Since first invading Afghanistan nearly a decade ago, America set one primary goal: Eliminate Al Qaeda's safe haven.
Today, intelligence and military officials say they've severely constrained Al Qaeda's ability to operate there and in Pakistan -- and that's reshaping the debate over U.S. strategy in the region.
Hunted by U.S. drones, beset by money problems and finding it tougher to lure young Arabs to the bleak mountains of Pakistan, Al Qaeda is seeing its role shrink there and in Afghanistan, according to intelligence reports and Pakistani and U.S. officials. Conversations intercepted by the U.S. show Al Qaeda fighters complaining of shortages of weapons, clothing and, in some cases, food. The number of foreign fighters in Afghanistan appears to be declining, U.S. military officials say.
For Arab youths who are Al Qaeda's primary recruits, "it's not romantic to be cold and hungry and hiding," said a senior U.S. official in South Asia.
In Washington, the question of Al Qaeda's strength is at the heart of the debate over whether to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan. On Saturday, eight American troops and two Afghan soldiers were killed fighting Taliban forces -- one of the worst single-day battlefield losses for U.S. forces since the war began.
Opponents of sending more troops prefer a narrower campaign consisting of missile strikes and covert action inside Pakistan, rather than a broader war against the Taliban, the radical Islamist movement that ruled Afghanistan for years and provided a haven to Al Qaeda's Usama bin Laden. Their reasoning: The larger threat to America remains Al Qaeda, not the Taliban; so, best not to get embroiled in a local war that history suggests may be unwinnable.
#1
..so, best not to get embroiled in a local war that history suggests may be unwinnable.
"Storm from the East" by Robert Marshall:
The Mongols' prime objective was the Caliph of Baghdad, but before confronting him they meant to eliminate the other major power in the region, The Ismailis or Assassins. They had emerged because of a schism in the Shia Muslim sect and established themselves in northern and eastern Persia by taking and controlling a series of mountain fortifications. Behind their walls they lived a contemplative life, producing beautifully wrought paintings and metalworks, buy beyond their retreats they terrorized those civilizations they deemed heretical and so earned the enmity not just of the rest of the Islamic world but eventually of Europe. Rather than confronting his enemies in open combat he preferred to sponsor a campaign of political murder, usually executed with a dagger in the back, as the means to his ends.
The Mongols has their own reasons for launching a campaign against the Assassins. First, they had received a plea of help from an Islamic judge in Qaswin, a town near the Assassins' stronghold at Alamut, who had complained that his fellow citizens were forced to wear armour all the time as protection from the Assassins' daggers. According to Rubruck, another reason that determined Mongol attitudes was the discovery of a plot to send no fewer than 400 dagger-wielding Assassins in disguise to Qaraqorum with the instructions to murder the Great Khan. The Assassins had encountered the Mongols once before, during Chormaghun's terror raid through northern Persia 1237-8, which led them to send an envoy to Europe to beg help.
...
On 1 January 1256 Hulegu's army crossed the Oxus River and brought into Persia the most formidable war machine ever seen. It possessed the very latest in siege engineering, gunpowder from China, catapults that would send balls of flaming naphtha into their enemy's cities, and divisions of rigorously trained mounted archers led by generals who had learnt their skills at the feet of Genghis Khan and Subedei. As news of Hulegu's army spread he was soon presented with a succession of sultans, emirs, and atabaks from as far apart as Asia Minor and Herat, all come to pay homage. Its sheer presence brought to an end nearly forty years of rebellion and unrest in the old lands of Khwarazmia, but to the inhabitants of Persia and Syria it was the dawn of a new world order.
The Mongols made first for the Elburz Mountains where the Assassins lay in wait behind what they believed to be their impregnable fortresses. With extraordinary ingenuity the Mongol generals and their Chinese engineers manoeuvred their artillery up the mountain slopes and set them up around the walls of the fortress of Alamut. But before the order was given to commence firing the Assassins' Grand Master, Rukn ad_Din signaled that he wanted to negotiate. Hulegu countered that he must immediately order the destruction of his own fortifications; when Rukn ad_Din prevaricated; the bombardment commenced. Under the most devastatingly accurate fire, the walls quickly tumbled and Rukn ad_Din surrendered. Hulegu took him prisoner, transported him to every Assassin castle they confronted, and paraded him before each garrison with the demand for an immediate surrender. Some obliged, as at Alamut; while others, like Gerdkuh, had to be taken by force. Today the spherical stone missiles fired by the artillery teams at the walls still litter the perimeter of the ruins. Whether each 'eagle's nest' surrendered or taken, the Mongols put all the inhabitants to the swords - even the women in their homes and the babies in their cradles.
As the slaughter continued, Rukn ad_Din begged Hulegu to allow him to go to Qaraqorum where he would pay homage to the great Khan and plead for clemency. Hulegu agreed, but when he got to Qaraqorum Mongke Khan refused to see him. It was effectively a sentence of death. On the journey back his Mongol escorts turned on the Grand Master and his attendants, who were 'kicked to a pulp'. The Persian historian Juvaini commented that 'the world had been cleansed'. Five hundred years later Edward Gibbon echoed those sentiments, claiming that the Mongols' campaign 'may be considered as a service to mankind'. It took two years for the Mongols to dislodge over 200 'eagle's nests', but in the process they virtually expunged the Assassins from Persia.
#2
And that's what it will take, and we do not have the will or the desire. We will leave, the jihadi-cockroaches will flourish, and we will confront an emboldened jihadi-cockroach in 10 years.
#5
Only problem is the name was "Hassassins" not "Assassins", same folks
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
10/05/2009 12:41 Comments ||
Top||
#6
We have Army generals who would put all of Afghanistan to the torch, if given the word to proceed. We just don't have anyone in Washington with the stomach to fight a real war. The problem isn't the troops in the field, but the folks in Washington - in EVERY branch of government. Of course, the first thing we'd have to do to fight a REAL war is first kill all the ^&$&*%#$&%^^%%(*&^%*&$ lawyers - here AND in Europe.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
10/05/2009 14:25 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Declare victory and leave
Not an option. Didn't work out well as we saw in 9/11. That is one of the reasons we are there. Payback. If anyone thinks we are not well thought of in the mideast now, we would be thought of as lower than whalesh!t if we pulled out. We would be facing an emboldened enemy all over the world. You would see radical jihadis in numbers we never thought possible here and abroad.
#8
"Declare victory and leave" is, broadly speaking, how the LOU DOBBS RADIO SHOW summed up the Bammer's label for the GWOT + AFPAK, i.e. as "overseas/national contingency operations" which both Dobbs + Several Call-ins perceived as DANGEROUS. DOBBS > lamented how too many USG Politicos are afraid to say that
(1)we are fighting a war, includ war for national survival.
(2)waging said war to avenge/response to 9-11 + and attacks agz US Citizens + City
(3)that the US intends to kill or destroy its enemies in wartime???
#9
Lest we fergit, COUNTERTERRORISM BLOG > SPREAD OF JIHADI OPERATIONS INSIDE AMERICA: A QUANTITAIVE WARNING; + TOPIX > ANALYSTS: JIHADISTS MOVING FROM SEPARATISM TO GLOBAL INSURGENCY.
IOW, no longer LOCAL = LOCAL SOVEREIGNTY/AUTONOMY or even MUSLIM RIGHTS, BUT MORE THE FORCED IMPOSITION OF ISLAM/ISLAMISM VIA THE DE FACTO OVERTHROW OF GOVTS + CONQUEST OF NATION(S)-REGIONS.
How long until the General is either fired or resigns?
The relationship between President Barack Obama and the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan has been put under severe strain by Gen Stanley McChrystal's comments on strategy for the war. According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.
The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bid. No doubt the General was PO'd at the clear difference in priorities between himself and the POTUS.
In London, Gen McChrystal flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda. He went on to say: "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support."
Bruce Ackerman, an expert on constitutional law at Yale University, said in the Washington Post: "As commanding general, McChrystal has no business making such public pronouncements." I hate to agree with him but I kind of do.
Relations between the general and the White House began to sour when his report, which painted a grim picture of the allied mission in Afghanistan, was leaked. White House aides have since briefed against the general's recommendations. Leaks are the wrong way to release information.
The general has responded with a series of candid interviews as well as the speech. He told Newsweek he was firmly against half measures in Afghanistan: "You can't hope to contain the fire by letting just half the building burn."
#1
"Do you KNOW who you are talking to? On your knees and bow, you ingrate!!! I'll have all those stars and bars shoved where the light don't shine! Off with his head!"
#4
While Emperor Nero Obama fiddles in Rome Copenhagen our brave men and women in Afghanistan die. For what? Don't waste the lives of our troops, like we did in Vietnam, when we have no intention of doing what's necessary to win.
Even though he broke the chain of command, it's refreshing to see a General willing to stand up for his troops against the seedy politicians.
#5
WH shelved the general's report until a more politically expedient moment and so he wasn't happy to let his troops be killed until that time came. He decided to push the issue which is pretty ballsy for an OBAMBI appointee (wait, maybe he didn't fill out the vetting questionnaire?).
#6
An arrogant a$$hole adviser to the administration said: "People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naĂŻve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly."
#9
This is the text of a Michael Yon email this morning:
"This weekend we lost eight more soldiers in a firefight. I learned about it while they were still fighting, but did not report the attack until just before the media broke the story the next day. Still unreported, to my knowledge, sources tell me that FOB Keating was destroyed and that troops were under siege for up to 24 hours before Air Force Pararescue got them out. (Subject to confirmation.)
The fighting will only intensify. We can beat these guys, but not under current conditions. We need more troops and more gear now. The enemy has massive home field advantages and we have not offset those advantages."
Posted by: Matt ||
10/05/2009 11:14 Comments ||
Top||
#10
So Obama arranged to meet with McChrystal in Copenhagen not to discuss the situation in Afghanistan but to complain about the General's speech.
This, like nothing else, shows you where our troops lie in Obama's priorities. This also put the 8 deaths we suffered on the Paki border in perspective.
They died so Obama could make his pitch to the IOC.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
10/05/2009 11:21 Comments ||
Top||
#11
A. Current line up in the admin, per an article in I think it was the CSM, is as follows
Supporting troop increase McCrystal, Petraues, Mullen, Hillary Clinton, and Richard Holbrooke
Supporting drawdown and shift away from COIN. Biden
Opposing troop increase (but not necessarily shift from COIN) Jim Jones
Unclear - Bob Gates.
2. If Obama IS going to go with a troop increase, he still is going to beat down McCrystal to some degree. Biden has to be screaming for that.
3. It is possible to split the difference. They could do a smaller increase. They could delay the rest of the increase till the election situation in Afghanistan is resolved.
#13
Axelrod is clearly involved, and Emmanuel (I am not sure about Jarratt).
Clearly though, if all the For pol and defense types say that things are going to collapse in Afghanistan without a troop increase, and that the counter terror strat wont be tenable, etc that in itself would sway Axelrod and Emmanuel, who surely realize that would harm the administration.
The key therefore, is Jones and possibly Gates opposing the "surge" - and the extent to which Obama accepts their arguements.
I think the key arguements now are not military, but about south asian politics. Jones and Biden are going to go on about how a troop increase now ties you to Kharzai. Clinton and Holbrooke are going to focus on how withdrawl shifts the political situation in Pakistan to the worse.
I am guessing Gates will suggest a splitting of the diff - get in position to move troops, but don't commit to it till the afghan election situation is resolved.
#15
You get to a reasonalbe conclusion, but you err on the way
I think the key arguements now are not military, but about south asian politics.
It's all about Obama with this gang. Just like the Olympics. I think the arguments are about Obama and his chances of getting re-elected. That's why the Chicago mafia is so important in the decision. He's in an LBJ replay, knows he can't win the war but doesn't want to look like a wuss by bailing. So much so that I wouldn't be surprised to hear about him talking to Petraeus on the cell phone while he's taking a whizz.
#19
The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One
I had given The One credit that he was somewhat interested in what McChrystal had to say, and was just belated in calling a meeting to hear it.
Obviously I was wrong.
With all due respect to pond scum, The One has achieved the impossible by concerning himself more with his own personal image and fortune and less with the lives of those he supposedly wakes up thinking about how to protect.
#22
No doubt it's all politics for Obama's White House. Just as it was for the previous 42 occupants (I think George Washington's white house didn't do politics all the time, but he would have been the only one).
That said, Obama has to decide whether to double-down on Afghanistan or pull out. No halfway measures will work; deciding to stay without increasing resources just means he'll have this millstone around his neck in 2010 and 2012. So he either does a Bush and gives McChrystal what he says he needs, and then holds him and the military accountable, or he decides that we've degraded al-Qaeda enough and thus we should pull out.
Those are the two political arguments. The former keeps us there and allows us, if we're really lucky and smart, to degrade the Taliban sufficiently to let a national government (thin veneer that it is) to survive. The latter returns Afghanistan to the civil wars it had between the time the Russians left and the time we arrived. Most Americans wouldn't care.
I don't see a viable third political stance here but I may be missing something.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/05/2009 12:21 Comments ||
Top||
#23
The weasel has never stopped campaigning. He'll tell McChrystal to make do with what he has and STFU about it because if he (weasel-in-chief) can get enough of our troops slaughtered, he'll garner even more support for the pull-out from the home front. He's already getting plenty of help from the liberal media and that will only increase.
#24
Have to understand that with Obumble its all about IMAGE. And what is best for Obama, then his family, then his cronies.
What's best for America probably comes in around 87th in line.
Its obvious that Bumble didn't confer with McChrystal about what is happening in Afghanistan or what to do - but about the general tarnishing (or challenging) Bumble's IMAGE. Comment #1 is right on! The fact that Bumble would spend a number of days pimping for Chicago Olympics and only about 25 mins (if that) on an actual war speaks volumes.
If Afghanistan becomes another Vietnam pullout is what Bumble would see as a win-win situation. He might be able to blame Bush (if he's quick) and he would show that America is weak.
Reminds me of one of my kid's VeggieTales stories about 'King George' who was more interested in getting his neighbor's Ducky than leading his people in the great pie war.....
#25
What happens if Obumble (I like that one) either dithers on or says let's quit and Hillary, Holebrooke, McChrystal and Petraeus resign in protest? Especially if Hillary starts challenging Zero on most every front?
#28
SW - nothing in between. Thats what McCrystal basically said in his paper, I understand that. Though even there - does he really believe things will collapse, 100% guaranteed, if he gets an increase of 40,000 instead of 41,000? Or if Obama commits to 20,000 now, and holds off on commiting the next tranch for a few months?
Anyway, its pretty clear to me Jim Jones doesn't buy that it continuing with the curreent force level (which is new to begin with, lets not forget) is nonviable. Now personally, I lean towards McCrystal's position, but I don't think we can write off anyone in the admin looking to keep the 68,000 force level as simply being political.
Was Rummy and about the 3/4 of the military establishment only being political when they opposed the surge in Iraq? Or were they taking a position that made sense to them, militarily, even they ultimately were proven wrong?
And again, while I would sympathize with McCrystal were he to resign after being turned down for the force increase - to be selected as the admins new guy, and then have them second guess his military judgement, would be humiliating - I can also share the deep reluctance to commit to doubling down while the afghan election is in play, thus removing the principle source of leverage we have with Kharzai.
And that third stance is viable politically, at least in the short run. The polls who most voters reluctant to commit more troops, but also reluctant to pull out. Of course the voters also want lower US casualties and success. (Kinda how they want more services and lower taxes and lower deficits) So again, it gets not to what the polls say, but what admin thinks the outcome of each path is, and there is debate on that.
#29
"President" OBumble has already lost the re-election. He's shown that he's an empty suit, more interested in RULING than GOVERNING - and incapable of either. Even many Democrats see him as a losing situation, and want him out as soon as possible. Expect that number to increase if he bails on Afghanistan. While the "base" of the Democratic party - the far left - will applaud, the rest of the nation will see it as another in a long line of Obumble losses. Americans don't like losing, and will place the blame squarely where they see it - on Obumble himself. Jay Leno could run for president and out-poll Obumble - even with a David Letterman-like expose on Leno's pimping staff. If Barry continues his "winning" ways, the 2010 election may be all about impeachment.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
10/05/2009 14:47 Comments ||
Top||
#30
It will depend on the economy. There's a reason any healthcare plan that passes won't kick in until 2013.
#32
Does anyone actually believe that Obama wants to "win" the war in Afghanistan? All he wants to do is manage it so it won't hurt his party's election outlook in 2010 and his re-election 2012. As for McCrystal, he shouldn't have done that, plain and simple. Although I imagine that he had good reason to do it, and I respect that. My gut tells me he's confident the situation is going to deteriorate and probably reasonably sure that he will be hung out to dry by Obama. I think there is still room under the bus. General is as much a political postion as a military one, he's probably doing what he thinks best to deal with the situation, while at the same time doing a little CYA.
#33
Sadly, both Obama and McCrystal have made their position difficult.
McC - If he does not get at least 75% or so of the additional forces he is asking for he will have to either admit he is not implementing the strategy he thought he was working on or he will have to resign.
Obama - All those 'we have to win in Afghanistan' comments will have to somehow be finessed unless he agrees to approve the resources. And if he does agree to approve the resources, his base will be furious at him.
#35
"Even many Democrats see him as a losing situation, and want him out as soon as possible. "
Really? who are these people? I dont know of any. Are they like the masses of disaffected Dems who were going to put McCain over the top in 2008? I know folks, mainly on the left, who are disappointed Obama isnt the messiah. They were BOUND to be disappointed. And even they arent talking about running anyone in opposition in the 2012 primaries.
#36
If he does not get at least 75% or so of the additional forces he is asking for he will have to either admit he is not implementing the strategy he thought he was working on or he will have to resign.
Im not sure 75% is a magic number. And again, how fast could we feed troops in even all 100% were authorized? That opens up options like sending in some, and putting in a condition or trigger on others.
Obama - All those 'we have to win in Afghanistan' comments will have to somehow be finessed unless he agrees to approve the resources. And if he does agree to approve the resources, his base will be furious at him
Gibbs seemed to take withdrawl off the table today (unless they want to quibble that leaving a small number of troops isnt withdrawl). I think he can say adding 28,000 was fulfillment of his campaign promises, and now he wants to see how that works out and how the political situation in Kabul evolves before committing more.
Alternatively, if gets major concessions from Kharzai, he can use that to respond to the base. He can also hope that their anger about the war will be undercut by their satisfaction when major domestic legislation is signed.
And no, he is not in the political position of LBJ. Among other reasons, cause US casualties are still so low compared to VN, and we dont have conscription.
#37
He's in exactly LBJ's position. LBJ knew long before the casualties rose that he was in a quagmire. Look at the May 27, 1964 phone call With Richard Russell. Obama can't pull out but he doesn't have the guts to win. His party is going to turn on him before the next set of primaries and he's scared to death about re-election. It's starting to look a lot like the late 60s. Only this time the leftists are the establishment.
#38
its three years before the election. That would translate into fall 1965.
IN 1965 there were 1800 US combat deaths in VN. So far in Afghanistan, we have about 800 deaths in the entire 8 years since 2001. at current rates we are unlikely have another 200 by the end of calendar 2009.
We had 6000 combat deaths in VN in 1966. Does anyone seriously expect that casualty rate in afgyhanistan in 2010, under any conceivable scenario?
And again, we have an all volunteer army. The factors that made VN so big, bigger than the Great Society in the politics of 1967 and 1968, do not now obtain, and are very unlikely to.
#39
Gen. McChrystal is fighting two wars, one in Afghanistan and one at home.
I recall when Gen. Petraeus came to Washington to testify before Congress and received a hostile welcome before the donks in Congress. I recall that some of the wingnut groups called him Gen. Betrayus. No reason to believe that this crowd in DC or the fringe groups have changed much except this is their war now.
We have a very green civilian Commander in Chief with a lot of ego. We have ROE that limit our soldiers in the field. We don't seem to have a coherent strategy for victory as a policy that embraces a holding action.
#40
We don't seem to have a coherent strategy for victory as much as a policy that embraces a holding action in Afghanistan. We have a policy of letting the Pakis handle things in Pakistan.
#41
All the US Mil needs to get its job done is an objective and means. Obama has yet to officially announce what the objective is. Until he does, the soldiers in Afghanistan are wandering through a live fire zone somewhere between point A and a yet to be determined point B.
Tell them where they gotta go so they can get home, Mr. President.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
10/05/2009 18:07 Comments ||
Top||
#42
Unfortunately that would require OBumble to make an actual decision. And which objective most benefits OBumble is, as yet, unclear......
#43
Obama doesn't give a rat's ass about the Afghan theater, our troops, our allies or the Afghans. This is McChrystal clear. As suggested earlier, he will provide a troop increase that will just barely cover his ass and nothing more. He has not interest in winning in Afghan. That only serves to bolster G-Dub's original argument. With the liberal/media complex running interference for him, he'll lose in Afghan and blame it on Boosh.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
10/05/2009 20:16 Comments ||
Top||
#44
And again, we have an all volunteer army.
and they enlisted under a Republican President that hey believed would back them. Be interesting to see the enlistment rates, even in this down economy, under your Liberal "hawk" Preznit.
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/05/2009 20:53 Comments ||
Top||
#45
I checked in August. Re-ups are high, but it's due to the economy.
#46
50% unemployment among 16-24 yr olds will do that....
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/05/2009 21:13 Comments ||
Top||
#47
McC - If he does not get at least 75% or so of the additional forces he is asking for he will have to either admit he is not implementing the strategy he thought he was working on or he will have to resign.
At this point, I'm not sure he'll get 75%, lh. I'm not even sure he'll get 50%.
Obama - All those 'we have to win in Afghanistan' comments will have to somehow be finessed unless he agrees to approve the resources. And if he does agree to approve the resources, his base will be furious at him.
To re-use a quote by David Broder: "But the task of getting there will really test him -- and expose his core values."
White House National Security Adviser James Jones has said he does not expect a return to power in Afghanistan by the Taliban, despite the resurgence across the country of the hardline Islamist movement.
They need not actually return to power. They need only prevent the stabilization of Afghanistan, then take advantage of the subsequent anarchy should the Americans redefine victory and leave.
"I don't foresee the return of the Taliban and I want to be very clear that Afghanistan is not in any danger of falling," Jones has told the CNN program, State of the Union. Taliban militants who fled Afghanistan after the US-led invasion toppled the Islamist regime in 2001 have been on the rebound, especially in North and South Waziristan. But the retired general insists the presence of al-Qaeda - which launched the September 11 terror attacks on the United States - is "very diminished" across Afghanistan.
Al Qaeda has outsourced both terror skills training and terror attacks. As I recall, the Afghan gentleman arrested in September was trained by one of the ISI-subsidized Pakistani groups... which had nothing about Talib in its name.
"The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country -- no basis to launch attacks on either us or our allies," Jones said on Sunday.
And yet an attack was nearly launched. The latest I saw was that the Afghan gentleman tried unsuccessfully to rent trucks in Denver before his friends tried to rent one in Queens.
The most "alarming" question that keeps Jones up at night, he said, was the possibility of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of violent extremists.
"If we lost track of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction and came into the hands of a radical terrorist group, they would use them. And that bothers me a great deal," he said. "That's why, I think, the pursuit of organisations like al-Qaeda, wherever they are, has to be an international effort and we have to be successful."
A lovely statement, along the lines of Little birdies in their nests agree.
Jones took exception on Sunday with criticism from the Republican opposition that rising disapproval of the war was influencing the Democratic president's decision on whether to send more troops.
"I don't play politics, and I certainly don't play it with national security and neither does anyone else I know," Jones said. "The lives of our young men and women are on the line. The strategy does not belong to any political party and I can assure you that the president of the United States is not playing to any political base."
It seems to me there is a -- hopefully not deliberate -- verbal confusion here between Al Qaeda and the Taliban. There may be only a small number of Al Qaeda members remaining in Pakistan, and those the hidden leadership and their henchmen, but there are plenty of Taliban: Pashtun Taliban who are aimed at either conquering/reconquering either Afghanistan or Pakistan, Punjabi Taliban aimed at conquering Pakistan... at any rate, most of the Taliban seem to me to be based in Pakistan, not Afghanistan, and only some of them wander over the border to cause trouble. There are also plenty of other jihadi groups in Pakistan, and even more elsewhere. These days they all connect to one another and to Al Qaeda, trading off personnel for training, leadership, planning, and execution of attacks -- sort of an international jet set of bad guys. The fact that only 100 or so of them are actual Al Qaeda is no longer germane.
#1
RIAN > DO IRANIAN MISSLES POSE A POTENTIAL OR REAL THREAT? Iran's SHAHAB-3's are believed by Russ to be capable of striking ISRAEL, ASIA, THE BALKANS, + RUSSIA, and may be used as COVERT COVER by iran for secret testing of LONGER-RANGED "SEJIL" SERIES MISSLES [read, ICBMS]???
* IIRC SAME > IRAN'S MISSLES ARE UNABLE TO HIT EUROPE: RUSSIAN DEFENSE ANALYST.
#4
the "only 100" comment pretty clearly was a reference to Afghanistan, there are certainly more than that in Pakistan. Jones was making the case that things aren't so bad in Afghanistan now.
Now I don't think thats a really strong case against more troops - the situtation is dynamic, and growth of taliban power would bring them that much closer to taking power over the next 18 months, even if they are not close now.
But I think your comments misread him as discussing Pakistan in that comment, which he was not doing, AFAICT.
#5
It seems to me there is a -- hopefully not deliberate -- verbal confusion here between Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Looks to me like it is deliberate. The NSA is not a person who would be confused between the Taliban and AQ. Far too many Pols and Beaurs are bouncing fluidly between the Taliban and AQ within a mere sentence or two without ever hinting that the subject is changing.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
10/05/2009 18:24 Comments ||
Top||
#6
After the Versailles Treaty, France and Britain didn't see Germany's return to power either.
[Asharq al-Aswat] Al Qaeda's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri accused Libya of torturing to death a militant whose confession was used to justify the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Libya's state prosecutor said in May that Libyan Ali Mohamed Abdelaziz al Fakhiri, also known as Ibn Sheikh al-Libi, committed suicide while serving a life jail sentence.
"A false confession was obtained from him through torture about a relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein," Zawahri said in a video posted on an Islamist website.
Fakhiri made up the story about a link between Saddam and al Qaeda to avoid torture while in the custody of a third country, according to a 2006 U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report.
U.S. human rights groups have said he gave the account to interrogators in Egypt, where he was sent by the United States in January 2002. Fakhiri later recanted, the committee said.
He was sent secretly to Libya by the United States in 2006, and Zawahri said al Qaeda would punish the United States for handing him over to Tripoli.
"They (Americans) have handed him over to the agents of (Libyan leader Muammar) Gaddafi to continue torturing him and kill him."
"You criminals, you murders, you vampires ... your blood will be spilled and your economy will be drained so that you stop your crimes ... We will take revenge for every mujahid, orphan, or Muslim you have killed," said an angry Zawahri in an apparent message to Americans.
"Ibn Sheikh is but one of thousands of victims who have been and still are being devoured by the raving American monster," said Zawahri. "He was tortured to death."
"Obama, you who talks about human rights; how many secret prisons are there? Where are they located? How many are their victims? How many of them were killed? How many were disabled? What is their fate? To whom were they handed over? Why did you hand them over?"
Obama has vowed to close the United States' Guantanamo detention center used to hold suspected terrorists by early 2010. He is also lobbying European allies to accept prisoners who are not seen to pose a security threat but cannot return to their home countries because of a risk of torture.
"Why did your administration conspire with the Libyan regime to kill Ibn Sheikh al-Libi?" asked the Egyptian militant.
Rights groups had urged Libya to conduct a thorough inquiry into the death of Fakhiri. They say his death shows the risks that many prisoners remaining in the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay could face if they are sent back to their home countries.
Zawahri said Fakhiri was tortured in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt and Libya after his arrest following al Qaeda's September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. cities.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/05/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
#2
The US is to be punished because a key US ally (sarc) tortured a terrorist?
The US is to be punished becaused it repatriated a Muslim terrorist to a Muslim country instead of keeping him someplace like Guantanemo? Sorry, Palau & Bermuda were all booked up.
#3
Glad AQ clarified their position. The human rights groups that oppose Gitmo are also clear which side they are on. Can we declare them a terrorist organization and end this farce?
#5
When are we going to jam that prayer bump on that misbeggotten unicorn through the other side of his head and shut him up forever? He is not just a nutjob but a whole nutworks who wants to destroy the world.
China says North Korea has expressed willingness to resolve its nuclear standoff with the world through negotiations.
According to Chinese media, North Korean Premier Kim Yong-Il has told visiting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on Sunday that Pyongyang was open to talks on its nuclear programs.
"North Korea has never abandoned its willingness to realize this goal (denuclearizing the Korean peninsula) through bilateral and multilateral dialogue," China's state television quoted Kim as saying.
The Chinese premier arrived in North Korea on Sunday and was greeted by North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il at Pyongyang airport. Wen is the most senior Chinese figure to visit North Korea since 2005 when President Hu Jintao paid a visit to the country.
During his three-day visit, Wen is expected to urge the North to return to the stalled six-party disarmament negotiations, which Pyongyang withdrew from last year in protest at the United Nations censure of its long-range missile test on April 5.
Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi and Beijing's top envoy to the six-party talks are accompanying Wen on the visit portrayed by Chinese officials as a "goodwill trip."
Pyongyang has repeatedly said that it must keep its nuclear deterrent in the face of what it calls "US nuclear threats," adding that it prefers to directly negotiate with Washington.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/05/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Winter's coming on. They'll be needing oil and rice.
SEOUL, Oct. 4 (Yonhap) -- Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao began a three-day visit to North Korea Sunday, a trip that outside officials believe is expected to spur Pyongyang to return to six-party nuclear disarmament talks it quit earlier this year.
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il personally greeted the Chinese premier, who arrived at Sunan Airport outside Pyongyang, the capital, the North's Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said. Kim "greeted Wen Jiabao at the airport," the KCNA said in a brief report, monitored in Seoul.
China's Xinhua News Agency also reported Wen's arrival in Pyongyang, saying that he later signed "a series of agreements on cooperation" with his North Korean counterpart, Kim Yong-il.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/05/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
ION CHINA WMF > CISS DIRECTOR YAN: CHINA'S MILITARY IS NOT YET STRONG ENOUGH DESPITE BECOMING WORLD'S NO.2 ECONOMY [60th Anniversary]; + US GLOBAL POWER IS IN STRATEGIC CONTRACTION AND IS NO LONGER ECONOMICALLY ABLE TO BE THE WORLD'S POLICEMAN.
* SAME > OBAMA FORGETS THE 1970 NIXON DOCTRINE: US IS NOT ABLE TO UNILATERALLY BEAR ALL OF THE FREE WORLD'S SECURITY OR DEFENSE RESPONSIBILITIES.
IOW, WMF = slowly but surely the USA is going down???
THE US military's advice to President Barack Obama on Afghanistan should remain private, Defence Secretary Robert Gates has said, in a rebuke to the commander who has openly declared his stance on war strategy.
Referring to pivotal White House discussions on the war, Mr Gates said: "It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations, civilians and military alike, provide our best advice to the president, candidly but privately.''
Although Mr Gates did not mention General Stanley McChrystal by name, his remark appeared aimed at the top US and NATO commander in Afghanistan who has made his views on strategy known in media interviews and a high-profile speech in London last week.
Mr Gates's comment, delivered in an address to the Association of the US Army, echoed criticism on Sunday from retired general James Jones, Mr Obama's national security adviser.
Mr Jones told CNN on Sunday: "It is better for military advice to come up through the chain of command.''
#1
Mr Jones told CNN on Sunday: "It is better for military advice to come up through the chain of command."
Is that Caesar's bidding? I know that the Constitution is a useless icon that has no real meaning to the left other than to awe others into obedience, but all uniform members take an oath to uphold and defend it, not someone's popularity ratings or personal happiness. It seem to upset some people that some [grunt] commanders have a loyalty to their troops who they ask to give that 'last full measure of devotion'. Those who fail to give that loyalty, don't get it returned.
So, where have you been for the last 8 years, particularly when 'retired'* general officers were offering their public opinions.
*just for a clarification to the civies. Military personnel are not 'retired' as in the civilian world. The law and contract read they may recalled at anytime by the Secretary of the Service for duty. Technically, they're on reduced pay subject to that recall.
#2
The Constitution also makes the President Commander in Chief. And his subordinates, active duty, not retired, should obey legal orders and keep their political opinions private.
McChrystal has been insubordinate. I suspect he does not want to resign from a combat command. Thus I suspect his motive is to either demonstrate that he too can roll Zero or to provoke his firing so that he doesn't have to sugar coat it next time.
#3
to be fair to mccrystal, in his public statements, he did not defy any orders, he did not criticize Biden or any other members of the admin. When asked if a counter terror policy would work, he said that it would not. That doesnt preclude the debate - one could decide that the counter terror policy wouldnt work, but that the counter Insurgency policy still isnt worth it. Whether its possible to beat AQ with predators sounds pretty close to a technical military question, at least to me. Thats why any browbeating has to be in public and unofficial - I dont think he has actually crossed any legal lines.
#4
Whether its possible to beat AQ with predators sounds pretty close to a technical military question, at least to me
No. It's not technical. Predators can't blow up the right stuff without intel. Which takes securing Afghanis. Which takes people.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
10/05/2009 17:27 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Whether General McChrystal was insubordinate or not, he got his message across.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/05/2009 17:38 Comments ||
Top||
#6
How long is a General supposed to remain quiet when his advice and reports are ignored by the CinC? Is his only legitimate response to resign and then criticize? How long has Zero been dithering and waffling with the lives of McChrystal's troops?
Personally I think that he and anyone of the senior advisonrs (supposedly Petreaus, Clinton and Holbrooke) who feel this way should all resign and speak out loudly.
#7
I think it shoul be the other way, speak up loudly now and force Obumble to either fire them or listen, that proves to even the dumbest citizen which side Obumble is really on, and it ain't ours.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
10/05/2009 18:38 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Whether its possible to beat AQ with predators sounds pretty close to a technical military question, at least to me.
I'm not a Military genius nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I can smell political asscovering when it arises. As Mike so smartly puts it, boots-on-the-ground intel is necessary, and Joe "Sheriff Predators" Biden can't think that far ahead. Apparently, neither can you?
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/05/2009 21:12 Comments ||
Top||
#9
active duty, not retired, should obey legal orders and keep their political opinions private.
What political opinion? Granted, it was blunt; it may be insubordinate. But NS- it wasn't political.
#10
: "It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations, civilians and military alike, provide our best advice to the president, candidly but privately.''
B.S. the military is sworn to uphold the constitution and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. it is NOT sworn to kiss Obambi's slimy ass.
The president of Somalia has denounced the recruiting of young men from Minnesota's huge Somali community for terrorist activity in his war-ravaged homeland. President Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed also says he plans to work with the U.S. government to bring those still alive back home.
Ahmed spoke with The Associated Press while visiting the Minneapolis area, where authorities believe as many as 20 young Somali men -- possibly recruited by a vision of jihad to fight -- returned to the impoverished nation over the last two years. Ahmed also plans a visit to Columbus, Ohio, Tuesday and Wednesday to meet with that city's large Somali population.
#1
One wonders how much was diverted to the Taliban and used to kill our soldiers in the field.... After all money is fudgible. Every one of our dollars which gets diverted to their 'domestic use' frees up one of their dollar which can be spend elsewhere.
[Geo News] Senior NWFP Minister, Bashir Ahmed Bilour expressed surprise over defending the standpoint of government and Taliban in a conference on Terrorism organised by Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-F (JUI-F) and called this attitude the zenith of hypocrisy.
In a statement released in Peshawar Sunday, the Senior Minister advised JUI-F leadership either to openly oppose or plainly favour the present government on the issues of terrorism and Taliban since the masses do no longer accept the dual policies.
"Protection of mosques and Madaris is the call of every Muslim and Islamic government; however government takes action in the mosques and Madaris where the presence of extremist Taliban or possible terror act is reported."
Bilour said JUI-F is a part of coalition and if Fazal-ur-Rehman is agreed to the government policies then against whom his party is holding conference.
Bashir Ahmed Bilour ruled out the criticism of JUI-F on the provincial government saying the people are feeling protected due to the brave polices of the ruling party.
"In the 'absence of government' how JUI-F could organise such a large scale conference peacefully", he asked Maulana Fazal-ur-Rehman.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/05/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Jamaat-e-Ulema Islami
[The News (Pak) Top Stories] Offering mediation between the government and the Taliban militants, the chief of his own faction of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F), Maulana Fazlur Rahman, said on Sunday that if his peace overture was turned down, the government's intentions would stand exposed.
Speaking at the final session of the two-day 'Tahaffuz-e-Madaris Wa Masajid Conference' here, he said all issues should be resolved through negotiations, asking the government to avoid the use of force.
Thousands of religious scholars, prayer leaders, teachers, students of seminaries and the JUI parliamentarians attended the conference."For the promulgation of Shariah in the country, we believe in peaceful struggle and will convince the emotional elements such as the militants to follow the same principles," he said.
Maulana Fazlur Rahman said if the Islamic system was introduced through parliament, those waging an armed struggle for the imposition of Shariah would have no excuse to pick up arms. He said the government had assured them that legislation would be done according to the recommendations of the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII). He hinted at quitting the coalition government if the government failed to legislate in line with the CII recommendations. "We will rethink our support to the federal government," he warned.
Criticising the United States, the JUI-F leader said that America started an unjust war in Afghanistan in 2001 on the pretext of terrorism. "We had denounced the war at that time and even now we do not accept the plea of the Americans," he said.
He also criticised the Awami National Party (ANP)-Pakistan People's Party (PPP) provincial government, saying the announcement about the promulgation of Shariah laws in Malakand was a drama. He said the people of Swat had launched the struggle for Shariah while the government signed a deal with Sufi Muhammad, who belonged to Dir Lower.
He alleged that the ANP leaders had deviated from the philosophy of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, a torchbearer of non-violence. "The ANP had promised during the election campaign that it would provide peace to the people, but instead it rained bombs on them," he alleged.
Maulana Fazlur Rahman alleged extra-judicial killings and human right violations during the military operation in Swat and other parts of the province. Later, a joint declaration was also issued that announced not to support the elements active in the armed struggle for the imposition of Shariah and instead take course of peaceful means for the purpose.
The declaration, read by Maulana Gul Naseeb Khan, demanded of the government to establish an independent judicial commission to probe the alleged extrajudicial killings of clerics by security forces.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/05/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Jamaat-e-Ulema Islami
[Dawn] Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi has elucidated that the 'Quetta Shurra' has lost its existence, as a number of its activists have already been killed or are active in Afghanistan.
During an Interview with the Los Angles Times, he stated that Pakistan and its security forces are in desperate need of further assistance and support to root out terrorism.
Qureshi also said that the security forces and secret agencies of Pakistan were in complete understanding with the political leadership of the country. The foreign minister said that the American leadership should decided explicitly whether they consider the ISI as a friend or foe.
Responding to a query regarding, military operation in Waziristan, he stated that the main reason for the delay in a full fledge operation against militants in Waziristan has been that Pakistan lacks resources.
Replying to another question regarding Pak-India bilateral relations after the Mumbai attacks, he stated that both neighbouring countries have acknowledged that the issue could only be addressed through dialogue and the negotiation process.
'India should explicitly define its interests in Afghanistan, as there has not been any common border between India and Afghanistan and there have not been any queues of Indians to visit Kabul, then why is India taking such a keen interest in its political and economic relations with Afghanistan,' Qureshi said.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/05/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
#1
Best graphic yet...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
10/05/2009 1:15 Comments ||
Top||
#2
...the 'Quetta Shurra' has lost its existence...
#3
the 'Quetta Shurra' has lost its existence, as a number of its activists have already been killed or are active in Afghanistan.
As near as I can tell from the LA times interview, the FM is maintaining that the Quetta Shura has been defeated in toto because its members have been killed or scattered.
Bill. Of. Goods. AQC has also suffered high ranking deaths and is geographically split up. No one in their right mind (ahem) is saying that they are over and done with. They would regroup in a month if they thought it was safe to do so; ditto for the Quetta mob.
TEHRAN, Oct. 4 (Xinhua) -- Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei said Sunday that "Israel is number one threat to Middle East" with its nuclear arms, the official IRNA news agency reported.
In a way he's right. Are the Iranians smart enough to heed his warning?
At a joint press conference with Iran's Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran, ElBaradei brought Israel under spotlight and said that the Tel Aviv regime has refused to allow inspections into its nuclear installations for 30years, the report said.
"Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East given the nuclear arms it possesses," ElBaradei was quoted as saying.
Israel is widely assumed to have nuclear capabilities, although it refuses to confirm or deny the allegation.
"This (possession of nuclear arms) was the cause for some proper measures to gain access to its (Israel's) power plants ... and the U.S. president has done some positive measures for the inspections to happen," said ElBaradei.
ElBaradei arrived in Iran Saturday for talks with Iranian officials over Tehran's nuclear program. Last month, Iran confirmed that it is building a new nuclear fuel enrichment plant near its northwestern city of Qom. In reaction, the IAEA asked Tehran to provide detailed information and access to the new nuclear facility as soon as possible.
On Sunday, ElBaradei said the UN nuclear watchdog would inspect Iran's new uranium plant near Qom on Oct. 25.
That should give Mahmoud plenty of time to hide the evidence ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/05/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
ION MIDEAST TOPIX > GEOPOLITICALLY STRATEGIC YEMEN HAS BEEN A FOCUS OF LOCAL IRANIAN-SAUDI ARABIAN STRIFE, + ARAB STATES BACK YEMEN BATTLE AGZ SHIA REBELS.
Iraqi politicians say they have put aside for the time being any plans to push for a referendum on the U.S.-Iraqi security pact governing the American troop pullout here.
The threat of a referendum had clouded U.S. withdrawal plans. If Iraqi voters were given a chance to vote on the deal some U.S. officials feared they would reject it, forcing an accelerated U.S. withdrawal.
Military officials have said they will comply with any quicker withdrawal in the case of a "no" vote in a referendum. The flagging momentum for a referendum now, however, eases pressure on U.S. commanders.
U.S. military spokesman Brig. Gen. Stephen Lanza said the referendum is an issue that is up to the Iraqis, and American troops are focused on continuing to comply with the security pact.
The security pact calls for all American troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. When the security treaty was approved, Sunni lawmakers insisted on a referendum as a condition of their support. Originally scheduled for last July, it was delayed.
Many observers suspected it might never happen. But in August, Iraq's cabinet set a new date of Jan. 16, coinciding with nationwide parliamentary polls. A "no" vote on the deal would trigger a termination clause, speeding up a full American troop withdrawal by almost a year. Lawmakers said Sunday there weren't any moves afoot to push through legislation authorizing the referendum. That, they say, means it will either be delayed once again, or dropped altogether.
A former Palestinian inmate released in exchange for a videotape of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit called for the kidnapping of more Israeli soldiers.
Rawda Habib, was arrested two and a half years ago and returned to her home in the Gaza Strip Sunday, the Palestinian Maan news agency said. Habib, who acted on behalf of the Islamic Jihad, planned to carry out a suicide bombing in Israel, the Yedioth Aharonoth newspaper reported.
At a press conference organized on her behalf in Gaza, Habib called on the Palestinian resistance groups to kidnap more Israel soldiers saying it was the only way to achieve the release of all the Palestinian prisoners held in Israel, the newspaper said.
Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman expressed optimism that a deal to secure Shalit's release could be obtained within two to three months, the newspaper said. "Never have we been so close to a deal," Yedioth Aharonoth quoted him saying.
#1
I sincerely hope this moron just got promoted to the head of the Israillis hit list.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
10/05/2009 12:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Good thing I'm not in charge, because I think I'd be a war criminal with what I would do when releasing prisoners like this: implanting a remote-control micro-explosive device on an abdominal artery (applied nano-technology).
#4
Israel should announce a plan to destroy one square kilometer of Gaza - nothing left standing - for each attempt to kidnap an Israeli soldier - from any front.
Then they should follow through, beginning with the center of Khan Younis.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
10/05/2009 22:39 Comments ||
Top||
Ma'an -- Muhammad Dahlan, a senior Fatah official, told Ma'an on Saturday that the Palestine Liberation Organization would investigate why debate of South African justice Richard Goldstone's report was postponed at the UN on Friday.
"We've called for a commission of inquiry into what motivated the deferral request, to find out what happened," he said during an interview in Ramallah, vowing to uncover what led the PLO's envoy to Geneva to drop the endorsement.
Dahlan's remarks came just hours before Mahmoud Abbas formally announced an inquest into what was widely believed to be the president's own decision, made following some reportedly swift but effective wrangling from the Palestinian Authority's US allies.
As outrage spread throughout Palestine, and particularly his native Gaza, Dahlan sought to distance himself and Fatah from the wildly unpopular move, which has forced the UN Human Rights Council to delay action on the report until next March.
"Fatah has a dynamic vision," he said, reiterating strong support for Goldstone, and adding that its Central Committee had convened an entire session devoted to studying and unanimously endorsing the report's findings, before it made "a clear statement in this regard."
Ma'an's records on the most recent official meeting, held on Friday, include no mention of Goldstone, nor does any similar report published since his bombshell investigation was released in September. But on Saturday, several members met to write up a news release that said Fatah had "adopted the report and all its contents."
"The committee expresses its deep regret for the damage caused by the postponement," the statement added.
Meanwhile, Dahlan urged Palestinians not to rush to judgment, since it was apparently unclear who was calling the shots in the first place.
"You have to distinguish between Fatah, the PLO and the PA," he insisted, "as each body has its own platform, so in any case one body could agree [to postpone the report] while another wouldn't, especially considering these latest developments."
Dahlan added, "We've looked into what happened, but we don't yet have enough information about the [UN's procedural] mechanics that led to the ambassador's decision, so we're waiting for the president to return before we convene the [PLO] Executive Committee."
Shortly after he attended the UN General Assembly in New York, Abbas was in Cuba before ultimately landing in Yemen on Sunday.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/05/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Palestinian Authority
#1
meantime Yasser Arafat is in stable condition
Posted by: lord garth ||
10/05/2009 0:37 Comments ||
Top||
[Iran Press TV Latest] Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, has appointed a number of new commanders at the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC).
The leader appointed Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi on Sunday to replace the cleric Hossein Ta'eb as the new commander of the Basij force.
Brigadier Mohammad Hossein-Zadeh Hejazi has also been appointed by the leader to serve as the new commander of the Logistics of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Meanwhile, Brigadier General Hossein Salami has been promoted to deputy commander of the IRGC.
Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh has also been named as the new commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/05/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
What did Hossein Ta'eb did---asked Ahmi if the rumors about him being a Jew are true?
[Iran Press TV Latest] In the continuing political posturing at various levels since Iran's June 12 presidential elections, some Principlist lawmakers have put out rumors of a bid to oust the Speaker of the Majlis as the majority leader.
Ali Larijani, the outgoing and highly influential speaker of the Iranian Parliament (Majlis), is considered a heavyweight principlist who heads the majority principlist bloc in the Majlis that, for the most part, backed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election bid.
Before taking the helm at the Majlis, Larijani was the influential Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and Iran's chief nuclear negotiator.
Though a common critic of former opposition candidates, Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, Larijani has been regarded as 'too mild' by some of President Ahmadinejad's more ardent supporters.
The reported parliamentary measures against Larijani, however, are opposed by the minority Reformist bloc of the Majlis.
"With the removal of Larijani from the Speaker's chair, the pro-government faction pursues a Majlis which is (only) a formality," said the spokesman of the Reformist bloc, Dariush Qanbari, according to an October 4 report in 'Perlemannews,' a web news outlet reflecting the views of the minority, reformist bloc of the Majlis.
"Because of his independent position, the pro-government bloc is trying very hard to eliminate Larijani from the Majlis, Qanbari, a vocal Ahmadinejad critic, claims.
"If this occurs, then nothing will be left of the independence of the Majlis, and the assembly will fall into the hands of the government," he added.
From the other side of the Majlis, the influential Principlist Majlis Deputy Speaker, Mohammad Reza Bahonar explained: "It seems that the Principlist bloc feels that [it is better for] the Speaker to be different from the head of the Principlist' bloc."
"It is better and more expedient for him (Larijani) to continue to lead the Principlist bloc," added Bahonar, who has often criticized Ahmadinejad himself.
Bahonar claimed that Larijani was also reluctant to hold both positions simultaneously.
"The people's representatives make decisions in a way to increase unity among the Principlist bloc," he said.
Under Iranian constitution, the three arms of the state - executive, legislative and judiciary - are clearly separated.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/05/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
After a series of breakthroughs in space research and technology, Iran sets the wheels turning on plans to send its first astronaut into orbit.
Iran's Minister of Communications and Information Technology, Reza Taqipour, said Wednesday that scientists are exploring ways to implement preliminary plans to launch a manned mission into space.
"We have a clear outline of the plans, but at the same time we are aware that implementing our plans depend on a broad national participation," Taqipour told Mehrnews on Saturday.
Earlier in February, Iran went down in history for placing its domestically-made satellite into orbit and thus joining a small group of countries that have the ability of both producing satellites and sending them into space using domestic launchers.
The Omid data-processing satellite was designed to circle the Earth 15 times every 24 hours and to transmit data via two frequency bands and eight antennas to an Iranian space station.
With a full mission accomplished, Omid went up in flames in late March after successfully ending its 50-day orbit around space.
Iran's space breakthrough came as a big surprise for European powers and the US, mainly because the country has been under Western sanctions for nearly 30 years.
MIT scientist Geoffrey Forden said Iran's breakthrough in space research and technology is to such an extent that the country "could get a person up into low-Earth orbit certainly within the next few years, at the rate they're going."
Forden, a former inspector with the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), said Iran has designed the Omid data-processing satellite using state-of-the-art technology such as more efficient hydrazine fuel.
"If Iran really has developed more advanced rockets that can burn more efficient fuel, then it is a step closer to launching people into space," Forden said in an article in New Scientist.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/05/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Gawd... pity the poor bastard chosen for their first flight...
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has warned the US and Europe of what he calls Israel's 'danger' over their continuous support for Tel Aviv.
"The US is facing a big test, because Israel is a threat to the region and even to Europe and the USA, and citizens of the West are no longer willing to put up with any more humiliation for supporting racists," Mottaki said during a meeting with Hamas official Musa Muhammad Abu Marzuq in Tehran on Sunday.
He also condemned latest Israeli provocation after Israeli forces shut access to Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (Al-Quds).
"The recent acts of the Zionists in the Al-Aqsa Mosque reveal Israel's racist nature and should be a warning to the Muslim and Arab countries," said Mottaki, according to a press release from Iran's Foreign Ministry.
Calling the ratcheting up the pressure against the Palestinians "a violation of human rights", Iran's chief diplomat said the Israeli policies stiffens the resolve of Palestinian residents, "and makes them more resolute on the path of resistance."
Mottaki supported the notion of reconciliation between different Palestinian groups and expressed the hope for the day when the world witnesses "a democratic and popular state with the participation of all Palestinians."
The deputy chief of the Hamas political bureau, for his part, expressed appreciation for the moral support of Iran for the resistance movement.
The Al-Aqsa Mosque is Islam's third holiest place, and has been under illegal Israeli occupation since 1967. Israeli authorities have recently shut off the mosque to Muslims and have instead allowed large number of Jewish worshippers into the area of the Dome of the Rock to coincide with the Jewish Festival of Sukkot.
The recent measures have resulted in disturbances in the area and Palestinian casualties.
The Palestinian resistance is fully prepared to counter Israel's warmongering policies, Abu Marzuq said.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/05/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
The real story is that non-muslim are not allowed to pray near the location of the Holy Temple , if somebody is suspected of the "crime" of praying is remove immediately by the police.
Posted by: Ana ||
10/05/2009 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
You mean like the Al Aqsa mosque, Ana? Or like last year, when the pope (the Catholic one from Rome) prayed at the Wailing Wall, the last remaining part of Temple in Jerusalem?
#3
The Al-Aqsa Mosque is Islam's third holiest place, and has been under illegal Israeli occupation since 1967.
When you kick the living sh$$ out of your enemies and take over his territory IN A WAR OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, there's nothing "illegal" about it. This whole "illegal" BS is just an attempt to force Israel to concede territory it actually has every right to keep for the next 1000 years.
One of these days an Israeli leader is going to get thoroughly fed up with the riff-raff that surrounds Israel, and there will be some instant sunrises. There will be a lot fewer Arab enemies afterwards.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
10/05/2009 22:46 Comments ||
Top||
TEL AVIV -- The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies said President Barack Obama has been rebuffed by Arabs and Israelis regarding U.S. initatives to help establish a Palestinian state and stabilize Iraq. Another potential triumph in diplomacy down the drain.
BESA said the U.S. allies in the Middle East have been alarmed by Obama's decision to reconcile with Iran, determined to be pursuing nuclear weapons. The policy of the open hand extending to the clenched fist is not playing well in the ME.
"This ambitious agenda has so far produced meager results," the report, titled "Obama and the Middle East," said. "Many regional players are primarily concerned about Iran's quest for nuclear weapons and are not easily amenable to American overtures." A very diplomatic way of saying that the Big O's strategy is naive and destined to failure.
Authored by BESA director Efraim Inbar, the report said Obama achieved little in the Israeli-Palestinian summit in New York on Sept. 22. Inbar, regarded as close to the government of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, said Obama's goal of ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 2011 appears to have reached a dead-end.
"U.S. President Barack Obama's summit meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas in New York this week was a good thing, but it amounted to little more than a photo opportunity," the report said. A high carbon footprint photo opportunity. It was not in harmony with Gaia.
The report said Obama, despite an unprecedented U.S. outreach, has failed to change Muslim perceptions in the Middle East. Inbar said Obama's engagement with Iran has also not produced results. Hey, we're the Great Satan™. That ain't changing.
"His belief in the power of words to change people is naive when it comes to well-rooted attitudes or entrenched interests of nations," the report said. "In instances where the United States sided with Muslims when in conflict with non-Muslims, such as in Pakistan, Bosnia and Kosovo, there was little impact on Muslim dispositions. Obama's words are unlikely to have long-term positive effects for the United States, which in final analysis is seen as foreign and domineering."
The report appeared to echo an analysis by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. On Aug. 28, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, essentially dismissed Obama's outreach to the Muslim world as a wasted effort. The big O has quite the rack of friends in the military.
"Our messages lack credibility because we haven't invested enough in building trust and relationships, and we haven't always delivered on promises," Mullen wrote in the Joint Force Quarterly.
The U.S. policy toward Iran and Syria was said to mark a major cause of concern by traditional allies of Washington. The BESA report said Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, later joined by other Arab leaders, has already rejected a U.S. plan for a nuclear umbrella in the Middle East.
"During his August trip to Washington, Mubarak of Egypt tried to inject sense into the young American president," the report said. "Moreover, Mubarak rejected Obama's offer for a nuclear umbrella. So did other pro-American Arab states. American promises to defend them are simply not credible if the U.S. is reluctant to use military force to stop the Iranian nuclear threat." And therein lies the rub. Under the big O, the US is not seen now as a bottom line ally to protect other nations in the ME against Iran. How far we have fallen.
The report said Arab allies would refuse to cooperate in Obama's drive to achieve an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. Inbar said Arab countries have rejected U.S. proposals to normalize relations with Israel as part of a regional peace accord.
"What is missing in Washington is healthy skepticism and a realistic foreign policy based upon the premises that not all problems are soluble and that foreigners have limited capacity to induce change," the report said. "Finally, Obama's Washington seems unaware of the fact that the regional parties have great obstructive power. Only when they are ready there will be peace."
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/05/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
HMMMM, HMMMMM, wehell, "SINK THE USS ISRAEL" ["Bismarck']
versus
NEWSMAX > DE BORCHGRAVE > DEFEAT NOW CONCEIVABLE IN AFGHANISTAN, iff the Bammer doesn't give his Commanders = GENERAL MCCHRYSTAL the troops they need???
Chavez imports Ahmadinejad's ideology to Latin America.
Sometimes I ask myself if Hitler wasn't right when he wanted to finish with that race, through the famous holocaust, because if there are people that are harmful to this country, they are the Jews, the Israelites.
David Romero Ellner
Executive Director, Radio Globo, Honduras, Sept. 25, 2009
Meet one of Honduras's most vocal advocates for the return of deposed president Manuel Zelaya to office. He's not your average radio jock. He started in Honduran politics as a radical activist and was one of the founders of the hard-left People's Revolutionary Union, which had links to Honduran terrorists in 1980s. A few years ago he was convicted and served time in prison for raping his own daughter.
Today Mr. Romero Ellner is pure zelayista, hungry for power and not ashamed to say so. This explains why he has joined Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Mr. Zelaya in targeting Jews. Mr. Chavez has allied himself with Iran to further his ability to rule unchecked in the hemisphere. He hosts Hezbollah terrorists and seeks Iranian help to become a nuclear power. He and his acolytes cement their ties to Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by echoing his anti-Semitic rants.
The Honduras debate is not really about Honduras. It is about whether it is possible to stop the spread of chavismo and all it implies, including nuclear proliferation and terrorism in Latin America. Most troubling is the unflinching support for Mr. Zelaya from President Barack Obama and Democratic Sen. John Kerry--despite the Law Library of Congress review that shows that Mr. Zelaya's removal from office was legal, and the clear evidence that he is Mr. Chavez's man in Tegucigalpa. On Thursday, Mr. Kerry took the unprecedented step of trying to block a fact-finding mission to Honduras by Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, who is resisting Mr. Obama's efforts to restore Mr. Zelaya to power. But enough about the US helping to enable anti-semites. Well, it turns out the liberals were right about something, although wrong in the details; there is a lot for us to apologize for. Or, at least, probably, there will be.
Mr. Zelaya, recall, was arrested, deposed and deported on June 28 because he violated the Honduran Constitution. He snuck back into the country on Sept. 21 and found refuge at the Brazilian Embassy in the capital. Mr. Romero Ellner's calumny against Jews was a follow-up to Mr. Zelaya's claim that he was being "subjected to high-frequency radiation" from outside the embassy and that he thought "Israeli mercenaries" were behind it.
The verbal attack on Jews from a zelayista is consistent with a pattern emerging in the region. Take what's been going on in Venezuela. In the earliest years of Chavez rule, a Venezuelan friend, who is a Christian, confessed his fears to me. "In his speech, he always tries to create hate between groups of people," my friend told me. "He loves hate speech." Way back when, before socialism became the enacted idea-of-the-moment and was just another band of crackpots in the coffeehouses of Europe, there was a saying that antisemitism was merely the socialism of the stupid. Noone ever stopped to ask about the corollary, which would imply that socialism was, emotionally, antisemitism for smart people. It trains people into thinking patterns useful for tyrants who need scapegoats and societies on the edge of perpetual civil war unless the tyrants remain in power. Or as Louis XIV said, "Apres moi, le deluge." Except he knew how to get those accents out of his keyboard. But I digress.
For a decade, Venezuelans have been force-fed the strongman's view of economic nationalism laced with this divisive language. Venezuelans are encouraged to seek revenge against their neighbors. Crime has skyrocketed. During that decade, PdVSA has been more or less broken to his will, with many of its former employees now blacklisted and working outside the country in places like Canada, while they have been replaced at their jobs by workers from Iran. Over that time period, despite massive increaces in the price of oil, Venezuela's main export, mostly from a state-owned oil company, their country has been wracked by major shortages of such basic commodities as milk.
Now in most countries with functioning democracies and regular elections, having the stores' shelves bare of milk would be seen as a failure instead of as a success. Even though Venezuela doesn't, they still feel the need to find scapegoats, and in between castigating Lacto-Kulacks, they also perform actions such as these:
The Jewish community has been targeted as Mr. Chavez's relationship with Mr. Ahmadinejad has blossomed. In 2004, I reported on a police raid at a Jewish school for young children in Caracas. The pretext was a "tip" that the school was storing weapons. No weapons were found, but the community was terrorized.
In recent years, Venezuela and Iran have signed joint ventures estimated to be worth $20 billion. There are similar pacts, estimated at $10 billion, between Iran and Venezuelan satellite, Bolivia. Both South American countries accused Israel of genocide in Gaza in 2008 and cut diplomatic ties. Mr. Chavez's tirades against Israel during that time emboldened his street thugs. In January 2009, vandals broke into a temple in Caracas and desecrated the sacred space with graffiti calling for the death of Jews.
New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau recently gave a speech to the Brookings Institution in which he said "Iran and Venezuela are beyond the courting phase. We know they are creating a cozy financial, political and military partnership, and that both countries have strong ties to Hezbollah and Hamas." I can't find it, but there were links on the 'burg to articles about this speech in the past month.
Iran has courted Honduras as well. When Mr. Zelaya was still in power, the Honduran press reported that his foreign minister Patricia Rodas met with high-ranking Iranian officials in Mexico City. That raised plenty of eyebrows in Central America.
Neither Venezuela nor Honduras has any history of anti-Semitism. But with Mr. Chavez importing Mr. Ahmadinejad's despicable ideology and methods, an assault on the Jewish community goes with the territory.
Honduras recognizes that it was a mistake to deport Mr. Zelaya after he was arrested. But it argues that fears of zelayista extremism and use of violence as a political tool in the months leading up to June 28 provoked desperation. Mr. Romero Ellner--whose radio station was closed down by the government last week--provided exhibit A with his remarks. If the U.S. State Department is opposed to the exile, let it call for Mr. Zelaya to be put on trial now that he is back in Honduras. It has no grounds to demand that democratic Honduras restore an anti-Semitic rabble rouser to power.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain ||
10/05/2009 10:29 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It has no grounds to demand that democratic Honduras restore an anti-Semitic rabble rouser to power.
The fact that Zelaya's anti-Semitic is grounds enough for USDS.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The president of Somalia has denounced the recruiting of young men from Minnesota's huge Somali community for terrorist activity in his war-ravaged homeland. President Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed also says he plans to work with the U.S. government to bring those still alive back home. 
[Dawn] Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi has elucidated that the 'Quetta Shurra' has lost its existence, as a number of its activists have already been killed or are active in Afghanistan.
A former Palestinian inmate released in exchange for a videotape of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit called for the kidnapping of more Israeli soldiers.
After a series of breakthroughs in space research and technology, Iran sets the wheels turning on plans to send its first astronaut into orbit. 
