Middle East Perspectives by Rick Francona

The Medjool Date - No Longer "Unknown"

2025-12-12T10:58:00.000-08:00

Shields Date Garden - Indio, California

Time for some Arabic language trivia.

Most of you are probably familiar with the Medjool date. They’re one of the most popular date varieties in the world.

The name Medjool comes from the Arabic word majhul (مجهول) meaning "unknown" or "unidentified." It was applied to this variety of date because its place of origin was unknown and the dates do not grow in the same manner as other dates.

With the advent of DNA testing, scientists have been able to determine that the "unknown" date variety originated in a specific grove in the Tafilalt region in eastern Morocco.

Today, California’s Coachella Valley produces more Medjool dates than almost any other region in the world.

Since it is no longer an unknown date, should it not be renamed the ma'ruf (معروف) or "known" date? Or call it the Tafilalt variety?

Yes, I am being facetious....

"Palestinian Exhaustion" – Thoughts on Hamas and the Trump Plan

2025-10-10T16:10:00.000-07:00

In a whirlwind of activity in the Middle East that has resulted in the success of the Trump plan for what appears to be a permanent ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, one has to wonder about the thought process on the Hamas side that led to the agreement.

The question most of those of us who specialize in the Middle East are asking is, “Why would Hamas agree to give up what is their ace-in-the-hole during the entire two year confrontation, the Israeli hostages*?”

The hostages were all that was preventing the Israelis from going what we Christians would call “Old Testament” on Hamas. If they had not had these “detainees,” I believe that the Israel Defense Forces would have laid waste to the entire Gaza Strip.

For those not familiar with the geography, the Gaza Strip is about 25 miles long and seven miles wide, home to about 2.3 million people. We do not have good number on how many of them support Hamas, but at one point, 70 percent of Gazans supported the attacks of October 7, 2023.

That has since declined as the IDF has turned the area into the rubble that resembles Dresden in 1945, but the remaining level of support for the group that is responsible for creating one the greatest humanitarian crises in modern times is astounding.

Let’s go back to the agreement between Hamas and Israel. I understand the pressure applied on Israel by President Donald Trump and other world leaders. What I remain curious about is the pressure applied on Hamas – and it was there – from Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey. I believe that it was the pressure from Turkey that may have carried the day.

It is no secret that Turkish President is an avowed Islamist, a behind-the-scenes supporter of both Hamas and the Islamic State – after all, how did all those ISIS fighters get into Syria and Iraq? I have spent a lot of time on both sides of the border between Turkey and Syria. It is a serious border, especially on the Turkish side, complete with fencing, lighting, guard towers, and minefields. ISIS fighters crossing from Turkey into Syria had to have assistance – either bribery, government collusion, or both.

As is the case with many countries in the Arab and Muslim worlds, Turkey has been a political and diplomatic supporter of Hamas. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has defined Hamas as liberation movement. Even after the October 7, 2023 massacre, he was quoted as saying, “Hamas is not a terrorist organization, it is a group of mujahidin (holy warriors) defending their lands.”

Why was Turkey at the talks?

My take on this is that most of the Arab and Muslim world, and now likely including Turkey, is suffering from “Palestinian Exhaustion.” In other words, they are tired of the Palestinians in general, and Hamas in particular. Even countries that had previously supported the Palestinians — some even condoning the violence of October 7 — have watched for two years as Israel destroyed virtually the entire infrastructure of the Gaza Strip, with no indication that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intended to stop before Hamas was completely eradicated.

I suspect that the leadership of Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey informed what is left of the leadership of Hamas that it was time to stop the fighting. At last count, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, the death toll in Gaza is over 67,000 with almost 170,000 injured, and as many as 11,000 missing (believed to be under the rubble). Hamas has lost most of its senior leadership inside and outside of the Gaza Strip, civilian casualties continue to mount, and there was no possible path to any sort of meaningful victory.

The Trump plan, among other things, calls for the immediate return of the 48 hostages (only 20 of whom are thought to be alive), phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Strip, and the disarming of Hamas. Hamas is still refusing to disarm.

I am surprised that Hamas has agreed to release the remaining hostages in the first phase. While the Israelis have begun the initial phase of their withdrawal, they are still in Gaza with overwhelming military force. Once the hostages are released, Hamas’s leverage is gone. It was their sole bargaining chip. Hamas will now have to rely on whatever security guarantees were made by the negotiating parties in Sharm al-Shaykh.

Hamas realistically had no choice. Support for Hamas in the Arab and Muslim world was declining, the Israelis were relentlessly pursuing Hamas members in the last bastion of Gaza City, and even the hard-core could see that it was only a matter of time before they would be all killed or captured.

___________

* When the international press referred to the Israelis taken on October 7 as “hostages” – the Arabic word is (رهائن – raha’in), most of the Arabic media was offended. They refer to those taken as “detainees” (محتجزين – muhtajazin), which must be some lesser category. When I was the interpreter for the U.S.-Iraqi talks at the end of Desert Storm, this was the agreed-upon word for Kuwaiti prisoners. The Iraqis had referred to them as “guests”( ضيوف – dhiyuf) until I officially objected.

Syrian President Abolishes October 6 Holiday

2025-10-06T15:11:00.000-07:00

Memorial on east bank of Suez Canal where Egyptian troops crossed on October 6, 1973

In a rather surpring move, Syrian President Ahmad al-Shara' announced the abolishment of the October 6 holiday. Officially, it was called “Tishrin Liberation Day” (Arabic: عيد حرب تشرين التحريرية), which commemorated an initially successful Syrian military operation aimed a retaking the Golan Heights from the Israelis. Israel had captured the Heights in the Six-Day War of 1967, and has not only occupied the area, but has formally annexed it to the State of Israel.*

The October 6, 1973 operation was part of joint Egyptian-Syrian coordinated attacks on Israeli-occupied territory in the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. Egypt also celebrates the perceived "victory" on October 6 as Armed Forces Day. The Egyptian army was able to cross the Suez Canal and break through the Israeli defenses, although with heavy casualties.

The Syrian decree drew sharp criticism throughout the Arab world, particularly Egypt. While both Syria and Egypt view their performance in the two-week conflict as a victory, it was a stalemate at best, a defeat at worst. The rest of the Arab world goes along with the mischaracterization as it provides some relief from the humiliation that usually follows their military clashes with the Israel Defense Forces.

I have always been amazed that both Egypt and Syria regard their military operations in the Yom Kippur War as a victory. Let's take a quick look at what started as successful assaults, but soon withered in the face of Israeli counterattacks. It took a few days for the Israelis to stop the advances and activate enough of their reserve forces to mount counteroffensives on two fronts.

First, Egypt. Yes, the Egyptians crossed the Suez Canal and broke through the Israeli defenses, a series of fixed fotifications along the canal known as the Bar-Lev Line. They used water cannons to breach the high sand berms, and built pontoon bridges to move enough troops to overwhelm the sparesly manned fortifications.

The success of that part of the operation has become a teaching point in many military schools - static defenses can be overcome by determined troops using innovative tactics. So, yes, initial success.

Israeli forces pulled back and regrouped. As reinforcements and reserves arrived, the Israelis counterattacked. They eventually encircled the entire Egyptian Third Army in the Sinai and cut them off from resupply and reinforcement, effectively taking them off the battlefield without having to defeat them militarily.

Other Israeli forces crossed the canal and proceeded down the main highway towards Cairo, eventually reaching a position known as Kilometer 101, just over 60 miles from the capital city, where they were located when the ceasefire took effect.

Egyptian victory? Hardly. Yet, it is celebrated like they just won World War II.

Now Syria. Yes, Syria was able to seize portions of the Golan Heights from Israeli forces, only to be forced back as the Israelis regrouped and launched a counteroffensive, advancing on the main road from al-Qunaytirah toward Damascus.**

By the time a ceasefire had been arranged, Israeli troops were as far along the road as the town of Sa'sa', roughly 18 miles from the city. That placed the Syrian capital within artillery range of Israeli gunners.

Syrian victory? Hardly. I will say this for the Syrians. There never seems to be the level of celebration there as compared to the massive celebrations in Egypt. It's hard to claim victory when the opposing army can fire artillery into the capital city.

Shara' may be making a gesture to Israel. There have been a series of talks between Syria and Israel possibly leading to a security arrangement between the two countries. Tension with Israel is something the Syrian president doesn't need. He has his hands full with not only the Druze in the south, but also the Kurds in the northeast, and al-Asad loyalists in the northwest. Then there are the parliamentary elections - you get it.

________

* In 1981, Israel announced "application of Israeli law and administration," replacing the military administration of the area. Although the word "annexation" has never been used, it is in effect what it is. Only the United States recognizes Israeli sovereignty, done so by President Trump in 2019.

** This is the same "road to Damascus" traveled by the apostle Paul (then Saul) cited in the Bible. During my assignment as the Air Attache at the embassy in Damascus, I traveled this road regularly "observing and reporting." There is a Russian Orthodox chapel at what is believed to be the spot of his conversion. And there's a huge Syrian military facility there as well....

Today’s Trivia – “From the River to the Sea”

2025-09-27T11:37:00.000-07:00

“From the River to the Sea” - You’ve heard it at all of the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, or Hamas-support demonstrations. It is the oft-repeated mantra that most of those who are shouting it likely have no idea what it means. The modern mantra includes the additional phrase “Palestine will be free.”

In Arabic, the words rhyme: it is pronounced “min al-BAHar ilah an-NAHar” – in Arabic, the definite article AL before the letter N changes to AN.*

For those not exactly sure what it means, it’s quite simple. The river is the Jordan River, and the sea is the Mediterranean Sea. While the meaning is quite simple, the implication is not.

A look at a map that shows the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean reveals that what the Palestinians believe is their country would include what is now the State of Israel, the West Bank of the Jordan River, and the Gaza Strip.

That is basically the complete territory of the British-administered Palestinian Mandate. The map to the left shows the United Nations partition plan of the Mandate proposed in 1947.

Use of the chant “from the river to the sea” is a call for the elimination of the state of Israel. It also is a refutation of the so-called “two-state solution” called for by the United Nations, European Union, Palestinian Authority, some Arab countries, and even some Israeli political parties. As you would expect, both Hamas and most Israelis are against the plan.

Ask virtually any of the protesters to explain it – most of them can’t.

_________________

* In Arabic grammar and pronunciation, the concepts of solar letters and lunar letters are essential for correctly pronouncing the definite article (“al‑”). Do a ChatGPT search on “Arabic solar and lunar letters” for a complete explanation. It’s a complicated language.

United Kingdom: The Royal Air Force and Power Projection

2025-09-21T21:57:00.000-07:00

In response to the obvious question - what does this have to do with the Middle East? While doing some research on the U.S. strike on the Iranian nuclear facility at Fordow nuclear enrichment facility, specifically the use of aerial refueling to support the B-2 bomber attack, I discovered an interesting fact about what I believe is a Royal Air Force refueling shortfall.

Over the last few years, the Royal Air Force (RAF) has acquired more modern aircraft that normally would allow significant power projection capability in addition to enhanced regional operations.

These include:

- E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft

- P-8A Poseidon (RAF designation Poseidon MRA1) maritime patrol and - anti-submarine warfare aircraft

- C-17A Globemaster III strategic airlifter

- RC-135W Rivet Joint (RAF name Airseeker) signals intelligence (SIGINT) platform

All of these aircraft were built by Boeing Defense, Space & Security, and include aerial refueling capability via the flying boom system. In this system, fuel is transferred from a tanker aircraft to a receiver aircraft via a rigid, telescoping tube called a boom, which is controlled by a boom operator on the tanker.

This system is used extensively by the U.S. Air Force, as well as air forces that operate many American built aircraft, such as the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, and the F-35A.

Flying boom: U.S. Air Force KC-46A Pegasus refuels a Royal Australian Air Force E-7A Wedgetail

Although the RAF operates a fleet of 14 aerial refueling tankers, none of them are equipped with the flying boom system.

The RAF tankers are Airbus A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft and are only equipped with a probe-and-drogue refueling system. In this method, a flexible hose with a drogue (a small parachute-like basket) is trailed from the tanker aircraft, and the receiving aircraft inserts a rigid probe into the drogue to receive fuel.

This system is used by the U.S. Navy* and Marine Corps, as well as air forces that operate some U.S. built aircraft such as the F-18 and some versions of the F-35. Most foreign-built aircraft, many in service with the RAF, are designed to use this system as well.

Royal Air Force Voyager KC3 refueling two Eurofighter Typhoons

Airbus offers a flying boom capability for the A330 MRTT, however, there are no plans to retrofit any of the existing 14 RAF KC2 or KC3 tankers with the Airbus Aerial Refueling Boom System (ARBS).

Of note, the 14 Airbus A330 MRTT Voyager aircraft are owned, managed, and maintained by a private consortium called AirTanker Services Ltd on a 27-year contract that was signed in 2007. The RAF leases these aircraft and its crews operate them for military operations.

This lack of flying boom refueling capability presents an issue for RAF operations planners. Should the United Kingdom have a need to deploy an expeditionary force to anywhere beyond the unrefueled range of these aircraft, they will need to obtain assistance from one of the air forces that operate boom equipped tankers. Also, they have to consider how long they will want the E-7 and RC-135 to remain on station providing command and control, and electronic intelligence support.

Who will they rely on? Obviously, their first call will be to the U.S. Air Force. There is an already established relationship between the two air forces. If for some unlikely reason the U.S cannot or will not support the RAF, there are other options. These are the air forces that operate boom-equipped tankers: United States, France, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Australia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Israel, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, and Chile.

NATO also operates nine boom-equipped aircraft in a partnership of the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Czech Republic.

______________

* U.S. Navy P-8 maritime patrol aircraft and E-6B communications relay aircraft require flying boom refueling, and thus are normally refueled by U.S. Air Force tankers.

U.S. Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker refuels a U.S. Navy E-6B TACAMO over our house (red dot)

Russian Deployment of North Korean Artillery in Ukraine

2025-07-17T14:36:00.000-07:00

170mm Koksan self-propelled howitzer in Iraq

A recent article in Military Watch magazine reported on Russia's use of North Korean-made heavy artillery in Ukraine. The article was based on comments made by the commander of the Ukrainian Defense Intelligence Directorate.

“Unfortunately, this gun is demonstrating itself quite well in battle. It’s firing from quite a long range, and it’s quite good in terms of accuracy. We have data that the Russian Federation was provided 120 pieces. But I think that supply will continue because these guns are demonstrating themselves quite well. This is unfortunate for us because this is artillery for long-range firing.”

Why I am writing about a North Korean artillery piece being used by Russian forces in Ukraine? This is, after all, Middle East Perspectives by Rick Francona. Read on.

I am very familiar with the Koksan gun. In fact, I believe I am one of the few Americans who have ever had the opportunity to get in, on, and under the weapon. I took the above photograph in 1988 at an Iraqi Army artillery depot south of Baghdad. At the time, I was serving as a liaison officer to the Iraqi Directorate of Military Intelligence at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. It was the eighth year of the Iran-Iraq War; we had developed a relationship with the Iraqis to prevent a recurrence of Iraq's mistaken attack on the USS Stark in the Persian Gulf in 1987 in which 37 sailors were killed.

I wrote about this experience in my book, Ally to Adversary - An Eyewitness Account of Iraq's Fall from Grace. From the book:

PROJECT MORNING STAR

Our cooperative relationship with the Iraqis allowed us unprecedented access to the Iraqi military. For example, the Iraqis had captured a large artillery piece from the Iranians during the liberation of Al-Faw. They could not identify its origin and were perplexed by the unusual 170-mm bore. Artillery pieces worldwide are generally manufactured in standard bore sizes, normally 122-mm, 130-mm, 152-mm, 155- mm, 175-mm, and 203-mm. We knew they had captured this gun: Army Colonel Gary Nelson—our newly assigned defense attaché in Baghdad and an artillery officer by training—had seen it while it was on display at a victory celebration in Baghdad. We knew what it was, and we wanted it.

The Iranians had acquired this self-propelled howitzer in 1987. At that time, it was the longest-range artillery piece made anywhere in the world, capable of firing a rocket-assisted projectile to a range of almost sixty kilometers. It had been used by the Iranians to conduct harassment fire from the Al-Faw Peninsula into Kuwait’s northeastern oil fields. The Iranians were applying military pressure on the Kuwaitis in a variety of ways, as punishment for supporting Iraq in the war and for alleged violations of oil export and pricing policies of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries). This artillery fire was complemented by Chinese-made “Silkworm” cruise missile attacks on Kuwait’s oil ports and by naval attacks on Kuwaiti shipping in the Gulf.

The attacks were the catalyst for the March 1987 decision to register Kuwaiti oil tankers under the American flag (a procedure called “reflagging”) to offer some protection for oil shipping in the region. The U.S. Navy could not legally protect foreign shipping, but a merchant ship flying the U.S. flag was entitled to armed escort through the Persian Gulf war zone.

The high level of U.S. interest in the gun had little to do with the situation in the Persian Gulf and rested instead on the fact that the weapon had been designed half a world away to fire on the capital city of a close U.S. ally, South Korea. What the Iraqis had captured on the Al-Faw Peninsula, though they did not realize it, was a weapon designed and built by North Korea to fire on Seoul from the North Korean side of the Demilitarized Zone. The U.S. military refers to it as a Koksan gun.

While inspecting the gun (the project was called Morning Star), we discovered more evidence of Iraq’s use of nerve gas. As I rooted around the cramped driver’s station of the gun system looking for anything of intelligence value—maps, notes, logs, manuals, firing tables, communications charts, and so forth—I found several used atropine injectors. These auto-injectors had been manufactured in Iran and were similar to those I had found earlier on a battlefield on Al-Faw. I showed one of the injectors (and pocketed another) to both Majid and the brigadier general commanding the artillery depot, explaining that these used injectors indicated to me that a nerve agent had been used at Al-Faw.

I was careful not to accuse the Iraqis, but the implication was clear. The brigadier general replied that Iraqi artillery doctrine calls for use of obscurant smoke in the preparatory artillery barrages. His “analysis” was that the Iranians mistook the smoke rounds for nerve gas and, therefore, self-administered atropine.

Not wanting a confrontation while standing in the middle of an Iraqi military installation, I did not mention to the Iraqi officers that we had also discovered decontamination fluid in many places on the weapon, most noticeably trapped in the headlights. It would make no sense for the Iraqis to decontaminate the vehicle if they had only fired smoke rounds at the Iranians.

In the end, the Iraqis decided not to allow us to move the gun back to the United States, so I arranged for a small team of artillery experts and engineers to fly to Iraq and do a field exploitation of the piece. I remember that working on the gun in the blazing sun in the Iraqi desert was, and still is, the hottest I have every been. My insides felt like I was being roasted.

Just as the Ukrainian intelligence chief noted, the gun was well-engineered and manufactured. It was an intelligence boon - these guns pose a threat to U.S. forces in South Korea.

Movie Review: 6 Days (General Film Corp - 2017)

2024-10-08T22:40:00.000-07:00

6 Days is a 2017 joint British and New Zealand production based on the events of April-May 1980 when six armed gunmen stormed the Iranian Embassy in London and took 26 people hostage. The perpetrators of the takeover were Iranian Arabs from the Khuzestan area of Iran. These Arabs are one of the ethnic groups that make up the country, and have at times sought independence from Tehran. That effort continues today.

The six gunmen traveled to the United Kingdom on Iraqi passports. The weapons they used in the attack on the embassy were brought into the UK in diplomatic shipments to the Iraqi Embassy - the entire operation was planned by the Iraqi Intelligence Service. Iraqi President Saddam Husayn was a supporter of the uprising by the Iranian Arabs – at one point, he wanted to annex Khuzestan to Iraq.

After taking control of the embassy, the gunmen demanded that Iran release 91 Arab prisoners in Iranian custody, and that they be provided safe passage out of the United Kingdom. Iran refused the first demand, and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher refused the second – the siege began.

Two teams of the British Army’s elite 22nd Special Air Service (SAS) Regiment were deployed to London and began planning various options to rescue the hostages and either capture or kill the perpetrators.

The movie details each of the six days alternately through the eyes of BBC reporter Kate Adie, SAS team member Lance Corporal Rusty Firmin, and Metropolitan Police hostage negotiator Max Vernon.

Vernon played a critical trying to keep the situation from spiraling out of control . Eventually, he was able to secure the release of five hostages. On the sixth day, one of the perpetrators killed the Iranian Embassy chief press officer.

That murder triggered the approval from Mrs. Thatcher for the SAS teams to assault the embassy, attempt to free the hostages, and either capture or kill the perpetrators.

The SAS did just that. They assaulted the building, much of it caught on broadcast media, and succeeded in rescuing 19 of the remaining 20 hostages; one was killed in the attack, and two others were wounded. Five of the perpetrators were killed by the SAS teams, and one was captured. He was sentenced to life in prison, but was paroled in 2008. He was allowed to remain in the UK since neither Iran nor Iraq would take him, and lives in London under an assumed identity.

The assault took 17 minutes.

Let’s take look at the conditions that led these Iranian Arabs to conduct this attack. In 1979, after the Iranian Islamic revolution had brought down the Shah, there was an uprising in Khuzestan, fed by demands of autonomy. The uprising was crushed by Iranian security forces, resulting in more than a hundred combined casualties from both sides.

Since 1999, the Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahwaz (ASMLA), headquartered in Denmark and The Netherlands has advocated for an independent Arab state in Khuzestan, and has committed acts of terrorism and assassinations in support of this goal. The group is allegedly financed and sponsored by Saudi Arabia.

My major issue with the movie: Subtitles claim that the terrorists, nationalists from the ethnic-Arab Khuzestan area around Abadan, are speaking Arabic. Anyone with more than a week’s language training in either Arabic or Farsi will know that this is Farsi, the language of the majority Persians. Khuzestani Iranians mostly speak Arabic as their native language, but of course, also speak Persian. I would have expected them, given the context of the film, to be speaking Arabic. Yes, I know, small knit pick, but it does impact the credibility of the movie.

How close are the two languages? Arabic is a Semitic language, along with Hebrew and Maltese. Farsi is an Indo-European language in the family of Dari. Urdu, Pashto, and Hindi. There are many crossover words in Farsi that appear to be Arabic, but have different meanings – the linguistics scholars call that a “false cognizant” and is enough to get you in trouble if you think you know the actual meaning.

Strong performances by Mark Strong as Max Vernon, Jamie Bell as Rusty Firmin, and Abbie Cornish as Kate Adie. Since this was closely based on actual events, there was almost no suspension of disbelief required to watch and enjoy this presentation.

I recommend it – it moves quickly and can be intense.

Watch on Amazon Prime.

Movie Review: Damascus Cover (Vertical Entertainment - 2017)

2024-10-06T14:32:00.000-07:00

Damascus Cover is a 2017 espionage film, based on the 1977 Howard Kaplan novel of the same name. The book is the first of four in Kaplan’s The Jerusalem Spy Series. I have not read the book. There are a few confusing scenes, but it can be difficult to boil 321 pages into a 90-minute screenplay.

Mossad officer Ari Ben-Sion, working undercover as German businessman Hans Hoffmann in Berlin in 1989, is recalled and ordered to Damascus to help a Jewish family flee the country. This turns out not to be his actual mission, which is revealed to him only once he is on the ground in Syria. I am not sure why he was not just briefed with the real mission so he could properly prepare and train.

There is, of course, the required romantic entanglement – this with an American photojournalist.

There is also the required double-crossing and changes of allegiance as the story unfolds. Hoffman/Ben-Sion adjusts his operation to exfiltrate a Syrian scientist and quickly finds himself in way over his head with lessening chances of success.

I will not describe what happen so as not to spoil it for any of you who wish to see it. You will have to watch it to the very end – I was surprised.

The movie stars Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Olivia Thirlby, Jürgen Prochnow, Igal Naor, Navid Negahban and John Hurt (in his final role).

I must compliment the producers for the excellent attention to detail when it comes to replicating the country of Syria and the city of Damascus in the Moroccan countryside and city of Casablanca, even down to the accurate Damascus street signs, including shari’ madhat basha (A Street Called Straight) and the Hamidiyah suq.

The movie received mixed reviews. I enjoyed it, not only because it took me back to my posting at the US Embassy in Damascus, but because it was a good story not requiring too much suspension of disbelief (except maybe at the very end).

Watch it on Amazon Prime.

REVISED - Miniseries Review: "The Last Post" (BBC - 2017)

2024-06-13T18:15:00.000-07:00

I originally reviewed this excellent miniseries in 2018 soon after it was released. I watched it again because of what is happening in the region, including the Yemeni Houthi involvement in the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza and the West Bank, and I was in the mood for some good entertainment. You can read that initial review here. I was able to get much more out of it the second time – there is a lot there.

I highly recommend it on the same two counts as before. Not only is it solid entertainment – the performances across the board of the BBC production are excellent – but also addresses the British experience in Aden (‘Adan) in the mid-1960’s; It is somewhat applicable to the geopolitical situations in which the United States finds itself today in the region.

"The Last Post"* follows a unit of the Royal Military Police and their families in Aden in 1965. Newlyweds Captain Joe Martin and his wife Honor arrive into the mix and must adapt to their new environment and their new lives together. Throughout the community, relationships are tested as the women struggle against what is expected of them as British Army wives and their own preferences. At work, the soldiers fight a growing local revolutionary insurgency and face constant threats from hand grenades and snipers.

That’s the theatrical story that carries the underlying theme – a declining empire dealing with local nationalism and confronting “liberation” movements. It also deals with military relationships between the officers (and their families), noncommissioned officers, and enlisted troops. It offers insight into the British Army, still one of the best military forces in the world. The series did not fully explain the command relationships between the various military units in Aden, but, this is entertainment, not a documentary. An added predictable touch is meddling from an American journalist (ably played by Australian actress Essie Davis).

On November 30, 1967, British forces withdrew from Aden and the independent People's Republic of South Yemen was proclaimed. It lasted until 1990 when South Yemen and North Yemen (Yemen Arab Republic) merged to form the Republic of Yemen.

We’ve seen how that has worked out. The port of Aden was the location of the October 12, 2000 terrorist attack on the US Navy Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Cole (DDG-67) while the ship was conducting an ill-advised, politically-motivated refueling/“show the flag” stop in Yemen. Read my comments on that folly.

I want to give a shout out to the standout performances by Stephen Campbell Moore as Lieutenant Ed Laithwaite (I see some of me in his character), and Jessica Raine and Essie Davis for, well, first, being Jessica Raine and Essie Davis. Jessica Raine’s performance as Alison Laithwaite, a conflicted, alcoholic, unfaithful wife dealing with her marriage, is excellent, often to the haunting rendition by Ketty Lester of “Love Letters (Straight from Your Heart).”

I highly recommend the series. It moves quickly, and despite a few questionable military tactics, requires very little suspension of disbelief to watch.

Watch it on Amazon Prime.

_____

* The "Last Post" is a British and Commonwealth bugle call used at end of day ceremonies, as well as military funerals, and ceremonies commemorating those who have died in war, similar to the US armed forces’ “Taps.”

Listen to the “Last Post” by the Royal Marines at Prince Philip’s Funeral.

Israeli Airstrike on Iranian Consulate in Damascus Kills Senior Iranian IRGC Leader

2024-04-01T11:44:00.000-07:00

Iranian Consulate - Damascus, Syria

An Israeli airstrike in the early evening hours of April 1 on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria, killed the apparent target of the operation, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi.

According to Iranian television, Zahedi was the commander of Qods Force units in Syria and Lebanon. The Qods Force is a capable special operations organization charged with much of Iranian activities in the region and around the world. A previous commander of the Qods Force, Qassem Soleimani, was killed in an American airstrike in Baghdad in January 2020.

According to the semi-official IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News Agency, five other IRGC commanders and two advisers were killed in the consulate along with Zahedi. They include Zahedi's deputy and chief or staff. The Islamic Republic News Agency reported that the consulate building was completely destroyed. Syrian television added that everyone in the building was killed.

Mohammad Reza Zahedi

Zahedi is one the IRGC's top commanders with a wealth of operational and command experience. A combat veteran of the Irani-Iraq War, he previously served as the commander of the IRGC Air Force, then commander of the IRGC Ground Force, before taking command of all Qods Forces deployed to Lebanon and Syria - one of the key commands in the IRGC.

The loss of Zahedi and virtually his entire senior staff is a severe blow to Iranian foreign policy in the region - this was a bad day for the Iranians.

I am impressed with the execution of the Israeli operation.

I lived in Damascus not far from these Iranian diplomatic facilities - embassy, consulate, and ambassador's residence. These are located in crowded areas with civilian residential compounds and buildings. The Iranian diplomatic staff in Damascus reported that neither the ambassador nor any other personnel were injured in the attack - this shows the accuracy of the Israeli strike.

It also highlights the ability of the Israeli intelligence services to determine that at least eight IRGC commanders and advisers would be in the consulate building at the same time, and determine it in time to take action to eliminate the targets.

Impressive.

Taliban to revive policy of stoning and flogging women

2024-03-30T11:55:00.000-07:00

Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada

Taliban Leader Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada announces a return to the policy of stoning women:

"We will soon implement the punishment for adultery. We will flog women in public. We will stone them to death in public. We will bring shari'ah to this land.”

How enlightened - stoning and flogging.

Stoning as a form of capital punishment goes back to ancient times. Stoning appears to have been the standard method of capital punishment in ancient Israel. The Torah and Talmud prescribe stoning as punishment for a number of offenses, however, Rabbinic Judaism developed a number of procedural constraints which made these laws practically unenforceable.

Although stoning is not mentioned in the Quran, classical Islamic jurisprudence imposed stoning as a shari'ah punishment for adultery based on hadith (sayings attributed to Muhammad).

Only a few isolated instances of legal stoning are recorded in pre-modern history of the Islamic world. In recent times, stoning has been a legal or customary punishment in Iran, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, parts of Nigeria, Afghanistan, Brunei, and tribal parts of Pakistan. That said, it is rarely practiced - it appears that is about to change in Afghanistan.

If you want to see just how barbaric Islamic stoning is, I recommend the excellent movie The Stoning of Soraya M, a 2008 movie about the stoning of a young woman in Iran.

Scene from "The Stoning of Soraya M"

The movie stars the talented Shohreh Aghdashloo, Mozhan Navabi, and Jim Caviezel, and is available for free on YouTube.

I will caution that the stoning scenes are graphic and intense. The requirements for stoning are quite precise, as shown here (click here for a larger view):

Welcome to the 7th Century.

Interesting Syrian Air Force Flight Activity

2023-02-13T10:23:00.000-08:00

Syrian Air Force IL-76 YK-ATA

The Syrian Air Force (SYAF), officially the Syrian Arab Air Force, operates three Ilyushin IL-76T (NATO: Candid) heavy lift transport aircraft: YK-ATA, YK-ATB, and YK-ATD (shown top to bottom). A fourth aircraft (YK-ATC) has not been operational for almost 30 years.

These are older photos – all three aircraft are in need of depot-level maintenance, upgrade, and overhaul. This is done at at the Ilyushin facility in Ramenskoye, Russia. Based on publicly available flight tracking information, YK-ATD was overhauled in 2016, YK-ATB in 2018, and YK-ATA in 2019.

I suspect that YK-ATD is in dire need of major maintenance - it has not flown since November 24, 2022, and then only for a short domestic flight. It appears to have become what we in the U.S. Air Force refer to as a “hangar queen.”

Do not let the colorful livery of SYRIANAIR (Syrian Airlines) fool you – I have flown on both SYRIANAIR and with the SYAF - they’re different. One is a second-tier Middle East airline with great passenger service, and the other is a third-rate air force transport operation that worried me. I have flown on SYAF Antonov AN-24 (NATO: Coke), Tupolev TU-134 (NATO: Crusty), and Yakovlev YAK-40 (NATO: Codling) aircraft – the condition of the YAK-40 and AN-24 was far below U.S. Air Force standards.

The three IL-76 aircraft are actually assigned to the 585th Transport Squadron of the Syrian Air Force 29th Air Transport Brigade, based at Damascus International Airport.

The military ramp at the airport is southwest of the civilian terminal. I have been on the 29th Brigade ramp a few times to catch attaché flights on the extremely rare occasions when the Syrians included American officers in official attaché trips.

These transports were built in 1980 (YK-ATA and YK-ATB) and 1981 (YK-ATD) – I remember them in the original IL-76MD (military) configuration, complete with tail guns. In the early 2000s, all were converted to their current IL-76T configuration.

Over the past few years, the Syrian IL-76’s made almost daily resupply flights to the regime-controlled enclave of al-Qamishly in northeast Syria, and almost daily flights to Mehrabad airport in Tehran, Iran. Once in a while, one of the aircraft would fly to/from Moscow.

That pattern has changed a bit.

I have noticed a massive increase of SYAF IL-76 flights between Damascus International Airport (read that as 29th Air Brigade) and Benghazi/Beninah International Airport (coincidentally also an air base at which SYAF fighter pilots were assigned to support Mu’amar al-Qadhafi in the 1970s). It is in the area of Libya controlled by Field Marshal Khalifah Haftar's Libyan National Army (LNA).

Syrian media reported that Haftar’s armed forces have airlifted relief supplies to victims of the February 6 earthquakes that have devastated part of northern Syria. Some of that aid was delivered by LNA aircraft to the Russian-leased Humaymim air base south of Latakia.

Looking over publicly available flight records for the past three months, an interesting international flight pattern emerges.

YK-ATA has flown 13 round-trip flights between Damascus, Syria and Benghazi, Libya, which seems to be its primary route. It did fly to Moscow three times, Beirut once, and once to, for whatever reason, Oral in northwestern Kazakhstan.

YK-ATB flew seven round-trip flights between Damascus, Syria and Benghazi, Libya. It also flew to Tehran/Mehrabad airport, using a ramp dedicated solely to the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), four times. Additionally, it was used at least six times for the routine domestic flight from Damascus to al-Qamishly.

In the last 90 days for the Syrian Air Force, there have been at least:

• 20 round trip flights to Benghazi, Libya (most before the earthquake)

• 4 round trip flights to Tehran/Mehrabad, Iran

• 3 round trip flights to Moscow/Vnukovo, Russia

• 1 round trip flight to Beirut, Lebanon

• 1 round trip flight to Oral, Kazakhstan

I am puzzled by the number of flights to Libya, specifically to the area controlled by Khalifah Haftar. If anyone has any insight into the relationship between Syrian President Bashar al-Asad and Khalifah Haftar, please inform me.

I will note that after the earthquakes that created catastrophic damage in northern Syria, all return flights from Benghazi to Syria stopped first in Latakia, and in at least one case in Aleppo, both areas that have suffered catastrophic earthquake damage. I have to assume that these aircraft were transporting relief supplies from Benghazi.

My question: What were the Syrian IL-76 aircraft moving between Damascus and Benghazi before the earthquake?

Miniseries Review: "Fauda - Season 4" (Netflix 2023)

2023-01-30T22:05:00.001-08:00

Fauda (the Arabic word for chaos) Season 4 is now available in the United States, much to the delight of fans of the series – I’m one. The first three seasons* were all “must see,” and this season again is in that category. I will try to avoid spoilers in my review.

This season’s action shifts to the international stage with operational activities in Belgium, Syria, and Lebanon as well as the usual venues of Israel and the West Bank. The antagonists of this season’s operations are also international – Lebanese Hizballah.

The former chief of the IDF special operations unit, Captain Gabi Ayoub, is running an intelligence source inside Hizballah via the Mossad station in Brussels. The source reports that Hizballah is planning a large operation in Israel and the West Bank. This is unprecedented for Hizballah – normally they strike Israeli targets from their home territory in Lebanon. Operating within the Palestinian Authority is an escalation and exactly what Israel does not want – cooperation between Hizballah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Gabi and the main character Doron – now brought back out of retirement – travel to Brussels to make contact with the asset. As with many intelligence assets, at times the case officer has to do a bit of “hand-holding” and reassuring. Suffice it to say that once the two get to Brussels, things go downhill quickly. The team follows in support.

The asset Gabi is running – Omar Tawalbe – turns out to be the brother of an Israeli Arab – a female Israeli police officer. Lucy Ayoub’s performance as Maya Binyamin (née Tawalbe) is stellar.

As I have advised in the past three seasons, pay attention to the languages being spoken. For the most part, if the characters’ voices are in English, what you are listening to is Hebrew dubbed into English. When the characters are speaking Arabic, the audio is played in Arabic and subtitled. The Arabic subtitles are an interpretation rather than a literal translation, and are generally well done.

I especially enjoyed this season’s Arabic dialog as the characters not only were speaking the Palestinian Levantine dialect, but also the Lebanese Levantine dialect, depending on the venue of the action. For the most part, the Arabic was excellent, although at times a bit of an Israeli accent was evident. This is important since the special operations team often impersonates Arabs. If you are going to do that, your accent has to be perfect.

There are letters and sounds in Hebrew that do not exist in Arabic, and vice versa. During one of my liaison tours with an Arab intelligence service, the officers explained that when they create security challenges and responses (the “password”), they always chose words that are difficult for native Hebrew speakers to vocalize correctly.

For example, Hebrew-speakers have problems with the Arabic aspirated HAH (what we Arabic linguists sometimes refer to as the “hard H”). Hebrew speakers tend to say the Arabic KHAH – Hizballah normally sounds like Khizballah, which raises a flag that the subject is not a native Arabic speaker.

I will complement one of the actors, Itzik Cohen (playing Captain Ayoub), on his vocalization of Arabic. Cohen does not speak Arabic, and is coached on his lines before each scene. It sounds native to me. In episode 1 (minute 26:45), Cohen/Ayoub breaks into an Arabic song (Habibi ya ‘ayni – My love, my eyes) at a wedding, and it is well done.

Season 4 is a definite must watch. As I have commented in the past, enjoying good fiction requires the literary concept of “suspension of disbelief.” In other words, even though you know that some of the things that happen in a book, movie, or show range from “that’s a stretch” to “that’s not possible,” you suspend your disbelief and enjoy the story.

While there was quite a bit of the suspension of disbelief required in this season, especially the scenes in Syria and Lebanon, it was never to the level that I was tempted to stop watching – in fact, I couldn’t stop watching.

Watch it on Netflix.

_______________________

*My reviews of the previous seasons:

Season One

Season Two

Season Three

Miniseries Review: "Rise of Empires: Ottoman – Mehmed vs Vlad" (Netflix - 2022)

2023-01-07T13:09:00.001-08:00

The second season* of this docudrama about the Ottoman Empire focuses on the rivalry/enmity between Sultan Mehmed II** and Vlad III Dracula (also known as Vlad the Impaler), the Voivode of Wallachia, a vassal state under the Ottomans.

The two leaders had a complicated relationship spanning two decades. In 1442, when Vlad was only 12, he and younger brother Radu were sent to the court of Ottoman Sultan Murad II (Mehmed’s father and predecessor) as collateral to assure the sultan that their father – Vlad II, then Voivode – would support Ottoman policies. It was here that Vlad learned to speak fluent Turkish and studied Ottoman culture, including its military strategies and tactics. It was also the time in which he was exposed to Mehmed, who was just two years his junior.

Vlad was released in 1448 after the assassination of his father and elder brother. Although he was able to replace his father, his reign lasted only two month. It was not until 1452 that he was able to reclaim the voivodate.

At this time, Wallachia was required to pay tribute to the Sultan. In return, the Ottomans stayed out of Wallachia’s internal affairs. It was a beneficial arrangement for both sides – Vlad had a throne, and Wallachia served as a buffer to the Kingdom of Hungary, which Mehmed, who had acceded to the sultanate after the death of Murad II, regarded as a threat.

After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the victorious 21-year old Mehmed set his sights on expanding the Empire further into Europe.

Mehmed continued his conquests in Anatolia with its reunification and in Southeast Europe as far west as Bosnia. During this time, Vlad paid the tribute and remained on the Wallachian throne.

In 1459, Vlad stopped paying the tribute to the Sultan, considering a possible alliance with Hungary. Mehmed sent two envoys to remind Vlad of his obligations and to collect the tribute. Vlad ordered them to be impaled — his preferred method of execution.

This act of diplomatic perfidy was too much for Mehmed – he mobilized an army of as many as 150,000 troops, including the well-disciplined and highly-trained Janissaries,*** to subdue Wallachia and remove Vlad from the throne.

Without spoiling the outcome of the struggle between Mehmed and Vlad, the conflict reached its zenith during the battle for the Wallachian capital city of Târgoviște in 1462.

After the battle, Vlad left a field filled with thousands of impaled victims as a deterrent to the Ottoman forces. He remains a Romanian folk hero for his fight against the far superior Ottoman forces.

I recommend it, but suggest keeping your internet search engine of choice handy to clarify things that might not be well-known to people who do not have a background in Middle East or Central European history. I needed it as well, since I normally begin my presentations about the Middle East with the defeat of the Ottomans in World War One and the breakup of the empire shortly thereafter.

Watch it on Netflix.

_____

* The first season of this series dealt with Mehmed’s successful conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire capital of Constantinople in 1453, after which it was renamed Istanbul. I reviewed the first season, and highly recommend it.

** Mehmed is the Turkish rendition of Muhammad. His full title was Fatih Sultan Mehmed II (Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror).

*** The Janissary corps was originally manned by Christian youths taken from the Balkan provinces, converted to Islam, and drafted into Ottoman service. Subject to strict rules, including celibacy, the Janissaries were known particularly for their archery, but by the 16th century had also acquired rudimentary firearms.

Movie Review: The Swimmers (Netflix - 2022)

2023-01-04T00:47:00.006-08:00

Sometimes you need a story that reminds you of the power and resilience of the human spirit. This movie does that in spades.

By August of 2015, the civil war in Syria had been going on for over four years. Having lived in Syria and covering much of the civil was as a military analyst for CNN, this was of great interest.

The violence was non-stop; irreplaceable antiquities were destroyed as multiple factions began killing each other; a flood of refugees* created a humanitarian disaster and forever changed the character of numerous European cities; our nominal Turkish NATO allies strained the unity of the alliance with senseless interventions focused not on the new threat from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), but on a generated/perceived threat from the Kurds in northern Syria while turning a blind eye to their almost open borders allowing jihadi terrorists from the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe to join ISIS in Syria; and American air support of the only group – Kurds – willing to take on ISIS.

The situation was so chaotic that a month later, the Russians deployed troops to bolster – and save – the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Asad, their puppet in Damascus. The Russian intervention was not driven by love for Bashar al-Asad, but to guarantee continued access to a naval base on the Syrian Mediterranean coast at Tartus, and an air base just south of the port city of Latakia.

It was against this backdrop that two teenage sisters, Yusra and Sarah Mardini, decided that the violence in their Damascus suburb of Darayya had gotten so bad that they would try to leave Syria and seek refuge in Europe.

I am very familiar with the Darayya area. When I was posted as the air attaché at the American embassy in Damascus, I lived a mere half of a mile from the area. It is located on the edge of a Syrian air force base which was often the venue of sensitive activities. I took note – the role of an attaché is to observe and report.

Darayya saw massive destruction as the city was initially controlled by opposition groups. Given the sensitive location near the al-Mazzah air base, the regime decided to commit whatever force was necessary to bring it back under control. There was substantial damage to the city, and there were numerous civilian casualties in what became known as the “Darayya massacre.”

These two sisters are not just any teenagers. Both of the girls, especially the younger Yusra, were world class competitive swimmers, and had competed internationally. Yusra’s goal was to swim in the Olympics. Training at that level during the ongoing civil was impossible, despite being trained by their father, a champion swimmer himself.

I did note that there is almost no mention of the Bashar al-Asad regime in the movie. I am not surprised - the family appears to be proud Syrians, and, the key here, Christian. During the civil war, most Christians sided with the government, fearing the backlash if a more Islamist regime replaced the secular Ba'ath party regime.

I do not want to spoil the flow of the movie. It is an incredible story of the Mardini sisters who finally realized their dreams. I am sure some of it is dramatized, but considering what these girls went through, I can live with it.

Yusra has become a United Nations goodwill ambassador, and Sarah became a volunteer assisting refugees in 2016 on the Greek island of Lesbos, where they arrived in Europe in 2015. Although she was arrested for her activities, she was allowed to post bond and leave Greece. Note to Sarah: Don’t go back.

Sarah and Yusra Mardini

When the movie was released at the Toronto Film Festival, the audience gave a four-minute standing ovation for the two sisters and the two Lebanese actresses (Manal and Nathalie Issa). Well deserved, in my opinion.

It’s a good movie and a great story - watch it on Netflix.

_________

* I think the correct term is refugee. These people are not going back to Syria. Why would they?

Syrian "Voice of the Capital" reporting on recent Israeli strikes

2022-09-17T13:15:00.000-07:00

(Note: This is my translation of an article from Syrian "Voice of the Capital")

Israeli air raids destroy early warning and air defense systems in the environs of Damascus

17 September 2022

Military sources close to the Syrian government discovered damage to radar and air defense systems as the result of the latest Israeli raids in the environs of Damascus.

Voice of the Capital sources said the surface-to-surface missiles fired from the Golan Heights struck a Buk-M air defense system and an early warning radar located on one of the hills around the town of al-Sabinah south of Damascus.

The source added that the Israeli missiles also hit an air defense system belonging to the 75th Brigade on a mountain in the village of Marnah in the al-Kiswah district - the 75th Brigade belongs to the 1st Division of the [Syrian] Army.

The sources also confirmed that 15 were killed or wounded during the direct targeting of the radar and air defense bases south of the city of Damascus.

The area also saw heavy movement of ambulances after the bombing to transport the dead and wounded to nearby hospitals.

Voice of the Capital correspondents observed intense military movement by the Syrian army and Iranian militias during the bombing.

Israeli aircraft launched air raids targeting several points in the environs of Damascus with various munitions.

The Syrian government, via its military media, acknowledged the killing of five air defense troops, while saying that the air defenses engaged most of the Israeli missiles which targeted the environs of al-Kiswah and Damascus International Airport.

Movie Review: The Beauty Queen of Jerusalem (Netflix – 2022)

2022-09-08T17:14:00.002-07:00

If you are interested in Middle East history and culture, this series is for you.

It combines an interesting fictional story woven around a Sephardim Jewish family with an accurate portrayal of the tumultuous events in Jerusalem during the years between the two world wars. It spans the period from the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in 1917, through most of the period of the British Mandate – including the Arab-Jewish conflicts and terrorism against each other as well as against the British occupation forces. The first season (in two parts totaling 20 episodes) ends in 1942. The series has been renewed for a second season, which will be screened towards the end of 2022.

In addition to an accurate portrayal of historic events, it also addresses the struggle between Oriental and European Jews, at that time referred to as Sephardic and Ashkenazi, respectively. Today, the Sephardim are identified as those whose roots were in the Iberian Peninsula and parts of North Africa, and those from other areas in the Middle East and Western Asia are referred to a Mizrahi Jews. There are still vestiges of perceived class distinctions between the Ashkenazim on one hand and the Sephardim and Mizrahim on the other.

As with many cultures in the region in this time frame, marriages were often arranged, as in the family around which this story revolves. It also addresses other social mores at the time, dealing with infidelity, adultery, prostitution, women’s jobs, single motherhood, loan sharking, divorce – it runs the gamut.

I recommend the series – it is truly entertaining – with the following caveats.

- The story line runs on two time lines, about a decade apart. Although the year is usually displayed when the timeline switches, it can be a bit confusing. You have to remember at times that you already know things that have not happened yet.

- Use subtitles. The original soundtrack is in Hebrew, which is dubbed into English. When the characters speak English, it can be heavily accented (except for the British troops, of course). There is also some Arabic (Lebanese and Palestinian dialect) and some Ladino, the language of the Sephardic Jews who originate in Spain and which is based on Spanish. In my opinion, Ladino is to Spanish as Yiddish is to German.

- You will hear references to several Jewish organizations:

-- Haganah, Hebrew for “defense,” was a Zionist military organization in Palestine from 1920 to 1948. Organized to combat the revolts of Palestinian Arabs against the increasing Jewish immigration and settlement of Palestine, it is the forerunner of what is now the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

-- ETZEL is a Hebrew acronym for Irgun Tzvai Le'umi, “National Military Organization,” a Jewish underground group established in what is now Israel during the period of the British Mandate, which conducted terrorist attacks against both Arabs and British troops. In 1946, members of the group (including future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin) would bomb the British headquarters in the King David Hotel, killing 91 (including 15 Jews) and injuring 45, mostly innocent civilians outside the hotel. It will be interesting to see how that event is portrayed in the next season.

-- Histadrut (General Organization of Workers) was a socialist organization founded in December 1920 in Haifa to look out for the interests of Jewish workers. It became one of the most powerful institutions in the mandatory area and remains so today.

Watch it on Netflix.

Movie Review: All the Old Knives (Amazon – 2022)

2022-04-12T22:55:00.000-07:00

This movie focuses on a CIA investigation into a failed intelligence operation that takes place in Vienna, Austria eight years earlier. The movie is set in 2020, with the botched operation in 2012. The film uses flashbacks mixed in with the contemporary story, and with a few exceptions, flows well.

The movie is inspired by actual events. Any of us who have been subjected to either Department of Defense or Central Intelligence Agency internal investigations of botched intelligence operations – I have been subjected to both – will easily identify with the “witch hunt” mentality present in the movie.

As always, I will try not to reveal things that will spoil your enjoyment of the film, which actually requires very little suspension of disbelief. The events depicted in the movie actually happened (for the most part).

Most of the action takes place in city of Vienna, particularly at the CIA station in the U.S. Embassy there. I have spent a lot of time in Vienna (wife’s family), and for the most part, the scenes matched the script, with one glaring exception – the Gloriette was badly mismatched.

The other venue in the movie, which was beautifully videographed, is the Monterey Peninsula - specifically Carmel-by-the-Sea and Pacific Grove, as well as the stunning vistas of California Highway 1 along the Monterey County coast. To those of us who spent time learning foreign languages at the Defense Language Institute at the Presidio of Monterey, it was a trip down memory lane. My wife and I liked it so much, we were married there, and vacation there to this day.

The plot: A Turkish passenger jet is hijacked by Islamist terrorists at the airport in Vienna. The CIA station rallies to gather information on who perpetrated the crime, and any possible solutions.

Based on an interrogation, an Agency source, now dead – one assumes he died under “enhanced interrogation” (how inconvenient)– claimed that there was a leak (a “mole” in the parlance) from inside the Vienna station that led to the debacle that ensues. I am being vague here so as to not reveal too much.

Eight years later (now 2020), “Langley” – “Agency-speak” for CIA headquarters – wants to know what went wrong, or more correctly, if there was a leak at Vienna Station and who the mole was. One of the case officers from that botched operation – well-played by Chris Pine – is assigned to re-investigate the station’s actions and ultimately discover the mole.

Of course, there are the unnecessary gratuitous sex scenes and too many personal aspects to the story. Enjoy them – the actors are attractive – and the storylines are not that farfetched.

The plot line takes numerous twists and keeps you guessing until the end – well done. Enjoy trying to figure out who the mole was.

The four main characters were all played well:

· Chris Pine as Henry Pelham

· Thandiwe Newton as Celia Harrison

· Laurence Fishburne as Vick Wallinger

· Jonathan Pryce as Bill Compton

Bottom line: Enjoyable film - watch it, immerse yourself in the plot’s twists and turns, and put a bit of money on who you think it is.

You can watch it on Amazon.

___________________
Footnote: I was involved in the National Security Agency coverage of the hijacking of a 1984 Kuwaiti Airways flight to Tehran, Iran, and listened live to the murder of an American diplomat. It still haunts me.

Movie Review: The Operative (Yuval Adler, 2019)

2022-03-23T13:41:00.002-07:00

The Operative is an adaptation of the novel The English Teacher by Yiftach Reicher-Atir. Reicher-Atir is a former Israeli army commando (he led part of the force during the 1976 raid on Entebbe) and commander of the army’s special operations directorate.

Some of the reviews label the author as a former intelligence officer, however, given his long career as a special operations soldier, I believe he has had exposure to many intelligence operations, but is not an intelligence officer himself. That would explain some of the tradecraft missteps in the film.

The movie stars Diane Kruger, Martin Freeman, and Cas Anvar. I think Kruger and Anvar were quite credible in their roles. Freeman, a skilled actor with a long list of credits, was badly miscast in this role as a British Jew and Mossad case officer. Watching him in that role required quite a bit of suspension of disbelief. (That is what fiction requires – that you are able to enjoy the story even though you know it is not only untrue but sometimes unbelievable.)

The film revolves around a Mossad operation to place an operative (Kruger) in Tehran to meet an Iranian electronics dealer (Farhad, played by Anvar), with the goal to eventually recruit him. I’ll not spoil the experience for you if you choose to watch it.

Most of the tradecraft is fine, if a bit elementary. The missteps are quite obvious to the trained eye, however. The use of two legends simultaneously is dangerous if not impossible, the clumsy use of easily detectable electronic communications, and the strange side operation to smuggle explosives into Iran via Turkey – puzzling at best, unnecessary at worst.

I still wonder how Rachel (Kruger’s character) was supposed to make initial contact with her target, but I guess I will have to find the book and read it – it has recently been translated into English.

Bottom line: for all its minor flaws, it’s still a good story. It shows a side of the intelligence business not often seen – the toll of operational life on the people who do this for a living. It can be extremely stressful. Trust me.

Watch it on Netflix.

Movie Review: Death on the Nile (20th Century, 2022)

2022-02-12T23:40:00.006-08:00

There have been three movie adaptations of Agatha Christie’s 1937 novel Death on the Nile. The first was in 1978 starring Peter Ustinov as the legendary Hercule Poirot, followed by the gold standard version starring the quintessential Poirot portrayed by David Suchet in 2004.

In 2022, we have Kenneth Branagh attempting to salvage his disastrous portrayal of the Belgian sleuth in his adaptation and remake of Murder on the Orient Express. When I saw the publicity surrounding the release of his adaptation of the novel, I was skeptical.

So when I saw that Branagh remade one of my favorite movies, I was skeptical – given his past, I was not in the mood to give him the benefit of the doubt. Then, I thought, “Okay, I have personally been to all of the venues of this novel – let’s see how he interprets this.”

Flashback: In 1987, I was in war-torn southern Iraq (don’t ask) driving north of al-Basrah when I can across an old airfield. There was a vintage tri-motor aircraft parked on the side of the hangar bay and I thought to myself, “This is an Agatha Christie moment.” It haunts me to this day.

Years later, I was in Egypt (again, don’t ask), and took the opportunity to visit the historical sites in Aswan and Abu Simbel. Agatha Christie wrote her novel in 1937 while staying at the First Cataract hotel in Aswan. I stayed at the same hotel, which by then had become the Pullman Hotel, and visited Philae Island as seen in the movie – what great venues. I understand these were recreated in a movie studio in England, but the producers did an excellent job. (See my photos of Aswan from the late-1990s)

To the critics that will claim that the scenes what is purported to be Abu Simbel are not accurate, remember that prior to the construction of the Aswan High Dam in 1960, these archeological treasures were rescued from the resultant rise of the water level and the creation of Lake Nasser.

What most of us have visited are the relocated actual monuments. (See my photos of Abu Simbul from the late 1990’s)

I watched the Branagh version on an XD screen, then came home and watched the 2004 David Suchet version to make a comparison. Branagh in Murder on the Orient Express and this adaptation of Murder on the Nile was like night and day – Branagh has completely changed his portrayal of Hercule Poirot from a rigid automaton to an actual likeable character with flaws and personal introspections.

I like the updating of a 1937 period novel to the 21^st Century – the adaptation is well done, with maybe the exception of the gay couple (no spoiler alert here). It works well for a story told in the 1920s.

Go see it – immerse yourself in the minimal suspension of disbelief. Kenneth Branagh is totally believable as Hercule Poirot. He may not be the quintessential Poirot as portrayed by David Suchet, but it’s a fast-moving and enjoyable two hours.

Movie Review: Munich – The Edge of War (Netflix, 2021)

2022-01-23T23:25:00.003-08:00

Yes, I know this is not about the Middle East. I am reviewing this because of the intelligence aspects of the movie.

As with all good fiction, the reader must exercise what authors refer to as “the suspension of disbelief” - avoidance of critical thinking or logic in examining something unlikely or impossible in reality. Watch it, and go along with it for the sake of enjoyment. This movie does a fair job in blurring that line between belief and disbelief, although there are a few scenes of various meetings that are pretty far-fetched.

The movie, an adaptation of British author Robert Harris’s novel Munich, is set in 1938 as Adolph Hitler threatens to seize the Sudetenland portion of Czechoslovakia, claiming it to be rightfully German territory. Of course, as anyone remotely familiar with modern history knows, there were negotiations between British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Hitler. Yes, the Italians and French were there as well, but this was basically London versus Berlin. This is where “appeasement diplomacy” began.

The talks took place in Munich. The two lead characters who walk us through these events turn out to be a British civil servant (Hugh Legat) and a German diplomat (Paul von Hartmann), both of whom attended Oxford for a period of two years in the early 1930’s, and struck up a friendship.

At some point in the preparations for the talks, Legat is summoned to a meeting with a colonel from MI-6 (British Military Intelligence, now the Secret Intelligence Service, although the MI-6 moniker is still heard). At that meeting, a plan is set in motion that utilizes the untrained Legat as an intelligence operative.

I will leave the political and other aspects of the movie to others, and don’t want to provide any more spoilers that I may have inadvertently done. I will focus on the intelligence aspects of the movie.

First, dispatching a completely untrained civil servant on a dangerous intelligence operation into "unfriendly" territory without any preparations whatsoever is a recipe for disaster. At the very minimum, Legat should have been given some rudimentary counterintelligence training – basic do’s and don’t, some simple surveillance detection concepts (there was no time for real training), some sort of concealment device for documents, a communications plan, and emergency/distress signals. He got none of that.

It gets worse – he is tasked by the MI-6 colonel to carry out this operation without notifying his superiors. Not a good idea, when you are working at the level of the prime minister and his most senior adviser Sir Horace Wilson. What might be sound operational procedure could very appear to be to working at odds with your own government. At least the colonel provided some clandestine support, but I’ll stop there.

It becomes obvious that there has been an MI-6 penetration of the German government at the highest levels – that’s a real intelligence success. I suspect there was a "walk-in" to the defense attache office at the British Embassy, but that's just speculation. It rarely gets any better than what we deduce is happening, but in this case, it could have been just that. Unfortunately, they never take it to the next level.

In any operation, the overriding concern is collection of the intelligence. I remember having that drilled into me at intelligence operations school – get the intelligence, get the intelligence, get the intelligence. That’s why you are there, that’s why we spend the money, that’s why we take the risks. You’ll see that Legat never got that admonition.

The other overriding concern is the security and safety of your asset. Both of the main characters, mostly through no fault of their own, repeatedly put each other at risk. It’s so obvious, there is no need to belabor it.

One more comment about the historical and political aspect of the movie. At the end, in what appears to be an attempt to rehabilitate Neville Chamberlain and his legacy as the prime minister who appeased Hitler. The producers put forth the supposition that Chamberlain knew Hitler would not be satisfied, but sacrificed the Sudetenland to buy time to allow the Allies (which at that time did not include the United States) to prepare for inevitable war. Interesting, but not accurate.

BOTTOM LINE: As far as historical fiction goes, it takes a lot of liberties, but with enough suspension of disbelief, it’s a good story. It’s not The Hunt for Red October, but it will keep you entertained.

It should also provide a badly-needed reminder that appeasement does not work.

Netflix: https://www.netflix.com/watch/81144852

Miniseries Review: "The Girl from Oslo" (Netflix 2021)

2022-01-07T15:31:00.001-08:00

My initial observation: this is the worst title the producers could have chosen for the English-language version of this miniseries. The Hebrew title, Azharat Masa ("Travel Advisory") is not much better. The Norwegian title, Bortført ("Abducted") is probably the best of the lot.

The show tells the story of two Israeli siblings and the daughter of a Norwegian diplomat visiting Israel and Egypt when the three are abducted by Islamist terrorists and held as hostages to be used in a prisoner exchange for convicted terrorists being held by Israel and Norway.

The Norwegian title at least hints at the actual subject – the Hebrew and English, not so much. Something called “The Girl from Oslo” could be a romantic comedy, a travel show, a musical – anything but a show about international intrigue and transnational terrorism. What caught my eye was the one phrase, “When her daughter is abducted, a Norwegian diplomat travels to the Middle East….”

Without that one phrase, I would have ignored the series entirely.

The series is filmed in English, Hebrew, Arabic, and Norwegian – I am sure that posed a variety of problems. As I listened to the English-dubbed soundtrack, it appears to be well-done. Some personal comments – some of the actors portraying Arabs were in reality native Hebrew-speaking Israelis. It is a hard accent to disguise, but overall was fairly good. Of course, the Arabic-speaking actors were perfect, but…

…and this is a small nit, but if I had to describe the Arabic in the series, I would call it closer to the Palestinian Arabic spoken on the West Bank than that spoken in the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula, where the series is set. Like I said, a minor thing.

The subtitling was well-done, but for those who understand the underlying Arabic, you will note that these are more interpretations than actual translations, which if fine. I often interpreted rather than directly translated when I served as an Arabic translator. It’s an art….

There have been some complaints about the final editing, which by contract agreement was done by the Norwegians. The Israelis believe that the editing removed a lot of the subtle nuances about the geopolitical situation. Maybe – but the story remains tightly produced and tense throughout. Though, a little more “attention to details” would have made a number of scenes more credible.

Some background for those of you who decide to watch it – and I do recommend it.

- This is a work of fiction. Although there was a kidnapping of a Norwegian and Israeli while on vacation in the Sinai, they were later released. There was no relation to designated terrorist groups Hamas or ISIS.

- As with all fiction, it does require some of what is called “suspension of disbelief,” in other words, this is a story, so go along with some of the things you might think are unrealistic.

- Much of the action on the Israeli side occurs in the Israeli Ministry of Intelligence. The ministry is a relatively new organization, loosely modeled on the American Office of the Director of National Intelligence, established to coordinate and oversee the various Israeli intelligence and security organizations. As in the United States, it is more an administrative organization than an operations agency. (See paragraph immediately above.)

- The three main organizations in the series are the Israelis, Hamas, and ISIS. For those who don’t follow Middle East events closely, it can be confusing. Hamas is an Arabic acronym for harakat al-muqawamah al-islamiyah (Islamic Resistance Movement), a Palestinian Islamist political and quasi-military organization whose goal is to eliminate the State of Israel. It controls virtually all aspects of life in the Gaza Strip. Its military arm, known as the ‘Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, is responsible for a variety of attacks on Israel. It is supported by Iran and possesses a huge arsenal of rockets and missiles.

- ISIS (also referred to in the series as “Da’ish”) is an acronym for the English translation of its name, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Da’ish is an acronym of the Arabic name, al-dawlat al-islamiyah fi al-‘iraq wal-sham. ISIS and Hamas, although both Sunni organizations, are often at odds with each other. While Hamas is the principal power in the Gaza Strip, ISIS has a presence in the Sinai Peninsula, and maintains a state of hostility with the Egyptian government. Israel and Egypt, as seen in the series, cooperate on efforts against ISIS.

- I was surprised at some of the Hamas versus ISIS interactions in Norway, including Hamas’s use of a female operative. I find that a bit hard to believe, but maybe they’ve moved out of the 7^th Century.

My bottom line: It’s a good story, moves fast, and requires only minimum suspension of disbelief. It will entertain you, but it’s not Fauda.

Watch it on Netflix

Movie Review – Official Secrets (2019)

2021-10-24T08:54:00.002-07:00

Here we have yet another fact-based movie about an intelligence officer who betrays her country and her oath. Here again, we have yet another whitewash by the entertainment industry who appear to hold these traitors in high esteem.

This is the story of a linguist – Katharine Gun – employed by the highly secretive Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the signals intelligence organization of the United Kingdom, the counterpart of the American National Security Agency (NSA).

Note how the movie is described by Netflix, Rotten Tomatoes, and IMDB.

You see the same mantra repeated over and over to the point that people start believing it. Terms like “whistleblower,” “illegal,” “spy,” and “unlawful” are just incorrect when applied to Katherine Gun and her betrayal. The movie also repeats these falsehoods ad nauseam, also adding the ludicrous charge that the United States was seeking information to blackmail fellow members of the United Nations Security Council.

Katharine Gun is not a whistleblower, which is a specific legal term here in the United States – I am not sure about British law. Here there are specific requirements for someone to qualify for “whistleblower” protection, including how and to whom to report illegal activities. None of those involve leaking highly classified defense or intelligence information to the media – which is exactly what she did.

Nothing that NSA did violates U.S. law – in fact, there are statutory legal protocols that allow for just this activity. Collecting intelligence from foreign communications is what NSA does. If the communications occur in the United States, it requires a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. None of the countries mentioned in the Koza email enjoy any immunity from surveillance by American intelligence services.

Read the email for yourself. I see no indication of blackmail or anything that would violate U.S. law.

Text of a Top Secret/Comint email claimed to have been sent by Frank Koza of the NSA Regional Threats (RT) office on January 31, 2003. The recipients were officials of NSA’s British counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ):

As you've likely heard by now, the Agency is mounting a surge particularly directed at the UN Security Council (UNSC) members (minus US and GBR of course) for insights as to how to membership is reacting to the on-going debate RE: Iraq, plans to vote on any related resolutions, what related policies/ negotiating positions they may be considering, alliances/ dependencies, etc - the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to US goals or to head off surprises. In RT, that means a QRC surge effort to revive/ create efforts against UNSC members Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea, as well as extra focus on Pakistan UN matters.

We've also asked ALL RT topi's to emphasize and make sure they pay attention to existing non-UNSC member UN-related and domestic comms for anything useful related to the UNSC deliberations/ debates/ votes. We have a lot of special UN-related diplomatic coverage (various UN delegations) from countries not sitting on the UNSC right now that could contribute related perspectives/ insights/ whatever. We recognize that we can't afford to ignore this possible source.

We'd appreciate your support in getting the word to your analysts who might have similar, more in-direct access to valuable information from accesses in your product lines. I suspect that you'll be hearing more along these lines in formal channels - especially as this effort will probably peak (at least for this specific focus) in the middle of next week, following the SecState's presentation to the UNSC.

Thanks for your help.

No one should be surprised that the U.S. and UK intelligence communities collect foreign communications – that is the core mission of both NSA and GCHQ. To imply that this email indicates illegal, illicit, or immoral activity is ludicrous.

As for the movie production itself – it has well-known British actors who are skilled at their craft. That said, I am disappointed that they chose to appear in this anti-American whitewash of treasonous activity. Are they condoning such behavior? It would appear so.

Pass on this one.

Movie Review – Snowden (Oliver Stone – 2016)

2021-10-10T22:28:00.000-07:00

Against my better judgment, I decided to watch Oliver Stone’s production of the story of the traitor Edward Snowden. I often wonder at Stone’s predilection with anti-American themes, but that is an analysis for another time.

The film contains a mix-mash of intelligence community descriptions and definitions which, let’s say are only vaguely accurate. I could go through the list of inaccuracies, but I’ll give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt since it is highly unlikely that any of them have ever been inside the operations and training facilities depicted. I only wish the operations spaces at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) were as nice as these sets.

The workspaces in both agencies – I’ve worked in both – are what I would call “GSA* chic” and usually small, cramped, and filled with equipment and files. The smaller spaces are normal because much of the work being done is not only highly classified, but also compartmented. People working in one area are unlikely to be cleared for operations just ten feet away.

The movie attempts to portray Snowden as an intelligence officer at both agencies, but in reality, he was a communications technician, not an operations officer, and later as a technical contractor. This is obvious from the description of the training facility where Snowden received his training, referred to colloquially as “the Hill.”**

The facility exists, and is where the CIA trains people to become Telecommunications Information Systems Officers (TISO), technicians responsible for maintaining the agency’s communications systems around the world. Having worked with TISOs in many locations, they are competent professionals, but they are not field operations personnel – that training takes place at another CIA facility, commonly referred to as “the Farm.” ** The factitious and amateurish asset recruitment scenarios in which Snowden claims to have participated are comic at best, and obviously not part of the skill set provided in his position. I suspect he was attesting to “pad his CV.”

The program that Snowden seems to have found so egregious has to do with the intelligence community’s access to the meta data of phone calls of American citizens. When I was in the signals intelligence business (when dinosaurs roamed the earth), we referred to this information as “externals” – date, time, numbers connected, duration, etc., as opposed to “internal” information, the actual content of the communication.

What is the difference in how the data is used?

The internal information, the content, is used for intelligence information – that’s easy. It is the use of the externals, the meta data, that is extremely useful in uncovering networks – the term is network analysis – who is talking to whom.

Let’s use a real-world scenario. Although I do not consider the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISID) to be an ally, they have been useful at times when their counterterrorism goals coincide with ours. The ISID develops intelligence – or we apprise them – of the presence of an al-Qa’idah operative in Quetta.

ISID officers obtain whatever warrant or authorization necessary (I suspect it is none) to “kick in” the location. One of the most valuable items in the venue will be electronics – cell phones, satellite phone, tablets, computers, hard drives, thumb drives, etc. It is a treasure trove of data.

Let’s focus on the cell phones, although all of the media involved will yield similarly useful data. If this venue, say that al-Qa’idah believed to be a safe house, was occupied and/or used by a known al-Qa’idah operative, wouldn’t you want to know who with whom he has been communicating? That’s a rhetorical question – of course you would. If these contacts were located in the United States, doesn’t that take on a greater sense of urgency? Of course.

The claimed issue (I don’t buy it) for Snowden was the intelligence community’s access to American citizens’ meta data. Granted, the warrants required to access this data, issued via the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts, are easy to obtain – but shouldn’t they be? An al-Qa’ida operative in Pakistan is talking to someone in the United States; we need to take a look at that.

Although Stone never developed it fully in the movie, the thought that warrants should be limited to the future – in other words, once we have the phone numbers from the Pakistani ISID – the intelligence community and FBI obtain warrants for future communications. The problem: once these safe houses are raided, al-Qa’idah (or whatever group) closes all the accounts and stops using the devices the now assumed to be compromised. We need to know what has happened in the past.

Recent legislation has limited the intelligence community’s access to that historic information, thanks to the overreaction of Snowden’s treason. Unfortunately, our Congress, both houses but primarily the House, have aided in that limitation. If the intelligence community cannot ascertain who these terrorists were connecting with in the United States, we have less of a chance of preventing a future terrorist event.

My primary issue with the movie, which Stone admits is not a documentary or a historical account but a fictionalized version of reality, is the attempt to portray Snowden as a whistleblower rather than the traitor he chose to become. There is no historical record of Snowden contacting the proper whistleblower channels – supervisors, inspector generals, or members of Congress – before he decided to contact the media.

Snowden is not a whistleblower – he went to the media, who he arranged to meet not in the United States, but Hong Kong. Yes, Hong Kong, now a part of the Peoples Republic of China. After meeting with journalists there and releasing classified data, fled to Moscow – yes, Russia – to evade capture.

Call me skeptical. Edward Snowden, who publicly to international media, released highly classified U.S. national security information, and that – and more – did not end up in the hands of Chinese and Russian intelligence? I did this for a living for almost three decades. Whatever sensitive, classified information he had, they now have. From colleagues in the intelligence community, we may never recover from the losses he caused.

So, my views of Ed’s future? If it was up to me, I would go further than former CIA director and NSA director General Mike Hayden’s (a personal acquaintance) comments that Snowden will die in Moscow. I would cause it – but that’s just me, someone who has lost agents in the field because of traitors like Snowden. If he is allowed to return to the United States, I’d like to have a one-on-one conversation.

Bottom line: Edward Snowden is not a whistleblower, and as Oliver Stone would have you believe, he is not a hero. He is a traitor, weak of character, and easily manipulated. This cinematographic attempt to justify his actions borders on abetting treason.

If you must watch, the film is available on Netflix:
https://www.netflix.com/title/80064514

__________

* General Services Administration, the agency of the U.S. government responsible for the outfitting and basic functioning of official facilities. Think “lowest bidder.”

** These facilities exist, but officially not by these nicknames – I have chosen not to identify them. I received my clandestine operations training at the facility referred to as “the Farm.” I am sure anyone doing a Google search will figure out where they are, but my secrecy agreements prevent me from identifying them.

The fall of Kabul – who did not see this coming?

2021-08-15T13:56:00.004-07:00

A U.S. helicopter flies over Kabul (Rahmat Gul - AP)

Thanks to the Biden Administration’s disastrous handling of the withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan, the world is about to witness another botched evacuation reminiscent of the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975. Those of us who served in Vietnam will never forget the disturbing images of Huey helicopters evacuating people from the rooftop of the American embassy.

It appears that history is about to repeat itself.

President Biden announced, probably against the advice of his senior military leadership, that the United States would withdraw all of its forces by the end of August. I can’t say that I blame Biden for not listening to the same generals who created the absolute disaster that Afghanistan has become.

Let’s review how we got here. Soon after the al-Qa’idah attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush delivered an ultimatum to the Taliban to surrender ‘Usamah bin Ladin to the United States. The Taliban refused, triggering the U.S. invasion of the country and the removal of the Taliban, to be replaced by the Northern Alliance. The American military began operations to eliminate al-Qa’idah, including bin Ladin.

By early December, the U.S. and its allies (including Northern Alliance, British, and German forces) had forced the remnants of al-Qa’idah to seek shelter from the relentless air attacks in the Tora Bora cave complex near the border with Pakistan. An Afghan militia leader claimed that he had negotiated the surrender of al-Qa’idah, including bin Ladin, and they were working out the “modalities of bin Ladin’s surrender.”

I remember shaking my head in disbelief. Rather than committing U.S. forces to the capture or killing of bin Ladin, we agreed to “outsource” it to an unreliable Afghan warlord. I said to anyone who would listen that there is no way this group of Afghans was going to turn over a fellow Muslim, a fellow warrior, to the United States. It was just not going to happen. President Bush refused to commit U.S. forces to an attack, believing Pakistani lies that they would apprehend bin Ladin if he tried to enter Pakistan.

We all know what happened – this “working out the modalities” was merely a ploy to buy time to allow tribal forces on both sides of the border to spirit bin Ladin into Pakistan, where he remained until U.S. forces tracked him down in Abbottabad, Pakistan on May 2, 2011. The Pakistanis had no idea where he was for almost ten years? I find that hard to believe.

After the end of the Battle of Tora Bora, I maintain that the United States had achieved its major objective of the invasion of Afghanistan – to remove al-Qa’idah from the country. The survivors of the organization who accompanied bin Ladin into Pakistan dispersed to other areas to continue the fight – Iraq, Syria, Yemen, the Maghreb.

So why did the United States feel compelled to remain in Afghanistan, a country that has been known as “the graveyard of empires?” You would think that knowledgeable people in the American intelligence, military, and diplomatic communities would have recognized the folly of committing a large military force to Afghanistan except to oversee the orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops.

For reasons that I cannot fathom, some bright light, probably at the State Department, came up with the idea that we should try to introduce Western-style democracy into this tribal society. This phenomena – starting out to do one thing (removing al-Qai’dah) and morphing into another (nation building) – is called “mission creep.” We Americans excel at it.

The obvious, but faulty, analogy that some will point out is the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after World War II. There is nothing remotely similar to reintroducing democratic institutions in Europe and creating democracy from nothing in Afghanistan.

Of course, the first step in any of these efforts is to establish security – that usually means more troops. The American military presence continued to grow to combat the threat still posed by the resurgent Taliban. In my view, at that time, the Taliban did not represent a threat to the United States. Al-Qa’idah did, and was dealt with.

Did I want the Taliban to resume control of Afghanistan? No. Did I think that the continued presence of American and allied troops would prevent it? No. I thought the presence of foreign troops would only be able to postpone the Taliban’s return to power, but in the end not prevent it. Why didn’t our supposedly bright military leaders tell the President(s) that? If you can’t win a war, don’t fight it.

As we have seen time and time again, a smaller, committed force can outlast a superpower and defeat the incompetent indigenous forces supposedly trained and equipped by their sponsors. The Afghan army was never a capable fighting force, despite the huge expenditure of American and allied resources and massive training efforts.

Why not? Because their hearts were not in it. Most of the troops willing to join the Afghan military or security forces were doing it for a paycheck, not a burning desire to keep democracy alive in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, the Taliban fighters are true believers. They will fight to the death to achieve their objective – the reintroduction of an Islamic state in Afghanistan. They also enjoy enough popular support to continue to fight on despite the efforts of the United States and its allies.

It is only the presence of foreign forces that prevent the Taliban from retaking the entire country. With the irresponsible manner of the Biden withdrawal, it is only a matter of time – I give it days – before the Taliban regain control.

In a press conference on July 8^th, Biden claimed that a Taliban victory was not inevitable, citing the fact that the Afghan military of 300,000 was among the best equipped in the world, and capable of defeating the 75,000 Taliban fighters. Just two days ago, the Pentagon spokesman claimed that Kabul was not in imminent danger. Clearly, neither one of them has a grasp on the reality of the situation.

My bottom line: We should have left Afghanistan after ‘Usamah bin Ladin was allowed to “escape” to Pakistan in an act of perfidy in 2001, or at the latest in early 2002, and prevented the loss of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.