Turkey has a war trade with ISIS: old-time profiteering

If you want to win a war, you need to do the things that make victory possible. This is all the evidence you need Obama isn't trying to win or even contain ISIS / da'esh because he has no strategy against Turkey; against Turkey's actions, no threatened sanctions, no shaming them into picking our side or not.

Saudi Arabia started the Oil War to neutralize Iran

 
As the expression goes, " all politics is local", and that truism might apply to many situations too long to describe here; in the case of the OPEC overproduction it is precisely why Saudi Arabia started this market move.

While American media is fixated on what happens to its companies, they have overlooked the wider more important reality of oil price and purchasing power. Of course the stated reason why OPEC increased production was to increase market share.

Saudi Arabia tried to stop the Iran nuclear deal. They even sounded like Israel in the hopes that Obama would relent. They didn't work. Obama wants a legacy and isn't responsible for protecting Saudi Arabia. Any longer. In fact, with all the illicit support of wahabism and radical Sunni terror, it's more likely this is Obama's payback of Saudi intransigence.

Iran gave up a nuclear program to sell more oil in the wider market which was known to the Saudis as the deal deadline approached.  They faced an 86-million population enemy (in comparison to their 26 million ) that could bring an enemy army right up to Saudi borders with the permission of Iraqi leadership and assault.  The rise of ISIS also gave Iranian hard-liners the justification to enter into Iraq in force should the battle go poorly.  And go poorly it did last summer when Saudi production stayed over demand and started the run on over supply.  ISIS came within 150 km of Baghdad which when you look at that in context of Saudi local politics is a big problem.

In fact, the slow nature of Iraqi counter-offensive against ISIS / da'esh - barely gained Ramadi by January- gives the Iranians more and more justification to pressure Baghdad to let them launch Revolutionary Guard divisions straight into Mosul. This is exactly why the Saudis are now changing their tune towards foreign army / coalitions in Iraq.  Now they are offering their army to go into Iraq not just to defeat ISIS but to make sure that they don't leave a way open for Iran to follow them back.

Better to fight them over there than in your home is also a truism. And Saudi would rather drawn down their wealth than risk arming Iran with more expensive modern weapons.

From an unconventional perspective, having IS operating in Sunni territory acted like a buffer zone to protect one flank from Shia invasion.  They were a resistance point against invasion. IS  united the local population there and neither party trusts Baghdad and would fight Iranian forces on sight.

This is why Saudi has been foot dragging on attacking fellow Sunnis they might need in a few months. Only when greater threats appear through inaction does the kingdom change it's strategy.

So yes, Saudi Arabia wanted to bankrupt shale oil explorers in the US with expensive production costs. The US media can bore you with the dull interpretation of average reporters and journalists trying to remain relevant but aren't willing to do the heavy lifting of assessing data in sum.

But in the local context take all the factors lying in front of you and presented poorly, and reconstruct them along the skeleton I have laid out - remember I was the first person to link the Russian jet bombing to ISIS before they even admitted it was payback to Russia for Syrian invasion.

About time....

It seems that adversity does make strange bedfellows... what should have been done in 2014.

Did daesh down Russian plane?

No technical reason Russian plane went down, no pilot warning, no emergency maneuvers...

Sounds suspiciously like revenge...

Update: the reason why daesh didn't claim responsibility is that they were hoping Russia would continue to attack the wrong groups in Syria and help daesh's objectives.

The Other Reason Putin is Attacking ISIS / Rebels

It's been reported by Western reporters the obvious reasons why Putin is on the march in Syria. Oil, European sanction lifting, his economy...

This one shows Putin took my advice and is trying to put a wedge between Europe and USA for his own benefit.  http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/28/putins-moves-in-syria-may-be-linked-to-sanction-hopes.html

But the less reported reasons are perfectly plain if you look at Russian newspapers. In English.

They understand the power dynamic of Assad versus the other factions. But what they don't seem to see is that Arabs won't accept Assad.


First, Russians are just as horrified as the West about ISIS and it's brutality.
 The Russian people have not had 10 years of agony and war in the Middle East so their younger generation doesn't know what the USA is recovering from. Young people don't have memory. Russians don't like Islam and don't want to sit by while they gain strength.

What some people don't realize is that Putin is very much like Bush II, they both believe in the Wolfowitz Doctrine. 


Of course in Russia and Syria, they believe ISIS is a USA invention. 


But more importantly, Russia is afraid of attacks at home. 

According to Sotnikiv, terrorists may arrange terrorist attacks inside Russia as well.

"They could be terrorist attacks on train stations, or in any place, where they can find some kind of breach in security. They have a lot to choose from. Unfortunately, this is inevitable, because there are underground extremist groups in Russia too, and they will declare war on the Russian Federation under the pretext of helping brothers in Islam," the expert said.

"Terror attacks may occur in the near future - not only in the Caucasus, but also in Central Russia - anywhere in Russia," the expert told Pravda.Ru.

- See more at: http://english.pravda.ru/news/hotspots/02-10-2015/132226-russia_isis-0/#sthash.GpPjRAmn.dpuf

 "They will use any type of attacks, but this war has only just begun, and, like in any war, the enemy will fight back. There is definitely a serious threat to the Russian military. There will be attacks against Russia and then there will be more of them to follow," the expert told Pravda.Ru.

According to Sotnikiv, terrorists may arrange terrorist attacks inside Russia as well.

"They could be terrorist attacks on train stations, or in any place, where they can find some kind of breach in security. They have a lot to choose from. Unfortunately, this is inevitable, because there are underground extremist groups in Russia too, and they will declare war on the Russian Federation under the pretext of helping brothers in Islam," the expert said.

"Terror attacks may occur in the near future - not only in the Caucasus, but also in Central Russia - anywhere in Russia," the expert told Pravda.Ru.

"They will use any type of attacks, but this war has only just begun, and, like in any war, the enemy will fight back. There is definitely a serious threat to the Russian military. There will be attacks against Russia and then there will be more of them to follow," the expert told Pravda.Ru.

According to Sotnikiv, terrorists may arrange terrorist attacks inside Russia as well.

"They could be terrorist attacks on train stations, or in any place, where they can find some kind of breach in security. They have a lot to choose from. Unfortunately, this is inevitable, because there are underground extremist groups in Russia too, and they will declare war on the Russian Federation under the pretext of helping brothers in Islam," the expert said.

"Terror attacks may occur in the near future - not only in the Caucasus, but also in Central Russia - anywhere in Russia," the expert told Pravda.Ru.

- See more at: http://english.pravda.ru/news/hotspots/02-10-2015/132226-russia_isis-0/#sthash.GpPjRAmn.dpuf

 According to Sotnikiv, terrorists may arrange terrorist attacks inside Russia as well.

"They could be terrorist attacks on train stations, or in any place, where they can find some kind of breach in security. They have a lot to choose from. Unfortunately, this is inevitable, because there are underground extremist groups in Russia too, and they will declare war on the Russian Federation under the pretext of helping brothers in Islam," the expert said.

"Terror attacks may occur in the near future - not only in the Caucasus, but also in Central Russia - anywhere in Russia," the expert told Pravda.Ru.

- See more at: http://english.pravda.ru/news/hotspots/02-10-2015/132226-russia_isis-0/#sthash.GpPjRAmn.dpuf

http://english.pravda.ru/news/hotspots/02-10-2015/132226-russia_isis-0/

Where Obama has sold out: Iraq

There are many issues that Obama has staked a position that is pro-citizen and anti-cronyism.

http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/fffd6e71-3772-416e-a397-ce503b151c12.img

Iraq and Syria is not one of them.

The reason why the West is not winning in Iraq is in part due to the fact that Obama has sold out to special interests on strategy in Iraq against ISIS. He is allowing side objectives to get in the way.

What he told the American people about the objective in defeating ISIL :

"This resolution reflects our core objective to destroy ISIL."
http://www.ibtimes.com/full-text-obama-isis-war-speech-islamic-state-terrorists-are-going-lose-president-1813394

What he is not telling the American people is that his real objective is:

This resolution reflects our core objective to destroy ISIL AND maintain favorable interests in Iraq."

That means propping up the corrupt Iraqi leaders that caused this whole mess in the first place. They turned Anbar over to ISIS by not being inclusive to Sunni Arabs. Iraq has disintegrated as a result!

Obama can win or he can maintain the cronys in Iraq that are pro-USA. He can't do both.

If winning is the ultimate objective then all secondary objectives must disappear. If the only way to do that means arming and cooperating with Iranians to crush ISIS then that should be the strategy. If that means arming the Kurds to crush ISIS then that should be the strategy. If it means US ground troops in Syria then that should be the strategy. If it means nuking Raqqa then that should be the strategy.  There is no middle ground in war. There is no appeasing side interests on the way to victory.

The American people deserve to know the truth that Obama doesn't want Iraq on his CV and he is leaving the decisions to the vested interests that caused the mess in the first place. That is making defeat more likely, not less.

If I was Obama, I would tell Abadi he's got 30 days to start showing some victory or Abadi is out of the picture and the coalition will fight over top of what's left of Baghdad.

Phone a friend for recruitment and unleashing your inner psychopath: how to join ISIS.

It's a shocking strategy that ISIS is using to draw in foolish people to their midst.  This video reveals that ISIS is not at successful at the social media that we are told is working like videos. But they are more successful with personal endorsements from people trying to convince their friends.

This is a CNN video so Blogger won't let me embed it.


http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/03/23/intv-amanpour-aimen-dean-former-jihadist-mi5.cnn?iid=ob_article_footer_expansion&iref=obnetwork


http://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.2323137.1428836935!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_225/image.jpg 

Maliki wanted to be a sectarian leader, Obama wisely let him fail.

Maliki used his paranoia to widen the sectarian mistrust and fuel the ISIS invasion. He made it impossible to have an inclusive government so the outcome is predictable.

If Obama had acted then, the situation would be worse.  To help Maliki would have tarred USA with the same brush, to engender hatred against oppressors within Sunni community.

Instead, Obama wisely let him fail and the unintended consequence was the ISIS advance happened faster than expected. But ISIS would have invaded later on it was inevitable. 

By not propping Maliki up, Obama used the leverage of the situation to get a better deal from the Iraqi government. Now the Iraqi government, desperate to win, will need to accede to US demands that they would have ignored months ago.

Blunt the Antagonists

Why did the US expose the plan to attack Mosul?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/middleeast/iraq-isis-tikrit/index.html

They claim it's a warning to civilians that might want to flee in advance of the assault. But that's months away and if there isn't enough reason to leave Mosul today, it won't matter. It makes no sense.

So why then the warning?


Simple, the short goal is to win the war, the longer goal is to blunt all the aggressors.  If Iran is fighting on the side of Iraqi government forces, then the US does not want that to be an easy fight they want to attrit the Iranian forces as well because that makes them less of a threat in the future against Saudi and Jordanian forces.  Victory will come but the US planners are considering the outcome of current actions.

They warned ISIS to make them move forces forward to defend the advance which will make them easier to kill by exposing them on more fronts and then  forcing Iraqi forces to waste their strength against harder defenses in depth. 

The victory will come, but they can achieve a secondary goal of blunting ALL the antagonists. Sounds like karma to me for all those American casualties....

How can the US be fighting alongside Saudi and Iranian interests at the same time?

Comedians that make good jokes don't have to be good analysts. Sometimes in pursuit of a joke that is funny, they brush over the wider understanding of the situation.


Jon Stewart don't understand why the US is fighting alongside Saudi Arabia in Yemen and alongside Iran in Iraq. 

Easy,  because both fronts are part of the status quo and both ruling  governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran and are anti-ISIS / anti-AlQaeda. Neither Iran nor Saudi want a caliphate it is a direct threat to their existence.

The US is anti-extremist not imperial in the Middle East.

Since the US doesn't want to take over any territory, they want the status quo which means to keep those governments in power.   That means work with anyone against radical Islam.

Give the caliphate what it wants, only not the way they want it.

This article is a very good read on ISIS:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

It explains, more or less, that the caliphate is living out an ancient Twilight novel - with the over-simplistic plot line and pathetic credibility gaps like a teen novel trilogy (made for people whose brains are forming yet still defective) that only morons would find interesting - this fantasy  involves a battle with an invading army at the town of Dabiq. The army is supposed to be Romans, everyone riding horses, and it is a milestone on the way to the apocalypse according to the script they are following.

Dabiq is on the border of Turkey and Syria. (from the article)

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/isismapweb2/307796482.jpg

Following the beliefs of an ancient book makes them predictable.   Why not let them have their wish? More like death wish.
 
If we want to get rid of them, and prove that god was never on their side, then we should formally agree to meet them on the plains around Dabiq.  Then when they gather, JDAM them.
 
If the events surrounding the caliphate don't play out like the plot of the book, then even zealous supporters will need to review their beliefs.  Doubt will creep in and the whole hollowed out core of once-humans will collapse. 

According to the pulp fiction, there will only be 12 caliphs and al-Bagdhadi is number 8.  Kill 5 more leaders and the plot line is over. 

To attack them alone will not solve the problem. To defeat what they believe is to attack the schwerpunkt of their ideology.  If the story does not go as planned, the whole enterprise was a lie.

Their moral belief in the script of an ancient book being true is their source of strength and biggest weakness. Exploit them.

Turkey, the nation, is lead by morons

Turkey is a confusing ally.  On the one hand, they don't like the Assad regime next door.  They also don't like the Kurdish parties inside Turkey and Northern Iraq and Syria.

On the other hand, they refuse to help fight Islamic State (Caliphate). They refuse to let US fly from Turkish airports.  They refuse to let Kurds move in to reinforce their brothers fighting the Caliphate. They consider the Kurds and Islamic state equal enemies.

They have forgotten a simple maxim: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Why wouldn't they allow Kurds to go fight in Syria? The more that empty out into Syria the less are left in Turkey.  The weaker Islamic State is then the better for Turkey.

No one says they have to let Kurdish fighters back later on.  They could solve two problems at once. 

The fact that they can't see where their true interest lies, leads me to think they aren't lead very well.