China and Turkey

NATO is not happy with Turkey hosting Chinese Su-27s and MiG-29s last month, for joint air exercises. NATO, especially the U.S., felt that this event allowed China to familiarize themselves with NATO air tactics and operations. 

Previously, these yearly Anatolian Eagle exercises involved Turkish, American and Israeli aircraft. But Turkey is cozying up to China, and other Islamic states, and pulling away from Israel and the West. 

For the last decade, a reform government, with Islamic roots, has ruled the country. While the corruption certainly needed attention, turning towards Islamic nations and away from Israel was not popular with Turkey's Western allies, or many Turks for that matter.

China has pledged to quickly increase trade between the two countries from the current $17 billion a year, to $50 billion. Despite this economic incentive from China.

But Turkey has said it would increase military cooperation with China. Turkey has also held joint training exercises with neighboring Syria, a sworn enemy of Israel.

Syria Wary of New Media

After information ministers from Arab states agreed to make new media and communications technology compatible across the Middle East, critics of the Syrian government said its real interest was in regaining control of a sphere where censorship of information is less and less effective.

A resolution issued on November 17, after information and communications ministers from the Arab countries met in Damascus, contained a pledge to develop a joint strategy for coping with new technological developments and to coordinate national policies on IT. However, the document stressed that this was not about imposing censorship.

At the meeting, Syrian Information Minister Mohsen Bilal indicated that his government was struggling to keep abreast of evolving technology. “Electronic media are moving very fast and we fear that we’ll be unable to keep up,” he said.

Analysts say the increasing popularity and sheer number of news websites, together with advances in mobile phone technology, present a huge challenge for regimes that have traditionally controlled the flow of information their populations have access to.

“New media such as the internet and text messaging have shrugged off the restrictions that some governments impose on media, and have helped [people] get access to news that wouldn’t have been accessible if it were up to government officials,” said Damascus-based media expert Muyasar Suhail. “Governments can no longer control the news that’s published or halt the flow of information.”

Syria’s information ministry has a special committee on electronic media and information whose official purpose is to study the media situation, although critics argue that it was designed to address a situation where the government can control domestic radio and TV broadcasters but not electronic media.

Adnan Naouf, editor of Champress, a news website based in Damascus, said, “The future lies with electronic media, and that’s why the official media are trying to control the means of communication in order to tighten censorship over all media outlets, both conventional and electronic.”

Nidhal Malouf, editor-in-chief of the pro-government Syria News site, agreed that officials in charge of media “lack a clear vision of the major changes that will take place in this sector in future, and the immense amount of competition that media outlets are now facing”.

He went on, “This competition will make countries that have narrow margins of freedom, including Syria, interact with one another to get accurate information out into the open. Since facts can be neither concealed nor controlled, let’s present them to our audience in the right way, just as they are.”

At the same time, Malouf drew a careful distinction between media sanctioned by the Syrian authorities and those that operate covertly, suggesting that only the latter behaved unprofessionally.

“It is unprofessional media outlets that are able to violate the restrictions imposed on media, because they are often in hiding. The professional outlets would not do this, because they adhere to the policies that are set out,” he said.

Ghusoun Suleiman, a journalist with the state news agency SANA, was similarly dismissive of independent electronic media that run into trouble with the authorities.

“Some websites have little credibility when they publish news and reports. Some of them engage in defamation, denigration and offensive comments, which results in them being closed down,” said Suleiman.

Sealing the Iraq borders vs Tradition

The Iraq war is moving to the borders, where support for radical groups enters the country from Iran (for Shia radicals), Syria (for Sunni radicals) and Turkey (for Kurdish radicals).

Sealing each of these borders requires a different approach.

The Iranians can be talked to, in addition to the growing number of border troops watching the frontier. The main problem is radical factions in the Iranian government, who are allowed to run their own terrorist operations in foreign countries.

The Iranian Al Quds Force (an intelligence and commando operation that supports Islamic terrorism overseas) always attracted very bright and able people, but also got personnel with a wide range of views on just what constituted an "Islamic Republic" or the proper role for the Quds Force itself.

One of the few things Quds officers could agree on was the need to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Many Quds officers actually warmed to the United States for doing the deed for them. Quds operatives were sent to Iraq in 2003 to see if they could establish another Islamic republic there.

But they quickly found that Iraq Shias were very divided on that subject.

This got many Quds officers disagreeing with their commanders back home. The feeling was that the officials back in Iran were living in a dream world.

This was reinforced by the debate over al Qaeda.

Even though this Sunni terrorist organization was violently anti-Shia, and had killed many Shia in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan, some Quds officials backed supporting al Qaeda, because of a common enemy, the United States in particular, and the West in general.

The sort of thing can happen because the Iranian leadership is more a federation than a dictatorship. So Quds can keep being nice to al Qaeda as long as not too many other Iranian factions get mad at Quds. So the Iraq government negotiates with more moderate members of the Iranian government, on how they can cooperate to control Quds, and other Iranian radicals trying to stir up trouble inside Iraq.

The situations on the Syrian and Turkish borders are more straightforward.

The Syrians, while allies of Iran, are largely Sunni, and the country has become a base for Sunni terrorist groups like al Qaeda.

So Iran tolerates Syrian support for Sunni terrorists who go to Iraq, via Syria, to kill fellow Shia. Politics is a rough game in this part of the world. But that tolerance is wearing off, and the Syrians have been told by Iran, Iraq and the United States that support for Sunni terrorists must stop, or else. Syria is being told to behave like Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, which have successfully sealed their borders to terrorists. Now it's time for Syria to join the "good neighbors" club.

The Turkish border is a little different, in that the terrorists (PKK, the Kurdish separatist group) hide out in Iraq, and launch attacks across the border in Turkey. The Kurds run their own affairs in northern Iraq, but are not willing to take out the PKK (who represent ideas, like an independent Kurdish state, that are popular with all Kurds).

So the Kurdish provincial, and Iraq national governments sort of look the other way while Turkish warplanes bomb PKK camps, and Turkish troops dash in to grab live PKK as prisoners, or examine dead ones for more intel on what the terrorist group is up to. Turkish military pressure has been pretty intense for the last few months, and the PKK is hurt. Not just by members killed or injured by the attacks, but by others who are demoralized and quit the organization. Recruitment is down and desertion is up. This is never a good sign. In the past month alone, at least a hundred PKK members have come out of the mountains near the border, and said they were quitting.

The Turks believe they may have destroyed a third of the PKK fighting power so far this year.

Most Iraq security forces are now focusing on protecting the voting centers that will be used in a few months for national elections.

These places will be, as usual, targets for the Sunni and Shia terrorists. Democracy is anathema to the religious terrorists (al Qaeda and their Iranian Shia counterparts), as the religious activists want a clerical dictatorship, not some alien Western import like democracy.

The religious terrorists are basically traditionalists, and the traditional government in this part of the world has always been a tyranny of one form or another. Thus support for tradition translates into support for some kind of dictator, hopefully a benevolent one.

Hoo-ah: Around In Syria

On October 26th, four helicopters crossed from Iraq into Syria. Two of the helicopters landed near the village of Sukariyya, and U.S. Special Forces troops engaged in a brief gun battle with members of the Abu Ghadiyahas network, who had been using the village as part of the smuggling network that brought money, weapons and suicide bombers into Iraq. Eight people died, two were taken captive, and the American soldiers left unharmed.

The timing of the strike is somewhat curious. President Assad of Syria had been moving to close off the border for terrorists, and was making other overtures, though slowly, probably trying to figure out how to stay in power regardless of who wins what.

A strike like this, with high potential fallout should have been vetted at the highest level. Was the guy the Special Forces were going after worth it? The fallout is serious, with most Arab states in the neighborhood, including Iraq, criticizing it. Iran was particularly angry, and upset. That's probably because Iran has also supported terrorists based in its territory, and allowing them to move men, money and weapons across the border. Shia radical leader Muqtada al Sadr is hiding out in Iran, where his followers are trained to be better terrorists, then sent back to Iraq.

U.S. officials offered international law as justification for this "invasion" of Syria. It goes like this. The United Nations Charter allows nations to defend themselves when under attack, and allows operations inside a foreign nation that cannot, or will not, stop attacks on a foreign country from within its borders. This clause was included to cover a common situation, where one nation will tolerate rebels from another taking refuge inside its borders. This is usually rebels or bandits who use that bases to conduct raids and banditry inside the neighboring nation. Often, the sanctuary nation is unable to clean out the hostile gunmen, or unwilling to do so because they support the goals of the gunmen, or simply want to weaken their neighbor by making it easier for the rebels or bandits to operate.

Afghanistan and Iraq would appear to meet these criteria. Afghan and Iraqi officials have long complained about terrorists crossing over from neighboring countries (Pakistan, Iraq and Iran), often with the assistance of border guards. Pakistan had something of an excuse, as they have never been able to control the tribes along the border, and have special laws that grant some autonomy to the border tribes, as long as they control cross-border raids. Pakistan has obviously not been controlling the Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists, so the U.S., as an ally of the Afghans, has been crossing the border, in compliance with the UN Charter, to strike at the hostile forces. This has been going on for nearly a year. Now the practice has spread to Syria, and the Iranians fear they are next.

It's this legal angle that has prevents any of the invaded countries from taking the U.S. before an international court. Syria, Pakistan and Iran know that there is a preponderance of evidence proving that terrorists are camping out in their territory, and operating across the border.

Even so, the reaction from the Syrians has been rather muted, almost pro forma – they could easily be a lot more vehement about it, let the "rioters" do lots of damage to US property, recall their ambassador, and so on. Could it be that they're not terribly unhappy the raid took place? Assad and his henchmen certainly must realize that al Qaeda ultimately is a threat to their own power, given that Syria is run by secular Shia nationalist socialists (the Baath party). Al Qaeda in Syria only holds back from attacking the government because Assad has been turning a blind eye to operations by Abu Ghadiyahas and his gang. As al Qaeda loses in Iraq, and as Iraq becomes increasingly able to handle its own security, the Abu Ghadiyahas net in Syria could pose a threat in several ways – turning against Assad directly would be the most serious, but also if they take actions that could involve risk to Syrian interests, such as trying to stir the pot in Iraq or Lebanon, or organize strikes against Israel. Going deeper, could the Americans have been tipped off by Assad to the presence of Abu Ghadiyahas with a wink and a nod, possibly through the Israelis, with whom Assad seems to be developing a covert relationship ?

Russian flotilla led by Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov heads for Syrian port

As the U.S. ans NATO awaits Moscow’s threatened reprisal for the treaty installing American missile interceptors at Redzikowo, on Poland’s Baltic coast – signed in Warsaw Wednesday - the Kremlin is striking back in the Middle East – hence

Military sources disclose that a powerful Russian naval contingent, led by the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov , left Murmansk on the Barents Sea Aug. 18 to dock at the Syrian Mediterranean port of Tartus Saturday, Aug. 23. It includes the Russian Navy’s biggest missile cruiser Moskva and at least four nuclear missile submarines.

At the Black Sea resort of Sochi, Syrian president Bashar Assad told reporters Thursday, Aug. 21, that he is considering a Russian request to deploy missiles in his country in view of Russian-Western tensions over the Georgian conflict, which he said had polarized East and West anew.

Assad signaled he would also be representing Tehran’s interests in his talks with Russian leaders. Jordan’s King Abdullah is on his way to join them later in the day.

Before the Russian flotilla departed Murmansk, Assad is reported by our sources as having given the nod for Tartus port’s conversion into a permanent Middle East base for Russia’s nuclear-armed warships.

Assad’s arrival coincided with a visit by a large Syrian military delegation Thursday at the Russian weapons manufacturing giant, the Kalinin Machines Plant, east of Moscow. Military sources report that this plant makes sophisticated anti-air missile systems, including the S-300 and the BUK M, for which Damascus is bidding.

The Syrian ruler has said he is seeking closer military cooperation with Russia. The deal emerging from his visit is expected to cover the Russian Navy’s use of Tartus in return for a mutual defense accord providing Syria with a Russian nuclear umbrella and generous terms for his arms purchases.

Aug. 17, Military sources first revealed Russia’s planned nuclear military deployments in the Middle East and Baltic to punish America for its missile deal with Poland and Georgia's attack in South Ossetia. They would included the installation of Iskandar surface missiles (nuclear-capable 200 km-range) in Syria and Kaliningrad.

North Korea gave Syria nuclear help

In a move that could upset Washington's policy towards North Korea, US intelligence officials are set to tell lawmakers this week that Pyongyang shared nuclear know-how with Syria, one official said Wednesday.

The United States has concluded that the Stalinist regime's help came both before and after a Syrian nuclear reactor being built in secret with North Korean help was destroyed, said the official, who requested anonymity.

"If it had been complete, the reactor would have been capable of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons, but it was destroyed before it could do so," the official said. "That's the result of solid intelligence."

The official did not specify who had destroyed the facility, but Israel carried out an airstrike inside Syrian territory in September in a move widely reported to have targeted a nuclear site.

"The reactor was put out of commission before it was loaded with nuclear fuel, before it became operational," the official said.

"It was not designed to produce electricity," the official emphasized.

US intelligence officials plan to brief US lawmakers from key committees on Thursday, amid deep concern in Congress about progress in six-country talks to dismantle North Korea's nuclear programs.

The revelation was expected to cloud prospects for President George W. Bush's aggressive efforts to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis before he leaves office in January 2009.

The White House declined to confirm details of the briefings, but spokeswoman Dana Perino and US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said separately that information on the issue could "soon" be made public.

Asked when the public would be told about what US intelligence believes about such collaboration, Gates told a Pentagon news conference: "Soon." He refused to elaborate.

"I think Secretary Gates said it well. 'Soon' is a good, short answer," Perino told reporters amid a flurry of news reports that North Korea had aided Syria in a covert drive to obtain nuclear capability.

"I'm not going to be able to say much on it today. And I'm not confirming anything at this briefing in regards to the substance," Perino.

Starting late Tuesday, US media outlets, citing unnamed US officials, said that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) would tell lawmakers from key committees that Israel hit a nuclear site, possibly a reactor, being constructed with North Korean help.

The news came at a particularly sensitive time for the six-country agreement aimed at stripping North Korea of its nuclear programs, months after Pyongyang was supposed to have formally "declared" the extent of its nuclear and proliferation activities.

The deadline for the declaration under the February 2007 deal was December 31, 2007.

Washington earlier this week sent a team of experts to North Korea and China in what could be a last-ditch effort at securing such a declaration amid growing signs that Bush may scale back his demands on Pyongyang.

Washington says Pyongyang should not only account for its plutonium program but also clear up suspicions about an alleged uranium enrichment program and suspected proliferation -- claims denied by North Korea.

Saddam’s WMD in Syria?

The Jerusalem Post is suggesting that very case.

An upcoming joint US-Israel report on the September 6 IAF strike on a Syrian facility will claim that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein transferred weapons of mass destruction to the country, Channel 2 stated Monday.

Furthermore, according to a report leaked to the TV channel, Syria has arrested 10 intelligence officials following the assassination of Hizbullah terror chief Imad Mughniyeh.

Commenting at JustOneMinute, Clarice asked some pointed questions:

Why didddam (did Saddam) give Russian Gen Primakov a medal just before the invasion. Why did Saddam's ex-General Duda say the WMDs had been transported to Syria? Why did Syria make no complaint to the UN or anyone else about the attack?

In an article penned over two years ago, Kenneth Timmerman wrote:

A top Pentagon official who was responsible for tracking Saddam Hussein's weapons programs before and after the 2003 liberation of Iraq, has provided the first-ever account of how Saddam Hussein "cleaned up" his weapons of mass destruction stockpiles to prevent the United States from discovering them.

"The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon," former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw told an audience Saturday at a privately sponsored "Intelligence Summit" in Alexandria, Va. (www.intelligencesummit.org).

"They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special forces) units out of uniform, that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence," he said.

There is a lot more detail in the article but here is the final conclusions:

In the end, here is what Shaw learned:

In December 2002, former Russian intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov, a KGB general with long-standing ties to Saddam, came to Iraq and stayed until just before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

Primakov supervised the execution of long-standing secret agreements, signed between Iraqi intelligence and the Russian GRU (military intelligence), that provided for clean-up operations to be conducted by Russian and Iraqi military personnel to remove WMDs, production materials and technical documentation from Iraq, so the regime could announce that Iraq was "WMD free."

Shaw said that this type GRU operation, known as "Sarandar," or "emergency exit," has long been familiar to U.S. intelligence officials from Soviet-bloc defectors as standard GRU practice.

In addition to the truck convoys, which carried Iraqi WMD to Syria and Lebanon in February and March 2003 "two Russian ships set sail from the (Iraqi) port of Umm Qasr headed for the Indian Ocean," where Shaw believes they "deep-sixed" additional stockpiles of Iraqi WMD from flooded bunkers in southern Iraq that were later discovered by U.S. military intelligence personnel.

The Russian "clean-up" operation was entrusted to a combination of GRU and Spetsnaz troops and Russian military and civilian personnel in Iraq "under the command of two experienced ex-Soviet generals, Colonel-General Vladislav Achatov and Colonel-General Igor Maltsev, both retired and posing as civilian commercial consultants."

Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz reported on Oct. 30, 2004, that Achatov and Maltsev had been photographed receiving medals from Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed in a Baghdad building bombed by U.S. cruise missiles during the first U.S. air raids in early March 2003.

Clarice’s last question is in my opinion the most important one. We spend a lot of time and intellectual energy analyzing what is being said but often the most important messages are what’s NOT being said.

I challenge anyone to cite an example of Israel attacking a target in an Arab country that did not result in immediate outrage from the Arab League and the United Nations.

Remember Operation Opera in 1981 when Israel bombed the French built Iraqi nuclear facility?

At the time, the attack was widely criticized. Israel responded that its actions were self-defensive and thus justifiable under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Many critics, however, rejected the applicability of "pre-emptive self-defense" in the absence of any imminent armed attack. France, in particular, was outraged over the loss of a French national as a result of the attack, and since the raid diplomatic ties between France and Israel have remained strained.

The United Nations Security Council strongly condemned the attack as a clear violation of the Charter and that Iraq was entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction caused. The resolution further called upon Israel to place its own nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards.[4] The United States supported this resolution as it condemned the action, not the nation. Their response was to, temporarily, withhold a contingent of aircraft already promised to Israel.

The silence of Syria and the Cabal of despots at the United Nations is deafening.

Hat Tip to my buddy Crotchety Old Bastard @ http://crotchetyoldbastard.com