Month: November 2014

More Airstrikes And Ground Forces

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

Many Americans are growing increasingly skeptical about the mission to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS. Comprehensive reporting by the New York Times will not allay these concerns.

The following is a list of issues facing the U.S. in its confrontation with ISIS in Iraq and Syria that were documented in the Times article.

• Spotty intelligence, poor weather and an Iraqi army that only now is going on the offensive are challenging commanders.
• Weekend airstrikes included a convoy of ten armed trucks and two checkpoints. Sadly, we are using munitions and weapons technologies that cost billions to destroy a few trucks and an outpost.
• The slow pace of Iraqi and Kurdish engagements is influencing the air war. The result is that ISIS fighters are digging in and avoiding bombs.
• Bomber pilots are seeking out targets of opportunity such as checkpoints, artillery and combat vehicles. The preferred method of conducting the air war would be to use ground forces to root out fighters and identify high value targets for the bombers. Finding targets is difficult from the air, and so, only one in four planes are dropping their loads.
• American commandos are not active in either Iraq or Syria so no raids on military camps and safe houses are occurring. These attacks generated useful information in previous confrontations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• Airstrikes are constrained by concerns about collateral damage. Civilian casualties could alienate Sunni tribesmen in western Iraq, in particular. This is a group the coalition hopes will fight ISIS.
• The current request for funding the war of $5 billion is woefully low to conduct operations and train indigenous troops.
• The coalition is dependent upon the new Iraqi government to be inclusive towards Sunnis. If disenfranchisement of Sunnis by Shiites resumes, Sunnis may not fight ISIS. Given the bad blood between the sects, this contingency is highly probable.
• The pace of the training of Iraqi soldiers is very slow giving the enemy an opportunity to prepare for a counter offensive.
• Pilots are finding it cumbersome to get approval to hit targets they identify. This is related to concerns about collateral damage.
• The air campaign has averaged five strikes a day in both Iraq and Syria. In Libya, NATO carried out 50 strikes. In Afghanistan, 85 daily strikes occurred. In Iraq in 2003, 800 strikes occurred. The impact on ISIS of U.S. airpower at the current rate is relatively insignificant.

David A. Deptula, a retired three-star Air Force general who fought in Afghanistan and the first Iraq War said, “Air power needs to be applied like a thunderstorm, and so far we’ve only witnessed a drizzle.” General Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff said, “It’s going to take people on the ground, ground forces.” He added, “the priority is to develop ‘indigenous forces’ to retake territory from ISIS . . . [if the current strategy is unsuccessful], then we’re going to have to reassess, and decide whether [to deploy U.S. ground forces].”

The ISIS situation is becoming a monstrous problem with the potential to continue for years. The U.S. should not have entered the fray unless its leaders were prepared to complete the mission expeditiously.

Obama And Congress Will Clash

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

Has the liberal media participated in an effort to diminish the mistakes and errors in judgment of the Obama administration? Absolutely. Progressive reporters and editorial writers have been protecting the president for the past six years. There has been no misstep great enough to inspire a thorough investigation by the free press. Americans should appreciate the untiring efforts of Fox News, which refuses to let the most egregious actions slip by without comment.

All this came to a head during the recent elections. Voters finally realized that the president’s ideological bent and uncompromising demeanor is responsible for a number of decisions that hurt the economy and America’s reputation abroad. The reaction of the electorate has been so severe that Democrat candidates who supported Obama’s agenda during his tenure eschewed him in their campaigns. The press has thankfully begun to dig deeper into the plethora of scandals and dysfunction that have plagued the White House.

Consider the following two issues.

• Obamacare is a disaster, even though the press has consistently advocated the benefits of this entitlement. Creating an affordable medical insurance program for lower and middle class families is and continues to be a noble objective. But the law was enacted without any concurrence by Republicans and ramrodded through Congress. The result was a poorly crafted giveaway that hurt almost as many individuals and businesses as it helped. A huge number of the poorest beneficiaries have received assistance via Medicaid, something that could have been enacted without Obamacare drama.
• With the help of the press, the administration has downplayed the criminal and unethical behavior of various agencies of the government. The IRS scandal tops the list. It is inconceivable that our tax collectors were targeting citizens who have different political preferences, and now they are covering up their misdeeds.

The list goes on. But most disturbing is the ideological tenacity of our president. He is on a mission to punish, sanction and disparage the most successful and wealthiest Americans. He says some citizens are too greedy and capitalistic. They don’t do enough for the poor. He thinks exceptionalism somehow deteriorates our society. Business achievement is unproductive. 1%ers are not paying their fair share.

The 2012 presidential campaign rewarded Obama’s class warfare tactics. He successfully denigrated a person who built a huge private equity business and benefitted by it financially. The media jumped on the Obama bandwagon and destroyed Mitt Romney simply because he has enjoyed a great career.

Along with voters, Democrat politicians realize that the president is radioactive. Many will no longer tie themselves to his misguided policies. Allegiance to the president during the last several years was the downfall for many liberal candidates. Obama’s presence in Washington, his actions and his arrogance together with low voter turnout (apathy) were the undoing of progressives seeking to retain or gain office. The press was forced to participate in the resultant electoral massacre because the story was so pervasive.

During the next few months, important decisions will be made regarding the confrontation with ISIS and Iran’s nuclear program. For sure, Congress, under new leadership, will step up its oversight of these matters. The media should follow suit. Investigative reporters must shed their biases and provide the facts that will help Americans understand what their leaders are up to.

The president is not going to change his method of operation. Already he is threatening to mandate immigration changes without approval of Congress. If this occurs, it will be a long, hard two years until the next presidential election.

Should Obama Continue War Against ISIS Without Congressional Approval?

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

There are several troublesome issues relating the president’s decision to double the U.S. soldiers in Iraq. An article in the New York Times addresses some of them.

The timing of the announcement is noteworthy and suspicious to say the least. Yet, the administration said it did not intentionally delay the announcement until after the mid term elections. Such an action before voters went to the polls might have spooked the electorate and resulted in a worse fate for Democrats. It is difficult for some to accept the administration’s response.

Is the new mini-surge a precursor to a greater deployment of troops in the near future? The president insisted that the latest manpower increase does not represent any change in his previous edict that the U.S. would not provide ground support in the fight against ISIS. The article indicates that the new soldiers will be operating in the field not in protected areas. What level of U.S. troop deployments would represent a change in policy, 2,000, 5,000 or 10,000 more troops?

The cost of this latest adventure in Iraq is expected to be over $5 billion, $1.8 billion of which will be dedicated to training Iraqi soldiers. It should be noted that the U.S. spent $60 billion per year during the highpoint of the previous occupation. After all that military assistance, the Iraqis were totally ineffective against ISIS in their initial encounters. Are Americans supposed to believe $1.8 billion will be sufficient to convert Iraqi soldiers into a lean and mean fighting machine? Ironically, the administration found a third party to blame for the decline in battlefield readiness of Iraqi forces- the former Iraq administration led by Nouri al-Maliki.

The president is walking on a dangerous constitutional line. The U.S. invaded Iraq and Syria using the War Powers Act. But, the country has been engaged long enough to require a mandatory approval of the military operations or a declaration of war by Congress. When is this going to happen? Or, will the president continue to prosecute the war on his own authority? Congress has an obligation to oversee the mission, costs, deployment of troops and materiel and a timetable for the end of hostilities.

Exacerbating the situation is an impending deal with Iran, in which the U.S. is likely to eliminate or reduce economic sanctions in exchange for Iran’s help in fighting ISIS. If this deal enables Iran to move closer to a nuclear capability, the current skirmish in Iraq and Syria will become a much larger confrontation.

President Obama Is Not Going To Be A Conciliator

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The president seemed awfully relaxed during his press conference yesterday, after an election that completely changed the power structure in Washington. Republicans are now the majority in both houses of Congress. Given that Obama’s policies, management style, ambivalence and defiance were among the most important things that swayed voters, it is shocking that he so glib and unconcerned about trying to find ways to work together for the benefit of the country.

Many politicians that supported the president were crucified at the polls, yet the president has decided to let it all roll off his back. Publicly, he has shown little empathy for those who were defeated. One reason for this approach may be the fact that almost none wanted Obama to campaign with them.

The president said he would try to work with his adversaries, but also threatened to govern without congressional endorsement, if Congress did not approve of his initiatives. One day after the country repudiated the president and his party, he did not think it was important to seek genuine reconciliation with the new Congress.

It is more than disconcerting that several critical issues are brewing while the president prepares to go to battle with Republicans once again. The war with ISIS is a prime example. The president used the War Powers Act to attack ISIS without congressional approval. However, after a period of time, the president must go to Congress to obtain concurrence or a declaration of war.

The problem is that the president’s plan is faulty. He continues to insist that no U.S. ground forces will be deployed, even though the war cannot be won without such support according to most experts. Alternatively, the coalition intends to train Iraqis and a “moderate rebel force” in Syria to provide ground assistance. The plan is inane because of the time it will take to make the force battle ready. Additionally, the newly trained soldiers are not expected to be large enough or skilled enough to repel the more experienced ISIS fighters. So, a strategy to continue bombing is something Congress will definately consider carefully.

Immigration is one of the most important issues for America today. Forging a plan that protects Americans from drastic demographic and socioeconomic transformation will be a great challenge. The president has threatened to implement reforms (citizenship for millions of illegals) by edict and without congressional approval. He does not have the right to go it alone, nor does he have the right to unilaterally grant immunity and citizenship to illegal immigrants without limits and responsibilities. Unfortunately, this potential action by the president could lead to a serious constitutional confrontation.

Many Americans who are experienced in deal making believe the president has a low social IQ. He does not recognize or accept others who disagree with his perspectives; he is incapable of compromise. He casts aside all opposition, including members of Congress. This is a recipe for disaster. The result of his continued propensity to disenfranchise the other party will result in two more years of complete governmental paralysis.

President Obama: Give Us The Facts About The ISIS War

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The Republican landslide in the 2014 elections will likely reopen the debate about the U.S. mission in Iraq and Syria. The current objective is to degrade and destroy ISIS.

There is no evidence that the coalition forces are making significant progress towards this endgame. In fact, ISIS is becoming more powerful as recruits pore in, and stolen oil is sold to finance operations. Further, the atrocities committed by these savages remain unchecked. Reports are flowing in telling of mass executions throughout the widespread ISIS territories.

Yet, the U.S. strategy continues unchanged while the White House and the Pentagon say things are moving along satisfactorily. Perhaps, the generals who are covering for the president will be more forthcoming when Senator John McCain (R-AZ) becomes chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and asks them under oath whether they believe the current tactics will assure victory.

The Guardian published a scathing article which indicates that the “Pentagon denies U.S. strategy to defeat ISIS is unraveling.” A Pentagon spokesman said, “I don’t believe that we view current events a major setback to the goals that we’ve set with respect to training and equipping the moderate opposition [in Syria].” The comment was made after an Al Qaeda faction routed a Syrian resistance group that was supposed to “anchor” an anti-ISIS proxy force.

The plan is to train 5,000 fighters in Syria, which is supposed to take one year, “against an ISIS force that may command as many as 31,000.” The arithmetic looks very bad for the ground forces that are expected to supplement U.S. bombing efforts.

“ . . . the administration is signaling a counter offensive to oust ISIS from Iraq, led by the Iraqis and backed by U.S. airpower and Iranian Shia militia . . .” The force will not be ready until 2015. This strategy aligns the U.S. with Iran. Many are wondering what the price of this support will be. Might it include a green light for Iran to continue its nuclear program?

Michael Eisenstadt of the Institute for Near East Policy wrote that the U.S. should “’define down success,’ as a marginalized ISIS that can no longer conquer or hold territory.” Even this would be a tall order considering the strength of the enemy at this time.

The problem for the Obama administration is that it embroiled us in a war with ISIS without committing to doing what is necessary to win. Every American hates the idea of sending ground troops to the rat holes known as Iraq and Syria. But if defeating ISIS is an important element of securing our homeland and/or providing national security, ground troops will be deployed sooner or later. It’s too bad the administration did not consider this before initiating a relatively ineffective bombing campaign.

Iran’s Nuclear Program And ISIS

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The New York Times reports that a major breakthrough is possible in the negotiations with Iran regarding its nuclear energy program.

This development could be critical not only for the safety of the Middle East, but also for the ISIS crisis. If a deal can be struck that prevents Iran from using its uranium to build a weapon, the world will be safer. If this situation is rectified, it opens the possibility that Iran could become a productive member of the coalition fighting ISIS.

Now the bad news. The U.S. and Russia have not been as antagonistic towards each other since the Cold War ended. Russia is currently invading Ukraine, and the U.S. led a successful effort to implement economic sanctions in protest. The competition between the two super powers has reached an apex.

The U.S.’s status in the world has been greatly impacted by its ambivalent diplomacy. Frankly, most nations are skeptical about the U.S.’s integrity and willingness to keep promises made to its allies. This attitude is particularly prevalent in the Middle East where much of the trouble is brewing.

Perhaps Iran can live with a program in which its uranium is shipped to Russia and converted into fuel rods that can only be used for peaceful purposes. A plethora of other issues need to be settled before a deal is consummated, including the number of permitted centrifuges, the fate of a heavy-water reactor that produces plutonium and the inspection process.

Most important are the differing endgames of the U.S., Iran and Russia. Neither the U.S. nor Russia wants Iran to possess a nuclear weapon; Iran has not agreed to comply. Russia wants to assess Iran exorbitant fees to convert the uranium; the U.S. is not excited about any new programs that benefit the Russian economy. Russia would like to become more engaged in the Middle East; the U.S. certainly does not want yet another antagonist disrupting the region. The U.S. must be concerned with Israel reacting aggressively about the chances of Iran developing a nuclear weapon.

It is highly likely that negotiations relating to Iran’s role in fighting ISIS will spill over into the nuclear discussions. This is problematic because it may influence the U.S. to make a very bad long-term decision for a short-term benefit. Moreover, the Obama administration is so hungry for a diplomatic success that it might agree to something that will have disastrous consequences.

We should be enthusiastic about new negotiations that could decrease nuclear proliferation. However, it is too early to celebrate because the U.S. must deal with some very devious adversaries.

Eliminating Iran Sanctions In Exchange For Cooperation Against ISIS Is Foolish

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

Is the West prepared to effectively give Iran a green light to build a nuclear bomb by eliminating economic sanctions in exchange for Iran’s participation in the battle with ISIS? A Newsweek article indicates that negotiations are already underway to forge together a deal “that would end sanctions in return for assurances [Iran will] not develop a nuclear weapon.”

It appears that the U.S. and Iran are negotiating two different transactions. The U.S. wants Iran to agree to not build a bomb, whereas Iran still maintains that it has a right to a nuclear program, which effectively enables it to build a bomb. It will be a monumental effort for each party to accomplish their objectives.

Before the U.S. agrees to cooperate, it should reconsider whom it is dealing with and whether there are other ways to defeat ISIS that would not include arming Iran.

Iran has not given up its dream to build a nuclear device, no matter what it says publicly. It is the only way that Iran can achieve a level of parity with Israel, which has a nuclear capability. In this regard, Iran will lie, cheat and steal to achieve its goal. The most important question is: Can Iran be trusted to live up to guarantees after economic sanctions are eliminated? Considering Iran’s nefarious activities throughout the Middle East, the U.S. should have concerns about Iran’s trustworthiness.

The Newsweek article indicates several disturbing things. Iran is supporting a militia that has destabilized Yemen. President Bashar al-Assad will be protected by Iran, even as nearly every Arab nation has called for Assad to step down. Iran has maintained contact with Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s former prime minister, which will enable it to disrupt conciliation between the Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis.

The willingness of the U.S. to deal with Iran should be affected by its longstanding feud with it. Diplomatic relations ended in 1979 when Iranian clerics encouraged radicals to take 52 U.S. diplomats hostage for a year.

Iran continues to commit human rights violations. For example, Newsweek reported that Iran executed 1,000 people last year. Iran security forces continue to harass and arrest peaceful protesters as well as journalists. Most disturbing is the support Iran affords Hezbollah, a ruthless terrorist organization. Despite all these concerns, some western countries are anxious to ally with Iran against ISIS.

What does Iran bring to the table militarily? GFP indicates that Iran has 500 thousand active soldiers and 1.8 million reservists. It has 2,400 tanks and various types of fighting vehicles and rocket launchers. Aircraft total 481 including attack planes and helicopters.

The Jerusalem Post points out that Iran’s military resume is not impressive. The country’s efforts to spread its ideology have been less than impressive and with a “lack of follow through.” In a nutshell, Iran has been cautious about employing its military. Rather, it relies heavily upon “indirect diplomacy, menace and intrigue.” Nevertheless, Iran has been emboldened by the U.S.’s meek responses to crises in the region.

Iran did not perform admirably in its war with Iraq in the 1980s. Some people attribute this to “overestimated nationalism” and Iranian “unwillingness to sacrifice.” So, what might we expect from Iran in the ISIS war? The allies should not be too optimistic.

A nuclear weapon would enable Iran to assert itself without directly confronting its enemies. The threat of a nuclear strike is the hammer that Iran will wield if left unchecked.

A trade off would be acceptable if Iran was honorable and lived up to guarantees and promises about its nuclear program. Since Iran leaders have repeatedly said the country has a right to do whatever it wants, nobody should derive any comfort. Sanctions are the only power we hold over Iran, other than the threat of an outright assault. Giving up sanctions would be disastrous.

With this in mind, I think the deal that is percolating is foolish, naïve and shortsighted. The coalition cannot be sure that Iran will engage fully and effectively with ISIS, or even whether it can repel ISIS terrorists.

Meanwhile, Israel and Sunni Gulf Arabs are not going to sit by idly and allow Iran to build a nuclear bomb. It is entirely possible that Israel will take action against what it believes is an existential threat. Similarly, Saudi Arabia is likely to set loose insurgents to destabilize Shiite bastions in response to an Iranian deal.

President Obama had better be sure that mechanisms are in place to prevent the development of a bomb by Iran, as a nuclear event could materially change the Middle East.

After The ISIS War There Will Be No Peace In The Middle East

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The ISIS War has become a huge public relations problem for all the interested parties, as the definition of “winning the war” is becoming more elusive over time.

The U.S. is in a precarious position because the president said ISIS would be defeated. Most believe this means the terrorists will be killed and will no longer threaten the Middle East.

It is not happening up to this point. ISIS is recruiting new fighters and selling more commandeered oil every day to finance its operations. Everybody (including the president and his aides) knows that effective ground support for U.S. bombing sorties is not going to materialize. Winning the war without boots on the ground will be impossible.

President Obama said no U.S. ground forces would be deployed. Frankly, Americans cannot stomach another occupation and inevitable casualties, so it is easy to appreciate the decision to withhold soldiers. However, the mission is to kill off ISIS, but that’s not realistic because ISIS fighters will annihilate ground troops supplied by any of the countries in the region. Sadly, the American people have been misled, once again, about the rationale and resolution of yet another conflict.

So, what’s next for America? Hostilities will likely continue so long as the U.S. continues to bomb ISIS forces. At some point, the U.S. will retreat and allow the Arabs to fight it out. This eventuality extends the current losing streak to four in a row for the U.S., Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq twice.

Iraq is also a loser no matter what happens to ISIS. The country, or what will be left of it after ISIS annexes large chunks of it, will experience a continuation of the year’s old civil war pitting embedded Shiites (supported by Iran) against the rebel Sunnis (supported by Saudi Arabian insurgents).

Syria will also be in total confusion after the ISIS crisis. Currently, Bashar al-Assad and rebel Sunnis are busy fighting ISIS. If they survive the onslaught, they will reengage with each other in civil war. The rebels will likely receive support from Turkey, maybe the U.S. and other Arab countries. Assad will be aided by both Iran and Russia. It’s unclear how this imbroglio will play out.

Nothing will change for Israel after the war ends. Arab nations are united in their hatred for the Jewish state. The Israelis will continue to battle with Palestinians in perpetuity and refocus on Iran’s efforts to develop a nuclear capability.

Some say Iran is obsessed with the wrong issues. It wants the U.S. to rescind economic sanctions and increase flexibility relating to nuclear material in exchange for support against ISIS. Rather, Iran should direct its efforts towards ISIS exclusively, as it is already close to its border. The ability of Iran’s military to repel an ISIS invasion is not a sure bet. Iran does not have a good track record in overt conflicts. Its specialties are insurgency and internal security.

The major concern is that Israel might attack Iran if the U.S. is too lenient with Iran. The development of a nuclear bomb is the only way that Iran can gain parity with Israel militarily. No way will Israel allow this to happen, in the opinion of many.

Turkey is a wild card. It hates ISIS, Syria (and Assad) and Kurds. Its president, Erdogan, has stated publicly that each of these situations is of equal importance to his country. In effect, fighting three individual wars will dilute Turkey’s strength and its diplomatic clout. It has been a totally unreliable ally of the west and not deserving of NATO membership. The Turks should recalibrate their focus on ISIS, which is mustering its strength in nearby Kobani.

The final piece of the puzzle is Saudi Arabia. It represents the biggest prize for ISIS. It’s not clear what countries would come to Saudi Arabia’s rescue if ISIS approaches the country. The disruption of an overthrown regime on oil reserves would be devastating globally.

ISIS will soon redraw the map of the Middle East because of the lack of commitment to destroy it by the U.S. and its allies. When the ISIS war ends, hostilities will continue as old feuds, resentment and threats are responded to. The Middle East will not see peace for at least another generation. Unfortunately, allowing ISIS to grow and finance itself has created grave new concerns.