The Saudis were just an occasionally rebellious tribe back in those days, and the Arabian peninsula had several of them. The Arabian pininsula became a real problem for the Ottomans I think only when the British helped instigate a revolt during WW1 (this was Lawrence of Arabia).
to clarify: the Saudis were Ottoman, at least in that they lived on territory nominally controlled by the Ottoman Empire.
I wouldn't call the Saudis a merely "occasionally rebellious" tribe. They managed to carve out a sovereign state in opposition to the Ottoman Empire that lasted from 1744-1818, and for most of that period controlled Mecca and Medina (which had previously been controlled by the Ottomans).
Even the Crusades happened when they did because of infighting in the region - the trigger for the Crusades was that Christians were denied pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The previous five centuries had Christians pushing back against Islamic expansion somewhat in Italy, Sicily and Spain, and the Eastern Roman Empire was fighting what amounted to a long, slow losing war in its eastern territories, but there was no real conception of the Christians heading to Jerusalem to retake it - they were still visiting it, and everything was relatively chill for a long time.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Even the Crusades happened when they did because of infighting in the region - the trigger for the Crusades was that Christians were denied pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The previous five centuries had Christians pushing back against Islamic expansion somewhat in Italy, Sicily and Spain, and the Eastern Roman Empire was fighting what amounted to a long, slow losing war in its eastern territories, but there was no real conception of the Christians heading to Jerusalem to retake it - they were still visiting it, and everything was relatively chill for a long time.
Wasn't the start of the crusades about the Byzantines (Don't argue semantics please) getting sick of the Normans taking their territory and fucking about in Sicily, while also losing a fuck ton of land in Anatolia to the Sultanate of Al-Rum, thus the Basileus asked the pope (Even though they had been Orthodox for a while) for help, and the pope also was tired of the Normans' bullshit and then called a crusade with the Basileus promising he'd turn the ERE back to Cathol? And of course the Normans and all the other Crusaders joined on because there was money, land, and prestige to take in the holy lands.
It does show how slanted our history teaching is. If there was any equality we'd mention the Ottomans in the same breath as Rome and the Greeks.
The Ottomans big public relations problem was that they went into decline pretty much right after the empire's golden age under Suleiman. They'd have been seen as a major European player, as they were in their prime. Instead, they transitioned to a centuries-long tenure as the Sick Old Man of Europe almost immediately after Suleiman kicked it.
Even the Crusades happened when they did because of infighting in the region - the trigger for the Crusades was that Christians were denied pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The previous five centuries had Christians pushing back against Islamic expansion somewhat in Italy, Sicily and Spain, and the Eastern Roman Empire was fighting what amounted to a long, slow losing war in its eastern territories, but there was no real conception of the Christians heading to Jerusalem to retake it - they were still visiting it, and everything was relatively chill for a long time.
Wasn't the start of the crusades about the Byzantines (Don't argue semantics please) getting sick of the Normans taking their territory and fucking about in Sicily, while also losing a fuck ton of land in Anatolia to the Sultanate of Al-Rum, thus the Basileus asked the pope (Even though they had been Orthodox for a while) for help, and the pope also was tired of the Normans' bullshit and then called a crusade with the Basileus promising he'd turn the ERE back to Cathol? And of course the Normans and all the other Crusaders joined on because there was money, land, and prestige to take in the holy lands.
The loss of anatolia was a part, but keep in mind that it was probably more of an ancillary justification. Playing nice with the Emperor was a good way to get support and logistics for the first part of the expedition (they marched through Anatolia). The target of the crusade was definitely Jerusalem, and it had been lost by the Byzantines centuries earlier.
The vehicle is an ZSU-23-4, an old but still popular radar-guide air defense vehicle that you sometimes see used against "soft" enemy targets due to its very fast firing rate. No indication of who it belongs to in the video clip though.
More erratic behavior from Turkey; now they'll let Kurdish fighters through to fight in Kobane, or so they say.
But there is a delicate political dance here. On Sunday, Turkey's President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, took his traditional tough line on the Kurdish militia in Syria, calling them "terrorists" and saying that they must not be armed by Turkey or the US.
Then Washington went ahead and did just that, dropping weapons to Kurdish fighters around Kobane, quite possibly with tacit Turkish approval during a phone call that took place between the two presidents.
And a day later, Ankara admitted it was helping Peshmerga enter Syria. This is most likely realpolitik by the Turkish government, saying one thing for domestic consumption, to ward off criticism by Turks that it's helping the Kurds, and another to the White House, agreeing to help Kurdish fighters in a way that is acceptable back home.
In case we were under any illusions of the reach of the Afghan government, here's a story from BBC where a journalist visited a Taliban "stronghold" only an hour outside of Kabul. They run the courts and schools and dismantled a US fort that was abandonded not long ago. The Afghan army says they are in "full control" of the area.
I got a kick out of this piece of reasoning:
The last attack missed him by half a metre, he adds, wounding him and making him deaf in one ear. "Whenever I've turned on my mobile the drones come," he says, "so I try not to use my mobile."
The conflict is becoming a proxy war. Last week Khalifa Haftar, a former general, launched a fresh assault on Benghazi with support from the Libyan government, the United Arab Emirates and, allegedly, Egypt. The official government claims Qatar is aiding the Islamist rebels. Earlier this month the al-Qaeda linked militia, Ansar al-Sharia (which also controls much of Benghazi), declared an Islamic emirate in the eastern city of Derna. All this is a far cry from the stable democracy on the Mediterranean that Western leaders had hoped for in 2011 when their air campaign helped overthrow Qaddafi.
When did they start calling that Khalifa guy a mere "former" general? I usually read that he's a "renegade" general or some such, and thus usually picture him with an eyepatch and tattered old combat fatigues. Maybe a hunting falcon on his shoulder too.
A PressTV (Iranian english language outlet, think RT or al-Jazeera) journalist was killed in a car crash in Turkey, which PressTV is saying is "suspicious". The journalist was covering stuff in Kobane and had apparently received threats. PressTV isn't exactly reputable, but them making even veiled accusations against Turkish Intelligence is a sign of strained ties between the countries.
No fucking way those iraqi dudes are on the board to throw away their lives for the flavour-of-the-month chief. Would they be ordered and/or threatened to do so they'd just take the plane and defect to whatever airport letting them land (which have already happened in the past iirc?).
You might be thinking of the Libyan fighter pilots who defected to Malta back in 2011 after being ordered to bomb civilians.
The UN is imposing sanctions on several Yemeni individuals in response to the escalating conflict in the country. Three Houthi leaders are being targeted, as well as former president Abdullah al-Saleh and his son.
I was unaware that Saleh's son was appointed ambassador to the UAE upon the formation of the post-Arab Spring government. This, combined with the sanctions targeting the Salehs and the Houthis, seem to support the theory espoused in the al-Monitor article I linked a few pages ago, where a Yemeni accused the UAE plotting with Saleh and the Houthis to take power in Yemen.
I'm having difficulty making sense of what's happening in Yemen in terms of regional geopolitics; there are too many local and regional powers interacting in convoluted ways. It does, however, seem increasingly likely that the conflict will escalate into a sectarian war, with recent fighting between the Houthis and Sunni tribes/AQAP resulting in scores of deaths. The Houthis keep expanding farther south despite heavy resistance, and seem to be taking the fight to al-Qaeda. This surprises me; I figured they'd be hesitant to extend too far out of their power base in the north.
It does show how slanted our history teaching is. If there was any equality we'd mention the Ottomans in the same breath as Rome and the Greeks.
The Ottomans big public relations problem was that they went into decline pretty much right after the empire's golden age under Suleiman. They'd have been seen as a major European player, as they were in their prime. Instead, they transitioned to a centuries-long tenure as the Sick Old Man of Europe almost immediately after Suleiman kicked it.
The ottoman systems of selecting rulers and general institutions surrounding leadership left a lot to be desired. Keeping someone prisoner for most of their lives with no real training in military or administration then letting them out and making the your leader probably isn't the greatest idea.
The UN is imposing sanctions on several Yemeni individuals in response to the escalating conflict in the country. Three Houthi leaders are being targeted, as well as former president Abdullah al-Saleh and his son.
I was unaware that Saleh's son was appointed ambassador to the UAE upon the formation of the post-Arab Spring government. This, combined with the sanctions targeting the Salehs and the Houthis, seem to support the theory espoused in the al-Monitor article I linked a few pages ago, where a Yemeni accused the UAE plotting with Saleh and the Houthis to take power in Yemen.
I'm having difficulty making sense of what's happening in Yemen in terms of regional geopolitics; there are too many local and regional powers interacting in convoluted ways. It does, however, seem increasingly likely that the conflict will escalate into a sectarian war, with recent fighting between the Houthis and Sunni tribes/AQAP resulting in scores of deaths. The Houthis keep expanding farther south despite heavy resistance, and seem to be taking the fight to al-Qaeda. This surprises me; I figured they'd be hesitant to extend too far out of their power base in the north.
The secret sauce in Yemen is the growing lack of access to water. Entire villages are drying up, and a lot of people studying the area predict that we'll see mass (as in tens of thousands up to a million) deaths in the next decade. The fighting is just a symptom of the underlying chaos.
The UN is imposing sanctions on several Yemeni individuals in response to the escalating conflict in the country. Three Houthi leaders are being targeted, as well as former president Abdullah al-Saleh and his son.
I was unaware that Saleh's son was appointed ambassador to the UAE upon the formation of the post-Arab Spring government. This, combined with the sanctions targeting the Salehs and the Houthis, seem to support the theory espoused in the al-Monitor article I linked a few pages ago, where a Yemeni accused the UAE plotting with Saleh and the Houthis to take power in Yemen.
I'm having difficulty making sense of what's happening in Yemen in terms of regional geopolitics; there are too many local and regional powers interacting in convoluted ways. It does, however, seem increasingly likely that the conflict will escalate into a sectarian war, with recent fighting between the Houthis and Sunni tribes/AQAP resulting in scores of deaths. The Houthis keep expanding farther south despite heavy resistance, and seem to be taking the fight to al-Qaeda. This surprises me; I figured they'd be hesitant to extend too far out of their power base in the north.
The secret sauce in Yemen is the growing lack of access to water. Entire villages are drying up, and a lot of people studying the area predict that we'll see mass (as in tens of thousands up to a million) deaths in the next decade. The fighting is just a symptom of the underlying chaos.
I'm aware of the water shortage, and I agree that it plays a role in conflict in Yemen, but I don't think that it provides a full explanation of recent events in the country. The 2011 uprising was at least as related to the wider regional Arab rebellions as it was to water resources, and I suspect that the geopolitical shifts occurring as a result of the war against the Islamic State are related to the Yemeni crisis in some manner, although I'm far from certain. The allegations of UAE involvement, presumably aimed at ousting al-Islah (Yemen's Brotherhood branch) from the government, add another layer of complexity to the situation. The UAE is aggressively opposing the Brotherhood throughout the region, via propping up the Egyptian junta with billions in aid and bombing the Libyan Islamists on behalf of Haftar's nationalists.
Emirati involvement in Yemen hasn't been proven, at least to my knowledge. But since Saleh's son is/was the ambassador to the UAE, and since the allegations of their involvement were made by the same individual who accused Saleh and his son of collusion with the Houthis, I'm inclined to believe it.
I want to know what the Saudis think of this. They're vehemently opposed to the Brotherhood as well, so I'm sure they're pleased to see al-Islah ousted. But they've also fought the Houthis in the past, and I find it difficult to believe that they're pleased by the prospect of a potentially Iranian-backed Shiite state on their southern border.
It will be interesting to see whether the southerners rally around the more moderate separatist factions or AQAP, and whether there will be conflict or some form of alliance between the two. Either way, I think AQAP is likely to be significantly empowered by the Houthi incursion. I also wonder if we will see an escalation in US drone/airstrikes in the country if this occurs. Such a scenario would amount to the US taking the Shiite side in a sectarian civil war with a radical Sunni Islamist group; parallels could be drawn to the situation in Iraq in that case.
Three C-130 cargo aircraft carried out what the US military called "multiple" successful drops of supplies early on Monday, including arms provided by Kurdish authorities in Iraq.
However, ISIL fighters reportedly seized one cache of the airdropped weapons that included hand grenades, ammunition and rocket-propelled grenade launchers.
The Britain-based observatory said the armed group had seized at least once cache amid heavy wind, but could have captured more.
I would have no way of knowing, but I get the feeling that the Air Force (or Army) logistics chiefs who got wind of that might have consoled themselves with "Well, at least the Syrian Army didn't get them."
I would have no way of knowing, but I get the feeling that the Air Force (or Army) logistics chiefs who got wind of that might have consoled themselves with "Well, at least the Syrian Army didn't get them."
Wouldn't it be funny if we intentionally dropped defective, and extremely dangerous, ammo to ISIL intentionally?
Regardless, airdrops are pretty difficult. Not really representative of incompetence if that's really US supplied equipment (which it doesn't look like).
Wouldn't it be funny if we intentionally dropped defective, and extremely dangerous, ammo to ISIL intentionally?
Regardless, airdrops are pretty difficult. Not really representative of incompetence if that's really US supplied equipment (which it doesn't look like).
Not really.
As this has shown, it's hard enough to get drops in the hands of your friends, much less in the hands of your enemies. Last thing you want is some random friendly or neutral to get killed because we sent some booby-trapped ammo.
Or even worse, some kid stumbling on it. That's the sort of dirty shit the Soviets did in Afghanistan and even if you ignore the morality of it, the optics are just plain awful.
If you can be sure enough that ISIL will get the weapons to drop them, if you're going to risk the supply flights you might as well drop bombs. And every fake supply flight is one real supply flight you can't help your allies with.
Wouldn't it be funny if we intentionally dropped defective, and extremely dangerous, ammo to ISIL intentionally?
Regardless, airdrops are pretty difficult. Not really representative of incompetence if that's really US supplied equipment (which it doesn't look like).
Not really.
As this has shown, it's hard enough to get drops in the hands of your friends, much less in the hands of your enemies. Last thing you want is some random friendly or neutral to get killed because we sent some booby-trapped ammo.
Or even worse, some kid stumbling on it. That's the sort of dirty shit the Soviets did in Afghanistan and even if you ignore the morality of it, the optics are just plain awful.
If you can be sure enough that ISIL will get the weapons to drop them, if you're going to risk the supply flights you might as well drop bombs. And every fake supply flight is one real supply flight you can't help your allies with.
Appearances aside, it doesn't even work well. The United States tried it in disputed territory in South Vietnam with ammo caches they were certain the Viet Cong or North Vietnamese Army would obtain, since they relied heavily on captured American equipment. If memory serves, the enemy either grew wise, or actually came up with simple ways to check for traps.
And there was the issue that South Vietnamese villagers, looking for material to salvage or sell, would get maimed or killed in the process.
It strikes me as a little delusional—he tries to say that luring ISIS into the city was all according to some bait-and-switch plan to preserve pesh merga troop strength, which I don't really buy. Also, while this isn't really a surprise, the guy despises Turkey and basically says they're in league with ISIS.
Erdogan's democratic credibility/legitimacy is basically on a wire's edge now - which is saying something given that he was a darling of the geopolitical scene back in 2010-2011 when the Arab Spring was in full force - I'm real curious to see how he's going to try and use the office of president, and how much PM Ahmet Davutoğlu may or may not turn out to be Erdogan's Dmitry Medvedev as it were.
Erdogan's democratic credibility/legitimacy is basically on a wire's edge now - which is saying something given that he was a darling of the geopolitical scene back in 2010-2011 when the Arab Spring was in full force - I'm real curious to see how he's going to try and use the office of president, and how much PM Ahmet Davutoğlu may or may not turn out to be Erdogan's Dmitry Medvedev as it were.
We are talking about a guy who is holding literally hundreds of political prisoners at this moment, to the point that it's questionable how prepared the turkish armed forces are due to every qualified or experienced general or admiral in the country being in prison.
He's always been the Turkish Putin, if he had democratic credibility it was only because no one was paying attention.
0
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
So we finally got some verdicts on the four Blackwater guards charged with the 2007 shootings of over thirty Iraqis. One guard was found guilty of first degree murder, the other three were found guilty of voluntary manslaughter. The first man may end up facing life in prison, the other three may face eight or more years in prison.
It should be noted that these are verdicts on only some of the charges. The jury is still deliberating on the other charges.
This is the kind of analysis I was waiting for with the media. Turkey was using IS as a nutcracker versus the Kurds. When we resupplied that had to be a major smack in the face to Turkish plans.
It strikes me as a little delusional—he tries to say that luring ISIS into the city was all according to some bait-and-switch plan to preserve pesh merga troop strength, which I don't really buy. Also, while this isn't really a surprise, the guy despises Turkey and basically says they're in league with ISIS.
That YPG commander claims that ISIS has brought brigades of female fighters to the battle for Kobane. That's... pretty surprising, if true.
edit- Accidentally quoted Rchanen's post instead, apologies
ISIS has always employed women for certain tasks. You need female mutawa'in to enforce Shariah in places where men can't go.
I'm not sure ISIS gives women assault rifles and lets them lead units like the Kurds do. The YPG guy said ISIS was using women as bombers; I believe al-Qaeda used female suicide bombers so I assumed this is just what he meant. Could be wrong though.
This is the kind of analysis I was waiting for with the media. Turkey was using IS as a nutcracker versus the Kurds. When we resupplied that had to be a major smack in the face to Turkish plans.
That 2nd article is good, and has nice bullet-points of regional politics. I disagree with point 7 though:
7) The US will use its new leverage over the PYD to push the Kurds to engage with factions opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, particularly the Free Syrian Army. The YPG’s existing battleground alliance with various rebel factions will, therefore, probably expand
The US has effectively dropped the FSA. They never were a very credible alternative government in my opinion, being too controlled by exiles outside the country, too split by internal differences, too unable to get along with similar groups, not effective enough as a fighting force. The US has said it is not coordinating with the FSA, and will instead build a new force, whatever that means.
Al-Monitor is good, but do be a bit careful with it, especially as a primary source. Its nice having translated article from the region though, and I at least glance through its headlines every day.
ISIS has always employed women for certain tasks. You need female mutawa'in to enforce Shariah in places where men can't go.
I'm not sure ISIS gives women assault rifles and lets them lead units like the Kurds do. The YPG guy said ISIS was using women as bombers; I believe al-Qaeda used female suicide bombers so I assumed this is just what he meant. Could be wrong though.
There's all-female fighting groups within IS, one of them was featured in Vice's 5 part thing on ISIS. A lot of parents who've lost young children and other family members from what I remember
This is the kind of analysis I was waiting for with the media. Turkey was using IS as a nutcracker versus the Kurds. When we resupplied that had to be a major smack in the face to Turkish plans.
That 2nd article is good, and has nice bullet-points of regional politics. I disagree with point 7 though:
7) The US will use its new leverage over the PYD to push the Kurds to engage with factions opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, particularly the Free Syrian Army. The YPG’s existing battleground alliance with various rebel factions will, therefore, probably expand
The US has effectively dropped the FSA. They never were a very credible alternative government in my opinion, being too controlled by exiles outside the country, too split by internal differences, too unable to get along with similar groups, not effective enough as a fighting force. The US has said it is not coordinating with the FSA, and will instead build a new force, whatever that means.
Al-Monitor is good, but do be a bit careful with it, especially as a primary source. Its nice having translated article from the region though, and I at least glance through its headlines every day.
I will try. I am finding that BBC and Al-Jazeera are just not doing the analysis I am looking for.
Its sort of editorial or magazine content that you're looking for, and I like the same sort of thing. Tricky to find though, you'll end up with lots of blogs, many of which go off the deep end with speculation. Some suggestions:
Magazines:
The Economist: Really very informative, but mostly behind a paywall. Most of their political stuff is not written from an economic or financial standpoint, despite the title. Rather hawkish when it comes to the middle east. Example
Der Speigel International: German magazine. I've gone off it lately, but it isn't bad. Still mostly in-depth reporting and interviews, but it puts in more analysis than a straight news outlet. Example.
Foreign Affairs: I pick up the print version on occasion. Essay-style analysis, with one issue often featuring a "for" and "against" essay, providing a good mix of stuff. Marketed towards US politicians and diplomats, and business stuff. Example.
Foreign Policy: I can't keep the names of these two straight for the life of me. This is the same as above, but more left-leaning. I come across it once in a while. Example.
Blogs:
Long War Journal: Lots and lots of detail, lots of updates. From what I've seen not a great deal of analysis on international relations, more geared towards a terrorism/insurgency point of view. Seems reasonably good, but I've never looked into it too carefully.Example.
War is Boring: The lead guy used to also be part of Wired's Danger Room blog, which was one of the best military/security blogs on the internet, with a tech and covert focus. Danger Room is shit now, but Axe's own site has gained a lot. Independent journalists; Axe himself has crowd-funded trips to various war zones. I'd still say the strength is tech stuff and not analysis, but they have it too. Example.
(I didn't read the examples, I chose some that related to the region)
Prowling around blogs and looking to see what those blogs read can be handy, you'll get a lot of stuff that way. What exactly you want and like will vary a lot of course. I'm always looking for new sources, I invite the rest of y'all to share yours,
I sometimes read the Carnegie Endowment's articles and essays. The site's organization is a little convoluted in my opinion, but they allow free access to lots of lengthy in depth analyses, which is semi-unusual for a think tank.
Posts
Huh, didn't know they captured Mecca and Medina.
Even the Crusades happened when they did because of infighting in the region - the trigger for the Crusades was that Christians were denied pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The previous five centuries had Christians pushing back against Islamic expansion somewhat in Italy, Sicily and Spain, and the Eastern Roman Empire was fighting what amounted to a long, slow losing war in its eastern territories, but there was no real conception of the Christians heading to Jerusalem to retake it - they were still visiting it, and everything was relatively chill for a long time.
Wasn't the start of the crusades about the Byzantines (Don't argue semantics please) getting sick of the Normans taking their territory and fucking about in Sicily, while also losing a fuck ton of land in Anatolia to the Sultanate of Al-Rum, thus the Basileus asked the pope (Even though they had been Orthodox for a while) for help, and the pope also was tired of the Normans' bullshit and then called a crusade with the Basileus promising he'd turn the ERE back to Cathol? And of course the Normans and all the other Crusaders joined on because there was money, land, and prestige to take in the holy lands.
The Ottomans big public relations problem was that they went into decline pretty much right after the empire's golden age under Suleiman. They'd have been seen as a major European player, as they were in their prime. Instead, they transitioned to a centuries-long tenure as the Sick Old Man of Europe almost immediately after Suleiman kicked it.
edit: it seems increasingly likely this not from Kobane, but from elsewhere in Syria. Thats what I get for dipping into the rumour mill.
Steam: CavilatRest
The loss of anatolia was a part, but keep in mind that it was probably more of an ancillary justification. Playing nice with the Emperor was a good way to get support and logistics for the first part of the expedition (they marched through Anatolia). The target of the crusade was definitely Jerusalem, and it had been lost by the Byzantines centuries earlier.
The vehicle is an ZSU-23-4, an old but still popular radar-guide air defense vehicle that you sometimes see used against "soft" enemy targets due to its very fast firing rate. No indication of who it belongs to in the video clip though.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29685830
I got a kick out of this piece of reasoning:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-29658839
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/10/daily-chart-12
You might be thinking of the Libyan fighter pilots who defected to Malta back in 2011 after being ordered to bomb civilians.
I was unaware that Saleh's son was appointed ambassador to the UAE upon the formation of the post-Arab Spring government. This, combined with the sanctions targeting the Salehs and the Houthis, seem to support the theory espoused in the al-Monitor article I linked a few pages ago, where a Yemeni accused the UAE plotting with Saleh and the Houthis to take power in Yemen.
I'm having difficulty making sense of what's happening in Yemen in terms of regional geopolitics; there are too many local and regional powers interacting in convoluted ways. It does, however, seem increasingly likely that the conflict will escalate into a sectarian war, with recent fighting between the Houthis and Sunni tribes/AQAP resulting in scores of deaths. The Houthis keep expanding farther south despite heavy resistance, and seem to be taking the fight to al-Qaeda. This surprises me; I figured they'd be hesitant to extend too far out of their power base in the north.
The ottoman systems of selecting rulers and general institutions surrounding leadership left a lot to be desired. Keeping someone prisoner for most of their lives with no real training in military or administration then letting them out and making the your leader probably isn't the greatest idea.
The secret sauce in Yemen is the growing lack of access to water. Entire villages are drying up, and a lot of people studying the area predict that we'll see mass (as in tens of thousands up to a million) deaths in the next decade. The fighting is just a symptom of the underlying chaos.
Emirati involvement in Yemen hasn't been proven, at least to my knowledge. But since Saleh's son is/was the ambassador to the UAE, and since the allegations of their involvement were made by the same individual who accused Saleh and his son of collusion with the Houthis, I'm inclined to believe it.
I want to know what the Saudis think of this. They're vehemently opposed to the Brotherhood as well, so I'm sure they're pleased to see al-Islah ousted. But they've also fought the Houthis in the past, and I find it difficult to believe that they're pleased by the prospect of a potentially Iranian-backed Shiite state on their southern border.
It will be interesting to see whether the southerners rally around the more moderate separatist factions or AQAP, and whether there will be conflict or some form of alliance between the two. Either way, I think AQAP is likely to be significantly empowered by the Houthi incursion. I also wonder if we will see an escalation in US drone/airstrikes in the country if this occurs. Such a scenario would amount to the US taking the Shiite side in a sectarian civil war with a radical Sunni Islamist group; parallels could be drawn to the situation in Iraq in that case.
related video:
It reminds me a great deal of COD, and stealing the enemies supply drop. Oh, what fun.
Regardless, airdrops are pretty difficult. Not really representative of incompetence if that's really US supplied equipment (which it doesn't look like).
Not really.
As this has shown, it's hard enough to get drops in the hands of your friends, much less in the hands of your enemies. Last thing you want is some random friendly or neutral to get killed because we sent some booby-trapped ammo.
Or even worse, some kid stumbling on it. That's the sort of dirty shit the Soviets did in Afghanistan and even if you ignore the morality of it, the optics are just plain awful.
If you can be sure enough that ISIL will get the weapons to drop them, if you're going to risk the supply flights you might as well drop bombs. And every fake supply flight is one real supply flight you can't help your allies with.
Appearances aside, it doesn't even work well. The United States tried it in disputed territory in South Vietnam with ammo caches they were certain the Viet Cong or North Vietnamese Army would obtain, since they relied heavily on captured American equipment. If memory serves, the enemy either grew wise, or actually came up with simple ways to check for traps.
And there was the issue that South Vietnamese villagers, looking for material to salvage or sell, would get maimed or killed in the process.
It strikes me as a little delusional—he tries to say that luring ISIS into the city was all according to some bait-and-switch plan to preserve pesh merga troop strength, which I don't really buy. Also, while this isn't really a surprise, the guy despises Turkey and basically says they're in league with ISIS.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
We are talking about a guy who is holding literally hundreds of political prisoners at this moment, to the point that it's questionable how prepared the turkish armed forces are due to every qualified or experienced general or admiral in the country being in prison.
He's always been the Turkish Putin, if he had democratic credibility it was only because no one was paying attention.
It should be noted that these are verdicts on only some of the charges. The jury is still deliberating on the other charges.
The US has kind of forced Turkey's hand in this and it has changed things.
This is the kind of analysis I was waiting for with the media. Turkey was using IS as a nutcracker versus the Kurds. When we resupplied that had to be a major smack in the face to Turkish plans.
That YPG commander claims that ISIS has brought brigades of female fighters to the battle for Kobane. That's... pretty surprising, if true.
edit- Accidentally quoted Rchanen's post instead, apologies
I'm not sure ISIS gives women assault rifles and lets them lead units like the Kurds do. The YPG guy said ISIS was using women as bombers; I believe al-Qaeda used female suicide bombers so I assumed this is just what he meant. Could be wrong though.
That 2nd article is good, and has nice bullet-points of regional politics. I disagree with point 7 though:
The US has effectively dropped the FSA. They never were a very credible alternative government in my opinion, being too controlled by exiles outside the country, too split by internal differences, too unable to get along with similar groups, not effective enough as a fighting force. The US has said it is not coordinating with the FSA, and will instead build a new force, whatever that means.
Al-Monitor is good, but do be a bit careful with it, especially as a primary source. Its nice having translated article from the region though, and I at least glance through its headlines every day.
There's all-female fighting groups within IS, one of them was featured in Vice's 5 part thing on ISIS. A lot of parents who've lost young children and other family members from what I remember
I will try. I am finding that BBC and Al-Jazeera are just not doing the analysis I am looking for.
That one guy in London reports that ISIS gained 6000 new followers in July.
Kobane has been a tough battle for ISIS. But it feels like we are sticking silly putty on the Hoover Dam when it is on the verge of collapse.
Yeah, I know what you mean.
Its sort of editorial or magazine content that you're looking for, and I like the same sort of thing. Tricky to find though, you'll end up with lots of blogs, many of which go off the deep end with speculation. Some suggestions:
Magazines:
The Economist: Really very informative, but mostly behind a paywall. Most of their political stuff is not written from an economic or financial standpoint, despite the title. Rather hawkish when it comes to the middle east. Example
Der Speigel International: German magazine. I've gone off it lately, but it isn't bad. Still mostly in-depth reporting and interviews, but it puts in more analysis than a straight news outlet. Example.
Foreign Affairs: I pick up the print version on occasion. Essay-style analysis, with one issue often featuring a "for" and "against" essay, providing a good mix of stuff. Marketed towards US politicians and diplomats, and business stuff. Example.
Foreign Policy: I can't keep the names of these two straight for the life of me. This is the same as above, but more left-leaning. I come across it once in a while. Example.
Blogs:
Long War Journal: Lots and lots of detail, lots of updates. From what I've seen not a great deal of analysis on international relations, more geared towards a terrorism/insurgency point of view. Seems reasonably good, but I've never looked into it too carefully.Example.
War is Boring: The lead guy used to also be part of Wired's Danger Room blog, which was one of the best military/security blogs on the internet, with a tech and covert focus. Danger Room is shit now, but Axe's own site has gained a lot. Independent journalists; Axe himself has crowd-funded trips to various war zones. I'd still say the strength is tech stuff and not analysis, but they have it too. Example.
(I didn't read the examples, I chose some that related to the region)
Prowling around blogs and looking to see what those blogs read can be handy, you'll get a lot of stuff that way. What exactly you want and like will vary a lot of course. I'm always looking for new sources, I invite the rest of y'all to share yours,