Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

[c1ue]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

things change, c1ue. as a trend, secular regimes have fallen to be replaced by sectarian ones.

Once again, this would be more credible if in fact this so-called trend was somehow unique.

Yet it is not. Were the Ottomans Shi'a or Sunni? Where the Sassanids Shi'a or Sunni? What about the British, French, and German colonialist regimes? You can go all the way back to Roman presence in Egypt, North Africa, and the Israel/Lebanon/Syria region - which existed before even the birth of Mohammed.

For that matter - the precise emergence of Shi'a from the Sunni background isn't clear, but wasn't until well after the Crusades were over and certainly was after the fall of Byzantium. We're talking about a period of time less than 1000 years and perhaps more than 600 - hardly a gigantic span of time even in relation to the age of Islam.

saddam was a secular vicious dictator whom the u.s. supported in fighting the mullah-led iran- let them beat each other to death. the "mission accomplished" by the george w. bush invasion was the installation of an iran-friendly shiite regime in baghdad ,[why do you think they allow flights through their airspace from iran supplying syria and hezbollah?] with sectarian splinters in the sunni west and the kurdish north. mossedegh was a secular leftist, deposed by the cia in favor of a secular dictator, then deposed and replaced by a sectarian shiite regime.

The emergence of a largely Shi'ite friendly regime in Iraq can hardly be considered a success by the US, for example, and I'm equally unconvinced that this was a strategic goal of 'mission accomplished'. That such a regime would emerge is, however, not terribly surprising given the population/religion mix in Iraq.

It is quite clear in your summary that there is no theme whatsoever to be seen - particularly not with respect to religion - besides outside powers meddling with little knowledge and even less coherent strategic goals.

gamel nasser was a secular military leftist baathist pan-arabist, replaced by the secular military sadat, replaced by the secular military mubarek, replaced by a sectarian muslim brotherhood regime, recently deposed. the saudi royals subsidize the sunni wahabbis to ensure their own legitimacy as the guardians of mecca.

So where again is the religion aspect? Even the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood can be seen as an outcome of Qatari meddling as opposed to any purely organic movement.

al-queda wants to depose the saudis for their corruption and friendship with the west, and restore a conservative sunni caliphate, the taliban's afghanistan writ large. the iranian mullahs want to create a shiite persian empire.

What al-Qaeda wants is more than a little unclear given the scope of their activities around the world and even within the Middle East.

How does replacement of Assad move forward the goal of deposing the al-Saud dynasty? Equally so the al-Qaeda activities in Africa, in Afghanistan, etc etc.

The Taliban in turn are diplomatic allies of Saudi Arabia. Explain then how Osama worked so nicely with the Taliban if al Qaeda's objective is the dissolution of the corrupt Saudi Arabian state.

Lastly the Iranian mullahs. Where precisely has Iran shown its intent to conquer other nations for the glory of Shi'a Islam?

How many nations has Iran attacked in order to gain territory, population, control of resources, etc?

The Iran-Iraq war was not one where Saddam was heroically saving the rest of the Persian Gulf/Middle East from the nasty mullahs in Teheran - it was Saddam thinking he could steal a march because of Iran being in turmoil due to the revolution.

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

c1ue, my reference to "mission accomplished" was a [dark] joke. apparently you didn't "get" the rest of my post, either.

[c1ue]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

c1ue, my reference to "mission accomplished" was a [dark] joke. apparently you didn't "get" the rest of my post, either.

Clearly not - since from my view you are contradicting yourself.

If the root of sectarian conflict is tribalism - then it isn't about religion but about power. And that is precisely what I've been saying.

It is particularly notable given that Iran was not always Shi'a - that is a relatively recent phenomenon.

I'd also note that while the motivations are generally not hard to understand - the means of expression are subject to wild variation due to personality. It is this which is why I lend zero credibility to the techno-manichaeism of reggie, for example, because the sad fact is that people who have every reason to cooperate can still find ways to fight - just as people who have every reason to fight can find ways to cooperate in order to screw over someone else they hate more.

[vt]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/09/08...world-podcast/

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Libyan PM gets snatched:

http://www.mathrubhumi.com/english/story.php?id=140626

I wonder how long it gets drawn out?

Quick and nasty like Afghan's Najibullah?

Or long and drawn out like Italy's Moro?

And as I posted a few years ago.......Libya was the "easy" one.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I wonder why it's taken so long for a Pakistani/Saudi nuclear deal to make it into the media:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846

Those Chinese made IRBMs have been sitting in the Saudi desert for decades.......and logic would dictate that they represent a critical component in a long-standing deal between Pakistan and Saudi.

[photon555]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Lake, are those CSS-2 missiles likely to be affected by the Saudi desert heat and sand/dust in which they have been immersed for 25 years? Is it possible for ground penetrating nukes to "pollute" underground oil reserves so that they cannot be used?

The Saudi's must have strong reservations about putting their security in the hands of the US, at least without having a backup plan. Behind Iran stands Russia, which is not willing to accept a pipeline through Syria to compete with Gazprom. Each nation can be depended upon to seek it's own benefit (except perhaps the US) and change alliances as it sees best.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Lake, are those CSS-2 missiles likely to be affected by the Saudi desert heat and sand/dust in which they have been immersed for 25 years? Is it possible for ground penetrating nukes to "pollute" underground oil reserves so that they cannot be used?

The Saudi's must have strong reservations about putting their security in the hands of the US, at least without having a backup plan. Behind Iran stands Russia, which is not willing to accept a pipeline through Syria to compete with Gazprom. Each nation can be depended upon to seek it's own benefit (except perhaps the US) and change alliances as it sees best.

Good questions…...

I'm no structural/aeronautical engineer……but it would be interesting to compare the climate at the Saudi missile base in question with say the aircraft boneyards used by the military and commercial carriers….as I understand it the extremely dry climate is a better long-term storage location for commercial and military attrition fleets.

I do know there are differences in sand between what I remember in the US Southwest and around the GCC(which can differ as well).

That talcum powder consistency sand gets everywhere…..much like Afghan poo dust.

I strongly suspect the Chinese made Saudi IRBMs are part of a long-term strategic agreement between Pakistan and Saudi….rather than just the usual petrodollar recycling.

It would also be good to get an understanding of who specifically is servicing that missile battery and under what circumstances(as like many things in the GCC……locals don't get their hands too dirty).

The Saudi commander of the strategic missile force is tied by marriage to two Saudi kings and is the son of a late crown prince…..so VERY juiced up.

It would also be interesting to understand how/why this story(which has been a quiet one for about 25 year) is now getting mass media coverage and who has orchestrated it.

To me it's a signal of 1st/2nd order effects of an Iranian bomb on a couple of levels.

1) to counter Iran
2)to force a US response or US allowance/support of an Israeli response
3)plan B for Saudi in case US support in the event of a Saudi Spring is lacking and the Saudi regime feels compelled to have a decisive Saudi version of Hama 82 to preserve the regime.

Just my best guesses.

[don]

the Karzai Question - Is He Being Heard?

"Karzai Demands Respect"

Pres. Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan is not taken very seriously in the United States - not by the government, the media, or the general public. One good piece of evidence is this: On December 10, he gave a long interview to Le Monde that the journal published in full both in the original English and a French translation, and this quite detailed interview merited only one quote (of less than one sentence) in The New York Times.


This is all the more remarkable in that Karzai makes some very strong statements, quite at variance with what one reads in the American press. It is as though everyone assumes that Karzai's statements are foolish or wrong-headed or inconsequential or mere negotiating tactics. No one seems to assume that U.S. government statements can be foolish or wrong-headed or inconsequential or mere negotiating tactics.

At the very least, the United States and all others ought to read carefully what Karzai is saying. He starts the interview by insisting that he has been arguing for the past eight years that "the war on terror can't be fought and must not be fought in Afghan villages, in Afghan homes. If there is a war on terror, it has to be taken to the terrorist sanctuaries [presumably in Pakistan], where they are trained and nurtured."


He says this is the main problem, but a second problem is his belief that the United States is not making "a visible and genuine effort" to help with the peace process. Karzai insists that he has been in contact with the Taliban and that they are ready to negotiate "officially" with the High Peace Council (HPC) that Karzai created. Karzai charges that "certain forces in the West" do not want such negotiations. Instead, "they tried to ethnicize the conflicts in arranged talks between warlords and ethnic groups....We are convinced that a deliberate effort was made to weaken Afghanistan and to turn it into fiefdoms [with] a weak central government." Karzai asserted that he would be willing to sign immediately the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) with the United States and NATO once he has "assurances" from the United States of an end to attacks on Afghan homes and of U.S. support for launching the peace effort. The reporter asked if Karzai considered the United States an adversary. Karzai responded that "attacking Afghan homes is an act of aggression" - not the proper behavior of an ally. He asks if the United States would launch drones at home in pursuit of a terrorist. Why then does it think it may be done in Afghanistan? "Do they feel an Afghan life is worth less than an American life? ...We are not less worthy." Karzai accuses the United States of launching a "psychological war" that encourages companies to leave Afghanistan and frightens Afghans about the consequences of withdrawal of foreign troops. To the reporter's question whether Karzai believes that the United States is acting like a colonial power, he responds "absolutely."


The United States government seems determined to keep some troops in Afghanistan, but had seemed equally determined to do so with a BSA signed before the end of December. The United States does not seem, however, ready to meet Karzai's two preconditions. What then will they do? U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has suggested publicly a solution that is probably of dubious legality. He said someone must sign the BSA, but not necessarily the president. A signature by the Minister of Defense, presumably more ready to agree to U.S. terms, would do. It would suffice that "somebody...accept responsibility" for the agreement.

Who will give in at the very last minute? Actually, Karzai has won in the very short run. On Dec. 11, the U.S. State Department's top Afghanistan official James F. Dobbins announced that Dec. 31 was no longer a hard deadline. The BSA should be signed, he said, "as soon as possible." The outcome is unclear at this point, although I suspect that the United States has the stronger hand at this time. But in the longer run, is this not another case of shooting oneself in the foot? As Karzai insists: "If the USA wants to be our ally, they have to be a respectful ally." It seems to be quite hard for a superpower, particularly one in serious decline, to learn how to respect allies.

by Immanuel Wallerstein

[Woodsman]

Re: the Karzai Question - Is He Being Heard?

"Karzai Demands Respect"

Pres. Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan is not taken very seriously in the United States - not by the government, the media, or the general public. One good piece of evidence is this: On December 10, he gave a long interview to Le Monde that the journal published in full both in the original English and a French translation, and this quite detailed interview merited only one quote (of less than one sentence) in The New York Times.


This is all the more remarkable in that Karzai makes some very strong statements, quite at variance with what one reads in the American press. It is as though everyone assumes that Karzai's statements are foolish or wrong-headed or inconsequential or mere negotiating tactics. No one seems to assume that U.S. government statements can be foolish or wrong-headed or inconsequential or mere negotiating tactics.

At the very least, the United States and all others ought to read carefully what Karzai is saying. He starts the interview by insisting that he has been arguing for the past eight years that "the war on terror can't be fought and must not be fought in Afghan villages, in Afghan homes. If there is a war on terror, it has to be taken to the terrorist sanctuaries [presumably in Pakistan], where they are trained and nurtured."


He says this is the main problem, but a second problem is his belief that the United States is not making "a visible and genuine effort" to help with the peace process. Karzai insists that he has been in contact with the Taliban and that they are ready to negotiate "officially" with the High Peace Council (HPC) that Karzai created. Karzai charges that "certain forces in the West" do not want such negotiations. Instead, "they tried to ethnicize the conflicts in arranged talks between warlords and ethnic groups....We are convinced that a deliberate effort was made to weaken Afghanistan and to turn it into fiefdoms [with] a weak central government." Karzai asserted that he would be willing to sign immediately the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) with the United States and NATO once he has "assurances" from the United States of an end to attacks on Afghan homes and of U.S. support for launching the peace effort. The reporter asked if Karzai considered the United States an adversary. Karzai responded that "attacking Afghan homes is an act of aggression" - not the proper behavior of an ally. He asks if the United States would launch drones at home in pursuit of a terrorist. Why then does it think it may be done in Afghanistan? "Do they feel an Afghan life is worth less than an American life? ...We are not less worthy." Karzai accuses the United States of launching a "psychological war" that encourages companies to leave Afghanistan and frightens Afghans about the consequences of withdrawal of foreign troops. To the reporter's question whether Karzai believes that the United States is acting like a colonial power, he responds "absolutely."


The United States government seems determined to keep some troops in Afghanistan, but had seemed equally determined to do so with a BSA signed before the end of December. The United States does not seem, however, ready to meet Karzai's two preconditions. What then will they do? U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has suggested publicly a solution that is probably of dubious legality. He said someone must sign the BSA, but not necessarily the president. A signature by the Minister of Defense, presumably more ready to agree to U.S. terms, would do. It would suffice that "somebody...accept responsibility" for the agreement.

Who will give in at the very last minute? Actually, Karzai has won in the very short run. On Dec. 11, the U.S. State Department's top Afghanistan official James F. Dobbins announced that Dec. 31 was no longer a hard deadline. The BSA should be signed, he said, "as soon as possible." The outcome is unclear at this point, although I suspect that the United States has the stronger hand at this time. But in the longer run, is this not another case of shooting oneself in the foot? As Karzai insists: "If the USA wants to be our ally, they have to be a respectful ally." It seems to be quite hard for a superpower, particularly one in serious decline, to learn how to respect allies.

by Immanuel Wallerstein

I think Mr. Karzai's problem is that he actually believes he is president of the sovereign nation of Afghanistan instead of a bought and paid for asset of our cloak and dagger boys. Would it surprise anyone if he were to - God forbid it - suddenly become ill, fall victim to an accident or worse due to some malefactor's act?

Some history from the Wiki:

After obtaining his Master's degree in India, he moved to neighboring Pakistan to work as a fundraiser for the anti-communist mujahideen during the 1980s Soviet war in Afghanistan. ...Karzai was a contractor for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) at the time.

I always assumed shacking up with these fellows was a lifetime relationship. Then there's the matter of Karzai's hard to pin down relationship with Unocal. Was he or wasn't he?

And would you know it, there's all sorts of other coincidences going on:

Unocal was one of the key players in the CentGas consortium, an attempt to build the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline to run from the Caspian area, through Afghanistan and probably Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. One of the consultants to Unocal at that time was Zalmay Khalilzad, former US ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations.

In the 1980s, CIA chief Bill Casey had revived the agency's practise of gaining intelligence from traveling businessmen. Marty Miller, one of Unocal's top executives, conducted negotiations in several Central Asian countries from 1995, and voluntarily provided information gained on these trips to the CIA's Houston station.

In 1996, Unocal opened an office in Kandahar, Afghanistan, while the Taliban were in the process of taking control of the country.

Plenty of smoke there 'cause there's fire (FIRE?).

[don]

Re: the Karzai Question - Is He Being Heard?

I always assumed shacking up with these fellows was a lifetime relationship.

Yes, for the useful lifetime of the foreign agent. Once that's reached, adios! (for an historical precedent, see Diem, Noriega, Saddam . . . and many more)

Karzai has been associated with Gucci from way back, once labeled the chic-est man on the planet. Here's another snazzy dresser in that line of work:

They all play their hands as well as they can. At this stage of the game, not having an alternative is often their strongest card. Most in the end cash in their chips . . . .

[Woodsman]

Re: the Karzai Question - Is He Being Heard?

Yes, for the useful lifetime of the foreign agent. Once that's reached, adios! (for an historical precedent, see Diem, Noriega, Saddam . . . and many more)

Karzai has been associated with Gucci from way back, once labeled the chic-est man on the planet. Here's another snazzy dresser in that line of work:

They all play their hands as well as they can. At this stage of the game, not having an alternative is often their strongest card. Most in the end cash in their chips . . . .

My favorite Cao-boy! How ever did you guess? Curious how the Neocons at The Weekly Standard seem to loooove Ky almost as much as they used to dig Karzai before he "turned" on 'em. And speaking of coincidences, lookie here whose model we should follow for success in Afghanistan. Old Ed Lansdale himself.

You know, I actually take some comfort in all this continuity.

[don]

Re: the Karzai Question - Is He Being Heard?

My favorite Cao-boy! How ever did you guess? Curious how the Neocons at The Weekly Standard seem to loooove Ky almost as much as they used to dig Karzai before he "turned" on 'em. And speaking of coincidences, lookie here whose model we should follow for success in Afghanistan. Old Ed Lansdale himself.

You know, I actually take some comfort in all this continuity.

Haven't all empires had disposable stooges . . .

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Don't take your eye off Libya or Egypt...they are both going to factor into USA and global politics to a greater degree than most currently imagine...

In Libya we are almost certain to witness a splendid example of tribal retaliation. The General's tribe is a large and powerful one in that country and, given the reports that he was tortured before being killed, "revenging his honour" will doubtless be a bloody affair. Perhaps a civil war within a civil war.

The only logical explanation I can come up with for the USA's involvement in Libya is part of an "organized chaos" strategy for the entire Middle East...

Libyan rebel forces commander's body found in Benghazi

Libyan rebel forces chief commander, Abdul Fatah Younis' body was found on Thursday, dumped outside Benghazi, along with the bodies of two colonels who were his top aides, according to Ali Tarhouni, minister of the petrol and finance of the National Transitional Council.

12:14PM BST 30 Jul 2011


The assassination on Thursday of Gen Younes, who earlier this year defected from the Tripoli government to join the opposition fight to overthrow the regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, came as a damaging blow to the rebels' military efforts.

Chaos. And it's not going to magically fix itself now that the USA has declared victory and withdraws troops.

Rudi Guiliani said yesterday during a CNN interview about the debt/deficit circus in D.C. that the rest of the world should grow up and get used to it because that's democracy in action. I'm not sure much of the rest of the world has that much respect remaining for "democracy"...

30 July 2011 Last updated at 11:18 ET

Iraq less safe than a year ago: US watchdog

A top US adviser on Iraq has accused the US military of glossing over an upsurge in violence, just months before its troops are due to be withdrawn.

Iraq is more dangerous now than a year ago, said a report issued by the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart W Bowen Junior.

He said the killing of US soldiers and senior Iraqi figures, had risen, along with attacks in Baghdad.

The report contradicts usually upbeat assessments from the US military...

...The report cited the deaths of 15 US soldiers in June - the bloodiest month for the American military in two years - but also said more Iraqi officials had been assassinated in the past few months than in any other recent period...

So how do ya like it so far?

Qatar rift is pivotal test for disunited Gulf families

RIYADH/KUWAIT Thu Mar 6, 2014 10:11am EST

(Reuters) - A breach between Qatar and some of its Gulf Arab neighbors is a pivotal test for a three-decade-old union of monarchies formed to stand united when threatened by common enemies.

The six neighbors have struggled for years to transform their alliance from a simple security pact into an integrated economy. But plans for a customs union, integrated power grids and a joint military command remain unfinished or unrealized.

Critics of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) blame its inadequacies on petty jealousies, border disputes, or the perceived dominance of its biggest member, Saudi Arabia.

If the allies can no longer reach broad agreement on how to navigate the political troubles afflicting the region, then the main point of their partnership is in question, say analysts.

Born more out of fear than greed, the GCC, which also includes Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman, has managed to present a united front at times of threat ranging from Iranian revolution to Iraqi invasion.

The club was born in 1981 to counter the revolutionaries who had toppled Iran's Shah, a fellow dynast familiar to Gulf Arab leaders, two years earlier. As Iran and Iraq embarked on an eight-year war, survival became the watchword for the GCC.

Now, even as most Gulf Arab economies are booming and the GCC touts itself as a rare outpost of stability in a turbulent region, the member countries have never appeared more divided.

"Will the GCC kill itself?" ran Thursday's headline in Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai.

Wednesday's statement by Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain that they were withdrawing ambassadors from Doha and all but accusing Qatar of undermining their internal stability was unprecedented as a public display of divisions...

...Saudi Arabia and the UAE are incensed by Qatar's support for the Muslim Brotherhood, which they regard as a dangerous political enemy. They are also cross about Doha's backing for more radical Islamist groups in Syria...

...Saudi Arabia and Qatar are leading backers of rival Syrian rebel groups, and they and other Gulf states are the principal external forces supporting key players in Egypt and Yemen.

Acting together they could effect regional change. Apart, they risk dragging the Gulf into the post-Arab Spring quagmire.

A Gulf Arab diplomat said the decision to recall the envoys was taken after a meeting of GCC foreign ministers on Tuesday at which it became clear Qatar would not change its approach...

...There have been plenty of previous rifts among the six dynasties, which sometimes appear to regard each other as rivals rather than partners, but they have never involved such an airing of dirty linen or come at such a dangerous time.

Unlike in the past, the Gulf states cannot count on strong Arab allies with large armies to see off external threats.

Gulf citizens see their region as the last bastion of security in the Arab world, with Iraq and Syria in conflict, Yemen and Libya in chaos, Egypt destabilized and Lebanon and Jordan undermined by turmoil in neighboring states...

...Critics of the GCC deride its failure to fulfill its promises, such as a currency or border union. Despite big arms purchases, all its members remain dependent for their defense on alliances with Western powers, principally the United States.

The Gulf countries refer to each other in official statements as "full brothers", the closest blood relationship in a society traditionally built upon large polygamous families.

But they have often nursed sibling rivalries in disputes ranging from border demarcation and foreign policy to occasionally unflattering portrayal of rulers in each other's state media...

...For Saudi Arabia in particular, the disunity is a source of frustration. Riyadh has pushed hard since late 2011 for the GCC to forge a closer union on a shared foreign and security policy.

The personal initiative of King Abdullah, the idea emerged as a response to the Arab Spring and fears of Iranian interference and represents an important building block of Saudi efforts to become less dependent on the West.

But in December Oman said outright it did not want to be part of such a union, weeks after angering Riyadh by facilitating secret U.S.-Iranian talks that the Saudis fear will reduce international pressure on Tehran.Kuwait stayed above the fray this week, talking of acting as a mediator when its emir returns from a medical trip overseas, but refraining from joining the pressure on Doha.

"The Saudis are strongly committed to the unity of the Gulf states, and they want other states to take their share of responsibilities towards the people of the Gulf," said Saud al-Sarhan, director of research at the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies in Riyadh.

"Saudi Arabia is taking control of regional and Arab security, and slowly bringing to an end the era of reliance on foreign partners for strategic priorities," he added.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

So how do ya like it so far?

"Saudi Arabia is taking control of regional and Arab security, and slowly bringing to an end the era of reliance on foreign partners for strategic priorities," he added.

"Taking control" for real?

or "taking control" by way of direct employment of western mercenaries(not just advisors) formerly in the employ of the west instead of the previous strategic direct western state outsourcing?

i'm over here at the moment and I get the sense that the direct (rather than previous indirect) employment of westerners to conduct increasingly sensitive regime continuity related functions of the state are on the rise. We're not just talking about emptying F15 ashtrays or changing the turn signal fluid on HMMVs anymore.

i know we've talked about this going back a long ways with the Poms and even the Israelis, but I reckon it will go beyond the strategic internal security advice and assistance and now may include some serious hands on stuff at the coal face.

It sounds like the previous "training" is turning into "leading" and "doing" if things get weird.