The mystifying support of Hamas

As the world's media once again is consumed with IS (the Islamic State in Northern Iraq and Eastern Syria), perhaps a moment might be spent on the month-long flareup between Hamas and Israel. Not that there hasn't been a world-wide, though brief, focus on this deadly relationship already.

Israel- with a dense population of 8 million contained within an 8 thousand square mile territory. Its story is pretty well known: embattled from the start, Zionists in the early 20th century coming back to what was then a pastoralist backwater, then erupting as a place of refuge stemming from the holocaust of WWII. Neighboring Arab nations, themselves with borders drawn artificially (see present day conflicts) incensed that a Jewish state could be shoehorned in as well, fight the UN approved establishment of a new nation, fight to annihilate the state in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982 wars. Still standing, most of the Arab world (oh, and Iran as well) still hysterically hostile to this nation with its western values of democracy and tolerance.

Click image for full picture
Israel, the eternal thorn in the Arab world. The current war cry is "occupation" of Palestinian lands, an "upgrade" from the genocidal "drive the Jews into the sea" used in the previous five conflicts. Graphic from www.discussionist.com

Hamas- controls and "governs" what is known as the Gaza strip, a very dense spit of land full of Palestinians sandwiched between Egypt and Israel. From Wikipedia, we read, "a Palestinian Sunni Islamic organization in the Palestinian territories and elsewhere in the Middle East including Qatar. Since 2007, it has governed the Gaza Strip, after it won a majority of seats in the Palestinian Parliament in the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections. ... Based on the principles of Islamism gaining momentum throughout the Arab world in the 1980s, Hamas was founded in 1987 as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Co-founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin stated in 1987, and the Hamas Charter affirmed in 1988, that Hamas was founded to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation and to establish an Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip ..."

Click image for full picture
Hamas governs the Gaza strip with a population of 1.8 million, while Fatah governs the West Bank with a population of 1.7 million. Graphic from blogs.blouinnews.com

The repeating conflict.

The latest round of fighting between Hamas and Israel looks depressingly similar to previous flareups. Rocket attacks from the Gaza strip into Israel, and heavy Israeli retaliation - a scenario that has repeated itself practically every two years for the past 12 or so. As Wikimedia outlines it, "Attacks began in 2001. Since then, nearly 4,800 rockets have hit southern Israel, just over 4,000 of them since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in August 2005. The range of the rockets has increased over time. Some analysts see the attacks as a shift away from reliance on suicide bombing, which was previously Hamas's main method of attacking Israel, and an adoption of the rocket tactics used by Lebanese militant group Hezbollah."

Click image for full picture
Israel maintains rocket fire from Gaza is often originating in residences, in or near mosques, or near hospitals. Photo from www.theblaze.com

The conflict begins - Teatree believes it fair to say that Hamas usually instigates it - with rocket attacks. Israel responds with the justification that no nation would put up with such attacks. Palestinian fatalities increase dramatically, the world blame begins to shift towards Israel for disproportionate response, and finally a cease fire is arranged. Israel is cast again as the violent and unjust bully, including Israel's imposition of an unjust blockade of legitimate supplies to the Palestinians of Gaza. Perversely, Hamas is considered the moral victor. And political posturing begins which inexorably leads to the next round of fighting. That has been the pattern.

Click image for full picture
It seems a long time ago, but 2008-2009 was a time when support for Gaza was at its highest, support for Israel perhaps the lowest, there was a new hope in the US, and the flotilla to break the Gaza blockade by Israel was a popular, Hollywood and international celebrity cause celebre ... Photo from www.presstv.ir

The current round

This 2014 chapter, which began with an additional emotional element as three Israeli teens were abducted and killed, and a Palestinian youth killed in revenge by Israeli extremists, had several new dynamics. Hamas has moved on from suicide bombing and rocket attacks, to rockets and tunneling into Israel. Israel stated its military goal was to destroy these tunnels. From a US Washington Times newspaper article, "Information that Israel Defense Forces reportedly obtained from captured Hamas fighters revealed that the group was planning to use several Gaza tunnels that extend under Israeli territory for a major attack timed with the beginning of the Jewish new year, Rosh Hashanah, on September 24. The plan called for Hamas fighters to surface from the tunnels in Israel and kill as many people as possible. The plot was first reported by the Israeli newspaper Maariv. Israel’s military operation against Hamas in Gaza has gone on longer than expected because of the discovery of the extensive tunnel network, which is estimated to have cost as much as $2 billion to construct."

One can argue the intent of Hamas regarding the use of, but not the existence of, sophisticated tunnels. Tunnels which, by the way, were complete with specialized holding rooms stockpiled with tranquilizers and restraints, one assumes, for the goal of securing captured Israeli soldiers. But of course, that is pure speculation ...

Click image for full picture
Israeli soldier in Hamas-built tunnel. A report in a 2012 article in the Institute for Palestine Studies by Nicolas Pelham notes that Hamas officials admit 160 children died as they helped build these tunnels. (So that's a healthy impact from leaders on future generations ...) Photo from sahebkhabar.ir

Noted earlier, Hamas was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. With the unrest in Egypt, and after the 2011 ousting of Morsi, Hamas lost a major sponsor. The loss of Egyptian support meant one of Hamas's sources of materials for building tunnels was suddenly stopped. From a Wall Street Journal article, we learn that Qatar - a US ally no less - has become one of the remaining important patrons for Hamas, with the Gulf monarchy contributing $450 million for infrastructure projects in the Gaza Strip in 2012. After this latest round of fighting, with its tunnel network destroyed and most of its rockets fired, Hamas truly is in a weakened state. There may also be less opportunity for further siphoning off funds and materiel from legitimate aid, as at least some donors are likely to strengthen the monitoring of where their aid goes.

Just something to think about for Hamas financial donors. Poster from www.ironicsurrealism.com

Which leads to the last and perhaps most important new dynamic - world opinion and reporting of this latest round of conflict has noticeably changed. Since the last major flareup in 2008-2009 between Hamas and Israel, the increasingly vicious fighting in Syria with the use of chemical weapons, involvement of Hezbollah in supporting Assad, and most notably the Islamic State extremists erupting in Iraq and Eastern Syria may be concentrating some minds.

One of the more compelling points being made regarding Hamas is this. What is this organization's goal? The one that very seldom gets printed. From an opinion piece in the NY Daily News we read, "It boils down to three words. Time and time again you hear it on the news when discussing negotiations with Israel: “What Hamas wants...” Hamas wants a cease-fire; Hamas wants the Gaza border blockade lifted; Hamas wants their tunnels left alone; Hamas wants a Palestinian state.

All these things may be true of the political arm of Hamas. But rarely is it mentioned in a news report that Hamas’ primary objective, its main goal, what it really wants and what its military arm is designed and determined to get, is the total destruction of Israel and the annihilation of the Jews.

It’s a crucial component that’s regularly left out of news reports. But any story that does not mention this among Hamas’ chief demands is not an intellectually honest or complete one. Few in the media seem to grasp this, the effect of which has been to create a gauzy and nebulous moral equivalency between Israel and Hamas that isn’t really there." Unquote.

All western looking, reasonable, nice suit and haircut, but Khaled Meshaal, Hamas leader, has the destruction of Israel as his goal. Photo from UK Daily Mail

At least a few more nations are acknowledging this point as an aftermath of the latest go-round. Many reports are emerging from Gaza that balanced media coverage in the strip is not allowed by Hamas. And when the US acts [albeit reluctantly under its current President] to prevent genocide by IS of the Yazidis in Iraq, it is suddenly becoming easier to remember that Hamas similarly wants the destruction of Israel. The difference of course is that Israel has a big say and the upper hand, and Hamas has only the willingness, not the capability.

Click image for full picture
One Muslim determined to not accept that Hamas is the instigator is the UK cabinet minister Baroness Sayeeda Warsi. She resigned from the government in protest over the UK not condemning Israel and not ready to change policies in favor of Hamas. So while she is upset at the loss of Palestinian life (aren't we all), she is silent about the loss of Syrian lives, or Yazidi lives, or for that matter Pakistani lives, all resulting from conflicts with Islamic extremists in various shades of robes or western suits. Photo from www.rappler.com

What's next?

Isn't it time to seriously look at demilitarizing Gaza? Hasn't Hamas shown the world, finally, that it apparently has no intention of governing wisely? With international monitoring and involvement in dispensing resources in this strip, Teatree suspects there would be plenty of new aid money flowing to the Palestinians themselves, which would only raise the pressure to enact a two-state Israel/Palestine solution.

But what is still missing is who would be willing to monitor. Like the Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki, Hamas has no intention to cede control, and Teatree suspects there are plenty of proxy Arab supporters (Qatar, Turkey, others) have no interest to see peace breakout.

But nevertheless the equation seems to have changed. Islamic extremism in all its ugly forms is suddenly casting a lot of dreary, repetitious conflicts in new light.

For a final voice, here is a Washington Post opinion piece by Dennis Ross, who served as US President Bill Clinton’s Middle East negotiator and was a special assistant to US President Obama from 2009 to 2011.

Iraq, left on its own, backed to the edge

The news from Iraq this week has been bad. Very bad. A growing body of Islamic extremists, gathered from a territory carved out of Eastern Syria during the ongoing Syrian civil war, calling themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), has exploded into Sunni lands in eastern Iraq.

Taking advantage of the poor and divisive governance by Iraqi leader Maliki, ISIS has played on the resentment of Sunnis, chasing a shocked Iraqi army from several cities including Iraq's second largest city, Mosul.

The interesting presentation in this BBC graphic, shows thin little yellow lines as the controlled territory of ISIS. What is really is showing is that the Iraqi population and cities of Western Iraq are for the most part along waterways, the vacant land inbetween is simply empty desert.

Click on image for full picture
Al Raqqa, Syria, has long been in the hands of anti-Assad rebels, and has become, unfortunately, the urban headquarters for ISIS, one of the most ruthless factions of Islamic extremists. Photo from www.timesofisrael.com

So, the first point suggested by Teatree to muse upon, is that due to Western inaction to support moderate Syrian opposition, extremists have consolidated their control of the anti-Assad forces. Not only do they want to remove Assad - the chemical weapons user who has just manipulated his third Presidential term - but more importantly establish their own "Caliphate." Just as the Taliban gained an actual footprint in ruling Afghanistan in the 1990s, ISIS now has a base, and it has gained it in the middle of the Syrian civil war.

Iraq, left to itself, sinks into sectarianism

In the West, the US and UK in particular, the shocking collapse of Iraq has quickly degenerated to large degree into a rehash of whether President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair are either completely, or mainly to blame.

What can at least be said is that Iraqi President Maliki has done nothing, really, to attempt to create a big house government, including Sunnis and the Kurds in the past 8 or so years. Becoming more sectarian, ie, favoring his fellow Shiites, Maliki has by neglect lost most of the country (For a detailed description of Maliki's rule, read the New York Time link in the comment section). The Sunnis are hostile, and unfortunately choosing badly in accepting (or tolerating) ISIS gains. The Kurds, on the other hand, have never felt part of a national Iraqi identity, and in the midst of this recent chaos have quickly moved to consolidate their hold on Kurd land in Northeast Iraq.

Click on image for full picture
Kurds have consolidated their hold in Iraq's northeast, Sunnis have marginalized themselves to the west, and dabble dangerously with ISIS (or alternatively ISIL), while the Shia homeland in SE Iraq is in danger of becoming a vassal of Shia Iran. Graphic taken from a CBC.ca article

One point of debate

US President Obama, fulfilling a political campaign promise, quickly pulled all US troops out of Iraq within three years of being in office. One could say, and many do, that he left a fragile - clearly fragile - nascent democracy surrounded by hostile or indifferent neighbors and plenty of internal strife. Yet no stabilizing force at all could be left there, the White House explains, because the two countries could not agree on future immunity for US forces if they were to remain in the country. Teatree will only point out that it seems the US was excruciatingly polite in negotiations to so quickly give in to this one country. Given the US propensity during the same time and continuing to this day, to strike targets repeatedly at will with drones in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia, with or without those nation's official approval, one can only wonder whether a political promise was the major reason for such a complete hasty Iraqi withdrawal, regardless of the consequences which we are now witnessing.

In contrast, after the Balkan war ended in the mid-90s, nearly 50,000 NATO troops stayed to ensure the peace, building fragile bridges between wounded and wary ethnic populations for several years, before slowly winding down their presence. Even today, 20 years later, over 5000 troops remain. One could highlight the value of stabilizing forces in South Korea, Japan, and even Germany for decades, but that would belabor the point.

KFOR troops in Kosovo, keeping the fragile peace between neighboring Serbia and Muslim Kosovans, and earlier between a number of nations, Croatia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, etc. Photo from fredbellomy.com

Iran steps closer to Shia arc
Iran, already pleased with Maliki in Iraq, have offered him assistance in fighting ISIS. With this opening to create a closer relationship with Iraq, Iran moves towards its long term goal of establishing an arc of influence: from Iran into Syria where it supports Assad, and linking with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Now with Iraq on the edge, the possibility of an uninterrupted arc is within reach. And while Russia has robustly supported chemical-weapons man Assad in Syria, in contrast the West timidly continues its searches for appropriate groups it might support among the Syrian opposition. (Hint - these moderate groups have long since left the building ...).

The current three - Hezbollah's Nasrullah, left; Iran's Rouhani, center; and chemical-man Assad from Syria on the right. Suddenly the three buddies have half of Iraq in their pocket, with just ISIS rabble to clear out in-between. Poster photo from irannewsupdate.com

What's ahead?
Aside from sectarian bloodletting on a scale we've not seen yet even in Syria or during the US occupation of Iraq, we are possibly seeing a preview of what lies ahead in Afghanistan as soon as the US pulls its combat troops out by the end of this year, and even the trailing training force of 10,000 within a year after that.

What else? Under this current US administration, the West is likely to retreat to a limp posture of the past - lobbing a few tomahawk missiles here and there, and launching more drone strikes safely from a distance, though no doubt without anyone's permission. That fastidiousness of gaining permission was reserved for the former Iraq alone.

Click on image for full picture
Drone strikes are apparently the US default strategy (permission granted or not), with no chance for immediate battlefield death or injury for US armed forces. But doesn't it appear that the U.S. might be losing a bit of the "hearts and minds" battle? Photo from org.salsalabs.com

Certainly there will be no large scale commitment of US combat troops back into the Iraqi theater - that ship has sailed. Though how US troops in Kuwait will somehow remain exempt from extremist attacks remains to be seen. And our erstwhile allies Jordan and Israel may also believe our reassurances of steadfast US support leaves something to be desired.

And onward the world moves ...

Debacle in Syria - a presidential election amid gas attacks

Now overshadowed by the West-Russia confrontation in Ukraine, there is apparent growing consensus that Syrian President "Bashar al-Assad and his leadership are there to stay" as a new BBC article puts it.

The Syrian opposition, early dominated by a young demographic wishing for an "Arab Spring" in their own land, has morphed through various phases - from a militarized but responsible opposition that was essentially starved out by possible Western aid, to the current splintered, radicalized, rebels, dominated by hateful Islamic extremists of various sorts, each in turn supported by regional powers with their own agendas.

Click on image for full picture
2009 marches for better Syrian governance were, in hindsight, impossibly naive and optimistic. Photo from ctv.news

Syria's Assad was bolstered early on by steady, robust Russian military and non military aid, as well as forceful intervention by Iran's Hezbollah, coming from Lebanon. Iran and Hezbollah may have their own agendas, ie creating an arc of influence from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea, but in the process, found supporting Assad was part of that calculation.

The regional actors: former Iran President Ahmadinejad, beleaguered Syrian President Assad, and Islamic leader of Hezbollah, Nassrallah. The fourth influential supporter, Russia's President Putin, is busy elsewhere ... Photo from www.ipsnews.net

Assad's use of chemical weapons in the summer of 2013 was a horrific act and political miscalculation that almost, almost, resulted in a significant Western intervention. But diplomacy "won" the day, resulting in an agreement to remove the chemical weapons arsenal from Syria.

From marches asking for reform, to today's ghostly ruins and chemical weapon use against its own people, Syria's Assad and his allies leave this legacy. Photo from www.popularresistance.org

Now, nearly 9 months on, 80-90% of the chemical percursors have been removed, leaving Assad apparently free for the occasional use of basic chlorine gas attacks. Chlorine is an element not under WMD classification, so any negotiations to prevent its use for this horrific specific purpose will be safely stretched out over months, if not years, if at all.

Click on image for full picture
Syrian children caught up in the latest gas attack by their government. Okay, to use moderate and enlightened diplomacy-speak, Teatree will insert "allegedly" into the picture caption. Photo from www.therepublic.com

A multi-year effort to bring a negotiated end to the conflict, led by the US, and artfully opposed by Russia (with Iran and Hezbollah in quiet agreement), has effectively petered out due to the new Russian incursion into Ukraine, where once again the US believes its own negotiating prowess (with virtually no track record to support such faith) will win the day.

Click on image for full picture
U.S. President Obama, symbolically just barely relevant to the occasion as illustrated in this photo, has also been left sputtering over Russia's military move into the Crimean peninsula (followed by a quick referendum that formalized the takeover), "That is not how-- international-- law and international norms are observed in the 21st century." Photo from offshorebalancer.wordpress.com

So, on we go to a Syrian Presidential election set for June. As the BBC article puts it, "The pressures on Mr Assad are now so light that he is preparing to have himself re-elected for another full seven-year term, rather than opting for a compromise two-year extension, an idea kicked around a few months ago when diplomacy was active."

Taken in March 2014, from Assad's own facebook page. Assad, his wife, and various synchophants ... Photo and description from gulfnews.com

Want to bet on who will win?

The Syrian civil war spreads, and morphs towards a Sunni-Shia confrontation

The Syrian civil war is heating up and spreading, more countries are finding themselves pulled closer to the conflict.

Click on image for full picture
In spite of many nations hopes this conflict would find a solution in the past two years, negotiations have gone nowhere ...

Regarding the US, as the Wall Street Journal put it a few days ago, "It took two years, 93,000 casualties, the use of chemical weapons, and the growing prospect of victory by strongman Bashar Assad and his Iranian patrons, but President Obama has finally decided to arm the Syrian rebels." The question remains who to arm: moderate rebel groups are the preference, but over time those factions have been diminished compared to the rising influence and military prowess of the extremist rebels (al-Qaeda affiliates), and then with what type and amounts of weaponry. I guess we'll find out.

Is this the look of things to come in Syria?

Now Egypt has shut down official diplomatic contacts with Bashar al-Assad. As a CBS news article yesterday noted, "Egypt's Islamist president announced Saturday that he was cutting off diplomatic relations with Syria and closing Damascus' embassy in Cairo, decisions made amid growing calls from hard-line Sunni clerics in Egypt and elsewhere to launch a "holy war" against Syria's embattled regime.

Mohammed Morsi told thousands of supporters at a rally in Cairo that his government was also withdrawing the Egyptian charge d'affaires from Damascus. He called on Lebanon's Hezbollah to leave Syria, where the Iranian-backed Shiite militant group has been fighting alongside troops loyal to embattled President Bashar Assad against the mostly Sunni rebels. "Hezbollah must leave Syria. This is serious talk: There is no business or place for Hezbollah in Syria," said Morsi, Egypt's first freely elected president."

Egypt's leader Morsi is being called a co-conspirator with the US and Israel, of all things, by Syria. He has openly called for a no-fly zone in Syria to protect rebel held areas.

As mentioned in the CBS quote, Sunni clerics started issuing calls for jihad last week against Assad and his new supporter, Hezbollah. And with those calls, the division between the two main Islamic streams of doctrine are becoming more apparent and strident.

Sunni Muslims are by far the largest of the two groupings. The division stems from a dispute after the death of the Prophet Mohammed over who would next guide the Muslim faith. Iran's Shia revolution in 1979 increased the tensions between the two groups as well, leading to a quiet but serious rivalry between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran.

Just to be clear - there are plenty of terrorist/extremists groups in both camps. The Sunni perspective has the clear lead with al-Qaeda (and all its affiliates across North Africa), the Taliban, Chechnyan groups, and Hamas. The Shia have their own, on the other hand, in the form of Hezbollah.

Headgear and clothing. Sunnis wear kerchiefs ...

Shiites prefer turbans ...

And in both divisions, the closer or purer (or more extreme) perspectives of Islam become in regard to women, they "get" to dress like this.

The latest outrage from Sunni extremist attacks on women occurred in the past two days in Quetta, Pakistan, where a bomb on a bus killed 14 female students and injured 22, and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi militants attacked a hospital treating survivors, where they killed another 11 people. Educated women are apparently a huge threat and offense to these extremists. But control of women's activities and clothing extend throughout the faith - honor killings, voting restrictions, and even limits driving are in evidence everywhere.

At the moment, we have Shia Iran supporting Shia Assad, with the help of Shia Hezbollah. The Sunni Gulf states of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Qatar have been quietly but actively supporting the Sunni-dominated Syrian rebels - in which the more extremist forms are in the ascendancy.

Iraq is becoming fragile as Sunni extremists are blowing up Shia civilians with increasing intensity, Sunni Jordan and Turkey are trying to maintain low profiles, and now we have the most populous Arab nation - Egypt - headed by a reasonably militant group itself, the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, putting pressure on Assad.

US President George W. Bush's war in Iraq has been loudly and repeatedly condemned on a number of metrics. The deaths in that nation from 2003 to 2011 (from US invasion to withdrawal)have pretty well been pegged at 120-160 thousand. Yet in just over two years, Syria's conflict is approaching 100,000 deaths by all accounts, and chemical weapons have been clearly used.

And this war is still on the front end of a rising trajectory ...

Hezbollah commits troops, Assad position firms

The Syrian civil war spread this past week with the public introduction of several thousand hardened Hezbollah fighters into the city of Qusayr in western Syria. The fighting in this city - which is by all reports a strategic junction for both sides - has left the infrastructure in ruins, the population cowered or scattered, and has sown the seeds for wider involvement.

Click on image for full picture
Qusayr, Syria

Click on image for full picture
The city is important to the Syrian rebels as it is a weapons route into Syria from their Lebanese supporters. At the same time, the city's location is important to President Assad's forces, as it sits on the way from the capital Damascus to his Alewite tribal stronghold in Western Syria, as well as to Syria's two Mediterranean ports.

Click on image for full picture
Syria's strongman, Bashar al-Assad, is a member of the Alewite tribe, an offshoot of the larger Shiite religious schism. His ethnic group provides core loyalty within the armed forces.

Describing the daily blow-by-blows of the path of this conflict seems pointless (and dark), however, the position of Syrian President Assad had apparently weakened so much in the past month that Hezbollah (with the blessing of its Iranian sugar daddy) felt it necessary to intervene directly and openly.

Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, openly vows victory in Syria...

... so now the coffins and burials back in Lebanon of Hezbollah fighters killed in Syrian fighting will add fuel to the fires

Summary -

* Injection of thousands of Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon into the Syrian civil war. In retaliation, rockets are already being fired back into Lebanon, and the pot is being stirred by Sunni groups in Lebanon that support the Syrian rebels.

* Assad's position, bolstered by the open support of Hezbollah, has been strengthened at least temporarily, as Syrian rebels have begun reinforcing their own force levels in the Qusayr fight. At the same time, there are increasing reports of Assad's more than incidental use of chemical weapons. Over a month ago, use of chemical weapons was a red line that would prompt a "recalculation" of the US position. Apparently, isolated usage was tested by Assad, no one chose to officially take note, so his usage may be growing. Along with up-tempo Russian weapon shipments, these three factors have added to Assad's current uptick in advantage. ("Syria: French journalists catalogue extensive use of chemical weapons" May 27, UK Telegraph)

Click on image for full picture
This map provided by the BBC shows the extent of control by Syrian anti-Assad forces, and those of President Assad.

* Meanwhile, Sunni extremist groups in Iraq are roiling that country. The UN reports that over 1000 mainly civilians died in May alone from car bombs, etc. There are reports that al Qaeda in Iraq and in Syria have strengthened their own connections and may be trying to carve out their own new territory in power vacuums brought about by the Syrian conflict.

Click on image for full picture
Cleanup of a car bomb in Iraq. Fears are growing that government efforts to contain the most recent surge in sectarian violence are not sufficient

* As mentioned, Russia is declaring further shipments of advanced weaponry to Syria's Assad, even as the EU has ended its arms embargo to Syria, opening the possibility of more weapons headed to the Syrian rebels (already being armed by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States).

Click on image for full picture
Weapons flow from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States into Turkey from where they are smuggled south into Syria. Iran supplies aid directly to Syria's Assad, crossing Iraqi airspace. The US wants Iraq to stop Iranian flights over the country, but Iraq's Shiite government does not consider it a high priority.

* Let's not forget Turkey. Last week, according to a Washington Times report, "Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag said ... that Hezbollah, or “Party of God” in Arabic, should change its name to “Party of Satan,” blaming the terrorist organization for killing thousands of civilians in Syria. ... Bozdag made the remarks on Sunday at an international symposium in Ankara, titled “Problems of the Islamic World and Solutions,” Today’s Zaman reports." So much for the carefully measured words of diplomacy (while on the Syrian street, "Hezbshaytaan" is becoming part of the mainstream Arab Sunni lexicon - notes Stratfor, a geopolitical intelligence blog). 

The conflict is spreading, not being contained. And Israel is watching closely.

The US posture on terror ...

This past week, US President Obama outlined his policies for the world's lone superpower approach to tackling "the war on terror." While this blog normally avoids coverage of US politics and events (enough obsessive coverage available everywhere), this issue has worldwide implications for many countries already struggling to deal with terrorism (and its rather common strain of extremist Islamic purity).

US President Obama speaking May 23 on his administration's policies towards terrorism and warfare balanced by American ideals.

The speech by the president (available here as "his remarks as prepared for delivery") covered the past 15-20 years - pre-9/11, the first decade since that event, and now his attempt to begin shifting the nation's posture. In Teatree's estimation, here are his main points regarding applying US force around the world in the fight against terror:

* "Americans are deeply ambivalent about war, but having fought for our independence, we know that a price must be paid for freedom. ... From the Civil War, to our struggle against fascism, and through the long, twilight struggle of the Cold War, battlefields have changed, and technology has evolved. ... on September 11th 2001, we were shaken out of complacency. Thousands were taken from us, as clouds of fire, metal and ash descended upon a sun-filled morning. This was a different kind of war. No armies came to our shores, and our military was not the principal target. Instead, a group of terrorists came to kill as many civilians as they could. And so our nation went to war. We have now been at war for well over a decade."

US troops in Afghanistan

* Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm’s way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our efforts. Now make no mistake: our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. We must recognize, however, that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11.

* "... America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of James Madison’s warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. What we can do – what we must do – is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend."

* "Today, the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat. Their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us. They did not direct the attacks in Benghazi or Boston. They have not carried out a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11. Instead, what we’ve seen is the emergence of various al Qaeda affiliates."

al Qaeda in Yemen remains the most active cell of the terror group - the nation of the US fatal drone strike against an American citizen - self styled Sheikh Awlaki.

* "Unrest in the Arab World has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like Libya and Syria. Here, too, there are differences from 9/11. In some cases, we confront state-sponsored networks like Hizbollah that engage in acts of terror to achieve political goals. Others are simply collections of local militias or extremists interested in seizing territory. While we are vigilant for signs that these groups may pose a transnational threat, most are focused on operating in the countries and regions where they are based."

* "Finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin; a plane flying into a building in Texas; or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. ... Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon."

The strange case of Major Nidal Hasan - this administration seems to go to some lengths to minimize his Islamic extremist views and allegiance. Even today, "the U.S. Defense Department confirms Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood massacre suspect, is still drawing his pay while those injured have been denied combat pay. Hasan, a military psychiatrist suspected of going on a shooting rampage at the Texas base that left 13 dead and 32 injured in 2009, has been paid $278,000 since the shooting," KXAS-TV, Dallas/Fort Worth, reported Tuesday.

* "Lethal yet less capable al Qaeda affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. But as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11."

* "First, we must finish the work of defeating al Qaeda and its associated forces. In Afghanistan, we will complete our transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Our troops will come home. Our combat mission will come to an end. And we will work with the Afghan government to train security forces, and sustain a counter-terrorism force which ensures that al Qaeda can never again establish a safe-haven to launch attacks against us or our allies. Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ – but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America."

* "It is ... not possible for America to simply deploy a team of Special Forces to capture every terrorist. And even when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians– where a terrorist compound cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding tribal communities that pose no threat to us, or when putting U.S. boots on the ground may trigger a major international crisis. To put it another way, our operation in Pakistan against Osama bin Laden cannot be the norm. ... It is in this context that the United States has taken lethal, targeted action against al Qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft commonly referred to as drones."

Click on image for full picture
Drone strikes by the numbers during the past two administrations

* "Under domestic law, and international law, the United States is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces. We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first. So this is a just war – a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense. ... by the end of 2014 (after the US reduces its forces in Afghanistan), we will no longer have the same need for force protection, and the progress we have made against core al Qaeda will reduce the need for unmanned strikes. Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target al Qaeda and its associated forces."

* "when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America – and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot – his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team ..."

Hmmm, a drone strike roughly equivalent to a police swat team - what's your thought?

The US President talked long on other issues of more domestic concern - surveillance laws and policies, legal framework of drone strikes, authority of Congress regarding war and oversight responsibilities, as well as one of his passionate stances that Guantanamo be closed and re-purposed from indefinitely holding enemy combatants.

Guantanamo prisoners - enemy combatants - continue to trouble the US President more it seems than his drone strikes which he has rationalized as the equivalent of domestic swat teams in action. At one time the numbers held peaked between 558 and 579, as of March 2013, 166 detainees remain - most are not wanted by their home government. Dozens of those earlier released turned up in further conflicts.

What President Obama has attempted to do was provide his narrative to issues of national security, personal liberties, the country's ideals, and the nature of war and our limits. Each president to some degree attempts to provide a cohesive narrative for his policies. Just from World War II on, we've seen narratives through the Korean war, the dismantling of many colonies into independent nations in the early 60s, and the machinations through the decades-long Cold War (with many failures of moral consistency from CIA manipulations of various regimes in Africa to the Vietnam War to influences in South and Central America). President Reagan's robust challenge to the Soviet Union and its ultimate collapse in 1989-1991 was consistent with his strongly-worded narrative. Turmoil in the Balkans and the rise of Islamic extremism culminated during the Clinton years was not matched by any particular narrative (can anyone remember a Clinton doctrine?), but with the attack of 9/11, George W Bush did in fact theme his response as a "war on terror."

US President Reagan with his conservative UK ally, Margaret Thatcher. Reagan unequivocally challenged the Soviet Union, calling it an evil empire, and when six months later, after an incident where the Soviet airforce shot down an unarmed Korean civilian passenger jet near Seoul, the narrative was more firmly set.

Now we have seen the last two narratives. President George W Bush pushed a positive component of his war on terror narrative (that the US was prepared to fight terror especially in the form of Islamic extremism wherever and however necessary) during the Iraq war. This positive message was that people around the world longed for freedom, that the march of humanity was always towards freedom, and in spite of not finding weapons of mass destruction, the Iraqi people were better off than before, as democracy would work anywhere it was legitimately tried.

President Obama's narrative overall seems to Teatree to be a plausible and sensible one.. At least when it comes to America's armed response, very few will argue against at some point it is time to "stand down." The president lays out the case that it is now - when the conventional military footprint is reduced in Afghanistan next year, drone strikes, intelligence gathering and covert operations will remain wherever threats emerge. The President's narrative says these threats are much more local and regional in scope than harboring international aspirations.

Four musings to the above.

#1 Even plausible sensible narratives will over time either reflect reality well or be exposed as wishful thinking.

#2 When President Obama describes random individual attacks as just that, is he diminishing the overarching presence of Islamic extremism? Certainly his insistence that we always consider the Oklahoma City bombing, or a Wisconsin shooting involving a Sikh temple seems disconnected to his only lightly noting, "Unrest in the Arab World has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries ..." Again and again, as we've seen in four incidents in just the past few days (the UK cleaver attack on a British soldier, the suicide bomber in Dagestan, a broader attack in Niger, and the stabbing of a French soldier on home soil) there is this underlying narrative involving Islamic exrtremist motivation.

The latest display of deranged violence in the name of Islamic purity - two individuals running over a British soldier on leave, then hacking at him with knives and meat cleavers.

Click on image for full picture
Even the "lone wolf" or opportunistic view of the UK killing has been quickly challenged by the emergence that one of the suspects, Michael Adebolajo, had been detained in Kenya in 2010 for his connections to Islamic extremists in neighboring Somalia.

#3 When does the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance tip from its current regional crisis to a full blown geopolitical confrontation? Or has it already? Russia on the one side with these three nations, and the western democracies on the other.

Hezbollah defiantly declaring support for Syria's Assad, death to Israel, and being armed by Iran with Russia's tacit approval. Just a regional issue?

#4 How tightly will he cling to his narrative. The Benghazi attack on the US ambassador there is still being debated whether it was an example of the administration attempting to shape the facts to fit the Obama narrative. One only has to ask whatever happened to that individual who was detained for making up the disrespectful Islamic video that was the initial posture of the administration...

Yes, the familiar Muslim rage, a discredited video story - both difficult to place in a coherent narrative.

And so on we go.

End game approaches in Syria?

While the Western world's attention (and mine) is focused on the Boston Marathon bombing early this week (of which the Chechnya angle will be looked at in my next post), more ominous developments occurred regarding the ongoing Syrian civil war.

Update
The UN estimates the death toll now stands at 70,000 as of late February and accelerating, with over 10,000 killed in that first 7 week period of this year alone. From a recent February Reuters article, "Syria is self-destructing," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the Council on Foreign Relations on Monday. "After nearly two years, we no longer count days in hours, but in bodies. Another day, another 100, 200, 300 dead." "Fighting rages. Sectarian hatred is on the rise. The catalogue of war crimes is mounting," he said. "The Security Council must no longer stand on the sidelines, deadlocked, silently witnessing the slaughter."

Aleppo, Syria's 2nd largest city, is slowly being pummeled into a vast wasteland of concrete and rebar.

"The lack of consensus on Syria and the resulting inaction has been disastrous and civilians on all sides have paid the price," said [Navi Pillay, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights]. "We will be judged against the tragedy that has unfolded before our eyes." World powers are divided on how to stop the escalating violence in Syria ... Permanent Security Council members Russia and China have acted as Syria's protector on the council by repeatedly blocking Western efforts to take stronger U.N. action - such as sanctions - against the Syrian government to try to end the war. Both sides to the Syrian conflict have been accused of committing atrocities but the United Nations says the government and its allies have been more culpable."

China and Russia voted to oppose a UN proposal in 2012 that would have imposed a no-fly zone on Syria. Russian Ambassador to the UN - Vitaly Churkin; China ambassador to the UN - Li Baodong (image taken from return2source.wordpress.com)

Besides the appalling death toll, over 1 million Syrians have become either refugees (primarily across the borders into Turkey and Jordan but also to Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt) or are internally displaced. The basic infrastructure of the country - water,sewer and roads - are being demolished, as well as a variety of culturally significant structures and sites.

Fleeing by the numbers according to this CNN graphic

Refugee camps in both Jordan and Turkey are overloaded, but nonetheless better by far than more informal and rudimentary conditions of those Syrians displaced within the country itself.

Al-Nusra pledges allegiance to al-qaeda

Western sources, as well as factions within the Syrian opposition were dismayed by the announcement of one of the larger rebel factions that it was formally aligning itself with al-Qaeda. "The sons of Al-Nusra Front pledge allegiance to Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri," Abu Mohammed al-Jawlani said in a recording.

Al-nusra fighters in Syria. This faction has been labeled by the US as a terrorist organization...

From an AFP article, "A decision by the head of al-Nusra Front to pledge allegiance to Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri has prompted unprecedented criticism from some of Syria’s Islamist rebel brigades. Until now, rebels had sought to bury their differences with al-Nusra, reluctant to jeopardize ties with a force that is militarily superior to most of the country’s rebel factions. But an announcement this week by Al-Qaeda in Iraq, claiming al-Nusra as part of its network, and a pledge of allegiance from al-Nusra’s chief to Zawahiri have prompted rare direct and public criticism. “When we in Syria launched our jihad (holy war) against the sectarian regime... we did not do so for the sake of any allegiance to a man here or another there,” the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front, an umbrella group of rebel brigades, said in a statement on Thursday.

The announcement underscores a longstanding concern of Western allies that the Free Syria movement is increasingly infiltrated and radicalized by Islamic extremists, and ironically boosts Syrian President Assad's stance that he is fighting against Islamists.

US sending contingent to Jordan (aid now, but planning for a larger force with a more significant task)

From the AP, "The Pentagon is sending about 200 soldiers from an Army headquarters unit to Jordan to assist efforts to contain violence along the Syrian border and plan for any operations needed to ensure the safety of chemical weapons in Syria, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told Congress Wednesday." The development ups the ante for the US which has long resisted any significant military deployment connected to the Syrian conflict. The unit sent however, is not just one of generic "soldiers" but the 1st Armored Division's contingent of planners and specialists in intelligence, logistics and operations.

Click on image for full picture
Training camp inside Jordan but near Syrian border, similar to where US planners are now headed in greater numbers. Little acknowledged are the presence of UK troops with similar intent.

The deployment indicates the seriousness with which the US and other Western countries are viewing the creep of developments in Syria. Jordan has long resisted any significant presence of Western troops inside its country, as Jordanian islamists are sure to use the news to bolster their criticism. However, the increasing likelihood that Syria's chemical weapons arsenal will be in danger of being captured or transferred to Islamic elements has trumped those calculations.

Israel becoming very restless

Finally, Israel, long focused on Iran's growing nuclear capability, has acted only once in the Syrian civil war, attacking a convoy of weapons apparently headed to Lebanon in late January, 2013. Its military, though, is increasingly concerned that chemical weapons as well as advanced weaponry held by Assad's government may find their way into even more extremist hands.

In late January 2013, Israeli warplanes attacked a weapons convoy headed from Syria to Lebanon - details of what was targeted are not available to the "general public" and government reactions around the world were uniformly minimal - which usually signals it was a serious matter and that there is little to gain from acknowledging the action.

Events seem to be moving towards an uncertain end ... sometime in the next weeks or months.