Putin is taking center Stage in the Middle East but what is his real agenda?

Moscow’s military campaign in Syria is relying on supply lines that require air corridors through both Iranian and Iraqi air space. The only alternatives are naval supply lines running from Crimea, requiring a passage of up to 10 days round-trip. How long that can be sustained is unclear.

Early on the morning of Sept. 30, a Russian three-star general approached the American embassy in Baghdad, walked past a wall of well-armed Marines, to deliver face-to-face a diplomatic demarche to the United States. His statement was blunt: The Russia military would begin air strikes in neighboring Syria within the hour — and the American military should clear the area immediately.

It was a bout of brinksmanship between two nuclear-armed giants that the world has not seen in decades, and it has revived Cold War levels of suspicion, antagonism and gamesmanship.

With the launch of airstrikes in Syria, Russian President Vladimir Putin instigated a proxy war with the U.S., putting those nation’s powerful militaries in support of opposing sides of the multi-polar conflict. And it’s a huge gamble for Moscow and quite difficult and logistically complex. The Russians don’t have much in the way of long-range power projection capability.

That and other questions about Russian military capabilities and objectives are taking center stage as Putin shows a relentless willingness to use military force in a heavy-handed foreign policy aimed at restoring his nation’s stature as a world power. In that quest, he has raised the specter of resurgent Russian military might — from Ukraine to the Baltics, from Syria to the broader Middle East.

VLADIMIR Putin is preparing to send 150,000 troops to Syria in a bid to wipe out the evil Islamic State once and for all.

The Russian leader is reportedly mounting an enormous military mission to take control of the terror group’s stronghold of Raqqa.

The city is the self-declared capital of ISIS in Syria and is patrolled by as many as 5,000 jihadi members.

Putin is set to mobilize 150,000 reservists who he conscripted into the military earlier this week.

Russia-Putin_3151917b

It is very clear that Russia wants to sweep up the west of the country, taking Raqqa and all the oil and gas resources around Palmyra. Putin knows that this is fast becoming a race to Raqqa – to secure the oil fields they need to cleanse the region of insurgents, and the IS capital is vital to do that while Obama stance and strategy is to .

It comes a day after Russian jets obliterated nine ISIS outposts in just 24 hours using bunker-busting bombs.

Russian jets pounded terrorist targets and blew up a command center, potentially killing dozens of fighters.

Confirming the successful raids, Andrei Kartapolov from the Russian army vowed to ramp up the pressure, saying: “We will not only continue strikes… We will also increase their intensity.”

And Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said: “Over the past 24 hours, Sukhoi Su-34 and Su-24M fighter jets have performed 20 sorties and hit nine Islamic State installations.

A bunker-busting BETAB-500 air bomb dropped from a Sukhoi Su-34 bomber near Raqqa has eliminated the command post of one of the terror groups, together with an underground storage facility for explosives and munitions.

isis.w529.h352.2x-750x400

These and other highly exact means of attack in recent days have been used to target objects of Islamic State terrorists. It is reported that these command posts, stores of weapons and oil products, workshops where weapons of suicide bombers are made.

Meanwhile a terrorism expert revealed that ISIS have vastly exaggerated their military strength and called on Western leaders to launch a coordinated fightback which would obliterate the hate group.

Has ISIS become its own worst enemy with its campaign of terror against the West, which has prompted an international backlash?

Islamic-State-troops-358823 (1)

Other reports from those strategists say it won’t take very long at all to drive them, if not out of all of Iraq or Syria, then certainly the majority of their territories.

“They will hide in towns, but I would say do not to follow them as they would use innocent civilians as human shields.”

David Cameron initially gave the Russian air strikes a cautious welcome and said the UK would need to look very carefully at Putin’s operations. David Cameron said Russia was targeting anti-Assad rebels over Daesh militants.

David Cameron Has said Russian President Vladimir Putin is making a terrible mistake by sending jets to prop up Syrian tyrant Bashar al-Assad.

Cameron

The Prime Minister said most of the Russian airstrikes in Syria appeared to have been in areas not controlled by Islamic State but by other opponents of the regime.

He told the BBC the Russians were “backing the butcher Assad, which is a terrible mistake for them and for the world. It is going to make the region more unstable. It will lead to further radicalization and increase terrorism.asaadputin

“I would say to them: ‘Change direction, join us in attacking Isil, but recognize that if we want to have a secure region, we need an alternative leader to Assad’.”

But yesterday he warned the intervention is making the situation worse and helping to support the “butcher” president Bashar Assad.

Separately Mr. Cameron pledged to “beef up” the SAS and double the number of British drones to combat ISIS militants in an interview ahead of today’s Conservative conference.

The Prime Minister said investment in Special Forces and surveillance was essential to meeting the terrorist threat facing the UK.

He revealed that the UK will buy a fleet of 20 new Protector Drones capable of targeting IS extremists in Iraq and Syria.

The Russians called it Center 2015: a series of military exercises they carried out in mid-September involving some 95,000 troops. In contrast to common practice, Moscow outlined publicly with great specificity what type of exercises its troops conducted. Its Hind attack helicopters, for example, practiced rocket and bombing runs against ground targets and provided air cover at very low altitude to ground forces. They fired unguided rockets against military columns below. They practiced flying with one engine off—simulating engine failure—at just 650 feet above the ground.

bombs

Whether Russia’s incursion into the increasingly deadly Syrian civil war was foreseeable or not—and if it was, whether it was deterrable—is now moot. Russian President Vladimir Putin has in an instant changed markedly the course of a conflict that has claimed at least 250,000 lives and displaced millions—numbers that may yet grow much higher. Moscow and Iran, Damascus’s heretofore primary benefactor, are now making it clear that they are all-in when it comes to defending the current regime. On September 21, Iran began dispatching hundreds of elite Quds Force soldiers—the expeditionary arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard—as well as its leader, Qassem Suleimani, to lead ground assaults backed by Russian airpower against the forces opposing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. They have since been joined, according to intelligence reports, by deployments of Iranian and Iraqi Shiite militias.

They are there for a very specific reason, which is not simply to combat ISIS. By October 5, in fact, the Pentagon had become convinced that the majority of Russian air strikes thus far had targeted not ISIS units, but U.S. trained rebel groups in various parts of the country. The Russian troops are there to combat anyone and everyone who might fight against Assad, who the U.S. and its coalition partners still insist has to go. Indeed, on September 29, at the United Nations, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir could not have been clearer: “Assad has no future in Syria. Any attempt to whitewash him or make him acceptable is a nonstarter,” he told reporters.

The Russian intervention, as President Barack Obama, al-Jubeir and everyone else involved understands, comes at a critical moment. Despite the relative passivity and ineptness of the United States in funding and training anti-Assad rebels, the dictator’s position was slowly eroding as he attempted to fight off multiple rebel groups of varying sectarian and ethnic stripes (everything from hard-core ISIS fighters to more “moderate” Sunnis to Syrian Kurds). For Putin, a man who says repeatedly—because he believes it—that the greatest “geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century was the demise of the Soviet Union.

But from Moscow’s perspective, there likely was more to it than that—much more. The move provides a foothold in a part of the world that the Soviet Union was kicked out of four decades ago. At a moment when the United States appears to be washing its hands of the increasingly bloody and chaotic region, it gives Russia an expanding military presence in the Mediterranean on the doorstep of a NATO ally (its newly established airfield at Latakia in eastern Syria sits just 75 miles from the border with Turkey), and the gambit may yet serve as leverage with the West as Putin seeks to get out from under economic sanctions imposed as a result of Moscow’s annexation of Crimea in Ukraine.

obama-putin_2637988b

Is Putin’s actions game-changing? Obama seemed less impressed—or less willing to congratulate the Kremlin on its cunning, at least in public. All this was done out of a position not of strength but of “weakness,” he said at a White House news conference in early October. “This is not a smart strategic move on Russia’s part.”

Throughout much of the Middle East, that declaration was met with howls of derision (for reasons that we will get to); at home, it was dismissed by many as petulant spin from a president who had been badly wrong-footed in this war. But whether Obama had been wrong-footed or not, the logic behind what he said is not obviously wrong. That Syria’s a snake pit couldn’t be more obvious. And it’s true, as sources in Moscow and the Middle East acknowledge, that if Russia decides more troops are needed to bolster its position, it may be drawn into a quagmire it can ill afford.

Despite a still-grim economy in Russia, Putin remains popular in his country. Most of what he does to show that Moscow is a serious player on the world stage only buttresses that good opinion. But the public appetite for a war against anti-Assad rebels in Syria appears limited, to say the least.

In Sunni Arab capitals around the Middle East, one word is being uttered with increasing frequency: “Afghanistan.” Not the ongoing post-9/11 U.S. war there, but the one before it: when the mighty Soviet army was driven out by jihadi rebels (who were funded by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab states) and armed by the United States. As a student of what is known in Russia as the “catastrophe,” Putin knows that the humiliating Soviet withdrawal came in 1989, after a decade of war.

By 1992, his beloved Soviet Union ceased to exist. He also knows that the same countries that aided the Afghan rebels in the 1980s are now funding anti-Assad rebel groups.

So should the United States just say, “After you, Vladimir Vladimirovich? Be our guest! Syria’s all yours,” as GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump, among others, has advocated? If at least part of Putin’s plan is to combat ISIS—which, after all, the U.S. seeks to “degrade and destroy”—shouldn’t we welcome Moscow’s intervention, as Secretary of State John Kerry indicated Washington might?

The reasons why that’s probably a terrible idea are numerous. The deployment of the Russian military and increased Iranian ground forces means Assad can stay in power for as long as his two patrons desire. At the same time, there is also little evidence that the axis supporting Assad has the wherewithal to crush the Sunni-backed rebel groups.

It’s hard, therefore, to draw anything but the grimmest of conclusions. Syria—already a “geopolitical Chernobyl,” as former CIA chief David Petraeus recently put it—is about to get worse. Is it possible that the advent of Russian reinforcements is likely only to cement a brutal stalemate that has driven millions of people from their homes, radicalized the region, cause a humanitarian apocalypse, and turn Syria into a magnet for global jihadists?

syriacivilians-inspect-a-site

The Russian move into Syria will only deepen concern among Washington’s traditional allies in the Middle East about U.S. goals in the region. Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies have all watched, with varying degrees of alarm over the last five years, as the Obama administration zealously pursued a nuclear deal with Iran, an archenemy to all of those countries. Obama did so over their strenuous objections. Many suspect—indeed, some are convinced—that his overarching goal in the region was to legitimize Iran, integrate it into the international system so as to, as his stance was back in 2014 to create an “equilibrium” between “Sunni, or predominantly Sunni, Gulf states and Iran in which there’s competition, perhaps suspicion, but not an active or proxy warfare.”

If Obama’s goal was to get Iran to that place, starting with a nuclear deal, how likely was it that he was going to attack Syria in the wake of its chemical attacks, even having drawn a “red line” in 2012? Similarly, Tehran didn’t want a more aggressively funded and trained Western-backed rebel force in Syria, and Obama hasn’t done much to provide one. Had there been some firm action, we would not be in the place we are in.

This relative inaction has bred toxic suspicions throughout Washington’s traditional allies in the region—suspicions that are rarely voiced publicly but have hardened over the past 18 months. Simply put, they believe the Obama administration has not just pulled away from the Middle East but rather switched horses—backing Iran in search of that equilibrium the president spoke of last year. The White House has consistently and furiously denied this.

Vladimir-Putin-Islamic-State-troops-609757

Now, with Putin in Syria and Obama just 15 months from his White House retirement, the likelihood that the U.S. will do anything of consequence to change the status quo on the ground is slim. It seems extremely unlikely that Obama will risk a direct conflict with Putin. Any hope of a no-fly zone in Syria, or even an intensification of U.S. airstrikes, is likely gone as well. Indeed, with Europe under tremendous pressure from the crush of Syrian refugees, the fear among Sunni Arabs is that the West will latch on to Putin and Iran as the only hope for reining in Assad.

But that’s not why Russian troops are now fighting in Syria. They are there to prop up Assad by helping him destroy “terrorists”—defined as anyone fighting against his regime. It’s been about four and a half years since Syria’s civil war commenced—since it became a “geopolitical Chernobyl.” The meltdown may have only just begun.

CIA Interrogation Techniques

I always thought CIA interrogations methods even till today were clandestine. Through research, CIA interrogators waterboarded their first prisoner, Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, in 2002 justifying the simulated drowning as a vital tool to extract secrets about future attacks against the United States.

At a secret prison In Thailand for about 20 days, the CIA implemented round the clock interrogations, waterboarding, physical assaults and confinement. Their conclusions was the Saudi Operative knew nothing about new plots.

Such techniques are used to break a person will or ability to resist. The goal is obtain the confidential intelligence information and access undisclosed threat information.

These types of treatments got into the hands of the Senate Intelligence Committee recently which was placed into scrutiny. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism attacks, under intense demands to produce usable intelligence, the agency resorted to deception, manipulation and intellectual contortions to rationalize and continue using interrogation techniques that even some of its own officials worried amounted to illegal torture, the report documents.

cia

At CIA headquarters, officials repeatedly pushed interrogators at secret detention facilities in Poland, Thailand, Afghanistan, Romania and elsewhere to intensify the harsh treatment, even after officers at the sites had concluded there was little more information to be gained from a prisoner.

CIA Director John Brennan said in a statement “we acknowledge that the detention and interrogation program had shortcomings and that the agency made mistakes.” He added that “the most serious problems occurred early on and stemmed from the fact that the agency was unprepared and lacked the core competencies required to carry out an unprecedented, worldwide program” of detention and interrogation.

The interrogations chief became so disillusioned as the treatment of detainees that he called the ‘program’ a train wreck waiting to happen and wanted off the train and no longer wanted to be associated with the program “in any way.”

There was conflicting reports about the methods used against Nashiri who the CIA claimed to be involved in the bombing of the US Cole where interrogators was allegedly hanging him upside down, holding a drill next to his body and a pistol next to his head. Those techniques reportedly were not authorized by either the CIA or the Justice Department but ruled that the interrogation practices did not violate U.S. laws against torture.

nashiri

There were two former military psychologists who were the chief architects of the interrogation program and personally conducted some of the waterboarding, even though they had no direct experience with the practice

The CIA relied on the two men to assess the psychological effects of waterboarding and other techniques on individual prisoners. That put them in position to judge the effectiveness of interrogations. A company the two formed to help run the program received $81 million from the CIA from 2002 to 2009, a Senate investigation found.

In January 2003, one of the psychologists arrived at the detention site where Nashiri was being held to assess whether he should be subjected to additional harsh interrogation measures. He recommended going ahead with “the full range of enhanced exploitation and interrogation measures” to establish a “desired level of helplessness.

Nearly two years after the CIA’s last interrogation of Nashiri, an assessment by one of the psychologists who had recommended his harsh treatment concluded the prisoner had “provided essentially no actionable information.” In 2006, Nashiri was transferred to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo.

CIA made doctors torture suspected terrorists after 9/11, taskforce finds

In the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when detaining prisoners was first discussed within the Bush administration, CIA officials promised their facilities would be comparable to federal prisons or would meet Pentagon standards for prisoners of war.

The facilities fell far short of those standards. In 2002, when officials from the U.S. Bureau of Prisons visited a CIA prison in Afghanistan known as the Salt Pit, they were stunned to find detainees shackled in their cells in complete darkness and isolation, with only buckets for human waste.

The program grew so quickly that the agency had difficulty keeping track of all of its detainees and in 2003 discovered they were holding a number of detainees the knew little about and had not been questioned for months.

CIA officers involved in the program worried from the start that they might face criminal charges and began to seek assurances from Atty General Ashcroft immunity from prosecution which was denied.

Are interrogation methods in other countries any different towards Americans and foreign Journalists?  Are interrogation methods instrumental to the national security of our country? Does the intensity of the interrogation own up to the horrors and severity we see in the terroristic annihilation of humanity?

Our leadership rhetoric has always been that we do not negotiate with terrorists. Is this is valid, why is terrorism so rampant in the world?

Mexico police on payroll with the Drug Cartels

A couple of months ago, 43 students embarked on a journey that ended in horrific deaths. The bus that they were journeying on was stopped by the police and was fired upon according to a survivor.

Later, the bodies were removed, placed in an isolated garbage dump by drug gang members ordered by the drug cartels and were covered by rocks and tires. They then poured diesel and gasoline all over the bodies with some of the students still alive. The gang members then incinerated the pile. The bodies burned for over 24 hours. When they returned and the fire was out and cooled, they were ordered to remove the ashes and placed them with the students bones fragments into trash bags and thrown into a river bank.

VIGILANTE

This is just an example of how Mexican law enforcement works with the Mexican drug Cartels and how the cartels with law enforcement authorities are more dangerous now than ISIS.

The only prevalent force fighting the war against trafficking and corruption is armed civilians as a militia who creates a curfew and road blocks.

Mexican authorities admit that drug-trafficking gangs pay around 1.27 billion pesos (some $100 million) a month in bribes to municipal police officers nationwide.

Public Safety Secretary Genaro Garcia Luna said that figure was calculated based on perceptions of municipal officers themselves and an analysis of a list of cops recruited by the cartels that was found during a police operation. High ranking officials defend this because it makes up for what the government does not pay and allows them to live their lives with “dignity.”

mexico_protests_pena_neito_ap_img_0

Authorities assert that of the country’s 165,510 municipal officers nationwide, just over 20% earns less than 1,000 pesos ($79) a month, while 60.9% earn no more than 4,000 pesos ($317) monthly.

The secretary, who backs President Felipe Calderon’s proposal for a single police force per state, said municipal officers currently account for 38.73% of all police in the country, adding that rather than combat crime they merely comply with the guidelines of their jurisdictions. Their training is lacking and they require stricter oversight however, that does not excuse the mass corruption of the alliance with the cartels and their reign of terror.

I believe that a leader with strong disciplines and leadership bringing a single federal authority will be a start to end the corruption. The military might of Mexico needs to combat the terrorism of the Cartels.

Nearly 30,000 people have died in incidents blamed on organized-crime groups, mainly drug traffickers. In Mexico since late 2006, newly inaugurated President Felipe Calderon deployed tens of thousands of soldiers and federal police to nearly a dozen states in a bid to stem the violence and root-out corruption in local law-enforcement agencies.

hangingbodiesState and local police in Mexico are poorly paid and are often confronted with the choice known here as “plomo o plata” (lead or silver): accept a bribe for looking the other way or get killed for refusing.

During Calderon’s tenure, a total of 915 municipal police, 698 state police and 463 federal agents have been killed at the hands of criminal gangs, according to Public Safety Secretariat figures. These figures are grossly inaccurate – as are Caledron’s accomplishments!

Most corrupt agencies in the United States!

One could argue that every government agency serves the purpose of stifling freedom and wasting taxpayer money. Yet, they go the extra mile for their sheer corruption, draconian regulations, and ultimate impact upon the largest number of citizens.

The main criteria for inclusion is the amount of money spent by the taxpayer according to official budget declarations, and then attaining the highest level of doing exactly the opposite of their stated intentions.

Speak-out-against-tyranny

Here are just some of my my picks for the most corrupt agencies of the United States government. What are your picks for the most useless and worthless, dangerous and worthless agencies that had failed the public?

  • DOD – Department of Defense – budget 700 billion. Openly killing millions and eveiscerating the Constitution of the United States & no sign of letting up any time soon.
  • HHS – Dept. of Health & Human services which is the structure of the FDA, CDC & others with a combined budget of over 900 billion dollars.
  • (DHS) Department of Homeland Security. Branches with the TSA and their spin-off the VIPR. Budget over 100 billion with uneducated and untrained uniformed security guards.
  • (ED) Department of Education. Employees who need it. Budget over 80 billion.
  • Spy Agencies- CIA and NSA – Any hacker of any age can infiltrate them. Most are double agents. Budget over 60 billion dollars.
  • DOJ – Department of Justice. Funny name for a government agency that has more corruption than justice. It includes the FBI allocating over 8 billion to them and over 30 billion to the DOJ. The FBI concentrates its efforts by turning its back on the American public and playing ball with organized crime and terrorist organizations.
  •  FEMA Federal Emergency Managment Assn – budget well over 16 billion dollars. Just ask the American people.
  • IRS Internal Revenue service – Everyone’s favorite- A agency that is as much needed as AIDS/HIV. Budget well over 15 billions run by Nazis.
  • EPA- Environmental Protection – does more harm than good. Deceptive practices.  Budget well over 10 billion.

There has been massive funding of billions to these agencies but have had little or no effect but imposed more corruption and danger to the public then most criminal enterprises. They fund criminal enterprises with full knowledge and have either directly or indirectly killed millions of American lives and threatened our economy and world peace.

constitution_document_banner

Killing those who serve to preserve freedom and eviscerating the constitution in the process.  What are you picks? Who do you think is responsible for this massive amount of corruption in this country. What happened to leadership and the consitution of the United States?

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” — Preamble to the Constitution

The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. Empowered with the sovereign authority of the people by the framers and the consent of the legislatures of the states, it is the source of all government powers, and also provides important limitations on the government that protect the fundamental rights of United States citizens.

KHORASAN – Deadlier Threat than ISIS

While we are concentrating ALL our efforts and views on ISIS, intelligence emerged that will leave the United States and its allies blind sided by terrorist attacks with even more upcoming confrontation than being witnessed with the Islamic State. It is far more sinister and a direct threat from a much lesser known terrorist group that has arisen from the ashes of the Syrian war.
This splinter group calling itself Khorasan may be laying in wake with concrete plans for striking targets in the United States and Europe as a chosen modus operandi – more so than ISIS. The inside information in Washington who have had the information for years will not deny that Khorasan may pose as much of a danger as the Islamic State.

According to the New York Times, some US officials have gone as far as saying that, while the Islamic State is undoubtedly more prominent in its show of force in the Middle East, it is Khorasan who’s intent on oversees campaigns in a way Al Qaeda usually is.

islamists-treat-muslims.si

In this sense, the US air strike campaign and the coming actions by the anti-IS coalition might just be what coaxes IS into larger-scale attacks on American and European soil – what Khorasan is essentially all about which brings up another issue that blinds Washington’s stance on terrorism. It is so focused on the terror spread by IS that it’s beginning to forget that the destruction and mayhem of civil war across the Middle East is spawning a number of hard-to-track terrorist factions and sleep cells with distinct missions.

Khorasan – a splinter group from Al-Qaeda (a growing body of extremists from around the world) are coming in and taking advantage of the ungoverned areas and creating informal ad hoc groups that are not directly aligned with ISIS or Nusra of which our government and intelligence are ignoring.

This Al-Qaeda offshoot group is led by a former senior operative Muhsin al-Fadhli. He had reportedly fled to Iran during the US-led invasion of Afghanistan with other Operatives moving to and from Pakistan, Syria, Iran and other countries after the campaign, forming splinter groups.

Al-Fadhli was identified as leading the Iranian branch of Al-Qaeda, controlling the movement of funds and operatives in the region and working closely with wealthy “jihadist donors” in his native Kuwait to raise money for the Syrian terrorist resistance.

Although American intelligence is said to have been tracking it for over a decade, Khorasan itself is shrouded in mystery. Little is known publicly and it is said to favor concealed explosives as a terror method and like other groups taking power in war-torn provinces like Syria, Khorasan has on occasion shifted its alliances.

khorasancell

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri at one point ordered the former ISIS to fight only in Iraq, but cut all ties with it when it disobeyed and branched out. The result was that the Nusra Front became Al-Qaeda’s official branch in Syria. It’s said that Khorasan is to Al Nusra Front what the latter was to Al-Qaeda.

They see their mission in recruiting European and American Muslim militants who have traveled to Syria to fight alongside Islamist extremist groups that form part of the rebel coalition fighting Syria’s Assad regime. In return, the Khorasan group hopes to train and deploy these recruits, who hold American and European passports, for attacks against Western targets. The belief here is that Khorasan will be Al-Qaeda’s new arm in carrying our terrorist attacks against the United States.

The group reportedly has the services of Al-Qaeda bomb maker, Ibrahim al-Asiri, whose devices previously ended up on three US-bound planes. He is known to be a true pioneer of hard-to-detect bombs. The next step most likely in their agenda will be taking those bombs and pairing them with US-born and other foreign jihadist returning home.

zohani4

In this respect, Khorasan threats to the US to be much more directly compared to the Islamic State’s more regional ambitions and since POTUS anti ISIS strategy does not include Al Nusra, which then frees up Khorasan’s hands.

Al Nusra is set apart from many other groups is that it’s now the only faction with active branches throughout Syria.

The volatile conflict zone that is Syria, with its lax borders and an increasing number of distinct, armed Islamist groups, the US may be surprised by how difficult it soon may be to pinpoint the origin of the next threat.

CRISIS IN SYRIA

The U.S. stance is to train Syrian opposition forces by the U.S. Military to defend its territory rather than to seize it back from the Islamic State.

The Syrian fighters are essential to defeating the Islamic State as countries like Turkey, Jodan and Qatar stand by. However these assembled units under the Obama administration’s will not be able to capturing key towns from the militants without U.S. Combat teams which Obama has ruled out. The Syrians then will be tasked to only preventing ISIL to reach beyond the control it maintains.

Military officials also want U.S. and allied special operations troops to advise opposition forces if those forces are thrust into combat, helping them to fight effectively and reducing the chances that the new units will disintegrate in the heat of battle.

You cannot field an effective force if you’re not on the ground to advise and assist them,” said a senior U.S. military officer with extensive experience in training the Iraqi and Afghan militaries.

Obama’s unwillingness to deploy ground combat forces is rooted in concern that American troops would be drawn into a long, bloody war in the Middle East.

Obama position is to have our military train as many as 5,00 Syrian fighters a year as an effective opposition force, not just a hit-and-run group of rebels. The first units are expected to be deployed in roughly six months. The plan is for them to safeguard cleared areas and end up being a defensive force more than an offensive force.

Lt. Gen. William Mayville, the director of operations for the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, said the opposition fighters would receive basic training and it will have some effect but not a decisive effect in the battle against the Islamic State.

A defensive opposition force also could allow President Bashar al-Assad’s government to regain territory it has lost to the Islamic State, which has been pummeled — but remains far from defeated — by hundreds of U.S. and coalition air strikes over the past month.

The long range of basic training will not suffice in the war on ISIS. Syrian militants in 6 months to a year cannot reverse Islamic State gains and certainly will not destroy the infrastructure that have enabled them to operate successfully in Iraq and elsewhere..

Those who have fled the country as refugees most likely will not want to return to their war-ravaged homeland. And some may turn to fight for ISIS

U.S. troops intends to use basic training sessions which will focus on unit discipline and elementary combat skills and advanced training in the future. This is called long ranging with hopes of engagement down the road.

Administration officials say technological advancements will allow the U.S. military to provide a degree of air support to Syrian forces without having to stand shoulder to shoulder with them. They note that in Iraq, U.S. commanders recently employed surveillance aircraft, including drones, to identify Islamic State militants near the Mosul Dam, striking them in proximity to Kurdish forces.

US officials are also talking to Jordan, Qatar and Turkey about training camps being established in Saudi Arabia. This is sending a evident message that this recruitment effort there is no U.S. commitment and our unwillingness to commit to toppling Assad and ISIS but rather sitting on th sidelines and watching from afar.

John McCain sated that it is immoral to “fight and die when we’re not going to protect them from Bashar Assad’s barrel bombs or from ISIS…You’re not going to get people to volunteer to do that.”

Some senior Defense Department officials advised that involving the use of covert operatives and private contractors reporting to the CIA, not the Pentagon, who could provide combat advice to Syrian forces and summon air support but a senior Arab official said such a request would be unlikely to receive an enthusiastic response among coalition members if the United States did not also commit troops.

Either way you look at it, basic training over a year period is sending more lambs to slaughter. Air atrikes had proven to be effective but now long will the effectiveness be to topple a terrorist group hell bent on destroying everything in its path with an instatiable quench for power.

Winning the War against ISIS

US-led air strikes in northern Syria have failed to interrupt the advance of Islamic State (Isis) fighters closing in on a key city on the Turkish border. That answers the question whether or not, the determination of ISIS with American air strikes alone is effective.

Almost two weeks after the Pentagon extended its aerial campaign from Iraq to neighboring Syria in an attempt to take on Isis militants in their desert strongholds, Kurdish fighters said the bombing campaign was having little impact in driving them back.

Air strikes alone are really not enough to defeat Isis in Kobani or elsewhere which the Kurdish fighters desperately are trying to defend from the advancing militants. They are besieging the city on three sides, and fighter jets simply cannot hit each and every Isis fighter on the ground.

ISIS has stepped up it s game while Obama steps off and not bringing in our troops to move to a ground attack while our allies are at the ready.

 

Even the Pentagon has reported daily on its aerial missions over Iraq and Syria since first deciding to go after Isis two months ago that it can not pinpoint exact locations.

It is obvious that the aerial bombardment is not sufficient to turn the tide on the ground and the U.S. has unsettled those in the US-led coalition, including the UK government, who have signed on with the air war and not taking the ground fight to Isis.

In Washington, military hawks continue to argue for an escalation of the war in Syria and Iraq with the deployment of US ground troops – a move that Barack Obama has repeatedly ruled out.

The strategy of aerial bombardment is not going to work to destroy Isil You cannot destroy Isil without a ground component. The UK echoes these words that air power alone will not win a campaign like this. They also ceased the air strikes into Syria.

The FSA (Free Syria Army) is joining now the YPG with the Turks that is currently battling ISIS in Kobani. Turkish tanks right now have took up positions on the Syrian border while Obama sits back posturing and unwilling to join a coalition on the ground who is calling on the international community to defend Kobani and other areas and countries and end ISIS. If Isis takes Kobani, they will be right on the border with Turkey.

The countries who surround Iraq are Saudi Arabia (home of Osama bin Laden), Turkey, Iran, and Kuwait. Countries like the UK was the last to join the coalition with countries who are already in the coalition like Australia, Germany, France, Netherlands, Turkey (offering assistance but no military aid), Saudi Arabia (training and land support), Belgium, Canada, Jordan, (providing Intel), Egypt, Qatar, Albania, Estonia, Hungary, Bahrain, Denmark and Italy.

Turkey, the key neighboring country with military might to crush ISIS has tanks at the Iraq border and is at the ready to begin a ground attack. Turkey has a very strong military force. Other countries are at the ready while Obama is posturing.

 

One would think that with so many countries acting in concert, we would be able to crush ISIS systemactically with limited loss of life with our coalition forces. The end game is evident. We need to accomplish two goals; exterminate every ISIS member and create a coalition force to root out and exterminate all larvae from these maggot groups.

Obama has taken some steps against ISIS, namely bombing strikes in Iraq. But he must do more. He understimated ISIS and overestimated Iraqi might as we in turn have overestimated US leadership.

Perhaps ISIS will be a wake-up call for this president. Perhaps he will do the right thing. He should be pressing our allies as hard as he can to join the fight.

Obama is writing and saying some of the right things. Now let’s see what he’ll actually do.