Last week I discussed why peace with Iran was the preferred option. I outlined a number of salient points uninformed talking heads in the media and well paid Israel lobbyists such as the former US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, will never bring up. In short, the costs of a war with Iran will far outweigh the costs of accepting a turbulent peace. Even a successful war against Iran will be a Pyric victory and cause an economic collapse in the US. Further, even if Iran did test a nuclear weapon, we would still have plenty of time to exercise the war option should it be necessary. Unfortunately, even if the US does manage to broker a peace deal with Iran, war is now close to a certainty. In the event of a war with Iran, there will be dire implications for the US. Today I will discuss why war is now imminent, how it will likely be initiated, and the catastrophic effects on the US you must prepare to endure. Read more
Archive for Al Qaeda
Over the last decade, I have produced many papers and articles analyzing events in the Middle East and their geopolitical impact for academia, commercial publications, think tanks, and government agencies. I stand by my track record as one of the most prescient in the business. To that end, predicting chaos in the Middle East has been easy, but combining the what (violence) with the who, when, why, and how are the far more demanding predictions. One the worst case scenarios for a broad outbreak of violence in the Middle East has been the possibility of a major war between Israel and Iran. This conflict would immediately go regional with the on-going proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia pulling in the remaining Middle Eastern countries. Once it goes regional, it will be nearly impossible for the U.S., Europe, and Russia to remain on the sidelines. I have described in detail how this would likely play out as well as how it could be prevented in previous posts (see a partial list below). I am writing today again with a dire warning for anyone willing to listen. The most recent events occurring across the Middle East are now signaling the worst case scenario of a major conflict with Iran will come to pass as I have previously predicted. This first article discusses why war with Iran is unnecessary and must be avoided. Part II will discuss why even with an Iranian deal, war is inevitable and the dire consequences we can expect. Read more
From the beginning, we considered Afghanistan the more difficult war…it will be so even after we retreat. The longest war in American history is coming to a close as an indecisive strategic defeat for the US and NATO just as I predicted over a decade ago. The war was fought against an enemy with an extremely low level of capability, but our generals refused to recognize the critical importance of stopping the enemy’s movement to and from its cross-border sanctuary even when presented with overwhelming analyses. Specifically, the failure of border security to be made a priority in the overall counterinsurgency strategy all but guaranteed the inevitable exhaustion and defeat of the occupation force. Embarrassingly, the hard truth is the “most powerful” and certainly the most expensive military in history failed to decisively defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The US/NATO defeat was not for lack of manpower or firepower, it was a defeat born of intellectual incompetence and utter dereliction by our senior leadership. Importantly, the critical failure responsible for the US/NATO defeat remains at the senior echelons within the US military and White House, is systemic, and remains uncorrected. Now, just like in Iraq, we are told by President Obama and his appointees that Afghans will take over operations and complete the mission. The chances of the Afghans defeating the Taliban are zero and we must be prepared for the inevitable consequences.
First, I want to support my certainty that most of Afghanistan will be overrun by the Taliban. To do this we need only to look at the current status of the war. To date, the combined power of the US and NATO has after 14 years proved unable to defeat the Taliban. However, we are told to believe by Obama and his generals that the Afghans, with a relative few Americans in support, will be capable of cleaning up the mess and decisively defeating the Taliban. The result of this is another easily predictable, preordained defeat. Afghanistan’s new president, Ashraf Ghani, simply will not be able to hold on to Kabul, much less the whole of Afghanistan, and will likely meet the same fate as his earlier predecessor Mohammad Najibullah Ahmadzai at the hands of the Taliban. Further, it is appearing more likely that this will not just be a Taliban victory, but may be completed under the unified banner of ISIL. Read more
Why No One Should Serve in the US Military: Your leaders are incompetent and your next Secretary of Defense is no exception.
As a combat veteran of the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I am going to be very blunt. Lives depend on being direct and the need for military personnel to come forward and tell the truth. In fact, it is chilling that no one has called out the insanity taking place before our very eyes within the ranks of the military. The senior military leadership is incompetent to lead. Our failures in both Iraq and Afghanistan bare this out. Today’s testimony by the soon to be next Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter should make it blatantly clear that no one should consider joining our military. For current active duty and reserve members, run for the door and get the hell out as soon as your obligations allow. Read more
Researching issues over the years, I have found that it is not uncommon to find the real story intentionally buried or covered up. False flags are real and conspiracies exist everywhere. What occurred on the day of September 11, 2001 is no exception. As such, I ask, is it possible to conclusively put some of these theories to rest? Specifically, did a plane actually hit the Pentagon the morning of September 11, 2001? Being that I was en route to the Pentagon the morning of the attack and heard the explosion and saw the plume of black smoke, but didn’t personally witness the plane hit the building, I questioned the narrative as well. Nonetheless, I have always seen this conspiracy theory as one of the easiest to either validate or debunk and wondered how a conspiracy like this could fester seemingly unanswered for so long and decided to research it. The result of my research, to date, debunks the theory that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. I understand that some people will only believe their narrative of events no matter how much evidence you put before them. That said, I could probably never 100% rule out a conspiracy without actually witnessing it all with my own eyes. However, I am comfortable knowing that between the natural inept nature of government operations, the government’s inability to keep secrets secret, and the already highly improbable string of events woven together to create an alternative reality is so far beyond the realm of sane probability as compared to what eye witnesses, physical, and photographic evidence testify to, this conspiracy is busted. Read more
It is should be no question that I am a staunch supporter and advocate for liberty, freedom, and civil rights. Why anyone would not desire a society where these fundamental pillars of a civilized existence are protected is baffling. However, after the Senate released its report on the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques, it started a short lived firestorm of controversy over torture. Disturbingly many of you thought the use of torture was justified. Irrespective of your personal views, the fact is that torture, including the full spectrum of enhance interrogation techniques, is entirely illegal under both US and international law. Both Presidents Bush and Obama have violated this law and those party to the decision to authorize the use of torture must be brought to justice. What I am here to tell you is irrespective of whether or not you believe it was necessary, useful, or just, the condoning of this activity establishes a legal precedent for torture to be used against you right here at home. If torture is allowed to become acceptable, you will soon find yourself on the wrong side of the religion of political correctness getting tortured until you amend your beliefs and sell out your friends and family. Read more
On December 28, 2014, the US and NATO declared an end to the mission and therefore the war in Afghanistan. A Taliban statement from Zabihullah Mujahidon, a Taliban spokesman, left no doubt to how it was interpreted according to Reuters.
“ISAF rolled up its flag in an atmosphere of failure and disappointment without having achieved anything substantial or tangible.”
Washington may not like the statement and downplay it, but it doesn’t change the reality that the statement is accurate. Not so ironically, the US and NATO have been mute over the success of the war. No celebrations, no parades, no victory speeches…the absence of all of this should signal that our leaders know it was a failure. In fact, not only did the combined force of NATO and the US not achieve a decisive victory over the Taliban, they suffered a strategic defeat. Read more
I have warned for years that the Syrian Rebels and now ISIL have chemical weapons. However, that notion was dismissed repeatedly by the mainstream media until the State Department inadvertently admitted that ISIL used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Of course that major revelation caused at least a few people to raise the question of the origin of these said chemical weapons. Realizing a major scandal was about to erupt, the White House went into full damage control mode and immediately set about working with the New York Times to put out a story to redirect and mislead the public. The Times story claims ISIL’s chemical weapons came from undestroyed Iraqi stockpiles, which as I will show, is a patently false claim of historical revisionism. Read more
President Obama and his top military advisors have learned nothing and have made a grave mistake starting a war with Syria using ISIL as the pretext. Just as I was confident and proven correct that this situation would materialize, I am equally confident in my analysis that this new war will lead to America’s greatest foreign policy disaster to date. Neither war with Syrian nor ISIL will be decisive, successful, or lead to greater security for the American people. However, the war may indeed turn out to lead to America’s unwinding as the world’s sole superpower and economic bankruptcy. This post will continue my analysis on the on-going crisis unfolding in the Middle East respective of Obama’s newest war. Read more
Against my better judgment, I decided to watch a segment of “The O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News to hear his points on the latest developments in Iraq. In O’Reilly’s defense, he has been a brilliant talk show host and highly successful writer and businessman. However, at the end of the day, O’Reilly is still a journalist with limited real world expertise on many of the topics he provides commentary on. Specifically, O’Reilly poses as an expert, but is totally lacking in experience when it comes to matters of military application and foreign affairs. O’Reilly has never served in combat, is not an intelligence analyst, and so far has not demonstrated himself as a policy maker. So to no surprise, when I tuned in, O’Reilly was expounding his usual pompous, ill informed, bomb them all rhetoric with respect to the Islamic extremist army dubbed ISIL or ISIS. Within thirty seconds of listening to O’Reilly’s poorly informed diatribe, I remembered why I had stopped watching Fox. As such, I feel as though Fox News and Bill O’Reilly needed some better informed input to ensure Fox lives up to its “fair and balanced” moniker and openly challenge O’Reilly to a debate on Iraq policy.
First of all, I want to make it clear we lost in Iraq. Bill O’Reilly is still grasping to a false reality and believes we actually accomplished strategic objectives (won) in Iraq before our retreat. The fact the US was defeated is tough to deal with, but nonetheless fact. It in no way diminishes the honor of our veterans. Suggesting otherwise to those that cannot dissect honor from the success or failure of an army in battle is ridiculous. The notion that loss in battle or war dishonors our troops is no more logical than suggesting soldiers of losing armies across thousands of years of recorded history had no honor. For example, the many British army units fought with the utmost honor in the American Revolution, soldiers fighting for the Confederate Army during the American Civil War fought with great honor, and Rommel’s Afrika Corps has been distinguished again and again for its honor by historians, but all of the above armies ultimately lost their respective wars. In fact, honor is not hinged upon whether one wins or loses, but in how one conducts himself in combat. Iraq was never pacified and never made safe for Americans, but we maintained our honor. The US certainly isn’t calling the shots across the nation now. The end state achieved was a strategic setback for US interests across the region by strengthening our foes. No matter how much the Obama Administration whitewashes our retreat from Iraq, the enemy was still fighting and still holding ground when we left.
For those of you who did not fight in Iraq and have not visited Iraq since our retreat, you should know that Mosul was never pacified and maintained its status as a hotbed of Al Qaeda (AQ) activity. Neither President Bush nor President Obama finished the war. To the present day, Mosul has been a part of the ratline of jihadists making their way to fight in Syria. In fact, US intelligence has been well aware that Mosul has been a key staging point for AQ training and equipping jihadists en route to joining ISIL for years. Mosul has also been effectively “no-go” territory for westerners and has been controlled since before the US retreat by Sunni extremists. As such, the fear and panic that ISIL has “captured” Mosul is overstated. It is true they kicked out the token government forces, but the Iraqi military never controlled anything beyond the ground below their feet hiding behind the walls of abandoned US military bases. Beyond kicking out the token Iraqi forces, the only difference appears to be ISIL formally cemented their previous control of that city and surrounding regions with the execution of anyone supporting the Iraq government. So, if O’Reilly was consistent and well informed, he would have recognized that Mosul and neighboring cities like Tikrit with a large presence of Sunni extremists “falling” to ISIL was not in and of itself a game changer.
Second, O’Reilly fails to remember that it was the Sunnis, during the “Awakening,” that allied with US forces to fight the Shia militias attacking and killing Americans daily. In fact, I distinctly remember Sadr’s brigades of Shia militia backed by Iran attacking US military personnel with zeal throughout the war. I also remember the Shia going from house to house in what was originally mixed Sunni-Shia neighborhoods of Baghdad and ethnically cleansing the population. The Shia death squads brutally murdered any Sunni they found and turned Baghdad into a Shia city. However, it is now the Sunni extremists that O’Reilly has repeatedly called “savages” that deserve to be bombed. I would argue to O’Reilly that both factions have lived up to the pejorative term savage and have demonstrated their eagerness to kill Americans before their fellow Iraqi time and again and as such, we should be happy to leave them to their demise. In short, they are getting what they deserve and I see no reason Americans need to be again placed in the line of fire and paying to “save” savages that want us dead while they are busy killing one another.
Third, O’Reilly has totally forgotten that it was Maliki and the Iraqi government that refused to grant the US a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that would have protected our troops and allowed them to remain in Iraq beyond their set date of retreat. True, President Obama used the SOFA as a means to justify the US retreat out of Iraq, but nonetheless, the Iraqis wanted American forces out of their country. O’Reilly should perhaps volunteer himself for military service in a country that he is not invited and where killing, even in self-defense, will be deemed murder. Perhaps he does not realize the very real legal dangers our troops will be faced with as they return to Iraq. O’Reilly’s insistence on the deployment of military forces creates a conundrum for the troops because they are being deployed outside of war, to a sovereign nation, and violating its laws. Does O’Reilly actually believe Maliki’s word that our troops will now receive immunity and that President Obama will do whatever is necessary to ensure Maliki is held to his word? I think not.
Third, O’Reilly just doesn’t seem to get the fact that the war as fought under Bush was a disaster and later under Obama was also a disaster. I guess O’Reilly missed the fact that when the war began, Saddam Hussein was killing extremists for free and had nothing to do with 9/11 beyond being the fall guy for Saudi Arabia. It was Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, which was responsible for carrying out a state sponsored act of war against the US on 9/11. This fact is why Representative Walter Jones from North Carolina wants the classified 9/11 Report released so that the public will know the truth and the lies perpetrated by the US government. If US strategy was effective, there would be LESS, not more extremists. Of course it is overwhelmingly clear our strategy failed judged by this bar. O’Reilly also seems to forget that by toppling Saddam’s regime, we created the vacuum that allowed these extremists to flourish to the point they now occupy their own autonomous Islamic state. When this point is made, O’Reilly flies into defense mode and charges the person as an “apologist.” O’Reilly solely blames the Islamists, but fails to recognize the very clear order of events of cause and effect leading to this situation. O’Reilly can believe what he wants, but is not allowed to create his own facts and cherry pick from his arbitrary timeline of events. For example, O’Reilly makes the point that we invaded Iraq to rid the country of Saddam and for humanitarian purposes. On this point alone, O’Reilly must have deleted his memory files much as the IRS seems to have deleted emails. We did not invade Iraq for the purposes O’Reilly states. We invaded Iraq because we were made to believe that Iraq was an existential threat that possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that it would not turnover to U.N. inspectors, was going to use the WMD against the US, and was supporting AQ. Nothing short of creating this existential threat would have brought American into the war. As the invasion kicked off and the contrived lies became clear, the Bush Administration had to save face. The Administration then made a deliberate policy decision to change the motive for the war effort to regime change and humanitarian issues. As such, O’Reilly’s stated purpose for the war is completely fictitious. Further, O’Reilly has chided every democratic administration for humanitarian military operations, but somehow thinks he can hang on to that rationale to defend the disaster Bush created in Iraq.
O’Reilly claims we did Iraq a great favor by ridding the country of Saddam, but again, suspends logic by implying that a full invasion was the only way to “rid” Iraq of Saddam. O’Reilly has to know that there were numerous opportunities and plenty of other options to eliminate and or contain Saddam and any threat he could have possibly posed to the US. In stating this, O’Reilly totally undermines the deaths of near 1,000,000 Iraqis throughout both wars with Iraq. More importantly to me, he also dishonors the American veterans that fought in Iraq by incorrectly believing that perpetuating political lies and propaganda he somehow brings honor to their unnecessary injuries and deaths. Only by telling the truth and prosecuting the political liars within our own government that sent them out to fight a senseless war would he actually do these honorable men and women justice. However, O’Reilly continues to pander to his establishment masters to the disgrace of all who served. Although the likes of Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney may applaud O’Reilly, Bill becomes vile in the eyes of veterans those traitors sent to an illegal war. I am positive that very few of the million dead Iraqis posed even the slightest threat to America and would be much happier if they were alive for starters. I am also confident that the thousands of Americans who lost loved ones or that were horribly wounded would also be better off alive and well today, even if Saddam was still in power. No matter what O’Reilly believes from his ivory tower about how we improved the lives of the average Iraqi, the millions of wounded, displaced, starved, and dead would find comfort in knowing the US would never come to “help” Iraq again.
Fourth, our bombing didn’t work, yet, O’Reilly is adamant about the positive effects “heavy bombing” would have for the US against ISIL. O’Reilly seems to think that if we just carpet bomb one more convoy we will win. He seems to “know” that our pilots can positively identify targets flying at nearly the speed of sound or faster and often from above 35,000 feet as long as the “bad guys” are in the open desert. I would laugh, but he is actually serious…and using his own words, a buffoon. I guess he fails to understand how the fact ISIL is operating with the same US provided military vehicles that the Iraqi military is using can complicate targeting. If perhaps, O’Reilly had actually served in combat as a Joint Tactical Air Controller, he would know that his line of logic is ridiculous, but since he did not, let me enlighten him. Just because there is a convoy of trucks with guns in the Middle East does not positively identify the convoy as “bad guys.” In fact, the factions fighting often look indistinguishable even from the ground and much less so from the air. Without good intelligence and legitimate boots on the ground observing, identifying, and marking targets for air, O’Reilly’s airstrikes will not only be futile, but 100% counterproductive. I also think that O’Reilly must have somehow shelved the knowledge that ISIL possesses “Stinger” missiles. Even though I would argue that the likelihood is the bulk of these man portable, surface-to-air missiles are advanced Soviet designs smuggled into Syria by our very own CIA from Libya (hello Benghazi), the missiles nonetheless exist and pose a significant threat to our aircraft operating at low altitudes. I wonder if the loss of an American pilot and an F-16 is worth it to O’Reilly?
Finally, O’Reilly went on to say that ISIL does not recognize the Iraq-Syrian border and that we must pursue ISIL into Syria. I do not disagree that the border has long since ceased to exist and that to prosecute an effective campaign, you must not allow the insurgent sanctuary. Too bad we didn’t use this same logic in Afghanistan where even the dullest of officers recognized that to decisively defeat the Taliban, one must either secure the border or cross into Pakistan, but I digress. Moving back to bombing ISIL in Syria, O’Reilly completely demonstrates his hypocrisy and wins the award for pinhead. Time and again, O’Reilly has been on air demanding President Obama support the rebels in Syria and has attacked the Administration repeatedly for not doing enough, yet, he fails to realize that he is simultaneously demanding we bomb ISIL and support ISIL. O’Reilly is naïve and or ignorant if he fails to make the connection that we have been covertly organizing, arming, training, and equipping the rebel forces in Syria to fight President Assad and it is these same forces, which are now rampaging throughout Iraq. The savages that O’Reilly demands we bomb are the savages we created just like in Afghanistan and Libya. In fact, if we bomb ISIL at their points of origin as O’Reilly suggests… in their training camps in Syria (Jordan and Turkey too O’Reilly), I wonder if he realizes we will be killing American special forces and CIA ground branch officers currently training these terrorists. So I ask O’Reilly, who are the good guys and who are the bad guys because I am very confused.
By Guiles Hendrik
All rights reserved.
As we have reported for some time, the US support to Al Qaeda affiliated jihadist groups waging an insurgent war in Syria would cause the conflict to spread beyond Syria’s borders. Specifically, we pointed out that the Qatari and Saudi backed insurgents would threaten the Shia dominated (Iranian leaning) government in Iraq. This came to fruition after anti-government militants seized control of the city of Fallujah in December. Since then Iraqi forces have been unable to get the city back from the rebel fighters. Further proof of our predicted regionalization of the war came recently after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar of declaring war on Iraq and supporting global terrorism. The Iraqi leader blamed the two countries for orchestrating the latest wave of bloody violence to hit Iraq this year, which continues unabated and at levels not seen since the height of the bloodshed during the US occupation. Of course you will never hear this in a White House briefing or on the CNN and Fox propaganda networks.
Prime Minister Maliki placed the blame for the increasing terrorist violence in Iraq on Qatar and Saudi Arabia in an interview with France 24. He said both countries are supporting extreme sectarian groups within Iraq, with a view to destabilizing the country and are “attacking” Iraq through Syria. “I accuse them of inciting and encouraging the terrorist movements. I accuse them of supporting them politically and in the media, of supporting them with money and by buying weapons for them. I accuse them of leading an open war against the Iraqi government,” said Maliki, adding that Saudi Arabia and Qatar not only supported terrorism in Iraq, but also sponsor terrorism worldwide. Maliki made it clear that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are causing the violence when he said both countries are “buying weapons for the benefit of these terrorist organizations.” Maliki also echoes our warnings over US policy supporting known terrorists in Syria when he warned the Gulf States that their support of global terrorism “will turn against them.” Let’s consider for a minute that the leader of Iraq just squarely blamed Saudi Arabia and Qatar for terrorism worldwide. If it is true, would it not mean the entire war on terrorism has been one of the largest and misguided scams? How can it be that after a decade of fighting terrorism all around the globe that US intelligence and our leaders missed evidence that showed Saudi Arabia and Qatar were supporting terrorists? After all, aren’t Saudi Arabia and Qatar solid allies and friends of the US? The fact is Maliki is a politician suddenly caught in a rare candid moment of truth telling and the US has for decades turned a blind eye to Saudi Arabia’s blatant and deliberate support to terrorism against Americans.
If only the US government was as honest as Maliki we might actually make some headway against Islamic extremism. It should come as no surprise that one of the primary reasons we have been unsuccessful in the war on “terrorism” is because we have never attacked its real epicenter within Saudi Arabia. In fact we have criminally turned a blind eye to the terrorist acts of the Saudi government, which have led to the deaths of thousands of Americans. According to the leaked and still classified congressional report on 9/11, senior Saudi government officials were directly involved in the funding, planning, and execution of the 9/11 attacks; yet, our government has covered it up and kept it from the American people that deserve the truth. Instead of attacking Saudi Arabia for carrying out an act of war against the US, the US falsely accused and attacked Iraq under false pretenses. Instead of telling the truth to Americans, two presidents have now sent Americans to fight and die in foreign lands far removed from the real problem. Unlike Maliki, the US government has consistently misled and lied to the American people to protect THE terrorist state of Saudi Arabia. In the land of laws, this is called aiding and abetting terrorism and it is still a federal felony crime. This is nothing short of treason.
By Guiles Hendrik
March 14, 2014
All rights reserved.
Truth Trickles Out: Afghanistan troop cuts will likely lead to Taliban surge, study warns (Surprise…exactly as we predicted)
March 3, 2014: Our track record continues its pristine record of accurately cutting through the lies and deception and correctly forecasting the impact of United States’ policy. In one of the most recent reveals, it took a gold star panel of overpaid, retired bureaucrats and generals (forgive me if I am redundant) to “discover” that NATO’s optimistic predictions for Afghanistan’s future, contrived at its 2012 Chicago summit, were ridiculously flawed. The study conducted by the “nonpartisan” think tank CNA concluded that stability in Afghanistan will require tens of thousands more troops costing billions more dollars than NATO envisioned at its 2012 summit. The review,conducted at the behest of the Pentagon’s policy directorate, found that the Taliban insurgency is likely to swell in the years following the upcoming US and NATO military withdrawal, which contradicts the expectations set at NATO’s May 2012 summit. The review also saw widespread deficiencies in NATO’s planning for Afghanistan manpower, logistics, air support and ministerial strength.
As we reported previously, it was readily apparent to anyone willing to take an unbiased look at the situation in Afghanistan that our counterinsurgency strategy “coined” (pun intended) by strategic snake oil salesmen like disgraced General David Petraeus, Australian “fiction author” David Kilcullen, and RAND Associate Director/Mental Incompetent Seth Jones was an abject failure. In particular, sealing the border connecting Afghanistan to Pakistan, the single most critical element required to win in Afghanistan, was not even attempted and discounted by the brain trust listed above. Further, the brain trust relied nearly exclusively on financial aid (bribes which ultimately funded the Taliban) and training of the Afghan police and military (soon to just be a well trained and equipped Taliban army), which has again proven to have no historical precedent for success in warfare. The damning Government Accountability Office (GAO) study (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1166.pdf) sums up this situation succinctly stating: “The Afghan government and international community have set an objective of having the Afghan army and police lead and conduct security operations in all Afghan provinces by the end of 2014. As of September 2010, no ANA unit was assessed as capable of conducting its mission independent of coalition assistance.” After a decade and almost a trillion dollars of direct and indirect spending the US had effectively trained a whopping 0% of the Afghan Army to operate on its own! Anyone that thought just a few hundred billion more dollars and a couple more years would change this was stupid or lying…perhaps both. I am honestly sick of listening to these idiots create policy after policy on how to “win” in Afghanistan when none of them have a lick of sense, have been in an actual firefight firsthand, or can show that a single policy they recommended led to a decisive US victory. Of course many excuses were put forth, but the reality was something much deeper as those with functional brains recognized. The fact was that victory was impossible without the will to actually fight a war to decisive ends, which required the US to have a coherent strategy, competent leadership, the ability to unilaterally run the Afghan government, and the “US” military (not the Afghan enemy) to prosecute a war of attrition across the border into Pakistan and wipe out millions of Pashtuns. None of these necessary conditions were in place, which created an insurmountable situation in Afghanistan in respect to achieving a decisive victory.
Not so ironically, the review comes as the US policy makers realize they must retreat out of Afghanistan in defeat and will need an alibi to cloak their failure. Dusting off the Iraq playbook, it should come as no surprise the US, after “exhausting all options with an intractable President Karzai,” will have to pull its troops out of Afghanistan because he won’t sign a status of forces agreement (SOFA). The spin will be used to justify Bush and now Obama’s military defeats, but don’t expect anyone to question Jay Carney about why after invading, occupying, killing over a hundred thousand people, and placing our puppet in charge that we somehow are now unable to stay because of minor bureaucratic red tape. The weakness of the public mind knows no bottom.
The CNA review panel at least is correct in recognizing the persistent Taliban insurgency will mount an increased threat to the Afghan government for years after the envisaged NATO withdrawal. The CNA team’s prediction of an increased Taliban threat to Afghanistan through 2018, supported by a recent US intelligence assessment, “stands in direct contradiction to the assumption of a reduced insurgent threat made at the Chicago Summit,” the report states. This is about as much credit as I can give the CNA team. Beyond this, their analysis becomes pure garbage and it is nauseating to think how many tax dollars were spent on this trash.
The problem with the study is the CNA panel falls short on accurately getting the present facts right and thus, utterly blows their long term forecasted endstate, which predicts a stalemate. “We conclude that this force is not likely to defeat the Taliban militarily, but that if it can hold against the Taliban insurgency through 2018, the likelihood of a negotiated settlement to the war will increase,” the CNA review found. The reality is that every province that has been turned over to the Afghan military has effectively been turned over to Taliban control. The Taliban have outlasted the US, NATO, and the Afghan military for over a decade. The Taliban will make short work of the Afghan military one on one. To think they will be looking for a “negotiated settlement” is utter insanity. The Taliban will defeat and absorb the Afghan army rapidly. As the last US forces pull out of Afghanistan the Taliban will mount a full scale assault on Kabul to retake the country. This will leave the situation on the ground almost the same as the US found it in 2001 with the difference being the Taliban are far more numerous, better trained, better armed, better organized, and with an earned hatred of the US. In a laughable twist to counter this, the CNA team advises (remember, the team is made of “senior” policy makers and generals) the Pentagon to keep international military advisers in the Afghanistan ministries of defense and interior through “at least” 2018 to mitigate long-term problems, including corruption and incompetence. After reading this, I was left with zero doubt why the Taliban have outlasted the US military. Our leaders are idiots. It is a joke to propose that a few advisors will save the day. Equally blind is the notion that corruption and incompetence, not a viable enemy at the gates will be the big problem for the encircled Karzai regime. Even with a large number of troops and advisors in country right now, the US has failed to accomplish defeating the military or rooting out corruption. After thousands of Americans have been killed in this useless war, there still is not even the slightest spark of logic or integrity within the senior echelon and the apathetic public remains in a mute, trance like state when it comes to calling out President Obama and his mob of derelict morons driving the US off a policy cliff.
To conclude, make no mistake of these facts and further predictions. One, the US suffered a strategic defeat in Afghanistan. Two, the US will use the failure, albeit an intentional failure, to sign a SOFA (agreement) as a means to save face as it retreats. Three, the Taliban will retake the country and will be more powerful than they ever could have been if the US did not invade back in 2001. Four, the Karzai puppet regime will not last to 2018 and Karzai will most likely be killed or flee back to Europe where he hid billions of US aid in complicit Swiss and Dubai banks. Fifth, in absence of a war in Afghanistan and a failing domestic economy, the US will start wars elsewhere to feed the coffers of the Congressional-Military-Industrial Complex and distract the unemployed masses back in the US.
By Guiles Hendrik
March 3, 2014
All rights reserved.
Al Qaeda(AQ) is more powerful today than it was over a decade ago when then President George W. Bush declared his nebulous, ill-fated war on terrorism. Ironically, one could strongly argue it was the war against AQ that made AQ more popular and resilient than it could have ever hoped to be autonomously operating in the shadows. Nothing is more demonstrative of this than the situation today in Iraq. AQ has become a conventional military force and effectively dissolved the border between Iraq and Syria merging it into the Islamic State of the Levant almost completely absent of media attention in the west. In fact, in its first major test as a state like entity, the Iraqi Army conducted a full scale assault on the AQ held portions of Ramadi and Fallujah only to suffer a decisive defeat leaving AQ firmly in control of the traditional Sunni areas of Iraq. The ramifications of this transformation of AQ from a stateless terrorist organization to a conventional army with a defined geographical territory right in the heart of the Middle East are extremely dire even if the Western Media has all but ignored the disaster borne of Bush and Obama’s failed foreign policies.
President Obama has cited again and again how AQ has been defeated and dismantled, yet AQ has repeatedly proven the president either ignorant or a liar as we predicted. As a result of the US conducting its insane policy of intervening in the Syrian Civil War (not to mention creating the war) and then providing military grade weapons to AQ aligned rebels in Syria, AQ fighters now have a conventional military capability compliments of the US taxpayer whether directly supplied by the CIA or indirectly via Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In fact, the heavily armed AQ rebels have crossed into Iraq for sanctuary and taken over large stretches of the western portions of Iraq. As I warned, the insurgencies in Syria and Iraq could merge and create massive unrest in the Middle East. This perfect storm has emerged. With the firepower supplied by not just the US, but Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey, the AQ elements are not stopping in western Iraq and instead have pushed on toward Baghdad. The Shia controlled Iraqi government has so far been unable to retake the areas already captured by AQ and has now been defeated in direct conventional combat operations in both Fallujah and Ramadi. If the Iraqi military is unable to check the advance and growth of the AQ Army, it is indeed possible that portions of Baghdad will be captured by AQ. This in effect will mean that Iraq has effectively splintered into three autonomous nations, one Sunni, one Kurd, and one Shia as I have predicted for years. It will also herald the emergence of the AQ organization, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, into the actual Islamic State of the Levant.
Even if Baghdad is not taken by AQ the situation is already quite dire. An all-out sectarian proxy war has begun between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The battlefield to date has been confined to the Middle East, but it soon will spill over onto other continents with Africa already suffering the worst from growing Islamic extremism. Each side has gained victories and neither is done fighting. Iran has so far managed to maintain its ally Syria against the concerted efforts of the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and even Turkey. Iran maintains strong influence over the Iraqi government, which remains predominantly Shia. Iran has also diplomatically outmaneuvered the US, which based on the accomplishments of Secretaries Clinton and Kerry should not come as any surprise, and forced a deal over its nuclear program to include reducing sanctions. However, Hezbollah leaders have been assassinated in Lebanon and AQ backed Sunnis have taken over western Iraq.
This sets the stage in Iraq for a winner takes all fight that will become very bloody. Iran has strategic interests in maintaining its newly minted proxy government in Iraq, compliments of the shortsighted US policy that toppled the Sunni-Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein. In particular, the Iraqi government allows Iran to move weapons and troops through its territory to support President Assad’s forces in Syria and is colluding with Iran on oil production to undercut Saudi oil revenues. However, Iraq’s government is vulnerable so Iran will support the Iraqi military with Iranian units against AQ. Iran is well aware that by defeating these AQ elements in Iraq, it will severely weaken the rebel forces fighting its traditional ally Syria. Saudi Arabia knows that an Iranian win in Syria or Iraq will most likely mean a strategic win across the board for Iran. Saudi Arabia will view a nuclear Iran with control of both Iraq and Syria as an existential strategic threat that it won’t be able to ignore. As such, Saudi Arabia has to escalate the proxy war it in part created by doubling down and backing the AQ aligned Sunnis in an attempt to weaken Iran. This will lead to greater, prolonged bloodshed throughout the Middle East, a disintegration of borders, and further destabilization of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Yemen.
Dangerously, almost any conceivable conclusion to the Iran-Saudi proxy war now seems to point to greater war in the Middle East that will be difficult to deescalate. A stalemate or major breakthrough in favor of Iran may force the countries into direct conflict. Saudi Arabia may also lobby for and overtly support a devastating Israeli strike against Iran, which will have global repercussions. It will also signal Saudi Arabia to move forward with purchasing its own nuclear weapons from Pakistan setting off the dreaded cycle of proliferation across the region. However, if Iran is defeated, the results could be far worse. An Iranian defeat means an AQ victory. In the event of victory, AQ will solidify what amounts to the Islamic State of the Levant. This newly emerged state will turn on the corrupt regimes that spawned it and attack Jordan, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia potentially toppling those regimes. Further, AQ would solidify their control of the region and make it effectively off limits for any US interests short of another war. The new Islamic State of the Levant would be a breeding ground for attacks against the US and a safe haven for terrorists that have emerged into a legitimate army. Saudi Arabia, in particular, will be very vulnerable to the AQ fighters and could be destabilized to the point oil production is severely disrupted. Israel will come under even greater pressure as the Palestinians receive increased support from AQ leadership. These are just a few of the first order regional effects without even touching the greater global implications and how it would affect major powers like the US, Russia, and China.
The US will regret that it armed, trained, and equipped AQ elements in Syria for short sighted policies designed to undermine Iran. The ramifications of the chain reaction Washington’s policy set in motion will be dire and far reaching. Already, the world must begin to recognize it created a defacto AQ state in the Levant even if the western media has not grasped this new reality. Nonetheless, one cannot predict with certainty how this will end, but one can be certain that much greater blood will be shed before this new regional war concludes.
By Guiles Hendrik
January 31, 2014
All rights reserved.
As We Predicted: Syrian and Iraqi Civil Wars Merge as President Obama’s Claims of a Defeated Al Qaeda Crumble
Disturbing news continues to poor out of Iraq as it appears Al Qaeda forces in Iraq have transformed from an insurgent force to conventional military force. This is considered the last stage of a guerilla war by Mao Tse-Tung’s guide to guerrilla warfare. The successful takeover of the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi by Al Qaeda forces prove they have continued to organize and gain strength contrary to the lies emanating from President Obama respective of Al Qaeda being nearly destroyed. None of this should come as a surprise. For years I have been tracking this trend and warning that the Islamic radicals fighting in Syria would soon destabilize Iraq and merge the wars. Reference:
If not already bad enough, the Sunni extremists have gained much of this power by way of Washington’s covert aid. Using arms and money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar funneled through Jordan and Turkey the CIA has covertly provided a host of supplies, equipment, and weapons to the rebels. Further, CIA officers on the ground are advising Al Qaeda affiliated rebel factions and providing them with command and control support. With this added lifeline the rebels have regrouped across the non-existent border in Iraq and gained a foothold by seizing the major cities of Anbar Province as well as numerous border towns in Northern Iraq. This sets the stage for a pan-Sunni front rising against Iranian backed Shia forces for a large scale outbreak of warfare in the Middle East.
Make no mistake, by no means is this Iraqi Al Qaeda uprising an organically generated situation. It is merely a symptom of much bigger strategic issues at play in the Middle East. These divisions are deep, complex, and overlapping. Some of these divisions are political, some are economic, some are religious, some are ethnic, but all are divisive. Sunni versus Shia; Saudi Arabia and Qatar versus Syria; Kurd versus Iraqi; Turkey versus Kurdistan versus Syria; Iran versus Israel versus the United States versus Saudi Arabia; the United States versus Russia; and so on. The Middle East has become a chessboard of pawns being manipulated by strategic players from around the world in a very dangerous high stakes game.
The result of this will be, as I have previously predicted, ever increasing violence and bloodshed across the Middle East. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki will most likely be forced to open up greater political and military cooperation with Iran to put down the Sunni uprising in the western portion of the country. This will allow the Kurds to further cement their autonomous nation to the north and possibly absorb Kurdish portions of Syria. This would ethnically redraw the map of the Middle East much to the fear of Turkey, which under those circumstances, might militarily intervene to prevent such a Kurdish unification. Contrary to Washington’s plans to weaken Iran by toppling Assad, the rise of Obama’s Sunni proxies will cause the plan to backfire. Maliki’s requests for support will actually lead to increased Iranian influence and potentially new and more direct military supply lines through Iraq to Iran’s besieged ally Bashar Assad in Syria. This will force Saudi Arabia to become even more overt in its support to Sunni extremists, which will fuel even greater global terrorism and bloodshed in Syria. Saudi Arabia will begin importing greater numbers of foreign jihadists for the fight and likely buy its own readymade nuclear arsenal from Pakistan, which will greatly increase world instability and increase the chances of a larger regional war. Nonetheless, Assad’s government forces will most likely continue to maintain the upper hand for at least the next six months dealing Washington a decisive strategic setback that will weaken Washington’s alliances with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, and Turkey. This will also weaken Washington’s negotiating position with Iran on its nuclear program forcing Obama to pursue appeasement. A peace deal with Iran is not in and of itself disastrous and likely good, but Israel will see this as the last straw and likely initiate unilateral strikes against Iran designed to set back its nuclear progress while forcing the US into an unwanted and unnecessary war. This will be an unparalleled disaster for the US. See:
As for the biggest players, the US and Russia, Russia will continue its unbeaten streak of foreign policy victories against the amateurish American lineup. Obama and John Kerry are simply outclassed by Putin and Sergei Lavrov. Specifically, Russia and its grand chess master Putin will continue to play all sides against each other for its maximum political and economic profit. Russia will continue to pick off long time US allies such as Egypt as Obama continues to alienate everyone. Russia will also handsomely profit and leverage any outbreak of war to further corner the oil and gas market while enjoying a spike in prices before global economies crash taking the price of oil to lows not seen in years. For Russia, losing Syria is not optional as long as the threat of a Qatari-Saudi gas pipeline through Syria to Europe exists. Russia would lose immense geopolitical leverage over Europe and billions in revenue in the event Assad was deposed without hard guarantees Washington is not likely able to deliver. In the event Obama doubles down and provides enough military support to bring about Syrian regime change, expect the Russians to triple down and bait the US into another disastrous war in the Middle East designed to economically break the back of the US and force us out of the Middle East.
All considered, 2014 is shaping up to be a violent and climatic year across the Muslim Crescent. The civil war in Syria will likely reach a tipping point and Iran’s nuclear program will have to be accepted or destroyed. Iraq will descend into full scale civil war. Jordan will be weakened by growing unrest and Lebanon could once again be split by sectarian violence. As for Americans, expect an increase in Islamic terrorism against US targets. This is a near certainty since vast numbers of radical Islamists have been recently armed, trained, equipped, and organized to fight in Syria by our very own CIA. This latest generation of jihadists will be armed with much more advanced weaponry compliments of the US taxpayer and will ultimately go on to attack the US after they have had their fill of fighting in Syria. Specifically, expect to see the use of improvised nerve gas manufactured by Syrian rebels, man portable surface to air missiles smuggled out of Libya, and antitank missiles provided by Saudi Arabia against US targets. These are just some of the highlights to expect in 2014 so make sure you buckle your seat belts.
For further reading:
By Guiles Hendrik
January 10, 2014
All rights reserved.
Americans are keen to want to go out and save the world. The problem is that we can’t. Lofty goals and ideologies must be tempered by reality. Not only are there obvious financial limits to these kind of interventionist policies, but these policies have historically shown a near zero success rate. In fact, in nearly every case of US intervention, we made the situation far worse. Not only are more people often killed, but the suffering is made to last sometimes for decades. So now President Obama is faced with somehow selling a war with Syria, which is a necessary pretext for a war with Iran, neither of which are in America’s best interests, and the best he can do is recycle the humanitarian argument for intervention and Iraq War era chemical weapons propaganda.
This would be a laughable justification if US Special Forces and CIA paramilitary officers weren’t already on the ground in Syria leading the proxy armies they trained and setting the groundwork for coming air strikes. Unfortunately, the reality is that the US has been lobbied into fighting what will prove to be a disastrous war that is neither in America’s interests nor necessary. The case currently being put before the American people is that President Assad has allegedly used chemical weapons against the rebel forces. It would be worth noting that nothing about the actual validity of this chemical attack claim has been verified by independent and reputable sources or that it may actually be in our interests to allow Assad to kill what we know to be Al Qaeda avowed terrorists; however, it would side track the primary argument that our idea of “help” means we will kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
Just as our “help” in Iraq led to the death of over a million Iraqis in order to “liberate” them from oppression, I have the strong feeling that our “help” in Syria will lead to the deaths of over one hundred thousand Syrians. Considering this, it is hard to square the logic of how killing a hundred thousand more Syrians equates in any way to improving their life. In fact, one would have to use the insane Iraq logic that destroying the nation’s infrastructure and killing a million people was the right thing to do to “help” the Iraqis. Now I am pretty sure that most Iraqis would disagree that the US helped them, but then that wouldn’t make for good propaganda being generated by the White House, which its zombie mass media outlets parrot without so much as a thought.
Understanding that our “help” is anything but actual help allows one to understand the real mechanisms at work. Supporting Syria to “stop the bloodshed” will turn out to be the exact opposite, but that’s okay because most Americans have proved to be mindless lemmings and will believe whatever the savior Obama tells them. In the end, this will lead to a costly war that will bankrupt the US and kill untold numbers of people across the Middle East all while bringing about no peace. Only the bankers that financed the war and the military-industrial complex that supplied it will profit from this foolish endeavor. Even Israel, which has demanded this war with all of its lobbying might, will find that it will not like what it ordered. If you are dumb enough to actually believe this looming war with Syria and Iran (and perhaps Russia and China) is in our best interests, please do everyone a favor and volunteer for service with the infantry on the front lines and remain far from policy work.
By Guiles Hendrik
August 26, 2013
All rights reserved.
News of US Special Forces and CIA paramilitary officers entering Syria leading proxy fighters began to trickle out around August 23, 2013. Naturally, the US is denying these reports, but as with Libya, it will only be a short matter of time before photos of US military forces leading rebels in combat begin to surface on the web. This means that it will only be a short amount of time before American bombs begin to drop on Syria. Just as in Libya, these ground troops will be the leading edge of full scale US military involvement in Syria and will act as forward air controllers for air strikes. Make no mistake; the US has now entered overtly into the Syrian Civil War allied with Islamic extremists loyal to Al Qaeda.
Contrary to what the Pentagon and White House are admitting, the information has been available for some time that we planned all along to enter the war against Syria just as we have reported.
In July the Los Angeles Times reported that the Central Intelligence Agency and US special forces have been training Syrian rebels at a new US base in the desert in southwest Jordan since November 2012. One such US covert training session, conducted by American, Jordanian, and French, has allegedly been taking place in Jordan for the last month or so, the newspaper cited Brig. Gen. Yahya Bittar, the head of intelligence for the Free Syrian Army. The training covers the use of anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons and has been carried out at bases in Turkey as well, the newspaper reported. This training is not being done for fun, but because the US fully intended to lead these rebels into battle at least a year before any false pretext (use of chemical weapons) was created to justify the US entrance into the war.
Further, last month, the Pentagon said that F-16 jet fighters and a Patriot missile battery deployed to Jordan for the “Eager Lion” military exercise that ended weeks ago would remain in the desert country. Again, the US did not keep these advanced weapon systems in Jordan because it didn’t feel like moving them back to the US. Instead, just as our analysts predicted, the US has from the beginning intended to launch a full scale attack against Syria and only delayed to allow the rebels time to do the bulk of the fighting and generate propaganda (use of chemical weapons) that could be used as a false pretext to justify the US entrance into the war.
What is clear is that the US and some key allies have been building up for a war with Syria and training a proxy army in neighboring countries for at least a year. This sets that actually planning and execution of this operation “years” prior to the current date. This is long before any actual pretext to justify US involvement materialized and is demonstrative of how the US all along has planned to enter the war under false pretenses whether or not real cause existed. This war is as phony, illegal, unconstitutional, and unnecessary as the Iraq War and will be far more costly since it ultimately aims to destroy not just Syria, but specifically, Iran. Considering this, one would be well justified in calling into question the faux chemical attack pretexts now circulating and being used as grounds for overt US military action. Further, it is of no irony that the very same countries (US, France, United Kingdom, Israel, etc.) that have been training and covertly supporting this war against Syria for years are the same countries that immediately “confirmed” that the most recent alleged chemical weapons attack was launched by the Syrian government. It should then come as no surprise these countries are racing to “take action” before any real investigation of the alleged attack and verifiable, “independent,” conclusions can be reached.
Washington and Tel Aviv are acutely aware that they are running out of time to execute their war plan against Iran. Their terrorist proxies in Syria were never supposed to “lose” and now the US has had to create a false pretext to overtly enter the war to save their rebel army from total defeat while Iran continues to expand its nuclear programs. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu knows he is almost out of time if he wishes to destroy the Iranian nuclear program. As such, he is willing to do nearly anything to force the US into fighting another disastrous war on behalf of Israel. If our analysts are correct, there is a reasonable chance that full scale regional war will break out in the Middle East between the US, Syria, and Iran before winter. It is of absolute necessity that all of our readers contact their elected officials immediately and demand a complete exit from actions in Syria and that no war with Iran will be fought.
By Guiles Hendrik
August 26, 2013
All rights reserved.
For more reading:
Throughout 2013, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the primary rebel organization fighting a civil war against President Assad’s Syrian Army forces, has become predominately manned by Al Qaeda avowed jihadists. These terrorists have now turned their guns on Syrian Kurds, which up until recently have attempted to remain neutral in the fight. As Kurds have been increasingly slaughtered by Islamic extremists in Syria, the number of refugees fleeing to Kurdistan in Iraq has massively increased. Some estimate well over 100,000 Kurdish refugees have now fled Syria. The murder of Kurds by the FSA marks another dark turn of events that will soon undermine US positions in the region.
Kurdistan and its capital of Erbil have remained the one region of the Middle East where Americans have enjoyed relatively good relations and security. In fact Americans are not even required to have a visa to enter Kurdistan where both Muslims and Christians live together in relative peace. Further, Kurdistan is a region seeing significant investment and business growth. The relative peace that has been maintained in Kurdistan has driven the oil and tourism markets currently fueling Kurdistan’s growth in a region where security is all too rare. The capital Erbil is a vibrant cosmopolitan city arising in the shadows of the distant snowcapped mountain peaks where westerners can find all of the trappings of modern day living.
Unfortunately, the relative peace and security Americans have enjoyed in Kurdistan will no doubt be coming to an end soon. The Kurds are acutely aware that the US is now actively supporting the FSA, which is massacring their people. As the Kurds flee death in Syria at the hands of Sunni Jihadists armed and trained by Americans they carry that knowledge to overflowing refugee camps now forming in Kurdistan and Turkey. These refugees have lost everything but their lives and are rightfully angry. It will only be a short period of time before they correctly identify the US as the primary catalyst behind their suffering. As anti-American sentiment solidifies, Americans will be targeted inside Kurdish regions, which until now, have been peaceful and supportive of Americans. In what will prove to be another policy disaster, this will force the one ally Washington still retains in the Middle East directly into the camp of the Iranians.
Turning the Kurds against the US will have dire second and third order effects for the US. Kurds will now have no choice but to join with Assad’s government forces. The Kurds are relatively good fighters when compared with other ethnic groups in the region and will no doubt prove to be a potent ally for Assad. This will significantly swell the number of fighter’s Assad has at his disposal and hasten the defeat of the rebels. This will force Washington to directly enter the Syrian conflict to avert a complete route of its proxy army. Further, this will accelerate the regionalization of this conflict beyond the borders of Syria as Iraqi Sunnis battle Iraqi Kurds in Iraq and Iran consolidates the Kurds as their new ally against the Arabs. Americans in Turkey will also become much more likely to be targeted by Kurdish groups seeking revenge and to force an end to US support of Al Qaeda terrorists in Syria. This destabilization will force Turkey to take a more adversarial role toward US policy in the region, which can only complicate matters more for the US.
By Guiles Hendrik
August 25, 2013
All rights reserved.
Syrian government forces reinforced by Lebanese Hezbollah forces have been consolidating their control over the strategic rebel held district of Homs, which is Syria’s third largest city. Homs has been controlled by rebels in part since 2011. The recent military success by the Syrian military and Hezbollah fighters has left the rebels in retreat and Washington’s battle plan for Iran disintegrating.
As of July, Syrian government forces appeared to be on the verge of retaking most of the northern neighborhoods in Homs and were continuing to advance on the remaining crumbling rebel positions. In addition to its symbolic value, Homs is a strategic lynchpin in Syria. Homs controls the main highways from Damascus to the north and the coast. The government offensive has already successfully expelled rebels from a 13th century landmark mosque in Khaldiyeh the rebels controlled for more than a year. Previous to this, government forces captured the strategic town of Qusair near the Lebanon border in June.
The danger of these victories is not that Assad and his government forces will prevail, but that Washington and its allies will now be forced to take more drastic measures to make sure their Al Qaeda proxies are not defeated. In light of this, it foreseeable that the White House will soon authorize more overt support to include providing military weapons and advisors to train rebel fighters outside of Syria in Turkey and Jordan. However, it is unlikely this level of support will turn the tide in favor of the rebels. Instead, for a rebel victory to be engineered, Washington will be forced to put Americans (most likely in the form of CIA and Special Forces) in Syria and institute a no-fly zone coupled with air strikes on Syrian government targets. False flag attacks and copious applications of war propaganda will be necessary to justify these ill-fated operations. This action will cement the US entrance into another undeclared, unconstitutional war that historians will point to as a disastrous misstep in US Foreign Policy that will ultimately eclipse the US strategic defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By Guiles Hendrik
July 29, 2013
For more information:
Tuning into the Fox and CNN “entertainment” networks, one would be lucky to catch a small bit of news between the brain numbing, around the clock reports on the Trayvon Martin Case and Anthony Weiner’s perverse antics. Nonetheless, a close follower may have gathered that “former” Egyptian President Morsi was overthrown in a broadly supported coup that has pitted the Muslim Brotherhood against the Egyptian military. However, at about the same time, a much quieter and potentially more dangerous coup for the US took place in Syria. In fact, Al Qaeda just accomplished its latest “hostile government takeover” by effectively decapitating any last vestige of a secular Free Syrian Army (FSA). If not bad enough, President Obama has announced commencement of an insane US policy to arm these well-known terrorists. This can ONLY end in disaster for the US.
By July 12, 2013 news of the assassination of Kamal Hamami began appearing in foreign press. Kamal Hamami, a member of the FSA’s Supreme Military Council, known as Abu Basir, was killed in the Turkmen mountains near the northern city of Latakia, spokesman Louay Meqdad reported to Al Jazeera. Hamami was killed by fighters from an Al Qaeda-linked group in Syria and was one of the most senior leaders of the Western- and Arab-backed Free Syrian Army. Another FSA spokesman Qassem Saadeddine told Reuters, “The Islamic State phoned me saying that they killed Abu Basir and that they will kill all of the Supreme Military Council.” Al Qaeda should be taken at its word as it does appear to have continued to carry out its threat and has operationally assumed control of the rebel army.
The leader of the Al Qaeda organization that claimed responsibility for Hamami’s killing, the Islamic State of Iraq, is led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi arrived in northern Syria to take control over Al Qaeda operations in the country and has apparently wasted no time in consolidating power under Al Qaeda’s banner. This organization has effectively assumed control of the Islamist Al-Nusra Front, which was officially declared a “terrorist group” by the US in May, and is considered to be the most effective opposition group battling Assad. As such, any notion of secular, nationalist forces fighting Assad evaporated with Al Qaeda’s coup within the FSA.
Analyzing these events further, one will note that Abu Bakr is a violent Al Qaeda terrorist leader from Iraq and epitomizes how this conflict has already gone regional. The US created civil war in Syria has now fully spilled over into neighboring Iraq just as our analysts predicted and warned. Violence in Iraq, which now is killing hundreds weekly, has reignited the Sunni-Shia civil war in Iraq removing any notion that the US succeeded in bringing about a more peaceful and democrat Iraq. Incidentally, Abu Bakr cut his teeth on killing Americans, not Syrians, and now Obama IS arming his organization in what must be considered one of the dumbest policy moves an American president has ever made.
Middle East analysts recognize the fact that the Syrian Civil War will continue to spread and engulf more countries in the Middle East counter to Washington’s claims. The situation is out of control. Longtime US ally Jordan is in a particularly perilous spot. In fact, secretly, Washington is so worried Jordan will be the next government to be toppled by the Al Qaeda terrorists the US is backing, Washington has quietly deployed a military force numbering over 2,000 in Jordan to attempt to contain the fighting should it begin spilling across the border.
Collectively assessing this information, it is clear the US has placed itself into an untenable paradox. On one hand we are trying to defeat Al Qaeda and protect the US while simultaneously arming and training Al Qaeda on the other. Al Qaeda has made no question that it will target the US as soon as its fighters finish in Syria. By arming these terrorists, our nation is effectively creating, aiding, and abetting its very own enemy to kill Americans. Not only is Obama’s policy a violation of US anti-terrorism laws, but it violates every core element of common sense and self-preservation. This conclusion is so obvious and the intelligence so overwhelming, Obama is literally using our tax dollars to kill Americans.
This policy of fighting Al Qaeda while simultaneously arming Al Qaeda that the Obama Administration has engineered screams of amateur hour, is out of control, and is as dangerous as it is schizophrenic. The only groups to benefit from this lunacy will be the money lending institutions and the defense industry (military industrial complex). However, in the interim, hundreds of thousands of people have been wounded and killed with many more surely to follow. There is simply no way the Obama Administration can claim that by arming KNOWN AL QAEDA TERRORISTS, the US will benefit. This Al Qaeda coup in the FSA leadership proves that any arms provided to the FSA WILL ultimately end up in the hands of Al Qaeda radicals.
Please contact your representatives in Congress, petition the White House, organize your neighbors to political action, and contact your media. Demand this insane policy of arming terrorists in Syria cease immediately. Failure to force Congress and the President to act will ultimately suck the US into another disastrous war, economically destroy our nation, and lead to untold numbers of dead and wounded Americans.
By Guiles Hendrik
July 29, 2013
All rights reserved
For more information:
On June 13, 2013, President Obama announced authorization for the arming of the Syrian rebels last week amidst a string of growing scandals rocking the White House. President Obama’s action authorized without congressional debate or public justification the United States’ entry into another war. Not only has the US now picked a side in a bloody civil war where both sides are hostile to the US, but committed the US to a war in a country where the US has little national interest. At best, this action is constitutionally unsound and a gross abuse of the powers prescribed to the Commander-in-Chief. At worst, this is an illegal war that will ultimately result in the single greatest foreign policy disaster of Obama’s administration to date and bankrupt the US.
Contrary to the Administration’s claims, the only security threat Syria poses to the US will be the one we create by arming Al Qaeda affiliated rebel groups that openly espouse destruction to the US and Israel. The White House rationale for this undeclared and unnecessary war was that President Assad used chemical weapons. In the midst of growing public scandals, does President Obama’s hypocrisy know no end? First, it was then Senator Obama that openly attacked the Bush administration’s entry into what he deemed an illegal war in Iraq on fabricated intelligence even though the international community did believe Saddam Hussein still possessed weapons of mass destruction. Yet now, President Obama wants the US to enter another war in the Middle East again on very dubious claims of chemical weapons and when no good argument for US interests exist. Not only is Obama’s “intelligence” on chemical weapons suspect, but the investigations done by the United Nations, which are available for public scrutiny conclude that “if” chemical weapons were used, they were used by the “rebels” and NOT Assad’s forces. This glaring contradiction to the Administration’s official spin was dismissed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. The White House departure from its long history of walking in lock step with the U.N. is certainly telling. The problem this time is even the Washington Post which, known for its overt support of liberal policy and President Obama, called the Administration’s claims into question. In the Post’s article it states; “Despite months of laboratory testing and scrutiny by top U.S. scientists, the Obama administration’s case for arming Syria’s rebels rests on unverifiable claims that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own people, according to diplomats and experts.” It goes on to say, “If you are the opposition and you hear” that the White House has drawn a red line on the use of nerve agents, then “you have an interest in giving the impression that some chemical weapons have been used,” said Rolf Ekeus, a Swedish scientist who headed up U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq during the 1990s.
Things are sounding an awful lot like the Bush-era false war propaganda about Iraqi chemical weapons with a touch of President Clinton’s policy of bombing “terrorist” targets at the height of the Monica Lewinsky Scandal. Hopefully, the American people have finally learned their lesson and will demand to see the actual evidence and be given a legitimate reason why war is “necessary” this time, what our strategy is, and what is the desired end state.
One need not be a fortune-teller to foresee how U.S. involvement in Syria will go down as one of America’s greatest foreign policy disasters. After being defeated in Iraq and now Afghanistan, the U.S. should have learned a few lessons about the folly of interventionist policy. In the least, it should not be committing the U.S. to another war before it has at least finished its fight in Afghanistan. In this regard, the hubris of the Obama Administration in this regard is staggering. Now, not only has the U.S. entered a war against a nation, but it has entered a sectarian war between Shia and Sunnis that has split Islam since the seventh century. This war extends far beyond Syria’s borders and is engulfing the entire Muslim world.
Currently, approximately 1,100 Marines and possibly up to a few thousand “advisors,” are in Jordan. This is in addition to a small cadre of Special Forces and CIA case officers working closely with rebel elements in and out of Syria. Further, U.S. forces are positioned to the north of Syria in Turkey and have been clandestinely supporting rebel training camps, NATO airbases, and air defense facilities. As Washington’s plan to arm the rebels fails to save their strategy to overthrow Assad, Obama will be forced to increase American intervention. This will likely involve the implementation of a “no-fly zone” and will be the next step towards a hot war with Syria and Iran.
Obama is no doubt in a dilemma. He foolishly thought the he could use proxies to topple Assad in order to destroy Iran’s fifth column in the preliminary phases of the ongoing cold war with Iran. The failure of the rebels means Washington must either face humiliation as its policy to remove Assad collapses or now openly enter into a war on the side of rebels previously known as terrorists, insurgents, and jihadists. Obama has doubled down on the rebels. Of the rebel forces, Jordanian intelligence estimates upwards of 80% of their combat power and front line fighters are jihadists that have avowed the destruction of both the US and Israel. In fact, even US allies in the Middle East have openly called into contention the notion the CIA can distribute advanced military weapons only to secular Sunni rebel forces in Syria. Supporting this skepticism is the fact the most powerful element within the Syrian rebel force is the al-Nusrah Front, which is allied to al-Qaeda. As such, the thought that the US can arm these jihadists turned rebels and not directly endanger American lives is so foolish; the mere suggestion is an absolute bald face lie. Therefore, the sudden policy shift and use of the chemical weapons rationale to arm the rebels exposes the true nature of Washington’s intent to use Syria as a stepping stone toward an ultimate showdown with Iran. As Obama’s administration is forced toward war with Iran by special interests, he will now have to demonstrate greater and greater involvement.
Moving forward, the US now owns the civil war in Syria. Obama has joined forces with known Al Qaeda terrorists to fight an equally nasty dictator. Neither of which support US interests. The newly armed and resurgent rebels will not hesitate to attack US interests at the first opportunity. American’s will die because of this policy disaster. Washington and by default, the American people, will now be blamed every time the rebels commit an atrocity. These Sunni extremists are the same brand that attacked the US on 9/11 and there is no reason to expect them to act any differently in the future. We are indeed creating our own enemies.
The violence has now fully spilled over into a regional conflict. Hezbollah in Lebanon has now committed fully to the war. Iran has committed to support Assad as well and has sent thousands of troops to support Assad’s military. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are sending billions in arms and equipment. Turkey’s streets are on fire with protests. Egypt is now warning of outright civil war. Israel is on high alert and dealing with daily cross border fire from the conflict in Syria. Iraq is now fully re-engulfed with sectarian violence as we previously warned would occur.
How President Obama believes that any good for the US can come of providing US military weapons and equipment to a motley collection of known terrorists, international jihadists, and Sunni extremists is beyond rational logic. No matter how the conflict ends in Syria, the party that takes or retains power will be openly hostile to the US. Not only are our analysts predicting greater bloodshed, but we now see all of the signs of a full-blown regional conflict that has the potential to rapidly draw the US back into a full-scale disastrous war that will likely be the final blow to America’s global economic and political dominance.
By Guiles Hendrik
June 26, 2013
All rights reserved