Fighting Islamic Terrorism In the Wake Of Orlando, Part 2 - Situation Analysis and Long Term Resolution Assumptions

Yesterday we took some time to discuss the terrorist attack at a nightclub in Orlando a few weekends ago. We listed out a number of steps that needed to be taken in the short term, and extending into the long term, that would help prevent similar attacks in the future. These steps require extensive effort on behalf of the government and the Washington political class, something that neither has had the will or ability to do in the past. 

Instead, we get people like Obama and other liberals inside and outside of government that, as always, go to the knee jerk reaction of limiting Americans access to guns. As we pointed out yesterday, the 9-11 attackers did not storm the Twin Towers with AR 15 rifles, they used airplanes to carry their terror plans. The Boston Marathon bombers did not jump into a crowd in Boston and start shooting up the place, they used homemade bombs. Other terrorists here and around the world have used simple knives to kill in the name of terror.

We also pointed out that if a person wanted to carry out a terror attack, any new gun control laws passed by Washington would be nothing more than an inconvenience, if anyone wants a gun in this country, the drug cartels or other organized, and unorganized, criminal entity would be more than willing to make a few bucks by providing such weapons and guns. That is why the many suggestions we provided yesterday to attack the root causes of terrorism are far more important and more likely to be effective than window dressing gun control restrictions.

However, there has to be an overarching strategy to eliminate the terror threat from ISIS long term. While our suggestions from yesterday would go a long way to help protecting us, a long term strategy to settle down the violence and hatred in the Middle East is required at the highest levels of diplomacy. That is where Obama needs to be concentrating as his Presidency winds down, putting together a long term plan, strategy, and way of life that brings all of the diplomatic players together in a grand coalition and effort that finally eliminates the root cause of the ISIS terror reign.

However, since he seems more interested in changing national bathroom policies, hosting Super Bowl teams at the White House, and hiking around a national park out west, let us start the discussion today on what the grand plan might look like, why it would work and how each interested party would have to give a little to get a lot, i.e. the end of the ISIS threat.

In proposing this solution and plan, we realize that we are not trained diplomats. We have never held elected office. But we do realize that to have a final plan in any facet of life, you have to have at least a preliminary plan that is tweaked, negotiated, adjusted over time, etc. And since Obama, John Kerry, et al do not appear to have or have the ability to have a plan, they are more than welcome to start with ours.

1) Part One - Situational Analysis: You cannot resolve any problem without defining where you are today. Same thing with a diplomatic problem and hopefully, a diplomatic solution. As I see it, there are nine major players involved in the mess in Syria with ISIS:

1. ISIS - the most ruthless, heartless, and well financed Islamic terror group ever, currently dominating large parts of Syria and Iraq, composed of Sunni Muslims.
2. The United States - because we stick our noses into everything and the rise of ISIS was facilitated by the Obama administration.
3. Syria - or what is left of it, headed up by Assad, a Shiite Muslim.
4. Russia - an ally of Assad.
5. Iran - a Shiite dominated country and ally of Assad.
6. Iraq - a Shiite dominated country and an ally of Assad and Iran.
7. Turkey - bordering Syria, anti-Assad, and an ISIS sympathizer.
8. Saudi Arabia - and other Sunni Muslim Gulf states who are at least ISIS sympathizers if not more.
9. Kurds - Anti-ISIS fighters with the majority of Kurds living in northern Iraq and who want their own country.

Nine different players that can and have had major impacts on the whole Syrian civil war/ISIS rise debacle. But it gets even more confusing when you try to map out visually on how these nine entities interact, resist, or cooperate with each other. The following crude picture tries to capture the multi layers of relationships between these nine players. The red lines indicate when two of these parties are each others’ enemy and the dotted green lines indicate when two of these parties are each others’ allies:

While I am pretty sure that this graph is not comprehensive, you can see that relationships that are mapped out result in some pretty strange results:

• The United States is an enemy of Iran but we have a common enemy in ISIS. 
• The United States is an ally of Turkey who is an ISIS sympathizer
• The United States is an ally of the Saudis which is at least a sympathizer of ISIS.
• The United States and Russia do not get along at all recently but we have a common enemy in ISIS with opposing views of Assad and Syria.

You could go on and on but you get the idea, it is certainly a tangled web of enemies, allies, self interest, and the most important factor, oil and oil pipelines. (note: when I refer to oil in this post I also include natural gas.)

I mention oil for the first time because I believe that oil is a major driver of the entire crisis. One could make the case, which is the assumption that we will going under, that the Sunni Saudis and their Sunni allies would like to get rid of Shiite Assad so that they can build a pipeline for their Sunni oil through Syria. 

Such a pipeline would likely cause an economic disadvantage to the Russian oil industry so Russia would like to keep Assad in power to control any pipeline that goes through Syrian territory and work with the likes of Iran so that if any pipeline is built, it is a Shiite controlled pipeline with Russian support. Keeping Assad in place also gives the Russian military more flexibility in using the geography of Syria as a military port.

Of course there are other subplots going on but I believe oil drives the bulk of the conflict. Given all of the interdependencies, oil wealth and potential oil wealth, the whole Shiite vs. Sunni situation, etc., what is a diplomatic solution that allows each of the nine parties above to walk away with something positive from their diplomatic efforts even if it is not everything they would want? Obviously, everyone trying to get everything from this mess has not resolved this mess.

2) Long Term Resolution Assumptions - We need to make a number of assumptions before laying out the plan:

• ISIS needs to be defeated militarily and dismantled.
• The United Nations needs to be involved and engaged immediately after the defeat of ISIS to provide food, shelter, and help in reestablishing law and order to the ISIS areas.
• All countries will provide humanitarian and financial help after the ISIS defeat along the lines of the Marshall Plan after World War II.
• Refugees will be encouraged to return to their home countries with financial and transportation aid part of the encouragement.
• A United Nations peacekeeping force will be in place until no longer needed to ensure the reconstruction and terms of any diplomatic agreement are met.

Proposed details on what this grand diplomatic solution might look like, given the situation analysis and assumptions listed above will be laid out tomorrow. Included in the analysis will be a detailed look at what each of the nine parties listed above get and what they do not get as a result of the diplomatic solution. 

Hint: everyone gets something good, no one gets all of the good they would like to get.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

www.loathemygovernment.com

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:


http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.bankruptingamerica.org
http://www.conventionofstates.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w

Political Class Insanity Special Edition Part 1: Syrian Madness, Its The Russians and Americans Vs. Barack Obama

Every month we take a  number of days at the start of the month to review the latest idiocy, lunacy, and insanity from the American political  class. While we are in the midst of that regular feature now for September, we are going to digress from that series for a day or so to review the specialized political class insanity that is focused on Syria.

As most informed Americans know, in the summer of 2012, President Obama warned the Syrian government not to use poison gas on the opposition rebel force involved in the civil war in that country. He explicitly stated that using poison gas would “cross a red line” and result in dire consequences for the government of Syria.

Unfortunately, the President left the threat at that, “you had better not do it.” He did not go to Congress and get Constitutional authorization to engage the Syrian government with U.S. armed forces if that line was crossed. 

He did not explain his rationale and reasoning for his threat to the American people to get their support for yet another military conflict in the Middle East. 

He did not go to the United Nations to get the international community behind his threat. 

He did not rally America’s allies to support him in any military operation against the Syrian government.

He did not use diplomacy with Syrian allies such as Russia and China to leverage their pull with the Syrian government to prevent the use of poison gas.

Bottom line is he made the red line threat and did NOTHING to back it up. He played a lot of golf, he had a lot of lavish vacations, etc. but he did not do the necessary detailed work to provide the back up to what is turning out to be an idle threat.

As a result, he is now faced with making good on the red line threat without Congressional support so far, without the American people supporting his threat, without the legal backing of the United Nations, with virtually no support from our allies to support a military operation, and getting no support from Syria’s allies.

He has put himself and the country out on a very thin limb in the eyes of the world. If he does not back up the threat, he looks weak. If he does back up the threat, he risks making the U.S. look like the neighborhood bully, more people will likely die, more American taxpayer wealth will be wasted, and his lack of planning will result in another useless and expensive U.S. military excursion into the Middle East. None of the previous excursions did any good and there is no reason to believe that this one will do any good either.

We will explore the many, many reasons why this Obama adventure makes no sense from a bunch of different perspectives and reasons from various sources and experts over at least the next two days. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail in Congress and no authorization for military use is approved for the President, for the myriad of reasons listed below.

1) A September 5, 2013 article from Newsmax, summarized the latest public opinion findings relative to our use of our military in Syria to punish the Syrian government for the alleged use of poison gas on its citizens:

• According to an ABC News/ Washington Post poll from August 28-September 1, 59% of Americans oppose U.S. missile strikes, even when told of the administration's belief that the Syrian government used chemical weapons to kill an estimated 1,429 civilians. 
• Only 36% of those surveyed support retaliatory strikes.
• Another 70% oppose the United States and its allies supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels.
• The findings in the poll of 1,012 adults are consistent across party lines.
• The poll also determined that people are less opposed to action in Syria if the U.S. is joined by allies. 46% of those surveyed would support allied air strikes, while 51% would still oppose them. Great Britain, however, has already voted against air strikes.

It looks like no matter you cut the feeling in America, the majority of the country does not want to get stuck in another no win military situation in Syria. When Bush foolishly invaded Iraq, he had a large majority of the country supporting him at the beginning and it was still a failure. Going into the Syria problem without the backing of most of America is not a good position for the President to be in.

2) Let’s stay with what the American public is saying about U.S. military intervention in Syria but look at it through the eyes of the twitter and social media accounts of Washington politicians, not just an opinion survey:

• Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, tweeted, “Calls and emails from my constituents is 100 to 1 AGAINST getting involved in Syria. The American people are speaking.”
• Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said 99 percent of the calls his office oppose an attack.
• Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., said, “Constituents who have contacted my office by phone or mail oppose action in Syria 523-4 so far.”
• Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., tweeted, “My phones are blowing up, and an overwhelming amount of constituents oppose U.S. military intervention in Syria.”
• Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., tweeted, “Syria constituent calls 489-2 against.”
• Rep. Shelley Capito, R-W.V., said of “about 1,000 calls to my office, maybe 5 are for.”
• Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., said calls and emails to his offices are 600 to 9 against striking Syria.
• Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark., tweeted, “I received 225 emails via www.griffin.house.gov website over the weekend regarding Syria, and out of the 225 only 3 support U.S. military action against Syria.”
• Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, said he is getting swamped with phone calls and on-the-street comments from constituents telling him to oppose a strike on Syria.
• Rep. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said, “I’m told the phone calls are 9 out of 10 against a strike in Syria, from my constituents in Kentucky.”
• Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas: “I have received hundreds of calls and letters from constituents expressing strong opposition.”
• Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., tweeted, “My office has been inundated with constituent phone calls and emails about Syria. Virtually unanimous opposition to military intervention.”
• Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, tweeted, “So far about 500 emails regarding Syria. 499 say NO and 1 say YES go to war” and “Hundreds of calls to our Provo and Washington, D.C., office. So far not a single call in favor of bombing Syria.”
• Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., tweeted, “The phones in my office are ringing off the hook and mail is flowing in. Almost all of the people are opposed to intervention in Syria.”
• Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, tells WND his office is hearing the same overwhelming opposition to intervention.
• Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., said, “I don’t know a member of Congress whose e-mails and phone calls are in favor of [bombing Syria.]”
• Rep. Steve Southerland, R-Fla., said 96 percent of his emails and phone calls are from constituents who want to express their opposition to military action. He said, “Overwhelmingly, we are hearing pushback from our citizens against military intervention in Syria.”
• Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., said he’s heard no support from his constituents for striking Syria: “I have not had a single person, not a single person, in over 92 Facebook posts just a little while ago in a question we posed, having a single constituent or a South Carolinian saying let’s go to war in Syria.”
• Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, said “a very high percentage” of the constituents contacting his office have been against U.S. involvement in Syria. He estimated that 90 percent of more than 1,000 calls and emails from Americans have been urging him not to support intervention.
• Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said, “I can tell you that in my office, the phones are bopping off the hook there. And almost unanimously people are opposed to what the president is talking about.”
• Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., told the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing he and his constituents say “not just no, but heck no!” to Syria intervention.
• Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., tweeted, “I’ve been hearing a lot from members of our armed forces. The message I consistently hear: Please vote no on military action against Syria.”

Democrats and Republicans, House of Representatives people and Senators, from Florida to Washington state, the message is brutally clear of those citizens taking the time to weigh in on this very serious matter: Americans do not support military intervention in Syria. Period.

At least Americans understand that this effort is fruitless and will make a bad situation worse. It will be interesting to see if the members of Congress take this mandate to heart and deny the President Constitutional authority to launch an ill advised, just plain stupid and useless, military attack.

3) One of the sad things about just about anything the American political class does is to take action without understanding what unintended consequences may occur. Syria and Obama’s idle threat are no different. In an interview on September 4, 2013, Russian President Vladimir Putin indicated the potential for two unintended consequences if Obama attacks Syria. 

First, he indicated that if we do attack Syria, Russia would provide missile defense hardware to Syria and other near by countries to protect them from subsequent U.S. military attacks. Second, he also indicated that Russia would replace any military equipment destroyed by a U.S. attack.

Great planning, Mr. President. Looks like you could be starting another Cold War environment with Russia for no military, security, or international gain.  Given that Obama has made it clear that any attack would be short and small and he has given the Syrians twelve months warning to secure their military apparatus, any damage our missiles do will likely be minimal and not anything close to a knock out punch. 

We will leave the Syrian government intact and likely stronger and more belligerent, with any damaged military hardware replaced by Russia, with a new missile shield to protect against any future attack, and make the U.S. look like a fool. You cannot make up this insanity.

4) Staying with the Russians for a moment, they have  compiled a 100-page report detailing what it says is evidence that Syrian rebels, not forces loyal to President Bashar Assad, were behind a deadly sarin gas attack in an Aleppo suburb earlier this year. They also claim that the United Nations is also leaning the same way, that the rebels and not the government released the gas.

Now, Russia is not an uninterested bystander in this affair. Syria buys a lot of stuff from Russia and Russia’s only Mediterranean port is in Syria. It has a lot to lose if the regime changes in Syria. But given how many lies the Obama administration has told us relative to Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Obama Care, etc., it makes you almost wonder if Russia is actually telling the truth as opposed to the Obama administration telling the truth, for once.

And the Russians are not the only parties making this allegation, although these other parties also have irons in the fire. The most persistent story is that Saudi Arabia provided the poison gas to the rebels, who they side with. And that the rebel forces, who had no experience in dealing with poison gas canisters, accidentally release the gas when handling the canisters.

And consider the logic in the Russians’ position and assertion. The Syrian government was starting to turn the tide against the rebels. With support from Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, the rebels were back on their heels. Why would the Syrian government risk U.S. military intervention when they were wining? Makes no sense from a logic perspective unless 1) the Syrian leaders are idiots or 2) the Russians and others are telling the truth as opposed to Obama, Kerry, and others in the administration.

This gets us started down the political class insanity trail as it relates to Syria. More insanity to come, at least for one or two more days, but it may take longer as Congress gets off its five week vacation next week. The bottom line so far is that the American public does not want this military action and the unintended consequences for so very little upside is truly lunacy. 

If you are so inclined to agree with this conclusion, please contact your Congressional representatives in Washington as soon as possible and make your voice heard. U.S. military intervention in the Middle East has never worked out and this is no exception. These folks in the Middle East have been fighting amongst themselves for centuries, anything we do militarily will have no positive effects whatsoever.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

www.loathemygovernment.com

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

Term Limits Now:http://www.howmuchworsecoulditget.com
http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.robertringer.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w