Archive for October 12, 2015

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries

Obama Will Be the Only Person Sticking to Iran Deal

October 12, 2015

Obama Will Be the Only Person Sticking to Iran Deal, Gatestone Institute, Amir Taheri, October 12, 2015

(Happy implementation day. — DM)

Sometime this week, President Obama is scheduled to sign an executive order to meet the Oct. 15 “adoption day” he has set for the nuclear deal he says he has made with Iran. According to the president’s timetable the next step would be “the start day of implementation,” fixed for Dec. 15.

But as things now stand, Obama may end up being the only person in the world to sign his much-wanted deal, in effect making a treaty with himself.

The Iranians have signed nothing and have no plans for doing so. The so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has not even been discussed at the Islamic Republic’s Council of Ministers. Nor has the Tehran government bothered to even provide an official Persian translation of the 159-page text.

The Islamic Majlis, the ersatz parliament, is examining an unofficial text and is due to express its views at an unspecified date in a document “running into more than 1,000 pages,” according to Mohsen Zakani, who heads the “examining committee.”

“The changes we seek would require substantial rewriting of the text,” he adds enigmatically.

Nor have Britain, China, Germany, France and Russia, who were involved in the so-called P5+1 talks that produced the JCPOA, deemed it necessary to provide the Obama “deal” with any legal basis of their own. Obama’s partners have simply decided that the deal he is promoting is really about lifting sanctions against Iran and nothing else.

So they have started doing just that without bothering about JCPOA’s other provisions. Britain has lifted the ban on 22 Iranian banks and companies blacklisted because of alleged involvement in deals linked to the nuclear issue.

German trade with Iran has risen by 33 percent, making it the Islamic Republic’s third-largest partner after China.

China has signed preliminary accords to help Iran build five more nuclear reactors. Russia has started delivering S300 anti-aircraft missile systems and is engaged in talks to sell Sukhoi planes to the Islamic Republic.

France has sent its foreign minister and a 100-man delegation to negotiate big business deals, including projects to double Iran’s crude oil exports.

Other nations have also interpreted JCPOA as a green light for dropping sanctions. Indian trade with Iran has risen by 17 percent, and New Delhi is negotiating massive investment in a rail-and-sea hub in the Iranian port of Chah-Bahar on the Gulf of Oman. With help from Austrian, Turkish and United Arab Emirates banks, the many banking restrictions imposed on Iran because of its nuclear program have been pushed aside.

“The structures of sanctions built over decades is crumbling,” boasts Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

Meanwhile, the nuclear project is and shall remain “fully intact,” says the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Akbar Salehi.

“We have started working on a process of nuclear fusion that will be cutting-edge technology for the next 50 years,” he adds.

Even before Obama’s “implementation day,” the mullahs are receiving an average of $400 million a month, no big sum, but enough to ease the regime’s cash-flow problems and increase pay for its repressive forces by around 21 percent.

Last month, Iran and the P5+1 created a joint commission to establish the modalities of implementation of an accord, a process they wish to complete by December 2017 when the first two-year review of JCPOA is scheduled to take place and when Obama will no longer be in the White House. (If things go awry Obama could always blame his successor or even George W Bush.)

Both Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry have often claimed that, its obvious shortcomings notwithstanding, their nuke deal with the “moderate faction” in Tehran might encourage positive changes in Iran’s behavior.

That hasn’t happened.

The mullahs see the “deal” as a means with which Obama would oppose any suggestion of trying to curb Iran.

1173 (1)

“Obama won’t do anything that might jeopardize the deal,” says Ziba Kalam, a Rouhani adviser. “This is his biggest, if not the only, foreign policy success.”

If there have been changes in Tehran’s behavior they have been for the worst. Iran has teamed up with Russia to keep Bashar al-Assad in power in Syria, mocking Obama’s “Assad must go” rhetoric. More importantly, Iran has built its direct military presence in Syria to 7,000 men. (One of Iran’s most senior generals was killed in Aleppo on Wednesday.)

Tehran has also pressured Iraqi Premier Haidar al-Abadi’s weak government to distance itself from Washington and join a dubious coalition with Iran, Russia and Syria.

Certain that Obama is paralyzed by his fear of undermining the non-existent “deal” the mullahs have intensified their backing for Houthi rebels in Yemen. Last week a delegation was in Tehran with a long shopping list for arms.

In Lebanon, the mullahs have toughened their stance on choosing the country’s next president. And in Bahrain, Tehran is working on a plan to “ensure an early victory” of the Shiite revolution in the archipelago.

Confident that Obama is determined to abandon traditional allies of the United States, Tehran has also heightened propaganda war against Saudi Arabia, now openly calling for the overthrow of the monarchy there.

The mullahs are also heightening contacts with Palestinian groups in the hope of unleashing a new “Intifada.”

“Palestine is thirsty for a third Intifada,” Supreme Guide Khamenei’s mouthpiece Kayhan said in an editorial last Thursday. “It is the duty of every Muslim to help start it as soon as possible.”

Obama’s hopes of engaging Iran on other issues were dashed last week when Khamenei declared “any dialogue with the American Great Satan” to be” forbidden.”

“We have no need of America” his adviser Ali-Akbar Velayati added later. “Iran is the region’s big power in its own right.”

Obama had hoped that by sucking up to the mullahs he would at least persuade them to moderate their “hate-America campaign.” Not a bit of that.

“Death to America” slogans, adoring official buildings in Tehran have been painted afresh along with US flags, painted at the entrance of offices so that they could be trampled underfoot. None of the US citizens still held hostages in Iran has been released, and one, Washington Post stringer Jason Rezai, is branded as “head of a spy ring “in Tehran. Paralyzed by his fear of undermining the non-existent deal, Obama doesn’t even call for their release.

Government-sponsored anti-American nationwide events are announced for November, anniversary of the seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran. The annual “End of America” week-long conference is planned for February and is to focus on “African-American victims of US police” and the possibility of “self-determination for blacks.”

According to official sources “families of Black American victims” and a number of “black American revolutionaries” have been invited.

Inside Iran, Obama’s “moderate partners” have doubled the number of executions and political prisoners. Last week they crushed marches by teachers calling for release of their leaders. Hundreds of trade unionists have been arrested and a new “anti-insurrection” brigade paraded in Tehran to terrorize possible protestors.

The Obama deal may end up as the biggest diplomatic scam in recent history.

Categories: Iran scam, Iranian parliament, Obama, Obama's foreign failures, Obama's legacy
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama arms Islamic terrorists who called for “slaughtering Americans like cattle”

October 12, 2015

Obama arms Islamic terrorists who called for “slaughtering Americans like cattle,” Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, October 12, 2015

(Surely Obama, with access to top military and intelligence officials, knows precisely what he’s doing. Not only that, it couldn’t be his mess. Somebody else has to be blamed. Right? — DM)

logo_of_ghuraba_al-sham_front

The Syrian Civil War is a mess. Whether or not that disclaimer appears at the top of every article and post, you should assume that it does. There are factions and splinter groups that are constantly merging and reforming.

Which is why backing anyone in the war is hazardous. But here’s the latest phase of Obama’s “I don’t know what the hell I’m doing in Syria” strategy.

The U.S. military airdropped 50 tons of small arms ammo and grenades in northern Syria on Sunday, a senior defense official told Fox News, representing the Pentagon’s shift from training rebel fighters to equipping them.

Coming just two days after the Defense Department announced it was effectively ending its current training program, the airdrop delivery was made Sunday by four C-17 transport aircraft. The 112 pallets contained ammunition for M-16s and AK-47s.

This time, the official said Syrian Kurds were not recipients of the U.S. airdrop — only Syrian Arabs fighting ISIS. There is sensitivity in Washington over arming Syrian Kurds, whom Turkey sees as an enemy but the U.S. counts as a NATO ally.

Who is actually getting the weapons? Here’s whom the weapons are meant to be going to…

The alliance calling itself the Democratic Forces of Syria includes the Kurdish YPG militia and Syrian Arab groups, some of which fought alongside it in a campaign that drove Islamic State from wide areas of northern Syria earlier this year.

The Arab groups in the new alliance are operating under the name “The Syrian Arab Coalition” – a grouping which U.S. officials have said would receive support under a new U.S. strategy aimed at fighting Islamic State in Syria.

So Turkey has forced the US to deny weapons to the Kurdish part of the alliance. The Syriac Military Council is in the alliance too, but it’s unclear if they’re getting resupplied.

So that just leaves the Syrian Arab Coalition. And who is in the Syrian Arab Coalition?

“We met the Americans and this has been approved and we have been told these new arms … are on their way,” said Abu Muazz, a spokesman for the Raqqa Revolutionaries Front, a grouping of mainly Arab tribal insurgents who are mostly drawn from the Raqqa area.

Tribal insurgents. Sounds okay, right? Except that name doesn’t appear to be in use. This may be the Raqqa Revolutionaries’ Brigade whose Arabic name is Liwa Thuwwar al-Raqqa which was formerly allied with the Al Nusra Front… which is Al Qaeda. Since then Liwa claims to have split from Nusra and is fighting ISIS. But Nusra is also fighting ISIS.

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi has a summary of the relationship that runs several paragraphs. (The Syrian Civil War is a mess. See above.)

The new alliance includes the YPG, various Arab groups including Jaysh al-Thuwwar (Army of Rebels) and the Arab tribal Jaysh al-Sanadeed, and an Assyrian Christian group, according to a statement announcing its establishment.

Except we’re apparently not arming the YPG. It’s unclear if we’re arming the Assyrians. But we are arming Jaysh al-Thuwwar, which is a coalition of a bunch of other groups formerly part of the FSA. The Sanadeed appear to actually be closely linked to the YPG.

But it gets messier from here.

Another faction in the new coalition, Jaysh al-Qasas, worked with IS in 2014. FSA commanders say its leader spends most of his time in Turkey and his fighters are most interested in looting.

Of course the FSA, which used to be US backed, has every reason to trash talk the current aid recipients.

“They are fighters who have moved from one militia to another,” says Abdul Rahman, a commander with the Army of Mujahideen , which is aligned with Jaish al Fata, or the Army of Conquest, the Islamist rebel alliance.“Most of them are rejects. They are not reliable — we don’t trust them,” he told VOA.

“I generally agree with the testimony of those rebels you have spoken to,” says Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, a fellow at U.S.-based think tank the Middle East Forum. He says that armed groups in one of the largest of the factions, the Dawn of Freedom, have “reputations for corruption.”

“The main groups of the coalition are splinters from larger rebel militias and in the case of Dawn of Freedom it is essentially a regrouping of militias that had reputations for criminality in North Aleppo, such as Ghuraba al-Sham,” he told VOA. Some of the factions were thrown out of an Islamist rebel alliance.

Al-Tamimi added: “The other components of the rebel allies with the YPG are small groups of locals who fled their homes in Deir ez-Zor and Jarabulus” after the Islamic State overran the towns. Some are members of the Shammar tribe in eastern Syria, which has suffered repeated IS reprisals and massacres.

Opportunists is about the nicest thing we could say about them. But it also means they’re likely to resell weapons or engage in fake battles. And when a lot of fighters move from one militia to another, we could very well end up directly arming ISIS or Al Qaeda groups.

But don’t worry, when this falls apart, Obama will blame Hillary Clinton or McCain and claim that he never wanted to do it in the first place. Because Obama never takes responsibility.

Oh by the way, here’s something on Ghuraba al-Sham.

Ghuraba al-Sham comprising mainly Turks and fighters from former Soviet bloc countries…

As Syrian preacher Dr. Mahmud al-Aghasi, known as Abu al-Qaqa, left an Aleppo mosque after Friday prayers on September 28, an assassin stepped out of a car and opened fire with an automatic weapon. The controversial preacher received mortal wounds to the head and body, while three others were wounded. Little information on the case has emerged from the normally secretive and tightly controlled Syrian state. Most of what is known comes from al-Qaqa’s own followers in Ghuraba al-Sham (Strangers of Greater Syria), some of whom chased the killer for two to three kilometers before apprehending him.

It gets worse. Much, much worse.

On the CDs, Abu al-Qaqa is shown speaking to worshipers under the banner of a then-unknown group, Guraba al-Sham (Strangers of Greater Syria). This became the umbrella under which he operated, and whose name was imprinted on all of his CDs. On camera, he tells his followers, who are assembled before him at a mosque: “We will teach our enemies a lesson they will never forget.” He then asks: “Are you ready?” Thundering chants respond affirmatively from his audience, who get worked up into tears as they listen, and he carries on: “Speak louder so [US President George W Bush] can hear you!” Their tears make him weep as well, as he gets impassioned with anti-Americanism and adds: “Guests have come to our land … slaughter them like cattle. Burn them! Yes, they are the Americans!”

So that’s who we’re arming. The pet militia of a guy who played a key role in funneling terrorists to kill Americans in Iraq.

Today the Iraqi government aired the confession of Mohammed Hassan al Shemari, a Saudi al Qaeda member who claims to be the leader of the terror group’s forces in Diyala province. Sherari said Syrian intelligence, or the Mukhabarat, actively supports al Qaeda in Iraq. From Reuters:

Shemari said when he arrived in Syria from Saudi Arabia, he was met by a militant who took him to an al Qaeda training camp in Syria. The head of the camp was a Syrian intelligence agent called Abu al-Qaqaa, he said. “They taught us lessons in Islamic law and trained us to fight. The camp was well known to Syrian intelligence,” he said.

Once inside Iraq he undertook more training in its vast desert province of Anbar, bordering Syria, alongside 30 other foreign fighters. He then met a purported al Qaeda in Iraq leader, Omar al-Baghdadi, who he said appointed him head of al Qaeda in the violent Diyala province.

He launched gun attacks on police checkpoints in Diyala, kidnapping Iraqi officers and extorting money for their release or killed them with knives and set up suicide bombings, he said.

Assad at the time was collaborating with Al Qaeda in conducting attacks on Americans. Which is why all the Russian propaganda claiming that the US created ISIS and that Assad is the only bulwark against them is laughable. Assad was their former pal. Guraba al-Sham is a group of former Jihadists backed by Assad to kill Americans that turned against Assad.

And their dead leader really hated America.

“Our hearts are filled with joy when we hear about any resistance operations in Iraq against the American invaders. We ask people to keep praying to Allah to help achieve victory for Iraq against the US,” Sheikh Qaqa says.

Qaqa’s Islamic values go far beyond vocal – and popular – hostility toward US Mideast policy. For example, he openly calls for an Islamic state based on sharia law in Syria…

“Yes, I would like to see an Islamic state in Syria and that’s what we are working for,” Qaqa says. There are even indications that Qaqa’s support base is becoming organized. His followers hold meetings in a building that serves as an office and library. Several of his followers wear camouflage military trousers.

So we’re arming the Islamic State to fight the Islamic State. It’s a plan that can’t fail.

Sheikh Qaqa was also known as the godfather of Fatah al-Islam. Fatah al-Islam was officially classified as a terror group under Bush, but not under Obama. It was inspired by Al Qaeda and worked with Zarqawi, the leader of what would become ISIS.

It attempted to carry out terrorist attacks in Europe and it’s currently allied with ISIS.

Heck of a job, John Kerry. Heck of a job.

Categories: Assad, Kurds, Obama - Middle East, Obama's foreign failures, Russia - Syrian war, Syria war
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

The New Racists: David Miller, Hilary Aked, Kevin MacDonald

October 12, 2015

The New Racists: David Miller, Hilary Aked, Kevin MacDonald. Gatestone Institute, Samuel Westrop, October 12, 2015

  • It seems as if in the minds of David Miller, Kevin MacDonald and Hilary Aked, a mysterious Jewish cabal is responsible for all the world’s ills.
  • Even Tony Blair, Miller argues, is in league with a sinister “international network” of Israeli settlers and American “Islamophobes.”
  • “A liberal Muslim is their trussed-up version of the enemy, the alien, the ‘other’.” — Nick Cohen, journalist.
  • Hilary Aked describes moderate Muslims as “native informants.” She also believes that a hidden Jewish network is responsible for the “Islamophobia industry.” She has frequently written for a Qatari-funded media group that is accused by Egyptian newspapers of being a Muslim Brotherhood front group.
  • Electronic Intifada is a prominent pro-Hamas publication, whose founder, Ali Abunimah, describes Palestinian leaders who talk with Israel as “collaborators.”
  • To fund his obsession with the “propaganda” ostensibly spread by Jews and anti-Islamist Muslims, Miller has received grants from the Economic and Social Research Council, a body funded by the British government. In 2012, Miller received £400,000 from the Council, as well as grants from groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

From his office at the University of Bath, David Miller, an academic and writer, researches organizations and activists that he believes, in his words, work to “distort public debate and undermine democracy.”

The results of this research, done with the help of his students and assembled into detailed profiles of the shadowy figures behind this lobbying, are published across a number of websites run by Miller, including PowerBase and SpinWatch.

A visitor to these websites will quickly note one particular constant: a vast number of Miller’s profiles focus on Jews and Muslims who are working to fight extremism and terrorism.

Counter-terrorism groups, “neocons” and various political organizations are all accused of belonging to a “covert propaganda operation” for various Jewish organizations. Even Tony Blair, Miller argues, is in league with a sinister “international network” of Israeli settlers and American “Islamophobes.”

As one blogger notes, any of Miller’s “fellow academics” who do not present strong convictions against Israel, are “smeared… as neocons.”

Shiraz Maher, a counter-terrorism expert, has written: “Despite the ‘close to ten thousand’ entries on SpinProfiles [another Miller project] you will find nothing on [Islamist pressure] groups. … The problem is with SpinProfile’s apparent obsession with ‘Jewish power’ or, if you will, ‘the Jewish lobby’.”

At a recent conference organized by Miller, American academic Deepa Kumar denounced Muslims working to combat extremism and terrorism within their communities as “native informants.” And as the journalist Nick Cohen observed: “For the religious [Islamic] right and the political and academic left, a liberal Muslim is their trussed-up version of the enemy, the alien, the ‘other’.”

Another David Miller site, Neocon Europe (now defunct), published the works of Kevin MacDonald, a prominent white supremacist who claims that Jews control the media and politicians to “transform the country to serve their interests.” In a list entitled, “characteristics of Jewish intellectual movements,” MacDonald has claimed that Jews “form a cohesive, mutually reinforcing core” that has “access to prestigious and mainstream media sources, partly as a result of Jewish influence on the media.”

Other conspiracy theories promoted on Miller’s websites include those of Miller’s colleague, Idrees Ahmed, who claims that the Darfur crisis has been prolonged by a powerful Jewish lobby.

In 2009, David Miller provided accommodation for Joel Kovel, an anti-Jewish American academic who has written that, “The Holocaust has been repressed from history and converted into moral capital to cover and justify whatever the Jewish people would do in the way of domination themselves, whether this be the pell-mell immersion in American bourgeois life or the policies of Israel.”

David Miller and his network also work with Muslim Brotherhood operatives. In 2009, Miller secured taxpayer funding to run a project examining British Islam in collaboration with Osama Saeed, a Muslim Brotherhood activist. Saeed was previously the spokesperson for the Muslim Association of Britain, the main organization for the Muslim Brotherhood in Britain. In 2005, Saeed called for the re-establishment of the Islamic caliphate; and in 2006, Saeed expressed praise for the late Al Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki.

Miller’s protégés include Hilary Aked, a blogger with a strong interest in British Jewish groups. Aked apparently believes that a hidden Jewish network is responsible for the “Islamophobia industry,” and that there is a distinct “overlap between Islamophobia and Zionism.” She also describes moderate Muslims as “native informants.”

1284Deepa Kumar (left) and Hilary Aked (right) condemn moderate Muslims as “native informants.”

Aked is published at the online publication, Electronic Intifada, where she writes about “pro-Israel” infiltration of the media, and that pro-Israel conferences are part of a secretive “transnational Islamophobia industry.”

Electronic Intifada is a prominent pro-Hamas publication, whose founder, Ali Abunimah, hasdescribed Palestinian leaders who talk with Israel as “collaborators,” and claims that, “supporting Zionism is not atonement for the Holocaust, but its continuation in spirit.”

Aked has also frequently written for Al Araby Al Jadeed, a Qatari-funded media group that is accused by Egyptian newspapers of being a Muslim Brotherhood front group. Al Araby‘s editor-in-chief, Wael Qandil, is described by the Arab newspaper Al Arabiya as a prominent supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.

To fund his obsession with the “propaganda” ostensibly spread by Jews and anti-Islamist Muslims, Miller has received grants from the Economic and Social Research Council, a body funded by the British government. In 2012, Miller received £400,000 ($614,000 USD) from the Council.

Miller’s projects have also received funding from a number of Islamist groups tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and the terror group, Hamas, including:

    • £2000 from Interpal, a British charity closely linked to Hamas. Interpal’s leaders regularly attend Hamas rallies and ceremonies in the Gaza strip. Interpal trustee Essam Yusuf evenparticipated in a song that praised Hamas’s terrorist activities and its “martyrs.” Another Interpal trustee, Ibrahim Hewitt, has written of a “so-called Holocaust,” and claims: “The Jews cannot be entrusted with the sanctity and security of this Holy Land.”
    • £10,000 from Friends of Al Aqsa, an organization founded by Ismail Patel, who told a crowd in 2009 that, “Hamas is no terrorist organization. The reason they hate Hamas is because they refuse to be subjugated, occupied by the Israeli state, and we salute Hamas for standing up to Israel.”

Friends of Al Aqsa has published writings of prominent anti-Semites, including the Palestinian journalist Khalid Amayreh, whose submission claimed that Jews control America, and that the Iraq war “was conceived in and planned by Israel through the mostly Jewish neocons in Washington.”

  • A total of £15,000 from the Cordoba Foundation, a lobbying group led by senior Muslim Brotherhood official, Anas Al-Tikriti. Prime Minister David Cameron has described the Cordoba Foundation as a “political front for the Muslim Brotherhood.”
  • £5000 from Middle East Monitor, a Muslim Brotherhood online publication. Its editor, Daud Abdullah, was a signatory to the Istanbul Declaration, a document that called for attacks on British troops and Jewish communities.In 2011, Middle East Monitor brought the Hamas activist Raed Saleh to speak in Britain. Saleh has claimed (falsely) that 4000 Jews skipped work at the World Trade Center on 9/11 and that those who killed the “Martyr, Sheikh Osama Bin Laden” had “sold their consciences to Satan.” David Miller is, in fact, a vocal supporter of Raed Saleh, and spoke in defence of Saleh at a court deportation hearing.

It seems as if in the minds of David Miller, Kevin MacDonald and Hilary Aked, a mysterious Jewish cabal is responsible for all the world’s ills. Jewish money is supposedly the nexus between “Islamophobia,” Western colonialism, terrorism and violent foreign policy.

That such views find a platform in academia — and any funding by governments — is, and probably should be, seriously troubling.

Anti-Jewish tropes have been the foundation of conspiracy theories for centuries. The ideas of Miller, MacDonald and Aked are not new, but they remain racist, xenophobic and false.

Categories: Hamas, Islam, Islamophobia, Israel, Jews, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian heroes, Palestinians, Racism
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Islamic State grows in Afghanistan, encroaches on Kabul as U.S. remains ‘passive observer’

October 12, 2015

Islamic State grows in Afghanistan, encroaches on Kabul as U.S. remains ‘passive observer’ Washington Times,  Rowan Scarborough, October 11, 2015

10112015_afghan8201_c0-275-5060-3224_s561x327Photo by: Massoud Hossaini  Afghan security forces and British soldiers inspect the site of a suicide attack in the heart of Kabul, Afghanistan. Loyalists of the Islamic State group are making inroads into Afghanistan, with homegrown militants claiming allegiance to the Islamic State as it controls territory in some parts of the country. (Associated Press)

Afghanistan’s 3,000-member ISIL army is about one-tenth the size of the Afghan Taliban’s forces. But NATO says the Islamic State has reached the next stage of being an emerging threat. If its growth in other regions, such as North Africa, is a gauge, its Afghan component will only expand further as young Muslims are drawn by social media to its ultraviolent ways and Sunni orthodoxy.

************************

The Islamic State is growing at an alarming rate in Afghanistan, within striking distance of the capital, and there does not seem to be a concerted U.S. effort to strike the terrorist army as there is in the Syria-Iraq war theater.

An independent think tank has concluded that the allies are “reacting disjointedly and ineffectively” to the group in Afghanistan and other places outside those two countries.

The Islamic State’s numbers now may reach as high as 3,000 in Afghanistan, mostly in Nangarhar province, less than 50 miles east of Kabul. The emergence presents the NATO-backed elected government there with a fifth deadly enemy in addition to the Taliban, al Qaeda, the Haqqani network and elements of the Pakistani intelligence service.

Globally, the Islamic State, also called ISIL and ISIS, has affiliates in nearly 20 countries.

“It’s like a metastasizing cancer spreading throughout certain parts of the Islamic world,” said James Russell, a former Pentagon official and an instructor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. “We have to hope that the antibodies in these societies can ward off the death, misery and destruction that will come raining down upon them if ISIS takes hold in their communities.”

ISIS_s220x241

Afghanistan’s 3,000-member ISIL army is about one-tenth the size of the Afghan Taliban’s forces. But NATO says the Islamic State has reached the next stage of being an emerging threat. If its growth in other regions, such as North Africa, is a gauge, its Afghan component will only expand further as young Muslims are drawn by social media to its ultraviolent ways and Sunni orthodoxy.

Yet unlike in Syria and Iraq, where a U.S.-led coalition conducts a series of daily airstrikes against the Islamic State, there appears to be no such strategy in Afghanistan, where Afghan government forces now have the lead in all combat operations and request NATO air power on an ad hoc basis.

“What concerns me most is the fact that the United States has become a passive observer rather than the driver of the policy,” said Larry Johnson, a former counterterrorism official at the State Department, commenting on the overall U.S. effort against the Islamic State.

U.S. military spokesmen had no immediate comment on the question of American policy toward the Afghan Islamic State. Army Gen. John Campbell, the allied commander in-country, was asked at congressional hearings last week what triggers action against Islamic State. He answered that the criterion is “force protection.”

After the Syria-Iraq war theater, Islamic State’s emergence near Kabul could be the most troublesome for the U.S., whose troop levels have dropped to less than 10,000, and only a small portion of those forces are dedicated to assist in counterterrorism. The Islamic State has shown it can execute brutal attacks and deploy vehicle bombs to take territory and hold it.

Gen. Campbell said Afghanistan’s security forces lack the leadership and troop numbers to respond to every trouble spot.

Meanwhile, the Islamic State is beginning to flex its terrorism muscle in Afghanistan.

Islamic militant competition

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) in Washington is tracking the Islamic State’s violent ways in Afghanistan and other countries. It said the Islamic State launched attacks in mid-September against a UNICEF convoy, Afghan government forces, the Afghan Taliban and Shiite civilians. In late September the Islamic State “launched coordinated attacks on multiple Afghan security positions” in Nangarhar, the think tank said.

“The group reportedly also shut down several schools in eastern Afghanistan amid other efforts to assert social control,” the institute said. “ISIS has established robust ground campaigns in Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan.”

The ISW said in the special report “ISIS Global Strategy: A Wargame,” written by counterterrorism analyst Harleen Gambhir, that the Islamic State’s expansion stems from its ability to attract local jihadis.

“The coalition is focused on Iraq and Syria, and it is reacting disjointedly and ineffectively to ISIS’s activities in Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, and other places,” Ms. Gambhir writes. “ISW’s war game demonstrated how this failure enables ISIS to strategically outpace the U.S. and its allies.”

U.S. intelligence agencies are still trying to digest the meaning of Islamic State setting up shop in South Asia.

Nicholas Rasmussen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, speaks of an “increasing competition between extremist actors” in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region involving al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Islamic State.

“So that’s an additional factor that we’re still trying to understand,” Mr. Rasmussen told the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point in remarks published last month. He characterized the burgeoning competition as an “interesting feature of the South Asia landscape.”

Gen. Campbell, the U.S. commander closest to Islamic State terrorism in Afghanistan, said foreign fighters are arriving to join the Islamic State as they “try to bring in some sort of funding stream to build a place in Nangarhar.”

He said the emergence of Islamic State “has further complicated the theater landscape and potentially expanded the conflict.”

Mr. Johnson, the former counterterrorism official, said the leaders of Middle East and South Asia countries “concede that the U.S. has no appetite for being engaged, especially militarily in the region.”

The struggle between two radical Sunni groups, the Taliban and the Islamic State, may be sparked in part by the Taliban’s willingness to do business with Iran, a Shiite Islamic country.

“The Taliban have always been far more pragmatic in dealing with Iran, and the religious difference is not a critical factor,” Mr. Johnson said. “Not so with the ISIS crowd. For them, theology takes precedence, and Iran is an apostate state that must be destroyed.”

Categories: Afghanistan, Department of Defense, Foreign policy, Islamic State, Obama - Middle East, Taliban, U.S. Military
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Why now?

October 12, 2015

Why now? Israel Hayom, Judith Bergman, October 12, 2015

Among the several unanswered questions about the ongoing terror onslaught against Israelis, one of the most pertinent is why this is happening now, entirely unprovoked and spurred on by the incendiary incitement of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his ilk.

Relying on brainwashed youths to perpetrate the terrorist attacks, Abbas instigated the onslaught now simply because he had to do something to take back the world stage.

Abbas and his flock are used to the spotlight on the international stage, but in recent months, the influx of migrants and refugees from the Middle East and North Africa into Europe has completely swallowed the headlines there, and Abbas saw himself being marginalized to the point of being entirely forgotten. Abbas had to do something, so he unleashed terror on Israel, and he knew from years of experience with the so-called international community, as represented by the U.N., the Obama administration and the international media that he would be able to do so with impunity. In fact, the choreography of his little dance with the international media is so well-rehearsed and so perfectly tuned to his interests that Abbas knows he can rely on it to achieve his goals.

And that is exactly what is happening now. Abbas knew he could count on the major news outlets not to question why the terrorism is occurring now. Instead, the ragged old cliches of the mysteriously self-igniting “cycle of violence” are being re-hashed, while Israel’s legitimate self-defense against the stabbings, shootings and rock throwings is being increasingly reported in negative terms.

True to form, Israel has been unable thus far to counter the media dynamic that has worked so well for Abbas in the past. It appeared to be too little and too late when Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely several days ago announced a media campaign, as well as the formation of an inter-ministerial team to prepare a series of informational videos on the subject of Palestinian incitement. We have had 20 years to prepare those videos. Do not wait for the international media to hold its breath.

In his next move, truly Orwellian in a way that only the old Soviet cadres could have trumped, Abbas is now asking the U.N. Human Rights Council to quickly dispatch a commission of inquiry to the region “to investigate all crimes perpetrated by Israel against our people.” While this may sound outlandish to right-minded people, Abbas is not entirely wrong in his calculations that the U.N. will respond to his exhortations. Abbas knows that the dance he performs for the benefit of the U.N. is usually met with applause, and is just as predictably choreographed as his dance with the international media. All is possible when it comes to the U.N., particularly the U.N. Human Rights Council, where Saudi Arabia is currently chairing the U.N. Human Rights Council panel in charge of appointing independent experts.

While Abbas is craving the attention, other Middle East players are stoking the fire to deflect attention from them. Iran’s puppet, Hamas, has not only been sending rockets into Israel, aiming to add tension to the situation, but has also been sending Gazans to riot on the border with Israel, knowing fully well that confrontations and the likelihood of Palestinian casualties will further stoke the headlines against Israel and deflect attention from Iran’s own murky business in the region. The brutal murder of the Henkin couple in front of their four children was committed by a Hamas terror cell.

The Soviet-style inversion of truth and lies and the incredible willingness of the mainstream media not only to play along with it, but to exacerbate it with uncritical and bigoted reporting, is of course maddening. The answer, however, is not bitter resignation or long deliberations over future strategies, but to present the truth, as it happens and when it happens. The truth needs to be put out there, because the media create its own truth according to a pre-rehearsed template that we have seen ad nauseam, most damagingly during Operation Protective Edge in the summer of 2014. The time to speak out is now.

Categories: Abbas, Defense of Israel, Israeli government, Jews, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian heroes, Palestinians, Two state solution, UN Human RIghts Council, Western media
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Terror in Israel — why’s the world media yawning?

October 12, 2015

Terror in Israel — why’s the world media yawning? Front Page Magazine, P. David Hornik, October 12, 2015

knife-stabbing

 

That fear of making Israel look “good.”

There’s been a terror onslaught here in Israel for the last week and a half. Those of us who bother checking foreign media outlets have noticed that there’s relatively little coverage. This is mainly good, since, of course, coverage of Israel’s conflicts with Palestinians and neighbors tends to be quite hostile to Israel.

Still, it raises the question of why interest isn’t greater this time. Those hallowed principles of “If it bleeds, it leads” and “Jews are news” would seem to apply.

True, they don’t apply on the scale of last year’s Gaza war, which drew huge coverage. But that may give a clue as to the explanation.

In that war much larger numbers died than in the current terror onslaught—and given Israel’s superior military capabilities and Hamas’s use of civilians as human shields, they were predominantly on the Palestinian side. A lot of scenes were broadcast from Gaza hospitals. The “text” was: see what the Israelis have done now!

In this current campaign so far, four Israelis have been killed and many more wounded. The number of Palestinians killed is, again, larger—but they were primarily killed by security forces fending off attacks, with few cases of collateral killing of civilians.

Still, a lot of what is happening would seem to be “newsworthy.” Even in Israel, with its long history of aggressions by surrounding populations, terror organizations, and countries, what’s happening has been almost unique.

Along with the usual rock-throwing and gun ambushes, they’ve been lunging at us—on streets and sidewalks, in malls and bus stations—with knives and screwdrivers. These “lone-wolf” attackers aren’t terrorists per se. Many have been teenage boys—or teenage girls, or young women.

They mostly come from the territories—but some also from within Israel—looking for Jews, any Jews, to kill. They’re crazed with hate and not seeking a “two-state” solution and definitely not “peace.” The hate largely takes the form of a religious frenzy—after months of the Islamist organizations and the Palestinian Authority drumming the libelous message into their heads that Israel is scheming to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

Even for the media with its anti-Israeli bias, it may hard to finagle these hate-crazed, religiously motivated attacks into its “Israel victimizes Palestinians” frame. It gets even harder when one looks at individual cases.

On October 3, for instance, Aharon Banita, his wife Adele, and their two young children were attacked by a Palestinian stabber in the Old City of Jerusalem. Seeing her husband fatally wounded and having been stabbed herself, The Times of Israel reported that Adele

“…yelled ‘please help me!’ and [the surrounding Palestinian shopkeepers] just spat at me.…”

Banita said Palestinian youths who saw the attack laughed and cursed at her as she yelled for help.

She said that one of them slapped her and another laughed in her face and told her to “drop dead” when she told him she’d give him a million shekels if he helped her get away with her two babies.

“They saw that we were with two baby carriages,” she said.

Are there some Palestinians whom even the “elite” media can’t love?

And on October 7, in the town of Kiryat Gat in southern Israel, there was this incident:

A Palestinian man stabbed an IDF soldier and grabbed his gun…. He then fled to a fourth floor apartment….

The soldier was lightly injured in the attack, with wounds to his head, apparently inflicted with a pair of scissors….

Liat Ohana said she encountered the terrorist in the kitchen of her apartment, and that “he had murder in his eyes.” She said she pushed him into her kitchen, where she heard him rooting around in the cutlery, apparently looking for a knife. The gun he had seized had no magazine.

She and her mother fled, screaming, she said, and later heard gunfire. “I didn’t think I’d get out alive, but I was determined to fight,” Ohana said later. The security forces “shot him in my kitchen,” she told Army Radio.

Liat Ohana, in other words, is a heroine. And there have been other cases of heroism by Israeli civilians, like the ones whopinned down a stabber in a shopping mall on October 7, and the female soldier in Tel Aviv on October 8 who, though stabbed with a screwdriver, fell on her gun and stopped the attacker from getting it.

Heroic Israelis fending off Palestinian killers? Seems “dramatic” and—with Israelis not the only ones under Islamic attack—even inspirational. But it’s not the stuff mainstream-media stories are made of, and only those following Israeli outlets are likely to know about these cases at all.

Of course, to the extent that the media has covered the events, it’s been up to its usual antics. The BBC’s headline for the abovementioned attack involving the Banitas, in which Aharon Banita and another man were killed before security forces killed the attacker, was: “Palestinian shot dead after Jerusalem attack kills two.” HonestReporting gives a spate of similar examples gleaned from a single day.

At this point it’s not yet clear if this terror wave will die down or intensify. If the latter, it can be safely assumed that the Western media will increase its coverage on the side of the assault.

We know that the Palestinian attackers are driven by a systematically inculcated religious and nationalistic rage. What drives the Western media’s dehumanization of Israelis and identification with their killers?

Categories: Al-Aqsa Mosque, Defense of Israel, Gaza, Hamas, Israel, Jews, Obama and Israel, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian heroes, Palestinians, Two state solution, Western media
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The left’s war on Jewish self-defense

October 12, 2015

The left’s war on Jewish self-defense, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, October 12, 2015

ghetto_vilinus

Ben Carson’s comments that armed Jews might have saved lives in the Holocaust by resisting Nazi terror have been met with condescending mockery from the left. The Jewish establishment, a network of wealthy non-profit organizations that claim to represent Jews without ever being chosen by them and while working against their interests, has reacted in the same way as their liberal brethren.

But this establishment has forgotten that it was built on providing guns to Jews.

Historical revisionism is what the left does best. American Jewish history in the last century is a revisionist history in which the heroes are the “establishment”. The truth lies buried in old papers and lost documents. And it’s a deeply compelling truth of how the left suppressed Jewish self-defense.

The Jewish Defense Association was the first time that uptown establishment German Jews and downtown Eastern Jewish immigrants came together. The JDA’s goal had little in common with the empty rubber chicken dinner agendas of what the establishment that grew out of it would become.

Instead the Jewish Defense Association’s mission was simple. Buy guns for Jews.

Its agenda, as reported by the New York Times was, “New massacres are preparing. Our people must be possessed of arms to defend themselves and their honor.”

The year was 1905. The slow bloody beginning of the Russian Revolution was underway. Much like the Syrian Civil War, brutal militias aligned with different factions from the left to the right would arise out of the violence. Like the Christians in Syria, the Jews were an isolated minority. Xenophobia allowed both Communists and Czarists to score populist points by massacring the Jews in violent pogroms.

The Jewish Defense Association responded with a call to arms. Its motto took a part of Hillel’s credo, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me.” Its membership encompassed the left and the right, Zionists and anti-Zionists, religious and secular Jews.

A march of 200,000 Jews to Union Square included 5,000 former Russian soldiers, the volunteer Zion Guards in blue uniforms carrying rifles and the young men of the Manhattan Rifles, begun in the Lower East Side’s Educational Alliance as the Alliance Cadets, which had been formed in imitation of the Jewish Lads Brigade, a group that had put thousands of Jewish boys in the UK through military training.

The final resolutions declared that, “Eternal vigilance is the price of the Jew’s life, and that we urge our people to take up arms against their assailants, and if need be to sell their lives most dearly.”

It concluded with the ringing challenge, “We call Jews everywhere toward the defense of the Jewish people.”

In the words of the New York Times, “A ripple went through the crowd like wind rising to a hurricane which roared “Aye!”

It was undoubtedly the most heavily armed Jewish rally in American history. The sight of all those guns, not to mention early versions of the Israeli flag, would give any modern establishment leader a fit.

And yet the JDA included key establishment figures like Judah Magnes and Louis Marshall. Branches of the organization quickly emerged around the country from Los Angeles to Cincinnati showing how popular the message of Jewish self-defense was.

“In underlining the word ‘Self’ it expresses its conviction of the futility of all kinds of Jewish demonstration which appeal to others,” Rabbi Israel Friedlander, a co-founder of Young Israel who would later be murdered by Communist thugs, wrote.

“The modern Jew, who is otherwise ready to boast of his liberalism… anxiously watches every nod of a king and every smile of a prime minister. The old ‘Shtadlan’ still exists in the form of the ‘influential Hebrew’ who on the backstairs often begs what as a representative of a free nation he ought openly to demand. In times of danger the modern Jews…  appeal to the Spirit of Humanity, Modern Civilization or Brotherhood of Mankind, without themselves moving a finger in their defense.”

“Attacks of bloodthirsty beasts cannot be beaten back by appeals to Humanity and Civilization,” he wrote.”Surely the Self-Defense of the Jews will not at once stop all further bloodshed. Some Jews may still be slain, be destroyed and be beaten. But they will certainly not be put to shame. They will meet violence with violence and teach their enemies the value of a Jewish life.”

But of course it was not to be.

The “Shtadlans,” the institutional establishment figures who had taken over the JDA, would abandon and dismantle it, recreating its corpse as the American Jewish Committee. The AJC would default to exactly the kind of aimless political begging that Rabbi Friedlander had condemned because that made power brokers like Marshall and Magnes feel important. Their goal was not to empower Jews, but to disempower them. The establishment robbed Jews of their power and offered them a chance to donate to a corrupt network of organizations whose only real purpose was making their leaders feel important.

Meanwhile the leftists tore apart the JDA by refusing to work with the Jewish “religious and capitalist elements” of the JDA.

Leading the charge against the JDA were the Bund, an anti-Jewish Marxist organization, and the Forward, a radical left-wing paper that continues to spread hate against Jews and Judaism today.

While the Bund and the Forward’s mendacious Abe Cahan had initially supported the JDA in order to take advantage of Jewish outrage over the pogroms, the Bund’s position firmly opposed self-defense along “national lines” as a distraction from class consciousness and class warfare. And armed Jews, especially Zionists, might end up shooting some of the Bund’s favorite “workers mobs” at a pogrom.

Jewish self-defense threatened the Marxist agenda. The Marxists were willing to exploit Jews through front groups, but were determined to deny them any ability to defend themselves. For its Communist collaboration, the Bund earned the dubious honor of being the last non-Bolshevik Jewish organization allowed to operate on Soviet soil. Eventually it was purged and its members were shot. Others found their way into the Yevsektsiya, the Communist Party’s Jewish Section, tasked with wiping out Judaism by shutting down synagogues and Jewish institutions, and organizing the murder of Rabbis and Zionists.

Despite the interference of the Marxists, Jewish self-defense groups in Russia, such as the Giborei Zion (Heroes of Zion), assembled their own weapons or smuggled them in to resist attacks.

The Communist takeover led to the end of Jewish self-defense groups in Russia. Those who stayed behind were shot or sent to gulags. Many others made their way to Israel where they helped defend Jews against Muslim terror and fought for the independence of the Jewish State. Others played a key role in the resistance to Nazi occupation during WW2 in the Warsaw Ghetto and elsewhere.

The self-defense organizations that had failed in Russia, succeeded in Israel. They did it even though the establishment continued to undermine them by entering into a shameful collaboration with the USSR.

The JDC and the establishment spent most of its money on Soviet agricultural colonies in which Russian Jews were supposed to find a “new life” and a “happy future”. Newspapers were filled with glowing accounts of how happy the resettled Jews were. The scam eventually collapsed when the Communists had gotten enough money out of their useful anti-Zionist idiots. Those Jews who had been resettled, were murdered by the Nazis. Local JDC employees were shot or imprisoned.

At a crucial period, the establishment had starved Jewish settlers of funds that could have been used to dramatically transform Israel. But the pro-Communist left had its own agenda. The eagerness of the JDC to collaborate with the Communists could be found in their cover-up of the murder of Rabbi Friedlander.

Rabbi Friedlander, who advocated Jewish self-defense, had been in the Ukraine as a JDC emissary. He and two other Jews were murdered by the Red Army. The Forward feverishly engaged in a cover-up while the JDC stayed silent to avoid offending the Bolsheviks and their fellow travelers at the Forward.

Jewish self-defense was popular with Jews, but unpopular with the establishment and the far left. The establishment wanted Jews to be dependent on their political access, but refused to use that access to protect Jews by challenging the left, whether that meant standing up to the USSR over its persecution of Jews or to FDR over the Holocaust.

The far left had done everything in its power to suppress a “national solution” to the Jewish question. That is still what it is doing today. Its fight against Israel has nothing to do with the fake nationhood of the “Palestinian” terror groups, but is part of a longstanding campaign to shut down any independent Jewish consciousness because that might interfere with its class consciousness and class warfare.

American Jews are blamed for their apathy to the Holocaust or to Israel. But the good intentions of ordinary Jews were hijacked and continue to be hijacked by a corrupt establishment for its own political agendas. The establishment put FDR first and the left put Stalin first. Today it puts Obama first. It is a parasitic entity that hijacked Jewish self-defense and concerns while costing countless Jewish lives.

Armed Jews alone would not have stopped the Holocaust, but the awareness rising in Jewish circles in 1905 could have led to a movement that would have built a secure Israel and evacuated Jews from danger zones long before the Holocaust. Guns are only the final element of self-defense. Self-defense begins with awareness and mobilization. It’s what you do to prepare for the worst that really counts.

Very little has changed today. The establishment continues to undermine Israel, pursuing left-wing causes at Jewish expense, while pretending that it cares about the Jewish State, even as it undermines its efforts at self-defense. The left wants to destroy Israel. And the establishment helps make it happen.

The establishment ridicules the idea for which those 200,000 Jews gathered, armed and unarmed, over a century ago. Such contempt is fashionable in liberal circles. And yet that old message continues to resound today. “Our people must be possessed of arms to defend themselves and their honor.”

Categories: Dr. Ben Carson, Guns, Holocaust, Israel, Jews, Leftists, Palestinian heroes, Palestinians
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

In ‘60 Minutes’ Interview, Obama Muddles Facts on Ukraine

October 12, 2015

In ‘60 Minutes’ Interview, Obama Muddles Facts on Ukraine

By Patrick Goodenough

October 12, 2015  4:21 AM EDT

Source: In ‘60 Minutes’ Interview, Obama Muddles Facts on Ukraine

Russian President Vladimir Putin meets in 2013 with then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich – the man who President Obama in his CBS interview described as ‘a corrupt ruler who was a stooge of Mr. Putin.’ (AP Photo/Ivan Sekretarev, File)

(CNSNews.com) – Defending himself against accusations that Russian President Vladimir Putin is challenging American leadership, President Obama erroneously told CBS’s “60 Minutes” that when he took office Ukraine was ruled by a Putin “stooge.”

Questioning the premise that Putin’s foreign policy was succeeding, Obama cited the situations in Ukraine and Syria.

“When I came into office, Ukraine was governed by a corrupt ruler who was a stooge of Mr. Putin,” he told interviewer Steve Kroft. “Syria was Russia’s only ally in the region.”

Today, Putin is no longer able to count on those allies’ support, Obama continued, adding that the Russian leader instead was having to deploy his military “just to barely hold together by a thread his sole ally” – Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The implication was that having lost one ally and at risk of losing another, Putin’s international position had in fact been weakened during the Obama administration, rather than the opposite as many Obama critics contend.

 

The president was incorrect, however, in his citing of the situation in Ukraine when he entered the White House.

The Putin-backed “stooge” he referred to, Viktor Yanukovich, only became president in Kiev in February 2010, more than a year after Obama’s own inauguration.

When Obama became president, his counterpart in Ukraine was not Yanukovich but Viktor Yushchenko, a pro-Western leader who, during his five years at the helm, had angered the Kremlin by seeking European Union and NATO membership.

(The Russian-backed Yanukovich had sought the presidency in 2004, but amid accusations of vote-rigging that bid was foiled by the “Orange Revolution,” which brought Yushchenko to power instead.)

Yushchenko’s policies were a major challenge to Moscow, which fretted about losing influence over a strategically-located country which, after Russia itself, was the biggest of the Soviet Union successor states.

Ukraine’s Crimea region was home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, based at the Soviet-era Sevastopol naval base under a long-term lease. Yushchenko’s call for Russian ships and personnel to leave when the lease expired in 2017 was another serious concern for the Kremlin.

Looking to Washington for support, Yushchenko found it from the Bush administration. President Bush visited Kiev in 2008, en route to a NATO summit where the U.S. backed membership plans for both Ukraine and Georgia. (In the end the issue was shelved, because some European NATO members were loath to antagonize Russia.)

The last year of Yushchenko’s presidency overlapped with the first year of Obama’s. During that period – from Jan. 2009 to February 2010 – Obama traveled to Europe six times, but did not visit Ukraine.

At the time, the new administration in Washington was pursuing a “reset” in relations with Moscow, prompting prominent figures in eastern and central Europe to express concern that Obama’s attempts to improved ties could result in the U.S. making “the wrong concessions to Russia.”

Vice President Joe Biden did visit Ukraine and Georgia in July 2009, and reiterated U.S. support for their NATO aspirations.

Campaigning for Ukraine’s presidential election in early 2010, Putin ally Yanukovich pledged to return Kiev to Moscow’s fold. After he won – an outcome viewed as a significant victory for Putin – he shelved Ukraine’s NATO application process and extended the Crimea lease for the Black Sea Fleet for at least another 25 years.

Yanukovich remained in power until February 2014, when he fled Kiev amid huge anti-government protests and sought shelter in Russia.  Moscow backed an armed separatist movement in eastern Ukraine, and after a referendum not recognized by the West, annexed Crimea.

Russia’s intervention prompted U.S. and E.U. sanctions. But the situation in Ukraine is unresolved and, despite the West’s refusal to recognize it, Crimea remains part of the Russian Federation.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Putin’s “Endgame” in Syria

October 12, 2015

Putin’s “Endgame” in Syria

By Mike Whitney

October 9, 2015

Source: Putin’s “Endgame” in Syria

Russia doesn’t want to fight a war with Turkey, so Russian generals devised a simple, but effective plan to discourage Turkey from taking any action that could lead to a clash between the two nations.

Last week, Russian warplanes intruded into Turkish airspace twice. Both incidents caused consternation in Ankara and send Turkish leaders into a furor.  On both occasions, officials in Moscow politely apologized for the incursions claiming they were unintentional (“navigational errors”) and that they would try to avoid similar intrusions in the future.

Then there was a third incident, a more serious incident, that was not a mistake. It was clearly intended to send a message to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.  Here’s a short summary of what happened from an article at the World Socialist Web Site:

“Turkish officials claimed a third incident on Monday, when an unidentified MiG-29 fighter jet locked its radar for four and a half minutes on eight Turkish F-16 jets that were on patrol on their side of the border, in apparent preparation to open fire.” (“US, NATO step up threats to Russia over Syria“, World Socialist Web Site)

This was no mistake. The only time a fighter pilot adopts these protocols is when he plans to take down an enemy plane. This was a message, and while it might have been over-the-heads of the politicians and the media but, I assure you, every general in the Turkish High-Command knows what’s it means. This is a wake-up call.  Moscow is indicating that there’s a new sheriff in town and that Turkey had better behave itself or there’s going to be trouble. There’s not going to be any US-Turkey no-fly zone over North Syria, there’s not going to be any aerial attacks on Syrian sites from the Turkish side of the border, and there certainly is not going to be any ground invasion of Turkish troops into Syria.  The Russian Aerospace Defence Forces now control the skies over Syria and they are determined to defend Syria’s sovereign borders. That’s the message. Period.

This is a good example of how “preemption” can actually prevent conflicts rather than starting them. By firing a shot over Turkey’s bow, Moscow has dampened Erdogan’s plan to annex part of N. Syria and declare it a “safe zone”. Turkey will have to scrap that plan now realizing that any attempt to seize-and-hold Syrian territory will trigger a swift and powerful Russian retaliation. Seen in this light,  Russia’s incursion looks like an extremely effective way to prevent a broader war by simply telegraphing to potential adversaries what they can and can’t do. Simply put: Putin has rewritten the rules of the game in Syria and Erdogan had better comply or else. Here’s more on Turkey from Patrick Cockburn in The Independent:

“A Turkish ground invasion into Syria, though still a possibility, would now be riskier with Russian aircraft operating in areas where Turkey would be most likely to launch an incursion.

The danger for the Turks is that they now have two Kurdish quasi-states, one in Syria and one in Iraq, immediately to the south. Worse, the Syrian-Kurdish one…is run by the Democratic Union Party (PYD) which is effectively the Syrian branch of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) which has been fighting the Turkish state since 1984. Any insurgency by the PKK in Kurdish areas in south-east Turkey in future will be strengthened by the fact that the PKK has a de facto state of its own.

It appears that Turkey’s four-year attempt to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad has failed. It is unclear what Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan can do about this since support from Nato is at this stage purely rhetorical. As for Turkey’s relations with Russia, Mr Erdogan says that any attack on Turkey is an attack on Nato and that “if Russia loses a friend like Turkey with whom it has co-operated on many issues, it will lose a lot.” But in Syria, at least, it appears that it is Turkey that is the loser.” (“Russia in Syria: Russian Radar Locks on to Turkish Fighter Jets“, The Unz Review)

Poor Erdogan. He rolled the dice and came up snake-eyes. He figured he could expand his would-be Ottoman Empire into Northern Syria, and now his dream is in a shambles. Should he deploy his warplanes to N Syria and openly challenge the Russian airforce?  No, he’s not that foolish. He’s going to stay on his side of the border, stomp his feet, and lash out at “evil Putin”, but at the end of the day, he’ll do nothing.

And Washington’s not going to do anything either. Yes, Hillary and McCain have been calling for a no-fly zone over Syria, but that’s not going to happen. Putin won’t allow it and neither will the Security Council. And, on what pretext anyway? Is Obama really going to request a no-fly zone on the basis that Putin is killing “moderate” terrorists along with the “extreme” terrorists? That’s not a very compelling argument, in fact, even the American people are having a hard time swallowing that one. If Obama wants something from Putin, he’s going to have sit-down at a bargaining table and hash out a deal. So far, he has refused to do that, because he still thinks regime change is within his grasp. There are signs of this everywhere like this article in Turkey’s Today’s Zaman titled “İncirlik base to increase capacity by 2,250 to accommodate new personnel”:

“A tent city within İncirlik has been undergoing reconstruction for modern prefabricated houses, which will host 2,250 US military personnel, the Doğan news agency reported on Friday. During the Gulf War of 1991, a tent city was established to accommodate military personnel serving with Operation Provide Comfort (OPC) and was shut down with the end of the OPC.

On Aug. 20, work began to transform the site of the tent city into a new area named “Patriot Town.” After construction is completed, the İncirlik base will have the largest capacity among the US bases in Europe…

The expansion of the İncirlik base’s capacity comes at a time when Russia has launched the biggest intervention in the Middle East in decades….Moscow’s intervention means the conflict in Syria has been transformed from a proxy war.. into an international conflict in which the world’s main military powers… are directly involved in fighting.” (“İncirlik base to increase capacity by 2,250 to accommodate new personnel“, Today’s Zaman)

This article smacks of US ambitions in the Middle East. As readers can plainly see,  Washington is gearing up for another war just like it did in 1991.  And the US air war is going to be launched from “Patriot Town” at Incirlik just like we’ve been predicting since July when the deal was finalized. Here’s more background from an article at Hurriyet:

“U.S. Air Force Central Command has started deploying search and rescue helicopters and airmen at Turkey’s southeastern Diyarbakır Air Base in order to help with recovery operations in neighboring Iraq and Syria, it has announced….

NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and the commander of U.S. European Command, Gen. Phillip Breedlove, has said the mission will be temporary.

“We will be guests of the government of Turkey at Diyarbakir Air Base. There are no plans for a permanent U.S. presence at this location … This marks yet another successful cooperative effort between the Turkish and U.S. militaries,” Breedlove said.” (“US deploys recovery aircraft in Turkey’s southeast“, Hurriyet)

 

“US Search and rescue helicopters” just a couple miles from Turkey’s southeastern border?

Yep.  In other words,  if an F-16 is shot down somewhere over Syria while trying to impose an illegal no-fly zone, then– Presto– the search and rescue helicopters are just 20 minutes away.

How convenient.

So you can see that– even though Putin has thrown a wrench in the works–  the Obama team is still moving ahead with its “Topple Assad” plan.  Nothing has changed, the Russian intervention just makes the future much more uncertain which is why frustrated geopolitical strategists, like Zbigniew Brzezinski, have begun to pop-up in the op-ed pages of leading newspapers blasting Putin for sabotaging their plans for regional hegemony. It’s worth noting that Brzezinski is the spiritual godfather of Islamic extremism, the man who figured out how religious nutcases could be used to foment hysteria and advance US geopolitical objectives around the world. Thus, it’s only natural that Brzezinski would want to offer his advice now in a desperate effort to avoid a legacy of failure and disgrace. Check out this clip from Politico:

“The United States should threaten to retaliate if Russia does not stop attacking U.S. assets in Syria, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in a Financial Times op-ed published Sunday, urging “strategic boldness,” with American credibility in the Middle East and the region itself at stake….And if Russia continues to pursue non-ISIL targets, the U.S. should retaliate, he added.

“In these rapidly unfolding circumstances the U.S. has only one real option if it is to protect its wider stakes in the region: to convey to Moscow the demand that it cease and desist from military actions that directly affect American assets,” he said.” (“Brzezinski: Obama should retaliate if Russia doesn’t stop attacking U.S. assets“, Politico)

The people who Brzezinski breezily refers to as “American assets” in Syria are terrorists. It’s that simple. Putin doesn’t distinguish between the “moderate” terrorists and the “radical” terrorists, the good terrorists and the bad terrorists. It’s a joke. They’re all in the same pool and they’re all going to meet the same fate. They all have to be rooted out, apprehended or killed. End of story.

By tweaking the war on terror narrative in a way that supports some, but condemns others, the Obama administration has backed themselves into an ideological cul de sac from which there is no way out. What they are doing is wrong and they know it is wrong. And that’s why it’s going to be so difficult to make the case for war. In a recent “must see” interview, Putin called out Obama on this very point. Here’s what he said:

“President Obama frequently mentions the threat of ISIS. Well, who on earth armed them? And who created the political climate that facilitated the current situation?  Who delivered arms to the area? Do you really not know who is fighting in Syria? They’re mercenaries mostly. They are paid money. Mercenaries work for whatever side pays more. We even know how much they are paid. We know they fight for awhile and then see that someone else pays a little more, so they go there…..

The US says “We must support the civilized, democratic opposition in Syria”. So they support them, arm them, and then they join ISIS. Is it impossible for the US to think one step ahead?  We do not support this kind of policy at all. We think it’s wrong.” (Putin explains who started ISIS, you tube, 1:38 to 4:03)

See? Everyone knows what’s going on. Barack Obama is not going to initiate a confrontation with Russia to defend a fundamentally immoral CIA program that has gone south.  He will, however, do what the US always does when dealing with an adversary that can actually defend itself.  He’s going to hector, harass, threaten, demean, demonize, ridicule, and bully. He might launch another attack on the ruble, or fiddle with oil prices or impose more economic sanctions. But he’s not going to start a war with Russia,  that’s just not going to happen.

But don’t give up hope just yet, after all, there is a silver lining to this fiasco, and all of the main players know exactly what it is.

It’s called Geneva. Geneva is the endgame.

Geneva is the UN-backed road map for ending the war in Syria. Its provisions allow for the “establishment of a transitional governing body”, the  “participation of all groups… in a meaningful national dialogue,” and “free and fair multi-party elections.”

The treaty is straightforward and uncontroversial. The one sticking point, is whether Assad will be allowed to participate in the transitional government or not.

Putin says “Yes”.  Obama says “No”.

Putin is going to win this battle. Eventually, the administration will cave in and withdraw their demand that Assad step down. Their plans for regime change through the use of jihadi-proxies will have failed, and Putin will have moved the Middle East one step closer to a lasting peace and genuine security.

That’s the silver lining and that’s how the war in Syria will end.

Bravo, Putin.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Is There an EU-Russia Thaw in the Making?

October 12, 2015

Is There an EU-Russia Thaw in the Making? Some signs of EU developing a backbone – but at a glacial pace

Bryan MacDonald

Source: Is There an EU-Russia Thaw in the Making?

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said Thursday that Europe should improve its relationship with Russia and not let EU policy be dictated by Washington.

RT: Does this mean an EU-turn concerning relations with Russia and Europe?

Bryan MacDonald: I think like a giant tanker when Europe changes course the direction has to be moved very slowly. I think that this has been building up for a while. It is not like [Jean-Claude] Juncker woke up yesterday morning and said: “I am going to say this.”

I think there has been silence for the last month or two about a number of things that affect the relationship between Europe and Russia: there have been more protests from farmers in the EU, there has been more disgruntlement among industrialists, at least, at the Russian market, there have been more and more negative comments about Ukraine’s lack of effort to introduce reform to tackle corruption. You know, it is been building up for a while.

And I think as well that secretly – or maybe not so secretly – a lot of powerful Europeans approve of Russia’s actions in Syria. Remember, Europe is getting the effects of the Syrian crisis in terms of the migrant or refugee crisis. And America is largely untouched. So, obviously many people in Europe would be in favor of anything that might stymie that.

RT: Why the sudden shift? Is it surprising that it coincides with the start of Russia’s operation is Syria?

BM: No, like I said, there are many in Europe who approve of Russia’s actions in Syria. A lot of European countries and individuals in Europe don’t understand why after three or four years of NATO policy in Syria things are actually getting worse. Another thing worth remembering too is: a lot of people in Europe are probably getting fed up with being told what to do by the Americans.

Only yesterday the US Senate thanked Victoria Nuland of Euromaidan fame and the cookies for “swimming upstream to make things happen in Ukraine.” And that obviously doesn’t tell you what the line that we were all fed that it was some kind of spontaneous revolution or coup organized by the Ukrainian people.

And it obviously means the Americans are further admitting that they orchestrated the change of governance there and the collapse of a democratically elected government.

I mean, a lot of people in the EU will not be greatly happy with that. Another thing worth mentioning is the impact on European farming of the Russian countersanctions to the initial EU sanctions against Russia. It is common knowledge that poultry and dairy prices are falling to the floor in Europe. Here, in Ireland they is growing discord amongst the Irish Farming Association.

Many farmers are in danger of getting into severe financial difficulty over this. And many people are asking what is the necessity of these sanctions – what is it got to do with Irish, French and Spanish farmers what is going on in Ukraine.

T: We’ve heard from Victoria Nuland that the US hopes the EU will follow suit if sanctions are prolonged against Russia. How does this relate to recent statements?

BM: The comments from Juncker are obviously very interesting because of whom he is – the head of the European Commission. He has basically made two significant statements there: one is that “Russia is to be treated with more respect,” and secondly that: “We cannot allow our relationship with Russia to be dictated by Washington.”

This is hugely significant. It will also be very interesting to see what happens over the next few days and weeks, with comments from Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel because they are ultimately, and especially Merkel, the people who call the shots in Europe. You will get a lot of criticism of this stance by the UK, for example, but nobody really cares what they think

 

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries