Category Archives: Russia

The Power to Defeat but Lacks Resolve

Posted on by

It was in 1997 that Hamas was declared a terror organization by the United States. Definitions 15 to 20 years ago for ‘terror’ is quite different than today and today the Middle East has become the destination of war, money, indifference and the spilling of blood of the treasure of life.

Presidents come and go, each has a set of priorities and the missions change in the White House due to actions of other states, group leadership and elitists. In 1973, such was the case for 32 terrifying days, the Yom Kippur war.

Golda Meir, the Prime Minister of Israel was hungry for a big and perhaps final solution that she considered readying nuclear weapons to protect and defend against the Soviet coordinated attack by Egypt and Syria on the homeland.

President Nixon had no use for the Jews as they were a thorn in his side when it came to his own political and global objectives. Yet when it was determined that Israel was under attack, without any hesitation, Nixon ordered full immediate and full support for Israel with the full understanding that changing the balance of the Middle East would be a grave condition for the world. Nixon issued an edict, he order it now and the response set forth the real nature of the U.S. military with distinction, performance, coordination and success. Instant precision and results saved Israel as Nixon so ordered. The name of this mission was Operation Nickel Grass.

Has any country since come to the robust aid and support of Israel so ordered by President Nixon? Has the United States since come to stand with Israel in the trenches since Operation Nickel Grass? Of note, this was a very bad time for America coming off the walk away from Vietnam and embarking on the gripping scandal known as Watergate. However the White House understood the implications far and wide that included the Arab nations and the Soviet Union, the order of the globe was about to spin out of control.

There was no real logistical pre-planning, there was no time. There were no locations to refuel, there were no provisions staged to fulfill the requests of Israel and there were no previous interactions with national leaders to assist. Phone calls were made, cables were sent and operations were launched in four days time. This is America’s legacy, do it, be creative, be innovative, be inventive, gather your men, build the army and win.

 

It was justifiably called “the airlift that saved Israel”.

One of the most critical but least celebrated airlifts in history unfolded over a desperate 32 days in the fall of 1973. An armada of Military Airlift Command aircraft carried thousands of tons of materiel over vast distances into the midst of the most ferocious fighting the Middle East had ever witnessed-the 1973 Arab¬Israeli War. MAC airlifters-T-tailed C-141s and C-5As-went in harm’s way, vulnerable to attack from fighters, as they carved a demanding track across the Mediterranean, and to missiles and sabotage, as they were off-loading in Israel.

Though not as famous as the 1948¬-49 Berlin Airlift or as massive as the 1990-¬91 Desert Storm airlift, this 1973 operation was a watershed event. Code-named “Nickel Grass,” it restored a balance of power and helped Israel survive a coordinated, life-threatening Soviet-backed assault from Egypt and Syria. It proved the Air Force concept of global mobility based on jet-powered transport aircraft. The airlift also transformed the image of the C-5 from that of expensive lemon to symbol of US might.

A quarter of a century ago, in summer and fall 1973, the Mideast seethed with tensions. Six years earlier, in June 1967, Israeli forces conquered vast swaths of land controlled by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. Cairo and Damascus failed over the years to persuade or force Israel to relinquish its grip on the land and, by 1973, the stalemate had become intolerable. Egypt’s Anwar Sadat and Syria’s Hafez al-Assad meticulously planned their 1973 offensive, one they hoped would reverse Israeli gains of the earlier war and put an end to Arab humiliation. The war was set to begin on the holiest of Jewish religious days, Yom Kippur.

Trapped by Complacency

The Arab states had trained well and Moscow had supplied equipment on a colossal scale, including 600 advanced surface-to-air missiles, 300 MiG-21 fighters, 1,200 tanks, and hundreds of thousands of tons of consumable war materiel. On paper, the Arabs held a huge advantage in troops, tanks, artillery, and aircraft. This was offset, in Israeli minds, by the Jewish state’s superior technology, advanced mobilization capability, and interior lines of communication. Despite unmistakable signs of increasing Arab military capability, Israeli leaders remained unworried, even complacent, confident in Israel’s ability to repel any attack.

The Israeli government became unequivocally convinced of impending war just hours before the Arab nations attacked at 2:05 p.m. local time, Oct. 6. Prime Minister Golda Meir, despite her immense popularity, refused to use those precious hours to carry out a pre-emptive attack; she was concerned that the US might withhold critical aid shipments if Washington perceived Israel to be the aggressor.

On the southern front, the onslaught began with a 2,000-cannon barrage across the Suez Canal, the 1967 cease-fire line. Egyptian assault forces swept across the waterway and plunged deep into Israeli-held territory. At the same time, crack Syrian units launched a potent offensive in the Golan Heights. The Arab forces fought with efficiency and cohesion, rolling over or past shocked Israeli defenders. Arab air forces attacked Israeli airfields, radar installations, and missile sites.

Day 4 of the war found Israel’s once-confident military suffering from the effects of the bloodiest mauling of its short, remarkably successful existence. Egypt had taken the famous Bar Lev line, a series of about 30 sand, steel, and concrete bunkers strung across the Sinai to slow an attack until Israeli armor could be brought into play. Egyptian commandos ranged behind Israeli lines, causing havoc. In the north, things looked equally bad. The Syrian attack had not been halted until Oct. 10.

Grievously heavy on both sides were the losses in armored vehicles and combat aircraft. Israeli airpower was hard hit by a combination of mobile SA-6 and the man-portable SA-7 air-defense missiles expertly wielded by the Arabs. The attacking forces were also plentifully supplied with radar-controlled ZSU-23-4 anti-aircraft guns. Israeli estimates of consumption of ammunition and fuel were seen to be totally inadequate. However, it was the high casualty rate that stunned Israel, shocking not only Meir but also the legendary Gen. Moshe Dayan, minister of defense.

The shock was accompanied by sheer disbelief at America’s failure to comprehend that the situation was critical. Voracious consumption of ammunition and huge losses in tanks and aircraft brought Israel to the brink of defeat, forcing the Israelis to think the formerly unthinkable as they pondered their options.

Half a world away, the United States was in a funk, unable or unwilling to act decisively. Washington was in the throes of not only post-Vietnam moralizing on Capitol Hill but also the agony of Watergate, both of which impaired the leadership of President Richard M. Nixon. Four days into the war, Washington was blindsided again by another political disaster-the forced resignation of Vice President Spiro T. Agnew.

Not surprisingly, the initial US reaction to the invasion was one of confusion and contradiction. Leaders tried to strike a balance of the traditional US support of Israel with the need to maintain a still-tenuous superpower détente with the Soviet Union and a desire to avoid a threatened Arab embargo of oil shipments to the West.

Shifting Scenarios

The many shifts in US military planning to aid Israel are well-documented, notably in Flight to Israel, Kenneth L. Patchin’s official MAC history of Operation Nickel Grass. Nixon, in response to a personal plea from Meir, had made the crucial decision Oct. 9 to re-supply Israel. However, four days would pass before the executive office could make a final decision on how the re-supply would be executed.

Initially, planners proposed that Israel be given the responsibility for carrying out the entire airlift. (Israel did use eight of its El Al commercial airliners to carry 5,500 tons of materiel from the US to Israel.) Israel attempted to elicit interest from US commercial carriers, but they refused to enlist in the effort, concerned as they were about the adverse effects Arab reaction would have upon their businesses. MAC’s inquiries with commercial carriers received the same negative response. Then, it was suggested that MAC assist the Israeli flag carrier by flying the material to Lajes, the base on the Portuguese Azores islands in the Atlantic, where it could be picked up by Israeli transports.

The US dithered in this fashion for four days. Then, on Oct. 12, Nixon personally decided that MAC would handle the entire airlift. Tel Aviv’s Lod/Ben-Gurion air complex would be the off-load point.

“Send everything that can fly,” he ordered.

USAF had been preparing right along to take on the challenge. Gen. George S. Brown, USAF Chief of Staff, telephoned Gen. Paul K. Carlton, MAC commander, to begin loading MAC aircraft with materiel but to hold them within the US pending release of a formal order sending them onward. Carlton put his commanders on alert and contacted the heads of other involved commands, including Gen. Jack J. Catton of Air Force Logistics Command. AFLC accorded the same high priority to Nickel Grass, and the results showed immediately. More than 20 sites in the United States were designated to be cargo pick-up points where the US military would assemble materiel for shipment to Israel. Equipment, some directly from war-reserve stocks, began pouring into these sites.

Less than nine hours after Nixon’s decision, MAC had C-141s and C-5s ready to depart. There would be some initial delays, and they would encounter some difficulties en route, but they would be the first of a flood of aircraft into Israel.

The complex nature of Nickel Grass required a flexible chain of command. Within MAC, 21st Air Force, commanded by Maj. Gen. Lester T. Kearney Jr., was designated as the controlling Air Force. The vice commander of 21st, Brig. Gen. Kelton M. Farris, was named MAC mission commander. The prime airlift director was Col. Edward J. Nash.

We’ll Hold Your Coat

The threat of an oil embargo frightened US allies. With a single exception, they all denied landing and overflight rights to the emergency MAC flights. The exception was Portugal, which, after hard bargaining, essentially agreed to look the other way as traffic mushroomed at Lajes Field. Daily departure flights grew from one to 40 over a few days. This was a crucial agreement for MAC, which could not have conducted the airlift the way it did without staging through Lajes.

When Nixon flashed the decision Oct. 12, top American officials instantly applied pressure for immediate results. MAC’s complex machinery sprang into action, but it took some hours to establish a steady, regulated flow of aircraft and crews. Initial flights were delayed because of high winds at Lajes, generating White House fury that supplies had not magically reached Israel.

Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Carlton about this, saying, “We’ll have to get them moving, or we’ll lose our jobs.”

Carlton knew the airlift business. He knew that he had an adequate number of aircraft, crews, and required equipment. The fleet consisted of 268 C-141s and 77 C-5As, and Carlton knew that he could sustain a steady flow of three C-141s every two hours and four C-5s every four hours-indefinitely. He also knew that MAC could orchestrate the operation, establishing a rational flow of aircraft matching the cargo to be carried with off-loading equipment at the destination. In his plan, MAC would essentially become a conduit through which materiel would flow in a well-adjusted stream.

At first, however, he could not convey either his concept or his confidence to the White House, State Department, or Pentagon.

Carlton had already begun to expedite things, taking extraordinary actions in the interest of saving time. These steps included waiving crew rest requirements, weight limitations, daily utilization restrictions, and routine maintenance demands. He had to fight a continuing change of orders streaming out of the White House and State and Defense departments. There was continuing pressure to enlist the help of commercial airlines, despite their universal reluctance. At one point, late in the game, officials threatened to remove MAC entirely from the operation.

Even so, Carlton was confident he could establish a flow that not only would let MAC handle the initial requirement of 4,000 tons of materiel but also continue to handle all of MAC’s other assignments. He asked for patience, stating that “once this flow starts, it [the materiel] is going to come like a bushel basket of oranges just being dumped.”

The average distance from US departure points to Lajes was 3,297 miles. It was another 3,163 miles from Lajes to Lod/Ben-Gurion. The route varied from eastern departure points (McGuire AFB, N.J.; Dover AFB, Del.; and Charleston AFB, S.C.) to Lajes, but from Lajes onward it was precise. Aircraft flew to Gibraltar at the southern tip of Spain and then followed a narrow path over the Mediterranean to Tel Aviv.

The route was deliberately placed along the center of the Mediterranean Sea on the Flight Information Region boundary line dividing the airspace of the hostile African states to the south and that of the “friendly” European states to the north.

Fighters All the Way

The threat of Arab interception was real, and the US Navy’s Sixth Fleet acted as protector until the transports came within about 200 miles of Israel. There Israeli air force fighters took over. Although threats were made by radio, and several unidentified fighters were seen, no overt hostile action was taken.

Neither Lajes nor Lod possessed adequate aerial port facilities. Carlton called for establishment of Airlift Control Elements at both places, accurately estimating the number of personnel and the equipment that each would require. (More than 1,300 people would work at Lajes, seriously taxing all the facilities.) Other ALCEs were established at points within the US where aerial port facilities were not sufficient to handle the rush.

The initial missions to Israel were delayed as a result of 50-knot crosswinds at Lajes. Scheduled to be the first aircraft at Lod was a C-5 carrying the ALCE team, headed by Col. Donald R. Strobaugh. However, it encountered engine trouble and had to return to Lajes, where Strobaugh and his team transferred to a C-141.

The first C-5 (Tail No. 00461) to land at Lod touched down at 22:01 Zulu. It carried 97 tons of 105 mm howitzer shells, and it arrived at a time when Israeli forces were down to their last supplies of ammunition. Another 829 tons would be delivered in the next 24 hours. Even as Israeli workers unloaded those first cargo airplanes, huge formations of Israeli and Egyptian armor, maneuvering just 100 miles to the southwest, were locked in a desperate tank battle that would prove to be the largest clash of armor since the World War II Battle of Kursk.

Carlton was only too aware of the C-5′s vulnerability to ground attack. Whenever possible, the Air Force would have only a single C-5 on the ground at any one time.

The first C-141 (Tail No. 60177) to arrive at Lod landed at 23:16 Zulu. The aircraft carried more ammunition but, more importantly, it delivered Strobaugh and his ALCE crew. The group ultimately numbered 55, all of whom worked 12 hours a day, seven days a week. They were given three 40K loaders as well as locally improvised unloading gear.

The arriving MAC airplanes were greeted ecstatically by the Israelis. The crews received red-carpet treatment. Israel put in place a system to expedite cargo handling; materiel unloaded from the transports usually were at the front in Syria in about three hours and in the Sinai in less than 10 hours.

The original 4,000-ton airlift requirement grew daily. After the first day, USAF set the daily flow requirement at four C-5s and 12 C-141s. After Oct. 21, it raised the aircraft flow level to six C-5s and 17 C-141s and maintained it there until Oct. 30, when the demand began to drop.

The continuous flow of aircraft on the long flights was tough on the aircrews, but MAC was judicious in its positioning of relief crews for the C-141 and using augmented crews on the C-5. A special pool of navigators was created for the vital but tedious task of navigating the Mediterranean.

To the Offensive

Because it eliminated the need to husband ammunition and other consumable items, the continuous flood of US war materiel enabled Israeli forces to go on the offensive in the latter stages of the war. In the north, Israel’s ground forces recovered all territory that had been lost and began to march on Damascus. In the Sinai, tank forces led by Maj. Gen. Ariel Sharon smashed back across the Suez, encircled the Egyptian Third Army on the western side of the canal, and threatened Ismailia, Suez City, and even Cairo itself.

Egypt and Syria, which had previously rejected the idea of a negotiated settlement, now felt compelled on Oct. 22 to agree to the arrangement hammered out by Washington and Moscow with the goal of preventing the total destruction of the trapped Egyptian army. Israel was reluctant to comply immediately, wishing to gain as much as possible before a cease-fire.

The Soviet Union, faced with Israel’s continuing offensive, raised the stakes. Moscow declared to the United States that, if the US could not bring Israel to heel, it would take unilateral action to dictate a settlement. On Oct. 24, the United States, in order to intensify the image of risk in Soviet minds and keep Soviet forces out of the crisis, responded by taking its armed forces to a worldwide DEFCON III alert, implying readiness for nuclear operations, if necessary.

Fortunately, after several abortive efforts, an effective cease-fire finally took hold Oct. 28. Israel suffered 10,800 killed and wounded-a traumatic loss for a nation of some 3 million persons-plus 100 aircraft and 800 tanks. The Arab nations suffered 17,000 killed or wounded and 8,000 prisoners, and lost 500 aircraft and 1,800 tanks.

The airlift officially ended Nov. 14. By then, the Air Force had delivered 22,395 tons of cargo-145 missions by C-5 Galaxy and 422 missions by C-141 Starlifter. The C-5s delivered about 48 percent of the tonnage but consumed 24 percent less fuel than the C-141s. Included in the gross cargo tonnage was a total of 2,264.5 tons of “outsize” materiel, equipment that could be delivered only by a C-5. Among these items were M-60 tanks, 155 mm howitzers, ground radar systems, mobile tractor units, CH-53 helicopters, and A-4E components.

The airlift had been a key to the victory. It had not only brought about the timely resupply of the flagging Israeli force but also provided a series of deadly new weapons put to good use in the latter part of the war. These included Maverick and TOW anti-tank weapons and extensive new electronic countermeasures equipment that warded off successful attacks on Israeli fighters. Reflecting on the operation’s vital contribution to the war effort, Reader’s Digest would call it “The Airlift That Saved Israel.”

Both US transport types distinguished themselves by performing reliably and economically. The C-5A had an 81 percent reliability while the C-141 registered a 93 percent reliability. No accidents occurred. The abort rate of all planned flights came in under 2 percent.

The airlift taught the Air Force many lessons, large and small. One was that Lajes was a godsend-one that the US best not take for granted in a future emergency. The Air Force established an immediate requirement for aerial refueling to become standard practice in MAC so that its airlifters could operate without forward bases, if necessary. Another lesson was that commercial airlines, on their own, could not be expected to volunteer their services and aircraft. This meant that access to commercial lift in the future would have to be met by activating the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, as in fact it was during the Gulf War. Nickel Grass also led to the consolidation of all airlift aircraft under Military Airlift Command and its designation as a specified command on Feb. 1, 1977.

Finally, the C-5 proved to be the finest military airlift aircraft in history, not the expensive military mistake as it had been portrayed in the media. Its ability to carry huge amounts of cargo economically, carry outsize pieces of equipment, and refuel in flight fully justified the expense of the program.

“For generations to come,” said Golda Meir not long after the war’s end, “all will be told of the miracle of the immense planes from the United States bringing in the material that meant life for our people.”

America has proven her worth of being a world power, she has proven goodness, she has proven her worth of maintaining the worldwide equilibrium and she must do so well into the future. It requires a full understanding of the globe and it mostly requires resolve.

http://www.travis.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123122053

Today, Israel faces Hamas and Hamas remains an evil terror operation supported still by Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar and Turkey. Rather than just critique Israel’s response of the rockets coming from Gaza, the United States should be in their own respective jets and we need to be making a full statement with Israel, we do this together. Such is not the current condition, the present administration is reticent to approve additional defensive weapons or use of the reserve ordnance stored in Israel. Alas it was approved by the Pentagon however, without the full knowledge of the White House.

To compound matters in the Middle East, the world is facing still al Qaeda factions in various countries in North Africa to Asia. Iraq is on a full blown mission creep due to ISIL and the U.S. forces if ordered so, had in more than a decade received orders  to defeat the enemy and enlist the aid of other nations. Most recently in the last six years, the White House has formally announced the end to war, the cessation of hostilities with the Taliban and America has her last foot out of war theaters.

The world in a few short years has become more wicked and injury to life and culture is all too commonplace now, America has retreated.

Sadly, Israel is alone in defeating the enemy that all Western countries should be engaged in defeating. Token gestures of dispatching drones for surveillance, deployment of small units of intelligence operators and simply being defensive in posture is not the final solution. Negotiating with the enemy who has no desire for peace is a misguided diplomatic quest. Now is the time for the final solution whereas, America and her allies will face conflicts, beheadings, kidnappings or yet another catastrophic attack on the homeland is imminent and probable.

The enemy remains at war and the calculus is no longer understood or addressed. Verbal condemnation is not a response, defeat is the answer, the final answer. It is time for Operation Nickel Grass part two for the sake of peace, confidence, order and life. America needs resolve.

Deus, qui nos in pace iuvare, nisi fortis superesse

 

 

 

JV Team, Baraq Wears the Zero Jersey Himself

Posted on by

Do you really want this man Baraq Obama running a war? Do you want him making decisions on matters of national security anymore?

In January of 2014, Baraq Obama called ISIS/ISIL the JV team. Three weeks ago, he demanded that Susan Rice his Deputy National Security Advisor at the White House draft a letter to John Boehner, Speaker of the House to secure a repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force for Iraq. Boehner made a few calls to members of Congress telling them what he had received and how outrageous the request is.

Thousands of Kurds, Christians and Yazidis have died at the hands of Baraq Obama while he chooses golf rather than Commander in Chief leading a force for the good of Iraq and the Peshmerga. long time allies of the West.

Even Peshmerga has an exclusive women’s fighting division. Actually Peshmerga has a woman commander.

 

So, how bad is ISIS/ISIL?

ERBIL, Iraq — On Friday, Assad Haig received a call from his mother’s phone number. On the other end was a militant of the Islamic State. Haig’s family, the man said, were going to be executed.

Haig is 23 years old. He works in the Kurdish capital of Erbil. He comes from Sinjar, a town that was overrun by Islamic State militants on Aug. 3. Almost every relative he has ever known — 63 in total — was in Islamic State custody at the time he got the call. Most of them are, or were, women and small children.

Just a week before, Haig’s dozens of relatives in Sinjar were still free. “My mother called and said IS were coming into the city,” Haig recalled of that morning. He struggled to hold back tears as he clasped his hands together in an attempt to keep them from shaking. “I begged them to leave everything and just run, but it was hard with so many kids. My little sister Rama, she is just three, and Iyhab is only five.”

Haig tried to call his mother back repeatedly. When someone finally answered it was a male voice on the line.

“They will be executed tomorrow, the man told Haig.”

“We took them all. They belong to us now,” the man said before the line went dead.

All but Haig’s father, who escaped to the Sinjar Mountains, and his grandmother, who is 84 and can’t walk. IS left her alone in the family home but threatened to return and shoot her if she didn’t leave Sinjar. She has no way of leaving the home on her own.

Most residents of Sinjar, like Haig, are Yazidi, an Iraqi minority group estimated to number 600,000. The ancient Yazidi religion is shrouded in mystery, and a misunderstanding of Yazidi beliefs has led to many labeling them “devil worshipers,” resulting in centuries of mass persecution.

Details of the Islamic State takeover of Sinjar just over a week ago are still sketchy. Those who escaped said captives were given two options: convert to Islam, or die. Others reported mass executions of men, while women and children were taken prisoner.

On Sunday, Iraq’s human rights minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani told Reuters he had evidence that at least 500 Yazidis had been executed by IS, among them women and children. Some had been buried alive.

IS media posted photos of some of the executions online. Several images showed around 20 men said to have been killed in Sinjar, with a quote from the Koran saying, “Slay them where you catch them.”

Kamil Amin, the spokesman for Iraq’s Human Rights Ministry, said that many Yazidi women under 35 had been captured and were being held in Mosul.

“We think that the terrorists by now consider them slaves and they have vicious plans for them,” Amin told the Associated Press.

Many fear that IS militants are following ancient battle customs practiced by the Prophet Mohammed and his men.

In stories about conquering villages of people considered “infidels” or “apostates,” both the Koran and the Old Testament of the Bible speak of killing the men and taking the women and children for sale as slaves. The practice of having sex with female slaves is mentioned several times in the Koran.

“Blessed are the believers who restrain their carnal desires except with their wives and slave girls, for these are lawful to them,” reads one verse of the Koran.

“Prophet, we have made lawful to you the wives whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty.”

Accounts from witnesses so far suggest IS tactics against the Yazidi population are mimicking such practices, but the militant group hasn’t yet released official statements about their intentions.

Haig prepared documents listing every one of his missing relatives — their names, ages, and phone numbers — to submit to the Kurdish police and US authorities. His grandmother helped him complete the list by phone from Sinjar. As he read through the papers on Friday, he was overcome with grief when he reached the names of his mother and sisters.

“Some people say they have been raping the women, maybe 6 or 10 men with one woman,” he said, staring vacantly out the window, in tears. “Some say they have even forced FGM [female genital mutilation] on them.”


Assad Haig holds documents that list the names and ages of his missing relatives. (Tracey Shelton/GlobalPost)

On Friday, as Haig was en route to the US Consulate in Erbil to yet again beg for help, he received a call from a man claiming to be an IS member. The man informed him that his family had been collectively sentenced to death for refusing to convert to Islam.

“They will be executed tomorrow,” the man told Haig.

Haig’s father was the only one who escaped IS capture. He fled to the Sinjar Mountains above the city where he remains trapped with thousands of others. An estimated 50,000 people were stranded there for the past week, with no supplies, no food, and no shelter, slowly dying from starvation and thirst. Reports on Sunday said that about 20,000 had managed to escape the mountains after US bombings of IS targets helped cleared the way.

In a report released on Aug. 8, UNICEF said at least 25,000 children were among those trapped in the mountains, and 40 were already confirmed dead from starvation or dehydration. The real number of dead is assumed to be much higher, the report said.

The US has been conducting humanitarian drops of food and water and launching targeted strikes against militants near Sinjar and Erbil since late last week. Iraq and Turkey were also reportly making aid drops beginning Wednesday. But on Friday, Haig said nothing had yet reached the desperate, besieged families he’s in contact with. The mountain range spans 60 miles, and air drops of large containers can only be so precise.

“Every time I see on the television they have air dropped supplies I call my father and he says, no. There are no helicopters, no food, no soldiers,” Haig said. Haig’s father turns on his phone every day to check in, then off to conserve the battery.

Some reports said the first US drops of food and water exploded on impact, but Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Friday that 80 percent of US air drops had reached their targets.

Relief supplies continued to be delivered by air throughout the weekend, with the US reporting a total delivery of 36,224 ready–to-eat meals and 6,822 gallons of water. At time of writing, British aircraft were also en route to deliver supplies.

For Haig, the wait and the uncertainty are unbearable. He’s filed reports with both the Kurdish military and the US seeking help to find his family. On Thursday he attempted to drive to Sinjar himself, but was turned back by Kurdish forces.

“It’s all lies! No one is fighting the IS. No one is helping to get my family back,” he said. “Give me a weapon and I will go to fight. Give the weapons to all the Yazidi men. Just give us a chance to fight for our families or die trying. That’s all I ask.”

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/iraq/140810/man-lost-63-relatives-the-islamic-state

WASHINGTON—Days before the takeover of the Iraqi city of Mosul by the militant group calling itself the Islamic State, U.S. intelligence analysts were sharply divided over whether the group would seize the city, according to people familiar with the debate.

View Graphics

 

U.S. officials saw initial indications the group might seek to take Mosul and urged Iraqi action, to no avail. But on the day of the June 10 takeover, U.S. officials played down its significance. “Obviously, this has got our attention in Mosul, but it doesn’t change the calculus,” said Rear. Adm. John Kirby, the chief Pentagon spokesman.

Although U.S. spy agencies have monitored and warned about the Islamic State over the past year, they often have underestimated the group’s ability to make rapid operational gains, U.S. officials said. That was the case a week ago when militants launched a dramatic and successful offensive in Iraq’s Kurdish region.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 11, 2014 – The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant poses a threat to the civilized world, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in Sydney today.

Click photo for screen-resolution image
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Australian Defense Minister David Johnston hold a news conference in Sydney, Aug. 11, 2014. DoD photo by Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Sean Hurt  
(Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution image available.

At a joint news conference, Hagel and Australian Defense Minister David Johnston spoke about what their respective countries are doing in Iraq.

The United States will continue to support the Iraqi security forces “in every way that we can,” Hagel said. “We will, again, build partnerships, as we are now, recognizing the threat not just to the United States, but to the civilized world.”

The United States has launched airstrikes against ISIL targets in recent days, and has airdropped relief supplies to tens of thousands of Yezidis who have fled to Mount Sinjar in northern Iraq to seek refuge. American teams in Iraq will continue to assess the ISIL threat and what will best help the Iraqi security forces, Hagel said.

Australia is participating alongside the United States in airdropping supplies to the Yezidis — members of a religious sect in the region.

—–

Exactly what universe is Baraq Obama from or where is he headed? Surely by now he has his sights exclusively on playing Pebble Beach, the PGA West and perhaps Spanish Bay….FORE America, this will not go well in the coming months.

 

 

ISIL Against the World, America Next?

Posted on by

The leftist argument for quite some time is that the United States never should have gone into Iraq. It is a popular ethos but way off base if one would bother with the real history and reasons. So, Barack Obama pulled America troops out in 2011 ending the war, telling the world that Iraq is now stable.

The very moment coalition troops exited Iraq the vacuum was filling up again. Barack Obama blames Iraqi leadership for the failed ‘status of forces’ agreement, when that was yet another lie on behalf of the White House. Yet, if Barack Obama wanted to actually keep Iraq stable after the American exodus, then why did Barack Obama refuse all later requests for military support by Maliki which were requests of urgency that began in 2012?

After this past week of the Pershmerga and Yizidis being trapped on top of a mountain by ISIS, Barack Obama told us that America could not turn a blind eye to the innocent desperations on that mountain. The Pentagon with Obama’s nod authorized only a handful of air-strikes but they were not offensive at all versus ISIS, they were only gestures of defense to protect American personnel in Irbil and Baghdad. While Barack Obama was on the golf course this weekend at Martha’s Vineyard, the United State was evacuating our personnel from Irbil and Baghdad, leaving behind only very essential personnel. (Cant have another Benghazi).

Now, as hostilities were building, al Maliki is under pressure to step down and he refuses so he has surrounded his palace with military forces and dispatched additional forces throughout the ‘green zone’ fending off a coup.

Meanwhile, ISIS continues to be bold issuing public threats to Jordan, Turkey, and the West. Some in America are taking notice by voicing concern that the United States is in the crosshairs of ISIS. Sure the threat is there but we have our government to protect our homeland right?

Must watch video: The World at War

ISIS recruits globally and does so effectively and as a result of seizing banks and military hardware, the terror group is worth an estimated $1.8 billion and that buys a lot of terror and fighters.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-11/suspected-american-isis-supporter-arrested-new-yorks-jfk-airport

Having demanded “American blood,” the news that a suspected American militant who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State terrorist group in chilling Twitter rants is being held without bail after his arrest at New York’s Kennedy Airport is somewhat concerning. Donald Ray Morgan, 44, who has a previous conviction for firing a gun, had allegedly been brokering deals for military-grade weapons and ammo in his home state of North Carolina and was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm, according to The Daily News. The presiding judge noted, his actions “clearly implied to me that he is trying to go to Syria or Iraq as the next step and trying to be actively engaged.”

 

As The Daily News reports,

FBI agents nabbed Donald Ray Morgan, a 44-year-old ex-convict from North Carolina, on Aug. 2 when he returned to the U.S. after an eight-month stay in Lebanon, where his wife lives.

 

Morgan, who has a previous conviction for firing a gun, had allegedly been brokering deals for military-grade weapons and ammo in his home state and was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm.

 

But what caught counter-terrorism agents’ attention were his chilling Twitter rants from the Middle East under the alias “Abu Omar al Amreeki.”

 

“It’s possible that he traffics in guns to people in this organization (ISIS),” Moore said in Brooklyn Federal Court.

 

Besides pledging allegiance to chief ISIS thug Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, his tweets strongly suggested he may have been preparing for jihad in Syria, Iraq or possibly the states, law enforcement officials feared.

 

He also referred to himself as a mujahedeen, or jihad fighter.

——

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-isis-more-dangerous-now-than-al-qaeda-was-pre-911/

As the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) — or simply “The Islamic State” as the group now says it should be called — continues to sweep through northern Iraq, U.S. lawmakers are sounding the alarm that it could be just as dangerous as al Qaeda in the days before it launched the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S.

“Every day that goes by, ISIS builds up its caliphate and it becomes a direct threat to the United States of America. They are more powerful now than al Qaeda was on 9/11,” Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday.

Experts say the Islamic jihadist group has indeed been able to accomplish an enormous amount in a short period of time. And in global reach, fundraising capabilities and pure operational ability, they are certainly outpacing Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda.

 

“Al Qaeda in the pre-Sept. 11 phase was capable of engaging in strikes and bombings,” Tom Sanderson, a terrorism expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told CBS News. But what ISIS has now, he said, “is more significant and more varied than what al Qaeda had in terms of its actual combat capabilities where they are fielding artillery. They are holding much greater territory than al Qaeda had, they are governing people, they have a more diverse funding base… they have a greater localized funding base than al Qaeda.”

The group is in fact a rival faction to modern-day al Qaeda, whose general command cut ISIS off from its network in February because it disobeyed orders from leader Ayman al-Zawahri.

The Internet has afforded ISIS the ability to recruit all over the world. The group gained power and experience fighting in Syria, where an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 foreigners have traveled to join the fight, including 1,500 and 2,500 Sunni extremists from Europe and 100 to 200 Americans who hold Western passports and have far easier access to the U.S. if their terror activities go undetected by authorities.

 

 

Al Qaeda “simply did not have the technology that ISIS has now, the social networking that enables them to reach a much greater audience,” Sanderson said.

Still, big does not always mean organized.

Juan Zarate, CBS News’ Senior National Security Analyst, said that ISIS is probably less well-organized than pre-9/11 al Qaeda, which spent years meticulously training and plotting to attack the United States. And Sanderson said the surprise element of its attack on the United States was part of what made the group so lethal.

But ISIS could also be benefiting from the years of groundwork laid by its predecessor-turned-rival.

“ISIS, especially with the announcement of the Islamic State, is piggybacking off of the global networks and inspiration that al Qaeda fomented post-9/11 and give them, in some ways, a global infrastructure on which to build. It’s not as if they’re starting from scratch,” said Zarate.

One of the group’s biggest advantages over al Qaeda is the fact that it has seized a vast swath of territory and virtually erased the border between Iraq and Syria. Unlike al Qaeda, “in some ways…rented from the Taliban in Afghanistan,” Zarate said, ISIS has gained strength from the territory it occupies.

“In the 21st century any operating room for a terrorist group is a prescription for disaster because they have the ability not just to build up their local strength but to allow themselves global reach,” he added.

ISIS has a local fundraising base from Iraq and Syria, where it brings in revenue from the granaries, oil wells and power plants it has captured. Last week, it seized Iraq’s largest dam, gaining control of enormous power and water resources as well as access to the river that runs through Baghdad. Trafficking, extortion and kidnap-for-ransom operations bring in millions of dollars.

“There’s no daddy for ISIS when it comes to funding,” Sanderson said. By contrast, al Qaeda was dependent on bin Laden’s personal fortune, which was not limitless, and donors from the Gulf states that could impose a certain amount of pressure and control over the group.

 

Plus, ISIS has captured millions of dollars of American weaponry abandoned by Iraqi troops that fled the fight early on in the jihadist group’s takeover. David Rohde, a columnist for Reuters and The Atlantic said on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” Sunday called that a “disaster.”

“What’s so astonishing about the Islamic State is that they’re able to maneuver, use this weaponry. They can move 1,000 guys very quickly and that they defeated the Peshmerga [Kurdish forces] so quickly I think surprised many people,” Rohde said.

There is one glaring similarity between the two groups, Zarate said, and that is the extent to which the U.S. does not entirely know what ISIS will do next.

“There were massive blind spots as to what al Qaeda was doing or planning and I think you’ve started to hear the same threads or chords of insecurity on the part of U.S. counterterrorism officials about blind spots with respect to ISIS,” he said.

“I think we had certainly not done enough through the ’90s and into 2001 to disrupt al Qaeda’s infrastructure, training, plotting and in some ways we’ve allowed ISIS to gain a foothold by being fairly inactive in Syria to date so in some ways you can say we’re rather equivalent in terms of our passive posture.”

Experts and lawmakers have debated whether ISIS will carry out the next 9/11-style terror attack. With the group’s full capability somewhat of a mystery, it is hard to predict when they might turn their attention to the U.S.

But earlier this summer, former acting CIA Director and CBS News Analyst on Intelligence Michael Morell said that an increasing U.S. presence in Iraq could speed up that process.

 

“That’s one of the downsides of U.S. involvement,” he told CBS News. “The more we visibly get involved in helping the [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki] government fight these guys, the more we become a target.”

And with President Obama’s decision to launch airstrikes in Iraq as a means to provide humanitarian aid and safety for thousands of Iraqi religious minorities being targeted by ISIS, that day could come sooner.

 

 

Putin vs. NATO and tomatoes

Posted on by

Have you ever read an Executive Order signed by Vladimir Putin? Here is your chance. With the sanction war going on against Russia initiated by Barack Obama, Europe has feebly joined the cadence of the United States and Putin is fighting back. Russia is stopping all agricultural imports for at least a year.

When it comes to NATO, Putin is drawing out the weakness of member nations. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen is getting advise from U.S. General Breedlove as to how to address Putin’s aggression that is building in Ukraine.

 

Putin has indeed isolated the weakness of NATO by launching irregular warfare.

‘A linchpin of Russian strategy is what the committee calls “ambiguous warfare.” As one Russian defense theorist puts it, ambiguous warfare involves using irregular forces, cyberattacks and information warfare to “neutralize adversary actions without resorting to weapons (through indirect actions), by exercising information superiority.”

The trouble ambiguous warfare poses to NATO is that the Alliance’s collective-defense obligations, and the strategic doctrines pinned to them, call for responding to “armed” assaults. But Russian aggression against, say, Lithuania may not look like an outright assault. The Kremlin is more likely to use Russian-language media to agitate the country’s ethnic-Russian population while debilitating basic state functions through cyberattacks and the deployment of irregular commandos.’

 

Russia now has about 20,000 troops stationed “in an area along the entire border with eastern Ukraine.” The buildup nearly doubled the troop deployment in the last week by adding 8,000 more forces to 12,000 already there, the official said.

It comes a week after the United States and the European Union increased economic sanctions on Russia for supporting pro-Russian separatists fighting Ukraine government forces in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, along the border with Russia.

‘This will no longer be Special War, but a real war — one which may not be possible to limit to Ukraine.

Nevertheless, Russia has a long habit of invading places in August — East Prussia and Galicia (1914), Poland (1920), Manchuria (1945), Czechoslovakia (1968), and Georgia (2008) — so all bets may be off. It’s clear that Putin is reluctant to back down in the face of Western economic pressure, scoldings, and admonitions, not least because consistently doubling-down has worked well for him many times in the past. I have no crystal ball, but if we learn in a few days, perhaps this weekend, that Russian “peacekeepers” are moving by the battalion into Southeastern Ukraine, you won’t count me among the surprised.’

 

The Cold War part two is brewing and Putin is so far tactically successful at his mission to rebuild the ‘Soviet Union’. General Dempsey admitted the Pentagon has pulled out and dusted off war game options from the Cold War, which should have been done in 2012 at least. Bring out the spies again and re-train them to the tactics some of which are listed here. Moscow has their rules, the question is what rules will America have and who will join her?

“Although no one had written them down, they were the precepts we all understood for conducting our operations in the most difficult of operating environments: the Soviet capital.” – Antonio Mendez, retired CIA Technical Operations Officer specializing in support of clandestine and covert CIA operations.

The Rules

1. Assume nothing.
2. Technology will always let you down.
3. Murphy is right.
4. Never go against your gut.
5. Always listen to your gut; it is your operational antennae.
6. Everyone is potentially under opposition control.
7. Don’t look back; you are never completely alone. Use your gut.
8. Go with the flow; use the terrain.
9. Take the natural break of traffic.
10. Maintain a natural pace.
11. Establish a distinctive and dynamic profile and pattern.
12. Stay consistent over time.
13. Vary your pattern and stay within your profile.
14. Be non threatening: keep them relaxed; mesmerize!

Putin’s move Against NATO, Checkmate

Posted on by

After the no-fly zone mission over Libya to remove Qaddafi, we quickly determined the weaknesses of the member nations in NATO. The United States worked in concert with a few NATO countries to fly the sorties and it was rapidly determined that we had to loan ordnance and assume full control due in part to lack of partnered countries readiness, willingness and longevity in the mission.

Since that time, NATO leadership is attempting to re-gain strength and resolve yet that is proving to be an epic challenge.

The matter of Russia annexing Crimea and then moving into East Ukraine by Putin has put additional pressure on NATO. Success of offensive measures by NATO is fleeting and Vladimir Putin is ready for his checkmate on Ukraine while eyeing other territories.

Diplomatic efforts have failed so far and Ukraine is feeling alone and isolated while other Baltic States are in much the same condition.

This puts larger pressure on the United States and that is only IF the United States is interested in aiding Ukraine and other Baltic countries, which to date is questionable at best.

Video here.

The full report is here published by the British Parliament on NATO’s lacking preparation.

British Defense Committee Finds NATO ‘Poorly Prepared’ to Defend Members From Russian Threat

Our conclusion is that NATO is currently not well-prepared for a Russian threat against a NATO Member State. A Russian unconventional attack, using asymmetric tactics (the latest term for this is “ambiguous warfare”), designed to slip below NATO’s response threshold, would be particularly difficult to counter. And the challenges, which NATO faces in deterring, or mounting an adequate response to, such an attack poses a fundamental risk to NATO’s credibility.

This Report focuses narrowly on NATO, Article 4 and 5 obligations, Ukraine, and the Baltic States, rather than the more general debate about Russia and global security threats. We have chosen this focus because the NATO conference will be hosted by the UK in September; because this is of central concern to Eastern European NATO members; because the attack on Ukraine has raised the possibility — however currently unlikely — of an attack, conventional or unconventional, on a NATO Member State in the Baltics, potentially requiring an Article 5 response; and because such a response would be challenging and requires significant adaption from the UK and NATO.

The report begins with an analysis of Russia: its conventional forces, its new approach to asymmetric warfare, and its apparent intentions. It then considers NATO’s preparedness to respond, first to the less likely scenario of a conventional Russian attack, then to the scenario of an asymmetric attack. It concludes that NATO is poorly prepared for either scenario, and suggests urgent steps that would need to be taken to meet these challenges.

Our specific concerns about NATO’s deficiencies in its ability to respond to a conventional attack include:

• Shortcomings in NATO’s ability to foresee and to give adequate warning of such an attack;
• Shortcomings in NATO’s command and control structures; and
• Questions about the public’s readiness to honour the Article 5 commitment.

Russia’s use of “next generation warfare” tactics also poses a range of questions for NATO, including:
• Whether Article 5 is sufficient to ensure that the collective defence guarantee will come into effect in the face of asymmetric attacks;
• Whether NATO has the right tools to address the full breadth of threats, including information warfare, psychological operations and, in concert with the EU, exertion of influence through energy and trade policy; and,
• Whether NATO has the ability to effectively counter the threat of cyber attack from Russia and to mount its own offensive cyber operations.

We are also concerned that even ts in Ukraine seem to have taken the UK Government by surprise, that the capacity for analysis and assessment of developments in Russia and for understanding and responding to the current Russian way of warfare appears to have been seriously degraded in recent years.

Recommendations

The NATO alliance has not considered Russia as an adversary or a potential territorial threat to its Member States for twenty years. It is now forced to do so as a result of Russia’s recent actions. Events in Ukraine this year, following on from the cyber attack on Estonia in 2007 and the invasion of Georgia by Russia in 2008, are a “wake – up call” for NATO. They have revealed alarming deficiencies in the state of NATO preparedness, which will be tough to fix. The UK Government should take the lead in ensuring that the NATO Summit addresses these threats in the most concrete and systematic fashion.

We recommend that the NATO Summit sets plans to ensure:
• dramatic improvements to the existing NATO rapid reaction force;
• the pre-positioning of equipment in the Baltic States;
• a continuous (if not technically ‘permanent’) presence of NATO troops, on training and exercise in the Baltic;
• the re-establishment of large-scale military exercises including representatives from all NATO Member States. These exercises must involve both military and political decision-makers;
• the establishment of headquarters structures, at divisional and corps level, to focus on Eastern Europe and the Baltic;
• consideration of the re-establishment of a NATO standing reserve force along the lines of the Allied Command Europe Mobile Force–Land, involving all Member States; and,
• re-examination of the criteria, doctrine and responses to calls under Article 4 for ‘collective security’ support against asymmetric attacks, especially, but not limited to, cyber attacks where attribution is difficult.

We recommend that the NATO Summit also addresses the Alliance’s vulnerabilities in the face of asymmetric (ambiguous warfare) attacks. In particular it should consider:
• How to establish the intelligence processes and an “Indicators and Warning” mechanism to alert Allies to the danger or imminence of such an attack;
• What steps it needs to take to deter asymmetric threats;
• How it should respond in the face of an imminent or actual such attack;
• The circumstances in which the Article 5 mutual defence guarantee will be invoked in the face of asymmetric attack;
• How it can, as a matter of urgency, create an Alliance doctrine for “ambiguous warfare” and make the case for investment in an Alliance asymmetric or “ambiguous warfare” capability.

We recommend that the Ministry of Defence address, also as a matter of urgency, its capacity to understand the nature of the current security threat from Russia and its motivations. Ensuring that there are sufficient numbers of Defence Attachés to provide the analysis and expertise required is one measure which would help to address this issue. In particular we recommend the appointment of additional Defence Attachés to cover the Baltic States and in Central and Eastern Europe and reverse the cutbacks in Russia and Ukraine. We further recommend that the Government ensure that there is adequate representation in Poland which may be of critical importance in the future. We also recommend the creation of a “red team” in the Ministry of Defence to provide a challenge to existing orthodoxy from a specifically Russian perspective.

We recommend that, in opening the NATO Summit, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State should make a commitment to the UK maintaining defence spending at or above 2% of GDP. Increasing levels of spending amongst European NATO Member States and the collective efficiency of such spending must be made a priority of the Summit as a demonstration of NATO’s political will and its commitment to collective defence.