التقرير الأسبوعي لمراكز الأبحاث الاميركية

 

 

 The analysis questions the impact of these weapons without the training necessary to use them in combat.

 

 They note, “Should the Assad regime carry out massacres in large cities such as Aleppo -- certainly a possibility, given that Assad's father bombed downtown Hama in 1982, killing at least 10,000 to crush an uprising there -- the AKP might find Turkish public sympathies for the persecuted fellow Muslims next door too unbearable to ignore. Genocidal massacres in Syria, coupled with the breakdown of law and order, would make Turkish intervention almost unavoidable. So, a Turkish buffer zone inside Syria might well be Turkey's best option to avoid a direct military intervention for humanitarian reasons, but only so long as Assad does not turn genocidal on his own people.

 

 In a Q&A, Paul Salem discusses the indictments, assesses the risk of conflict, and analyzes the regional implications. Salem says that the situation remains remarkably calm at the moment, but it is too early to say how it will all play out. This is the beginning of something big—there is a clear danger the situation could be inflamed down the road.

 

 They conclude, “the Afghanistan we leave behind will be a chaotic, ugly place where the Taliban rules large swaths of the country, and much of what we have built may be washed away.”

 

 They conclude, “It is hard to characterize all this as other than a further diminishing of America as a beacon of liberty and reliable friend to those who cherish freedom, or aspire to obtain it.  If we are unable to counter even those who are explicitly hostile to our survival as a nation, we encourage the perception that this country is reduced to appeasing its enemies and selling out our friends. We will have many more of the former and far fewer of the latter.   A further impetus to the perception of a diminished America may come this week after Atlantis performs the planned final flight of a U.S. space shuttle. President Obama declined to keep the shuttles going, canceled the planned replacement platform for manned space flight and thereby condemned this country for the foreseeable future to reliance on Russian and perhaps, in due course, Chinese rockets to deliver our astronauts to the space station.”

 

 They note, “As Iraq and Afghanistan fade from the headlines, Iran is likely to re-emerge as the preeminent security concern in the Middle East for the United States and its allies. Iran’s intransigence over its nuclear ambitions, its support for Shia opposition forces in the region, and material support for terrorist organizations are challenges that will likely persist for the foreseeable future. For all the public emphasis on Iran’s land-based operations, however, Iran’s maritime reorganization strategy and naval evolution will likely drive its most consequential regional engagements.”

 

 This report provides an overview of the political, security, and economic developments in Iraq, as well as developments in the Iraqi energy sector and shifts in international and US aid to Iraq. It summarizes the current capabilities and size of Iraqi security forces (ISF), and their dependence on aid. It also summarizes the cost of the war to date to the US, the patterns in the withdrawal of US forces, and current plans for the US military withdrawal from Iraq. A separate sections summarizes  plans for US State Department-led effort to create a strategic partnership with Iraq under the Strategic Framework Agreement. The report provides these summaries in the form of key graphs, tables, and maps and only summary narratives. It should be noted that it draws heavily on reporting by the US Special Inspector General for Iraq (SIGIR), and that the SIGIR quarterly report published covering developments in Iraq through April 2011 provides far more narrative detail on development in Iraq and US plans for the future

 

 

 They note, “Isolationism—as a complete and coherent grand strategy—is composed of economic protectionism, military noninvolvement, and cultural seclusion. By this definition, the best examples of isolationist foreign policies are offered by 17th century China, 18th century Japan, 19th century Korea, or 20th century North Korea.

 interconnectedness to economic markets abroad, America’s diplomatic interaction with foreign powers, and America’s cultural affinity with Europe, it is clear that U.S. foreign policy cannot accurately be called “isolationist” if the word is to have any meaning at all. This is not to say that isolationist ideas have not influenced American foreign policy in the past, but isolationism is a modern idea in America and is not rooted in early U.S. history.”

 

 They note, “Despite Hamas’s strength, Israeli and international economic pressure threaten Hamas’s position, as it must provide services and maintain its image in the face of the harsh pressure in order to stave off political foes. Politically, Hamas is beset from all sides. Fatah has been waiting in the wings, and rivals like Palestine Islamic Jihad challenge Hamas by advocating for more attacks against Israel. The emergence in Gaza of jihadists who look to al-Qa’ida for guidance (though they are not directly tied to al-Qa’ida itself) has also increased pressure on Hamas. In addition to Hamas’s poor fiscal and political positions, it is organizationally weak in the West Bank, and does not possess the level of military strength it desires. Indeed, Israel’s 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead humiliated Hamas on the battlefield. Because of the outcome of that war, and because of Gazans’ lack of appetite for confrontation with Israel, Hamas has largely stopped rocket attacks in the months following the operation. However, Hamas may become stronger in the years to come. The size of Hamas’s rocket and mortar arsenal, and the range of its rockets are likely to grow. Hamas is also likely to increase its roster of trained fighters, courtesy of Hizballah and Iran.”

 

 

 

 

 However there has been some movement that may change the battle scape.

 

 Gaddafi forces first moved towards the Rebel center of Benghazi without serious opposition until NATO air forces struck Libyan loyalist forces. Rebels soon started an advance which stalled near Ras Lanuf. At the same time, Libyan loyalist forces have been unable to oust rebels in the eastern port city of Misrata, which has been resupplied by sea.

 

 And, Norway has announced that it is pulling out in a few weeks because its air force is unable to sustain operations. 

 

 The U.S. global security consultancy Stratfor says these troops "have played a key role in quietly providing weaponry and training to Libyan opposition forces while trying to organize a political command in the east." There are also reports that they are working along the Libyan/Tunisian border.

 

 

 According to reports, the supplies are being sent to rebel forces to the south of Tripoli in the hope of facilitating a rebel assault on the Libyan capital and the fall of the Gaddafi regime. The armaments, which are being parachuted into the Nafusa mountain region, reportedly include rocket-launchers, assault rifles, machine guns, and anti-tank missiles.

 

 So far, about 40 tons of munitions have been sent. Berber rebels have also set up two runways for continued arms shipments.

 

 Professional armies like the American, British, and French armies invest months in training new recruits in using weapons and tactics. However, reports coming out of the battle zone indicate that the new recruits receive at most a week’s worth of training before being sent to the front lines. Although that may be adequate for handling light defensive roles, it isn’t enough for taking the offensive. A French report tells of a rebel soldier being seriously injured by the backblast of missiles he was launching.

 

 Larger, more potent weapons like anti-tank missiles require even more training. In fact, Western armies usually have schools lasting several weeks just to train soldiers on one of these weapons systems.

 

 First, will the French bring instructors to the area to train rebels. And, will they be able to set up the facilities to train the rebels. Effective anti-tank missile training usually includes extensive use of computer linked training devices to allow students to gain experience in different scenarios. If not, the weapons will help prevent any encroachments by Gaddafi forces, but will not be able to be effectively used in an offensive role. Or, will mercenaries be brought in to help the rebels?

 

 The Nafusa Mountains are the base of the southern rebellion and moving supplies will be difficult. In addition, there are only two runways to handle the supplies coming from France or other Arab nations. Can that supply line support a serious offensive towards Tripoli?

 

 Modern weapons require ammunition and these can only come from a major country like France. Will France remain committed to the rebel cause long enough to win?

 

 

 

 One positive aspect is that the rebels have indicated that they aren’t demanding that they be recognized as the sole Libyan government, but are willing to work with other groups.  Unfortunately, nothing substantial has taken place and some think that Gaddafi’s offer to negotiate is only a ploy. There are reports that his mercenaries aren’t being paid and weapons resupply is difficult do to the blockade.

 

 Gaddafi insists on a stop to the NATO air campaign and the unfreezing of Libyan assets. In return he may leave if he receives guarantees of his personal safety according to Russian negotiators. However, these conditions may mean he is looking for a breather in order to give his forces a chance to win.

 Neither side has the overwhelming strength to win.

 

 Although there have been desultory attempts to kill Gaddafi with bombs or cruise missiles, these have proven ineffective in past attempts to kill Gaddafi, Sadam Hussein, or Bin Laden. Continued attempts only prolong the Libyan people’s agony.

 

 This isn’t a one week affair but a commitment of a year. It also requires supplying the rebels with weapons, food, and non lethal military supplies.  This will give the rebels an army that can beat Gaddafi and become the keystone for a democratic Libya.

 

 As was seen in Afghanistan, Central America, and Vietnam, weapons that are sent to an ally can quickly be captured by enemies and turned against one. As the West sends weapons into Libya, there must be the understanding that these weapons can later be used to create instability in Libya, surrounding nations, or even worldwide if a stable government and country Isn’t a product of the current civil war.

 

By Marion Smith

Heritage Foundation - Web Memo

 

July 5, 2011

 

There is a lot of confusion about America’s proper role in the world at the moment. The terms “isolationism” and “noninterventionism” are often used without clear meaning. These two concepts do have specific definitions that should be properly understood, but we must also be aware of how these terms are being used. The stakes are high, and America cannot afford another deadly encounter with isolationism. A debate is needed. How else can America’s principles be prudently applied to foreign policy? Disagreement over the merits of a particular war is not, in itself, indicative of rising isolationism in Republican ranks. Indeed, most people shun isolationism. But for the war-weary, it may sound tempting to embrace strict noninterventionism, even if they don’t wish for America to isolate itself from the world. The problem is that many arguments now masquerading as “noninterventionist” are actually isolationist and, as such, at odds with America’s principles and foreign policy traditions.