Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Intervention in Syria: Just Waiting for an Excuse

I believe that the conditions are now set to "justify" US/NATO intervention in Syria should Bashar al-Assad cross a "red line."
  1. The United States has formally recognized the Syrian opposition coalition as the "legitimate representative of the Syrian people."  France, Britain, Turkey and the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, et al) have also formally recognized the rebel coalition.  (VOA)  That makes the Assad regime illegitimate.  Does that somehow make us justified to protect this "legitimate" Syrian government from attack by Assad's regime?
  2. The United States has designated the Al Nusra Front, a Syrian rebel group, as a terrorist organization.  The Al Nusra Front is claimed to be an off-shoot of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).  (HotAir, The Investigative Project)  As described in my piece "Al Qaeda: Tip of the Brotherhood's Spear," the existence of this group in Syria obliges the United States to become involved in the conflict to prevent its arch-enemy, Al Qaeda, from taking over the government or obtaining WMDs.  This means US support for the non-al-Qaeda rebels.
  3. There have been multiple reports that the forces of the Assad regime are preparing to employ chemical weapons (e.g. sarin nerve agent) against the rebels.  This has been identified as a "red line" that would trigger US/NATO intervention should it be crossed. (Reuters)
  4. Syria has reportedly fired SCUD missiles against rebels within the borders of Syria (from Damascus to the north, close to Turkey). (CNN)  Should they stray into Turkey, or carry chemical weapons, that will "justify" intervention.  Patriot missile systems have been deployed to Turkey that have the capability to shoot down many types of surface-to-surface missiles like the SCUD.  (Foreign Policy)
Again I ask: why is no American leader opposing our march to war in Syria?

--Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Arab Spring Update, 25 June 2012

Turkey said Monday it would push NATO to consider Syria's downing of a Turkish jet as an attack on the whole military alliance....Turkey will push NATO to consider the jet's downing under Article 5 in a key alliance treaty. Article 5 states that an attack against one NATO member shall be considered an attack against all members.  (Stars and Stripes)


Syria:  Turkey's cabinet was supposed to have met on Monday, 25 June, to discuss the downing of a Turkish aircraft by Syrian government forces and determine a proper response.  Turkey has also called for a NATO meeting under Article 4 (Consultations) on Tuesday, 26 June, to discuss the same issue.  Secretary of State Clinton called the incident a "brazen and unacceptable act in the strongest possible terms." Reports indicate that 33 Syrian soldiers defected to Turkey, which apparently included two colonels and a general.  (Comment: As I have said many times, America must not get involved in Syria.  It is a lose-lose situation for us.  How many more wars are we going to fight on behalf of those who are not our allies, but are instead our enemies?) (Sources: MSNBC, CNN, Stars and Stripes)

Egypt:  The Muslim Brotherhood's candidate for President of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi, has been declared the winner.  He has declared that he will review Egypt's peace treaty with Israel, which will most likely be thrown out.  The Coptic Christians in Egypt may soon be under threat of death, conversion to Islam, or paying the jizya tax.  (Sources: Jerusalem Post, Washington Post)

Kuwait:  The Kuwaiti cabinet resigned on Monday, 25 June.  I don't get this one, so you can read it for yourself: Reuters article.

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Turkey Threatens Syria

Please notice the words that the Prime Minister of Turkey uses in reference to his nation's crisis with Syria:
Erdogan said Syria shot down the unarmed plane in international airspace in a `deliberate' and `hostile' act and without warning. He said border violations in the region were not uncommon. He said Syrian helicopters violated Turkish airspace five times recently, without Turkish response. 
AP
"No one should be deceived by our cold blooded stance," Erdogan said. "Our acting with common sense should not be perceived as a weakness." 
The downing of the jet has aggravated tense ties between the two neighbors. Turkey has repeatedly called on Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down as 33,000 Syrians have sought refuge in Turkey, fleeing a government crackdown on a popular uprising.  
Erdogan said as much as Turkey's friendship is valuable, Turkey's "wrath is as much violent and crushing."  
He said: "we will continue to be a burning torment for circles who have adopted a hostile attitude toward Turkey."  (from Fox News article)
Turkey is understandably upset about the downing of its aircraft, but it appears to have flown into Syrian sovereign airspace.  Last time I checked, Syria has the right to defend itself from perceived threats that enter into the airspace of its nation.

After these bellicose and inflammatory words from Erdogan, plus Turkey's behavior over the past few months, I must recommend that Turkey be removed from NATO and never be considered for entrance into the European Union.  We should do no fighting on Turkey's behalf.  It is clearly a regime hell bent on expanding its power in both the Middle East and Europe, and the actions it takes and wishes to take are not in the best interests of the United States of America.

Please see my previous posts on Turkey for more validation of my stance based on their behavior:

17 Aug 11: Coup Plot in Turkey

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.


Monday, May 28, 2012

Syria: The "Atrocities" Excuse to Violate National Sovereignty


Cover: The Responsibility to Protect
The escalating "atrocities" in Syria could end up triggering a military intervention, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told Fox News on Monday -- following the massacre that left more than 100 dead.  (FoxNews article)
International efforts to pressure Syria intensified on Monday, as the United Nations special envoy Kofi Annan began negotiations in the capital, Damascus, and the chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff warned that continued atrocities could make military intervention more likely.  (New York Times article)
Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States....America's reputation suffers, and our ability to bring about change is constrained, when we are perceived as idle in the face of mass atrocities and genocide.  (PSD-10 Mass Atrocities)
Employing our military in support of the UN's Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) Doctrine is not in our national interest and is not the proper use of our military.  In no way do the killings (or "atrocities") in Syria have anything to do with the United States of America.  Certainly we do not like Assad for his support of Hezbollah and Iran, but he has not directly threatened or attacked our nation.  We cannot use "atrocities" as an excuse to depose him or any other ruler that we do not like.  In short, accusations of "atrocities" are a method to legitimate the violation of another nation's sovereignty in order to overthrow a government that does not support the goals of the US and/or the UN.

Should we choose to conduct military operations (war) in Syria, either as a result of a UN Resolution or Article V of the NATO (Washington) Treaty, other nations will not view it as a legitimate use of force.  Russia will most likely be one of them, and may seek to catastrophically reduce our powers as they will perceive the US as being an unconstrained threat to their national interests abroad.  China could be another.  Iran will certainly look to retaliate should they lose their key ally on the Mediterranean.  Military intervention in Syria could set off a catastrophic chain of events.

Deposing Assad would also result in another domino falling to the Muslim Brotherhood and another step toward the creation of a Sunni Caliphate.  Neither side in Syria are friends of ours, and it is in our best interest to let them continue fighting each other.

This Memorial Day, we as Americans must ensure that our service members give their lives in defense of the Constitution and the people of the United States, and not in the pursuit of some specious crusade against a people who do not pose a direct threat to us.  Their job is not to bring order to the world on behalf of the United Nations and its attainment of a disturbed vision of worldwide control.  Not a single American need die in a war against Syria for committing "atrocities" against its own people.

Here is a partial timeline that lays out how the Executive Branch of the United States Government has been actively adopting and institutionalizing the United Nation's "Responsibility to Protect" as our own foreign policy:

  • May 27, 2012         "Massacre" of civilians in Houla provides the UN with an excuse to legitimate military intervention under the "RtoP Doctrine" (The Australian article)
  • April 23, 2012       President Obama pledges to develop a comprehensive strategy to prevent and respond to mass atrocities (exploiting the Holocaust to justify the use of force against any nation accused of committing "atrocities"; source)
  • August 4, 2011      Presidential Study Directive 10 (PSD-10) on Mass Atrocities Issued
  • Early 2011             NATO employs lethal force to "protect" Libyan civilians
  • January 30, 2009   Ban Ki-moon issued a report on "Implementing the Responsibility to Protect" (more info)
  • September 15, 2005   UN Introduces the "Responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity" (items 138-140) in the UN General Assembly (document link)
Where is the United States Congress in all of this?  The Executive Branch is clearly telegraphing its intention to use military force in Syria.  Congress needs to say "no."

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Friday, August 12, 2011

No Jews Allowed

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

In the new Palestinian State.  That is if Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen has his wish.
Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas told visiting US Congressmen on Thursday he wants the security of a future PA state to be handed to NATO under US command, the Maan news agency reported Friday.

The PA state must also be "empty of settlements," Abbas said, according to official Palestinian Authority news agency WAFA.

Members of the US Congress and Senate delegation, headed by Democrat Senator Steny Hoyer, met with Abbas in Ramallah on Thursday, and quizzed Abbas on Israel's designation as a Jewish state, the status of refugees, and reconciliation between Abbas' Fatah party and rival Hamas, Presidential adviser Nimir Hamad said.

Abbas reiterated the Palestinian Authority's well-known positions on these matters, Hammad added, and specified that security responsibility for the Palestinian Authority would be handled by a third party, suggesting the US-Europe military alliance NATO.

In September 2010, Abbas outlined his government's acceptance of international forces from NATO or similar to the UNIFIL force operating in southern Lebanon playing a role in PA security, as long as forces did not include one single Israeli, whether from the civilian population or the military.

Abbas is currently pursuing a unilateral recognition of PA statehood based on pre-1967 lines at the United Nations in September.

Source
No Jews allowed in their "hallowed" land.  Not even if that Jew was a member of a NATO force.  The land must be cleansed of all contamination by those evil people.  And Sheik Barack Hussein Obama will not only support this idea, but will commit thousands of American troops (No Jews will be permitted to go) to the idea.

Just another way Sheik Obama will destroy Israel.


Thursday, March 31, 2011

Libyan Rebels Advancing -- to the REAR!



Libyan Rebels Advancing -- to the REAR!

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet


I watched a couple of commentators gently arguing with each other, a few days ago, about who was winning the fight in Libya.

The commentator from the left proclaimed the rebels were winning and she was interrupted by the commentator from the right who asked the piercing question: If they are winning why are they going in the wrong direction? He went on to say the rebels were going east while Gaddafi and his troops were in the west.

I had to laugh as I remembered the expression coined during the Korean conflict (WAR) when American troops were in retreat from the communist Chinese troops. The US commander declared his troops were not retreating; they were simply advancing in another direction.

While we armchair generals assess Obama's efforts at playing soldier, we would find it amusing were it not for the fact that lives are being lost in a cause that, without troops on the ground, is already a lost cause.

Any military veteran can tell you that superior air power will enable a force to clear a piece of ground of the enemy. But air power, alone, cannot secure that piece of ground. It requires troops on the ground, infantry, artillery, etc to hold that piece of real estate. The same applies to a country.

Obama's War in Libya is already a mess. In my time in the military we had what was known as a SNAFU. Interpreted it is an acronym that stands for: "Situation Normal -- All F**ked-up!" Later, as things got worse, the term FUBAR came into use. It, too is an acronym which stands for: "F**Ked-up Beyond All Recognition!"

What we are seeing in Libya is a SNAFU quickly turning into a FUBAR! FUBARS occur when you have commanders at the top who haven't a clue what they are doing. They tend to always make the situation, whatever it is, worse!

A couple of two-man teams from the military base near me, here in North Carolina, could relieve the world of a madman, in a few days, and the thorn in the side of the world would be removed. Many lives would be saved.

These men are specially trained to do those "wet" jobs and like ghosts never leave any provable evidence of their ever having been there -- thus, providing the President with "plausible deniability."

Contrary to what you may have heard, or read, or been told, there is no US law forbidding the killing of the leader of another country. There is only a presidential directive, or executive order, which can be changed by the issuance of another directive from the then serving President.

So far Obama's War resembles a dog chasing its tail. It is furiously going round and round but making no discernable progress -- at all.

So -- now that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- NATO -- has the reins (NATO is simply another name for the US military when it doesn't want the world to know that it is controlling the on-going unpopular military action in which the US is deeply involved.) The 28 members are tying themselves in knots trying to decide whether to arm the rebels or not. My guess is -- eventually, NATO WILL arm the rebels and send in advisers and dig themselves deeper into the mire that is Obama's War. All this shortly before ground troops hit the Libyan beaches to liberate that country. The toppling of Gaddafi will be quickly followed by stratospherically expensive "nation building."

Yeah. As a retired US general said recently, "I've seen this movie before."

It is all too familiar.


Allow me to inquire -- isn't it reasonable to determine WHO, exactly, the so-called rebels ARE before we begin airdropping weapons to them?


You'd think we would have learned our lesson in Afghanistan. We armed the Taliban only to have them use those weapons against US troops decades later. Common sense and the history of the region would certainly cause one to be leery of arming a force that may be our friend today and our enemy tomorrow.

We are already getting reports out of Libya that a number of the rebels are affiliated with al Qaida. It would be reasonable to believe there are contingents of the Muslim Brotherhood within the ranks of the rebels as well. Shouldn't this be a HUGE FLASHING CAUTION SIGN?

As we said above, Obama's War is quickly turning into the fabled FUBAR from its current SNAFU condition.

I might point out that this sort of mess is the risk America takes every time it elects a President with no military service in his, or her, resume.

Maybe the Republicans ought to be looking within the ranks of the military for a presidential candidate to run against Obama in the 2012 election. I mean -- what would it hurt? As of this writing, none of the current crop of candidates, or would-be candidates, has a snowball's chance of claiming victory over Obama in 2012.

J. D. Longstreet


Friday, March 25, 2011

America’s Most Unpopular War in Forty Years



America’s Most Unpopular War in Forty Years
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet



The Libyan War is proving to be America’s most unpopular war in the past four decades say the pollsters.

OK. I AM calling it the Libyan War. Despite what the left, Obama’s supporters, and Obama himself, would have you believe, the act of establishing and enforcing a no-fly zone over a country IS AN ACT OF WAR!

From my standpoint, one of the reasons why Americans are not enamored of the Libyan War is because -- Obama will not take out Gaddafi. Americans would like to see Gaddafi GONE. I don’t mean gone to Venezuela, but GONE as in departed this life.

Another reason, I believe, Americans just cannot support our efforts in Libya, is that Obama does not seem committed to winning in Libya. The moment he stated publicly that the US would not place US troops on the ground in Libya; he lost a huge chunk of American support for the war. Whether we do, or do not place boots on the ground in Libya, is really not the issue troubling so many of us. It is what seems to be a lack of commitment on the part of the Commander-in-Chief to do whatever it takes to get the job done in Libya. THAT is the problem.

Handing the war off to NATO is only going to make the execution of the war even worse. It will be war by committee. Thee is a better than even chance that without American leadership, Gaddafi will die of old age in Tripoli!

But, the longer I observe America’s third consecutive war with a Muslim country the uneasier I become. I have a persisting feeling that there is much more going on in the Middle East -- and we are unaware of it -- because that is what the Obama Regime wants.

Over the past weeks and months I, along with many other commentators, have described the Middle East as “aflame.” While that is a truthful description of current events there, I have the foreboding feeling that the REAL crisis has not even begun.

Have you noticed the only Middle Eastern country not aflame with “rebels’, or protesters, demanding a change in their government? Yes. It is Israel.

But, I must tell you that while the eyes of the world are drawn to the uprisings in the Muslim world, events are taking place in Israel that force me to believe that soon, Israel will be leading the news … not Libya and not Gaddafi. In fact, I have come to believe that the dust-up in Libya will soon become a sideshow to the war, which I have come to believe, is eminent in Israel.

On Wednesday of this week Hamas fired 15 more shells into Israel. Amos Gilad, Israel’s senior Defense Ministry adviser, has reportedly told Hamas to knock-off the rocket and mortar attacks on Israel and to not do so will be a grave mistake.

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu was reported in the Israeli press as saying: “We have set a clear policy on security, the essence of which is a vigorous response to any attempt to harm Israeli citizens, and systematic and assertive preventive measures against terrorism.” Netanyahu went on to say: “They are trying to test our resolve and the fortitude of our people. They will learn that the government, the IDF and the Israeli public have an iron will to defend the state and its citizens.”

Israel is gearing up for war. The coming conflict will make the “Cast Lead” Operation resemble a Sunday School picnic.

If Israel attacks Gaza and Hamas with a full scale IDF invasion -- while the Muslim blood lust is up -- there is the potential for a hellish regional war, which would, no doubt, involve the use of nuclear weapons.

Why do I continue to pound the nightmare of a nuclear war in the Middle East? Because Israel is ready to unleash her nuclear arsenal as a last ditch effort to save their tiny country.

Now, this is important: We know that Obama is no friend to Israel. We are fairly certain that when Israel goes to war Obama will not lift a finger to help Israel. That means Israel will have to use whatever it has to defend itself. That means nuclear weapons.

Obama is supposedly a well-read man. I don’t know how much of the Bible he has read or how much of it he believes. I must tell you, as a southerner, I was reared in a home where the Bible was revered, read, discussed, and committed to memory. I distinctly remember God’s promise to Abraham: “I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you.”

It is apparent to anyone with eyes to see that Obama has stopped America’s support of Israel. It is also clear to anyone who cares to accept reality, that America is already paying the price for forsaking Israel. If you doubt it, look around you. Read a newspaper. Watch the news on TV. Check it on the Internet. America will pay a horrible price for throwing Israel to the wolves of the Middle East.

It is clear that Obama has no taste for war. The leader of a warrior nation, like America, ought to be a warrior. Obama is not. He is obviously out of his element as are the majority of his administration. He has withdrawn America from the leadership role in practically everything around the globe. What we are seeing in the Middle East is the result of Obama’s withdrawal of American leadership.

Like it or not, America is the Global Police. At least we have been until Obama. When the world dialed 911 – America answered. No longer.

Is Obama deliberately destroying America? It is an honest, sincere, question and it deserves an answer. He does not believe in American exceptionalism. He apparently DOES believe in an open society, a world without borders, and the redistribution of America’s wealth. In other words: Obama speaks, acts, and governs as a communist would speak, act, and govern. (See Alan Caruba’s recent article: “Obama: As Red As It Gets” HERE.)

America is in trouble today… but the REAL trouble hasn’t arrived … yet! But, rest assured, it IS on the way. And America has the wrong man in the Oval Office to deal with it when it arrives.

America: Prepare for a great tribulation unlike anything this nation has seen since it’s founding. And who is to blame? We are – for we elected Obama. Sometimes democracy can be it’s own worst enemy.

J. D. Longstreet
Follow faultlineusa on Twitter