country of lunatics..... So let's recap here briefly.

Borrow 500 million dollars from China ( with America 17 trillion dollars in debt) ,

buy arms with it, and send the arms over to support rebels in another f****d up sand

country. When will we ever learn... :-(

Nooo....this time it will work! (NOT)

[Morch]

And in a rather interesting turn of events....

Russian official visiting Syria calls on US, Europe to act against 'terrorism'

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — Russia's deputy foreign minister called on the United States and Europe to take "serious" steps to combat terrorism during a visit to Damascus on Saturday, warning that several Middle Eastern countries are threatened.

"Russia will not stand idle toward attempts by terrorist groups to spread terrorism in regional states," Sergei Ryabkov told reporters, apparently referring to the rapid advance of the extremist Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant across eastern Syria and northern Iraq.

Russia has been one of Syrian President Bashar Assad's main allies since the start of an uprising against him in March 2011. Moscow has used its veto power four times at the U.N. Security Council to prevent international sanctions on Syria.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/russia-us-eu-must-combat-mideast-terrorism

Wasn't it Russia that was adamantly against any intervention by the West?

Edited June 28, 2014 by Morch

[Loptr]

Syrian Rebels = Al Qaeda / ISIS

I guess ISIS needs their supply lines replenished after the push to Bagdad...

This is the most insane thing the US has ever done, which is funding both sides of this disaster...

The Syrian rebels are comprised of more factions and groups then just AQ/ISIS.

Supporting anyone there is rather silly now, not only does not guarantee return on investment, can result it even

messier situation down the line. As it happened elsewhere.

Supporting both sides (or rather, alternating support to the currently weaker group) could be one way of keeping

them at each others throats. Not that nice for the local populace and for some of the neighboring countries, and

doubt it would be possible to keep such an endeavor under control, or to provide an acceptable moral justification.

The only thing the Shites and Sunnis hate more than the US is each other... This will quickly spiral the entire region into a sectarian war... The US has screwed the pooch in the ME for 60 years and haven't learned a thing...

[coma]

Only Morch is not usually into bigotry and racism, so guess it will be a one sided conversation.

If you'd care to qualify your broad statement or share your own personal experience in these matters, might be a

different thing.

Umm. No and no. But thanks for the reply. I have learnt something.

[arjunadawn]

Obama never intended to arm moderates. Moderate Islamic people in that region are oxymoronic. Moderate Muslims are nationalists, and as such are ruling Alawites or Bathists. ISIS is not a surprise to Obama and 500 million more is simply doubling down on the machine he created under the cover of "a crisis is an opportunity to enact the outcomes desired." These people were trained in Jordan at a US/Jordanian facility for the sole purpose of instigating Shia conflict. In that crucible Iran may be tempered, their contiguous swath of land from Afghanistan to the Med sea interrupted, and GCC countries placated. Really, this is fairly transparent. However, national, tribal, and local loyalties will always be subordinate to Islam. Consider Malcolm Gladwell's brilliant book, The Tipping Point. His observations are applicable here. A specific gravity now exists among the considerable swath of the Islamic world to decidedly rebuild the Caliphate. This is no small thing because this would not be a religious union. It would be judicial, political, military and religious. Pakistan would be brought into the mix and thus born a new super power who's aim is anathema to anything remotely resembling enlightenment, free will, or freedom. Moreover, to get from here to there would require Sunni or Shia genocide, or submission. This is not a worst case scenario. This is happening now.

[coma]

Sigh, sometimes I feel I come from a country of lunatics..... So let's recap here briefly.

Borrow 500 million dollars from China ( with America 17 trillion dollars in debt) ,

buy arms with it, and send the arms over to support rebels in another <deleted> up sand

country. When will we ever learn... :-(

No time soon by the looks of things.

[Morch]

Obama never intended to arm moderates. Moderate Islamic people in that region are oxymoronic. Moderate Muslims are nationalists, and as such are ruling Alawites or Bathists. ISIS is not a surprise to Obama and 500 million more is simply doubling down on the machine he created under the cover of "a crisis is an opportunity to enact the outcomes desired." These people were trained in Jordan at a US/Jordanian facility for the sole purpose of instigating Shia conflict. In that crucible Iran may be tempered, their contiguous swath of land from Afghanistan to the Med sea interrupted, and GCC countries placated. Really, this is fairly transparent. However, national, tribal, and local loyalties will always be subordinate to Islam. Consider Malcolm Gladwell's brilliant book, The Tipping Point. His observations are applicable here. A specific gravity now exists among the considerable swath of the Islamic world to decidedly rebuild the Caliphate. This is no small thing because this would not be a religious union. It would be judicial, political, military and religious. Pakistan would be brought into the mix and thus born a new super power who's aim is anathema to anything remotely resembling enlightenment, free will, or freedom. Moreover, to get from here to there would require Sunni or Shia genocide, or submission. This is not a worst case scenario. This is happening now.

So, the sky is falling?

Still a ways to go before ISIS can even be considered as here to stay.

In historical terms, the current situation is not even a blink of eye long.

Needless to say, there are still Muslim countries around, most do not

seem overly eager to be under the thrall of ISIS and the like. So far,

there is no genocide of either Sunni or Shia, and barring the use of

WMD, can't really see that happening (and then - yes, then we could

agree that the sky is indeed falling).

The Tipping Point thing cuts both ways, can apply it in reverse to

explain why the doomsday scenario will not come to pass.

[arjunadawn]

Obama never intended to arm moderates. Moderate Islamic people in that region are oxymoronic. Moderate Muslims are nationalists, and as such are ruling Alawites or Bathists. ISIS is not a surprise to Obama and 500 million more is simply doubling down on the machine he created under the cover of "a crisis is an opportunity to enact the outcomes desired." These people were trained in Jordan at a US/Jordanian facility for the sole purpose of instigating Shia conflict. In that crucible Iran may be tempered, their contiguous swath of land from Afghanistan to the Med sea interrupted, and GCC countries placated. Really, this is fairly transparent. However, national, tribal, and local loyalties will always be subordinate to Islam. Consider Malcolm Gladwell's brilliant book, The Tipping Point. His observations are applicable here. A specific gravity now exists among the considerable swath of the Islamic world to decidedly rebuild the Caliphate. This is no small thing because this would not be a religious union. It would be judicial, political, military and religious. Pakistan would be brought into the mix and thus born a new super power who's aim is anathema to anything remotely resembling enlightenment, free will, or freedom. Moreover, to get from here to there would require Sunni or Shia genocide, or submission. This is not a worst case scenario. This is happening now.

So, the sky is falling?

Still a ways to go before ISIS can even be considered as here to stay.

In historical terms, the current situation is not even a blink of eye long.

Needless to say, there are still Muslim countries around, most do not

seem overly eager to be under the thrall of ISIS and the like. So far,

there is no genocide of either Sunni or Shia, and barring the use of

WMD, can't really see that happening (and then - yes, then we could

agree that the sky is indeed falling).

The Tipping Point thing cuts both ways, can apply it in reverse to

explain why the doomsday scenario will not come to pass.

Hello Morch,

I regret there are a number of points under which your position suffers. I am not Henny Penny! And no, relatively the "sky is [not] falling." To choose that phrase as a straw-man for my position, then destroy it, is disingenuous. I never alluded to such. As you later used the word "doomsday" its clear you were suggesting I inferred this. It is indisputable that the West seeks to reign in Iran via a Sunni alliance in the region. The notion that you "cant really see [genocide] happening" really disarms your position. Of course the Sunnis, and less the Shias, have been murdering each other in large numbers, with a recent escalation.

The West actually does believe that a regional super Islamic state might provide a better means to navigate regional hostilities and ensure more tranquil markets; See, String of Pearls and Which Path to Persia. These documents are effectively a road map for every recent political insinuation of the USA in this region. Of course, the further focus is Iran. Saudis have already invested considerable sums of money lining up a possible Nuclear Device from Pakistan, should Iran go nuclear. These developments are weighty and meaningful, not pedestrian and business as usual. The Middle East has been bound in relative parity since the Ottoman Empire and then later the further binding glue of the bipolar world with USA/USSR; the arbitrarily crafted middle east states are now totally fracturing along fault lines much, much older then contemporary history. At its basic source it is Shia/Sunni. Add the nature of the modern immediate world and ideas are much more virulent, or as seen through many locals eyes, a religious duty (indeed, Jihad is a duty). A majority of Muslims around the world do support Sharia (search internet). Sharia has no room for dissenters- period. Sharia is binding on everyone, including those who are not Muslim. If "these people" are empowered beyond their national boundaries, including a trans state or super state, you can believe this will move from Low, to Mid-High Intensity conflict. The effort by the West, with this totally contrived army, to break the contiguous land swath from al Quds in Persia to Hezbollah in Lebanon will first bite our GCC allies, Jordan, then Israel.

It is a dangerous, decietful game the West plays because they fundamentally do not grasp they are not dealing solely with ideology or national aspirations. A cursory glimpse of Islamic Eschatology clearly reveals they are (the growing Islamic caliphate movement) preparing for the end times, not solely the Shia Twelvers (Returning Mahdi) either. Most definitely they believe the caliphate will be restored by armies amassing and storming from the north bearing the white on black flag Islamic imperative- (There is no god but.... and... is His messenger...). This is a deliberate attempt to fracture along religious/ethnic lines. Many of these people were trained by those I know. I spent nearly 6 of the past 12 years (up to 2009) in Iraq working with Shia, Sunni, and Kurds- locally, intimately, remotely, and constantly. I spent the remaining of the other years in Yemen, Pakistan, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Jordan, and other places as an adviser. I know a thing or two about this issue and while my experience does not make me an expert it is ample fodder for a valid opinion.

For many years I instructed Trends in International Terrorism and people were always quite surprised when I informed them that the first target of the Islamic (Sunni) Jihadists was not the Great or Little Satan, but what they perceived as the local, illegitimate rulers and monarchs in the Middle East. USA and Israel were always secondary or tertiary. Now that the USA and EU have nearly eliminated the local dictators like Mubarak, Qaddafi, etc., in the obviously contrived Arab Spring, we have handed the Islamists the entire landmass from North Africa to Afghanistan, with a few exceptions; they are now obviously moving on to the next step in their pursuit of a Caliphate. These local, obstinate dictators loathed Islamic Jihadists- so they were removed by the West. For every single person who has understood these fundamental things about the Islamic Caliphate Jihad it cannot be overlooked that the West has intentionally unseated their local opponents; Syria is more intransigent due to Iran. So, see what you wish to in unfolding events but having read this, don't be surprised later when you see it fits like a puzzle.

Note: It is absolute nonsense to assert "moderate." There are no moderates in this region of the world because the formula is simple: you are either Sharia, or you are blasphemous. The idea that Islam can be interpreted and applied differently under Sharia is rubbish. Moderate terms are used to feed the Western viewer. The very concept of "moderate" in this regard is an invention, and has zero merit locally. You will never see/hear a body of "moderates" take a stand on this, or that, because there are none! You may have people here or there, but not locally, seeking interfaith dialogue, but they are not moderates, they are blasphemers.

Edited June 29, 2014 by arjunadawn

[Morch]

I do not believe in Grand Plans. At least not ones who unfold without a hitch.

More so when these involve lengthy periods of time, and multiple players with different agendas.

The sky is falling was in response to such things as "This is not a worst case scenario. This is happening now.".

Yes, the Sunnis and the Shia been at each others throat for ages, both are still around - where's the genocide?

A "recent escalation"? In real numbers there nothing going on that is even close to being called a genocide.

Yes, the notion of reviving the caliphate is real - as it has been for ages, and there were other shots at this in the

past, no caliphate though. An not very large insurgent group takes over a large tract of area, local sham army

routed - very impressive, but no reason to get the old knickers in a twist. They have yet to hold on to their gains,

and yet to face serious opposition. The caliphate isn't quite here yet, and not very likely to become a reality that

fast.

Yes, the West (well, mostly the USA) wants to reign in Iran - I'll go on to say that it is disputable that they have a

very clear and decisive notion of how to get there, more like a sets of option which they keep changing in hope

that they'll somehow pick a winning card. The Sunni block is but one card (or part of a set) in this deck. Unless

I misunderstood it completely, Which Path to Persia, presents a set of option to deal with Iran, without clearly

advocating a specific course of action from among them.

The West is not a unified entity which works in harmony toward a clear goal. Might have been easier if it was,

but it isn't. For example, stating that the West believes in or advocates the creation of a Sunni super state is a

rather strong statement which does not necessarily reflect the position of every nation comprising "the West".

To some extent, there are different takes on this even within country.

Agreed that the Middle East is going through a turbulent time. That is nothing new. In historical terms, a very

short time passed since the disintegration of the Ottoman empire and the redrawing of arbitrary borders by

the then super-powers. Does this time around qualify as different? I doubt it (simply because similar notions

were expressed with every political upheaval).

The USA seems hooked on playing with fire when it comes Muslim countries. At a loss as to why anyone would

still keep on doing the same thing over and over again, even when it is obvious that is usually doesn't get you

where you want to be, and proves tricky at best to control.

The way I see Islam, its still evolving - in the very same way Christianity did. Not a positive point of view in the sense

that it will not mellow down within our lifetimes and not long after that. Takes a while to close a gap of 600 years.

Being a "young" religion, and in contrast with older, mellower religions it is almost bound to define itself by going radical.

While it is true that Sharia isn't very lenient, so was Jewish thought - took them a while to develop an extensive collection

of interpretations which are basically relevant adaptations of older writings to fit with the times.

Was trying to reconcile some of what you wrote regarding (not sure I'm putting this right) a Muslim state of mind as being

radical (binary, even), with some of my experience with Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere. Not saying that there

isn't a certain, how to call it, bond(?) or sentiment between Muslims. But without someone stoking local fires and getting

busy with the bellows it doesn't always seem to go very far. Where there wasn't someone to stir things, it basically stayed

quiet, where people had better things to do (but not hardship, that works the other way around) they were interested but

not that involved.

Aware by now of your relevant experience (no need to convince me you know a thing or a lot about these issues ), it is

just that I lean toward longer term views, and a more "chaotic" view of how events actually unfold.

[simple1]

@arjunadawn:

A point of detail. if as you claim moderates do not exist in the current Islamic world, how come there are so many reports that those expressing moderate views are oppressed, jailed or murdered by Islamic conservative government / extremists

[Pakboong]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Obama never intended to arm moderates. Moderate Islamic people in that region are oxymoronic. Moderate Muslims are nationalists, and as such are ruling Alawites or Bathists. ISIS is not a surprise to Obama and 500 million more is simply doubling down on the machine he created under the cover of "a crisis is an opportunity to enact the outcomes desired." These people were trained in Jordan at a US/Jordanian facility for the sole purpose of instigating Shia conflict. In that crucible Iran may be tempered, their contiguous swath of land from Afghanistan to the Med sea interrupted, and GCC countries placated. Really, this is fairly transparent. However, national, tribal, and local loyalties will always be subordinate to Islam. Consider Malcolm Gladwell's brilliant book, The Tipping Point. His observations are applicable here. A specific gravity now exists among the considerable swath of the Islamic world to decidedly rebuild the Caliphate. This is no small thing because this would not be a religious union. It would be judicial, political, military and religious. Pakistan would be brought into the mix and thus born a new super power who's aim is anathema to anything remotely resembling enlightenment, free will, or freedom. Moreover, to get from here to there would require Sunni or Shia genocide, or submission. This is not a worst case scenario. This is happening now.

So, the sky is falling?

Still a ways to go before ISIS can even be considered as here to stay.

In historical terms, the current situation is not even a blink of eye long.

Needless to say, there are still Muslim countries around, most do not

seem overly eager to be under the thrall of ISIS and the like. So far,

there is no genocide of either Sunni or Shia, and barring the use of

WMD, can't really see that happening (and then - yes, then we could

agree that the sky is indeed falling).

The Tipping Point thing cuts both ways, can apply it in reverse to

explain why the doomsday scenario will not come to pass.

Hello Morch,

I regret there are a number of points under which your position suffers. I am not Henny Penny! And no, relatively the "sky is [not] falling." To choose that phrase as a straw-man for my position, then destroy it, is disingenuous. I never alluded to such. As you later used the word "doomsday" its clear you were suggesting I inferred this. It is indisputable that the West seeks to reign in Iran via a Sunni alliance in the region. The notion that you "cant really see [genocide] happening" really disarms your position. Of course the Sunnis, and less the Shias, have been murdering each other in large numbers, with a recent escalation.

The West actually does believe that a regional super Islamic state might provide a better means to navigate regional hostilities and ensure more tranquil markets; See, String of Pearls and Which Path to Persia. These documents are effectively a road map for every recent political insinuation of the USA in this region. Of course, the further focus is Iran. Saudis have already invested considerable sums of money lining up a possible Nuclear Device from Pakistan, should Iran go nuclear. These developments are weighty and meaningful, not pedestrian and business as usual. The Middle East has been bound in relative parity since the Ottoman Empire and then later the further binding glue of the bipolar world with USA/USSR; the arbitrarily crafted middle east states are now totally fracturing along fault lines much, much older then contemporary history. At its basic source it is Shia/Sunni. Add the nature of the modern immediate world and ideas are much more virulent, or as seen through many locals eyes, a religious duty (indeed, Jihad is a duty). A majority of Muslims around the world do support Sharia (search internet). Sharia has no room for dissenters- period. Sharia is binding on everyone, including those who are not Muslim. If "these people" are empowered beyond their national boundaries, including a trans state or super state, you can believe this will move from Low, to Mid-High Intensity conflict. The effort by the West, with this totally contrived army, to break the contiguous land swath from al Quds in Persia to Hezbollah in Lebanon will first bite our GCC allies, Jordan, then Israel.

It is a dangerous, decietful game the West plays because they fundamentally do not grasp they are not dealing solely with ideology or national aspirations. A cursory glimpse of Islamic Eschatology clearly reveals they are (the growing Islamic caliphate movement) preparing for the end times, not solely the Shia Twelvers (Returning Mahdi) either. Most definitely they believe the caliphate will be restored by armies amassing and storming from the north bearing the white on black flag Islamic imperative- (There is no god but.... and... is His messenger...). This is a deliberate attempt to fracture along religious/ethnic lines. Many of these people were trained by those I know. I spent nearly 6 of the past 12 years (up to 2009) in Iraq working with Shia, Sunni, and Kurds- locally, intimately, remotely, and constantly. I spent the remaining of the other years in Yemen, Pakistan, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Jordan, and other places as an adviser. I know a thing or two about this issue and while my experience does not make me an expert it is ample fodder for a valid opinion.

For many years I instructed Trends in International Terrorism and people were always quite surprised when I informed them that the first target of the Islamic (Sunni) Jihadists was not the Great or Little Satan, but what they perceived as the local, illegitimate rulers and monarchs in the Middle East. USA and Israel were always secondary or tertiary. Now that the USA and EU have nearly eliminated the local dictators like Mubarak, Qaddafi, etc., in the obviously contrived Arab Spring, we have handed the Islamists the entire landmass from North Africa to Afghanistan, with a few exceptions; they are now obviously moving on to the next step in their pursuit of a Caliphate. These local, obstinate dictators loathed Islamic Jihadists- so they were removed by the West. For every single person who has understood these fundamental things about the Islamic Caliphate Jihad it cannot be overlooked that the West has intentionally unseated their local opponents; Syria is more intransigent due to Iran. So, see what you wish to in unfolding events but having read this, don't be surprised later when you see it fits like a puzzle.

Note: It is absolute nonsense to assert "moderate." There are no moderates in this region of the world because the formula is simple: you are either Sharia, or you are blasphemous. The idea that Islam can be interpreted and applied differently under Sharia is rubbish. Moderate terms are used to feed the Western viewer. The very concept of "moderate" in this regard is an invention, and has zero merit locally. You will never see/hear a body of "moderates" take a stand on this, or that, because there are none! You may have people here or there, but not locally, seeking interfaith dialogue, but they are not moderates, they are blasphemers.

This won't be the first time I have been wrong but to me the common denominator is Russia. Syria, Iran, and now Iraq are Russian allies or as close to Russian allies we are going to find. The Russians are now selling jet aircraft to the Iraqi government because the US could not deliver. Russia got them to Iraq in 3 days.

This is about money and banking and has little to do with ideology. I realize I am pretty much alone in this view but I am stuck with it. The Ukraine, Iraq, Syria and Iran are all connected to the same issue for the same reason. The IMF needs Putin to be stopped before he does real damage to world banking. The US, EU and UK are simply doing the bidding for the IMF.

[arjunadawn]

@arjunadawn:

A point of detail. if as you claim moderates do not exist in the current Islamic world, how come there are so many reports that those expressing moderate views are oppressed, jailed or murdered by Islamic conservative government / extremists

I spend hours per day reading reports throughout the Muslim world, there are not "so many reports" of moderates. That's not a point of detail. This "point of detail" is a product if your own perception (it's been fairly argued mine is as well). You will rarely find a "moderate" oppressed. They don't use such language. They ("oppressed") are the 'other,' blasphemers, Ali's children, Ischmael's thorn, but rarely moderates. In Iran you'll find a number of "moderates" incidental to the fairly evolved, cosmopolitan life the Persians knew before the puppet Shah Phalavi. Perhaps some in other places, but relatively; one clings to shadows to assert this represents a vibrant, awakening, or possibility.

I just hold it's a category error to use such language as moderate. It only has meaning in the west, and as such is deceiving. Regardless, it's not the secular I'm particularly concerned with, it's those who are orthodox. Indeed, that's what they are, not radical. The Sunni ISIS and even Boko Harem and Al Quaeda are more or less consistent with Islamic exegesis.

Edited June 30, 2014 by arjunadawn

[Morch]

@arjunadawn:

A point of detail. if as you claim moderates do not exist in the current Islamic world, how come there are so many reports that those expressing moderate views are oppressed, jailed or murdered by Islamic conservative government / extremists

I spend hours per day reading reports throughout the Muslim world, there are not "so many reports" of moderates. That's not a point of detail. This "point of detail" is a product if your own perception (it's been fairly argued mine is as well). You will rarely find a "moderate" oppressed. They don't use such language. They ("oppressed") are the 'other,' blasphemers, Ali's children, Ischmael's thorn, but rarely moderates. In Iran you'll find a number of "moderates" incidental to the fairly evolved, cosmopolitan life the Persians knew before the puppet Shah Phalavi. Perhaps some in other places, but relatively; one clings to shadows to assert this represents a vibrant, awakening, or possibility.

I just hold it's a category error to use such language as moderate. It only has meaning in the west, and as such is deceiving. Regardless, it's not the secular I'm particularly concerned with, it's those who are orthodox. Indeed, that's what they are, not radical. The Sunni ISIS and even Boko Harem and Al Quaeda are more or less consistent with Islamic exegesis.

Would you go for "pragmatic" rather than "moderate"?

[jmccarty]

There is no right answer or solution that does not involve hurting a lot of people even more than they have already been hurt. And more will be in harms way regardless of what Obama comes up with.

What would Captain Kirk do? Makes about as much sense looking at it from any angle!

[arjunadawn]

@arjunadawn:

A point of detail. if as you claim moderates do not exist in the current Islamic world, how come there are so many reports that those expressing moderate views are oppressed, jailed or murdered by Islamic conservative government / extremists

I spend hours per day reading reports throughout the Muslim world, there are not "so many reports" of moderates. That's not a point of detail. This "point of detail" is a product if your own perception (it's been fairly argued mine is as well). You will rarely find a "moderate" oppressed. They don't use such language. They ("oppressed") are the 'other,' blasphemers, Ali's children, Ischmael's thorn, but rarely moderates. In Iran you'll find a number of "moderates" incidental to the fairly evolved, cosmopolitan life the Persians knew before the puppet Shah Phalavi. Perhaps some in other places, but relatively; one clings to shadows to assert this represents a vibrant, awakening, or possibility.

I just hold it's a category error to use such language as moderate. It only has meaning in the west, and as such is deceiving. Regardless, it's not the secular I'm particularly concerned with, it's those who are orthodox. Indeed, that's what they are, not radical. The Sunni ISIS and even Boko Harem and Al Quaeda are more or less consistent with Islamic exegesis.

Would you go for "pragmatic" rather than "moderate"?

(Smiling) Yes, I would go for pragmatic. There are multitudes of pragmatic Muslims in the world. They go along to get along. These are the silent majority that for fear of being killed, raped, slaughtered, accused, crucified, or condemned pragmatically indulge those who's authority is not contested- those who literally cite the Koran and Hadith, etc. Very few people can hold legitimacy and assert that the numerous Islamic terror groups throughout the world are misinterpreting meaning; they are hardly. Theses masses are those whom western pundits shout on on air waves "Where are the moderate Muslims condemning [this]?" They are pragmatic; they remain silent because their position is not reconcilable with Islamic teachings. "Pragmatic," as you've noted, secular, moderate, are simply not valid positions to have before Sharia- period! They are anathema.

And thus only mouses scurry about and crickets lament when yet another horrific, numbing outrage takes place and it's asked "where are the moderates condemning this?" They are not stupid. They are pragmatic.

This will be last post on this topic. Thank you for your comments.

[Ulysses G.]

There is no right answer or solution that does not involve hurting a lot of people even more than they have already been hurt. And more will be in harms way regardless of what Obama comes up with.

As much as I despise Obama, I tend to agree, but I also feel that his feckless foreign policy is what put us into this position. Pretty much everyone around the world knows that he will do almost anything to avoid military conflict, unless he feels that it is a slam dunk and will help him politically. They are starting to take advantage of it and, IMO, it is only going to get worse.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

@arjunadawn:

A point of detail. if as you claim moderates do not exist in the current Islamic world, how come there are so many reports that those expressing moderate views are oppressed, jailed or murdered by Islamic conservative government / extremists

I spend hours per day reading reports throughout the Muslim world, there are not "so many reports" of moderates. That's not a point of detail. This "point of detail" is a product if your own perception (it's been fairly argued mine is as well). You will rarely find a "moderate" oppressed. They don't use such language. They ("oppressed") are the 'other,' blasphemers, Ali's children, Ischmael's thorn, but rarely moderates. In Iran you'll find a number of "moderates" incidental to the fairly evolved, cosmopolitan life the Persians knew before the puppet Shah Phalavi. Perhaps some in other places, but relatively; one clings to shadows to assert this represents a vibrant, awakening, or possibility.

I just hold it's a category error to use such language as moderate. It only has meaning in the west, and as such is deceiving. Regardless, it's not the secular I'm particularly concerned with, it's those who are orthodox. Indeed, that's what they are, not radical. The Sunni ISIS and even Boko Harem and Al Quaeda are more or less consistent with Islamic exegesis.

Would you go for "pragmatic" rather than "moderate"?

(Smiling) Yes, I would go for pragmatic. There are multitudes of pragmatic Muslims in the world. They go along to get along. These are the silent majority that for fear of being killed, raped, slaughtered, accused, crucified, or condemned pragmatically indulge those who's authority is not contested- those who literally cite the Koran and Hadith, etc. Very few people can hold legitimacy and assert that the numerous Islamic terror groups throughout the world are misinterpreting meaning; they are hardly. Theses masses are those whom western pundits shout on on air waves "Where are the moderate Muslims condemning [this]?" They are pragmatic; they remain silent because their position is not reconcilable with Islamic teachings. "Pragmatic," as you've noted, secular, moderate, are simply not valid positions to have before Sharia- period! They are anathema.

And thus only mouses scurry about and crickets lament when yet another horrific, numbing outrage takes place and it's asked "where are the moderates condemning this?" They are not stupid. They are pragmatic.

This will be last post on this topic. Thank you for your comments.

Well, maybe the West's efforts ought to be focused on promoting secularization.

But seeing as this is both a long term goal and a tricky one to achieve, not very likely it would come into play.