« English Outsider on Manchester | Main | Open Thread - 25 May 2017 »

24 May 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I don't see a street level inter-religion sectorial war ( one that matters) between Sunni and Shia happening anytime soon. After the Arab spring the Saudies and monarch Arabs true steet level terroris, with help of thier western puppet masters, tried very hard to start one. But that effort failed in Syria, Iraq, Iran and Lebanon, IMO that failure was first all due to Shia religious leaders in Najaf and Qum for not taking the bait, and reacting to car bombs and bus killings against the Shia, and secondly due to the nationalist SAA that did not take the bait and remained loyal to a non- religious Syrian nationalist goverment. The rest and the noise that comes of puppet Arab capitals, and western media is just wishful thinking.


Your theory of supply arms to both Side and seat back and enjoy they kill each other is an Israelie wishful thinking, that is as dangerous for Israel as is for them and us. Both sides that are already fighting they both already have enough arms, still the fight didn't come to be a Shia Sunni war. Is a war of Sunni terrorist against Sunni majority SAA and allies

FB Ali

The main reason why the US (and other major Western powers) are supporting the Saudis, Gulfies and their Wahhabi cause is because of the huge amounts of money with which these governments have purchased Western goodwill. To cement this, they have also purchased a large number of influential players in the US and other Western countries.

There is no Shia-Sunni conflict. What you and others term as this is in fact just a Wahhabi campaign against Iran, and Shias generally. The Wahhabis make up a small percentage of the total Sunni population in the world. Their money, and the 'bribery' it enables, have exaggerated their standing.

It is quite ridiculous for the US and other Western countries to wage war against IS, while at the same time lauding their supporters (the Saudi-Gulfie-Wahhabi nexus) and condemning and opposing IS's enemy, Iran.

Account Deleted

Tectonic indeed. China is the other unseen power behind this alliance. David Goldman describes it's support for Iran here: http://www.atimes.com/article/iran-wrecked-economy-fund-war-syria/

In the same article:
blockquote>A Russian-Chinese axis is emerging in the Asia stretching from Thailand to Turkey

The efforts at regime change and outright regime destruction since 2003 on the part of the US and it's various partners in crime have simply forced the major Eurasian powers to work together ever more closely to combat the resultant havoc.

I suspect we have now reached a tipping point. Russia's lead role in both the diplomatic and military efforts at a solution to the Syrian civil war may well be the shape of things to come.

For it's part, China seems content, for now, to be 'the money' behind the Shiite defense of sanity in the ME. After all, belts and roads are of no use to failed states.

Linda Lau

Re Iran, if I hear "the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism" I may throw up. Sorry for the indelicate nature of those words, but I imagine you all are used to worse.


He was right about the CIA working with the Ayatollahs, just not against the Shah. They figured they could foil the Iranian Left that was fighting the Shah by promoting Islamism as the base of Iranian dissent and control the Ayatollahs if they ever came to power. The were almost right but crucially wrong on that last point.

iowa steve

Thanks for your explanation, Colonel.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I believe a long time ago you had indicated that the problem of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups could be more effectively handled by "police work", specifically the targeted insertion of special forces on an as needed basis rather than wholesale military operations such as we now see.

David M.

Why did Harper's refuse to publish "Drinking the Kool-Aid" back in 2004?


Some officers in the IDF anonymously wish we'd go easy on ISIS:

But does that mean the United States and its allies should simply allow ISIS to retain its so-called caliphate in parts of eastern Syria and eastern Iraq?

“Why not?” the officer shot back. “When they asked the late [Israeli] Prime Minister Menachem Begin in the Iraq-Iran War in the 80s, who does Israel stand for, Iraq or Iran, he said, ‘I wish luck to both parties. They can go at it, killing each other.’ The same thing is here. You have ISIS killing Al Qaeda by the thousands, Al Qaeda killing ISIS by the thousands. And they are both killing Hezbollah and Assad.”


Peter Reichard

Your link didn't come up but my memory from their WSJ op-ed three months ago was thinking "don't these people ever give up?" Being consistently wrong for years apparently dose not disqualify you from writing op-eds in the Borg media. A Sunnistan in eastern Syria is just not viable.


that's a rather good way to play with the quote, since it basically comes out unharmed, ex-PFC.


Men like war, and women like warriors.

Hmmm? I would assume as a general rule, that may not work anymore.

During the last few weeks I watched a BBC television series on the German-French TV channel ARTE, were the female protagonist as army medic was herself portrait as a warrior. Mastering heavy challenges to make sure her team returned save.

Without doubt the plot contained a fictional standard in its somewhat irritating love subplots.




The problem with having women as infantrymen, armor crewmen, combat engineers, artillerymen and the like is an issue of sheer brute strength especially in the upper body. In a search for social justice in military assignments the problem is that most women are not as strong in terms of bone weight and musculature as men now in these specialties. The temptation in a search for social justice is a tendency to cheat on testing for that strength and musculature with the result that in a unit in the field men have carry, lift, etc., much heavier burdens. pl


Shia Crescent I should have said. This concept has been discussed on SST before

Yes, long enough around SST to know. ... I went back to look at Patrick Bahzad's contribution lately. Vague memory, couldn't there be a trace of Iran as the master sponsor of terrorism? Considering the post Mission Accomplished context?

The early retirement comment was meant to convey the fact that the neocons/ziocons etc. appear to have engineered an outcome directly at odds with their strategy to contain Iranian (and Russian) influence in the region. Of course there is not a single person directing this strategy, but those who do so appear to be doing a very poor job.

First of all, no need for apologies. After all I am not a native speaker. My suspicion is, it won't be easy to sort out neocons/ziocons short of some type of inquisition given the length of time post 1945. Or to what extend the American narrative is necessarily entangled with the neocon/zionist one.


Not only that. The are also stopped in time and morality, culture etc. change surprisingly much in a generation


If i look at the kids armies in Africa than i would say that brute strength isn't that important any more. Having a lot of women in your army has also it advantages. Time will tell what is best

tim s

The TV? Where all the SJW's fantasies come true? That's no true measure of human nature. Perhaps a measure of human folly....



You know nothing of military affairs. Bands of ragged-assed bandits and guerrillas are not what is being discussed here. In any real war nothing has really changed in terms of the loads needing lifting, carrying, etc. It is always true that the heavier force in terms of equipment and logistics wins in the long run. Who is winning in Syria? It is the more and more heavily armed and equipped R+6 forces who are destroying IS. pl

David Habakkuk


Actually, it is not a matter which one can generalise. Historically, it has depended upon the men, the women – and the wars.

One of the most ambiguous figures in British culture is the recruiting sergeant. The song ‘Over the Hills and Far Away’ first appeared in George Farquhar’s play ‘The Recruiting Officer’, written in 1706, two years after the Duke of Marlborough’s victory at Blenheim.

(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over_the_Hills_and_Far_Away_(traditional_song) )

As Farquhar was himself a former recruiting officer, the ‘pitch’ he gives to his Sergeant Pike is probably taken from life:

‘If any gentlemen soldiers or others, have a mind to serve his majesty, and pull down the French king; if any ‘prentices have severe masters, any children have undutiful parents; if any servants have too little wages, or any husband too much wife, let them repair to the noble Serjeant Kite, at the sign of the Raven, in this good town of Shrewsbury, and they shall receive present relief and entertainment.’

So what does the recruiting sergeant offer? Is the promise of escape – of a life which is honourable but not respectable – real, or is it simply a diabolical trick to lure young men to their deaths?

The play on young men’s fear of women, incidentally, is brought out very clearly in a verse of the song:

‘We all shall lead more happy lives?/By getting rid of brats and wives/That scold and bawl both night and day –/Over the Hills and far away.’

A related song is ‘The Recruited Collier’. Young men who had been hewing coal since their early ‘teens could develop immense upper body strength and endurance – so I suspect would have been coveted ‘prey’ for recruiters.

What some of their girlfriends thought about this comes out in the opening verse:

‘“What’s the matter with you, me lass, and where's your dashing Jimmy?”/ “Them soldier boys have picked him up and taken him far from me/Last pay-day he went into town and them red-coated fellows,/Enticed him in and made him drunk, and he'd better gone to the gallows.’

There is a splendid version of the song by the great revivalist folk singer Anne Briggs.
(See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rKISrXhTWY .)

The versions of ‘Over the Hills and Far Away’ which are central to the ‘Sharpe’ series, about a rifleman in the Peninsular Wars, are actually a recomposition by John Tams. They are powerful in their own way, but sanitised – among other things, the misogyny is absent.

Babak Makkinejad

I think that fellow does not appreciate what has happened; men from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Afghanistan (and likely Pakistan) have learnt to work together and fight together and win.

That is one thing.

The other thing is what Col. Lang has stated below; that " It is always true that the heavier force in terms of equipment and logistics wins in the long run".

So, over the coming weeks and months, the R+6 are going to prevail in Syria. There are religious, political and military ramifications to that.

One is that Syria cannot be a friend of the Western Fortress for a few generations. Another is that Iran has become both a Mediterranean Power as well as a Levantine Power - in addition to having power and influence in the Persian Gulf, in Afghanistan, and in Mesopotamia.

Furthermore, the Russian Federation likewise has become entrenched in Eastern Mediterranean and the Levant, while being on good terms with Israel, Hezbollah, the Gulfies, and the Iranians. She can talk to everyone.

It also means that the Russian Federation will have succeeded in cementing a Cordon Sanitaire of Muslims against other Muslims (the Jihadists and their enablers who are friends of the Western Fortress).

The War in Syria was initiated to contain Iran, it brought Iran and Shia to the Western borders of Israel, injected Russia into the Levant, and created an embittered populations on both sides of the Shia-Sunni divide.

It also harmed the state cohesion of Turkey - in regards to the Kurds and Alevis there - frightened Kuwait and Azerbaijan Republic, and removed any possibility of power-sharing in Iraq.

I suppose some one in Tel Aviv, or Brussels, or Washington DC would consider all of that a great success for the Western Fortress.

Babak Makkinejad

The tactics that you are claiming to have been used by Japan where part of a larger strategic thrust that eventually led to catastrophe for Japan.

Japan could not keep China indefinitely weak; neither USSR nor USA would accept Japanese power over China. In the United States, outside of strategic considerations, there was the very vocal Protestant Christians (with their missionary activities in China) that also lobbied for US aide to China.

Furthermore, China was too populous too be dominated by Japan, they bled the Chinese but they themselves were losing men at a constant rate.

In my opinion, it is debatable if Japan-US War would have occurred without Japan's machinations in China between 1919 to 1939.

These are all historical musings.

However, there is also this:

If I were a member of the esteemed aggrieved families of the latest Sunni Muslim terrorist attacks in Manchester & today in Minya; I would not care one whit about all these geo-strategic considerations when my niece, or child, or other family member is dead or maimed.

What benefit all of these have for such families?

Ishmael Zechariah

re: "Having a lot of women in your army has also it(s) advantages."
Could you please:
1-Quantify "a lot": 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% ;
2-Enumerate some of these advantages in "combat arms" ?
Ishmael Zechariah

Babak Makkinejad

In the interest of the Rectification of Names, I respectfully disagree.

When men enter Shia Mosques in Iran or in Afghanistan or in Iraq and blow themselves up, that is an act of war and violence and conflict against the Shia by the Sunni.

I did not check the mazhab affiliations of the bombers and I do not care if they were Wahabbi or Deobandi or something else entirely.

Babak Makkinejad

And their fantasies as well....

Keith Harbaugh

Babak and ex-PFC Chuck, just what do you mean by "Radical Protestantism"?
Googling that phrase yields
Is that what you are referring to? (Somehow I doubt it.)

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad