Obama Administration all over the map again......
Obama warns against attacking Iran...
In particular, Obama echoed warnings from Pentagon officials in years past that a military strike on Iran would, instead of scaring the nation into abandoning its civilian nuclear program, actually convince them that they need nuclear weapons to defend against future attacks.
“We stand with Israel firmly – 100 percent,” Kerry insisted, a claim that seems at odds with the two being on opposite sides of lobbying efforts in the US Congress, and the Obama Administration’s criticism of massive settlement expansions.
While that’s of course the idea of assassinating a militant faction’s leader, analysts warn it could lead to a major escalation in attacks by different parts of the group as they try to impress followers into pledging loyalty to them.
AQI revived itself initially through operations in neighboring Syria, joining the rebellion and quickly gaining a position of significant influence among the foreign Islamist factions that dominate the rebels.
Obama warns against attacking Iran...
Obama Warns Against Attacking Iran
Attacking Civilian Program Could Fuel Nuclear Drive
by Jason Ditz, November 14, 2013
It took him nearly five full years in office, but President Obama has finally come out mostly opposed to the idea of attacking Iran, saying he believes that the attack would be “messy” and would have costs associated with it.
In particular, Obama echoed warnings from Pentagon officials in years past that a military strike on Iran would, instead of scaring the nation into abandoning its civilian nuclear program, actually convince them that they need nuclear weapons to defend against future attacks.
Iran has repeatedly ruled out seeking nuclear weapons, insisting they are unnecessary and unwanted, and its religious leaders have argued their indiscriminate nature violates religious tenets.
That calculation could change if Iran starts getting attacked, especially by Israel, a nation with its own nuclear arsenal. Even if Iran would prefer not to waste money on nuclear weapons, there is no denying that such an arsenal would be of some deterrent value if the nation comes under direct attack, and the strikes might make them desperate enough to make a run for any solution.
Meanwhile Kerry says US is 100 percent behind Israel ( who wants Iran attacked ) on Iran
Kerry: US 100 Percent Behind Israel on Iran
Disagreements, But He Claims Both Nations 'Share' Goal
by Jason Ditz, November 14, 2013
Faced with growing Israeli anger toward the administration in general and him in particular, Secretary of State John Kerry’s speeches today focused on claiming unquestioned US backing for Israel on all things, but especially Iran.
“We stand with Israel firmly – 100 percent,” Kerry insisted, a claim that seems at odds with the two being on opposite sides of lobbying efforts in the US Congress, and the Obama Administration’s criticism of massive settlement expansions.
The focus is clearly on Iran, however, where Kerry conceded that “disagreements” exist, but claimed that the US and Israel have identical goals and share a common endgame.
That claim flies in the face of everything the two nations have said over the past few weeks, with the Obama Administration on board for diplomatic efforts and apparently prepared to sign a settlement with Iran on the issue of “limiting” the size of their civilian nuclear program. Israel, by contrast, opposes any deal with Iran and insists that Iran has to be forced to scrapped the entirety of its program or face war as an alternative.
Though this split has become more and more dramatic in recent weeks, there have been hints of a split in general tone for months, with Israel long complaining that President Obama hasn’t threatened to attack Iran nearly often enough, and repeatedly pressing the US to set a specific date for starting a war.
Pakistan.....
Analysts: Pakistani Taliban in Disarray Since Hakimullah’s Death
Power Struggle Could Increase Attacks
by Jason Ditz, November 14, 2013
Since the assassination of Hakimullah Mehsud by a US drone strike two weeks ago, the Pakistani Taliban factions have appointed a new “compromise” leader, but theirsecond-tier leadership is said to be in growing disarray.
While that’s of course the idea of assassinating a militant faction’s leader, analysts warn it could lead to a major escalation in attacks by different parts of the group as they try to impress followers into pledging loyalty to them.
That’s going to be a problem across Pakistan, but particularly in North and South Waziristan, since they were Hakimullah’s base of operations, and the new leader, Mullah Fazlullah, is the first leader of the faction not based there.
Fazlullah’s spurning of the peace process is also gaining some popularity across the Punjab, where Punjabi Taliban factions are said to be particularly close to him. This could suggest attacks in the Pakistani heartland will be on the rise as well.
Afghanistan ......
Why the Status of Forces Agreement Is So Important for Afghanistan
John Glaser, November 14, 2013
In about a month and a half it will be 2014. As far as U.S. policy in Afghanistan is concerned, 2014 is a big year. When President Obama announced the military surge in 2009, he mapped out a so-called “withdrawal” plan and the date for the official end of the surge has always been 2014. But here we are, a month or so from the beginning of this long-awaited date, and the details of the withdrawal plan are still not known.
Two things have effectively staved off agreement on the details. First, the surge has failed. The Afghan insurgency is alive and well, the Kabul government is in danger of collapsing without outside support, and the U.S.-trained Afghan security forces can’t provide security in most of the country.
The second issue forestalling specific post-2014 details is the fact that the U.S. and Kabul can’t agree on them. The sticking point, as has been widely reported, is whether or not remaining U.S. forces (numbering in the thousands) will be subject to Afghan law or U.S. law. Incidentally, this is the same sticking point that stalled U.S. negotiations over a status of forces agreement with Iraq in 2011. In that case, the Obama administration gave up and withdrew completely, preferring to pull out instead of have U.S. troops subject to Iraqi law. President Obama is reportedly considering such a “zero option” in Afghanistan too.
Americans might wonder why it’s so important to Kabul that they have jurisdiction over remaining U.S. forces. Other than it being an issue of sovereignty, there are practical reasons for this. If you look at this clearly, it seems everyone expects U.S. forces to commit crimes post-2014. If they’re subject to Afghan law, they’re likely to be punished. If they remain under U.S. jurisdiction, they will in all likelihood get off scott free, as I’ve written.
The Afghanistan Analysts Network (AAN) meticulously documents numerous cases in which U.S. forces have been credibly accused of war crimes or abuses and do not face punishment. In this excerpt, AAN sums up the debate about jurisdiction:
From the US point of view, it is unthinkable that it would allow its forces to be put in harm’s way by exposing them to the courts of any country, let alone those in Afghanistan where the justice system is deeply flawed. In the Afghan and often the international press, this demand is frequently presented as their being ‘immune’ from prosecution and US officials are keen to argue why this is not the case, for example US ambassador, James Cunningham in a recent press conference (the text was emailed by the embassy to AAN):Our approach, to be clear, so there’s no misunderstanding, is not that American military personnel have immunity from punishment if they do something wrong, it’s that they will be punished, if it’s required that they will be punished, under American law by the American legal authority.Yet claims by the US that it takes the crimes of its soldiers seriously are simply belied by the record. Afghanistan might still decide that, on balance, continuing to give up the right to legal jurisdiction over US forces is worth accepting for the benefits the Bilateral Security Agreement might bring. However, the way the US military has gone about addressing the serious allegations made in Nerkh gives little confidence that any crimes committed by US forces after 2014 would be properly investigated, let alone prosecuted. Moreover, indicators suggest this is likely to get worse. The international media has played a major role in uncovering crimes since 2001 and is already reducing its presence in Afghanistan. Also, after 2014, the planned US counter-terrorism force would be most probably be made up of Special Operations Forces and the CIA, who are both much more secretive than conventional forces. If the Bilateral Security Agreement is signed and US troops stay on after 2014 still under US criminal jurisdiction, it is likely to become even more difficult for Afghans to get justice.
Withdrawing most troops might lead one to believe crimes are less likely to occur. But the kinds of troops sticking around (JSOC) have proven much more apt to commit crimes with impunity and secrecy than ordinary military forces, and the withdrawal of human rights groups and journalists will provide less accountability.
The question of jurisdiction will be taken up at an Afghan loya jirga later this month. But many Afghans think the loya jirga is a joke that does not represent the opinions of most of the country.
Iraq......
Al-Qaeda in Iraq at its Strongest Since 2006
Group Has Picked Up Pace of Violence in Iraq, Syria
by Jason Ditz, November 14, 2013
National Counterterrorism Center chief Matthew Olsen warned today that al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) continues to grow in strength in both Iraq and Syria, and said the group is now believed to be at its strongest since 2006, the height of the US occupation of Iraq.
AQI revived itself initially through operations in neighboring Syria, joining the rebellion and quickly gaining a position of significant influence among the foreign Islamist factions that dominate the rebels.
The group’s renaissance in Iraq itself, however, has continued throughout the summer. The Iraqi government launched a crackdown on Sunni protesters in April, and al-Qaeda has used that as a recruitment tool in the nation’s west, as a summer of violence has killed nearly 10,000 people.
Olsen’s report stopped short of speculating whether or not AQI posed any direct threat to the United States, but for the time being the group seems mostly centered around Iraq and Syria, with a lot of efforts going into fighting not only Syria’s Assad government, but secular rebels and Kurdish secessionist factions as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment