Well, you've heard by now that Senate leader Harry Reid insulted one of this country's brightest military minds, Marine Corps General Peter Pace -- calling him "incompetent." Let me take a few moments to put this in context.
First, Harry Reid voted for the war, like a majority of our legislators. America decided as a nation to free Iraq and the region from Saddam Hussein's tyranny. I have friends, both Democrat and Republican, who questioned the decision at the time, but the Republic made a commitment based on constitutional and democratic procedures. So they are now a hundred percent committed to moving forward in a way thats best for our country. None of them, by the way, believe surrendering to the forces of terror in Iraq is what's best for our country.
Harry Reid, though, has taken a different route. He made his statement about General Pace on a conference call with fringe elements of the blogosphere who think we're the bad guys. This is a place where even those who think the 9/11 attacks were an inside job find a home.
And why shouldn't they think that? Reid has led the attack on the administration, with Nancy Pelosi, charging it lied and tricked America into supporting the war. Ignoring multiple hearings and investigations into pre-war intelligence findings that have debunked this paranoid myth, they accuse an entire administration of conspiracy to trick us into a war.
I suppose that's easier for some than admitting that they've flip flopped -- but the fact that Reid says this sinister Republican plot is going to help him elect more Democrats ought to be raising a few flags. Saying General Pace is incompetent doesn't even rank near the top of his bizarre statements.
How could anyone possibly believe, as Reid charges, that our commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, is out of touch with what's going on. Surely someone in Reid's position would know that Petraeus is briefed daily on all aspects of Iraq -- from civil to military. Surely he has to know that Petraeus is a true warrior scholar who literally wrote the Army's book on counterinsurgency warfare.
But Reid's comments are not meant for logical analysis. He proclaimed the war lost some time ago, and the surge as a failure even before the additional troops were on the ground. The problem is that every one of Reid's comments I've noted here has also been reported gleefully by Al Jazeera and other anti-American media. Whether he means to or not, hes encouraging our enemies to believe that they are winning the critical war of will.
Sounds like Fred has been reading the 'burg all along. We going to declare the the Rantburg Candidate for President someday?
#1
We going to declare the the Rantburg Candidate for President someday?
Count me in!
Posted by: Pat Paulsen ||
06/19/2007 7:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I love his commentary but that is the easy part. What's his plan on immigration, Social Security, foreign policy, and domestic issues? I like his comments but I need something behind those words.
#3
As a foreign Rantburgian I am 100% with Thompson for whatever that is worth. Yes, the policy specifics are not there (yet) but I believe it is far more important that the next President - whoever that turns out to be - understands the problem. Fred Thompson is the only (potential) candidate who qualifies on that score; even Guiliani sounds wet to me at times.
#4
Reid is guilty of sedition and treason, since his comments are aimed at hurting the US during a time of war and aids and helps the enemy. He should be charged, tried and shot.
Specific policies are important up to a point. BUT, it's character and principles that count most.
Specific policies are subject to the art of the possible in politics. You won't get exactly what you want.
What counts is that the President is pushing in the right direction.
Additionally, and most important, is that character and principle is what informs the response to those unforseen situations that didn't come up during the election. Think about 9/11, what were the things that counted most?
Character and principle. That's why even Demonrats in the early days were quietly saying that they were glad Bush beat AlGore.
Also look at fredthompsonfaq.com
Use the Fredipedia link and read thhe FAQs
There is plenty on immigration - border and enforcemnt first, government - smaller and federaism, judges - constitutional federalism, 2nd amendment means what it says and is idividual right, mexico - needs to clean up and not export their problems to us, war on terror - win it, war in iraq - we made mistakes let's fix them and win it. He also outlined the looming threat China imposes that everyone else ignores, etc.
Ask me and I probably have a thompson quote that covers it.
#11
Will one of you Thompson fans explain why he voted for the McCain/Feingold bill ?
Maybe Fred is just a populist who says what you want to hear. He reminds me of Bush who is now America's number one turncoat.
#13
I saw an interview he gave recently in that he expresses regret in voting for it. He said it had turned into one of the worst mistakes in finance reform in a long time.
#14
So far Thompson's the man--and he's not even running yet!
Posted by: Mac ||
06/19/2007 19:08 Comments ||
Top||
#15
wxjames, he backed McCain Feingold because of this:
"There are problems with people giving politicians large sums of money and then asking them to pass legislation," Mr. Thompson says.
Conceding that McCain-Feingold hasn't worked as intended, and is being riddled with new loopholes, he throws his hands open in exasperation. "I'm not prepared to go there yet, but I wonder if we shouldn't just take off the limits and have full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything on the Internet immediately."
HANNITY: You were one of 11 Republicans who supported McCain-Feingold. A lot of conservatives are angry at that. Do you still support it? Was it the right decision, in retrospect?
THOMPSON: Part of it was, and part of it wasn't. The part that I came to town to change was the increasing amounts of money being given to politicians. The Clintons showed us how to use soft money in ways that people up until recently thought was against the law. And more and more large donations flowed into the parties and to the candidates.
He now says it didn't work out as planned and we should scrap it, let anybody donate anything to anyone, as long as it is reported and available immediately on the internet.
Also - he was quoted if you did that as a businessman, gave someone money then went to them for business on a contract or a bid, you'd be thrown in jail.
So yeah, he voted for it, but for all the right reasons - and apparently he has the good sense to learn from his errors. Unlike Bush.
Be Not Afraid
You shall cross the barren desert, but you shall not die of thirst. You shall wander far in safety though you do not know the way. You shall speak your words in foreign lands and all will understand. You shall see the face of God and live.
Be not afraid.
I go before you always;
Come follow me, and I will give you rest.
[From a prayer card I found on a base in Anbar Province, Iraq.]
Thoughts flow on the eve of a great battle. By the time these words are released, we will be in combat. Few ears have heard even rumors of this battle, and fewer still are the eyes that will see its full scope. Even nowthe battle has already begun for somepractically no news about it is flowing home. Ive known of the secret plans for about a month, but have remained silent.
This campaign is actually a series of carefully orchestrated battalion and brigade sized battles. Collectively, it is probably the largest battle since major hostilities ended more than four years ago. Even the media here on the ground do not seem to have sensed its scale.
Al Qaeda and associates had little or no presence in Iraq before the current war. But we made huge mistakes early on and are pumping blood and gold into the region to pay for those blunders. When we failed to secure the streets and to restore the stability needed to get Iraq on its feet, we sowed doubt and mistrust. When we disbanded the government and the army, and tolerated corruption and ineptitude in reconstruction, we created a vacuum and filled the ranks of an insurgency-hydra with mostly local talent. But when we flattened parts of Fallujah not once, but twice, primarily in response to the murders of four of our people, we helped create a spectacle of injustice and chaos, the very conditions in which Al Qaeda thrives.
There is no particular spark, no single bolt of lightning, errant campfire or careless cigarette flicked out a window that caused this conflagration. We walked into a dry, cracked land, where the two arteries of Mesopotamia have long pulsed water and blood through scorched lands into the sea. In a place where everything that is not already desert is tinder, sparks tend to catch fire.
When we eviscerated Fallujah, Al Qaeda, who had not been here before, swarmed in and grew like a tumor. There were many insurgent groups already infecting Iraq with many conflicting ideologies and goals, and just as many opportunistic thugs, and some that only needed the band aids and aspirin of open markets and electricity and a feeling of normality. But Al Qaeda has been trying to start a civil war here for several years; chaos speeds the decay they feed on.
During about the first three months of 2005, when I was in Diyala Province (whose capital is Baquba) I first wrote that Iraq was in Civil War. I felt the backlash from that throughout 2005-2006, and worse, we all watched the sad unfolding of greater and greater lies until now, in 2007, when the civil war is systemically toxic.
Today Al Qaeda (AQ) is strong, but their welcome is tenuous in some regions as many Iraqis grow weary enough of the violence that trails them to forcibly evict AQ from some areas theyd begun to feel at home in. Meanwhile, our military, having adapted from eager fire-starting to more measured firefighting, after coming in so ham-fisted early on, has found agility in the new face of this war. Not lost on the locals was the fact that the Coalition wasnt alone in failing to keep the faith of its promises to Iraqis.
Whereas we failed with the restoration of services and government, AQ has raped too many women and boys in Anbar Province, and cut-off too many heads everywhere else for anyone here to believe their claims of moral superiority. And they dont even try to get the power going or keep the markets open or build schools, playgrounds and clinics for the children. In addition to destroying all of these resources, and murdering the Iraqis who work at or patronize them, AQ attacks people in mosques and churches, too. Thus, to those listening into the wind, an otherwise imperceptible tang in the atmosphere signals the time for change is at hand.
We can dissect our Civil War, or World War II or Vietnam, but there is no way to dissect the current war. Only the residue of those prior wars remains with us todaythe scars and headstones, memorial statues, history books, and national boundaries. We only dissect that which is dead. Pathologists who autopsy those wars can no longer affect the outcomes. There is little left to the corpse of a war, but the sculptors of history take the clay and give it shape and substance. But even the most masterful among the artisansMichelangelo himselfchipping and slicing at marble from Carrara, could not breathe life into the statue of David. Twice I stood in Florence, staring up at David, clad only in his slingshot, the rock with which he would change history cupped in his hand.
But as I write these words, the explosionscannon fire reverberating day and night, rockets exploding on base, the rumbling and crumpling sounds of car bombsare the very pulse of this war. This war cannot yet be dissected because it still lives wounded, angry, thrashing on the table, but alive. We can only hack into it, diagnose it, treat it, knowing each attempt at a cure affects the pulse. Doing nothing causes tachycardia. Much of what afflicts Iraq was here before America was born. But when we elected to perform surgery on this sick land, we used hacksaws and sledgehammers, and took an already sick patient and hacked off some parts while pulverizing others.
Meanwhile, there are stadiums full of people shouting at the doctors, threatening to fire them or revoke their licenses, or at the very least to cut off the lights mid-surgery. In the din of the mob, few seem to notice that the patient, screaming to be healed, is much more alive than dead. The patient roils in agony with every new cut, slashing at doctors and self. Some say weve done enough and its time for the patient to heal itself. Others are saying we should put it out of our misery, but surely this thing will live, and drag its mutilated self out of the hospital and follow us home, no longer seeking a cure but intent on revenge.
For far too long our media and government have failed to fully inform useven to the point of lyingabout Iraq. I came to this ill-begotten war searching for people who knew the truth and would tell it. After those early embeds in places such as Diyala Province, back when I first began a five month embed in Mosul, I attempted to trace what had gone right and wrong with Nineveh Province during 2003, 2004, and 2005. Nineveh is a reasonable microcosm of an ethnically, religiously and culturally divergent Iraqclearly affected by the whole, and affecting the wholeand I got in with one of Americas best fighting battalions, the 1-24th Infantry Regiment. They were at war. Out of the battalion of about 700, the soldiers were awarded about 181 purple hearts. And they were winning, clearly winning, in their tough battle space. I traveled around to many units in different provinces, but nowhere was the pulse of this war as palpable as it was with the 1-24th, also called the Deuce Four. Importantly, even perhaps presciently, feeling that pulse with my own fingers in 2005 led me to a specific person: David Petraeus, the first Coalition military leader in Nineveh, a general whos many successes in Iraq were at that time already behind him.
I finally reached General Petraeus after following the Deuce Four back home. He was stationed in Kansas, though why he was in Kansas was beyond me. Having just spent most of 2005 in Iraq, I thought he should be back in Iraq where he was needed. During a phone call to his home early in 2006 we must have talked for about two-hours. He was honest, almost blunt and always cogent, and the conversation added to my growing belief that Petraeus was the doctor who might be able to save this place.
Throughout 2006, my belief grew that Petraeus should be running this war. And though I had reached my own conclusions, others thought the same. I had seen and written about much progress during 2005, but had repeatedly written that the Civil War could undermine the effort. During 2006, people finally began to admit that there was Civil War in Iraq, and that it was growing, but as 2006 drifted into 2007 without any measurable response to increasingly untenable conditions on the ground, my confidence was eroding rapidly. At the rate things were going, I figured I might soon be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with deeply and richly experienced people like Joe Galloway, who thinks we should be out of Iraq yesterday.
Some folks attack Joe for his opinion, saying he was never a soldier, what can he know? But that argument is facile at best. There are deep reservoirs of wisdom from people who never wore uniforms; in fact, most people never were soldiers. And there are few journalists know more about the American military in the last four decades than Joe Galloway, whos been on enough frontlines to know things usually only combat soldiers know. Furthermore, this is not a soldiers only matter. Most of the people who will be affected by the outcome will never wear a uniform.
But today, based on what I know first hand about this war, I respectfully disagree with Joe and the crowd of people who share his view that this war cannot be won. On this one point, because I just happen to be a person who has seen this doctor operate on a part of this patient, and I was able to see first hand that the work he did in 2003/4 is still holding today, I think we dont call the code unless and until Petraeus says so.
In the short time since Petraeus took charge here, Anbar Province Anbar the Impossible seems to have made a remarkable turnaround. I just spent about a month out there and saw no combat. I have never gone that long in Iraq without seeing combat. Clearly, some areas of Anbar remain dangerousthere is fighting in Fallujah todaybut there is also something in Anbar today that hasnt been seen in recent memory: possibilities.There are also larger realities lurking up on the Turkish borders, but the reality today is that the patient called Iraq will die and become a home for Al Qaeda if we leave now.
But now the AQ cancer is spreading into Diyala Province, straight along the Diyala River into Baghdad and other places. Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (AQM) apparently now a subgroup of ISI (the Islamic State of Iraq), has staked Baquba as the capital of their Caliphate. Whatever the nom de jour of their nom de guerre, Baquba has been claimed for their capital. I was in Diyala again this year, where there is a serious state of Civil War, making Baquba an unpopular destination for writers or reporters. (A writer was killed in the area about a month ago, in fact.) News coming from the city and surrounds most often would say things like, near Baghdad, or Northeast of Baghdad, and so many people have never even heard of Baquba.
Baquba has been an important city in this fight for several years, and for various reasons. Its critical to keep in mind that AQM and others had the specific goal of starting a civil war, and this was plainly clear by early 2005. When the Golden Dome was obliterated in Samarra in 2006, and blood gushed into the streets, the politically inconvenient truth about the malignant potency of Al Qaeda was undeniable. In a perverse anniversary commemorated earlier this month, the two lone minarets left standing in Samarra after the 2006 bombing, were unceremoniously flattened in attacks that resulted in reprisals nearby in Babil Province and as far removed as Basra.
At least part of the reason we are not seeing even wider-spread open-necked reprisals for the recent bombings (though the reprisals have been serious) is because our current leadership under Petraeus is adroitly pushing political buttons behind the curtains. Based on things I saw, heard, and even videotaped while out among Iraqi tribal leaders in Anbar, unseen hands are reaching out and finding peace with tribes where others found war. Based on what I see all around Iraq, and not just in Anbar, I believe intuitively that most of this war can be ended through smart politics.
Smart politics is not transparent. The best politician leaves no traces of his handiwork in the resolution of complex issues, because if the resolution is to hold, the local parties must be able to claim responsibility with confidence, even to the extent of believing they did it themselves. Further, success in complex negotiations involves compromise, which (after open hostilities) can be perceived as caving and taken as indication of undue influence from outsiders. That kind of perception gets people killed over here.
Smart politics leaves more people standing withtheir heads, and so discretion has to be seen as vital to the war effort. Reports claiming that no political progress is happening here because the Iraqi parliament seems stalled are tantamount to claiming that when the US Senate bogs down the stop lights dont work on Main Street USA. At the same time, no one is interested in going for the broom stick once theyve seen the man behind the curtain, so smart politicians dont let that happen, especially when the stakes are this high.
Al Qaeda was never at this table and no one is planning to set a place for them now. They are mass murderers anywhere they can be: Bali, Kandahar, London, Madrid, New York and now, Iraq. This enemy is smart, resourceful and tough, and our early missteps created perfect conditions for the spread of their disease in Iraq.
Political solutions only work with people interested in a resolution where all parties can move forward. Al Qaeda is more interested in an outcome where they dominate through anachronistic anarchy. Our philosophies are so fundamentally different that fighting is inevitable. They want to go backwards and are willing to kill us to do so. We are unwilling to go backwards, and so they started killing us. Finally, we started killing back, but only seriously so after they rammed jets into our buildings, by which they hoped to cause the same chaos and collapse in America (where they failed) that they are fomenting in Iraq (where they are succeeding).
The doctor has made a decision: Al Qaeda must be excised. That means a large scale attack, and what appears to be the most widespread combat operations since the end of the ground war are now unfolding. A small part of that larger battle will be the Battle for Baquba. For those involved, it will be a very large battle, but in context, it will be only one of numerous similar battles now unfolding. Just as this sentence was written, we began dropping bombs south of Baghdad and our troops are in contact.
Northeast of Baghdad, innocent civilians are being asked to leave Baquba. More than 1,000 AQI fighters are there, with perhaps another thousand adjuncts. Baquba alone might be as intense as Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah in late 2004. They are ready for us. Giant bombs are buried in the roads. Snipersreal snipershave chiseled holes in walls so that they can shoot not from roofs or windows, but from deep inside buildings, where we cannot see the flash or hear the shots. They will shoot for our faces and necks. Car bombs are already assembled. Suicide vests are prepared.
The enemy will try to herd us into their traps, and likely many of us will be killed before it ends. Already, they have been blowing up bridges, apparently to restrict our movements. Entire buildings are rigged with explosives. They have rockets, mortars, and bombs hidden in places they know we are likely to cross, or places we might seek cover. They will use human shields and force people to drive bombs at us. They will use cameras and make it look like we are ravaging the city and that they are defeating us. By the time you read this, we will be inside Baquba, and we will be killing them. No secrets are spilling here.
Our jets will drop bombs and we will use rockets. Helicopters will cover us, and medevac our wounded and killed. By the time you read this, our artillery will be firing, and our tanks moving in. And Humvees. And Strykers. And other vehicles. Our people will capture key terrain and cutoff escape routes. The idea this time is not to chase al Qaeda out, but to trap and kill them head-on, or in ambushes, or while they sleep. When they are wounded, they will be unable to go to hospitals without being captured, and so their wounds will fester and they will die painfully sometimes. It will be horrible for al Qaeda. Horror and terrorism is what they sow, and tonight they will reap their harvest. They will get no rest. They can only fight and die, or run and try to get away. Nobody is asking for surrender, but if they surrender, they will be taken.
We will go in on foot and fight from house to house if needed. We will shoot rockets into their hiding spaces, and our snipers will shoot them in their heads and chests. This is where all that talk of cancer and big ideas of what should be or could be done will smash head on against the searing reality of combat.
These words flow on the eve of a great battle, but are on hold until the attack is well underway. Nothing is certain. I am here and have been all year. We are in trouble, but we have a great General. The only one, I have long believed, who can lead the way out of this morass. Iraq is not hopeless. Iraq can stand again but first it must cast off these demons. And some of the demons must be killed.
And while the battle rages, that prayer card will be in my pocket:
Be Not Afraid
You shall cross the barren desert, but you shall not die of thirst. You shall wander far in safety though you do not know the way. You shall speak your words in foreign lands and all will understand. You shall see the face of God and live.
Be not afraid.
I go before you always;
Come follow me, and I will give you rest.
#1
I have a lot of respect for Michael Yon's operational reporting, but as a political opinionmeister, he's, uhhh... problematic (to put it kindly).
For instance:
When we failed to secure the streets and to restore the stability needed to get Iraq on its feet, we sowed doubt and mistrust.
After nearly thirty years under the heel of one of the cruelest dictatorships in history, a Stalinist society that even Uncle Joe would have envied, a Western army crushes the Iraqi army (which evaporates) with minimum civilian casualties - AND IT IS OUR FAULT THAT LOOTERS FILLED THE STREETS? Should we have instituted martial law and gunned down Iraqi civilians? Called the Iraqi Baathist secret police (oh, wait, they stopped answering the phone!)?
Good grief. Perhaps Mike oughta take another look at the 1992 LA riots video.
When we disbanded the government and the army, and tolerated corruption and ineptitude in reconstruction, we created a vacuum and filled the ranks of an insurgency-hydra with mostly local talent.
The mostly-Shiite conscript forces fled home as soon as possible. The more disciplined Republican Guard eventually did the same. The Fedehyeen melted into the cities and countryside as part of Saddam's pre-invasion planning. As for stopping corruption and ineptitude in the Middle East, I suspect a far greater power than CENTCOM is required for that mission.
But when we flattened parts of Fallujah not once, but twice, primarily in response to the murders of four of our people, we helped create a spectacle of injustice and chaos, the very conditions in which Al Qaeda thrives.
Dishwater. Zarqawi & Co. were in control of Fallujah and they occupied the city in strength before the second attack in Nov. 2004. We didn't clobber Fallujah because of four American contractors getting waxed; we did it because Fallujah was not only an important link in the Syria-Baghdad rat line, it was also ID'd as AQ's hq in Iraq.
There sure is a lot of "our fault" "our incompetence", etc. in his political analyses. If it weren't for his obvious disregard for facts, it'd merely be grating, but given the evidence in his own postings, I have to say he's parked an agenda on his website. Too bad.
#5
Shortly after the VE day, a few shots were taken at US forces occupying the former Nazi Germany. The US mobilized 50-100,000 of its troops to go door to door, seize weapons & make arrests. The problem went away. The number of troops used then was but a small fraction of all available in Germany at the time. Actions like this were nevery possible in Iraq due to the staffing levels. However, in Iraq, every family was allowed one AK-47 for self-defense for obvious reasons. It was the US's job to create a modicum of stability in Iraq. It has failed in that.
#6
There is indeed a 'modicum' of stability, just not enough. They have an elected government, an army and a police force however corrupt and incompetent. They have a rapidly growing economy, stable currency, decently performing equity markets, booming real estate market and a k-college education system. Kurdistan and much of Southern Iraq is realtively calm.
What stability they do have is just not enough. Iraqi cultural norms and our mistakes in handling the situation plus the relentlessd negativity of the media unchallenged by our government have turned success into failure.
Now we are making some of the comprimises our initial occupation refused to make, such as basically siding with the Shia, working within the tribal system in Anbar. This provides hope for 'stability' along with the so called surge. However we are no longer threatening Iran which was part of the original geopolitical rationale for going into Iraq in the firstplace so even if we achieve stability, I am concerned that we have lost the initiative.
Russia has begun to implement the contract signed by Rosoboronexport with Syria this year for the delivery of five MiG-31E fighter-interceptors. That means that Russia is renewing arms deliveries to the Middle East after a hiatus due to the war in Lebanon. Iran may be the big winner from the deal, since there exists an Iranian-Syrian mutual defense agreement, and Iran is financing Damascus's purchase.
Several sources in the military-industrial complex told Kommersant that OAO Nizhny Novgorod Sokol Plant has begun working on the five MiG-31E aircraft. At the beginning of the year, Rosoboronexport signed a contract with Damascus for them. Since production of the MiG-31 was halted in 1994, Syria is receiving planes from the reserve of the Russian Air Force that are being modified to the purchaser's specifications.
Vladimir Vypryazhkin, deputy general director of the state MiG Russian Aviation Construction Corp. told Kommersant yesterday that export orders are starting to come in for the MiG-31. He declined to identify the source of the orders, but noted that We are offering the MiG-31E on a trade-in basis for countries that have the MiG-25 interceptor.
Only Libya and Syria have MiG-25 fighter-interceptor and recognizance plane at present. India recently retired its MiG-25s.
Boris Aleshin, chairman of the Federal Industry Agency, confirmed that there is a contract for the MiG-31E. He also declined to identify the purchaser. Kommersant has learned that a lot of MiG-29M/M2 jets was sold to Syria as well. They are being sold abroad for the first time and are similar in their technical specifications to the MiG-35 model Russia is now offering India. The total value of the contract for the MiG-31 and MiG-29M/M2 aircraft is estimated at $1 billion.
Several questions are raised by the deal. First, where Syria got the money for such expensive weapons. In the winter of 2005, Russia wrote off 70 percent of Syria's foreign debt, which was $13.4 billion at the time. Under that agreement, Syria's debt to Russia was reduced to $3.6 billion. Russia renewed military-technical cooperation with Syrian at the same time. Information has arisen regularly since the beginning of 2005 that Syria is in negotiations with Russia for the purchase of new weapons. First Iskander-E missiles were mentioned. Russian President Vladimir Putin even confirmed that Damascus was interested in them, but he supposedly personally blocked the deal. At the beginning of this year, unofficial information emerged that negotiations had been renewed. This time, the items of interest to Syria were Pantsir, Strelets and Igla missiles. Strelets ballistic missiles were delivered to Syria in 2005. Sergey Chemezov, general director of Rosoboronexport, stated in January of this year that the Syrians want our Igla complex, but we won't give it to them.
Syrian President Bashar Assad was in Moscow in December of last year for negotiations with Putin, at which Syria's desire to replace its aging MiG-25 planes with new MiG-29 or MiG-31 models.
Western experts think that one of the reasons for Syria's spending spree may be that it is buying weapons for not only for itself, or not for itself at all. Moscow and Damascus concluded a contract last year for the delivery of 36 Pantsir-S1E artillery missile systems. In May of this year, the authoritative British Jane's Defence Weekly reported that at least ten of those Pantsirs would be handed over to Iran by the end of 2008. According to that publication, Iran is the main sponsor of the deal and is paying Syria for its services as intermediary.
There is still no official conformation of the deal described, but the cooperation scheme between Syria and Iran is perfectly believable. Tehran and Damascus are linked by a number of agreements on mutual defense. A Syrian-Iranian strategic alliance was wrought in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war. In recent years, Syria and Iran have signed a whole series of agreements on closely coordinated defense activities. In February 2005, for example, almost simultaneously with Russia's forgiveness of much of Syria's debt to it, Syrian Prime Minister Naji Otari and Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref signed a mutual defense pact and, in July 2006, the defense ministers of the two countries, Hasan Turkmani and Mostafa Mohammad Najar, signed an agreement creating a high defense commission and one on military cooperation that envisaged Iranian financing of Syrian arms deals with Russia, Ukraine and China.
Iran's interest in Russian arms is explained by the conflict developing between it and the United States and the likelihood of armed conflict in the region. In the USSR, the MiG-31 was considered a key element in the defense against a potential attack from the U.S. It was to knock out American cruise missiles flying over the North Pole. The usefulness of that Soviet technology in a potential conflict between the U.S. and Iran is debatable. In the event of a war, Iran's chances of an air victory are negligible, no matter what weapons they buy.
The MiG-31 would do more good for Syria. Head of the Technology and National Security Program at the Holon Institute of Technology and Israeli Air Force Col. (Res.) Shmuel Gordon told Kommersant that This is the first serious modernization of the Syrian antiaircraft and antimissile system in ten years. It will most likely seriously limit the Israeli Air Force's freedom of action. The appearance of those planes means that the Syrians can take down Israeli planes over the Golan Heights or Lebanon. That is to say this is a quantitative leap in Syria's ability to wage an air war. Gordon also thought that five planes was but the tip of the iceberg. It makes little sense to limit oneself to five planes. Where there's five, there will soon be 20, and maybe 24, planes. Maintenance of the planes is very expensive, but it makes no difference whether you maintain five or 20 of them. Former head of the Israeli Air Force Maj. Gen. Eitan Ben-Eliahu agrees with him. That can influence the actions of the Israeli Air Force somewhat, but the influence will not be significant. It does not at all change the fact of Israel's absolute air superiority. However, if the number of Syria's planes is increased, that could change the situation. The most dangerous thing for Israel's security is not the delivery of five planes but the renewal of deliveries.
According to Knesset member and former chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Yuval Steinitz, It cannot be said that a specific deal is a threat to Israel's security, but the main danger is that it is a matter of a whole package of deals that gradually adds up. Last year, Israel alleged to Moscow in confidential negotiations that some of the arms it sold to Syria fell into the hands of the Hezbollah and being used in the war in Lebanon last summer.
The sale of Russian jets to Syria will undoubtedly have repercussions in the West. Moscow is not likely to be concerned with American criticism at the moment, since the main problem in U.S.-Russian relations is the U.S. missile defense system in Eastern Europe. Now the two issues may be discussed together.
Iran's position on the missile defense system can be considered indirect confirmation that it is deriving some sort of benefit from the present deal. When Putin suggested to U.S. President George W. Bush that they counter the Iranian threat by using the Gabala radar station in Azerbaijan together, Tehran unexpectedly announced that it does not consider Russia's proposal hostile and that it will not affect Russia's good relations with Iran.
What is the MiG-31?
Development of the MiG-31 supersonic fighter-interceptor (Foxhound in NATO classification) was begun by the Mikoyan Experimental Design Bureau in 1968. The first test flights were performed in 1977 and it went into service in 1981.
The airplane was first created to defend the USSR from cruise missile attacks from the Arctic. A number of weapons systems were used for the first time in the USSR in the MiG-31, including the R-33 long-distance (about 120 km.) air-to-air guided missile and the Zaslon radar system, capable of locating its target at a distance of 180 km. and both guide missiles to it and relay the information to other aircraft and ground facilities.
The MiG-31 has a two-man crew. Its combat radius is 720 km. (1400 km. with external fuel tanks), maximum speed 3000 km./hr. and operational ceiling of 20,600 m. It has a flight weight of 41 tons. Besides missiles, the plane is armed with a 23-mm. gun and two or four short- or medium-range missiles. The MiG-31 was produced at the Sokol plant in Nizhny Novgorod until 1994. More than 500 planes were produced. There are about 300 of them in the Russian Air Force at present and about 40 in Kazakhstan.
Several modifications of the plane have been developed, including the MiG-31M (with a new 320-km. radar system) and MiG-31F (capable of striking ground targets). The MiG-31 has not been used in combat and has not been exported. There were media reported in the early 1990s of interest from Syria, Libya and China in acquiring the aircraft, but no contracts for it were signed.
Konstantin Lantratov, Paris; Grigory Asmolov, Jerusalem; Alexandra Gritskova, Mikhail Zygar
Posted by: anonymous5089 ||
06/19/2007 06:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[13 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Is Russia delivering air and ground crews with the MiG-31s? The hardware won't last long without good bioware.
#2
And we are meant to believe Syrian pilots are even a remote match for the Israelis? I expect the Saudis have one of the best equipped paper militaries on Earth; and I would be astonished if they could muster a single battalion with the spine to fight.
The Russians seem awfully good at selling off second-hand goods for fantastic profit. Frankly, good for them.
#3
I don't think 5 MiG-31's will be the terror of the middle east. 90's technology combined with classic russian workmanship. They should wait to see how they fly before they start running their mouths. At $200million apiece even, geesh!
#4
The MiG-31 is a serious airplane. It flies so high and fast that even an F-15 is unlikely to intercept it when at speed, while the MiG's missiles have enough range to threaten most aircraft. Unfortunately for Syria, their airbases are vulnerable to attack. A neat exercise would be to determine if the Arrow ATBM system can target it (while over Damascus).
Posted by: ed ||
06/19/2007 9:26 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The MIG-31 is fast, and was designed to get in quick, strike from distance and get the hell out fast. However, in such close proximity to Israel that tactic is neutralized since the Israelis can have a nice cruise missile meet the landing MIG-31 since they can track it the entire flight with radar.
Also, unless the Syrians buy advanced standoff munitions, the MIG-31 becomes nothing more than a fast scout or regular bomber.
#6
Oh, and also, the MIG-31 is a crappy dogfighter. Much like the MIG-25. It is fast, but can't turn worth a crap at those speeds. If it slows down to engage, the high performance fighters that Israel have will tear it apart.
#8
A MiG-25/31 does not dogfight. It only pulls 2-4 Gs depending on fuel state. It flies high and fast, launches missiles, and gets out of there before it comes within engagement range.
Posted by: ed ||
06/19/2007 10:46 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I also agree with the admiral. I think Russia can sell the Syrians and Iraqis all the manned aircraft they want. High mark up and no real threat to change the balance of power in the ME. Just be careful with the missile sales. That's a different story.
#12
However, in such close proximity to Israel that tactic is neutralized since the Israelis can have a nice cruise missile meet the landing MIG-31 since they can track it the entire flight with radar.
#13
The MiG-25/31 (and -29, maybe) were for what was (is?) the PVO, not the VVS. That meant it was an air-defense interceptor, not an all-round fighter.
Very good at take off with little notice, climb quickly, launch missiles, then go back. Not for maintaining cover over an area, escorting attacks, or making attacks itself.
Of course, that is assuming competent (i.e. Russian, Czech, etc.) pilots. You could probably give F-22s to Syria and Israel would still beat them.
Posted by: Gary and the Samoyeds ||
06/19/2007 20:26 Comments ||
Top||
#14
The MiG-25/31E is NOT an F-15/F-14/F-18 class fighter : it was designed to meet a specific threat {the XB-70 Valkyrie bomber}, and was continued as a high-speed limited range interceptor. It was then modified into a recon aircraft. The balance of power in aircraft will not be shifted by an 8, 10, or 20 plane deal - the Israelis will still have the technology advantage and the superior pilots.
Now if Assad were to completely redo his air force with modern MiGs and Sukhois, then there would be a problem.
The pro-Syrian Hezbollah yesterday accused the government of dragging Lebanon into further crisis by insisting on by-elections to replace two slain MPs despite opposition from the Damascus-backed president. There is a party which... threatens the country with a deep political division that will come about if this party continues to monopolize power, Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah warned.
The Western-backed government decided on Saturday to hold by-elections on August 5 to replace two assassinated anti-Syrian parliamentarians, despite staunch opposition from President Emile Lahoud.
Industry minister Pierre Gemayel was shot dead in November and MP Walid Eido was killed on Wednesday in a car bombing in Beirut. Members of the anti-Syrian majority blamed Syria for both murders, a charge Damascus denies. When the assassination of our colleague MP Walid Eido took place, we told them (the majority) let us not just condemn it... let us adopt serious steps to resolve the Lebanese crisis peacefully, Fadlallah said at a funeral in south Lebanon. But how did they respond? With unconstitutional acts, with threats to carry out unilateral steps. There is a president of the republic who has prerogatives, whether you agree with him or not, whether you are friends with him or not. But they are bypassing and violating his prerogatives, he added.
Fadlallah was referring to the ruling majority's decision to go ahead with the by-elections even if the president refuses to sign the decree for the polls to take place.
When were we against elections? When our colleague MP Gibran Tueni was assassinated (in December 2005) we had by-elections, and we had no problems with that because there was a legitimate and constitutional government, he said.
The Syrian-backed opposition and Lahoud consider the government to be illegitimate since all six Shiite ministers quit the cabinet last November, charging that it was riding roughshod over power-sharing arrangements.
Another opposition group, the Free Patriotic Movement of prominent Christian leader Michel Aoun, said on Sunday it did not oppose by-elections as long as Lahoud signs the decree.
We are all for by-elections, but we want to protect the constitution and we do not accept that any harm be done to the prerogatives of the president of the republic, spokesman Antoine Nasrallah said. It would set a dangerous precedent, he added.
The parliamentary majority accuses Syria of seeking to liquidate its absolute majority and thus prevent anti-Damascus forces from having the necessary number of votes to elect a successor to Lahoud later this year.
Hezbollah according to local analysts is being unreasonable and unrealistic in its opposition to holding of the by-elections. What will Hezbollah do if its MPs were assassinated ? Asked one analyst.
The problem in Lebanon is that the assassinations are only targeting the majority . It is obvious from Nabih Berri's NBN TV station scandal that the pro-Syrian camp is extremely pleased with these assassinations and counting on more to come to reduce the majority to 0. The question is does Hezbollah consider the majority to be that stupid to forgo the replacement of the murdered MPs?.
It would have been more honorable from Hezbollah according to analysts , if its leaders really have good intentions to tell the majority : "No need for by-elections. Just pick the replacement and we will not oppose your decisions ", one analyst said. After all these MPs that are going to be replaced are 100% members of the majority and there is no grey area there . This is how Hezbollah can improve the ambience in Lebanon and earn the trust of the majority , if it wants a government of national unity.
It is unrealistic of Hezbollah according to analysts to expect the president of Lebanon to approve the by-elections . Hezbollah knows too well that the president of Lebanon only serves the interests of the Syrians, who have been accused of murdering all the anti-Syrian politicians. If Assad calls president Lahoud " my personal Representative in Lebanon" and he does , what do the Lebanese people expect from such a president fro Lebanon?
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
