After ISIS.

As the Syrian army, with support from Hezbollah and Russia crushes ISIS in Aleppo,  and as the Iraqi Army with support from Shite Militias and the US squeezes ISIS in Mosul, the next step becomes the big question. Will the US respect the wishes of the Syrian government and leave the Syria battle to its government and the Russian military, or will the US ignore the sovereign rights of the Syrian government and push to install a Kurdistan from North Eastern Syria and North Western Iraq? That is really the $1 million question. Will things escalate between Russia and the US on this battlefield or will there be a recognition of traditional spheres of influence.

Traditionally and historically, Turkey has done everything within its power to thwart a Kurdish state. Whether it be decades long intelligence/military operations against the Kurds within Turkey itself, or whether it be actual uninvited military incursions into Syria and/or Iraq to attack Kurdish fighting elements, the Turkish position has always been against the development of any Kurdish state. Given that the Kurds are claiming a good portion of South Eastern Turkey as part of the new Kurdistan one can somewhat understand the Turkish policy toward the Kurds. However, the result has been ongoing turmoil within the region for decades.

As it stands now the main force of the Syrian army, and allies, are focused around the Aleppo area in a time consuming fight in that city. The Turkish army has invaded and driven south toward the Al Raqqa area, although not to the city itself. Instead the Turks have pivoted east to take on the Kurds and drive them to at least behind the Euphrates River that runs through central Syria. At first the US had agreed to the Kurds withdrawing, but that seems to have changed and the Kurds are standing their ground. Meantime, the bulk of Iraqi forces are surrounding Mosul from three sides, but thus far leaving the western side of the city relatively open - which could allow the ISIS elements and others in the city to retreat westward to Syria. Curiously, a large contingent of Shite militia are attempting to cut off that exit by flanking Mosul, however Turkey has since warned them not to take the strategic city between Mosul and Al Raqqa that would cut off the ISIS retreat. All very complicated.

Bottom line is that within three months both Mosul and Aleppo will be liberated from ISIS and other Islamic forces. The race will then be on to take ISIS's capital Raqqa. Currently the Kurds, with their American allies, are closer than anyone else - other than the Turks. And that brings the Turkish role to the forefront. First point: Turkey is only in Syria because Russia allowed it to be so. Shortly after Turkey reconciled with Russia that country's army militarily intervened from the north, and secured its border with Syria. That effectively sealed any chance ISIS could resupply or sell oil to the north without Turkey's approval, and if Turkey approved such an action its relationship with Russia would be over before it started. So Russia's plan for Turkey was to seal the border first. Mission accomplished. In return, Turkey got the green light to go after the Kurds from Russia, but not the US.

Phase two, which hasn't happened just yet, will be Turkey sweeping into Raqqa before the Kurds and the US can. The Syrian army is out of position to move on Raqqa before anyone else does, because they are still fighting to the south along the Lebanon border. They must also retake Dayr az Zawr located strategically south of Raqqa and on the wrong side of the Euphrates River for anything other than a cross river assault - which would involve massive casualties and every chance of a serious defeat. So bank on it that Russia has already got Turkey to take on Raqqa. It suits both of their purposes.

Once that battle takes place, and the remnants of ISIS are trapped on the Syrian-Iraqi border, the focus turns to restoring the territorial integrity of not just Syria, but also Iraq. The area is rich in oil reserves - a wealth that both countries will need to rebuild their war-torn countries. However, American oil companies have strong ties and contracts with the Kurds in northern Iraq,  and are likely expecting the same kind of concessions in north eastern Syria. It is at this point in the conflict when push will come to shove. Russia will have no choice to back the Syrian military in recovering all their territory, and that means driving the Kurds from all of Syria. That will also involve driving all the Americans out of Syria to. Considering the US has opened an air force base in north east Syria, in Kurdish controlled territory, it is easy to see how this battle will escalate. Likely, the only factor that could stop an actual military confrontation between the US and Russia in eastern Syria would be the election of Donald Trump. He has pledged to work with Russia on destroying ISIS and my analysis of him is that he's a deal maker that would seed Syria because the it is Russia's sphere of influence. That is the only action that could stop a direct escalation between Russia and the US.

In case you haven't heard, Russia has mobilized its sole aircraft carrier, along with warships and submarines to the coast of Syria. It is also expanding the facilities of its Syrian air base. The Chinese have also declared they are prepared to intervene militarily on Syria's side. What we are witnessing right now is not the Russians preparing for immanent action in Syria. They are instead prepositioning resources for a much larger battle with the US and its allies. The Americans are doing the same thing by position naval forces off the coast near Syria, and massively reinforcing the air base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. If Trump does not win the US Presidential election, and reverse the show down in Syria, then these prepositioned forces will engage each other. That's why they're there. They're not there to take on rebels, or ISIS or Hezbollah, or Kurds or the Syrian army.

It has to be said that a lot rides on the result of that politicians gone wild election to the south of our country. On the one hand a deal maker who is not opposed to pulling the US back from the "policeman of the world" self-appointed status it has generally abused for the last two decades. He may be a chauvinistic you know what, but he may not be a blood thirsty imperialist - so that's ok by me if the choice comes down to it. Hillary Clinton on the other hand has been shown to be an instrument of the big corporations that are driving America's foreign policy, and also driving it to placing it and the rest of us in the world in mortal danger. So, my fingers and toes are crossed that the egotistical chauvinist isolationist wins in a few days from now, and not the corrupt insider doing the bidding of those that not only do not respect humanity, but in fact see it as a mere inconvenience in a quest to have the world as they see it.

ISIS - Frankenstein or Bait?

ISIS, the Sunni Islamic militant force, is the birth child of a marriage between Saudi Arabia's regional ambition and the United States' geo-strategic interests. It's really that simple. It's ramifications are not quite so simple.

The Americans have always been aware that having Sunnis in charge of a country keeps the lid on things - to their benefit. It's been an ongoing theme now for almost 80 years. Saudi Arabia is the "world headquarters" for the Sunni sect. It has the strategic alliance with the US. It has the money because of that alliance, and it uses the money to arm itself and its Sunni allies. The same is true for Iran - with the exception of who is in charge since the Shah of Iran was overthrown in the late 1990's. There is a common thread throughout this history. It cannot seriously be denied. It's obvious. The United States lies behind Saudi Arabia, and American controlled Sunni governments are kept in power to preserve that alliance.

In recent times, there are two classic examples of Sunni leaders that were brought down by US military power at the behest of Saudi Arabia - Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein. Both challenged Saudi Arabia's control of the Middle East, and both were overthrown with the decisive assistance, or actual military intervention of the US. Each publicly stated the US would never overthrow them, because to do so would mean Al Qaeda would take over. Both were wrong. It begs the question, why were both so convinced that the US would not overthrow them and let Al Qaeda, a Sunni militant movement, take over?

The answer lies in US "strategic interests", not just in the Middle East, but beyond. ISIS, the new version of Al Qaeda, is challenging for control of Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. In Yemen, ISIS is fighting the Shia Houthi, who have overthrown the Saudi-supported Sunni leader there. In Iraq and Syria, ISIS is aiming for full control of both countries, and the overthrow of their Shia leadership. ISIS is even attempting to destabilize Hezbollah (Shia) in Lebanon, and challenge Sunni Hamas over control in the Gaza strip. In effect and reality, ISIS is the foreign legion of Saudi Arabia and therefore the US.

Now, people will say that ISIS is a threat to the West. That simply is not true. ISIS is a threat to Shia governments in the Middle East, and too-moderate Sunni governments, but has no chance of harming Western civilization. Some will sight the deaths in Canada and Europe at the hands of ISIS as proof that our civilization is under threat, and draconian laws are necessary to stop them. That simply is not true. In fact, all ISIS did was activate two people, in the case of France three, to conduct targeted hits in Western countries that caused fury - but no national damage. It was not there, then it was there, and now it is not. A bogey man so too speak. Enough of a scare that people would get behind their military intervening in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Not enough to do any sort of damage whatsoever to the security of these Western countries. A slight of hand if you will.

It challenges the mind to think that the combined air might of Western countries could not reduce ISIS in Syria and Iraq into dust within a few weeks at most. It did so when ISIS went rogue and tried to take Iraqi Kurdistan in Iraq's north. ISIS was almost immediately stopped dead in its tracks. Of course, the Kurdish lands in northern Iraq have become almost a US protectorate - and US oil company haven. But, in the rest of Iraq, it seems the air campaign has almost no effect on ISIS operations.

Now, just yesterday the major Iraqi city of Ramadi has fallen to ISIS. And, today, thousands of Shia militia men are gathering to try and take it back. Ramadi is important for several reasons. Firstly, it is very close to Baghdad and provides a major base of operations for ISIS to attack Baghdad itself. Secondly, it is a major psychological blow to Iraq's Shia government and its people. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, it is a direct threat to Iran. It is a threat that Iran will no longer be able to ignore. Hence, Iran's Minister of Defence arrived in Baghdad today for "talks". Iran's allies in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, and now Iraq are being seriously threatened by ISIS, on behalf of Saudi Arabia, on behalf of the US. Its back is now close to being up against the wall. If it fails to militarily intervene in Iraq decisively, and early enough, it risks having the ISIS hordes on its own border. If it does intervene now it risks a counter military intervention by Saudi Arabia in Iraq. It's all in the calculation. Unfortunately for the world, it appears now the calculations are pointing toward war with Iraq being the primary battleground.

So, is ISIS a Frankenstein created by Saudi Arabia, out of control, and allowed by the US, or is it bait to lure Iran into a decisive war and its ultimate defeat. One thing is certain, it's not both. ISIS is not a Frankenstein that once created has left the control of its master, and is rampaging across the Middle East out of control. No. ISIS is a tool to undermine Shia influence in the Middle East. To destroy it. To establish once and for all that Sunnis are to dominate power over all the Middle East, and especially the Shia. It's an ancient battle of the two Islamic sects. Each considers the other heretics. Each believes heretics must die. ISIS is a weapon. A weapon of mass destruction. An invitation to much greater mass destruction on a regional level, and then perhaps a global level. ISIS is bait to lure Iran into war, and then presumably Russia, China, India, etc. ISIS is also a weapon to lure the US into a war against Iran in the "defence" of Saudi Arabia. It's a playbook if you will for a world war.  ISIS is a weapon in the hands of men that don't want peace or stability in the world. In that way, ISIS is a menace to all of us.

  

Lest We Forget

Lest we forget. That is the motto of the last two world wars. The question could be : "Lest we forget what?" Is it the men and women who died, were wounded and forever scarred by war that we are meant not to forget? Not likely, in the sense that we never knew them. Some of us had loved ones in the war, in my case a father, but I would never forget him in any case. Is it the mass destruction, the slaughter of civilians, the absolute firepower that these armies unleashed that we are meant to forget? I would argue it's all of these things, summed up in one word - sacrifice.

But, what was that sacrifice for? In different countries there were as many different reasons. For the Russians it was the "Great Patriotic War". For the British Empire it was "Empire War", and for the Americans it was the "Mess with us and die War". In the sixty odd years since the last world war we commonly see that struggle as the "War for Freedom". Freedom meaning our society would never become a police state as was the case with Nazi Germany. Personal freedom, democracy, and the rule of law would guide our nation. We prided ourselves on this, and the average person on the streets never questions it should be any other way.

Then, in a murderous, chaotic moment at the National War Monument, and then Parliament Hill, all that came into question. Or did it? As a young Corporal lay dying near the tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and as the young attacker who caused his death died in a hail of bullets in the Hall of Honour, national media were already saying "This changes Canada forever". If that sounds familiar it's likely your mind wondering back to the events of "911" and the rhetoric that came afterward from the politicians: the world is changed; America has changed; the Patriot Act; Guantanamo; wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; making the world safe for democracy; you are with us or against us. Yes, the ghosts of 911 immediately sprang to life in the Canadian national media.

But, is that really true? Perhaps I missed it? At what point did the Canadian people agree to abandon their freedom for "security"? Did we agree to forfeit our freedom that was guaranteed by the deaths of over 100,000 Canadians in two world wars over the deaths of two soldiers at the hands of two now dead ISIS sympathizers? Is our freedom, our way of life really that weak? Are we that insecure? Are we prepared to capitulate and surrender the gift of freedom, earned by the blood of our ancestors on foreign battle fields, so that we may know what it is to not live in a police state?

After the attack in Ottawa by a lone gunman the military was ordered not to wear their uniforms anywhere in the country while off base. Then, a day later, the decision was overturned. It was an immediate surrender of pride, freedom, and honour by politicians in a panic. An over reaction. What the might of Nazi Germany could not do, one lone gunman achieved - if only briefly. The national media, particularly the state-owned CBC, immediately began the call for restricting our freedom to our Parliament and greater state intrusions into our personal lives. All in the name of security. All in the name of the "greater good". Just like 911. Hopefully, that will face the same fate as the order not to wear uniforms.

The bigger lesson in all of this is just how ready "the powers to be" are to sacrifice our rights in the name of security. It was almost like they were looking for an excuse to do that, and once presented, they quickly grasped it. However, they ignore one very crucial thing. The blood of 100,000 dead earned us the right to keep that freedom. The hundreds of thousands of men and women wounded and altered by their war experience for life earned us that right. Rights that are guaranteed by our Constitution now. Freedom that is not subject to political whims or expediency. Freedom that is eternal as the flame that burns on Parliament Hill. It is paid for in full. It makes us who we are. Without it we are nothing.

The lesson for people like ISIS is that Canada can be rocked by the death of two soldiers at home. That the collective Canadian psyche is so weak that a lone gunman can bring it down by one moment of madness. Far from deterring another attack by the likes of ISIS, Canada's response must be mightily encouraging to them. Therein lies the danger. We are showing weakness. After all, ISIS doesn't care about our societal values. It cares about our personal values. It cares that we insist on freedom and equality for women, as an example. There are many others. The point is, they want to change us more than change our government. If we allow this attack to in any way alter us then they have won. When we should be giving a Churchill-like "some chicken, some neck", we instead give a Chamberlain-like "peace in our time".

Appeasing, even rewarding people like ISIS with the degradation of our freedom speaks more about us than them. It says we are weak, scared, and without courage of conviction. It says we do not find strength in the fields of Canadian crosses oversees, but rather we scurry to whatever system that will allow us to freely shop at Walmart. It says our society, and our belief system, is based on convenience rather than principle. Perhaps people like ISIS already suspect this about us. Perhaps it's even true. But, it doesn't have to be. We don't have to stand on a cold highway, and awkwardly (even bizarrely)  sing O Canada and clap as if we were at a hockey game as a lone hearse carries a dead soldier to a funeral home. Perhaps we could stand in steely silence, honour the man's sacrifice, and swear to ourselves and him that we won't trade off the freedom given by the men and women whose monument he had guarded. That would be the ultimate statement. The strength of our character and values was tested in two world wars. We prevailed. That mantle was given to us. Lest we forget.