Assad Falls In Syria - Will The New Regime Be Better?

 The last couple of weeks in Syria have shocked the world. The Syrian rebels (Hyatt Tahrir al-Sham or "HTS") proved stronger than anyone expected. They have captured Syria's major cities, including Damascus, and ousted Assad. Reports are that Assad has left the country, leaving instructions for his government to have a peaceful transfer of power.

What does this mean for Syria? Have they jumped from the frying pan into the fire? Will they have a new government that respects all people of the country, or a strict Islamic government like Iran (or even worse, like Afghanistan)? There is some evidence that the former may be true. Here is how The Washington Post reports it:

According to a broad array of analysts and Syria experts, HTS also has changed, not just in its rhetoric but in its actions, including at least an initial public embrace of pluralism and religious freedom in areas that it has come to occupy.

Whether HTS’s professions of reform are genuine is far from clear. It is one unknown among a swirl of uncertainties in a crisis changing so rapidly that Western intelligence analysts acknowledge they are struggling to keep up.

The outcome could have major security impacts for Syria’s neighbors as well as the hundreds of U.S. service personnel deployed at military outposts in southern and northeastern Syria. The consequences could be even more profound for ordinary Syrians, including the 14 million — more than two-thirds of the country’s population — who are internally displaced or living as refugees, and the vast numbers of others who are simply exhausted after 13 years of conflict. . . .

By all accounts, HTS has evolved considerably since the days of the “catastrophic success” warnings. By 2015, the group formerly known as al-Nusra Front had changed its name and disavowed any ties with the Islamic State, its parent organization. In 2016, its leader, Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, had also publicly broken with al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups.

Jolani has sought since then to cultivate a more moderate, tolerant image and to root out — sometimes brutally — Islamic State supporters in his enclave as well as extremists within his organization, analysts say.

Even as his army was on the march in the past two weeks, Jolani has gone out of his way to present his reformer’s credentials to Western audiences, offering interviews to CNN and the New York Times.

“No one has the right to erase another group,” Jolani said of Syria’s ethnic and religious minorities in a CNN interview broadcast on Friday. “These sects have coexisted in this region for hundreds of years, and no one has the right to eliminate them.”

Jolani even suggested that he might disband his own organization in order to build a new government that represented all parts of Syrian society.

“We are talking about building Syria,” Jolani said. “Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is merely one part of this dialogue, and it may dissolve at any time. It is not an end in itself but a means to perform a task: confronting this regime.”

Syrian advocacy groups say Jolani has generally followed through on his pledge of moderation by allowing freedom of worship and granting rights to women — including the right to pursue professional careers and attend college — in HTS’s Idlib stronghold, as well as the cities that have recently fallen to the group.

Mouaz Moustafa, executive director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force, a Washington-based advocacy group with an extensive network in northern Syria, said Aleppo’s citizens have largely welcomed the HTS fighters. A prominent leader of the city’s Orthodox community told him that Christian neighborhoods were putting up Christmas decorations without rebel interference, Moustafa said. . . .

Still, several U.S. and Middle Eastern analysts said they are not yet convinced by Jolani’s claims of reform.

American Public's Views On ISIS In Iraq

Chart was made from a Rasmussen Poll done of 1,000 likely voters on August 22nd and 23rd, with a 3 point margin of error.

Chart was made from a Rasmussen Poll done of 1,000 likely voters on September 3rd and 4th, with a margin of error of 3 points.

Chart was made from a Rasmussen Poll done of 1,000 likely voters on August 30th and 31st, with a margin of error of 3 points.

If the rebels known as ISIS thought they could intimidate the United States and its citizens by beheading American citizens, then they made a serious mistake. All they have done is anger a whole lot of people in this country. About 61% say they should be hunted down and brought to justice (executed), and I would agree with this. I would like to see them captured and although I generally oppose the death penalty, I doubt I'd lose any sleep if they were put to death.

And since these criminals seem to be out of our reach right now, a whopping 75% is in favor of the president continuing his unilateral bombing campaign against them. I have written before of my opposition to the bombing campaign, and I still think it is a bad idea. We have no friends on either side of this religious civil war -- and the bombing just make it look like christians attacking muslims (which is sure to make more enemies for us as innocent civilians are killed).

If we want to do something about ISIS, then we need a coalition of countries to take the action -- and that coalition must contain most of the major muslim countries in that part of the world (countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, U.A.E., Jordan, etc.). ISIS poses a danger to all of those countries, and if they are not willing to defend themselves by fighting in Iraq, then neither should we. It's really their fight.

Thankfully, most Americans still oppose sending troops into Iraq to fight ISIS -- even most Republicans. I agree. A muslim coalition should do the work, possibly with some help from this country. It is simply not the U.S.'s place to interfere on the side of either faction in this religious war.

A View Of The Turmoil In Ukraine

(This image of the violence in Ukraine is from the BBC website.)

Do you really understand what is happening in Ukraine? Most Americans probably don't. Perhaps the best explanation I have seen comes from a blog called The Blog Fodder. The blog is written by a Canadian who married a woman from Ukraine, and is now a permanent resident in that country. Here is the link to his excellent post:

http://dablogfodder.blogspot.com/2014/02/ukraine-i-break-radio-silence.html?showComment=1392939402105#c8655039905705496306

A Lesson From History

It is amazing to me that this was known over twenty-three centuries ago, but seems to have been forgotten by many of our current politicians. The Republicans should take note. They continue to want to rob the poor and disadvantaged to give more to the rich -- a policy that's not only hard-hearted, but stupid and dangerous. People can only take so much, and when they have nothing more to lose they will strike back. Any society that protects the rich while taking from everyone else is doomed to failure.

Public Opposes Arming Syrian Rebels

A few days ago, the Obama administration announced they were going to start shipping arms to the rebels in Syria. This marks a significant change in policy. Prior to this, the only U.S. aid going to the rebels was non-lethal aid (such as medical supplies). And even this may not be enough for some of the hawks in Congress, who would like to see at least some military intervention in that country (such as the establishment of a "no-fly" zone).

But two new polls show that both the Obama administration and the congressional hawks are out-of-step with want the American public wants. The polls are from the Pew Research Center (taken between June 12th and 16th of 1,512 adults -- with a 2.9 point margin of error), and the Gallup Poll (taken on June 15th & 16th of 1,015 adults with a 4 point margin of error). Both polls show that a majority of the American public opposes supplying arms to the Syrian rebels. Here are the complete numbers from the polls, with approval being the first number given (and disapproval being the number in parentheses -- and in charts above):

PEW CENTER SURVEY
General public...............20% (70%)
Republicans...............20% (71%)
Independents...............18% (74%)
Democrats...............25% (66%)

GALLUP POLL
General public...............37% (54%)
Republicans...............29% (63%)
Independents...............33% (60%)
Democrats...............51% (42%)

Note that there is a difference between the two polls --  and that difference is primarily among Democrats. Twice as many Democrats told Gallup they supported arming the rebels as told that to Pew. Why the difference? I believe the difference lays in when the polls were taken. At least half of the Pew poll was taken before President Obama announced the change in policy, while all of the Gallup poll was taken after that announcement had been made.

It looks to me like a significant group of die-hard Democrats, after the president announced the arming of the rebels, decided they must support the president's decision (even though many of them had serious reservations). I find that rather pathetic. I supported President Obama (and worked for him) in both of the last two presidential elections. But I cannot support his involving this country even deeper into the Syrian civil war by arming the rebels. It is just one more step toward a new war for this country.

I don't believe we have any friends in the Syrian civil war -- neither the government (which is a truly brutal regime) or the rebels (who are muslim fundamentalists, and natural enemies of the U.S. and its policies). Some would say that the enemy of our enemy is our friend, but that doesn't apply in this case. No matter who wins that civil war, we are not going to see Syria become a U.S. ally.

The Obama administration has made a serious mistake in arming the Syrian rebels. I just hope now that Obama doesn't let himself get bullied by the right in Congress into involving us deeper into the conflict -- by using American military power. The last thing we need is a new war -- a war that cannot possibly benefit this country.

U.S. Moves Closer To War In Syria

(The photograph above of Syrian rebel fighters in from June 13th edition of New York Times.)

The United States government is abandoning their position of supplying only non-combat help to the Syrian rebels. The Obama administration has now decided to supply weapons to the rebels, making it clearer than ever that the United States has chosen a side in that country's civil war.

The reason given by the government for this decision is that the Syrian government, on at least one occasion, has used chemical weapons in that war. But this seems to be just an excuse for taking action many in the government wanted to take, since the United Nations investigators (who have been investigating whether chemical weapons have been used or not) have not confirmed the use of chemical weapons.

This is a dangerous move. Many believe the supplying of small arms to the rebels will not be enough to make a decisive difference in the Syrian conflict, and are still pushing for the use of U.S. military power there (air power, and maybe even ground troops). Personally, I think any kind of military help (supplying arms or using U.S. military power) is a serious mistake, that can only have negative repercussions in the future.

We made this same mistake in Afghanistan. We assumed the Afghan rebels were our friends just because they were fighting the Soviets, so we supplied them with arms. But after winning, they morphed into the Taliban and provided a safe home and training grounds for al-Queda (who then attacked us on 9/11). Now we are still fighting that same Taliban in a seemingly endless war.

What makes us think the same thing won't happen in Syria. The Syrian leader is a brutal dictator, but are the rebels any better. We know they are muslim fundamentalists, and it is very likely that any government they created would be an authoritarian theocracy (much like the Taliban). And it is just as likely they would be anti-American.

The truth is that the United States really doesn't have a dog in this fight -- and it is just wishful thinking to believe that we do. It is the height of folly to even consider taking sides in the Syrian civil war -- in any way.

3 Out Of 10 Considering Armed Rebellion ?

We have known for a while that there are certain elements in this country, like the armed militias in many states, that are on the verge of stepping over the line of patriotism and into treason. Some of them are already over that line. In fact, these people are more dangerous than islamic fundamentalists (and that has been verified by government studies). The only thing that has made me feel better about these nuts is the thought that they are a very tiny minority of our population.

But a new poll shows that might not be true. People considering a treasonous armed rebellion against our government may comprise a much larger percentage of the population than previously believed. At least that's what a new Fairleigh Dickinson University Poll (conducted between April 22nd and 28th of a nationwide sample of registered voters -- with a 3.4 point margin of error) seems to show.

The poll results said about 29% of Americans believed an "armed rebellion" might be needed in "the next few years" to "protect our liberties". I'm not sure just what liberties these people are worried about, since the poll didn't go into specifics about that (and the truth is that we are more equal now than at any time in our history -- except in economic terms). I suspect these liberties involve the right to discriminate against other Americans they disagree with, since the percentage who think armed rebellion might be necessary goes up significantly when only Republicans are considered. Almost half of Republicans (44%) believe this.

Here are the poll's numbers, with those agreeing being the first number given (and those disagreeing being in parentheses):

IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS AN ARMED REBELLION MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO PROTECT OUR LIBERTIES.

General public...............29% (47%)

Democrats...............18% (61%)
Independents...............27% (45%)
Republicans...............44% (31%)

Men...............30% (50%)
Women...............29% (45%)

High school...............36% (35%)
Some college...............31% (44%)
College grad...............22% (60%)

And it might be even worse than those numbers show. About 5% of the general public was unsure, and another 19% refused to either agree or disagree. As a loyal American, I have to admit that these are very disappointing numbers.

Right-Wing Goes Looney Over Libya

There used to be a time in this country when the right-wing conservatives actually stood for something. This was especially true when it was led by men like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater. I seldom agreed with them, but at least they knew what they believed in and knew how to expound those beliefs -- and those beliefs didn't change, no matter who was president or who agreed or disagreed with them.

That is no longer true. Since the election of our African-American president, Barack Obama, the right-wing in America seems to have completely lost its mind (and many of its beliefs). It seems that they no longer stand for anything. Now they are too caught up in standing against things -- that is, anything that President Obama says or does.

When a person or group actually stands for something, they can be dealt with -- and compromise can be found. The compromise may not make everyone ecstatic, but they can be satisfied that a solution was found that would be good for the country. But a person or group that is only against things, like the current teabagging right-wing, cannot compromise because they don't really have a base position to act from. Whatever their opponents (especially the president) propose, they must be against -- no matter how reasonable the proposal is.

A good example of this is the current situation in Libya and our government's reaction to it. When the conflict first started, the right-wing was aghast that the president didn't jump right in to help the poor people in Libya who were fighting for their freedom. They viewed his slow and measured response as failing the wonderful "freedom fighters", and really as being anti-freedom in general. They were quick to criticize the inaction.

But now the president, through the United Nations, has acted to defend the Libyan rebels from certain annihilation by Kaddafi's forces, and it is working. The rebels have, with U.N. help turned a bad situation into an advantageous one. In short, they are once again winning -- and it looks like Kaddafi may actually be shoved from power.

Now one might think this would make those on the right very happy. After all, the president has done what they were asking him to do. And that would be the case -- if they had really had firm beliefs to begin with. But they didn't. They wanted the president to intervene only because he wasn't intervening. In other words, they were simply taking a position opposed to the president (and could care less about the Libyans).

Once the president finally acted the right-wing did a full flip-flop. All of a sudden they were against any intervention in Libya. Now this made them look a little silly, since they had taken the opposite position just the week before -- but what could they do? They had to oppose the president (since their only and fundamental belief is the president is wrong -- no matter what he does). Even worse for them, it looks like the president's action might actually be working.

This meant they needed some reason for them to justify opposing the president, so they pulled the old boogeyman out of the closet -- al-Queda. They have suddenly discovered that the rebels aren't freedom fighters at all, but al-Queda operatives who want to take over Libya and use it as a base of operations for their nefarious purposes. Listen to what some of these fringe right-wing nuts are now saying:

– On Facebook, former Speaker Newt Gingrich asked “Does President Obama acknowledge the danger of Al Qaeda allies among the anti-Qaddafi forces and pledge to work for a moderate replacement government without extremist factions?” [03/28/11]

– Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN): “I have been very reluctant to see the United States to go into Libya. For one thing, we haven’t identified yet who the opposition even is to Qaddafi. We don’t know if this is led by Hamas, Hezbollah, or possibly al Qaeda of North Africa. Are we really better off, are United States, our interests better off, if let’s say Al-Qaeda of North Africa now runs Libya?” [03/24/11]

– AFA’s Bryan Fischer: “Al Qaeda is behind the rebellion in Libya. So this no-fly zone is in fact helping the Muslims who killed 3000 Americans on 9/11. But helping our sworn enemies, especially if they are Muslims, does not seem to be a bother to Obama.” [03/22/11]

– Hateblogger Pam Geller, writing at Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment: “And now [President Obama] is essentially backing Al-Qaeda in Libya. Al-Qaeda has already established an Islamic emirate in eastern Libya, and is playing a leading role in the revolt against Gaddafi. The Libyan Islamist Fighting Group is also involved.” [03/21/11]

There's only one problem with these new charges from the right-wingers. They aren't true. U.S. intelligence has not been able to find any connection between the Libyan rebels and al-Queda (or "islamofascists" of any kind for that matter). They have simply pulled this ridiculous charge out of their (tinfoil?) hats, because they had to have some reason to oppose President Obama.

What's even crazier is that their new position puts them in the uncomfortable position of supporting the Kaddafi government -- the same government they were applauding Ronald Reagan for bombing (since Kaddafi was the force behind the Lockerbie airliner bombing). How's that for fickle?

While I seldom agreed with them, I miss the old-style conservatives. At least they had some real beliefs.

Intervention In Libya Seems To Be Working

There has been a lot of discussion over the United Nations intervention in Libya in the last few days. Some want to paint it as a new war by the United States (even though most actual air flights have been flown by French and British troops, while the United States mainly used cruise missiles to knock out radar installations and command& control sites). Others counter that we should have struck sooner and unilaterally. Frankly, I think both sides are wrong.

It would have been a serious mistake for the United States to unilaterally intervene in Libya. It needed to be a United Nations effort with the bulk of the fighting shared among several nations (including at least some Arab nations), and that is exactly what has happened. Although the U.S. took the initial lead in the operation, control will now be handed off to NATO in a couple of days.

If intervention had occurred any sooner, the rebel uprising (which truly is a Libyan uprising) could have easily blamed on Western nations. If it had happened any later, it is doubtful that the rebels could have survived the vicious attack by the Libyan military (which was pounding them with air strikes, tanks, and artillery). It looks like the United Nations intervened at exactly the right time.

Once the French started destroying Libyan army tanks and artillery, and the rest of the coalition made sure the Libyan air force was out of the fight, the odds were evened and the rebels began to once again seize the advantage. They were able to save Benghazi and retake Ajdabiya. Now they have moved west and also retaken Ras Lanuf and Brega. This gives the rebels control over most of Libya's oil fields -- a situation that Kaddafi cannot allow to exist if he is to remain in power for long.

But the fighting is far from over. The rebels are pushing west while the Libyan army retreats (leaving their armor and artillery behind, smoking and destroyed). But the rebel hold on Misrata is still tenuous, and the rebels must take Sirte (Kaddafi's home town) before they can help out with Misrata. And it is expected the fighting in Sirte could be very bloody.

Even if Sirte is taken and Misrata saved, the fighting would not be over. The endgame is surely to be played out in Tripoli -- Libya's capital and largest city. And it's anybody's guess as to what will happen there. The population of that city could rise up and throw Kaddafi out, or they could settle in for a long and protracted and very bloody battle. Only time will tell.

But for now, the intervention of the United Nations is working. The rebels have the initiave once again. It looks like Kaddafi's days may be numbered. But the U.N. is doing all it can or should do. Now it's up to the rebels. And we'll just have to wait and see if they can finish what they started.

Objective Not To Remove Kadaffi ?

The United Nations "no-fly zone" has been established in Libya, and it looks like the "other necessary measures" are also being pursued. Radar and Command & Control sites have been attacked by cruise missiles (over 200 of them) and French planes have taken out some tanks attacking rebel positions.

So far it looks like the United States has taken the lead in the action. I think that was probably to be expected, especially with the removal of radar and other sites by missiles. But care needs to be taken that this doesn't turn into a third American war on a muslim nation. The action was approved by the United Nations and must remain a U.N. action.

The president and Secretary of Defense Gates have both said that within a few days the United States will hand over primary control of the operation to other U.N. forces -- probably Great Britain and France. They have also ruled out sending ground forces into Libya. I hope they are telling the truth on both counts. I think the U.N. needed to act in Libya, but the U.S. doesn't need another major war on its hands.

Having said the above, I must also say that the recent remark by Joint Chiefs of Staff head Admiral Mullen is rather stupid. He said that the purpose of the mission was not to remove Kadaffi from power. What else could be the objective? Surely we don't want to maintain the status quo -- a divided country in the midst of a civil war, with Kadaffi still in power and controlling Libyan oil. That would be a worse outcome than just staying out and letting Kadaffi solidify his position again.

The only legitimate reason for the U.N. action is to help remove Kadaffi from power. And once he is removed from power, he should be tried and convicted and spend the rest of his life in prison for ordering the bombing of the airliner in Lockerbie, Scotland. This should have happened many years ago.

Allowing Kadaffi to remain in power is not an option, especially now that the United Nations has attacked the country. he must be removed from power. Anything short of that would be a dismal and complete failure.

U.N. OK's "All Necessary Action" Against Gaddafi

I have posted a couple of times on this blog that I opposed any action by the United States to interfere in the internal situation in Libya. I still oppose unilateral action by the United States (or any other country). However, I do support the action taken last night by the United Nations.

The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution authorizing U.N. forces to impose a "no-fly zone" over Libya, and to take "all necessary actions" to protect the Libyan population from Gaddafi. Ten nations voted for the resolution and five abstained from voting. The abstaining nations are Germany, Russia, China, Brazil and India.

The rebels in Libya had taken over nearly half the country, until Gaddafi unleashed his air power and large artillery. Recently it looked like Gaddafi might take over the country, but if he can't use his air force (and artillery) the momentum could swing back to the rebels.

It is believed that any early actions taken by the U.N. would be by Britain and France with help from at least two Arab nations. This is a good thing. Just like unilateral action would have been a mistake, action without Arab help would also be a mistake. Any action must be viewed by the world as a U.N. action -- not a NATO action.

Gaddafi is not going to withdraw his troops and stop his attacks -- he's too much a madman for that. It would probably be a good idea to go ahead and take out any Libyan radar in preparation for action that might be necessary against their air force or artillery. I still wish Gaddafi would abdicate and leave the country, but that's not going to happen. The next best thing is to take away his technological weapons advantage -- and that's what the U.N. did last night.

All we can do now is hope this Libyan action ends soon and with a minimal loss of life -- and with Gaddafi out of power.