Geopolitics/ America’s Loss and Russia’s Gain Some sober reflections on the current crisis. By Michel Gurfinkiel.

A couple of days ago, James Kitfield published in Politico an interview with the outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, General Martin Dempsey. The title sums it up: Martin Dempsey’s World Is Falling Apart. Never have I read such a pathetic – and chilling – document.

After all, the United States is – still – the biggest military and strategic power in the world. It possesses the biggest army, the most advanced weapons, and the biggest and most advanced armament industry. In addition, it commands the largest network of alliances and security pacts, from NATO, the American-European alliance and integrated military organization, to many bilateral pacts in the Middle East, Africa, South Asia, East Asia, Oceania, and Latin America.

But the image that General Dempsey is conjuring up is one of powerlessness and doom. According to him, American might is compromised by declining resources on the one hand, and by a growing unclarity about goals and strategies on the other. Regarding Syria, for instance, he remarks: It’s inconceivable to me that anyone would agree to allow Assad to continue governing Syria after what he’s done. In fact, the Joint Chiefs of Staff provided the American elected officials with military options, but the decision was made… not to select a military line of attack concerning the Assad regime and instead to let in the Russians, who seem interested, above all, in shoring up a regime that has essentially attacked the majority of its population.

Srdja Trifkovic: Syria: No End Game in Sight

The Russian military intervention in Syria, and the creation of a new regional alliance which includes Iran and Iraq, removes one undesirable outcome from the complex equation. The collapse of the government in Damascus, and its replacement by some form of jihadist-dominated Sharia regime which would spell the end of the non-Sunni minorities (including Christians), is no longer on the cards.

It does not herald the advent of a new era of moderation and realism among the key players, however, which would lead to a political settlement in the near future. Even if Moscow and Washington could agree on the broad outline of a new political framework—from which the old upfront demand for Bashar al-Assad’s immediate ouster would be removed—it is doubtful that they could impose on their regional allies a blueprint which is at odds with their strategic ambitions. Those ambitions remain fundamentally incompatible.

In the “American” camp, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Oman would be loath to accept the end of their plan to turn Syria into a permanent Sunni Muslim wedge dividing what they see as a putative Shiite-dominated crescent extending from Iran across Iraq and Syria into northern Lebanon. For all of them the issue is eminently geopolitical, and it is not at all compatible with the stated primary U.S. objective of defeating ISIS (the rhetoric of removing “Assad’s murderous regime” notwithstanding). They do not care who does the stopping.

U.S. Does Not Condemn Palestinian Violence by Rachel Ehrenfeld

The White House latest condemnation of the escalating violence in Jerusalem is akin to that issued by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. Both are talking from both sides of the mouth.

Last month Abbas encouraged the Palestinians to go the attack, saying: “We bless every drop of blood spilled for Jerusalem. This is clean and pure blood, blood that was spilled for God. It is Allah’s will that every martyr will go to heaven and every wounded [Palestinian attacker] will receive God’s reward.” Today, after a surge in Palestinian stabbing and stoning attacks on Israelis and rioting by Israeli Arabs, Abbas told the Israeli daily Haaretz: “I’m Not Inciting Violence, I Want to Restore Calm,” only to allege Israeli “‘aggression against the Al-Aqsa Mosque.’” However, the aggressors are Palestinian men, women and children and the victims are Israeli Jews.

Oregon and Our Post-Constitutional Republic Posted By Andrew C. McCarthy

Are you embarrassed by the reasons why we have the right to keep and bear firearms? Democrats think you are and, in this, they could not be more right.

That is why last week’s mass-murder shooting at Oregon’s Umpqua Community College has led to the same tired political act we witness each time a gun tragedy or atrocity occurs: The shooting is politicized by the Left to advance gun restrictions; the timely and false suggestion is made that gun crime is on the rise (it has actually decreased dramatically in the last generation); regulatory proposals are advanced that would have had little or no chance of preventing the just-occurred shootings; gun-rights advocates point out the flaws in both the proposals and the premise that guns cause more violence than they create; and we have a stalemate in the gun policy debate while ignoring mental illness (the wayward policies on which contribute more to mass-shootings than does the availability of firearms).

Quickly Growing Russian Involvement, the Decisive Ground Offensive in Syria Begins

The Russian state-controlled propaganda machine has been working around the clock to promote the success of Russia’s aerial bombing campaign in Syria, which began on September 30, to a reluctant domestic public. According to the independent pollster Levada-Tsenter, the propaganda has been effective: Over 70 percent of the Russian population supports the bombing of Islamic State (IS—also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, ISIS) targets in Syria; and about half believe Russia must support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against the IS and the Syrian opposition. At the same time, half of the Russian population fears Syria may turn into a “new Afghanistan”—a costly and deadly long-term commitment that may end in defeat and humiliation, like the Soviet Afghan invasion in the 1980s, which lasted almost ten years and is still remembered with dread (Interfax, October 8).

The Ministry of Defense’s (MoD) daily briefings in Moscow show footage of airstrikes, allegedly killing “ISIS terrorists” in droves and destroying their weapons and infrastructure. The Russian defense and foreign ministries have been adamantly denying as “information warfare” claims that Russian bombs are mostly hitting not the IS, but the Syrian opposition and the civilian population. Foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova called on the United States to use a channel of communication between the Pentagon and the Russian MoD to clarify reports of alleged attacks on the Syrian opposition and resolve disagreements, instead of going public and discussing differences in the press (Kommersant, October 6)

U.S.: Several Russian cruise missiles landed in Iran By Robert Burns

WASHINGTON — As many as four of the 26 long-range cruise missiles that Russia said it fired at Syrian targets landed instead in Iran, U.S. defense officials said Thursday.

The officials said it’s unclear whether the errant missiles, launched from Russian ships in the Caspian Sea, caused any significant damage in Iran. Both the Russian government and state-run Iranian media accused the United States of inaccurate or deliberately deceptive statements.

Three U.S. officials said four missiles went off course. The officials were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The Unknown: To Be Raped Under Islam

http://jamieglazov.com/2015/10/08/the-unknown-to-be-raped-under-islam/

In this new episode of The Unknown, Anni Cyrus discusses To Be Raped Under Islam, revealing the horror she endured under the Islamic Republic — and how she prevailed and is fighting back.

And make sure to watch the previous Uknown episode, in which Anni helped us in Understanding the Islamic Republic Through the Qur’an.

Why is the Islamic Republic so viciously oppressive of women? Anni connects the dots:

Roger Franklin Allah’s Assassins, Then and Now

When two devout Muslims opened fire on a picnic train outside Broken Hill in 1915, officialdom took just a few days to reach the conclusion that the attack had been inspired by Islamic fanaticism. Today, defenders of public safety are somewhat more tardy in recognising the obvious
Things were certainly different 100 years ago. Officialdom moved a lot faster in identifying the obvious.

On January 1, 1915, for example, a disaffected Pakistani, Badsha Mahommed Gool, and an halal butcher and cleric, Mullah Abdullah, opened fire on a picnic train leaving Broken Hill, killing four and wounding seven others. In a note found on Gool’s body all was explained:

“I must kill your men and give my life for my faith….”

Twelve days later, the inquest was done and dusted, with the official finding making no bones about what inspired the murder of innocents. From The Australasian‘s report of the coronial hearing:

In reply to the corner (sic), Captain Hardie said … Gool was evidently a warlike and a very religious man. The case seemed to have been one of Moslem fanaticism….

Inspector’ Miller: Such cases happen in India.

Witness: They frequently occur on-the north-west of India on the frontier. The Mahommedans frequently come out and kill the Christians…

A century later, investigators seem to have lost that sharp focus on religion as a possible motivation for murder. From Andrew Bolt’s interview with a remarkably vague Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs:

Palestinian Terror Wave: Brutal Attacks Escalate : Ari Lieberman

Why is the Obama administration silent in the face of Palestinian incitement and depravity?

The wave of terror attacks that Israel has experienced in recent days can be directly attributed to the leaders of the Palestinian Authority, Israel’s supposed peace partner. They are no more a peace partner than the Nazis were “peace partners” to the British Labour government, circa 1938. The person who bears chief responsibility for the sudden surge of violence is self-styled “president” Mahmoud Abbas, the autocrat whose term of office as president of the PA expired six years ago. His banal and vitriolic rhetoric before world leaders at the UN General Assembly on September 26 amounted to nothing more than the acerbic rantings of an old, washed up has-been filled with deep-seated, anti-Semitic hate and bile. What more can one expect from an avowed Holocaust denier.

How Putin is Winning and Losing Syria No one is in Syria because of ISIS. Daniel Greenfield

The Russian line is that they’re in Syria to fight ISIS. But the Russians, like the Turks, Iranians and Europeans, don’t care about ISIS. By declaring itself a Caliphate, ISIS made itself non-aligned. The fighting in Syria isn’t about ISIS. It predated the rise of ISIS as a major player. It’s about Syria.

ISIS has become a convenient excuse for converging on Syria. But no one is there because of ISIS.

The Turks are bombing Syria for their old hobby of killing Kurds. Turkey will occasionally bomb supposed ISIS targets for propaganda purposes, but mostly its air force bombs the Kurdish enemies of ISIS. Russia will do the same thing, hitting ISIS for propaganda purposes, but focusing on Sunni anti-Assad groups.