Abu Muhammed al-Jolani and His Agenda for Syria - A Backgrounder

With the ultimate fate of Syria now in the hands of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham or HTS, a brief look at the group's history and leadership is in order.

  

Abu Muhammed al-Jolani was born in 1982 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia as Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa where his father was a petroleum engineer.  The family returned to Syria in 1989, settling near Damascus.  Little is known of his life between 1989 and his reappearance in 2003.  As a result of the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003, he joined the al Qaeda insurgency against U.S. forces.  He was arrested by U.S. forces in Iraq in 2006 and held in custody for five years.  In 2012, al-Jolani founded Jabhat al-Nusra, an affiliate of al Qaeda in Syria, coordinating with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the head of al-Qaeda's Islamic State in Iraq which later became known as ISIL or ISIS.  Al-Jolani left Jabhat al-Nusra in 2016 over a disagreement regarding the goals of the group.  Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) or the Organization for the Liberation of the Levant was formed in 2017 from the merger of five anti-Assad Islamic militia groups and opposition under the leadership of al-Jolani. Initially, the West viewed al-Jolani's 2016 break with al-Qaeda when he formed HTS as cosmetic, however the merger that created HTS was strongly condemned by al Qaeda.  Al-Jolani's group controlled roughly half of the Idlib governorate and part of the Aleppo governorate and has an estimated 10,000 fighters with its focus on creating an Islamic Republic in Syria that would be guided by a fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic law.  HTS ran the governorate of Idlib through the Syrian Salvation Government which it founded in 2017 to provide the region with a judiciary, civil services, health care, education and infrastructure.    

 

On May 16, 2013, the United States listed al-Jolani as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" under executive order 13224,  Here is his page on the Department of State website:

Note that there is up to a $10 million reward for information on al-Jolani.

  

Given that al-Jolani is now the de facto leader of Syria, and that he is an avowed fundamentalist Muslim, it will be interesting to see if Western nations change their official opinion about declaring Syria's new leader and HTS as a terrorist/terroist group as shown in these two examples:

 

1.) The United Kingdom which proscribed HTS as an alternative name for al-Qaeda as shown here:

 

2.) Washington which has placed al-Jolani to their list of terrorists particularly the United Kingdom as I noted above.

  

Will the West now leave al-Jolani and HTS to convert Syria into a nation that lives under a strict form of Sharia law?   If I were a non-Sunni Syrian, I would be very concerned about my future under a government that was run by a fundamentalist Islamic group.

 

References:

 

1.) Wilson Center -

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/hts-evolution-jihadist-group

  

2. National Counterterrorism Center - 

https://www.dni.gov/nctc/ftos/hts_fto.html

  

3.) Washington Institute - 

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pdf/view/17425/en

Syria - What the Clinton Department of State Wanted for the Nation

With Bashar al-Assad's version of Syria now dead on arrival, a brief look back at history is quite interesting.  Thanks to WikiLeaks and the release of Hillary Clinton's U.S. Department of State emails to the world, we can see why Washington was cheering for  the ultimate downfall of Syria.

 

In an unclassified Department of State document dated November 30, 2015, we find the following with my highlights throughout:

 

 

Note that the document states that "a successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and military leadership from the United States" and that "Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces."  It also states that the costs of military intervention to the United States could be "limited" if Washington takes steps to arm the Syrian rebels and use its air power to ground the Syrian Air Force.  The author of the document claims that a victory over the Assad regime would have two results:

 

1.) strategically isolate Iran

 

2.) Syrians would view the United States as a friend, not an enemy

 

What do you think the odds are that the rebel forces that have now taken Syria will view the United States as a "friend"?  Or that Syrian civilians will view the United States as acting in their best interest once the new leadership starts to implement its extremist Islamic views on the nation?

The document also states that Libya was an easier case when it came to direct military intervention by the United States against Muammar Qaddafi.  That said, how have things turned out in Libya?  Rather than bringing Libyans under a single umbrella, the nation is now divided into several rival governments/power centres and is now home to a wide range of Islamic jihadist groups as you can see on this map:

 

In my humble opinion and as an observer of history, I suspect that Syria, a nation made up of Sunni Muslims, Alawites, Christians, Kurds, Turks, Druze, Isma'ilis and Shiite Muslims, will ultimately be divided geographically and socially along ethnic and religious lines.  While Bashar al-Assad may have been dictatorial, he did serve to generally keep the peace among these wide-ranging groups of people.  Now that control of the nation has fallen into the hands of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a Sunni Islamic, Salafi-jihadist militant group that Washington has declared as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, it will be interesting to see how tolerant they are of non-Sunni Syrians.  I'm guessing that they won't be terribly tolerant of those that they view as infidels.

 

Right now, we don't know how involved Washington was in the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad.  What kind of back channel negotiations took place with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, Turkey, Israel and other players in the region that wanted to see an end to the Syrian nation and its close ties to Tehran?  Only time will tell just how convoluted the geopolitics are of the very brief military actions that saw an end to one of Israel's key foes in the Middle East.

In any case, as Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and other nations have shown the world, Washington's efforts at nation-building have been a complete and utter failure with a long series of unintended and painful consequences.  Syria will be no different.  In this case, you can assure yourself that any intervention by Washington was done on behalf of and at the behest of its proxy in the Middle East - Israel.

Bill Gates and India - The Gates Foundation's Living Laboratory

In a recent interview, the world's foremost untrained virologist and vaccinologist "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud.  In an interview with Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn, Bill Gates waxed philosophically about his views on AI and how it will help transform all of Bill's favourite things including global health, climate change, energy and education.  Here is a quote from the lead-in to the Possible podcast:

 

"Reid and Aria sat down with Bill Gates to discuss his main areas of focus: climate change, energy, global health, and education—and how AI will help transform each of them. Taking a bird’s-eye view of society’s challenges, it’s easy to give in to pessimism. But as one of the most influential people in the world, Bill Gates has a unique perspective on how far humanity has come and what our potential—and timelines—for meaningful change really look like. He gets granular on everything from cows (5% of global emissions) to disease reduction and eradication (Guinea worm disease). At each turn, he has data at his fingertips to ground his beliefs. So, what current set of innovations is Bill most excited about? And what is realistically on the horizon for AI, climate change, energy, global health, and education?"

  

With that background, let's look at an excerpt from the hour-long interview.  Co-host Aria Finger, Hoffman's Chief of Staff, leads in with this when opening the discussion about Bill's fixation with global health:

 

"So I want to switch gears. Another area where I think you’re probably best known is global health. And I think as an area where AI can do so much, and my husband is a public health data scientist, so he’s particularly excited about this area of the interview. You have focused on the eradication of disease. And I think, but fact, check me, in 1980, the WHO declared that smallpox was eradicated. And that’s the first and only disease that we have eradicated. You’ve said let’s tackle polio, let’s tackle malaria. How do you pick, what is the next disease you’re going to tackle? Like what an amazing ambition and then how do you go after it?"

 

Gates responds with this with my bolds throughout:

 

"Yeah, so most diseases we’re going for a burden reduction. Only very few diseases should you try to go for eradication. because It’s very, very hard to get to zero. And right now with polio, you know, we’re in Afghanistan, we’re in Gaza, we’re in Somalia, we’re in DRC, and you know, we’re having to execute high coverage vaccination campaigns against misinformation and violence in the toughest places in the world. So it’s very, very hard. Polio’s close. There’s one called Guinea worm, which is confined to Africa where, you know, President Carter just got to a hundred, he’s been a, a champion of that. So we’re hoping he’ll be alive not only to vote in the election, but also to come to the Guinea worm celebration party. He’s going to, it’s going to take a couple years. So he’s going to have to hang on a little longer. So the magic thing that happened at the turn of the century was people got serious about global health, about really measuring, okay, kids die of diarrhea, but what caused that diarrhea?

 

They die of pneumonia, malaria, okay, it’s more clear what that is. But let’s, even though there’s no market, the people who die of malaria, half a million kids a year, they, it’s not like you can make a business case of, hey, go to Silicon Valley and do a malaria startup. And, you know, look at that spreadsheet the line that says life saved will look good, but the line that says profit will have a lot of red numbers because you, they can’t afford these tools. So medical science is very distorted towards rich world conditions and even amongst rich world conditions towards cancer and a few other things. So the incentive system is, you know, potentially could be improved. But the Gates Foundation, that’s our place we come to fill in, is that the things that aren’t market driven, like getting diarrhea vaccines cheap enough for all the kids of the world, not just the rich kids who don’t die of diarrhea, but the, the, that also used to be a half million now down to a hundred thousand.

 

So as we went from 10 million under five deaths per year in the, at the turn of the century to 5 million, diarrhea was one of our best. Pneumonia, we got a vaccine out for that, which was a very expensive vaccine that we worked with all the vaccine companies, Western and Asian, to get those prices down. And so we’re kind, we’re basically driven by the inequity where we say, why do mothers die in childbirth 20 times as much in Africa? Why do kids die 50 times as much in their first five years in poor countries, particularly Africa, but also Southeast Asia. And so we’re, you know, taking all of those and saying, okay, let’s find the best scientists. Let’s understand the field conditions, you know, is this stuff deliverable? Will it be accepted? You know, we have crazy ways of killing mosquitoes — that, that alone doesn’t get rid of malaria."

 

Crazy is right as you can see here:

...and here:

So now Bill's an entomologist too!  Absolutely nothing could go wrong by changing the mosquito ecosystem, could it?

 

Now, if we skip to the end of the interview, we find this gem during the rapid-fire question and answer section:

 

"REID:

 

Yeah, exactly. I love it. So where do you see progress or momentum outside of your industry — and of course that’s very broad — that inspires you?

 

BILL GATES:

 

Well, when India’s an example of a country where, oh, there’s plenty of things that are difficult there. The health nutrition education is improving, and they’re stable enough and generating their own government revenue enough that it’s very likely that 20 years from now people will be dramatically better off. And it’s kind of a laboratory to try things that then once you prove them out in India, you can take to other places. And so our biggest non-U.S. Office for the Foundation is in, is in India. And the most number of pilot rollout things we’re doing anywhere in the world are with partners in India. You know, if you go there and you’ve never been, you might think, whoa, this is a chaotic place. And you know, you’re not used to so many levels of income all being on the street at, at the same time, but you, you will get a sense of the vibrancy. Mm-Hmm."

  

Here it is as seen at the 1 hour and 1 minute mark of the video:

 

 

So, there you go.

 

As background, here's what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has to say about its work in India:

 

 

If you search through the Foundation's committed grants database using India as a search term, you'll find that the Foundation has written 884 grants to India in total.  Here are a few examples from the month of November 2024:

 

 

In the month of November 2024 alone, the Foundation wrote 49 grants to various organizations and projects in India.  By year, we find that the Foundation has written 130 grants in 2024, 122 grants in 2023, 79 grants in 2022, 79 grants in 2021, 50 grants in 2020 and 61 grants in 2019 to various studies that appeal to Bill Gates' sense of what he wants the world to be.  

  

Bill Gates views India as a test tube for his health care agenda.  This can only be described as exploitation by the world's wealthy elite at the expense of the unwashed masses who are viewed as lesser forms of life to be used to enrich the ruling class.  Apparently, brown lives just aren't worth caring about when it comes to Gatesworld.  In the end, it's always about profiteering in the guise of philanthropy.

 

The United States Hypersonic Weapons Programs - A Backgrounder

With Russia now successfully fielding its Oreshnik medium range hypersonic missile, it is an appropriate time to take a closer look at how America's armed forces are doing with their own hypersonic missile programs.  

  

According to a 2023 report from the Congressional Budget Office, America's Army, Navy and Air Force are each developing their own hypersonic missiles.  These missiles have two key defining characteristics:

  

1.) they must be capable of achieving speeds in excess of Mach 5 (five times the speed of sound in the air at sea level i.e. within the earth's atmosphere) or 3836 miles per hour.  

 

2.) they must have aerodynamic control surfaces (i.e. wings or tail fins) that allow them to be maneuvered like an aircraft rather than using thrusters as in the case of most intercontinental ballistic missiles in use today.

 

The U.S. military is developing two types of hypersonic missiles both of which require air to operate for reasons outside of maneuvering:

 

1.) a hypersonic boost-like missile which consists of a rocket motor that accelerates the missile to a high altitude and speed and a glide body that detaches from the rocket once its fuel is spent.  The glue body uses lift generated by its movement through the air to extend its range and maneuver towards its target.

 

2.) a hypersonic cruise missile that accelerates to a high speed using a rocket motor.  Once the rocket booster is exhausted, the missile accelerates and maintains its speed using a supersonic combustion ramjet or scramjet, using oxygen from the atmosphere to burn its fuel.  Scramjets only being to operate at speeds above Mach 4 since they require supersonic airflow to function.

  

Here is a graphic showing the progress of the Department of Defense's hypersonic boost-glide missiles:

 

 

The original program from 1985 successfully designed and tested a design for a missile glide body.  The second track of hypersonic missile research began in 2003 when the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or DARPA started the Force Application and Launch From Continental United States or FALCON project which was designed to study technologies that would allow missiles to be launched from the United States rather than from locations closer to their targets.  In 2008, Congress established the Conventional Prompt Global Strike Program to advance some of the technology developed by FALCON, focusing on a concept for an intercontinental-range hypersonic glider.

 

In the case of hypersonic cruise missiles, research on supersonic ramjet engines began in the 1950s, however, the first American successful test flight of a scramjet did not occur until 2004 when NASA's X-43 successfully flew several tests in horizontal flight, reaching a speed of MACH 9.6.  A scramjet-powered X-51 aircraft was successfully flown at Mach 5.1 for 210 seconds in 2013.

 

As of 2023, the United States DoD had spend more than $8 billion since 2019 to develop hypersonic missiles through separate programs led by the Army, Navy and Air Force.  In the 2023 Future Years Defence Program, on behalf of the Army and Air Force programs, DoD is requesting an additional $13 billion between 2023 and 2027 for development of hypersonic missiles and an additional $2 billion for missile acquisition.

 

Here is a table showing the current U.S. hypersonic weapons programs and their funding:

 

 

Note that the Army's Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) aka Dark Eagle and the Air Force's Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) were scheduled for fielding in 2023 however, that did not occur.

 

Let's look at the Army's LRHW program from Lockheed Martin's perspective going back to 2014:

 

On June 28, 2024, the DoD announced a flight test of the LRHW as shown here after a series of failed attempts during 2022 and 2023:

 

 

Problems with the launcher and launch sequencer have led the Congressional Budget Office to project act the first LRHW battery will not be "capable" until at least July 2025 as shown here:

 

 

Now, let's look at the Air Force's ARRW program, again from Lockheed Martin's perspective:

 

 

Here is a screen capture showing the company's planned hypersonic programs:

 

The AGM-183A ARRW was last tested on March 17, 2024 and is undergoing final analysis of its flight test data.  That said, Lockheed Martin claims that it is ready to deliver ARRW technology to the Air Force even though cancellation of the program appears to be quite possible.  On September 26, 2024, it was announced that Lockheed Martin's ARRW program would receive an additional $13 million in funding bringing the cumulative value of the contract to $1,319,270,400 as shown here:

 

 

Note that the work performed under the contract is supposed to be completed by August 31, 2025 suggesting that the ARRW will not be field-ready until at least that point in time.

  

In the aforementioned CBO report from 2023, the CBO estimated that purchasing 300 ground- or sea-launched hypersonic missiles intermediate-range ballistic missiles with maneuverable warheads and sustaining the missile system for 20 years would cost a total of $13.4 billion (in 2023 dollars). The same number of comparable hypersonic missiles would cost about one-third more, $17.9 billion excluding cost overruns that are often associated with technically challenging programs.

 

So, there you have it.  Russia is far, far ahead of the United States (as is China for that matter) when it comes to hypersonic warfare.  The United States military is so far behind the curve it is almost laughable particularly given that Russia has now tested its hypersonic missile technology in combat.  On the upside, however, Lockheed Martin has, once again, benefitted from the unfettered generosity of American taxpayers in its seemingly unending quest to develop hypersonic missiles which appear to be capable of far lower velocities than those of the Oreshnik missile at the very best.

NATO's Call to War

On November 20, 2024, Dutch Admiral Rob Bauer, Chair of the NATO Military Committee made some rather sobering comments about the current near-World War III state of the world at a European Policy Centre think tank event and how the business world should prepare for all-out war.  Here are some key quotes with my bolds throughout:

 

"Not only our defence industries, but our whole economies need to realise that peace is no longer a given.

 

Because while it may be the military who wins battles, it’s the economies that win wars."

 

Bauer asserts that NATO member states must take serious steps to prepare for war through investments:

 

"We are currently in the phase of establishing the Capability Targets. 

 

Which means that we determine per nation what capabilities they need to develop and expand. 

 

Not just in order to be able to execute our new defence plans. 

 

To be ready NOW.

 

But also in order to make sure that we reach the long-term goals that are set in the NATO Defence Planning Process. 

 

To be ready in the FUTURE. 

 

As a result of this, we will see a more even distribution of capabilities among Allies.

 

European nations and Canada will develop capabilities that now only the United States has. 

 

This is a result of a process that has been going on for years, so it is independent from any national election. 

 

It is a system based on military logic, in order to have as much flexibility as possible. 

 

Some people say it is a form of burden sharing, but I object to the term ‘burden’. 

 

Security is not a burden.

 

Nor is it a cost. 

 

It is an investment. 

 

And a responsibility for all Allies. 

 

The new capability targets are all part of the complete overhaul towards collective defence. 

 

And as a result: the difference between NATO and national is fading more and more to the background.

 

This overhaul will require substantial more investments. 

 

2 percent is a floor… not a ceiling. 

 

In reality, it’s more like a basement. 

 

And it depends per nation how much higher that percentage needs to be. 

 

But more important than any percentage is the fact that Allies need to deliver on every single promise they have made to their fellow Allies. 

 

Every detailed plan of what capability they will provide, needs to be upheld.

 

Because NATO and national defence planning is more integrated than ever before."

 

As such, in the coming years NATO will focus on:

 

1.) implementing their defence plans

 

2.) creating a more even distribution of capabilities 

 

3.) increasing our investments.

 

4.) deepening cooperation with Partners.

 

If we use Bauer's 2 percent of GDP military investment "floor/basement", we find that many NATO member states are falling far short of what is required of them as shown on this map:

 

In 2017, only four member states were meeting their 2 percent of GDP defense spending requirement.  By 2023, 11 member states were meeting that obligation.

 

The 2024 estimate suggesting that 23 nations will meet the target with Croatia (1.81%), Portugal (1.55%), Italy (1.49%) Canada (1.37%), Belgium (1.30%), Luxembourg (1.29%), Slovenia (1.29%) and Spain (1.28%) being the military spending "deadbeats" as shown here:

 

He also states that security and strong deterrence requires active participation from all government institutions, all parts of the private sector and all citizens, not just from the military.

  

He goes on to state that the corporate ecosystem must prepare for war:

 

"For the past 2,5 years, I have been going around board rooms and finance conferences in Europe and America to persuade business leaders to think about two questions:

 

1) Is my company ready for war?

2) And what can my company do to prevent war?

 

That last question might surprise some people… but if we can make sure that all crucial services and goods can be delivered not matter what… than that is a key part of our deterrence.

 

Europe has seen that with energy supply.

 

We thought we had a deal with Gazprom… but we actually had a deal with Putin.

 

Same goes for Chinese owned infrastructure and goods: we actually have a deal with Xi.

 

60 percent of all rare earth materials are produced in China… and 90 percent is processed in China… 

 

90 percent of the chemical ingredients for sedatives, antibiotics, anti-inflammatories and low blood pressure medicines come from China.

 

We are naïve if we think the Communist Party will never use that power.

 

Business leaders in Europe and America need to realise that the commercial decisions they make, have strategic consequences for the security of their nation.

 

Businesses need to be prepared for a war-time scenario and adjust their production and distribution lines accordingly."

Of course, Bauer has to vilify Putin and Xi because they are an existential threat to America's hegemony and they are the nation that controls NATO.  It's all part of the propaganda war against any nation or group of nations that threatens America's failing supremacy.

 

And, here is Bauer's conclusion:

 

"At the heart of NATO is a promise of solidarity. 

 

A promise so powerful, that it now protects 1 billion people on earth. 

 

It grew from 12 nations in 1949 to 32 nations in 2024.

 

It is a promise that people from Norway are willing to risk their lives to protect the people from the Netherlands. 

 

People from Portugal to protect people from Poland. 

 

People from Canada protect people from Czechia.

 

In this increasingly dark world, that is something to be immensely proud of.

 

And it’s something we can all be inspired by. 

 

Together we can and we will prove that democracy will triumph over tyranny.

 

That freedom will triumph over oppression.

 

And that light will triumph over darkness."

It's all pure war-mongering propaganda

Let's close with this quote:

"We now know exactly how we will defend key and relevant places in our Alliance against the two threats described in the Strategic Concept and the NATO Military Strategy: Russia and Terrorist Groups."

Great idea Rob Bauer - let's lump Russia and global terrorism together.  That's a great peacemaking move on your part.

  

If this isn't a call to war, I don't know what is.  While we have to keep in mind that Rob Bauer's views on the world have been coloured by his lengthy career in the military, his views will have Big Defense "rubbing its hands together" thinking about the wealth that this call to war will create for its upper floor corner office dwellers.