WarSclerotic

UN chief blames Israel for Arab world stagnation | The Times of Israel.

( To paraphrase this and just about all UN pronouncements, ” It’s the fault of the Jews that their sworn enemies who can’t stop trying to destroy them suck.” Self parody seems to be the new modus operendi. – JW )

‘Conflict, injustice, occupation’ — and especially the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate — have prevented progress, says Ban; our conflict is not the core Arab issue, Israel responds

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (photo credit: Nati Shohat /Flash90)

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Monday appeared to hold Israel partially responsible for lack of progress in the Arab world.

“Development in the Arab region has also been held back by protracted conflict, injustice and occupation. The stalemate in the peace process between Palestinians and Israelis is especially troubling,” Ban stated in a message to the Third Arab Economic and Social Development Summit, currently taking place in Saudi Arabia.

“We must renew our collective engagement to resume meaningful negotiations that will realize Palestinian aspirations to live in freedom and dignity in an independent state of their own, side by side with Israel in peace and security,” read his statement, delivered in Riyadh by Rima Khalaf, the executive secretary of the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia.

Paul Hirschson, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, rejected any connection between Israeli policies and the situation in the Arab world.

“We know that there is conflict between us and the Palestinians, but attempts to elevate that to the core issue of the Middle East are doing a disservice to everybody,” Hirschson told The Times of Israel. Trying to blame Israel’s policies vis-à-vis the Palestinians for the low investment in education, insufficient women rights, lack of democracy and other issues causes the world to lose focus on the real problems Arab countries face, he added. “There is a conflict between us and the Palestinians, and we’re trying to solve it. I’m not saying that we never made any mistakes, but one has nothing to do with the other.”

In his remarks, Ban acknowledged Arab citizens’ “legitimate calls for progress, freedom and dignity” that arose in recent years. He welcomed the adoption of a new controversial constitution in Egypt and also commended Saudi King Abdullah for his recent appointment of 30 women to the Shura Council, the closest body the monarchy has to a parliament, though it has no real powers.

“Across the region, the challenge now is to deepen and broaden reform efforts,” Ban stated. “In particular, a new and more hopeful era for the Arab world demands that youth and women have opportunities to realize their aspirations.”

Thank you, to the 85 or so people who have donated to this site.  To the other 3,000 or so who regularly make use of this site, please be a part of this community and help me keep going. 

While the media waffled, you got the straight dope before anyone else right here on WARSCLEROTIC.

Please help me keep doing this work for us all…

Thanks in advance for any help you choose to lend.

Joseph Wouk

France’s involvement in Africa – victory or defeat? | David Altman | Ops & Blogs | The Times of Israel.

France’s military involvement in Africa should concern us all, not because of their involvement, but because of France’s lack of decisiveness, and, moreover, the absence of broad support from its European partners and the from United States in France’s involvement. From time to time, the world awakens to the growing threat of Islamist terrorism to the West, its culture, its independence, and its way of life. However, following such awakenings, the West, in the end, displays a lack of willingness to conduct a real battle and take  an unequivocal stand on issues of civilian security.

Durin the Clinton administration, America engaged in an “adventure” in Somalia. Somalia returned the threat of maritime piracy to the global agenda. Somalia is an anarchic state with no respect for international law and order, wholly dedicated to terrorism, which it forced upon the Indian Ocean. Somalia brought the world back to an era of piracy, which is generally associated with fantastic Holywood films. America’s involvement in Somalia failed miserably, as President Bill Clinton directed the American forces to pack their bags and flee by the skins of their teeth, fearing defeat at the hands of the terrorist organization that had taken over in 1993.

Clinton’s behavior in Somalia is reminiscent of the behavior of the United States during the seizure of hostages in Tehran in 1979. The American Embassy in Tehran was occupied by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, a sign of complete disrespect to America. The hesitancy of President Carter brought about 444 days of humiliation and daily disgrace of the great superpower, and keep silent in the face of events culminating in U.S. army landing in the Iranian desert, destroyed before real battle could ensue, due to unwillingness to engage in true military combat.

Going to war against Afghanistan and Iraq following the events of September 11, returned a certain pride to the American public, as the people felt that their leadership was prepared to take the front to enemy territory, particularly following shock and horror of massive terror attacks on the most important symbols of the American way of life. But with the passage of time and the difficulties of these wars,  American isolationism increased, and the United States began its retreat from  Afghanistan and Iraq, even though these countries continue to threaten her as before.

Furthremore, North Korea is challenging the United States and its allies in Asia, but West seemed hesitant in its ability to respond, as North Korean provocations remain unchallenged.

More recently, the United States was dragged by Turkey and Qatar to overthrow Gaddafi, but has since refrained from interfering in any way in the continuing post-Qadafi civil war that is taking place there. The United States previously attempted to court Bashar Assad , and supported Turkey’s attempt to impose a peace settlement on Israel, but in the end took the side of an Islamist coalition which has revolted against the Assad regime, in order to end minority rule over Syria, and enable what will surely turn out to be Islamist rule. However, again in Syria, the West has lacked the unequivocal determination in order to end the bloodshed and facilitate a new future for Syria.

Africa has become an international arena for extremist Islamic forces, as the fingerprints of radical Islamic organizations are evident across the continent. Algeria, which held a democratic election in which Islamists were victorious, is conducting a long, bloody war against fundamentalist organizations. Hundreds of thousands of casualties on all sides continue to flood the country with rivers of blood. The West observes with anxiety, but does nothing. Although the Islamists won democratic elections in Algeria, the military and secular forces have denied their victory, and civil war has ensued.

Islamic forces’ control of Mali, a country with an area larger than France, is a threat not only to West Africa, but also the whole of Europe. Islamists do not pretend that lovers of freedom, democracy or peace, but show their true faces to the world without fear or prejudice, and attempt to destroy all the values that the West holds dear, arguing that these values are contradictory to Islam. France faces this enemy alone, as its Western allies have yet to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with France in the face of this challenge.

It would appear that the West hesitant when engaging in self-defense. In areas occupied by radical Islam, Mali has become a terrorist state, where terrorists which kidnap civilians and ransom the West, while serving as an intermediary between South America, the Middle East and Europe in drug trafficking. Despite Islamic terror posing an existential threat to the West, its opposition is hesitant and equivocal.

The West only threatens countries where it is confident of victory, but fearful of getting involved other areas where success is not guaranteed.

Therefore, allies of the West must be concerned, as Mubarak and even Gaddafi, who agreed to disband his assets nuclear and weapons of mass destruction, understood in their last moments that Western support could not be counted on, as terrorism and fundamentalists raise their heads in the face of a weakened West, which was once considered all-powerful, and today appears limp and frightened.

The West appers to be repeating the policies of Chamberlain at the onset of the Second World War, who preached concessions, and believed that willingness to compromise was indicative ofreal power, and that defeatism is the way to world peace, termed by Chamberlain “peace in our time.”

The Mali crisis should serve as a warning to the West and the free world, and such “writing on the wall” often serves as prophesy of events in the not-too-distant future.

Israel, Iran and Iraq | Tuvia Book | Ops & Blogs | The Times of Israel.

As Israel readies itself for its general election in two days time a lot of Israelis are thinking about the Iranian threat.  In 1981, Thirty-two years ago, Iraq, the country adjacent to Iran, was extremely close, with enthusiastic help from both France and Italy, to completing a nuclear reactor in Osiraq which would have been able to produce weapons grade nuclear material.  This was a clear and present danger to the Jewish State.  The world, after imposing ineffectual and frequently ignored sanctions, was doing a lot of talking about the situation.

With the diplomatic option not producing the required results, and with time rapidly running out, Israel’s then Prime Minister Menachem Begin (who had lost many immediate family members in the Holocaust) summoned the head of the Israeli air force, who consulted with his chief of strategic planning, Ilan Ramon (later to become Israel’s first Astronaut aboard the ill-fated Columbia, whose tenth anniversary is currently being commemorated).  Ramon conceived the almost desperate, yet incredible, idea of flying two thousand miles over hostile territory extremely close to the ground, to avoid enemy radar, and destroy the Iraqi reactor with specially designed bombs, and somehow return safely to Israel without refueling.  Against all the odds, “Operation Opera,” as it was dubbed, succeeded.

Whilst the Israeli pre-emptive strike was widely condemned in international circles, it prevented a sworn enemy of the Jewish state from acquiring the means to destroy it.  American troops were much relieved a decade later when they invaded a nuclear-free Iraq.

Yitzhak Shamir noted that:

Deterrence was not attained by other countries – France and Italy – and even the United States. It was attained by the State of Israel and its Prime Minster who decided, acted and created a fact that no one in the world today – with the exception of our enemies – regrets.

Fast-forward three decades.  This time it is Iraq’s neighbour, Iran that is extremely close to producing weapons grade nuclear material.  Iran has frequently threatened to destroy the “Zionist entity.”  Despite the fact that the sanctions are more effective this time round, the Mullahs of Iran are still racing towards the finish line.  The world is doing a lot of talking about the situation.  The big question is, who will be Israel’s Menachem Begin and Ilan Ramon this time?  To paraphrase; “It does not matter what the nations of the world say, it matters what the Jews do!”

Khamenei aide: Toppling Assad “red line” f… JPost – Middle East.

McCain in J’lem: Boost US effort to oust A… JPost – Middle East.

Netanyahu hits back at Obama: I won’t capitulate | The Times of Israel.

It would be easy to retreat to indefensible pre-67 lines and divide Jerusalem, prime minister says, ‘but we’d get Hamas 400 meters from my house’

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gestures as he speaks to Russian immigrants during an election campaign stop in the port city of Ashdod, Wednesday (Photo credit: Tsafrir Abayov/Flash90)

Days after President Barack Obama was quoted as castigating Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for ostensibly turning Israel into a pariah nation and threatening its long-term survival, Netanyahu hit back Saturday night, declaring that if he were to capitulate to demands for a retreat to the pre-1967 lines, “we’d get Hamas 400 meters from my house.”

According to a report Tuesday by Bloomberg columnist Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama has begun repeating the mantra that Israel under Netanyahu “doesn’t know what its own best interests are.”

Israelis can and will decide for themselves who best represents their interests, Netanyahu retorted in a Channel 2 interview. Alluding to Obama’s calls for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement based on the pre-1967 lines with land swaps, and a halt to building over the pre-67 lines in Jerusalem, Netanyahu said, “When they say, ‘Go back to the ’67 lines,’ I stand against. When they say, ‘Don’t build in Jerusalem,’ I stand against.”

He added: “It’s very easy to capitulate. I could go back to the impossible to defend ’67 lines, and divide Jerusalem, and we’d get Hamas 400 meters from my home.” That would not happen under his leadership, he said.

“It’s easy to do, and they’d applaud,” he went on, presumably referring to the US-led international community. “They’d applaud just like they applauded the parties (in the 2005 Israeli government) that pulled out of Gaza. Those parties got applause, and we got a rain of rockets.”

Netanyahu said that no matter what pressures were applied, “I have to stand up for our vital interests… when speaking in Congress, and at the UN.”

In a newspaper interview on Friday, Netanyahu also pledged not to dismantle any settlements in the next four years if he is reelected prime minister on Tuesday, as polls suggest he will be.

Netanyahu did praise Obama for backing Israel during November’s Operation Pillar of Defense against terror groups in Gaza, and for joining the effort to thwart Iran’s nuclear drive. His job as prime minister, he told Channel 2, was “to seek cooperation and to stand up for our interests.”

In the TV interview, the prime minister refused to discuss the possible partners in his next coalition, if he is reelected. Speaking at a cultural event series in Beersheba, his No. 2, Yisrael Beytenu head Avigdor Liberman, said he wouldn’t rule out any party from joining the Likud-Beytenu coalition. “Anyone who accepts our coalition guidelines can join us,” Liberman said.

Netanyahu dismissed as “nonsense,” a claim by right-wing rival Naftali Bennett that he was seeking to harm and delegitimize Orthodox Israelis. Bennett accused Netanyahu of signing off on an “ugly campaign” against the modern Orthodox. A Likud party statement later described Bennett’s criticisms as “hysterical.”

The key focus of Obama’s reported criticism was Netanyahu’s settlement construction policies, which recently included plans for thousands of homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in response to the Palestinian Authority’s successful gambit to gain nonmember observer state status from the UN in November.

According to Goldberg, the White House has stopped getting in a huff over the settlement moves, wearily regarding the settlement building as Netanyahu’s harmful modus operandi.

“[Obama] told several people that this sort of behavior on Netanyahu’s part is what he has come to expect, and he suggested that he has become inured to what he sees as self-defeating policies of his Israeli counterpart,” Goldberg wrote.

“With each new settlement announcement, in Obama’s view, Netanyahu is moving his country down a path toward near-total isolation,” Goldberg added. “And if Israel, a small state in an inhospitable region, becomes more of a pariah — one that alienates even the affections of the U.S., its last steadfast friend — it won’t survive. Iran poses a short-term threat to Israel’s survival; Israel’s own behavior poses a long-term one.”

Goldberg added that, as regards Netanyahu’s handling of the Palestinians, “the president seems to view the prime minister as a political coward, an essentially unchallenged leader who nevertheless is unwilling to lead or spend political capital to advance the cause of compromise.”

Goldberg said John Kerry, Obama’s nominee for secretary of state, wants to try to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, but Obama “is thought to be considerably more wary. He views the government of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas as weak, but he has become convinced that Netanyahu is so captive to the settler lobby, and so uninterested in making anything more than the slightest conciliatory gesture toward Palestinian moderates, that an investment of presidential interest in the peace process wouldn’t be a wise use of his time.”

Yet the president believes — and has believed since his time in the Senate — according to Goldberg, that if Israel “doesn’t disentangle itself from the lives of West Bank Palestinians, the world will one day decide it is behaving as an apartheid state.”

In Goldberg’s assessment, “the short-term consequences of Obama’s frustration are limited. The US won’t cut off its aid to Israel, and Obama’s effort to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions will continue whether or not he’s fed up with Netanyahu. But it is in terms of American diplomatic protection — among the Europeans and especially at the UN — that Israel may one day soon notice a significant shift. During November’s vote on Palestine’s status, the U.S. supported Israel and asked its allies to do the same” — without much success. “When such an issue arises again, Israel may find itself even lonelier. It wouldn’t surprise me if the U.S. failed to whip votes the next time, or if the U.S. actually abstained. I wouldn’t be particularly surprised, either, if Obama eventually offered a public vision of what a state of Palestine should look like, and affirmed that it should have its capital in East Jerusalem.”

Goldberg wrote that the president recognizes that “broad territorial compromise by Israel” in the current unstable Middle East is unlikely. “But what Obama wants is recognition by Netanyahu that Israel’s settlement policies are foreclosing on the possibility of a two-state solution, and he wants Netanyahu to acknowledge that a two-state solution represents the best chance of preserving the country as a Jewish-majority democracy. Obama wants, in other words, for Netanyahu to act in Israel’s best interests. So far, though, there has been no sign that the Israeli government is gaining a better understanding of the world in which it lives.”

PM: History will not forgive thos… JPost – Diplomacy & Politics.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Saturday night said history will not forgive those who do not stop the Iranian nuclear program.

In a meeting with American senators including former Republican presidential nominee John McCain, the prime minister said: “History will not forgive those who do not stop Iran’s nuclear program.”

“Building in Jerusalem is not the world’s problem; a nuclear Iran is the world’s problem,” added Netanyahu.

The senators discussed changes in the Middle East, including the need to intensify sanctions against Iran, which continues to advance its nuclear program, according to the Prime Minister’s Office. The prime minister also addressed the issue of advancing contacts between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

Netanyahu thanked the senators for the relentless support of the Senate for the State of Israel.

Accompanying McCain were: Sen. Kelly Ayotte (RNew Hampshire), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (DConnecticut), Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island), Sen. Chris Coons (D-Delaware), Christian Brose, a senior adviser on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and US Ambassador Dan Shapiro

Algerian assault ends crisis, 19 hostages dead.

AIN AMENAS, Algeria (AP) — Algerian special forces stormed a natural gas complex in the middle of the Sahara desert on Saturday in a “final assault” that ended a four-day-old hostage crisis, according to the state news agency and two foreign governments. At least 19 hostages and 29 Islamist militants have been killed.

The report, quoting a security source, didn’t say whether any hostages or militants remained alive, and it didn’t give the nationalities of the dead.

It said the army was forced to intervene after a fire broke out in the plant and said the militants killed the hostages. It wasn’t immediately possible to verify who killed the captives.

Seven hostages and 11 militants were killed in Saturday’s operation, adding to the previous tally of 12 captives and 18 kidnappers.

The Ain Amenas plant is jointly run by BP, Norway’s Statoil and Algeria’s state-owned oil company. The governments of Norway and Britain said they received confirmation the siege was over.

The entire refinery was mined with explosives and set to blow up, the Algerian state oil company Sonatrach said in a statement, adding that the process of clearing the explosives had begun. The Algerian media reported that the militants had planned to blow up the complex.

The siege transfixed the world after radical Islamists linked to al-Qaida stormed the complex, which contained hundreds of plant workers from all over the world.

Algeria’s response to the crisis was typical of the country’s history in confronting terrorists — military action over negotiation — and caused an international outcry from countries worried about their citizens. Algerian military forces twice assaulted the areas where the hostages were being held with minimal apparent negotiation — first on Thursday and then on Saturday.

The latest deaths bring the official Algerian tally of dead to 19 hostages and 29 militants, although reports on the number of dead, injured and freed have been contradictory throughout the crisis. Militants originally said they had seized 41 foreign hostages.

The al-Qaida-linked militants attacked the plant Wednesday morning. They crept across the border from Libya, 60 miles (100 kilometers) away, and fell on a pair of buses taking foreign workers to the airport. The buses’ military escort drove off the attackers in a blaze of gunfire that sent bullets zinging over the heads of crouching workers. A Briton and an Algerian — probably a security guard — were killed.

Frustrated, the militants turned to the vast gas complex, divided between the workers’ living quarters and the refinery itself, and seized hostages, the Algerian government said. The gas flowing to the site was cut off.

On Thursday, Algerian helicopters opened fire on a convoy carrying both kidnappers and their hostages, resulting in many deaths, according to witnesses.

In their final communications, the militants said they were holding seven hostages: three Belgian, two Americans, a Japanese and a Briton. They had threatened to kill them if the Algerian army attacked.

Algerian authorities estimated that about 30 militants occupied the Ain Amenas site Wednesday and with 18 already reported dead, it appeared Saturday that the hostage crisis was finally over.

The standoff has put the spotlight on al-Qaida-linked groups that roam remote areas of the Sahara, threatening vital infrastructure and energy interests. The militants initially said their operation was intended to stop a French attack on Islamist militants in neighboring Mali — though they later said it was two months in the planning, long before the French intervention.

The accounts of hostages who escaped the complex highlight the cavalier attitude toward their lives taken by both kidnappers and the military.

Ruben Andrada, 49, a Filipino civil engineer who works as one of the project management staff for the Japanese company JGC Corp., described how Algerian helicopter gunships had earlier opened fire on vehicles carrying hostages and the gunmen who used them as shields.

On Thursday, about 35 hostages guarded by 15 militants were loaded into seven SUVs in a convoy to move them from the housing complex to the refinery, Andrada said. The militants placed “an explosive cord” around their necks and were told it would detonate if they tried to run away, he said.

“When we left the compound, there was shooting all around,” Andrada said, describing the helicopters’ attack. “I closed my eyes. We were going around in the desert. To me, I left it all to fate.”

Andrada said when the vehicle he was in overturned, some of the passengers were able to escape. He sustained cuts and bruises and was grazed by a bullet on his right elbow. He later saw the blasted remains of other vehicles, and the severed leg of one of the gunmen.

The site of the gas plant spreads out over several hectares (acres) and includes a housing complex and the processing site, about a mile apart, making it especially complicated for the Algerians to secure the site and likely contributed to the lengthy standoff.

“It’s a big and complex site. It’s a huge place with a lot of people there and a lot of hiding places for hostages and terrorists,” said Col. Richard Kemp, a retired commander of British forces who had dealt with hostage rescues in Iraq and Afghanistan. “These are experienced terrorists holding the hostages.”

Casualty figures varied widely. The Algerian government now says 19 hostages and 29 militants have died since Thursday. Before the final assault, the militants claimed through the Mauritanian website ANI that the helicopter attack alone killed 35 hostages and 15 militants.

One American, from Texas, is among the dead, and the militants offered to trade two other American hostages for two terrorists behind bars in the U.S., an offer firmly rejected by Washington. At least one Briton, a Frenchman and Algerians have also died in the standoff. Escaped Algerian workers describe seeing people of many nationalities, including Japanese, shot down.

French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said Saturday that there are believed to be no more French hostages in the gas complex. He said the Frenchman killed, Yann Desjeux, was a former member of the French Special Forces and part of the security team. The remaining three French nationals who were at the plant are now free, the Foreign Ministry said.

Britain’s Foreign Secretary William Hague confirmed that as of Saturday, there were “fewer than 10” British nationals still at risk or unaccounted for and “the majority of” Britons at the plant were now safe, he said.

Statoil CEO Helge Lund said Saturday that there were only six Norwegians unaccounted for, from the 17 at the plant at the time of the attack.

Romanian Prime Minister Victor Ponta said Saturday one Romanian hostage was killed in the course of the siege, while four escaped unharmed.

The attack by the Mali-based Masked Brigade had been in the works for two months, a member of the brigade told the online Mauritanian news outlet. He said militants targeted Algeria because they expected the country to support the international effort to root out extremists in neighboring Mali and it was carried out by a special commando unit, “Those Who Signed in Blood,” tasked with attacking nations supporting intervention in Mali.

The kidnappers focused on the foreign workers, largely leaving alone the hundreds of Algerian workers who were briefly held hostage before being released or escaping.

Several of them arrived haggard-looking on a late-night flight into Algiers on Friday and described how the militants stormed the living quarters and immediately separated out the foreigners.

Mohamed, a 37-year-old nurse who like the others wouldn’t allow his last names to be used for fear of trouble for himself or his family, said at least five people were shot to death, their bodies still in front of the infirmary when he left Thursday night.

Chabane, who worked in food services, said he bolted out the window and was hiding when he heard the militants speaking among themselves with Libyan, Egyptian and Tunisian accents. At one point, he said, they caught a Briton.

“They threatened him until he called out in English to his friends, telling them, ‘Come out, come out. They’re not going to kill you. They’re looking for the Americans,'” Chabane said.

“A few minutes later, they blew him away.”

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

American isolationism: Obama’s unfolding signature policy.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis January 19, 2013, 4:51 PM (GMT+02:00)

Al Qaeda in Mali armed with Grad missiles from Libya

  Whereas in his first term as president, Barack Obama opted for “leading from behind,” in international military operations, he enters his second term – even before being sworn in this week – by expanding this step-back precept into American isolationism proper – even when it comes to countering Islamist terrorism.
debkafile’s analysts note that this stance was heralded in December 2012 by his abrupt order to the USS Eisenhower strike group and the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group to withdraw from stations opposite Syria.
Washington had already then decided to ignore the Syrian chemical war threat, and brush aside the report from the US consul in Istanbul that the Syrian ruler Bashad Assad had already fired chemical bombs against rebels.
And so French military intervention in Mali on Jan. 12 and Al Qaeda’s massive attack on an international Algerian gas field four days later found the United States without a single carrier, landing vessel or marine force anywhere in the vicinity, to be available for aiding in the rescue of scores of Western hostages from ten countries, including the United States.

The USS John Stennis carrier is the only vessel left at a Middle East battle station. It is tied down at the Strait of Hormuz to secure the flow of Gulf oil to the West.
It is therefore hardly surprising to find Pentagon and top US military experts leveling sharp criticism at the White House’s policy of non-intervention in the Mali conflict, where France is fighting alone, or in Algeria’s In Amenas gas field, where Algerian forces are battling a multinational al Qaeda assault and multiple hostage-taking raid for the third day.
The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday, Jan. 20 that the sharp debate between the Pentagon and White House is over the “danger posed by a mix of Islamist militant groups, some with murky ties to Al Qaeda that are creating havoc in West Africa” and whether they present enough of a risk to US allies and interests to warrant a military response.

Many of Obama’s top aides say “it is unclear whether the Mali insurgents, who include members of the group Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, threaten the US.”
As to the question, “What threat do they pose to the US homeland? The answer so far has been none.”

Some top Pentagon officials and military officers warn that without more aggressive US action, Mali could become a haven for extremists, akin to Afghanistan before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

debkafile’s counterterrorism sources report that these assertions are misleading.

Whereas the US homeland may not be in immediate peril from the Mali and Algeria episodes, it is important to remember the far-reaching interconnectivity of al Qaeda’s operations. Seven years ago, the suicidal jihads who on July 7, blew up London trains and a bus, used explosives provided by the same Al Qaeda cells of Sahel Desert which are now threatening Mali and which struck the Algerian gas field.

No US official can guarantee that such explosives from the same source won’t be used in 2013 against American targets in Europe or be smuggled into the American homeland by al Qaeda cells in Europe.
The Algerian gas field hostage siege was carried out after all by a multinational group that included Algerians, Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, a Frenchman and a Malian.

It is true that Al Qaeda terrorists are engaged in vast smuggling rackets – especially of drugs and cigarettes – across Europe, Africa and the Middle East, as well arms trafficking through networks covering Egypt, Sinai, Arabia, the Gulf, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Sudan – all of which are direct threats of US national security. But to write them off as criminals and smugglers is simplistic: “… some are diehard terrorists with more grandiose visions,” as Pentagon officials point out.

The way the Al Qaeda menace is being handled by Washington has a ripple effect in the wider context. Tehran and Damascus are avidly watching the Obama administration’s stand-aside stance on military involvement in external crises – even emergencies posed by the Al Qaeda terrorist threat encroaching on continental Europe and Africa and the Middle East up to and including the Persian Gulf.
Washington should therefore not be surprised when its diplomatic efforts – overt and secret – to rein in Iran’s military nuclear ambitions run into the sand. The Iranians know they have nothing to fear from the Obama administration. The next surprise, our Middle East sources are now reporting, will come from Damascus where, according to a hint President Bashar Assad threw out this week to his intimates.