Casi al borde del llanto (y posiblemente con una caja de pañuelos desechables Kleenex en caso de ser necesarios), en un extraordinario acto de contrición reconociendo su parte de la culpa y responsabilidad -en lo que a él le toca- por haber metido al Reino Unido en una guerra catastrófica por la cual el Medio Oriente está hoy totalmente desestabilizado y convertido en una cuna de lobos sanguinarios como el mundo no había visto desde el siglo pasado, un muy compungido y arrepentido ex Primer Ministro británico Tony Blair en una entrevista llevada a cabo por la CNN pidió perdón por haber metido al Reino Unido en la guerra de Irak basado en lo que terminó siendo a fin de cuentas puras mentiras, la fantasía de que Irak poseía armas de destrucción masiva, admitiendo que a causa de la invasión conjunta de Estados Unidos e Inglaterra a Irak nació la cruel organización terrorista Estado Islámico que hoy representa el mayor peligro que haya habido para el Medio Oriente desde la caída del Imperio Otomano.
Resulta admirable que Tony Blair por fin haya reconocido, aunque de manera tardía –doce años después de derramar sangre inglesa y buena parte del tesoro británico en la invasión de Irak- su culpa por una guerra que no estaba justificada excepto en puras mentiras. Lamentablemente, su arrepentimiento no va a resucitar a los muertos que perdieron la vida por causa suya, ni les va a regresar sus esposos a las viudas ni les va a devolver a los hijos sus padres, en ambos bandos (Inglaterra y Reino Unido).
Lo que resulta casi inconcebible es que Gran Bretaña se haya enfrascado a tal grado en una guerra estúpida partiendo de información “errónea”. ¿Pues que acaso Inglaterra no era el país privilegiado que tiene el honor de contar entre sus agentes secretos a individuos del calibre de James Bond agente 007? Pues no, eso de los agentes secretos super-héroes que nunca le fallan y siempre triunfan sobre los malos es una fantasía digna de historietas cómicas, a la altura de los pretextos que fueron inventados para justificar la guerra a Irak.
Sin embargo, el principal culpable no fue Tony Blair, sino el que le “lavó el coco” a manera de diablo tentador convenciéndolo de inmiscuír a Inglaterra en una guerra que le era ajena. Y el principal culpable aún no ha presentado ninguna disculpa ni ha mostrado arrepentimiento alguno, todo lo contrario, se anda paseando por todas partes muy orondo como si nada malo hubiera sucedido. Estamos hablando del entonces presidente George Bush. Si bien el presidente Bush estaba plenamente justificado de enviar a las tropas norteamericanas a Afganistán para capturar al principal culpable de los ataques terroristas a las torres gemelas de Nueva York así como atacar al régimen talibán que se negaba entregar a los Estados Unidos a Osama bin Laden, carecía por completo de argumentos y justificación alguna para ordenar también la invasión a Irak que se llevó a cabo en 2003. El descalabro resultante en Irak y la exposición del argumento usado para justificar la guerra –la supuesta posesión de armas de destrucción masiva en manos del dictador de Irak- como una burda mentira, le costaron al General Colin Powell lo que muy seguramente habría sido su virtual nominación a la presidencia de la república y eventual triunfo en las urnas. Hoy ese hombre es un cadáver político sin ninguna aspiración y sin ninguna pretensión a cargo alguno de responsabilidad, no después de haberle fallado junto con George Bush de la manera en la que ambos le fallaron al país en las más importantes decisiones.
Hoy, los norteamericanos ya le están presentando la factura a la familia Bush no solo por el descalabro que resultó ser la guerra de Irak sino por el hecho de que la justificación de dicha guerra fue, de principio a fin, una mentira, una fantasía prefabricada al gusto de los deseos guerreros del presidente. En los sondeos preliminares de los precandidatos del Partido Republicano a la presidencia de los Estados Unidos, el hermano del ex presidente George W. Bush (el ex presidente maldito que a su vez representa al establishment industrial y militar y que metió hasta al fango a sus soldados en la guerra contra Irak) se encuentra a una posición muy distante de los principales contendientes, el payaso Donald Trump y el neurocirujano retirado Ben Carson, a grado tal que ha tenido que recortar gastos de campaña. Él ya sabía de antemano que el apellido Bush, pese a la actuación brillante del padre de ambos hermanos Bush, por culpa de su hermano y la guerra de Irak era más un pasivo que un activo, a grado tal que cuando lanzó su candidatura para la nominación presidencial por parte del Partido Republicano omitió deliberadamente en sus posters de pre-campaña la palabra “Bush” y ha usado únicamente su nombre de pila “Jeb”, como si la palabra Bush fuera anatema. De cualquier modo, no le sirvió de nada, y muchos norteamericanos no quieren saber nada que tenga que ver con la familia Bush.
¿Pedirá perdón algún día George Bush al pueblo norteamericano por haber metido al país en una guerra que tiene ya un costo acumulado superior a los dos trillones de dólares y que ha causado más muertos que los civiles que murieron con los ataques terroristas del 11 de septiembre de 2001, pese a que el entonces presidente Bush fue claramente advertido en una carta por el Papa Juan Pablo II (hoy elevado a la categoría de Santo de la Iglesia Católica) de no llevar a cabo esa guerra con unas observaciones del entonces Papa que resultaron proféticas? No se antoja probable, ya que el muy cínico se sigue paseando por todos lados muy conchudo como si nada, atendiendo las fiestas de la alta sociedad a las que todavía es invitado (ya no lo invitan tanto como antes en vista de su pérdida de popularidad). Posiblemente George Bush pedirá perdón cuando le toque su turno de ir a rendirle cuentas al Diablo. Y ese día muy seguramente le llegará, tarde o temprano, pero le llegará. Se trata de cuentas pendientes que tienen que ser pagadas. El ex Presidente Bush tendrá mucho tiempo de sobra para estar pidiendo perdón y estarse arrepintiendo, más del que él mismo se pueda imaginar.
domingo, 25 de octubre de 2015
martes, 20 de octubre de 2015
Salmo 23: el salmo más famoso de la Biblia
En el Libro de los Salmos del Antiguo Testamento en la Biblia, existe un salmo en particular que es repetido mucho no solo en misas y servicios religiosos que se llevan a cabo en México en templos de culto católicos y cristianos, sino también en Estados Unidos sobre todo en las ceremonias de entierro. Se trata del Salmo 23 que por alguna razón destaca sobre todos los demás salmos y es el predilecto de muchas congregaciones cristianas. En Castellano, el Salmo dice lo siguiente:
Salmo 23
1. El Señor es mi pastor, nada me faltará.
2. En lugares de delicados pastos me hará descansar; junto a aguas de reposo me pastoreará.
3. Restaurará mi alma; me guiará por sendas de justicia por amor de su nombre.
4. Aunque pase por el valle de sombra de muerte, no temeré mal alguno; porque tú estarás conmigo; tu vara y tu cayado me infundirán aliento.
5. Aderezas mesa delante de mí, en presencia de mis angustiadores; unges mi cabeza con aceite; mi copa está rebosando.
6. Ciertamente el bien y la misericordia me seguirán todos los días de mi vida;
En Inglés, el Salmo 23 dice lo siguiente (posiblemente algunos lo reconocerán de lo que han escuchado en algunas películas norteamericanas que o series de televisión en las cuales hay un grupo de personas congregadas en un cementerio en torno a un difunto que está por ser depositado en su lugar de reposo eterno):
Psalm 23
1. The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want.
2. He makes me lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside quiet waters.
3. He restores my soul; He guides me in the paths of righteousness. For His name’s sake.
4. Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.
5. You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; You have anointed my head with oil; My cup overflows.
6. Surely goodness and lovingkindness will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.
miércoles, 7 de octubre de 2015
Microsoft, de fabricante de software a hardware
Desde que la empresa Microsoft nació y creció exponencialmente como resultado de un contrato establecido con la empresa de computadoras IBM cuando la otrora poderosísima empresa IBM fabricante de equipos de oficina y computadoras para grandes empresas de todo tipo decidió entrar en el mercado de las computadoras personales caseras basadas en torno a los nuevos circuitos integrados conocidos como microprocesadores, Microsoft siempre se había dedicado única y exclusivamente a elaborar el “software” básico para las computadoras caseras conocido como el sistema operativo. Microsoft no tenía ninguna nave industrial (fábrica) en donde se llevara a cabo el ensamble de tarjetas de circuito impreso con circuitos electrónicos y soldadura y conectores de todo tipo para discos duros o bocinas, no tenía absolutamente nada para construír y vender ni siquiera una computadora de juguete, no tenía nada relacionado con las tuercas y tornillos de la electrónica en lo que hoy se conoce como “hardware”. Su único producto eran programas de sistema operativo reproducidos por millares al principio en simples copiadoras de discos magnéticos flexibles de 5.25 pulgadas, posteriormente en discos magnéticos de 3.5 pulgadas, posteriormente en discos CD y más recientemente discos DVD. Su “planta” en Redmond en el estado de Washington no es un complejo con líneas de producción como las que tienen la empresa Ford, Chrysler, Sony y Samsung, por el contrario es un conjunto de oficinas en las que trabajan los mejores programadores del mundo.
Cuando IBM entró al mercado de las computadoras personales caseras, ya había otro fabricante con el cual IBM deseaba competir directamente, la empresa Apple fundada por Steve Jobs y Steve Wozniak. Tras el ingreso de IBM, el número de fabricantes de computadoras caseras creció para incorporar a empresas tales como Gateway, Compaq, y Dell que ofrecía construír cada computadora de acuerdo a las especificaciones pedidas por el usuario para ser enviada desde Dell a la casa del cliente, además de las empresas fabricantes de las máquinas conocidas como “clones” compatibles con la arquitectura IBM. Nacieron y crecieron también empresas fabricantes de accesorios como Western Digital y Seagate (fabricantes de discos duros), Logitech (fabricante de cámaras Web) y Creative (fabricante de tarjetas de sonido). Todas estas marcas han dejado huella. Sin embargo, no existió una sola computadora personal casera con el logotipo Microsoft porque Microsoft se mantuvo firme en su dedicación exclusiva a la elaboración de los programas sistemas operativos de las máquinas basadas primordialmente en la arquitectura de los procesadores fabricados por la empresa Intel y la empresa AMD.
Microsoft, en efecto, pareció aferrarse desde el principio a la elaboración de software. El único hardware que impulsó con la creación de fábricas de su propiedad fue el de los “Mouse” (ratones de computadora), y esto lo hizo con el verdadero propósito de promover entre el público la adquisición de sistemas operativos como Windows 95 que le daban uso intensivo al Mouse. En efecto, una de las características más atractivas de los nuevos sistemas operativos era el uso del Mouse para llevar a cabo funciones que de otro modo se tenían que hacer de manera engorrosa a través del teclado. Vendiendo Mouses, razonó Microsoft, la gente estaría más interesada en adquirir los sistemas operativos que le daban uso al Mouse, y esto último era lo que realmente estaba Microsoft interesada en promover. Es algo así como la vieja teoría del “rastrillo y la navaja” usada ampliamente por empresas como Gillete que promocionaban casi a precios de regalo, absolutamente irrisorios, rastrillos metálicos cuyo valor real era indudablemente docenas o cientos de veces superior a su precio de mercado. Y si bien muchos compraron esos rastrillos atraídos por los precios de verdadera ganga, muy pronto se daban cuenta de que para poder usar el rastrillo tenían que comprar las navajas de doble filo, las cuales eran vendidas a precio tan elevado por Gillete que con la venta de unas cuantas navajas la empresa recuperaba el costo de invesión en los rastrillos que casi regalaba.
De este modo, no hubo computadora personal alguna con el logotipo de Microsoft, o algún tipo de accesorio como discos duros o modems con el logotipo de Microsoft. Lo más que pudiera encontrarse hubieran sido los Mouse que Microsoft vendía con la verdadera intención de promover sus ventas de software. Es posible que Bill Gates, el presidente ejecutivo que fundó y dirigió a Microsoft, haya decidido mantener a la empresa concentrada única y exclusivamente en el software considerando que el hardware era una cosa tan diferente al software, con tantos problemas técnicos inherentes al hardware, que la empresa Microsoft ya tenía bastante encima con el software al que le tenía que dar mantenimiento como para echarse encima problemas adicionales que no eran de su competencia.
El problema para Microsoft se sobrevino cuando los teléfonos celulares fabricados por empresas como Apple (con su iPhone), Samsung, Blackberry y LG fueron evolucionando, con procesadores de telefonía celular cada vez más inteligentes, a lo que hoy se conoce como las tabletas electrónicas. Microsoft cometió el error de desdeñar la telefonía celular inteligente (cuando no tenía mucha inteligencia) por considerar a tal hardware indigno de llevar por dentro un sistema operativo elaborado por Microsoft, además del hecho de que las capacidades de memoria de las primeras generaciones de aparatos celulares carecían de los recursos computacionales y de memoria suficientes para poder almacenar los voluminosos sistemas operativos de Microsoft (desde siempre, Microsoft ha insistido en la importancia de mantener una compatibilidad de sus productos de software). Y en última instancia, el precio mínimo al cual estaba dispuesta Microsoft a vender sus sistemas operativos a los fabricantes de teléfonos celulares inteligentes hubiera doblado fácilmente el costo de los aparatos volviéndolos menos atractivos para los clientes potenciales.
Microsoft no contó con que ya había una alternativa de sistema operativo básico para teléfonos celulares inteligentes que por cierto era gratuita, el sistema operativo Linux, a partir del cual la empresa Google produjo el sistema operativo Android, esto además del sistema operativo iOS usado en los equipos de Apple que mantiene muchas similitudes con los sistemas operativo Android. No tardaron mucho tiempo en aparecer las tabletas, computadoras compactas sin disco duro y sin conectividad a redes de telefonía celular pero que de todos modos se podían conectar a Internet mediante la transmisión inalámbrica de datos digitales Wi-Fi. Y empezó a suceder algo curioso. El volumen de ventas de computadoras personales, en las cuales basaba Microsoft sus ganancias por las regalías cobradas por el uso de sus licencias de sistemas operativos, empezó a descender, a la vez que el volumen de ventas de las tabletas empezó a ascender. Por vez primera, Microsoft empezó a ser desplazada del mercado por un rival peligroso por ser tan eficiente como gratuito. Ya se habló previamente de esto en la entrada “Microsoft en problemas” publicada aquí en esta bitácora el 25 de febrero de 2015.
Preocupada por esta tendencia Microsoft, por vez primera en su historia, empezó a diseñar y fabricar en 2011 sus propios equipos híbridos. Estos productos son una mezcla de una computadora personal tipo laptop y una tableta. Sin embargo, solo fue hasta hoy, en el mes de octubre de 2015, que la empresa de Redmond puede considerarse como un fabricante más de hardware (además de fabricante de software), con la introducción de su propia computadora laptop. A la nueva y esperada generación de Surface, la compañía anunció en Nueva York la adición a su gama de productos de su primer portátil “convencional”, Surface Book, fabricado con el logotipo Microsoft puesto en la máquina identificándola como una máquina Microsoft. Es un equipo extremadamente potente, pensado para ejecutar juegos de última generación o software de edición de video, con una pantalla de 13.5 pulgadas y una resolución elevada (6 millones de pixeles), que usa los procesadores más recientes de Intel Core, una tarjeta Nvidia GeForce GPU y con una memoria GDDR5. La pantalla puede ser separada del teclado para ser utilizada como una tableta, aunque con menos potencia y autonomía que cuando se encuentra anclada a la base (el teclado). El inesperado anuncio puso a Microsoft en competencia directa con la gama Macbook Pro de Apple. Microsoft asegura que el equipo es hasta un 30% más potente que los equipos de Apple.
Las máquinas Surface Book con las cuales Microsoft rompe definitivamente con su tradición de mero fabricante de software no son baratas, como pudiera esperarse, aunque esto ya no tiene mucho que ver con el costo usualmente alto de los sistemas operativos de Microsoft para estas nuevas máquinas sino más bien con el costo del hardware que representa tecnología de punta. Enfocado a la gama alta del mercado, Surface Book tendrá un precio aproximado de 2 mil 500 dólares en su configuración básica, y está programado para salir a la venta en las tiendas a finales de este mes. A este precio, no puede competir con algunas computadoras laptop ordinarias que se venden en las economías emergentes, pero la intención parece ser el querer establecer un precedente de Microsoft como fabricante de equipos que usan tecnología avanzada y a prueba de fallos.
De cualquier modo, al mismo tiempo que Surface Book sale a la venta, llegará al mercado la nueva generación de tabletas Surface de Microsoft, Surface Pro 4. La nueva tableta Surface tiene 12.3 pulgadas de pantalla, marcos más delgados y una nueva cubierta con teclado con teclas más parecidas a las de una portátil convencional. Una de las novedades más interesantes es que Surface Pro 4 incluirá un lector de huellas dactilares en el teclado. Como en los modelos anteriores, la tableta incluye un lápiz digital con 1024 niveles de presión. En la parte posterior de la tableta Microsoft integró una cámara de 8 megapixeles, para estar a tono con lo que los usuarios de las tabletas esperan de ellas. El precio de la Surface Pro 4 es de 850 dólares aproximadamente, incluyendo el lápiz digital más no la cubierta con el teclado.
Por si lo anterior fuese poco, Microsoft develó al mismo tiempo en Nueva York dos teléfonos Lumia de alta gama, el Lumia 950 que tiene una pantalla de 5.2 pulgadas de alta calidad (HD), 32 gigabytes de memoria y una cámara de 20 megapixeles con un costo total de venta de 549 dólares, y el Lumia 950 XL que tiene una pantalla de 5.7 pulgadas HD y también una cámara de 20 megapixeles (a modo comparativo, las cámaras de los últimos iPhone 6S y 6S Plus son de 12 megapixeles). Ambos teléfonos tienen un escáner de iris del ojo del propietario, para desbloquear el acceso al aparato.
El problema de Microsoft no es que quiera lograr o mantener predominancia en el mercado de hardware de aparatos computacionales. Lo suyo nunca fue el hardware. Su fuerte siempre fue el software. Su lucha en realidad es contra un sistema operativo gratuito llamado Android ademas del sistema operativo iOS de Apple que es lo que se está utilizando en los teléfonos celulares inteligentes y tabletas electrónicas cada vez más potentes que están desplazando las computadoras personales PC en donde Microsoft era el rey. Para Microsoft la sola idea de un futuro en el que se vendan más computadoras laptop y combinaciones híbridas de laptop-tableta en las cuales su sistema operativo sea Android o bien el sistema operativo iOS de Apple -arrebatándole a Microsoft su monopolio de software- es impensable. Y como los fabricantes de los teléfonos celulares inteligentes y las tabletas no están dispuestos a adoptar en sus máquinas un sistema operativo caro como Windows habiendo una alternativa de bajo costo como Android, para mantener su predominancia en el mercado de software Microsoft se ha visto forzada a entrar de lleno en lo que no quería, en el diseño y fabricación de sus propias máquinas, de su propio hardware, empezando con teléfonos celulares como Lumia hasta laptops como la Surface Book que se acaba de introducir. Se trata de un asunto de supervivencia de la empresa de software más poderosa del mundo enfrentando una pérdida de mercado que ya le costó a Steve Ballmer su caída.
Lo trascendental a fin de cuentas es el hecho de que Microsoft está rompiendo definitivamente con su añeja tradición de enfocarse única y exclusivamente al software desentendiéndose por completo de lo que esté sucediendo con el hardware. Esto es parte de su respuesta al reto puesto encima por un lado por los productos de telefonía celular inteligente fabricados por la empresa Apple (los iPhone), y las cada vez más populares tabletas electrónicas equipadas con el económico sistema operativo Android elaborado y refinado constantemente por la poderosa empresa Google a la cual Microsoft posiblemente le tenga más temor que a la misma Apple.
Cuando IBM entró al mercado de las computadoras personales caseras, ya había otro fabricante con el cual IBM deseaba competir directamente, la empresa Apple fundada por Steve Jobs y Steve Wozniak. Tras el ingreso de IBM, el número de fabricantes de computadoras caseras creció para incorporar a empresas tales como Gateway, Compaq, y Dell que ofrecía construír cada computadora de acuerdo a las especificaciones pedidas por el usuario para ser enviada desde Dell a la casa del cliente, además de las empresas fabricantes de las máquinas conocidas como “clones” compatibles con la arquitectura IBM. Nacieron y crecieron también empresas fabricantes de accesorios como Western Digital y Seagate (fabricantes de discos duros), Logitech (fabricante de cámaras Web) y Creative (fabricante de tarjetas de sonido). Todas estas marcas han dejado huella. Sin embargo, no existió una sola computadora personal casera con el logotipo Microsoft porque Microsoft se mantuvo firme en su dedicación exclusiva a la elaboración de los programas sistemas operativos de las máquinas basadas primordialmente en la arquitectura de los procesadores fabricados por la empresa Intel y la empresa AMD.
Microsoft, en efecto, pareció aferrarse desde el principio a la elaboración de software. El único hardware que impulsó con la creación de fábricas de su propiedad fue el de los “Mouse” (ratones de computadora), y esto lo hizo con el verdadero propósito de promover entre el público la adquisición de sistemas operativos como Windows 95 que le daban uso intensivo al Mouse. En efecto, una de las características más atractivas de los nuevos sistemas operativos era el uso del Mouse para llevar a cabo funciones que de otro modo se tenían que hacer de manera engorrosa a través del teclado. Vendiendo Mouses, razonó Microsoft, la gente estaría más interesada en adquirir los sistemas operativos que le daban uso al Mouse, y esto último era lo que realmente estaba Microsoft interesada en promover. Es algo así como la vieja teoría del “rastrillo y la navaja” usada ampliamente por empresas como Gillete que promocionaban casi a precios de regalo, absolutamente irrisorios, rastrillos metálicos cuyo valor real era indudablemente docenas o cientos de veces superior a su precio de mercado. Y si bien muchos compraron esos rastrillos atraídos por los precios de verdadera ganga, muy pronto se daban cuenta de que para poder usar el rastrillo tenían que comprar las navajas de doble filo, las cuales eran vendidas a precio tan elevado por Gillete que con la venta de unas cuantas navajas la empresa recuperaba el costo de invesión en los rastrillos que casi regalaba.
De este modo, no hubo computadora personal alguna con el logotipo de Microsoft, o algún tipo de accesorio como discos duros o modems con el logotipo de Microsoft. Lo más que pudiera encontrarse hubieran sido los Mouse que Microsoft vendía con la verdadera intención de promover sus ventas de software. Es posible que Bill Gates, el presidente ejecutivo que fundó y dirigió a Microsoft, haya decidido mantener a la empresa concentrada única y exclusivamente en el software considerando que el hardware era una cosa tan diferente al software, con tantos problemas técnicos inherentes al hardware, que la empresa Microsoft ya tenía bastante encima con el software al que le tenía que dar mantenimiento como para echarse encima problemas adicionales que no eran de su competencia.
El problema para Microsoft se sobrevino cuando los teléfonos celulares fabricados por empresas como Apple (con su iPhone), Samsung, Blackberry y LG fueron evolucionando, con procesadores de telefonía celular cada vez más inteligentes, a lo que hoy se conoce como las tabletas electrónicas. Microsoft cometió el error de desdeñar la telefonía celular inteligente (cuando no tenía mucha inteligencia) por considerar a tal hardware indigno de llevar por dentro un sistema operativo elaborado por Microsoft, además del hecho de que las capacidades de memoria de las primeras generaciones de aparatos celulares carecían de los recursos computacionales y de memoria suficientes para poder almacenar los voluminosos sistemas operativos de Microsoft (desde siempre, Microsoft ha insistido en la importancia de mantener una compatibilidad de sus productos de software). Y en última instancia, el precio mínimo al cual estaba dispuesta Microsoft a vender sus sistemas operativos a los fabricantes de teléfonos celulares inteligentes hubiera doblado fácilmente el costo de los aparatos volviéndolos menos atractivos para los clientes potenciales.
Microsoft no contó con que ya había una alternativa de sistema operativo básico para teléfonos celulares inteligentes que por cierto era gratuita, el sistema operativo Linux, a partir del cual la empresa Google produjo el sistema operativo Android, esto además del sistema operativo iOS usado en los equipos de Apple que mantiene muchas similitudes con los sistemas operativo Android. No tardaron mucho tiempo en aparecer las tabletas, computadoras compactas sin disco duro y sin conectividad a redes de telefonía celular pero que de todos modos se podían conectar a Internet mediante la transmisión inalámbrica de datos digitales Wi-Fi. Y empezó a suceder algo curioso. El volumen de ventas de computadoras personales, en las cuales basaba Microsoft sus ganancias por las regalías cobradas por el uso de sus licencias de sistemas operativos, empezó a descender, a la vez que el volumen de ventas de las tabletas empezó a ascender. Por vez primera, Microsoft empezó a ser desplazada del mercado por un rival peligroso por ser tan eficiente como gratuito. Ya se habló previamente de esto en la entrada “Microsoft en problemas” publicada aquí en esta bitácora el 25 de febrero de 2015.
Preocupada por esta tendencia Microsoft, por vez primera en su historia, empezó a diseñar y fabricar en 2011 sus propios equipos híbridos. Estos productos son una mezcla de una computadora personal tipo laptop y una tableta. Sin embargo, solo fue hasta hoy, en el mes de octubre de 2015, que la empresa de Redmond puede considerarse como un fabricante más de hardware (además de fabricante de software), con la introducción de su propia computadora laptop. A la nueva y esperada generación de Surface, la compañía anunció en Nueva York la adición a su gama de productos de su primer portátil “convencional”, Surface Book, fabricado con el logotipo Microsoft puesto en la máquina identificándola como una máquina Microsoft. Es un equipo extremadamente potente, pensado para ejecutar juegos de última generación o software de edición de video, con una pantalla de 13.5 pulgadas y una resolución elevada (6 millones de pixeles), que usa los procesadores más recientes de Intel Core, una tarjeta Nvidia GeForce GPU y con una memoria GDDR5. La pantalla puede ser separada del teclado para ser utilizada como una tableta, aunque con menos potencia y autonomía que cuando se encuentra anclada a la base (el teclado). El inesperado anuncio puso a Microsoft en competencia directa con la gama Macbook Pro de Apple. Microsoft asegura que el equipo es hasta un 30% más potente que los equipos de Apple.
Las máquinas Surface Book con las cuales Microsoft rompe definitivamente con su tradición de mero fabricante de software no son baratas, como pudiera esperarse, aunque esto ya no tiene mucho que ver con el costo usualmente alto de los sistemas operativos de Microsoft para estas nuevas máquinas sino más bien con el costo del hardware que representa tecnología de punta. Enfocado a la gama alta del mercado, Surface Book tendrá un precio aproximado de 2 mil 500 dólares en su configuración básica, y está programado para salir a la venta en las tiendas a finales de este mes. A este precio, no puede competir con algunas computadoras laptop ordinarias que se venden en las economías emergentes, pero la intención parece ser el querer establecer un precedente de Microsoft como fabricante de equipos que usan tecnología avanzada y a prueba de fallos.
De cualquier modo, al mismo tiempo que Surface Book sale a la venta, llegará al mercado la nueva generación de tabletas Surface de Microsoft, Surface Pro 4. La nueva tableta Surface tiene 12.3 pulgadas de pantalla, marcos más delgados y una nueva cubierta con teclado con teclas más parecidas a las de una portátil convencional. Una de las novedades más interesantes es que Surface Pro 4 incluirá un lector de huellas dactilares en el teclado. Como en los modelos anteriores, la tableta incluye un lápiz digital con 1024 niveles de presión. En la parte posterior de la tableta Microsoft integró una cámara de 8 megapixeles, para estar a tono con lo que los usuarios de las tabletas esperan de ellas. El precio de la Surface Pro 4 es de 850 dólares aproximadamente, incluyendo el lápiz digital más no la cubierta con el teclado.
Por si lo anterior fuese poco, Microsoft develó al mismo tiempo en Nueva York dos teléfonos Lumia de alta gama, el Lumia 950 que tiene una pantalla de 5.2 pulgadas de alta calidad (HD), 32 gigabytes de memoria y una cámara de 20 megapixeles con un costo total de venta de 549 dólares, y el Lumia 950 XL que tiene una pantalla de 5.7 pulgadas HD y también una cámara de 20 megapixeles (a modo comparativo, las cámaras de los últimos iPhone 6S y 6S Plus son de 12 megapixeles). Ambos teléfonos tienen un escáner de iris del ojo del propietario, para desbloquear el acceso al aparato.
El problema de Microsoft no es que quiera lograr o mantener predominancia en el mercado de hardware de aparatos computacionales. Lo suyo nunca fue el hardware. Su fuerte siempre fue el software. Su lucha en realidad es contra un sistema operativo gratuito llamado Android ademas del sistema operativo iOS de Apple que es lo que se está utilizando en los teléfonos celulares inteligentes y tabletas electrónicas cada vez más potentes que están desplazando las computadoras personales PC en donde Microsoft era el rey. Para Microsoft la sola idea de un futuro en el que se vendan más computadoras laptop y combinaciones híbridas de laptop-tableta en las cuales su sistema operativo sea Android o bien el sistema operativo iOS de Apple -arrebatándole a Microsoft su monopolio de software- es impensable. Y como los fabricantes de los teléfonos celulares inteligentes y las tabletas no están dispuestos a adoptar en sus máquinas un sistema operativo caro como Windows habiendo una alternativa de bajo costo como Android, para mantener su predominancia en el mercado de software Microsoft se ha visto forzada a entrar de lleno en lo que no quería, en el diseño y fabricación de sus propias máquinas, de su propio hardware, empezando con teléfonos celulares como Lumia hasta laptops como la Surface Book que se acaba de introducir. Se trata de un asunto de supervivencia de la empresa de software más poderosa del mundo enfrentando una pérdida de mercado que ya le costó a Steve Ballmer su caída.
Lo trascendental a fin de cuentas es el hecho de que Microsoft está rompiendo definitivamente con su añeja tradición de enfocarse única y exclusivamente al software desentendiéndose por completo de lo que esté sucediendo con el hardware. Esto es parte de su respuesta al reto puesto encima por un lado por los productos de telefonía celular inteligente fabricados por la empresa Apple (los iPhone), y las cada vez más populares tabletas electrónicas equipadas con el económico sistema operativo Android elaborado y refinado constantemente por la poderosa empresa Google a la cual Microsoft posiblemente le tenga más temor que a la misma Apple.
viernes, 2 de octubre de 2015
USA and the Syrian challenge
As this entry is being written for this blog, Russia is carrying out a series of bombing raids in what amounts to a major escalation of the war raging on inside Syria that started as an internal civil war and is quickly becoming worldwide.
The presence of Russian fighter jets in Syria, which may eventually be followed by the presence of Russian soldiers fighting alongside the regular army of Syria against all the rebel factions, has been called a game changer. Not since the days of the Cold War has there been such a direct involvement of Russia in the Middle East.
At first, the direct military involvement of Russia in the Syrian conflict may seem rather puzzling. After all, the disastrous Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in a war that was never won by the invader is considered today by historians to have been one of the key factors in the economic bankruptcy of the Soviet Union and the eventual collapse of the U.S.S.R. The Russian economy is still reeling from the economic sanctions imposed as punishment for its military support of Ukrainian separatists, and still has to come up with the money that will be required to pay for the 2017 FIFA World Cup championship. So we may ask: didn’t the Russians learn anything from their sore experience in Afghanistan? Have they gone crazy?
One of the contributing factors in the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan was undoubtedly the support given by the USA to the rebel terrorist groups in Afghanistan who were fighting to expel from Afghanistan the Soviet invaders (at the time, they were not branded as terrorists, they were called “freedom fighters” since they were fighting the “bad guys” of the Soviet Union). It was the USA who provided these so-called “freedom fighters” groups with a lot of money and training and sophisticated weaponry such as Stinger missiles used to shoot down Russian aircraft. Were it not for this help, perhaps the Russians would still have a presence in Afghanistan even with the Soviet Union dismantled.
Among the rebel groups fighting against the Soviet presence in Afghanistan there was a man by the name of Osama Bin Laden, precisely the man who headed the now international terrorist organization called Al Qaeda. Yep, Osama Bin Laden himself. The followers of Bin Laden as well as Bin Laden were funded and trained from beginning to end by the CIA in order to ensure the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. It is as simple as that. Thus, in the end it was the USA itself who provided the means and resources to the same ungrateful Muslims who a short time later launched a devastating attack upon US soil that brought down the Twin Towers, smashed the Pentagon, and probably would have erased Capitol Hill were it not for the true heroes of United Airlines Flight 93 who gave up their lives in trying to stop the fourth aircraft that was en route to smashing either the White House or Capitol Hill. The policy makers in Washington should have known better that making a deal with Osama Bin Laden and his cronies, which was the same as making a deal with the Devil, would have catastrophic consequences in the near future.
The crushing defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan followed by the pullback of all its military personnel from that country enabled the Taliban to take over Afghanistan turning it almost immediately into a safe haven and sanctuary for Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network Al Qaeda. Shortly thereafter, with the Soviet Union gone, the USA was forced to fill the void left by the Soviet Union, spilling the blood of American servicemen in order to overthrow the Taliban regime (which was unapologetic in its harboring of the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks) and go after Osama Bin Laden, getting involved in a trillion-dollars war in Afghanistan which is still being waged at this very moment in what amounts to an enormous expenditure of blood and treasure on the US side (for the USA this has been its longest war lasting now 14 years, and it is far from over). Thus, the US government, ill-advised then by think-tanks thought to be the epitome of wisdom, and acting with the foresight of Doctor Frankenstein, ended up creating its own monster. And quite a monster it turned out to be! Perhaps these facts are not being taught in the USA as forcefully as they should in American History 101 at all levels all the way from elementary to college.
At the time, US support of the Muslim terrorist Osama Bin Laden and his crazed followers in their fight against the Soviet Union was considered by Washington policy-makers as “the right thing to do”, it was almost a patriotic duty to support all those who fought in Afghanistan for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was the “best” advice given to the President. There was even a “Rambo” film (with Sylvester Stallone) portraying the Russians as evil murderers of Afghanistan civilians. The Russians were “the bad guys” and the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden and his entourage were “the good guys”. That is, until September 2001.
Looking back, the American involvement in the expulsion of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan soil that ended up installing the Taliban in power and fostered in that country the protection and expansion of one of the most dangerous terrorist groups in that part of the world is considered by many historians not merely as a major display in the lack of foresight and intelligence, but indeed a major and inexcusable blunder.
It might be argued that the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was well justified on the basis that the Taliban were refusing to hand over the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. This refusal could be taken as an act of war considering that the Taliban regime was giving safe haven to the Al Qaeda terrorists, and thus the Taliban regime could be considered to be in defiance and in a virtual state of war against the USA. The intelligence community and the military in the USA seem to have forgotten that the triumph in Afghanistan with the removal of the Taliban from power, in contrast with the Iraq fiasco, was due to a major push carried out by the Northern Alliance forging ahead in spite of being advised at the time by US military advisers to hold back. Were it not for the help of the Northern Alliance made up of all those tribes in the country who were fed up with the Taliban, the Afghanistan experience could have been much worse than it was. In contrast, the USA had no help in Iraq because there was no Northern Alliance, Iraq being instead an artificial nation carved up since the end of World War I with three different portions of territory inhabited by Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims and Kurds. These rivaling factions were being held together as a single country by just one man, a ruthless dictator by the name of Saddam Hussein, without whom the plunging of Iraq into a bloody civil war was more than predictable. Like it or not, that’s what it took to hold Iraq together.
But going back to the Russian involvement in Syria, the question persists: Have the Russians gone mad, considering the prolonged quagmire they had to endure in Afghanistan which ended up in their defeat during the times of the Soviet Union?
Currently, Syria is the only ally of Russia left in the Middle East, since the days of the Cold War alliances. If Bashar Al Assad falls, Russia will have no influence left in the Middle East. Very obviously, the intention of Russia is not to remove Bashar Al Assad from power but rather to prop him up and avoid his collapse, a position contrary to the US objective which is precisely the removal of Bashar Al Assad, reflecting the position of the prominent figures inside the US government that the ruthless dictator Bashar Al Assad must be removed from power. Just like Russia, these so-called experts seem to have learned absolutely nothing from the American fiasco in Iraq, where the removal of Saddam Hussein from power was the main objective of the war against Iraq,
Let us assume for a moment that the Devil grants the US government its wish and Bashar Al Assad ends up dead at the hands of those seeking to overthrow him. Then what? Who is going to replace Bashar Al Assad? Who is going to take his place? It is exactly the same thorny issue that President Bush did not care to address when he sent US troops to invade Iraq. After proclaiming his war on terror President Bush once said “we are going to win this war”. Fourteen years have gone by, and there seems to be no end in sight to the chaos in the Middle East. Is this “war” really winnable? Who said so?
Just like with the involvement of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan where the Russians didn’t get anything in return except the shame of defeat, the USA has gotten nothing in return for its involvement in Iraq except grief, worldwide shame and condemnation, widows, orphans, blood, and an economic loss upwards of one trillion dollars.
Another story with some similarities to the events unfolding in Iraq has to do with Libya, once ruled by the ruthless dictator Muammar Gaddafi. At one time considered by US policy-makers as a despicable ruler that had to be removed one way or the other, Gaddafi was actually the target of an assassination attempt by the US government using cruise missiles in the now famous Operation El Dorado Canyon where the home of Gaddafi was one of the military targets (although Gaddafi escaped this assassination attempt, two of his sons were reported as injured). Thus, the attempt against Gaddafi carried out by the US military in 1986 failed, but the will to remove Gaddafi remained. Then one good day, as a result of the Arab Spring, Libyans revolted against Gaddafi and finished him once and for all. And what happened shortly thereafter? That Libya ended up a thousand times worse than before, embroiled in an internal strife that has crippled Libya bringing it down to its knees, thus becoming a failed state. The murdering of US officials at the US Embassy in Benghazi was a direct consequence of Gaddafi no longer ruling Libya. And to date, there is no one in Libya capable of bringing that country back to the calm it had before the downfall of Gaddafi. Gaddafi was indeed a demon cloaked in human skin, but in that part of the world he was precisely the kind of demon required to keep things from falling apart as they are now.
And what about Egypt? When President Hosni Mubarak, in office since 1981 (a period of relative calm and tranquility) was toppled in February 2011 as a result of the Arab Spring and elections were held in Egypt for the very first time among the cheers of a jubilant people, the new Egyptian ruler Mohamed Morsi, the first democratically elected president in the history of Egypt, was quickly hailed by Washington and even by the US media as one of the “good guys”, thought to be the democratic president who would bring about prosperity and happiness to the country. Hurrah for democracy! But alas, in a matter of months he took off his mask, the mask of a moderate, and showed the true hidden intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood he represented: turn Egypt into an intolerant Islamic state ruled with an iron fist under the Sharia law. Things went from bad to worse until the Egyptian military was forced to intervene by ousting the Muslim radicals from power, with many Egyptians more than fed up with their failed experiment in democracy, at least for the time being in time frames measured in millennia as they do in those places. So, in the end, the “good guys” of Egypt were not that “good” after all. So far Egypt seems to be holding together precariously under a tense Mexican standoff. Mubarak may have been corrupt, but at least he kept things under control and even managed to maintain diplomatic relations with Israel keeping alive the peace deal forged by Anwar El Sadat, which is more than can be said for most Arab neighbors of Israel. And with him gone, who can fill his shoes? Certainly not the Muslim Brotherhood. Democracy may be good for Western-style nations, but in that part of the world and with rare exceptions such as Israel and Turkey, it is non-functional, democracy is not an option.
It has been forgotten by many that the US invasion of Iraq was justified on what amounts to clumsy (to say the least) intelligence, the claim of an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, a claim that in the end proved to be false. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq, and indeed by now that claim can be safely branded as a lie. How does a country that claims to have the best minds in the world in its military and intelligence communities end up waging an extremely costly war basing its most important decision, the decision to go to war and invade, upon a lie? Go figure.
The war in Iraq, a war that ended up costing upwards of a trillion dollars and a lot of American blood (the Britons had to pay their fair share as accomplices of the warmongering blood-thirsty President George Bush), was waged on what finally amounted to a lie. Yet, to date, no one in the CIA, the NSA and the military was ever held accountable for such a major blunder, no one was ever fired or relieved from duty or asked to resign, no one was even reprimanded. Likewise, not a single US politician, including former members of the US presidential cabinet and the US military, and not even former President George Bush (the culprit number one of the fiasco, the man who on final analysis took the final decision to invade Iraq), has stepped up front offering an apology to the American people by saying something like “I accept my part of the responsibility I will have to bear for the rest of my life and even beyond for a stupid war that should have never been carried out” (incidentally, just a few hours before the deadline given by President Bush in its ultimatum to the Iraqi dictator, Pope John Paul II asked Bush not to go ahead with his ultimatum, warning him that if he did so he would be held accountable for his decision and his actions to the Lord himself). When a country commits a lot of blood and treasure to accomplish a military objective, its leadership is obliged to ensure beyond a reasonable doubt that the motive for waging such a war is well justified, its leadership must ensure that it is acting on reliable intelligence and not clumsy opinions presented as dogmas whose credibility is beyond questioning by the rest of the mere mortals who do not belong to the elites in charge of concocting such fantasies upon which major decisions are made.
The problem with the current situation in Syria is that the US government is resorting to the same agencies and organizations that propelled the USA into what is now an ugly quagmire in Iraq, and we can also safely assume that many of the analysts and so-called “intelligence experts” who practically pushed the Iraq invasion agenda through the Washington corridors are still in their office desks. If those agencies, organizations and individuals failed so miserably then, what assurances can there be that they will not make the same mistakes in their evaluations and assessments with regards to the current situation in Syria, especially if nobody will ever get fired or even reprimanded for a job poorly done (not poorly paid, just poorly done)? Already an investment of half a billion dollars used to train and equip so-called “moderate opposition” fighters against Bashar Al Asad was suspended after being called a “friggin’ mess”. Again, it must be asked, are those who were given the task of spending wisely those 500 million bucks of taxpayers money in order to fund a “friggin’ mess” going to be the same “wise guys” who will keep on deciding in the future who are the “good guys” and who are the “bad guys” worthy of US support in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East? Where is their crystal ball, if they have any? Is it the one they carry to the bowling alley?
The US government position is to foster the downfall of Bashar Al Assad arguing that the “good guys” are those who are fighting to depose him and who are not Islamic radicals, whereas the position of the Russian government is to prop up Bashar Al Assad by bombing and fighting against all those who want him out including the so-called “moderate opposition fighters” supported by the US government. But who can be absolutely sure that the “good guys” who now have the sympathy and the blessings of the US government will not end up as the “bad guys”? Wasn’t the lesson learned in Afghanistan with Osama Bin Laden not enough? How many more lessons are needed in order to assimilate what should have already been assimilated a long time ago?
Finding “good guys” in the Muslim regions of the Middle East is something nigh onto impossible. Let us assume for a moment, just for a moment, that some dumb US Congressman escorts a would-be ally to the White House arguing that those he represents in Syria are in dire need of US support (money!) in their fight against Bashar Al Assad, with the guest repeating: “we the fighters of Al Nusra hate Bashar Al Assad, we consider ourselves his worst enemies, and we have absolutely nothing to do with ISIS”. These magic words could have the presidential cabinet jumping with joy, filling their faces with glee, until some nosy security guard at the White House who has done his homework whispers to their ears that al Nusra is really the Al Qaeda branch in Syria. Does the USA really want Al Nusra to replace Bashar Al Assad in Syria? Still, other as yet unidentified organizations with picturesque names such as Sons of Mustapha, Sworn Enemies of Bashar Al Assad and Holy Warriors of Syria might also come knocking on the door asking for US support, until some really smart guy in Washington (in the unlikely case there happens to be one near the powers that be) asks the pivotal question: “who the hell are these guys anyway, really?”, forcing the Washington decision-makers to shove these wolves in sheep’s clothing off the back door.
The Russians are obviously worried at the possibility that Bashar Al Assad may end up dead with Syria not only following in the footsteps of Iraq and Lybia, but being turned into a country from where the Islamic State ISIS (aka ISIL) will launch a major offensive against its neighbors, gathering enough sympathizers in neighboring countries to help ISIS expand into the Middle East equivalent of what was once the Soviet Union, except much more savage, much more brutal, much more radical.
The Russians have correctly concluded that, without outside help and with Bashar Al Assad fighting not only against ISIS but also against the “good guys” whom the US government wants to support, in the long run he doesn’t stand a chance, he is doomed. ISIS and “the good guys” (those with the blessings of Washington) have a common goal, the removal of Bashar Al Assad from power, but once that goal is achieved ISIS will surely turn against “the good guys” now favored by the USA and will end up assimilating many of them into its ranks while butchering those who oppose them. In the end, the “good guys” in Syria, if there are any left and if there is anybody left who can tell them apart, are no match for ISIS with all of the resources ISIS now has at its disposal, and the flood of refugees currently seeking asylum in Europe attests to the fact that a lot of Syrians don’t believe the situation is going to get any better. Indeed, with Bashar Al Assad gone, ISIS can take full control of Syria in a matter of months if not weeks, and it is unlikely the Russians will be in the mood to salvage the remains. Is the USA willing then to put “boots on the ground” to engage in direct war against an ISIS-ruled Syria. Is the USA ready and willing to open up a new chapter that will require an expenditure of trillions of dollars and thousands of American servicemen either killed or maimed? Wasn’t the Vietnam experience enough? What then have the so-called pundits in Washington learned from all those previous experiences of the past?
That Bashar Al Assad is a cruel and bloody dictator, very much like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, goes without saying. He has used barrel bombs and chemical weapons against his own people. He may be no saint, indeed he can be classified as a villain guilty of major war crimes. And perhaps the Russians themselves even hate him. Yet, if he is overthrown just as the US government now wants, the alternative scenarios appear infinitely worse. The most likely scenario, with Bashar Al Assad dead or gone, is that ISIS will quickly overrun everyone else in Syria and will take full control of Syria, where it will establish a terrorist state with the capability of launching a major Muslim crusade against all its neighbors like Jordan, Egypt, and Lybia, with the aim of extending its control over the entire Middle East and eventually to the rest of the world, including of course Russia. Indeed, the threat posed by ISIS is comparable to or perhaps even greater than the threat posed by the N.S.A.D.P. seven decades ago; and in this respect some frightening comparisons can be established. Unlike Bashar Al Assad who is just one man who simply wants to keep ruling Syria as his father did, ISIS is a movement that is doing its best to extend its tentacles far outside Syria by resorting to heavy indoctrination and brainwashing, exploiting the Internet to recruit new sympathizers from around the world. It is brutal, showing no mercy whatsoever.
Drawing from the American experience in Iraq where the aftermath of the hanging of Saddam Hussein proved to be a disaster in the long run, the Russians have no intention whatsoever of removing Bashar Al Assad, knowing damn well that if they do so the long term consequence of his absence will be a disaster. The Russians already have a Muslim powder keg in their own territory, in Chechnya, with a heavy Muslim population, precisely the birthplace of the two Muslim terrorists who carried out the Boston Marathon bombing. The only thing the Russian Muslims need is a source of “inspiration” either from inside Russia or from the outside telling them that a war with a Muslim banner is winnable. A triumph of ISIS overtaking Syria with the ouster (or killing) of Bashar Al Assad could very well be that source of inspiration. And the Russians perhaps have also concluded that if Russia is suddenly shaken by a wave of unbridled terrorism carried out by Muslim extremists, NATO will not come in to rescue Russia. For the time being, they are on their own in their support of Bashar Al Assad, whom they consider to be a “good guy” (considering the alternatives), and they know it.
Everywhere we look at, the overwhelming evidence is that all the “good guys” on whom the US government relied upon to bring stability to the Middle East either ended up as the “worst guys” we can find on planet Earth, or turned out to be abysmal failures as leaders and political negotiators. If the “good guys in Afghanistan” are really that “good”, why then after 14 years they still require the presence of US troops in Afghanistan in order to keep their country from falling again into the hands of the Taliban? If the “good guys” in Iraq are really that “good”, why then did their soldiers ran like scared rabbits refusing to fight against the approaching ISIS forces, surrendering and leaving behind their weapons and armored vehicles provided to them at enormous expenditures by the US taxpayer, requiring not only the aid of a massive US bombing campaign against the ISIS militants but also the presence of the Iranian military on the ground? Do the “good guys” of Iraq really expect the USA to save them again and again and again to compensate their lack of leadership and courage and their inability to unify their country? If the “good guys” who deposed Muammar Gaddafi in Libya are so “good”, why then does Libya remain as a failed state? As for Syria, any true moderates who might have lived in Syria have already left and are now in Europe with their families starting new lives, and are in no mood to return to a country whose only option to Bashar Al Assad seems to be ISIS.
So what should the USA do with regards to Syria?
For starters, it should give up any attempt to remove Bashar Al Assad from power. Not only could this lead to a direct confrontation with the Russians, the removal of Bashar Al Assad is precisely what ISIS wants now as its primary objective in order to take over Syria completely.
Without putting troops in the ground, the USA should maintain its aerial campaign against ISIS in Syria, giving the Russians a helping hand. For once, the USA should join forces with the Russians at least in this objective. In the neutralization of a worldwide threat such as ISIS the Russians will need all the help they can get, and they need that help now, tomorrow it may be too late.
Likewise, the aerial targeting against ISIS inside Iraq must also be maintained. With ISIS being bombed out of Iraq by the USA and being bombed inside Syria by both the Russians and the USA, this should suffice to keep them in check for the time being. With ISIS being renewed almost daily with the arrival of hundreds of newly brain-washed recruits coming from around the world after being dazzled by the ISIS propaganda, merely bombing ISIS with one hundred daily aerial warfare missions will simply not be enough, considering that ISIS has displayed an amazing adaptability in its response to the means used against ISIS. President Obama himself has warned several times that this is something that will not have a quick solution.
In the long run, the only way ISIS can be defeated is with its total annihilation, and it will be a prolonged effort with no easy solution. The Russians cannot win this war fighting it alone. As a matter of fact, it is likely that ISIS will be able to hold out even with the combined efforts of the USA and Russia working together against ISIS, and some sort of international coalition may be needed.
The Arab neighbors of Syria such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait must be convinced to provide troops in the ground by convincing them that if Syria falls in the hands of ISIS all of them will be the next objective,
If somebody needs to put “boots in the ground” fighting against ISIS it should be Syria’s neighbors such as Saudi Arabia who, by the way, and according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), in 2014 (last year) had the world’s third-largest military budget at around $80.8 billion, smaller than only those of China and the United States. The US economy has already gone bankrupt (the soaring deficit of the federal government is unpayable, and the US government is in no position to pay off all its accumulated debt reducing the budget deficit to zero and starting anew), a situation brought about by the US military involvement in its foreign wars especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why should Saudi Arabia expect the USA to enter and fight a brutal war against brutal enemies in Syria without putting its share of blood and treasure, considering the proximity of Syria to Saudia Arabia and the uncomfortable fact that ISIS has Saudi Arabia in its eye? And even though no country likes to fight while receiving some kind of payment for its involvement in the sending of soldiers who will really act as mercenaries fighting foreign wars on foreign soil in return for money and goods, the US federal government has not even had the brains (or the guts) to do this, either by asking all interested parties to foot the bill in the sending of US troops to fight against ISIS in Syria, or at the very least by paying someone else to do the job (disgusting as it may sound, perhaps the USA should pay Russia to take on ISIS with Russian troops in Syria, thus sparing the USA from sending its own troops to Syria for the time being).
Another possibility that has not even been exploited or even suggested by the so-called intelligence experts in Washington is the fact that another country threatened by ISIS is Turkey which, by the way, happens to be a member of NATO. Why not involve NATO by letting NATO provide direct military assistance, troops and equipment to Turkey under the premise that the attack against any member of NATO is an attack against all those who make up NATO? If NATO is of no help in such a predicament against the threat posed against Turkey by ISIS, it if doubtful NATO will be willing or able to fulfill any obligations under other scenarios, or to put it bluntly, the member nations of NATO would not be able to count on NATO when facing a military threat, rendering NATO useless for all practical purposes. And it might be added here that the butcher of Syria Bashar Al Assad has never been a threat to any of the members of NATO, the danger coming from Syria against Turkey is being posed by ISIS, not Bashar Al Assad. Yet another reason to forget about the usefulness of removing him from power.
Finally, a copy of the Bible should be given to each of the so-called “intelligence experts and advisors” who serve Washington, making them read the entire book again and again and again. Not for the purpose of religious indoctrination, but simply to make them realize that, at least in that part of the world, conflicts and wars have been waged non-stop for a long long time, and seldom has there been an epoch of peace in what we now call the Middle East. The Romans thought they could change the pattern, and they finally had to pack and leave just in time to see their own empire crumble.
Muhammad wrote the Quran perhaps truly believing everlasting peace could be achieved, and things are almost as bad today if not worse than during his time. The best that can be hoped for is to try to keep things from spiraling out of control as is the case with ISIS. No government including the USA should consider itself to be in the business of deciding who are the “good guys” and who are the “bad guys”. Likewise, by no means should there be any attempt to intervene in local civil wars by taking sides putting “boots in the ground”, the Vietnam experience alone should have proven how unrewarding it can be to do so. Let the people who live in those regions handle their own problems and fight their own wars. If they cannot agree at least in a truce, nobody from the outside will be able to force them into something they really don’t want. Let them fight it out until they are worn out, and only then come in with humanitarian help (food, medicines, shelters) without taking sides just as Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross do.
The presence of Russian fighter jets in Syria, which may eventually be followed by the presence of Russian soldiers fighting alongside the regular army of Syria against all the rebel factions, has been called a game changer. Not since the days of the Cold War has there been such a direct involvement of Russia in the Middle East.
At first, the direct military involvement of Russia in the Syrian conflict may seem rather puzzling. After all, the disastrous Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in a war that was never won by the invader is considered today by historians to have been one of the key factors in the economic bankruptcy of the Soviet Union and the eventual collapse of the U.S.S.R. The Russian economy is still reeling from the economic sanctions imposed as punishment for its military support of Ukrainian separatists, and still has to come up with the money that will be required to pay for the 2017 FIFA World Cup championship. So we may ask: didn’t the Russians learn anything from their sore experience in Afghanistan? Have they gone crazy?
One of the contributing factors in the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan was undoubtedly the support given by the USA to the rebel terrorist groups in Afghanistan who were fighting to expel from Afghanistan the Soviet invaders (at the time, they were not branded as terrorists, they were called “freedom fighters” since they were fighting the “bad guys” of the Soviet Union). It was the USA who provided these so-called “freedom fighters” groups with a lot of money and training and sophisticated weaponry such as Stinger missiles used to shoot down Russian aircraft. Were it not for this help, perhaps the Russians would still have a presence in Afghanistan even with the Soviet Union dismantled.
Among the rebel groups fighting against the Soviet presence in Afghanistan there was a man by the name of Osama Bin Laden, precisely the man who headed the now international terrorist organization called Al Qaeda. Yep, Osama Bin Laden himself. The followers of Bin Laden as well as Bin Laden were funded and trained from beginning to end by the CIA in order to ensure the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. It is as simple as that. Thus, in the end it was the USA itself who provided the means and resources to the same ungrateful Muslims who a short time later launched a devastating attack upon US soil that brought down the Twin Towers, smashed the Pentagon, and probably would have erased Capitol Hill were it not for the true heroes of United Airlines Flight 93 who gave up their lives in trying to stop the fourth aircraft that was en route to smashing either the White House or Capitol Hill. The policy makers in Washington should have known better that making a deal with Osama Bin Laden and his cronies, which was the same as making a deal with the Devil, would have catastrophic consequences in the near future.
The crushing defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan followed by the pullback of all its military personnel from that country enabled the Taliban to take over Afghanistan turning it almost immediately into a safe haven and sanctuary for Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network Al Qaeda. Shortly thereafter, with the Soviet Union gone, the USA was forced to fill the void left by the Soviet Union, spilling the blood of American servicemen in order to overthrow the Taliban regime (which was unapologetic in its harboring of the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks) and go after Osama Bin Laden, getting involved in a trillion-dollars war in Afghanistan which is still being waged at this very moment in what amounts to an enormous expenditure of blood and treasure on the US side (for the USA this has been its longest war lasting now 14 years, and it is far from over). Thus, the US government, ill-advised then by think-tanks thought to be the epitome of wisdom, and acting with the foresight of Doctor Frankenstein, ended up creating its own monster. And quite a monster it turned out to be! Perhaps these facts are not being taught in the USA as forcefully as they should in American History 101 at all levels all the way from elementary to college.
At the time, US support of the Muslim terrorist Osama Bin Laden and his crazed followers in their fight against the Soviet Union was considered by Washington policy-makers as “the right thing to do”, it was almost a patriotic duty to support all those who fought in Afghanistan for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was the “best” advice given to the President. There was even a “Rambo” film (with Sylvester Stallone) portraying the Russians as evil murderers of Afghanistan civilians. The Russians were “the bad guys” and the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden and his entourage were “the good guys”. That is, until September 2001.
Looking back, the American involvement in the expulsion of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan soil that ended up installing the Taliban in power and fostered in that country the protection and expansion of one of the most dangerous terrorist groups in that part of the world is considered by many historians not merely as a major display in the lack of foresight and intelligence, but indeed a major and inexcusable blunder.
It might be argued that the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was well justified on the basis that the Taliban were refusing to hand over the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. This refusal could be taken as an act of war considering that the Taliban regime was giving safe haven to the Al Qaeda terrorists, and thus the Taliban regime could be considered to be in defiance and in a virtual state of war against the USA. The intelligence community and the military in the USA seem to have forgotten that the triumph in Afghanistan with the removal of the Taliban from power, in contrast with the Iraq fiasco, was due to a major push carried out by the Northern Alliance forging ahead in spite of being advised at the time by US military advisers to hold back. Were it not for the help of the Northern Alliance made up of all those tribes in the country who were fed up with the Taliban, the Afghanistan experience could have been much worse than it was. In contrast, the USA had no help in Iraq because there was no Northern Alliance, Iraq being instead an artificial nation carved up since the end of World War I with three different portions of territory inhabited by Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims and Kurds. These rivaling factions were being held together as a single country by just one man, a ruthless dictator by the name of Saddam Hussein, without whom the plunging of Iraq into a bloody civil war was more than predictable. Like it or not, that’s what it took to hold Iraq together.
But going back to the Russian involvement in Syria, the question persists: Have the Russians gone mad, considering the prolonged quagmire they had to endure in Afghanistan which ended up in their defeat during the times of the Soviet Union?
Currently, Syria is the only ally of Russia left in the Middle East, since the days of the Cold War alliances. If Bashar Al Assad falls, Russia will have no influence left in the Middle East. Very obviously, the intention of Russia is not to remove Bashar Al Assad from power but rather to prop him up and avoid his collapse, a position contrary to the US objective which is precisely the removal of Bashar Al Assad, reflecting the position of the prominent figures inside the US government that the ruthless dictator Bashar Al Assad must be removed from power. Just like Russia, these so-called experts seem to have learned absolutely nothing from the American fiasco in Iraq, where the removal of Saddam Hussein from power was the main objective of the war against Iraq,
Let us assume for a moment that the Devil grants the US government its wish and Bashar Al Assad ends up dead at the hands of those seeking to overthrow him. Then what? Who is going to replace Bashar Al Assad? Who is going to take his place? It is exactly the same thorny issue that President Bush did not care to address when he sent US troops to invade Iraq. After proclaiming his war on terror President Bush once said “we are going to win this war”. Fourteen years have gone by, and there seems to be no end in sight to the chaos in the Middle East. Is this “war” really winnable? Who said so?
Just like with the involvement of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan where the Russians didn’t get anything in return except the shame of defeat, the USA has gotten nothing in return for its involvement in Iraq except grief, worldwide shame and condemnation, widows, orphans, blood, and an economic loss upwards of one trillion dollars.
Another story with some similarities to the events unfolding in Iraq has to do with Libya, once ruled by the ruthless dictator Muammar Gaddafi. At one time considered by US policy-makers as a despicable ruler that had to be removed one way or the other, Gaddafi was actually the target of an assassination attempt by the US government using cruise missiles in the now famous Operation El Dorado Canyon where the home of Gaddafi was one of the military targets (although Gaddafi escaped this assassination attempt, two of his sons were reported as injured). Thus, the attempt against Gaddafi carried out by the US military in 1986 failed, but the will to remove Gaddafi remained. Then one good day, as a result of the Arab Spring, Libyans revolted against Gaddafi and finished him once and for all. And what happened shortly thereafter? That Libya ended up a thousand times worse than before, embroiled in an internal strife that has crippled Libya bringing it down to its knees, thus becoming a failed state. The murdering of US officials at the US Embassy in Benghazi was a direct consequence of Gaddafi no longer ruling Libya. And to date, there is no one in Libya capable of bringing that country back to the calm it had before the downfall of Gaddafi. Gaddafi was indeed a demon cloaked in human skin, but in that part of the world he was precisely the kind of demon required to keep things from falling apart as they are now.
And what about Egypt? When President Hosni Mubarak, in office since 1981 (a period of relative calm and tranquility) was toppled in February 2011 as a result of the Arab Spring and elections were held in Egypt for the very first time among the cheers of a jubilant people, the new Egyptian ruler Mohamed Morsi, the first democratically elected president in the history of Egypt, was quickly hailed by Washington and even by the US media as one of the “good guys”, thought to be the democratic president who would bring about prosperity and happiness to the country. Hurrah for democracy! But alas, in a matter of months he took off his mask, the mask of a moderate, and showed the true hidden intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood he represented: turn Egypt into an intolerant Islamic state ruled with an iron fist under the Sharia law. Things went from bad to worse until the Egyptian military was forced to intervene by ousting the Muslim radicals from power, with many Egyptians more than fed up with their failed experiment in democracy, at least for the time being in time frames measured in millennia as they do in those places. So, in the end, the “good guys” of Egypt were not that “good” after all. So far Egypt seems to be holding together precariously under a tense Mexican standoff. Mubarak may have been corrupt, but at least he kept things under control and even managed to maintain diplomatic relations with Israel keeping alive the peace deal forged by Anwar El Sadat, which is more than can be said for most Arab neighbors of Israel. And with him gone, who can fill his shoes? Certainly not the Muslim Brotherhood. Democracy may be good for Western-style nations, but in that part of the world and with rare exceptions such as Israel and Turkey, it is non-functional, democracy is not an option.
It has been forgotten by many that the US invasion of Iraq was justified on what amounts to clumsy (to say the least) intelligence, the claim of an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, a claim that in the end proved to be false. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq, and indeed by now that claim can be safely branded as a lie. How does a country that claims to have the best minds in the world in its military and intelligence communities end up waging an extremely costly war basing its most important decision, the decision to go to war and invade, upon a lie? Go figure.
The war in Iraq, a war that ended up costing upwards of a trillion dollars and a lot of American blood (the Britons had to pay their fair share as accomplices of the warmongering blood-thirsty President George Bush), was waged on what finally amounted to a lie. Yet, to date, no one in the CIA, the NSA and the military was ever held accountable for such a major blunder, no one was ever fired or relieved from duty or asked to resign, no one was even reprimanded. Likewise, not a single US politician, including former members of the US presidential cabinet and the US military, and not even former President George Bush (the culprit number one of the fiasco, the man who on final analysis took the final decision to invade Iraq), has stepped up front offering an apology to the American people by saying something like “I accept my part of the responsibility I will have to bear for the rest of my life and even beyond for a stupid war that should have never been carried out” (incidentally, just a few hours before the deadline given by President Bush in its ultimatum to the Iraqi dictator, Pope John Paul II asked Bush not to go ahead with his ultimatum, warning him that if he did so he would be held accountable for his decision and his actions to the Lord himself). When a country commits a lot of blood and treasure to accomplish a military objective, its leadership is obliged to ensure beyond a reasonable doubt that the motive for waging such a war is well justified, its leadership must ensure that it is acting on reliable intelligence and not clumsy opinions presented as dogmas whose credibility is beyond questioning by the rest of the mere mortals who do not belong to the elites in charge of concocting such fantasies upon which major decisions are made.
The problem with the current situation in Syria is that the US government is resorting to the same agencies and organizations that propelled the USA into what is now an ugly quagmire in Iraq, and we can also safely assume that many of the analysts and so-called “intelligence experts” who practically pushed the Iraq invasion agenda through the Washington corridors are still in their office desks. If those agencies, organizations and individuals failed so miserably then, what assurances can there be that they will not make the same mistakes in their evaluations and assessments with regards to the current situation in Syria, especially if nobody will ever get fired or even reprimanded for a job poorly done (not poorly paid, just poorly done)? Already an investment of half a billion dollars used to train and equip so-called “moderate opposition” fighters against Bashar Al Asad was suspended after being called a “friggin’ mess”. Again, it must be asked, are those who were given the task of spending wisely those 500 million bucks of taxpayers money in order to fund a “friggin’ mess” going to be the same “wise guys” who will keep on deciding in the future who are the “good guys” and who are the “bad guys” worthy of US support in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East? Where is their crystal ball, if they have any? Is it the one they carry to the bowling alley?
The US government position is to foster the downfall of Bashar Al Assad arguing that the “good guys” are those who are fighting to depose him and who are not Islamic radicals, whereas the position of the Russian government is to prop up Bashar Al Assad by bombing and fighting against all those who want him out including the so-called “moderate opposition fighters” supported by the US government. But who can be absolutely sure that the “good guys” who now have the sympathy and the blessings of the US government will not end up as the “bad guys”? Wasn’t the lesson learned in Afghanistan with Osama Bin Laden not enough? How many more lessons are needed in order to assimilate what should have already been assimilated a long time ago?
Finding “good guys” in the Muslim regions of the Middle East is something nigh onto impossible. Let us assume for a moment, just for a moment, that some dumb US Congressman escorts a would-be ally to the White House arguing that those he represents in Syria are in dire need of US support (money!) in their fight against Bashar Al Assad, with the guest repeating: “we the fighters of Al Nusra hate Bashar Al Assad, we consider ourselves his worst enemies, and we have absolutely nothing to do with ISIS”. These magic words could have the presidential cabinet jumping with joy, filling their faces with glee, until some nosy security guard at the White House who has done his homework whispers to their ears that al Nusra is really the Al Qaeda branch in Syria. Does the USA really want Al Nusra to replace Bashar Al Assad in Syria? Still, other as yet unidentified organizations with picturesque names such as Sons of Mustapha, Sworn Enemies of Bashar Al Assad and Holy Warriors of Syria might also come knocking on the door asking for US support, until some really smart guy in Washington (in the unlikely case there happens to be one near the powers that be) asks the pivotal question: “who the hell are these guys anyway, really?”, forcing the Washington decision-makers to shove these wolves in sheep’s clothing off the back door.
The Russians are obviously worried at the possibility that Bashar Al Assad may end up dead with Syria not only following in the footsteps of Iraq and Lybia, but being turned into a country from where the Islamic State ISIS (aka ISIL) will launch a major offensive against its neighbors, gathering enough sympathizers in neighboring countries to help ISIS expand into the Middle East equivalent of what was once the Soviet Union, except much more savage, much more brutal, much more radical.
The Russians have correctly concluded that, without outside help and with Bashar Al Assad fighting not only against ISIS but also against the “good guys” whom the US government wants to support, in the long run he doesn’t stand a chance, he is doomed. ISIS and “the good guys” (those with the blessings of Washington) have a common goal, the removal of Bashar Al Assad from power, but once that goal is achieved ISIS will surely turn against “the good guys” now favored by the USA and will end up assimilating many of them into its ranks while butchering those who oppose them. In the end, the “good guys” in Syria, if there are any left and if there is anybody left who can tell them apart, are no match for ISIS with all of the resources ISIS now has at its disposal, and the flood of refugees currently seeking asylum in Europe attests to the fact that a lot of Syrians don’t believe the situation is going to get any better. Indeed, with Bashar Al Assad gone, ISIS can take full control of Syria in a matter of months if not weeks, and it is unlikely the Russians will be in the mood to salvage the remains. Is the USA willing then to put “boots on the ground” to engage in direct war against an ISIS-ruled Syria. Is the USA ready and willing to open up a new chapter that will require an expenditure of trillions of dollars and thousands of American servicemen either killed or maimed? Wasn’t the Vietnam experience enough? What then have the so-called pundits in Washington learned from all those previous experiences of the past?
That Bashar Al Assad is a cruel and bloody dictator, very much like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, goes without saying. He has used barrel bombs and chemical weapons against his own people. He may be no saint, indeed he can be classified as a villain guilty of major war crimes. And perhaps the Russians themselves even hate him. Yet, if he is overthrown just as the US government now wants, the alternative scenarios appear infinitely worse. The most likely scenario, with Bashar Al Assad dead or gone, is that ISIS will quickly overrun everyone else in Syria and will take full control of Syria, where it will establish a terrorist state with the capability of launching a major Muslim crusade against all its neighbors like Jordan, Egypt, and Lybia, with the aim of extending its control over the entire Middle East and eventually to the rest of the world, including of course Russia. Indeed, the threat posed by ISIS is comparable to or perhaps even greater than the threat posed by the N.S.A.D.P. seven decades ago; and in this respect some frightening comparisons can be established. Unlike Bashar Al Assad who is just one man who simply wants to keep ruling Syria as his father did, ISIS is a movement that is doing its best to extend its tentacles far outside Syria by resorting to heavy indoctrination and brainwashing, exploiting the Internet to recruit new sympathizers from around the world. It is brutal, showing no mercy whatsoever.
Drawing from the American experience in Iraq where the aftermath of the hanging of Saddam Hussein proved to be a disaster in the long run, the Russians have no intention whatsoever of removing Bashar Al Assad, knowing damn well that if they do so the long term consequence of his absence will be a disaster. The Russians already have a Muslim powder keg in their own territory, in Chechnya, with a heavy Muslim population, precisely the birthplace of the two Muslim terrorists who carried out the Boston Marathon bombing. The only thing the Russian Muslims need is a source of “inspiration” either from inside Russia or from the outside telling them that a war with a Muslim banner is winnable. A triumph of ISIS overtaking Syria with the ouster (or killing) of Bashar Al Assad could very well be that source of inspiration. And the Russians perhaps have also concluded that if Russia is suddenly shaken by a wave of unbridled terrorism carried out by Muslim extremists, NATO will not come in to rescue Russia. For the time being, they are on their own in their support of Bashar Al Assad, whom they consider to be a “good guy” (considering the alternatives), and they know it.
Everywhere we look at, the overwhelming evidence is that all the “good guys” on whom the US government relied upon to bring stability to the Middle East either ended up as the “worst guys” we can find on planet Earth, or turned out to be abysmal failures as leaders and political negotiators. If the “good guys in Afghanistan” are really that “good”, why then after 14 years they still require the presence of US troops in Afghanistan in order to keep their country from falling again into the hands of the Taliban? If the “good guys” in Iraq are really that “good”, why then did their soldiers ran like scared rabbits refusing to fight against the approaching ISIS forces, surrendering and leaving behind their weapons and armored vehicles provided to them at enormous expenditures by the US taxpayer, requiring not only the aid of a massive US bombing campaign against the ISIS militants but also the presence of the Iranian military on the ground? Do the “good guys” of Iraq really expect the USA to save them again and again and again to compensate their lack of leadership and courage and their inability to unify their country? If the “good guys” who deposed Muammar Gaddafi in Libya are so “good”, why then does Libya remain as a failed state? As for Syria, any true moderates who might have lived in Syria have already left and are now in Europe with their families starting new lives, and are in no mood to return to a country whose only option to Bashar Al Assad seems to be ISIS.
So what should the USA do with regards to Syria?
For starters, it should give up any attempt to remove Bashar Al Assad from power. Not only could this lead to a direct confrontation with the Russians, the removal of Bashar Al Assad is precisely what ISIS wants now as its primary objective in order to take over Syria completely.
Without putting troops in the ground, the USA should maintain its aerial campaign against ISIS in Syria, giving the Russians a helping hand. For once, the USA should join forces with the Russians at least in this objective. In the neutralization of a worldwide threat such as ISIS the Russians will need all the help they can get, and they need that help now, tomorrow it may be too late.
Likewise, the aerial targeting against ISIS inside Iraq must also be maintained. With ISIS being bombed out of Iraq by the USA and being bombed inside Syria by both the Russians and the USA, this should suffice to keep them in check for the time being. With ISIS being renewed almost daily with the arrival of hundreds of newly brain-washed recruits coming from around the world after being dazzled by the ISIS propaganda, merely bombing ISIS with one hundred daily aerial warfare missions will simply not be enough, considering that ISIS has displayed an amazing adaptability in its response to the means used against ISIS. President Obama himself has warned several times that this is something that will not have a quick solution.
In the long run, the only way ISIS can be defeated is with its total annihilation, and it will be a prolonged effort with no easy solution. The Russians cannot win this war fighting it alone. As a matter of fact, it is likely that ISIS will be able to hold out even with the combined efforts of the USA and Russia working together against ISIS, and some sort of international coalition may be needed.
The Arab neighbors of Syria such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait must be convinced to provide troops in the ground by convincing them that if Syria falls in the hands of ISIS all of them will be the next objective,
If somebody needs to put “boots in the ground” fighting against ISIS it should be Syria’s neighbors such as Saudi Arabia who, by the way, and according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), in 2014 (last year) had the world’s third-largest military budget at around $80.8 billion, smaller than only those of China and the United States. The US economy has already gone bankrupt (the soaring deficit of the federal government is unpayable, and the US government is in no position to pay off all its accumulated debt reducing the budget deficit to zero and starting anew), a situation brought about by the US military involvement in its foreign wars especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why should Saudi Arabia expect the USA to enter and fight a brutal war against brutal enemies in Syria without putting its share of blood and treasure, considering the proximity of Syria to Saudia Arabia and the uncomfortable fact that ISIS has Saudi Arabia in its eye? And even though no country likes to fight while receiving some kind of payment for its involvement in the sending of soldiers who will really act as mercenaries fighting foreign wars on foreign soil in return for money and goods, the US federal government has not even had the brains (or the guts) to do this, either by asking all interested parties to foot the bill in the sending of US troops to fight against ISIS in Syria, or at the very least by paying someone else to do the job (disgusting as it may sound, perhaps the USA should pay Russia to take on ISIS with Russian troops in Syria, thus sparing the USA from sending its own troops to Syria for the time being).
Another possibility that has not even been exploited or even suggested by the so-called intelligence experts in Washington is the fact that another country threatened by ISIS is Turkey which, by the way, happens to be a member of NATO. Why not involve NATO by letting NATO provide direct military assistance, troops and equipment to Turkey under the premise that the attack against any member of NATO is an attack against all those who make up NATO? If NATO is of no help in such a predicament against the threat posed against Turkey by ISIS, it if doubtful NATO will be willing or able to fulfill any obligations under other scenarios, or to put it bluntly, the member nations of NATO would not be able to count on NATO when facing a military threat, rendering NATO useless for all practical purposes. And it might be added here that the butcher of Syria Bashar Al Assad has never been a threat to any of the members of NATO, the danger coming from Syria against Turkey is being posed by ISIS, not Bashar Al Assad. Yet another reason to forget about the usefulness of removing him from power.
Finally, a copy of the Bible should be given to each of the so-called “intelligence experts and advisors” who serve Washington, making them read the entire book again and again and again. Not for the purpose of religious indoctrination, but simply to make them realize that, at least in that part of the world, conflicts and wars have been waged non-stop for a long long time, and seldom has there been an epoch of peace in what we now call the Middle East. The Romans thought they could change the pattern, and they finally had to pack and leave just in time to see their own empire crumble.
Muhammad wrote the Quran perhaps truly believing everlasting peace could be achieved, and things are almost as bad today if not worse than during his time. The best that can be hoped for is to try to keep things from spiraling out of control as is the case with ISIS. No government including the USA should consider itself to be in the business of deciding who are the “good guys” and who are the “bad guys”. Likewise, by no means should there be any attempt to intervene in local civil wars by taking sides putting “boots in the ground”, the Vietnam experience alone should have proven how unrewarding it can be to do so. Let the people who live in those regions handle their own problems and fight their own wars. If they cannot agree at least in a truce, nobody from the outside will be able to force them into something they really don’t want. Let them fight it out until they are worn out, and only then come in with humanitarian help (food, medicines, shelters) without taking sides just as Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross do.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
