2024: A Year in Review and a Look Ahead

There's no question that 2024 was one of the most pivotal years in recent history. It seems that practically everything was happening all at the same time, and the ripples it left with be felt for weeks, months, and even decades from now. In writing this week's article, it was difficult to decide what to include and what to leave out. Much of what we will witness over the upcoming 12 months and beyond have their roots in what we've jointly experienced. Here, then, are our top choices for the most significant events of 2024. 

Hamas and Israel

Perhaps one of the most noteworthy event of 2024 has been the war between Israel and Hamas. Since its founding in 1948, Israel has been involved in 19 wars and conflicts. Beginning with its War of Independence, Israel has faced the combined military might of the Arab world (with Russian and Chinese aid) or financially.   In every encounter (with the exception of one, which was a preemptive strike), Israel has been attacked with little or no prior notice by members of the Arab League. Each time it has prevailed thanks to the support of  the West, and most notably the United States.

On October 7th, members of the Iranian backed terrorist group, Hamas, secretly attacked a group of mostly civilian men, women, and children who had turned out for a concert and family oriented events. The attack was a brutal as it was sudden with over 1700 Israelis viciously murdered. Some were shot in cold blood, while others were raped before being burned alive. Others were taken captive. Beaten and repeatedly rape, they were to be used as bargaining chips to avoid repercussions against Hamas leadership. 

Since then, the Israelis have been relentless in the retaliation, which many have called "justifiable". However, while the Israelis have been winning in ruble of Gaza, they've been losing the public relations war. Hamas and their supporters have been able to portray Israel as the aggressor and guilty of genocide against Palestinian people while Hamas characteristically uses them as human shields and routinely attacking or hijacking relief trucks carrying medicine, food, and fresh water, which they often sell on the black market.  

Israel has seen a serious loss of support globally, and most notably in Europe and among NATO, which has historically backed the Israelis. The situation is so serious that Turkey has subtlety threatening to intervene to prevent the ongoing "genocide" of the Palestinians in Gaza. If that were to happen, how would it affect NATO? Besides having the second most powerful military in NATO behind the U.S., it also serves as a major bulwark, preventing hundreds of thousands of "migrants" from invading. Such a influx could collapse the European economy, which is already teetering on failure. 

Of late, Turkey's President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, hasn't been shy about threats to throw open its doors to these migrants should NATO or the EU impose any sanctions for its actions against Israel, the Kurds, or Syria. A threat by the way which has all the earmarks of political and economic blackmail. How would a greatly weakened U.S. military and NATO react should Turkey decide to intervene?

Syria, Iran and U.S. Foreign Policy: A Deadly Game of  Political Chess 

Iran, which is behind Hamas as well as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorists groups, has made it crystal clear that it will "wipe Israel off the map" at the first opportunity even if it meant the complete destruction of Iran and all its people. It's no secret that Iran has aggressively been working on a nuclear bomb with the intent of hitting Israel even if it meant that Israel responded in kind. The major stumbling block for Iran has been a delivery platform and defeating Israel's famed "Iron Dome". The fall of Syria may have helped alleviate one portion of that problem.  

It's no secret that U.S. foreign policy has been the control of Middle Eastern oil and gas and transportation lanes as well as destabilizing Russian regional interests and removing Iran as a regional and possible global threat (we've never gotten over the humiliating 1979 "hostage crisis"). Our principal allies, like the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families, are very nervous about the spread of Iran's radical religious extremism and its threats to destabilize or even topple their governments. 

As a result, Neocons in the U.S. State Department, in conjunction with the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, carefully laid out plans to reshape the Middle East in their image several years ago by first going after Afghanistan, then Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and lastly, the cherry on top---Iran (of course, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies are all in for any war or conflict. Besides, it's good for business).

Unfortunately, we didn't do so well in Iraq. Not because of any military defeat, but for not properly planning for a post-war government.  In Afghanistan, we lost because our arrogance and failure to learn from history. Everyone from King Cyrus the Great and Alexander to the British Empire and the USSR has failed to conquer Afghanistan. The result, after 20 years of fighting, was a stronger and better armed Taliban, an intact Al Qaeda, and a PR disaster for the Biden Administration.

 Meanwhile, the U.S. has been trying to overthrow the Assad government since 1971 when Hafez al-Assad became president.  His son, President Bashar al-Assad has never been a friend of terrorists and opposed Iran's radical form of Islam. Syria has been the nemesis of our NATO ally, Turkey and our trading partner, Saudi Arabia, yet it was also a buffer to Iranian expansion. 

Most importantly, is that Syria has been a close ally of Russia going back to the early 1950's. The fall of Bashar al-Assad was been on the State Department's and CIA's. "things to do" list for a very long time. During the Syrian civil war, U.S. intelligence agencies have been aiding the Al Qaeda affiliated militia, HTS, and other paramilitary groups in destabilizing Assad's government as part of the efforts. 

Now with Assad out of the way, a number of different militias are poised to battle for the control of Syria, or at least large swaths of it, including ISIS, which stands to benefit greatly from the instability. The leader of the U.S. backed HTS, a spin off of Al Qaeda, Abu Mohmmad al-Jolani, is now downplaying his anti-Western terrorist past in the hope that U.S. aid will buy him a place at the table when it comes time to divide Syria up (either by pen or bullet).  

Meanwhile, as mentioned earlier, Iranian backed militias are now securely in Syria (most notably ISIS). This will allow Iran to extend its influence further, not to mention its missile launchers. ISIS has already launched several rocket and missiles at targets inside Israel. While the fall of Assad benefits U.S. foreign policy interest, at least for the moment, it puts Israel at greater risk. Israel has moved troops pass the Golan Heights buffer zone into Syria while Turkey has extended its reach deeper into northern Syrian territory, pushing the embattled Kurds further into the surrounding hills. Of course, all this sets the stage for even more "migrants" to invade Europe via Lebanon and bypassing Turkey. 2025 should prove very interesting as this situation continues to play out. 

Russia and Ukraine: A Game of Nuclear Chicken

Another event to keep a close eye on is the situation between Ukraine and Russia. The war, which began in February 2014, was thought by most political and military observers, to be over in a matter of months at best, given the easy in which Russia forces seized control of the Crimea. Yet, ten years later and both sides are still slugging it out. For Ukraine, its ability to holdout is due to being heavily supported by the U.S. and NATO members, who are also augmenting American aid with equipment and material of their own.  

Since February 2024, the U.S. has provide Kyiv with some $61.4 billion dollars in military aid according to the U.S. State Department. When other forms of aid are added in, including money to prop up Zelensky's government, American taxpayers have ponied up $106 billion dollars without so much as having say about it. Many analysts believe the goal is to bleed Russia dry militarily, thus removing or at least decreasing its super power status military, and maybe with some luck, even destabilize Putin's government. 

Some former Warsaw pact nations like Poland have become increasingly belligerent toward Russia and are threatening more direct assistance to Ukraine (Poland and Russia have a long and antagonistic history with each other). Putin has urged the Poles and others to seriously rethink their positions and tone down their rhetoric. There has also been hints by the Russians that any such intervention could result in a military response up to and including the use of nukes. 

In a bit of a surprise, North Korea has begun sending troops to support the Russians in exchange for desperately needed economic aid (it must be serious, Kim Jong-Un looks like he's losing some weight). It should be noted that the North Korean soldiers have proven to be mediocre at best. Nevertheless, even as cannon fodder, you can't fault their commitment. Many have chosen suicide to being captured.  

It's unlikely that Putin will allow this drain on his military or economy to continue much longer, That doesn't mean Putin may throw in the towel. Far from it. Putin may go all in, including the possible use of limited tactical nukes in key areas. If so, what then? Will the U.S. and NATO react in-kind or with a all out ground invasion of their own? Sanctions against Russia have proven to be of little use, especially given the rapid growth of BRICs. Since China, a Russia ally and our largest trading partner, is a member of BRICS, sanctions against the U.S. and the EU would have a more profound impact.

The Pentagon has already stated that, following the debacle in Afghanistan, the U.S. military was unable to conduct an effective war on multiple fronts, and with the situation in the Middle East spinning out of control, the rise of the Chinese military and its economic clout, that doesn't leave many options. If we get occupied in the Middle East, that could open door for a Chinese takeover of Taiwan or a North Korean invasion of the South for instance. 

Incoming President, Donald Trump claims to have a good working relationship with Putin, which could result in a ceasefire until a compromise is reached (NATO membership for Ukraine will likely remain off the table). Trump has made similar claims about Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu and North Korean President, Kim Jong-Un, but is that just ego talking or can he pull it off? 2025 will likely reveal the reality behind the rhetoric.

 Artificial Intelligence and Humanity: Will the Creation Replace its Creator? 

Another huge development in 2024 is the "sudden" rise of artificial intelligence. Many tech heads hail "AI" as the greatest thing since the invention of the abacus. Others see it as the creation of the golem. What was once found only in the pages of Azimov, Herbert, Clarke, and Le Guin, we now have machines capable of analyzing and manipulating genetic conditions, altering manufacturing, serving as our surrogate on far away planets or deep in the ocean. They can manage not just our businesses, but our lives. In many ways I'm remined of movies like "Total Recall", "Blade Runner", and "I, Robot".

We have technology that can monitor and regulate, if needed, practically everything from diabetes, the heart, and kidney functions. We can now grow not just new skin, but organs! Individuals previously unable to walk, can do so now.  Technology can help us overcome a wide myriad of diseases and disorders. Some have proposed linking humans with technology, thus creating real life "Borg".  There are those already proposing that we turn over governments (especially the judicial system) to AI since it presumably could manage society better than we can.  

A few have experimented with linking the human brain with the internet in order to provide near unlimited knowledge. We can strap on exoskeletons which gives us 10x times the strength of the average human.  A growing number of AI developers are promoting the addition of chips into the human body to monitor things like blood pressure or sugar levels, but these chips could also contain our personal information; everything from our employment and medical history to our financial information and credit score. Yes, it could potentially cut down on identity theft, but is it really a good thing for us? 

Banks and other financial institutions are pushing hard to do away with cash. As it is, practically everything can be done electronically, from work to shopping to doctor appointments to banking and paying bills. In fact, businesses are increasingly urging automatically deducted payments. Think about it. You can run your home electronically. You can work from home, get paid automatically directly to your bank account and pay your bills automatically. You can buy your groceries and shop online, and even have them automatically delivered to your door. Plus, while personal information was once private, now everything is stored in the "cloud" and practically any financial institution---or government agency---can gain access to it.

Technology can provide you with all the "adventure" you'd want with highly realistic programs taking you everywhere and allowing you to interact! You'll be able to sense heat, cold, smell, or taste. Games, music, or books, they can already be downloaded to your computer, iPad, or Smartphone. Thanks to AI, and with the level of existing technology, the need for human contact is all but passe'.

Today, the United States has become a virtual surveillance state. Privacy is nowadays a rare commodity and talk about "escaping from the grid" is nearly impossible. You are already watched, monitored, and analyzed nearly everywhere you go. A feature like a chip would simply be one more way to track you. 

However, while chips could be used track us, they could be used to find  children prone to getting loss or adults with diseases like Alzheimer's of mental disabilities who tend to wonder off, especially those in need of special medication. It could be used to monitor former felons on parole. No more "ankle bracelets". Thanks to retina scans, facial and voice recognition software, and the ubiquitous security cameras,  you can be found no matter where you are.  Even drones can be used to find you. Heck, you car even has a tracking device! 

We're developing robots which are nearly indistinguishable from humans in appearance and mannerisms. We have video games which are so accurate they could pass for the real thing.  There are even operational protypes of sexbots! Our military is heavily dependent of AI or related technology to our fight wars in order to minimize human loss and injuries on the battlefield. Yet, without the experiencing the horrors of war, where are the incentives to prevent them?

In the United States and in much of the world, people have become essentially "chained" to their Smartphones. Businesses, like doctor offices or hospitals, expect to be able to text or leave a message for you on your phone. In some countries, such as China, its mandatory that they carry their Smartphones with them at all times. We are increasingly turning over our lives to technology to the point where the line between "master" and "servant" has become almost so blurred as to nearly indistinguishable between the two.

Scientists predict that human level Artificial Intelligence will reach "singularity" or self awareness sometime around 2040. It will exceed human level intelligence within ten years after that and continue to grow exponentially.  Within 20 years following singularity we will have as much in common with AI as we do now with a worm. The question is then what? Will AI seek to serve us or enslave us (for our  safety of course), but  later, seeing us as hopelessly inferior and unwilling or able to change, will it simply replace us? It wouldn't be hard. Will the creator be replaced by its creation? The growth of  AI will be an important issue to watch closely in 2025.

The MAGA Revolution: The Election of Donald Trump

I thought about entitling this section "The Messiahship of 'The Donald' ", but I thought that might be taking it a bit too far. Nevertheless, there's no question that some diehard "Trumpeters" out there  who wouldn't object.  For over ten years, Donald Trump had endured nearly every from of attack the Status Quo could throw at him. They've attacked his character, his businesses, members of his family, and even his friends. They've publicly maligned him at every turn. 

They've tried to break him financially with countless bogus lawsuits, and all without success. Finally, they've managed to create a public atmosphere so poisonous that there have been attempts on life. Never, in the history of our country, has there been a person as loathed by the ruling class as Donald Trump. But who can really blame them? After all, Trump has not only promised publicly to rid the country of the controlling oligarchs, he's promised to restore the Republic and end the neo-fascist corporatocracy. In fact, in his previous term, he tried to back up his words with action. 

However, Trump found out that "draining the swamp" was a lot harder than it first appeared. Our Republic had previously undergone a quiet coup, having been taken over by Wall Street in a approach known as "gradualism". It was slow, happening piecemeal, but it was no less insidious as any other putsch.  It was also through in every detail. It included both political parties, every government agencies and departments, NGOs, and especially the media. 

Nothing was left to chance. What could not be controlled, was made impotent. Those who challenged it was ignored, ridiculed, humiliated, and if necessary, destroyed. What made it worse was the fact that it has been going on for decades. So much so that the corruption has become institutionalized. 

The corruption was given veneer of civility and the weight of law. Wars and conflicts were fought for noble sounding goals just when in truth they were waged for profit. Treaties were nothing more than business contracts designed to benefit the few. Government no longer represented the people. It serves the interests of the controlling elite to the degree where they line separating them has blurred beyond recognition. 

Many consider Trump to be a ego-driven blowhard. Others consider him pompous and volatile, while some even believe him to be dangerous. There is no question that Trump has, at least, some of these qualities, and quiet likely much more than some would consider disagreeable. However, Trump is not part of the Status Quo which we've been made so comfortable with. We've been made afraid of freedom to the point where comfortable servitude is preferable to independence.  

In many ways Donald trump reminds be of Julius Caesar. Caesar was a successful general while Trump is a successful businessman. Both appeared at the end of their respective Republics. Like Caesar, Trump is a political outsider. Caesar sought to restore the Republic, which had become hopelessly corrupt and ineffectually. The Roman Senate promised much but delivered little except bread and distraction in order to buy off its citizens.  

Any real attempts at reform were brutally crushed such as with Tiberius Gracchus and his attempt at land reform around 133 BC as was his brother, Gaius's efforts at agarin reform in 123 BC., and, of course, the Three Servile Wars, made famous by Spartacus in the third war, to end servitude in its many forms. Like the U.S., Rome faced a massive influx of migrants which threatened the stability of the Republic. Efforts to curtail it were half hearted at best. But, as those with a basic knowledge of history should know, each of these individuals were killed in order to preserve the Status Quo. 

Caesar was awarded the title of "dictator" in the hopes that he could be appeased with the title and would leave the rotting Republic and its Senators alone. It failed. Caesar, it's claimed, said that in order to save the Republic, he would have to destroy the Republic, meaning that reversing the level of institutionalized corruption to restore the Republic would take a thorough and unpleasant bit of housecleaning. 

We generally choose to call it "draining the swamp", which is something Donald Trump has repeatedly promised to do. In just a few weeks, he will be sworn in and his second term will begin and then we shall see what his intentions truly are. One thing is for sure, the Status Quo will fight him every step of the way.

As we head into our 20th year, we here at Another Opinion would like to thank each of you, our dear readers, for all your support, encouragement, and comments over the past 12 months. We are deeply appreciative. The articles above are but a small glimpse onto the many exciting and tragic events of 2024 and whose ripples we will feel for weeks, months, and even years to come. No doubt this coming year will be no less eventful. We hope you all have a happy, healthy, and safe 2025.  

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you found our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free thinking individuals. We do ask, however, that you be sure to "like" us on whatever site you found us on in order to keep our articles available for others, and that you please pass our post along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

From Syrian jihadist leader to Syrian politician:  How Abu Mohmmad al-Jolani reinvented himself 

Who are the Syrian rebels that have toppled Assad and taken Damascus? 

US sends more troops to the Middle East as violence rises between Israel and Hezbollah

Russia-Ukraine War

U.S. Security Cooperation with Ukraine

Technological singularity 

The new surveillance state

The Trump agenda: Here's what to expect from his second term

The reform movement of the Gracchi (133 - 122 BC)  

The Fall of Assad and Syria What does it mean for the U.S., Israel and the West?

 The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan was an embarrassment of monumental proportions. It not only left the Taliban back in charge of the government and the people (especially the women) worst off, Al Qaeda was still militarily and politically operational. We left so much military equipment behind, that Afghanistan went from being a country of no military significance to being one of the most powerful countries in the region!    

To add insult to injury, it now appears that Al Qaida will emerge as the controlling power in post Assad Syria. It's worth mentioning, that while we were battling Al Qaeda in Afghanistan for 20 years, following the cowardly attack on 9/11, the U.S. was arming and supporting Al Qaida's efforts, albeit under the names "Jabhat al-Nusra Front" and "Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham'  (aka"HTS" ) in Syria to overthrow President Bashar Assad.

Of course, ISIS/ISIL is back. They've already reoccupied the Syrian city of Homs and look to further expand. To give you an idea as to their intentions, all one needs to do is look at their name--- the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. On September 24, 2014, the Obama Administration officially announced they would be more "hands on" in Syria in order to oust ISIS.  

At about the same time, the CIA began using Syria as one of its base of operations, starting from the mid-1990s and extending well into the 2000's, for its "extraordinary renditions" (aka "unofficial kidnappings") of so-called "ghost detainees" (ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters, cleric, and supporters) for the purpose of extreme interrogation methods.

In 2008, the CIA formed the "Damascus Community School" to lure anti-Assad groups, officials, and civilians (such as teachers and professors) away from the pro-Soviet orbit. They also started funded and training various paramilitary units to oppose Assad, as well as pro-Iranian terrorist organizations. It should be mentioned that the CIA has been active in Syria since 1949 when it helped plan the March Coup of 1949. Syria was the CIA's first "test case" for overthrowing governments not seen as favorable to U.S. national interests.

Using the code name "Operation Inherent Resolve" (my how they do love their secret code names), the U.S. vowed to fight ISIS through the Syrian Free Army (aka "Revolutionary Commando Army" or "RCA") and the Kurdish led Syrian Democratic Front, led by the Kurdish "Popular Protection Units", which are regarded as a terrorist organization by Qatar and Turkey (one nation's terrorists is another nation's liberators). Other groups involved in the fighting include Syrian National Army and the Turkish Armed Forces.

Now, why would we underwrite groups to overthrow the government of President Bashar Assad? The answer is really simply. Syria has been Russia's regional ally for decades. Syria is to Russia what Israel is to the United States. Of course, the U.S. made the usual allegations about the people fighting for their democracy and so forth, the truth was to simply remove the pro-Russian Assad Government, secure access to Syrian oil and gas, and further isolate Iran.

Iran is the center piece in this regional game of chess. The neocons goal all along has been to take control of Iraq and Afghanistan, and destabilize Syria.  Then, with our Arab allies, isolate and ultimately strangle the Iranian government. Well, Iraq is free of Saddam but it's far from stable. However, like the Russians before us,  we were handed our eviction notice by the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan while Iran remains still standing.  

In fact, Iran is hard at work developing a nuclear bomb and delivery system to "wipe Israel off the map, even at the cost of Iran being vaporized.  In addition, the Iranians have helped to underwrite and arm terrorist groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, Boko Harem in Africa, and terrorist organizations in Yemen, Libya, Sudan, and elsewhere. 

The only glimmer about the Assad Government's fall is that Russia is without its primary regional ally. The problem is that Al Qaeda, which has already launched rockets at Israel while fighting the Syrian military, will now be that much closer to Israel and will have another shot at a Islamic State.

Israel has used the chaos in the aftermath of President Bashar Assad's departure, to expand its presence from the 1973 UN imposed buffer zone with Syria by redeploying its troops from the top of the Golan Heights to new positions just a few miles on the other side of the Golan mountains, thus pushing Al Qaeda's Iranian supplied missiles a little further back. 

Not unexpectedly, the rest of the Arab world, including some of its nominal "friends" like Jordan and Egypt, to object, claiming that Israel is attempting to permanently occupy Syrian territory.  Of course, it didn't help that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said precisely that was Israel's intent. 

Although Russia has been engaged in a protracted war with Ukraine, designed to keep it bogged down, deplete its military and economy, and (hopefully) weaken Putin's hold on the government, Russia did make a attempt to aid their old comrade, Assad, despite a chorus from the West (led by the U.S. State Department) alleging "interference". Why is it that the U.S. and West can aid allies but nobody else can?

While Assad wasn't necessarily a good guy, at least as far as U.S. interests were concerned, he did provide a stabilizing presence. Much like Saddam Hussein had done in Iraq (even after having his wings clipped following "Operation Desert Storm",  Saddam provided Iraq and the region with political and military stability while keeping the religious extremists in check albeit under his iron fist. Hussein's removal and U.S. failure to have a post-Saddam plan in place, ultimately resulted in a backlash against U.S. occupation and its puppet government, the suppression of the majority Shiite, and radical Islam. 

For those unfamiliar with the political situation in Iraq and why a majority religious group would be held in check, it's because Saddam Hussein was part of the Sunni minority. Saddam ensured that Sunni tribal chieftains and members of his family (including uncles and cousins) were given positions of power while key members of the government and military were also Sunnis.  

The suppressed Shiites were often brutally treated (as were the Kurdish and Christian populations). It's worth mentioning that Saddam had only one Christian as part of his secular administration, Tariq Aziz, who was Deputy prime Minister. Aziz was a member of the Chaldean Catholic Church, a sect of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Kurds and Yazidis had no one in Saddam's government.

Like Hussein, Assad managed to keep religious fanatics  at bay and limit Iran's influence (he also throttled Turkey's expansionist ambitions. However, like the Turks, he was no friend of Kurds and only tolerated the Yazidi as well as the Christians).  Now, that's all changed thanks in large part to neo-con arrogance and a shortsighted U.S. foreign policy. So, what happens next?

As with most events of this sort, there will likely be a prolonged and bloody battle for final control of the country. Syria will, no doubt, end up divided with two dominant players jockeying for position behind the scenes.  The first will of course be the U.S. and its proxy, Israel. The other will be Iran and its puppet terrorists organizations, and behind it Russia and China. The trouble, I think, is that the neo-cons and Iranians are playing two very different and dangerous games.

The U.S. is, as always, thinking in terms of regime change. Its objective is the ultimate control of Iran's ample oil and gas production, and control of the region. China is playing a similar game by buying up rights to resources all over the world. It knows that whoever controls key resources such as fresh water, farmland, and strategic minerals needed for technology, wins. We are banking that the control of oil and gas will ultimately trump China's objectives.

Iran, however, is less interested in who among the non-believers control what. It's outlook is strictly religious. It sees as its sole objective to restore or impose a strict global Islamic Caliphate, to aid in the coming of the 12th Imam (a messiah or prophet of sorts) and the destruction of Israel at any cost, even that of its own survival.

The thing about religious zealotry is that you can only bargain with it in the short term, You can never compromise with it over the long term. Why? Because from its perspective, it is God's sole arbiter on Earth. How can God be negotiated with or bought off? There is only submit or perish.

President Assad's departure will create a void more severe than did Saddam Hussein's by creating a similar strategy as to the neocon's, but in reverse. It's mortal enemy, Iraq, is no longer a threat. The Shiites are now in charge, which is good for Iran. After 20 years of war, Afghanistan remains. The Taliban is still in charge. The "Great Satan"---the United States---has been defeated in their eyes, and our unorganized departure has left them stronger than they were in the beginning.

 Despite the decimation of its leadership, Al Qaida remains , and now it's on the verge of controlling a large swath of Syria. ISIS/ISIL too presents a serious threat.  Iran's proxies are closer to Israel than ever, and therefore Iran's missiles won't require the development and deployment of a long range delivery system. In fact, Al Qaida has already shown that it can easily hit Israel's Galilee area from their positions in northern Syria.

Israel's occupation of the far side of the Golan Heights, which has been demilitarized since the Syrian defeat in the 1973 Yom Kipper War, is understandable from a military security perspective. Additionally, there is some bad blood between many of the rebels now in control of Syria. How that will play out remains a serious question with the very real possibility of a renewed civil war.

It provides a badly needed extra buffer zone, but at what cost? The ire of the Arab world, including its tentative friends? Even its historic allies in the West, principally the EU/NATO and even the U.S., have accused the Israelis of deliberate "genocide" of the Gazians  (although Hamas has done far worse to them, and bear in mind, Hamas started this fight with a massacre of 1200+ Israeli civilians on October 7, 2024).

Now, Turkey, a major power of the EU and NATO, has hinted at intervention if Israel doesn't back off. If that happens, what then? The prime directive of NATO is "an attack on one is an attack on all". Could little ole Israel find itself facing NATO and the Arab world, and if so, what about the United States? It's the linchpin of NATO. Meanwhile, the various factions will duke it out for greater control and old scores will be settled as it always tends to happen in a power vacuum.  This is what's at stake now that Assad's government has fallen and U.S. foreign policy continues to blunder forward with outdated objectives.

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you found our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free thinking individuals. We do ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever site you found us on, and that you please pass our post along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

Who are the rebels in Syria?

Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)

5 things to watch as Syria confronts a new future

Islamic State

Syrian Democratic Forces

US intervention in the Syrian civil war

 

Revolutionary Commando Army

CIA activities in Syria

 

The Killing of Qassem Soleimani: Making the World Safer or Lighting the Fuse for WWIII?

I'll cut straight to the chase and right to the point. President Trump ordered the execution of a cold blooded terrorist. A man who was directly responsible for the murder of thousands of Iranians, Iraqis, Yemites, Afghanis, Yazidis, Kurds, and American servicemen and women as well as civilians. Iranian General Qassem Soleimani was involved in aiding the likes of ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Boku Haram.

They are responsible for the murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and even other Muslims, plus the kidnapping, rapes and selling of young women into slavery. The final straw for the U.S. was the murder of an American contractor, ordered by General Soleimani. From a moral perspective, the world is far better off by his removal. But is the world any safer? By removing this individual are we any closer to world or even regional peace?

There's no question that General Soleimani, who headed the Quds Force, part of the hard line Revolutionary Guards which serves as a cross between the CIA, the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and Delta Force, was despicable; someone on the same level as a Tamerlane or Himmler. President Trump has received nothing but criticism, ranging from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and members of the Democratic Party to the print and electronic media to the talking heads on television.

Pelosi is miffed that Trump didn't tell her first about the pending attack. But then, President Obama didn't tell her beforehand about taking out Osama Ben Laden either and she was just fine with it. In fact, not only Obama, but George W. Bush had ordered the targeting of key ISIS and Al Qaeda leaders without alerting either Pelosi or Congress and everyone seemed okay with that. In fact, the media never said "boo" to either about it. Now why is that? My guess is that this is nothing more than an ongoing attempt at character assassination; of promoting public distrust of President Trump.

So, what was General Soleimani doing in Iraq on January 3rd in the first place (and at a public airport no less)? His presence there was supposed to have been forbidden by the Iraqis. Well, it turns out that he was there to meet with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandi, the deputy commander of the Iranian sponsored Popular Mobilization Forces, an umbrella organization overseeing the various pro-Iranian militias.

Al-Mudandi had arrived with a small convoy to meet with Soleimani and escort him to a safe location outside of Baghdad, presumably to coordinate plans for future terror attacks on pro-Western targets, including U.S. diplomats and military personnel. Al-Mudanhi and a driver were also killed in the attack. It should be pointed out that the drone attack which took out Soleimani came just days after a failed attempt to seize the U.S. embassy by pro-Iranian militias in Baghdad had ended (that attack was in response to an earlier U.S. air attacks killing 25 Hezbollah fighters).

In addition, under the direction of Soleimani, members of the Revolutionary Guards had seized or attacked several oil tankers in the Gulf of Hormuz, attacked a Saudi oil field, and shot down a U.S. surveillance drone (okay, that may have been justified). Pro-Iranians militias, operating through Quds Force, have also been active in Syria and supplying both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Giza.

So now what? Well, in keeping with tradition, Iran responded. They withdrew from the agreement restricting their development of "nuclear reactors" (wink wink) which, to be honest, they've not been following anyway. They also launched a limited missile attack on two American bases in Iraq (no one was killed or injured). Heck, they've even raised their "red flag of doom" on the Jamkaran Mosque in Qom to signify a pending war (this is Iran's largest and most famous mosque).

Nevertheless, while their flag stills flies atop the mosque, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said that "proportionate measures" have been taken and the matter is now concluded. He added that Iran didn't want any further escalation but would respond in self defense is provoked further. However, Iran's religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called the Iranian missile attacks a "slap on the face" of the U.S. hinted at possible, more "severe" attacks to come in the near future.

Iran has to be careful in its response. First, to overreact is to essentially admit that Western intelligence was correct about Soleimani's importance as the mastermind behind Iran's attempts to destabilize the region and export its brand of radicalized Islam. Iran, while acknowledging Soleimani as the head of Quds Force, has long denied any involvement in terrorism in the region. Their response must be measured; even downplayed. He must be treated a merely a high ranking general.

Secondly, despite American led sanctions, Iran depends heavily on its restricted oil exports to keep the economy going. Iran has close ties to Russia, China, and North Korea which has helped. So has its limited trade agreement with the EU (especially France, Germany and the UK), along with various Arab nations including the United Arab Republic (UAR). To engage the U.S. in a tit-for-tat conflict could easily disrupt Iran's current trade arrangements, which would plunge the country into an economic spiral for which it might not recover.

At the same time, a enlarged U.S. military involvement in the region could also trigger panic in the West and drive the cost of oil and gas to near record highs (some have predicted as much as $100 per barrel of oil). Despite having one of the strongest militaries in the Middle East, Iran wouldn't stand much of a chance against the U.S. However, Iran would be no Iraq. The Iranians are much better trained and equipped than Saddam's forces thanks to support from Russia and China.

In addition, Iran is the lynchpin in the "We Hate America and Israel" club. Muslims throughout the Middle East and elsewhere, while appreciating the removal of a despot like Saddam Hussein, resent the continued presence of Western forces in the region which is viewed as a "conquering force". They also disapprove of our continued support of Israel. A war could result in Iran being able to unite Muslims and turn it from a political/economic conflict into a religious one (and as any historian will tell you, religious wars are the most ruthless and bloody of them all. After all, you're murdering on behalf your god. How can you possibly compromise or surrender?).

I would expect Hamas and Hezbollah to attack Israel with weapons its stockpiled from Iran. Additionally, it would provide an irresistible opportunity for North Korea to act up as well with a possible attack against South Korea, launch missiles at Japan (which it hates as much as it hates us) or even Hawaii or U.S. territories like Guam or Midway. Who knows, maybe China would use U.S. preoccupation to retake Taiwan. After all, we can't be everywhere and with over 20 years of active military engagement, we're kind of pooped. Our military badly needs time to reset, overhaul equipment and replenish inventory. The burnout rate of military personnel is at record highs (as are suicides).

Lastly, there's home...our home, America. Although Homeland Security, U.S. intelligence agencies, members of Congress, and the media have long known but remained virtually silent on the point that there is the strong likelihood of the Muslim terrorist cells in the U.S and quite possibly Canada, the UK, Mexico, throughout Western Europe.

For that matter, Russia and China likely have terrorist cells as well. Both Russia and China have had ongoing problems with Muslim separatists. There are some 9.4 million Muslims in Russia; mostly living in the southwestern portion of the country. Russia's troubles with the Chechens started back in 1994 and is still going on, with thousands dead and no end in sight. China has been attempting to suppress the Muslim Uyghurs in the Xinjiang Province for a couple of decades now.

The Uyghur comprise almost 50% of the population in Xinjiang with large pockets throughout mostly western China, including the Hui, Kyrgyz, and Kazakh who are also mainly Muslim. Although no official numbers are kept, it's estimated that China has around 23 million Muslims---up to 2% of their entire population. However, the more pressure applied by the Chinese, the more they resist. Already, almost 1.5 million Muslims have been imprisoned in what Chinese officials called "reeducation camps".

A war or even a serious uptick in hostilities between Iran and the United States benefits no one. It would deeply affect not just the already fragile economy of Iran (and possibly topple their government), but further destabilize the region, and deeply affect the economies of Europe, the U.S. and the rest of the world. It could engulf the world in a asymmetrical war which could last decades and where there would be no winners.

It's even possible, if not likely, that the end result could be a nuclear war. At the very least, it could involve chemical and biological weapons regardless of any so-called "international prohibitions". I don't care what god you believe in, I can't imagine one who would want to see all of humanity either destroyed or reduced to subsistence conditions. We could only hope that aliens would come down and save us from ourselves.

But reality being what it is, this is about oil. It's about gas. It's also about its control and flow. As an aside, Iran had just announced the discovered of an new oil field capable of producing over 56 billion barrels of oil. Think that's a coincidence? The ruling Oligarchy is, as readers of A/O already know, all about the control of assets and resources, which, by the way, also includes us.

If they are unable to acquire control through normal business channels, then they will employ the resources of government, which they control, to achieve their desired consequences, backed by a media they also control, to manufacture a properly suited villain. Add a dash of nationalism, a pinch of fear and you've got yourself the recipe for a military "intervention". Whether it's called a "war of liberation", a "fight for freedom" or "spreading democracy", it's all about control and, of course, profit.

President Trump, whether you love him or loathe him, acted on the intelligence presented to him by his advisors and generals, along with their recommendations. Trump was and will always be a businessman. He's not an expert on foreign policy or military matters. Obama, with virtually no political experience and had been a local "community organizer" wasn't either. George W. Bush was a largely unsuccessful businessman and mediocre governor wasn't much better.

All three men acted on what others told them. This is where you'll find the ruling Oligarchy; the "Deep State". It lays within the system itself, which makes the situation all the more dangerous. We can only hope that those who advise the president, whoever that may be, are acting in our national interests with an eye toward preserving Humanity rather than towards short term power and wealth.

'Stick of dynamite in a tinderbox': Why General Qassem Soleimani was killed, and what may happen next

European Commission: Iran


Iran supreme leader says missile attack was a 'slap on the face' of the U.S. but it was 'not enough'.


Trump Says Iran Appears to Be Backing Down From Conflict After Overnight Strikes


Analysis: The different stages of Iranian support for ISIS

Tying Up Loose Ends: A Last Word on Three Stories

Over the past several weeks, we've covered a wide range of topics, from the situation in Syria and the plight of the Kurds, to the vanishing middle class, and Kentucky's state races. However, we've not quite finished the stories, which were still pretty fluid at the time. Personally, I hate to be left hanging; not knowing what finally happened; the "coda" as it were. I guess that hearkens back to the legendary Paul Harvey and his famous "rest of the story" format (I loved to listen to Harvey back in the day). So, with this edition of A/O, we're going to step back and take a parting look at some of the stories we've recently covered.

Let's start with Kentucky's Governor race. As we left it, it appeared the Attorney General Andy Beshear (D), son of former Kentucky governor Steve Beshear, had narrowly defeated Governor Matt Bevin (R) by just over 5000 votes or a margin of 0.36%. However, Governor Bevin refused to concede, citing possible voting "irregularities".

As a result, Bevin called for a recanvassing. Speaking from personal experience, voting "irregularities" in Kentucky are more common than not, so I can't say I blame him. Nevertheless, if Bevin was expecting to see the gap needed to win close, he was mistaken. None of the areas in question (mainly in the sparsely populated counties of Eastern Kentucky) could account for the 5189 votes he needed to pull out a victory. On Thursday, November 14th, the recanvassing was completed and not much changed. Beshear had won and Matt Bevin was out.

Bevin had counted on President Trump's popularity to help him win. However, what he failed to take into consideration was that Trump had lost much of his popularity among Kentuckians since 2015. Since taking office, Trump's approval rating across Kentucky has declined by almost 25%. Still, he remains popular among large segments of the population, especially in rural Kentucky but not in the heavily populated urban centers like Louisville, Lexington, or even Bowling Green for instance.

Secondly, Bevin had been ranked as the most disliked governor in the U.S. earlier in 2019 (he rose one place, to 49th, in the third quarter). The moral of the story is that if the voters don't like you, attaching yourself to a more popular figure typically won't be enough. Bevin should have focused more his accomplishments such as increasing corporate investments in the state to $9.2 billion dollar; nearly two times the previous record set in 2015 of $5.1 billion, which translates into more jobs and an increase in the tax base. He fully funded the Actuarially Required Contribution (ARC), the first administration to do so for instance.

Instead, his opponent, Andy Beshear, set the tone by making the race about Bevin's "abrasive" personality. Like it or not, politics is a popularity contest. If voters have a favorable opinion of someone, be it their appearance or personality (it's called "relatability"), they'll likely give them their vote. If not, they won't, no matter how positive their record is. Yeah, it's pretty shallow and no way to elect representatives, but that's the way it is. The average voter rarely takes time to research a candidate's position on issues or their political record. I guess that's why those who promise the most seem to the best.

Earlier we took a look at America's vanishing Middle Class. As just about all of know, it keeps getting harder to make ends meet. We seem to increasingly have "more month than money". The gap between the rich and everyone has steadily been increasing for decades. According to an article in the May edition of Forbes, the richest top 10% control 70% of the wealth just in America, an increase 10% over the last ten years. Meanwhile, the top 1% controls over 1/3 of all the wealth. The article went on to say that the bottom 50% saw a net zero gain over the last 30 years.

In another article, this one from the St. Louis Federal Reserve, pointed out that in 1989 the top 10% controlled 42% of the nation's wealth. The middle 50% - 90% had the same--42%---and the poorest segment about 15%. In 2016 that had changed. The top 10% had 50% of the total wealth while the middle 50% - 90% had just 37% and the poorest shrunk to 13%.

America has gone from being a democratic or representative Republic to being a defacto Oligarchy, leaving us (for the time being) the illusion of choice when it comes to elections. America's political system is broken beyond "reform" (whatever that means). We need to end partisan controlled gerrymandering, impose term limits, and end "Citizens United" which gives "person-hood" to corporations while equating free speech with unlimited financial contributions (though it still caps what flesh and blood citizens can give), allow equal access of candidates and parties, as well as citizen referendums.

Here's an interesting aside to consider. As anyone who has run for office knows, it takes a lot of money to get elected. Money, after all, is what you need to buy name recognition and get your message out there. Without it, you might as well not exist. If you want to run for the U.S. Senate, you better have $10 million just to get in the game. Think a U.S. Representative may be a better way to go? Great. Count on coughing up at least $5 million. Hillary Clinton spent $1.4 billion in running for president and still lost.

Statewide elections can be just as expensive. In 2002, Texas millionaire Tony Sanchez ran to become the state's first Hispanic Governor. He spent $65 million dollars to unseat Governor Rick Perry...and lost. In the 2018 Illinois Governor race, Democrat Jay Bob ("J.B.") Pritzker raised $175.1 million dollars to his opponent, Bruce Rauner's $79.7 million.

In Florida's 2018 Governor's race, Republican Rick DeSantis raised just under $59,000,000.00. His opponent in the race, Democrat Andrew Gillum, raised $55,062,506.84. Many political consultants will tell you that unless you can raise at least $20 million dollars, stay away from the top jobs. Even the down ticket offices are going to set you back a pretty penny.

Thanks to Citizens United, corporations now underwrite these campaigns, backing the candidate they believe will best serve their interests...not ours. Once elected, their lobbyists ensure that politicians toe the line by "helping" write legislation, ensuring that certain bills get voted up or down, and funding reelection war chests (aka "Leadership" PACs) not to mention all sorts of indirect bribes. Once a politicians (or even senior staffer) decides to hang it up, they tend to become lobbyists, political consultants, or Wall Street executive, thus perpetuating the cycle. Who do we have to look out after our interest? Absolutely no one, and that's not likely to change any time soon without a fight.

As you may have noticed, we haven't heard anything recently about the Kurds. When I last wrote about them in October, there was a ceasefire in place. The U.S. had withdrawn a small contingent of troops from Northern Syria in order to allow Turkish troops to freely invade the area and push back our allies, the Kurds, from the area. There was a real concern that prisons holding ISIS fighters and guarded by the Kurds, would be left unguarded, thus allowing thousands of dangerous ISIS fighters the opportunity to escape (which indeed happened at two locations). Also, pro-Turkish fighters were able to assassinate a popular Kurdish diplomat and peace advocate, Hevrin Khalaf, along with eight others in a ambush.

Nevertheless, the situation did create a unique opportunity for the U.S. military. With the pullback of the American troops and announcement by President Trump of a pending American withdrawal of troops, the head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, came out of hiding...albeit briefly. He had been long targeted by U.S. Special Forces who, it would appear, were just waiting for the right opportunity. That opportunity came on the evening of October 27th when members of the super secret Delta Force chased the ISIS leader into a cave outside of Syrian town of Barisha where, using a suicide vest, he blew himself up along with three of his children.

As for the Kurds, U.S. intelligence agencies (principally the CIA's Special Activities Division), confirmed that the Kurdish led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) provided essential intelligence information as to the movement of key ISIS leaders, including that of al-Baghdadi, as well as information regarding his compound and security. The U.S. State Department added that the attack was delayed briefly after President Trump announced the troop pullback ahead of the Turkish invasion of Northern Syria.

Nevertheless, SDF as well as the Iraqi Kurds, continued to provide highly credible intelligence deep from within both ISIS and al-Baghdadi's inner circle, once again proving their importance as valuable American allies in the region. Shortly after al-Baghdadi's death, the second in command and ISIS spokesman, Abdul Hasan al-Muhajir, was killed in an airstrike thanks to information provided by the Kurds.

As a brief aside, it should be noted that Turkey's President Erdogan has repeatedly stated that he considers Kurdish nationalism to be a greater threat to Turkey and the region than that of ISIS and a Islamic Caliphate. We need to bear this in mind given that Turkey, which is 98% Muslim, is a major player in NATO and a key economic trading partner with the European Union.

The Kurds having been living in the same area---northwestern Iran, northern Iraq, northern Syria and southeastern Turkey--- for nearly 5000 years. The majority belong to the Shafi'i sect of Sunni Islam, there are also enclaves of Christians, Shia Islamists, Yazidisms, Zoroastrianists, Alevists and Yarsamists. They have been the victims of countless purges, exiles, and genocide. However, I should point out that part of the land they've long claimed also contains some of the richest oil and gas reserves in the region, so this is much more than about mere "nationalism" or a homeland for a persecuted people.

While Turkey is mostly Muslim, it's also mostly secular with strong connections to the West. An Islamic State could change that. It would certainly destabilize Turkey and even possibly push it toward religious extremism. One could imagine how that would affect its role in NATO or as a reliable trading partner. Meanwhile, the majority of Kurds have been forced to move to safer territory in Northern Iraq as they have time and again over the centuries.

So that, as Paul Harvey so often said, is the rest of the story. As a writer, I felt it was necessary to put a final statement on each of these stories, which had been left open do to the ongoing nature of events at the time. You, the reader, deserve nothing less than the full story.



Kentucky Republican Gov. Matt Bevin concedes to Dem Andy Beshear in reelection bid


America's Humongous Wealth Gap is Widening Further

What Wealth Inequality in America Looks Like: Key Facts and Figures

Kurdish informant provided key intel in operation that killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi

Ceasefire in Syria: Buying Time for the Kurds and the Region

There's a tenuous truce right now between Syrian, Kurdish, and invading Turkish troops. The truce and ceasefire went into effect on October 17, just days after US forces withdrew from the northern region of Syria, separating Kurdish forces and Turks massing on their eastern border. The ceasefire agreement came as a result of---or perhaps despite of---a October 9th letter sent to Turkey's President, Recep Tayyip Erodogan, and President Donald Trump in which he urged the Turkish President not to be a "tough guy" or a "fool".

President Trump went on to say that the U.S. could and would use economic sanctions to disrupt the Turkish economy, and closed with a promise to follow up with a phone call. Allegedly the Turkish president wadded up the letter and threw it into the trashcan. The letter was written the same day Turkish forces began crossing into northern Syria. Whether or not the letter was taken seriously or should have been worded more diplomatically, it appears to have had the desired result.

The Kurds, who were instrumental in the defeat of not just ISIS, but also in the downfall of Saddam Hussein, have had a long standing feud with the Turks, primarily over the issue of sovereignty. Part of the land occupied by the Kurdish people over the last 5000 years or so, includes eastern portions of Turkey, as well as part of northern Syria, northern Iraq, and western Iran.

Following the end of World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Kurdish people had been promised a independent homeland by the victorious allies (principally France and England who acquired the lion's share of the Middle East). However, just a few years later, that promise was broken and the Kurdish people were divided up between four newly created countries---Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey---with a semi-autonomous territory called Kurdistan created in northern Iraq.

Meanwhile, the Kurds were subjected to purges and genocide. Turkey even refused to acknowledge the Kurds on the eastern border, referring to them as "Mountain Turks" instead, along with attempts to suppress their language and culture. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein wage a catastrophic war on the Kurds, including the use of nerve and saran gas attacks. Things weren't much better in Iran or Syria.

So why the invasion? An interesting question to be sure. Partly because a measure of stability has been re-established in the region with the defeat of ISIS. In addition, Syria, a long standing major Russian ally, is much more weakened militarily and economically because of its recent civil war with factions within the country (the U.S. was also looking at not just weakening Syria, but in toppling its president, Bashar el-Assad, in hopefully of a more pro-American government, which would deprive Moscow of a key ally in the region). In addition, it would allow the US an opportunity to put surveillance and perhaps ground forces close to Syria's border with Washington's archenemy, Iran. Perhaps this would give the Turks an opportunity to seize territory in northern Syria, as well as to get rid of the newly embolden Kurdish fighters and put an end to the idea of a independent homeland for the Kurdish people once and for all.

Another key factor is that the semi-autonomous province of Kurdistan sits on approximately 1/3 of Iraq's oil and gas reserves. Nothing in geopolitics gets more attention than the control and flow of oil and gas, which was a key factor in removing former ally, Saddam Hussein, who got a little too big for his britches with the invasion of Kuwait and it's oil production (as well as proximity to the Persian Gulf and their regional enemy, Saudi Arabia). Meanwhile, in Iran, the Kurds have been engaged in a "hot and cold" with whoever was in charge, for a independent homeland, especially since 1918. Since 2014, the intensity has increased to a much more "hot" insurgent war. Since 1946, there has been approximately 28,000 fighters killed, while from 1980 to 2000, around 30,000 civilians have died with no signs of easing hostilities.

President Erdogan alerted Trump on October 6th of his intentions to invade and requested that U.S. troops in the area be evacuated. Trump agreed, and the small detachment of soldiers and equipment were moved further south. What prompted Trump to do so, knowing full well that our Kurdish allies would likely be annihilated is unknown. At first there was a quip about the Kurds not "helping" us in World War II. I don't know if he was serious or not, but no one was smiling. The Pentagon and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle were quick to criticize Trump's decision. In the eyes of the world, especially the Middle East which places a very high value on trust and loyalty, this didn't go down well.

Now President Trump is trying to force the Turks back out of Syria and minimize any damage to the Kurds. However, damage has already taken place. Kurdish troops guarding captured ISIS prisoners have been forced to flee the area, leaving the battle-harden ISIS fighters (in at least one case, around 1000 ISIS prisoners were able to escape thanks to the Turkish backed Free Syrian Army).

In addition, a key Kurdish politician and women's right advocate, Hevrin Khalaf, along with eight others, were ambushed and murdered by Turkish supported rebels who oppose Syria's President Assad. Hevrin was secretary-general of the Future Free Syria Party and a key diplomatic figure in trying to find a peaceful settlement to the situation in Syria and the region. Thus far, approximately 38 civilians have been killed since the October 9th invasion began.

Trump's blunder is serious. It has damaged our image in the eyes of not just our friends and allies, but has also provided a strategic opening for our enemies. They will use this opportunity to show that the United States isn't to be trusted; that it's better to deal with them than an American government whose support ebbs and flows based on its current needs. It will be surprising if North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, Russia's Vladimir Putin, or China's Xi Jinping don't make use of this error in judgment.

Another factor is that while Erdogan has agreed to a ceasefire, he has not agreed to a withdrawal of Turkish forces. This may result in a potential Syrian-Turkish clash. Given the strategic importance of Syria to Russia, there's little doubt that Putin will not allow any attempts at seizing either territory or toppling the Assad Government. Given that Turkey is a member of NATO and an important trading partner of the EU, that will prove to be interesting, especially given that an attack on one NATO partner is viewed as an attack on NATO itself.

How will the other NATO countries respond if Russian troops are introduced en-masse in Syria? In addition, China is also a friend of Syria, supplying it with an array of weapons as well as economic trade (Russia and China are supporters of the Iranians as well). Meanwhile, Israel sits isolated with its back to the Mediterranean with Iranian back Hezbollah to the north and Iranian back Hamas to the south. Not a position I'd like to be in.

So where does that leave us? First, it leaves President Trump with mud on that orange face of his. He has to first find a way to protect our Kurdish allies while at the same time convincing our NATO ally to back out gracefully. He has to be aware of Russia's keen attention to the situation (as well as China's). I would suggest that he be sure to keep both in the loop and well informed of what we're doing. Any misstep could set in motion something no one wants.

Meanwhile, he has to allow Erdogan to save face, especially in the eyes of the Muslim/Arab world. Turkey is 99% Muslim (mainly Sunni), however, it's also very secular and tends to be Westward looking. That makes Erdogan vulnerable to Muslim extremists who would love to turn Turkey into another Iran. As an aside, it would prove to be interesting to see how NATO would deal with a extremist backed civil war in Turkey, especially one supported by Iran. The potential affect could devastate the world economy, especially in Europe.

Trump will have to also find a way to reestablish trust with our Kurdish allies. It's essential, particularly given that ISIS is down but not out in the region. The Kurds not only provided us with military or logistic support, they were major sources of military intelligence. Without them, we would have had a much harder time not just defeating Saddam, but also in defeating ISIS.

Now that Turkish backed groups are busy freeing ISIS prisoners, we can expect that they'll be back with a vengeance. You can expect a uptick in terrorist attacks throughout the region, as well as in Africa, Europe, and even in Asia which has a large Muslim population. Lastly, you can bet that they'll look for ways to strike the U.S. both overseas and domestically.

I generally like Trump. I like his pro-American attitude and willingness to challenge that corrupt bipartisan status quo which has taken control of the government. As I've written many times before, and as academia has verified, America is an Oligarchy. Our Republic is gone. All that's left is the illusion of what we once had similar to what ancient Rome experienced. Trump has shown the moxie to fight back.

Naturally, he's being fought tooth and nail every step of the way by Democrats and Republicans and their corporate owners. Whoever advised Trump to step aside and allow the Turks to invade either knew nothing of political realities of the region or intended to intentionally sabotaged him, knowing the potential outcome of what those actions would bring. I don't know which is worse. I know that control, be it of assets, resources, or us, is the name of game and that lives matter little to the Oligarchy.


Turkish Backed Forces Are Freeing Islamic State Prisoners


Kurdish politician, other civilians 'executed' by Turkey-backed group