Syria's conflict turns three

    This week is the third anniversary of the Syrian protests that now have become a civil war.  What was a peaceful protest was pushed into armed rebellion by the Syrian government shooting protesters and demolishing neighborhoods.  Another Syrian general defected this week and the French and English governments have said that they may supply arms to the rebels even without the rest of the European Union.  Assad’s allies, mainly Russia and Iran, keep the government supplied with all kinds of advanced weapons.  The rebels get their arms from defectors, the black market, Turkish smugglers, radical groups and Saudi middlemen.  The regime even has Hesbollah fighters supporting it.  Still, the rebels now control much of the north and east, outside of the main cities.  They also have some control of some neighborhoods, and pockets of fighting have popped up everywhere.  Nowhere is peaceful and 70,000 are estimated dead, and over a million refugees have fled the country. 

                Should the U.S. supply weapons?  Our government is concerned about being in still another Middle East war.  Sitting out on supplying arms, at least directly, is our policy.  The U.S. and Israel are concerned about biological weapons falling into extremist hands.  International recognition at least backs the rebels, and it is hard to believe that Assad can govern Syria.  The best option would be for a no-fly zone, protected by the West, and allowing the rebels to hold much of the country.  Many refugees and many deaths have been from the Syrian air force, which we could stop in a matter of weeks.  No matter what, there will be more casualties.  But, better to bring this to an end, sooner, and not after two more years. 

U.S. working with Taliban?

I am blogging about the news story: “Afghan Leader Says U.S. Abets Taliban’s Goal”. President Hamid Karzai met with the new U.S. Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, but it was a private meeting, not the joint press conference that was planned. Karzai said that the U.S. was undermining his authority by adding suggesting that Afghanistan will collapse after the U.S. pulls out. The idea that we are helping the Taliban destabilize Karzai after the longest U.S. war in history (excluding Korea, if you count the North Koreans ending the armistice) is just trying to stir up local reaction and appealing to anti-U.S. sentiment. He is either crazy or crafty. I think it is just politics. I understand that he wants us gone; it really has been a long war and a long time to put up with “invaders.” But, he is going about it all wrong. He can support the U.S. exit, but he need not ignore the thousands of U.S. and Afghan soldiers killed in fighting the war that he most benefits from.

17,790 U.S. service members have been wounded in action in Afghanistan, and 1,996 have died, as of September, 2012. The CIA could not be reached for comment, which is just as well with all these casualties. Chuck Hagel just put it off to politics, saying that he knew what it is to be a politician. He did not take it too seriously, and neither should we.

Armistice nullified

On April 6, 2013, the United Nations Security Council unanimously voted strict economic sanctions against North Korea in response to its third nuclear test.  With China in agreement, which is rare, with the rest of the Security Council (especially the United States), the UN made it harder for the People's Republic of North Korea to buy international goods and to launder money.  China has not cracked down in a long time, so it is upset with the North Koreans for blowing up a bomb on its doorstep.
      In retaliation, Kim Jung Un has nullified the 60 year old armistice ending the Korean War and has threatened a pre-emptive strike upon South Korea and the United States.  So, far no one has taken this seriously.  But, never before has North Korea threatened anyone with nuclear attack.  Earlier, a South Korean general threatened to strike back at the North Korean leaders if there was an actual attack.  Meanwhile, the U.S. has said it will not reward these threats.  Kim Jung Un has been creative with threats: "A sea of flames, with lighter and smaller nukes."

War and conflict.

 

          My first post for War and Strife will be talking about a little known cold war going on in Central Asia, between the up and downstream neighbors. Specifically, I mean Uzbekistan, who are downstream from Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The Uzbeks are threatening and perhaps planning to attack their upstream neighbors if the Kyrgs or Tajiks dam rivers that provide drinking water and irrigation water for the cotton fields. Uzbekistan is the 6^th largest exporter of cotton world wide, which shows how much they care about this crop.

Stalin in the 1940’s tried to drain the Aral Sea, one of the largest water supplies in the region. The Uzbeks still demand uninterrupted water for their fields. The leaders of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan want to develop electricity for their countries. Specifically, the Kyrgs want to build the Rogun dam on the Vakhsh River. The river is a major tributary to the Amudarya—the main water vein for downstream Uzbekistan.

                Most of the Stans have adopted islam as the official religion and have a long-standing ruler. There are many ethnic conflicts within the countries. Uzbekistan put down a rebellion in the 1990’s, killing at least 100,000 people, so the history of the are is a violent one. The Tajiks had a major Wahibist insurrection, and ethnic cleansing has been a problem for several years. China borders two of the countries, and keeps a close eye on conflicts that may close off its Western border. It is interested in the gas routes flowing through the Central Asian countries, as well as the gold to be mined there. Russia wants to establish favorable trade agreements and tries to influence the countries. The US wants to be able to withdraw from Afghanistan through these same countries and not depend on Pakistan. Plenty of potential trouble, with water at the heart of it.