No Missiles For Hezbollah

[georgephillip]

et al,

No matter who does what to whom, the White House needs to keep a very tight leash on DOD, DOS, and the CIA. We don't want to get involved. We are very bad at this, especially with the current leadership we have.

If this were such a big deal, and the death count actually meant something in the Arab world, then the Arabs (who have put together armies in the past to attack Israel) could send a relief column to Syria. But I don't think this is such a big deal to the Arabs. They will sit back and do nothing, --- watching America get sucked-in, as if we could make a difference.

The US needs to put as much distance as it can between Syria and anything that could draw us into to yet another political-military failure.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco...does any of this sound credible to you?

"According to a recent report of the Israeli Intelligence News Service Debka:

“US troops sent to the Jordan-Syria border are helping build a headquarters in Jordan to bolster its military capabilities in case violence spills over from Syria, suggesting deepening US military intervention in the Syrian conflict.”

"The deployment of allied troops on Syria’s southern border is coordinated with actions taken by Turkey and its allies on Syria’s Northern border.

"Meanwhile, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has demanded the support of NATO against Syria under the doctrine of collective security.'We will do what needs to be done if our border is violated again,' he told reporters on October 13.

"Foreign Minister Davutoglu pointed to the alleged violation of Turkey’s border by Syria as a violation of NATO’s borders. Under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, an attack on one member state of the Atlantic Alliance is considered as an attack against all NATO member states."

Are you familiar with Debka?
Article 5???

The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil | Global Research

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip; et al,

Some of it makes sense. DEBKA LINK: ---> DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security ... I am very familiar with it.

Rocco...does any of this sound credible to you?

"According to a recent report of the Israeli Intelligence News Service Debka:

“US troops sent to the Jordan-Syria border are helping build a headquarters in Jordan to bolster its military capabilities in case violence spills over from Syria, suggesting deepening US military intervention in the Syrian conflict.”

"The deployment of allied troops on Syria’s southern border is coordinated with actions taken by Turkey and its allies on Syria’s Northern border.

"Meanwhile, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has demanded the support of NATO against Syria under the doctrine of collective security.'We will do what needs to be done if our border is violated again,' he told reporters on October 13.

"Foreign Minister Davutoglu pointed to the alleged violation of Turkey’s border by Syria as a violation of NATO’s borders. Under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, an attack on one member state of the Atlantic Alliance is considered as an attack against all NATO member states."

Are you familiar with Debka?
Article 5???

The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil | Global Research

(COMMENT)

If there is one thing that the US Military is known for - is it's C3ISR (Command, Control, Communication, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance). We build the best TIC/TOC-FDCs (Tactical Intelligence Center/Tactical Operations Center - Fire Direction Coordination Center) in the world. They are all-source and joint force capable. They see everything, hear everything, and control everything. Together, with the Red & Blue Force Tracking, they give Regional Commanders the ability to have a common operational picture that can be shared across the board.

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

SOURCE: NATO - Official text: The North Atlantic Treaty, 04-Apr.-1949

My hope is that someone doesn't trip this defense pact.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

Rocco...there's a map on page 7 of this link that portrays a "New Middle East."
If I'm reading it correctly, Israel is shown with its pre-1967 borders.
I don't have the expertise to display it directly in one of my posts.
I suspect you do.

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

This is based on an analysis that is seven years old, comprised of (mostly OSINT) that is even older.

Rocco...there's a map on page 7 of this link that portrays a "New Middle East."
If I'm reading it correctly, Israel is shown with its pre-1967 borders.
I don't have the expertise to display it directly in one of my posts.
I suspect you do.

(FOR GEORGE)

v/r
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Oh yes, the truth Sherri, the truth. And the truth is NO MISSILES FOR HEZBOLLAH. God I love the truth, don't you?

Isn't there a conspiracy section here for people like loinboy to stars thread about how Israel is responsible for everything bad in the Middle East

Speaking truth has nothing to do with spouting conspiracy theories. People who cannot face the truth call it conspiracy.

That Israeli attack had absolutely nothing to do with keeping missiles from Hezbollah!

 

[MJB12741]

Well why then? Did the Israelis just wake up in the morning & ask themselves, who can we bomb today?

Oh yes, the truth Sherri, the truth. And the truth is NO MISSILES FOR HEZBOLLAH. God I love the truth, don't you?

Speaking truth has nothing to do with spouting conspiracy theories. People who cannot face the truth call it conspiracy.

That Israeli attack had absolutely nothing to do with keeping missiles from Hezbollah!

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip; et al,

Some of it makes sense. DEBKA LINK: ---> DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security ... I am very familiar with it.

Rocco...does any of this sound credible to you?

"According to a recent report of the Israeli Intelligence News Service Debka:

“US troops sent to the Jordan-Syria border are helping build a headquarters in Jordan to bolster its military capabilities in case violence spills over from Syria, suggesting deepening US military intervention in the Syrian conflict.”

"The deployment of allied troops on Syria’s southern border is coordinated with actions taken by Turkey and its allies on Syria’s Northern border.

"Meanwhile, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has demanded the support of NATO against Syria under the doctrine of collective security.'We will do what needs to be done if our border is violated again,' he told reporters on October 13.

"Foreign Minister Davutoglu pointed to the alleged violation of Turkey’s border by Syria as a violation of NATO’s borders. Under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, an attack on one member state of the Atlantic Alliance is considered as an attack against all NATO member states."

Are you familiar with Debka?
Article 5???

The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil | Global Research

(COMMENT)

If there is one thing that the US Military is known for - is it's C3ISR (Command, Control, Communication, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance). We build the best TIC/TOC-FDCs (Tactical Intelligence Center/Tactical Operations Center - Fire Direction Coordination Center) in the world. They are all-source and joint force capable. They see everything, hear everything, and control everything. Together, with the Red & Blue Force Tracking, they give Regional Commanders the ability to have a common operational picture that can be shared across the board.

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

SOURCE: NATO - Official text: The North Atlantic Treaty, 04-Apr.-1949

My hope is that someone doesn't trip this defense pact.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for the help with that map, Rocco.
In regards to your hope the someone doesn't trip over NATO:

"Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu, while in Shanghai, faced a sharp dressing-down from President Vladimir Putin Monday, May 6 and a warning that further Israeli attacks on Damascus would not be tolerated. Putin said highly advanced Russian weapons, including S-300 air defense systems, would be supplied at speed to Syria.

"US Secretary of State John Kerry, on his arrival in Moscow, was met with Russia’s determination to match US-Israel intervention in the Syrian war. And Netanyahu was greeted in Beijing by Chinese President Xi Jinping’s pro-Palestinian “peace."

Do you think most of the above is for domestic consumption, or are we heading into a potential Guns of August scenario?

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security

 

[Billo_Really]

Well, at least you're being honest when you say that you don't give a shit about the people of Syria. I, for one, always root for the underdog in a fight. Must be that "David and Goliath" story I learned in Hebrew school as a kid. Then why don't I support the Palestinian "David" against the Goliath "Israel"? Because I view the Palestinians as being part of the Goliath Arab Empire as a whole. I don't get why your heart bleeds for Palestinian Arab farmers and fishermen but not Syrian Arab carpenters and shoemakers. Why do you give a shit about the Palestinian people?

I don't. I don't give a shit about them either! Why should I care about things that have no impact in my daily life? I live on the other side of the planet and have no stake in either side. I have nothing to gain, nor anything to lose in this conflict.

I just enjoy making people (who try to bullshit me) miserable.

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip; et al,

No, not for domestic consumption.

"Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu, while in Shanghai, faced a sharp dressing-down from President Vladimir Putin Monday, May 6 and a warning that further Israeli attacks on Damascus would not be tolerated. Putin said highly advanced Russian weapons, including S-300 air defense systems, would be supplied at speed to Syria.

"US Secretary of State John Kerry, on his arrival in Moscow, was met with Russia’s determination to match US-Israel intervention in the Syrian war. And Netanyahu was greeted in Beijing by Chinese President Xi Jinping’s pro-Palestinian “peace."

Do you think most of the above is for domestic consumption, or are we heading into a potential Guns of August scenario?

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security

(COMMENT)

Neither the US nor Russia wants a major confrontation.

A NATO engagement under Article 5 (NATO) and Article 51 (UN), triggered by Syria, could bring that about inadvertently.

The US powers-that-be, who want to be an active player in the evolution of the post-Syrian Civil War, see an opportunity to become an influence in the region, on the side of the Arab People; possibly starting a change in the US reputation.

While the US and Russians see this as a proxy 'v' proxy (Israel 'v' Syrian) contest, the instigator is Iran. Iran wants to destabilize the region that will provide their proxy (Hezbollah) a greater influence. If, by Iran supply munitions/rockets, to the Assad Government via the IRGC-QF portal maintained by their proxy, they can dangle a set of lucrative targets for Israel to exploit. The Iranian hope is that Russia will then be forced to increase its support to the Assad Regime in response to increased Israeli intervention. This, in turn, triggers the US to escalate its involvement. It becomes a cascade failure - profit through chaos.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MJB12741]

Yep. Iran is the catalist that has something to gain. Unless of course Israel decides to pay Iran a little visit to change their thinking. Let us hope.

georgephillip; et al,

No, not for domestic consumption.

"Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu, while in Shanghai, faced a sharp dressing-down from President Vladimir Putin Monday, May 6 and a warning that further Israeli attacks on Damascus would not be tolerated. Putin said highly advanced Russian weapons, including S-300 air defense systems, would be supplied at speed to Syria.

"US Secretary of State John Kerry, on his arrival in Moscow, was met with Russia’s determination to match US-Israel intervention in the Syrian war. And Netanyahu was greeted in Beijing by Chinese President Xi Jinping’s pro-Palestinian “peace."

Do you think most of the above is for domestic consumption, or are we heading into a potential Guns of August scenario?

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security

(COMMENT)

Neither the US nor Russia wants a major confrontation.

A NATO engagement under Article 5 (NATO) and Article 51 (UN), triggered by Syria, could bring that about inadvertently.

The US powers-that-be, who want to be an active player in the evolution of the post-Syrian Civil War, see an opportunity to become an influence in the region, on the side of the Arab People; possibly starting a change in the US reputation.

While the US and Russians see this as a proxy 'v' proxy (Israel 'v' Syrian) contest, the instigator is Iran. Iran wants to destabilize the region that will provide their proxy (Hezbollah) a greater influence. If, by Iran supply munitions/rockets, to the Assad Government via the IRGC-QF portal maintained by their proxy, they can dangle a set of lucrative targets for Israel to exploit. The Iranian hope is that Russia will then be forced to increase its support to the Assad Regime in response to increased Israeli intervention. This, in turn, triggers the US to escalate its involvement. It becomes a cascade failure - profit through chaos.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

Neither the US nor Russia wants a major confrontation.

Who would, when you consider the potential consequences?

But the fact remains, Syria is where Russia has drawn the line in the sand.

They are on record as saying they will not allow Syria to fall into NATO's sphere of influence. And just to drive the point home, they've got two warships parked in Syrian ports and they ain't leaving. They're also conducting large scale war games in that area, which caught Administration officials by surprise. We knew they were going to be staging military exercises, but we didn't know it was going to be that large of an operation.

Russia is flexing its muscles and not too many people are catching this clue. It's only a matter of time before one of these Israeli air-strikes hits Russian anti-aircraft batteries, radar installations or Russian troops guarding weapons storages. And if that happens, it won't be missles from Hezbollah Israel will be worrying about.

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip; et al,

No, not for domestic consumption.

"Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu, while in Shanghai, faced a sharp dressing-down from President Vladimir Putin Monday, May 6 and a warning that further Israeli attacks on Damascus would not be tolerated. Putin said highly advanced Russian weapons, including S-300 air defense systems, would be supplied at speed to Syria.

"US Secretary of State John Kerry, on his arrival in Moscow, was met with Russia’s determination to match US-Israel intervention in the Syrian war. And Netanyahu was greeted in Beijing by Chinese President Xi Jinping’s pro-Palestinian “peace."

Do you think most of the above is for domestic consumption, or are we heading into a potential Guns of August scenario?

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security

(COMMENT)

Neither the US nor Russia wants a major confrontation.

A NATO engagement under Article 5 (NATO) and Article 51 (UN), triggered by Syria, could bring that about inadvertently.

The US powers-that-be, who want to be an active player in the evolution of the post-Syrian Civil War, see an opportunity to become an influence in the region, on the side of the Arab People; possibly starting a change in the US reputation.

While the US and Russians see this as a proxy 'v' proxy (Israel 'v' Syrian) contest, the instigator is Iran. Iran wants to destabilize the region that will provide their proxy (Hezbollah) a greater influence. If, by Iran supply munitions/rockets, to the Assad Government via the IRGC-QF portal maintained by their proxy, they can dangle a set of lucrative targets for Israel to exploit. The Iranian hope is that Russia will then be forced to increase its support to the Assad Regime in response to increased Israeli intervention. This, in turn, triggers the US to escalate its involvement. It becomes a cascade failure - profit through chaos.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco...it seems to me Syria is not the only finger on this trigger:

"The Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement of 1944 was based on negotiations between the United States and Britain over the control of Middle Eastern oil. Below is shown what the American President Franklin D. Roosevelt had in mind for to a British Ambassador in 1944:

"Persian oil …is yours. We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for Saudi Arabian oil, it’s ours.[6]

"On August 8, 1944, the Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement was signed, dividing Middle Eastern oil between the United States and Britain..."

Has the time arrived for some Persian payback in Greater Lebanon?

"By the end of the Second World War, the United States had come to consider the Middle East region as ‘the most strategically important area of the world’.[9] and ‘…one of the greatest material prizes in world history’.[9]

"For that reason, it was not until around the period of the Second World War that America became directly involved in the Middle East region. At this time the region was going through great social, economic and political changes and as a result, internally the Middle East region was in turmoil.

"Politically, the Middle East was experiencing an upsurge in the popularity of nationalistic politics and an increase in the number of nationalistic political groups across the region, which was causing great trouble for the English and French colonial powers."

American intervention in the Middle East - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does the US qualify as a colonial power in the Middle East today?

 

[georgephillip]

Neither the US nor Russia wants a major confrontation.

Who would, when you consider the potential consequences?

But the fact remains, Syria is where Russia has drawn the line in the sand.

They are on record as saying they will not allow Syria to fall into NATO's sphere of influence. And just to drive the point home, they've got two warships parked in Syrian ports and they ain't leaving. They're also conducting large scale war games in that area, which caught Administration officials by surprise. We knew they were going to be staging military exercises, but we didn't know it was going to be that large of an operation.

Russia is flexing its muscles and not too many people are catching this clue. It's only a matter of time before one of these Israeli air-strikes hits Russian anti-aircraft batteries, radar installations or Russian troops guarding weapons storages. And if that happens, it won't be missles from Hezbollah Israel will be worrying about.

"The July Crisis was a diplomatic crisis among the major powers of Europe in the summer of 1914 that led to the First World War. Immediately after Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb nationalist, assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, in Sarajevo, a series of diplomatic maneuverings led to an ultimatum from Austria-Hungary to Serbia, and ultimately to war."

History repeats...

 

[MJB12741]

WWlll has already started. The civilized nations Vs. radical Islamist countries.

Neither the US nor Russia wants a major confrontation.

Who would, when you consider the potential consequences?

But the fact remains, Syria is where Russia has drawn the line in the sand.

They are on record as saying they will not allow Syria to fall into NATO's sphere of influence. And just to drive the point home, they've got two warships parked in Syrian ports and they ain't leaving. They're also conducting large scale war games in that area, which caught Administration officials by surprise. We knew they were going to be staging military exercises, but we didn't know it was going to be that large of an operation.

Russia is flexing its muscles and not too many people are catching this clue. It's only a matter of time before one of these Israeli air-strikes hits Russian anti-aircraft batteries, radar installations or Russian troops guarding weapons storages. And if that happens, it won't be missles from Hezbollah Israel will be worrying about.

"The July Crisis was a diplomatic crisis among the major powers of Europe in the summer of 1914 that led to the First World War. Immediately after Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb nationalist, assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, in Sarajevo, a series of diplomatic maneuverings led to an ultimatum from Austria-Hungary to Serbia, and ultimately to war."

History repeats...

 

[RoccoR]

loinboy, georgephillip, MJB12741, et al,

(PREFACE)

Syria is something different depending on the perspective held by the observer.

The Rebels see themselves as the people that are governed by their consent, and which to change the nature of government and the relationship they have experienced over nearly half a century. The want to depose the dictatorial like government and replace it with a government that is more benevolent and responsive to the needs of the people.

The Assad Government sees themselves as the rightful government, over a people that, as of yet, have not attained the prerequisites which are essential and necessary to govern themselves. The Assad Government perceives themselves as the holder of the intrinsic knowledge, skills, and abilities to maintain the continuity of government and the critical services and diplomacy to maintain the integrity of the state.

The Russians see Syria as both an economic and diplomatic investment into an alliance that is one of their major footholds in the region; a platform which holds the center of their regional influence. The Assad government is a known quantity to them, and something with which they have learned to accomodate. Any new government by the people becomes an unknown quantity which they may find less amenable to their proposals.

The Israelis see with a binocular view. Syria (the Assad Government) as a member of the Arab League, a dictatorship, a member of the alliance that helps form a coalition to the detriment of Israeli territorial sovereignty. It sees the government as a hostile entity that supports the aggressive intentions of the Palestinians and their Islamic State comradeship. But it see the people (Rebel Forces) as a new and emerging dynamic to could change the paradigm altogether, from a hostile relationship to one of a cooperative neighbor. It sees a Rebels takeover as potential for advancement and a condition that might foster a new working relationship between the two nations.

Iran sees Syria (Assad Government) as a lucrative alliance member that has assisted the Islamic State in the extension of their influence in asymmetric approaches to destabilize the region. Iran sees no benefit in the security stabilization of the region, as in the chaos it allows them the opportunity to expand their foothold that would normally be beyond their reach. Iran sees the Assad Government as an essential ally, and sees the fall of the Assad Government into the hands of the people that just might choose a more democratic form of government as --- diametrically opposed to their goals and intentions. Thus, the more discord, the better in their view.

The Arab League and Turkey see the turmoil in Syria as a extension of the Arab Spring uprising that does nothing to improve stability, and threatens regional security; compounding already present ethnic disturbances in the region.

Hezbollah is a quasi-proxy, under the influence but not control, of Iran (yet). Hezbollah has had a long standing relationship with the Assad Government dating back to its inception. It is not an ally of the People of Syria, but of the Assad Government. And it sees the fall of the Assad Government as the loss of a critical ally in its bid for the control of Lebanon and the continued struggle against Israel. Hezbollah has made its bed, and sided against the Rebels. So, if the Assad Government falls, the reputation of Hezbollah with the new government may be less than cordial.

The al-Qaeda Element (almost a generic name, the US damn near calls everybody al-Qaeda, you have to look as the history to see where it got its label) is the Joker in the deck. It expects the Rebel Forces to win their bid against the government, and wants to repair and establish a positive relationship with the new government (Rebel Forces) which is something they don't have with the existing leadership (the Assad Government).

NATO/OTAN is the Wild Card in the deck. It has remained relatively quiet, and really doesn't want to do anything to drag it into the conflict/civil war. But it is a card in play and Turkey has it in their hand.
​

(COMMENT)

No one on the side of the Assad Government wants NATO/OTAN drawn into the fray. It would spell the end of the Assad Government. And Russia does not want to challenge NATO/OTAN at this time. It would be expensive and very messy. Nor does Russia want to created the conditions that the Rebel Forces, which may come into control of the nation, view Russia a negative light.

The US is broke and the military has not fully recovered. It has spent its money on the unsuccessful campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. The people of the US don't want to be dragged into another war in which the Arabs bite the hand that feeds them; casting a dark shadow on US participation and further smearing the reputation of America. But the US finds it appealing that the Assad Regime might fall to a populace movement. Clearly, the US is attempting to rally support elsewhere in the Arab League to assist the Rebel Forces.

The Assad Government, taking a lesson from Libya and Egypt, does not want to end up like Moammar Khadafy or Hosni Mubarak. So the struggle to retain power is going to be ferocious.

Israel and the US are in an information and intelligence shadow. The UN has suggested that the Rebel Forces had used Chemical Weapons (CW), while the Israel Intelligence has suggest that Assad has used CW. The real critical nature here is that if the Rebels Forces have CW, that means that the jihadis might have access to those same CWs. It has been estimated that 1 in 10 of the Rebels are some sort of Islamists. Having said that, everyone is quick to remind us all that not all Islamists there are Salafists, and not all Salafists are al-Qaeda. But al-Qaeda and its affiliates have very strong representation on the Syrian-held side of the Golan Heights.

This is a mess. And the US needs to stay as far away from it as it possibly can.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MJB12741]

I understand your thinking here in your analysis. However I am not convinced a rebel win over the government of Assad would benefit either Israel or the USA. Let us not forget one of the major forces in the rebel movement is Al-Qaeda.

loinboy, georgephillip, MJB12741, et al,

(PREFACE)

Syria is something different depending on the perspective held by the observer.

The Rebels see themselves as the people that are governed by their consent, and which to change the nature of government and the relationship they have experienced over nearly half a century. The want to depose the dictatorial like government and replace it with a government that is more benevolent and responsive to the needs of the people.

The Assad Government sees themselves as the rightful government, over a people that, as of yet, have not attained the prerequisites which are essential and necessary to govern themselves. The Assad Government perceives themselves as the holder of the intrinsic knowledge, skills, and abilities to maintain the continuity of government and the critical services and diplomacy to maintain the integrity of the state.

The Russians see Syria as both an economic and diplomatic investment into an alliance that is one of their major footholds in the region; a platform which holds the center of their regional influence. The Assad government is a known quantity to them, and something with which they have learned to accomodate. Any new government by the people becomes an unknown quantity which they may find less amenable to their proposals.

The Israelis see with a binocular view. Syria (the Assad Government) as a member of the Arab League, a dictatorship, a member of the alliance that helps form a coalition to the detriment of Israeli territorial sovereignty. It sees the government as a hostile entity that supports the aggressive intentions of the Palestinians and their Islamic State comradeship. But it see the people (Rebel Forces) as a new and emerging dynamic to could change the paradigm altogether, from a hostile relationship to one of a cooperative neighbor. It sees a Rebels takeover as potential for advancement and a condition that might foster a new working relationship between the two nations.

Iran sees Syria (Assad Government) as a lucrative alliance member that has assisted the Islamic State in the extension of their influence in asymmetric approaches to destabilize the region. Iran sees no benefit in the security stabilization of the region, as in the chaos it allows them the opportunity to expand their foothold that would normally be beyond their reach. Iran sees the Assad Government as an essential ally, and sees the fall of the Assad Government into the hands of the people that just might choose a more democratic form of government as --- diametrically opposed to their goals and intentions. Thus, the more discord, the better in their view.

The Arab League and Turkey see the turmoil in Syria as a extension of the Arab Spring uprising that does nothing to improve stability, and threatens regional security; compounding already present ethnic disturbances in the region.

Hezbollah is a quasi-proxy, under the influence but not control, of Iran (yet). Hezbollah has had a long standing relationship with the Assad Government dating back to its inception. It is not an ally of the People of Syria, but of the Assad Government. And it sees the fall of the Assad Government as the loss of a critical ally in its bid for the control of Lebanon and the continued struggle against Israel. Hezbollah has made its bed, and sided against the Rebels. So, if the Assad Government falls, the reputation of Hezbollah with the new government may be less than cordial.

The al-Qaeda Element (almost a generic name, the US damn near calls everybody al-Qaeda, you have to look as the history to see where it got its label) is the Joker in the deck. It expects the Rebel Forces to win their bid against the government, and wants to repair and establish a positive relationship with the new government (Rebel Forces) which is something they don't have with the existing leadership (the Assad Government).

NATO/OTAN is the Wild Card in the deck. It has remained relatively quiet, and really doesn't want to do anything to drag it into the conflict/civil war. But it is a card in play and Turkey has it in their hand.
​

(COMMENT)

No one on the side of the Assad Government wants NATO/OTAN drawn into the fray. It would spell the end of the Assad Government. And Russia does not want to challenge NATO/OTAN at this time. It would be expensive and very messy. Nor does Russia want to created the conditions that the Rebel Forces, which may come into control of the nation, view Russia a negative light.

The US is broke and the military has not fully recovered. It has spent its money on the unsuccessful campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. The people of the US don't want to be dragged into another war in which the Arabs bite the hand that feeds them; casting a dark shadow on US participation and further smearing the reputation of America. But the US finds it appealing that the Assad Regime might fall to a populace movement. Clearly, the US is attempting to rally support elsewhere in the Arab League to assist the Rebel Forces.

The Assad Government, taking a lesson from Libya and Egypt, does not want to end up like Moammar Khadafy or Hosni Mubarak. So the struggle to retain power is going to be ferocious.

Israel and the US are in an information and intelligence shadow. The UN has suggested that the Rebel Forces had used Chemical Weapons (CW), while the Israel Intelligence has suggest that Assad has used CW. The real critical nature here is that if the Rebels Forces have CW, that means that the jihadis might have access to those same CWs. It has been estimated that 1 in 10 of the Rebels are some sort of Islamists. Having said that, everyone is quick to remind us all that not all Islamists there are Salafists, and not all Salafists are al-Qaeda. But al-Qaeda and its affiliates have very strong representation on the Syrian-held side of the Golan Heights.

This is a mess. And the US needs to stay as far away from it as it possibly can.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

Some in the US Army seem anxious to get involved:

"Gen. Ray Odierno, Army chief of staff, warned that planned training cutbacks due to the sequester meant that if the Obama administration wanted to give the green light for intervention it would have to act quickly.

“Readiness is OK right now, but it’s degrading significantly because our training is reducing. So, the next three, four months, we probably have the capability to do it,” he said, adding, “Next year, it becomes a little bit more risky.”

"Odierno made it clear that the longer it took to make the decision, the less likely the US is to intervene.

“'If you ask me today, we have forces that can go. I think it will change over time because the longer we go canceling training and reducing our training, the readiness levels go down,' he said.

"Odierno also praised FSA rebels, the majority of whom have pledged allegiance to and are being led by Al-Qaeda terrorists, for their fighting capabilities and said it was not a matter of if but when they claimed victory."

» US Army Chief Suggests Military Intervention in Syria Before End of Summer Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

We've been intervening in the Middle East since Ike was in the White House.
It seems to me NATO will do the heavy lifting in Syria.
And then on to Iran?

 

[toastman]

Some in the US Army seem anxious to get involved:

"Gen. Ray Odierno, Army chief of staff, warned that planned training cutbacks due to the sequester meant that if the Obama administration wanted to give the green light for intervention it would have to act quickly.

“Readiness is OK right now, but it’s degrading significantly because our training is reducing. So, the next three, four months, we probably have the capability to do it,” he said, adding, “Next year, it becomes a little bit more risky.”

"Odierno made it clear that the longer it took to make the decision, the less likely the US is to intervene.

“'If you ask me today, we have forces that can go. I think it will change over time because the longer we go canceling training and reducing our training, the readiness levels go down,' he said.

"Odierno also praised FSA rebels, the majority of whom have pledged allegiance to and are being led by Al-Qaeda terrorists, for their fighting capabilities and said it was not a matter of if but when they claimed victory."

» US Army Chief Suggests Military Intervention in Syria Before End of Summer Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

We've been intervening in the Middle East since Ike was in the White House.
It seems to me NATO will do the heavy lifting in Syria.
And then on to Iran?

Being the superpower of the world comes with super responsibilities

 

[georgephillip]

To Exxon or BP?

 

[Billo_Really]

loinboy, georgephillip, MJB12741, et al,

(PREFACE)

Syria is something different depending on the perspective held by the observer.

The Rebels see themselves as the people that are governed by their consent, and which to change the nature of government and the relationship they have experienced over nearly half a century. The want to depose the dictatorial like government and replace it with a government that is more benevolent and responsive to the needs of the people.

The Assad Government sees themselves as the rightful government, over a people that, as of yet, have not attained the prerequisites which are essential and necessary to govern themselves. The Assad Government perceives themselves as the holder of the intrinsic knowledge, skills, and abilities to maintain the continuity of government and the critical services and diplomacy to maintain the integrity of the state.

The Russians see Syria as both an economic and diplomatic investment into an alliance that is one of their major footholds in the region; a platform which holds the center of their regional influence. The Assad government is a known quantity to them, and something with which they have learned to accomodate. Any new government by the people becomes an unknown quantity which they may find less amenable to their proposals.

The Israelis see with a binocular view. Syria (the Assad Government) as a member of the Arab League, a dictatorship, a member of the alliance that helps form a coalition to the detriment of Israeli territorial sovereignty. It sees the government as a hostile entity that supports the aggressive intentions of the Palestinians and their Islamic State comradeship. But it see the people (Rebel Forces) as a new and emerging dynamic to could change the paradigm altogether, from a hostile relationship to one of a cooperative neighbor. It sees a Rebels takeover as potential for advancement and a condition that might foster a new working relationship between the two nations.

Iran sees Syria (Assad Government) as a lucrative alliance member that has assisted the Islamic State in the extension of their influence in asymmetric approaches to destabilize the region. Iran sees no benefit in the security stabilization of the region, as in the chaos it allows them the opportunity to expand their foothold that would normally be beyond their reach. Iran sees the Assad Government as an essential ally, and sees the fall of the Assad Government into the hands of the people that just might choose a more democratic form of government as --- diametrically opposed to their goals and intentions. Thus, the more discord, the better in their view.

The Arab League and Turkey see the turmoil in Syria as a extension of the Arab Spring uprising that does nothing to improve stability, and threatens regional security; compounding already present ethnic disturbances in the region.

Hezbollah is a quasi-proxy, under the influence but not control, of Iran (yet). Hezbollah has had a long standing relationship with the Assad Government dating back to its inception. It is not an ally of the People of Syria, but of the Assad Government. And it sees the fall of the Assad Government as the loss of a critical ally in its bid for the control of Lebanon and the continued struggle against Israel. Hezbollah has made its bed, and sided against the Rebels. So, if the Assad Government falls, the reputation of Hezbollah with the new government may be less than cordial.

The al-Qaeda Element (almost a generic name, the US damn near calls everybody al-Qaeda, you have to look as the history to see where it got its label) is the Joker in the deck. It expects the Rebel Forces to win their bid against the government, and wants to repair and establish a positive relationship with the new government (Rebel Forces) which is something they don't have with the existing leadership (the Assad Government).

NATO/OTAN is the Wild Card in the deck. It has remained relatively quiet, and really doesn't want to do anything to drag it into the conflict/civil war. But it is a card in play and Turkey has it in their hand.
​

(COMMENT)

No one on the side of the Assad Government wants NATO/OTAN drawn into the fray. It would spell the end of the Assad Government. And Russia does not want to challenge NATO/OTAN at this time. It would be expensive and very messy. Nor does Russia want to created the conditions that the Rebel Forces, which may come into control of the nation, view Russia a negative light.

The US is broke and the military has not fully recovered. It has spent its money on the unsuccessful campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. The people of the US don't want to be dragged into another war in which the Arabs bite the hand that feeds them; casting a dark shadow on US participation and further smearing the reputation of America. But the US finds it appealing that the Assad Regime might fall to a populace movement. Clearly, the US is attempting to rally support elsewhere in the Arab League to assist the Rebel Forces.

The Assad Government, taking a lesson from Libya and Egypt, does not want to end up like Moammar Khadafy or Hosni Mubarak. So the struggle to retain power is going to be ferocious.

Israel and the US are in an information and intelligence shadow. The UN has suggested that the Rebel Forces had used Chemical Weapons (CW), while the Israel Intelligence has suggest that Assad has used CW. The real critical nature here is that if the Rebels Forces have CW, that means that the jihadis might have access to those same CWs. It has been estimated that 1 in 10 of the Rebels are some sort of Islamists. Having said that, everyone is quick to remind us all that not all Islamists there are Salafists, and not all Salafists are al-Qaeda. But al-Qaeda and its affiliates have very strong representation on the Syrian-held side of the Golan Heights.

This is a mess. And the US needs to stay as far away from it as it possibly can.

Most Respectfully,
R

We are funding (and providing material support) to al Qaeda cells in Syria!

For 10 years we've been told al Qaeda is our enemy; in Syria, they're our ally!

None of this is making sense.