President Obama fails to lead on Syria

President Obama fails to lead on Syria. My latest @ The Guardian

5 proposals for American intervention in Syria

Last year, I took a less aggressive approach on the merits of US intervention in Syria. However, with the conflict assuming an increasingly unrestrained character (both in terms of chemical weapons and conventional brutality), I've since changed my opinion. I'd support the following:

• Arming select rebels (Recognizing the risks of terrorists gaining access to weapons, I nonetheless believe this action is necessary).

• Engaging air/stand off missile platforms in low intensity, high impact operations - pursuing a condition of psychological instability in Assad affiliated military formations.

• Utilizing CIA SAD teams to support select rebels and to conduct direct action/US air sorties against key regime targets/regime enablers inside Syria.

• Taking deliberate steps to challenge the Lebanese Hizballah.

• Unifying regional and international opinion against Assad and his sponsors. In essence, attempting to shame the Russians into reducing their support for his regime. Admittedly, with Capo Putin at the helm, Russia is unlikely to budge.

It's worth noting that the US Military leadership are skeptical about the merits of increased US intervention in Syria. C-JCS Dempsey especially. But while I have a great deal of respect for Dempsey, I also believe that the US must not allow others to determine the outcome of the Syrian civil war in pursuit of malevolent interests. I also respectfully disagree with analysts like Max Fisher, who suggest that the US has better non-military options to apply in Syria. Fisher is right about humanitarian aid, but I cannot see how actions like intelligence sharing would succeed without an embedded US ground-liaison component.

In short, I think it's time for the US government to take risks and show initiative.

Other MENA writings.

Actors in the Syrian Civil War - Flow chart

My basic (for simplicity sake- only includes commonly known key actors) flow chart on the interrelationships between the primary actors in the Syrian Civil War. In producing this chart, my intention is twofold. First, to provide a basic reference guide. Second, to illustrate the degree to which Syria represents a proxy war between various actors with broader political interests - please see explanations below chart.

Please note - This chart shows actionable relationships (actively hostile/supporting, rather than simply ideologically adversarial) specific to the Syrian civil war. Non-state actors are shaded green and state actors are shaded grey. Red/purple lines indicate a hostile relationship and blue lines constitute an support relationship. As indicated below, a number of relationships are defined by both allied and hostile interactions. Also illustrated, when it comes to this civil war - the enemy of an enemy is not necessarily a friend.

EXPLANATIONS..

Ahrar ash-Sham - Anti-Assad Salafist Jihadis. Emerged under the leadership of a core of former prisoners of the Assad regime. Has since grown into a highly capable force. Presents itself as a hybrid Syrian nationalist-Salafist movement.

Al-Nusra Front - Anti-Assad Salafist Jihadis. In contrast to the larger regional focus of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Al-Nusra is more focused against Assad. Having said this, the group is accused of participating in the killing of Kurdish civilians in northern Syria (a troubling and under-reported element to the conflict).

Free Syrian Army (FSA) - Formation of anti-Assad rebels. In basic terms, they're the less 'jihadist'/more nationalist counterpart to Al-Nusra. Primary recipient of western military aid.

Lebanese Hizballah - Assad providing the key conduit for Iranian support to Hizballah, the group are resolute in their desire to maintain this critical relationship (even at serious cost).

Iran - Iran is desperate to preserve their key ally. They're providing major investment towards Assad's survival.

Iraq - Facilitates the Iranian logistics train to Assad.

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) - Salafist Jihadis with a regional focus (hence alliance between branches). Possess a pathalogical hatred for Shia Muslims, the West and any/all who oppose their extremism. They oppose Assad, but do so in their larger pursuit of a regional caliphate. 

          For all their particular disagreements with each other; Assad, the US and Iran are all desperate to constrain this group's growing power. It's notable that while states like Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are willing to provide support to Al-Nusra, their support for ISIS is far less significant (even they regard ISIS as too extreme).

Jordan - The Jordanians are providing key facilitation for western efforts to train anti-Assad rebels.

Lebanon - Lebanese society is sharply divided on the Syrian civil war. Angered by Assad's onslaught against a majority Sunni population, many Lebanese are vehemently hostile to his regime - a reality from which Hizballah's political opponents are trying to take advantage. In contrast, supporters of Hizballah (and others like Amal and General Aoun) stand in overt support of Assad. As a result of this dichotomy, tensions in Lebanon are increasing.

Peshmerga (Kurdish militia forces) - Responding to reports of sectarian warfare by the Islamic State of Iraq/Al-Nusra against Kurds in northern Syria, the Peshmerga have taken a more active role in the civil war.

Qatar - Plays major role in supplying Syrian rebels. This effort represents a broader intent to shape regional events in ways favorable to the monarchy.

Russia - Supports Assad with weapons, funding and international legitimacy.

Saudi Arabia - Supports both nationalist/salafist orientated anti-Assad forces with advanced weaponry. Regards the battleground in Syria as part of a larger proxy fight with Iran.

Turkey - Enraged by what they regard as Syrian govt. propagated terrorism against Turkish citizens, Turkey has become a key opponent of Assad's regime. At present, Syria supports both the FSA and the Al-Nusra Front (though their support for the later may soon dissipate).

US - Seeks Assad's fall, marginalization of Iranian influence and the post-Assad emergence of a nationalist minded, pro-US democratic authority.

*- ISIS still receives substantial funds from ideologically sympathetic individuals in the Gulf monarchies.

If interested, links to my other MENA writings can be found here.

The suffering of Syria, the shame of America

The evidence suggests that Assad's regime did indeed employ chemical weapons against innocent civilians. This wasn't the first time and it probably won't be the last. 

Before Christmas, President Obama stated that Assad's use of CBRN weapons would constitute a 'red line' for America. His message was clear - America would react vigorously to a breach of this cardinal warning. But now that the line has been crossed, the very opposite has occurred. In a stunning, almost incomprehensible failure of American leadership, the Obama Administration has again relinquished the 'red line' responsibility to the UN. The President's intention is clear - 'we want nothing to do with this'. This policy requires no complex explanation from the masters of international relations theory. It's weakness. It's the descent of American resolve into a gutter overflowing with blood.

Today, for friend and foe alike, American 'red lines' are a joke.

Aside from the morality deficit inherent to his choice, the President's weakness bodes very badly for the political future of the Middle East. For a start, Iran's new President is likely (along with Israel) to pay little heed to US warnings over the Iranian nuclear program. Conflict has become more likely. In addition, as I recently noted with regards to Egypt, American power will be regarded with an even greater level of mistrust. In another sense, the collapse of American leadership will mean that regional sectarian hatreds are propelled with an increasingly unchecked vigor.

The children of Syria are paying an awful price for American impotence.

Other MENA writings.

Why the British Government stopped Greenwald's partner and destroyed The Guardian's hard drives

I'll be writing on the latest developments in Syria over the next few days. In the interim, I want to jump back to the Greenwald detention story.

In short, I want to offer my thoughts on how the detention of David Miranda (Glenn Greenwald's partner) speaks to the methodology of the UK security establishment. I covered elements of this debate during my Huff Post Live discussion on Monday.

For a start, the detention represents an under-reported example of how successive British governments have sought to deal with perceived security threats. Essentially, by applying quiet but substantial pressure (in ways designed to preclude reporting in the headlines). Where US law enforcement's ability to pressure media outlets is inherently limited by the first amendment - and rightly raises a firestorm when pursued, the British Government holds far greater power over media action. Take, for example, the pressuring of national security reporters (see here and here) to withdraw their evidently public interest focused publications. More generally, the British Government is unashamed in its pursuit of prior restraint.

Again, though this reality may seem surprising to Americans, the UK approach to intelligence gathering is different to that of the US. For one example, the UK's domestic intelligence service, MI5, holds files on many thousands of British citizens (search 'MI5' on page). In addition, the UK's pervasive counter-terrorism operations  involve the monitoring of around 2000 suspected terrorists at any particular time. The key is this- while much of the UK's intelligence operations take place covertly, they inform the strategy that we've just witnessed against Miranda - a kind of 'we're on to you' mentality; a willingness to take audacious action under the surface of public awareness.

Unfortunately for the UK government, with increasing scrutiny and the inability to restrict foreign reporting, pressuring journalists will cost politically serious blowback - attracting negative attention rather than discouraging undesired activities. It's worth considering how the UK's increasingly restrictive approach on freedom of speech combines with this consideration. Ultimately, it's my opinion that pressure operations are increasingly redundant in the 21st century.

For my thoughts on the US-UK intelligence relationship, click here.

Manning Sentenced

I'll only have intermittent internet contact today. So, regarding Manning's sentencing, here are my relevant clips. As you can read, although I vigorously support a free press (see third link), I'm not tolerant of leaks that represent a betrayal of solemn (see video) oaths.

Regardless of your feelings about Bradley Manning, US soldiers are good - The Guardian

In Defense of Lawful Secrecy - The Week

The US government's scandalous approach to truth, privacy and equality - The Week

Al Qa'ida Threat - Sources, Methods and... Leaks (Blog)

Leaks from the Obama administration are harming national security - The Daily Caller

Ted Cruz and the Birthers

Senator Ted Cruz, a prospective hopeful for the 2016 GOP primaries, has stated his intention to relinquish the Canadian citizenship that was bestowed upon him de-facto at birth. Now, the birther brigade (a calcified mix of racists, xenophobes and puerile morons) is challenging his eligibility for the Presidency. They claim that because he was born abroad, Cruz is disqualified under the natural born citizenship clause of the constitution. 

Their assessment is defective. 

As I explained in The Guardian with regards to President Obama, natural born citizenship does NOT require birth on American soil. Ted Cruz is well within his rights to run for President. The relevant point here is that if Cruz does indeed run, he'll be up against a diverse field of competitive candidates.

Huff Post Live Discussion

Earlier today, I participated in a Huff Post Live discussion on the detention of Glenn Greenwald's (Snowden reporter) partner at Heathrow airport. 

I speak at- 

2 minute 41 seconds

9 minute 40 seconds

19 minute 55 seconds (in this last segment, I comment on the continuing threat posed by Al Qa'ida affiliated/inspired terrorism)

Fox News piece on Egypt

My latest Fox News piece - Five observations about Egypt Chaos

Link page for other related writings.

NSA isn't perfect

The Washington Post have released their latest expose' on the NSA's signal intercept programs. It reveals that the agency has breached their own data acquisition rules hundreds of times a year. It also reveals (the somewhat absurd) 2008 incident in which large numbers of Washington DC communications were intercepted because a software system mixed up the DC dialing code with that of Egypt... Anyway, as I argued back in June, we need to make sure that our assessments/scrutiny of intelligence operations are vested in facts rather than political gamesmanship.

Some of my other related thoughts can be found under the 'Other' section of this link page.