05/01 to 05/07 ***The***Winds***of***WAR***

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Is Israel Preparing an October Surprise?

By Jeffrey Goldberg
May 7 2012, 8:47 AM ET1
http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...rprise/256801/

The prominent Israeli commentator Amnon Abramovich argues that Prime Minister Netanyahu's decision to go for early elections -- now scheduled for September 4 -- means that Netanyahu (and his defense minister, Ehud Barak), will still have plenty of time to launch a preemptive strike against before the American presidential election in early November:

After the September elections, which all polls show Netanyahu winning easily, he will head a transition government for several weeks while a new coalition is formed. During that period, Netanyahu "will not be beholden to the voters," and will be free to take decisions on Iran that many Israelis might not support, Abramovich said....

And finally, said Abramovich, the September-October period would see Obama, who has publicly urged more patience in allowing diplomacy and sanctions to have their impact on Iran, in the final stages of the presidential election campaign, with a consequent reduced capacity to try to pressure Israel into holding off military intervention.

Obama, "on the eve of elections, won't dare criticize Israel," said Abramovich. From Netanyahu's point of view, "the conditions would be fantastic."

Seems doubtful to me, for what it's worth. Too many moving parts, too many risks involved -- Netanyahu doesn't like risk (especially when compared to his militarily adventurous predecessors) and the timeline is very short. It's hard to believe he would order a (cataclysmic, IMO) strike on Iran while trying to build a governing coalition for his next term.

I also tend to think he would not order a strike during Obama's second term, should Obama win reelection. Abramovich is right that Obama would have a hard time being critical of Israel before the upcoming American election. But he would be freer to punish Israel after. What I wouldn't rule out is a Netanyahu-ordered strike before he goes to elections.

Not immediately -- he needs to see what America can accomplish in the upcoming negotiations with Iran (my prediction: nothing much), but sometime after that, especially if intelligence suggests that Iran is moving centrifuges into the hardened facility at Fordow at a more rapid clip. But an October surprise? Not probable.






=

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

13:49 07.05.12

The Israeli-French honeymoon is likely over

Following the decisive victory of socialist party candidate Francois Hollande, France will experience
a series of characteristic, economic, and foreign policy changes, but Netanyahu has no reason to rejoice.

By Sefy Hendler
http://www.haaretz.com/news/internat...-over-1.428694

Regime change in a democracy is always a delightful moment. The cruelty and swiftness with which voters cast their ballots is a reminder of the fact that despite the corruption, filth, and unscrupulousness that exist in a functioning democracy, democracy is nonetheless an exceptional method of keeping resources that belong to the masses out of the hands of the few.

In France, where the role of President still holds a smidgen of kingliness, removal from office is that much more cruel and impressive. Only a moment ago, Sarkozy was omnipotent, but following the swift decision of millions of voters, he is packing up his suits and leaving the palace. Francois Hollande’s impressive victory will bring about significant changes in a variety of areas. In the initial weeks and months of Hollande’s presidency, we must focus our attention on three of them.

The economy: Experts agree that Sarkozy lost the election, and Hollande’s victory was the result of his presence as “the other guy.” At the same time, however, Hollande made one promise that essentially won him the presidency: 75% tax. The socialist candidate made his disdain for the rich clear at the start of the campaign; however two months before election day, he outdid himself, and made a concrete claim: 75% tax for those who earn over one million euros a year. Hollande was met with heated anger from right-wingers for this claim, but he did not back down.

Hollande’s proposed claim is in sharp contrast to Sarkozy’s policy, as one of the latter’s first moves as president was to pass the “Financial Shield” legislation, preventing the rich from paying more than 50% in taxes. It is left to be seen how exactly Hollande will implement the promise that led to his victory - Hollande enjoyed the support of many left-wing extremists, who are waiting with bated breath.

Style: Character is nevertheless important, and while drastic economic and policy changes are expected, one must not forget that Hollande was elected and Sarkozy lost because of style as well. The extrovert “bling-bling” president, unabashed friend to the rich, was kicked out of Élysée because of his extravagantly nonpresidential behavior. The French are willing to let their president get away with much, but they want some semblance of respectability and esteem that Sarkozy did not think to give them.

This does not mean that the youthful presidential trend will end with Sarkozy.

Hollande is entering a different Élysée than the one Sarkozy found. If Hollande acts wisely, he will be able to remain largely accessible but still keep his distance from the public, as the French people seem to prefer. Despite his dull appearance, it is important to remember that Hollande brings as tangled a personal life to Élysée as Sarkozy did. Hollande officially separated from Ségolène Royal, mother of his four children, before her failed presidential campaign five years ago.

Royal, the failed presidential candidate of 2007, is still considered one of the leaders of the socialist party, and a leading candidate for the presidency of the National Assembly of France, should the left win next month’s parliamentary elections. On Sunday night, Royal sat in a television studio, shining as always, watching with glazed eyes as her son led his father’s campaign staff. That son, Thomas Hollande, is already perceived as a central figure among his father’s entourage, and could earn an official position in Élysée – a practice not uncommon in France.

The role of first lady will be held by Valérie Trierweiler, the former political journalist who became Hollande’s partner a few years ago. Even without Carla Bruni, life in Élysée will not be boring.

Foreign policy: During his first speech as president, in Tulle’s Cathedral Square, Hollande mentioned only one other foreign power – Germany. This first official visit outside of France will be to Germany, despite the fact that that Chancellor Merkel demonstrably supported his rival, Sarkozy. However, in order to save the European Union, Merkel and Hollande will be forced to work together, despite fundamental differences in their opinions, (he is in favor of spending more, and she is in favor of cutting back). Public friction between the two could bring about the collapse of the European bloc. The worrisome achievements of the far-right in Greece, and the strong far-right base in France, which owns roughly 20% of the vote, make clear just how much European unification should not be taken for granted during times of crisis.

With such an inheritance, it is fairly obvious that Hollande will not be free to deal with issues of foreign policy outside of European Union borders. However that does not mean that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can be satisfied. Even though the last year saw a significant decline in the close relations between Netanahyu and Sarkozy, the Prime Minister is losing a close ally in the international arena - an ally that demonstrably changed French foreign policy concerning Syria and Libya.

Following the departure of former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, Netanyahu will not find a man hostile toward Israel at Élysée, but rather a socialist with fundamental reservations concerning the Israeli right and West Bank settlement policy. It is already possible to predict that the tone of the French Foreign Ministry denunciation messages will become more severe, at least concerning these issues.

It remains to be seen who Hollande will name has his foreign minister, but it is likely that the Israeli-French honeymoon enjoyed by Sarkozy and Netanyahu is over. Will Hollande go so far as to invite the leader of the Israeli Labor Party to a meeting in France during the election campaigns? We must wait and see.

In terms of the most significant issue on the international agenda, Iran’s nuclear reactor, it is safe to assume that in the meantime, the current state of intransigence will continue. At the same time, if the Iranians propose a partial agreement to Western powers in the upcoming nuclear talks, it will be interesting to see if France will continue to hold a hard- right position on the demand that the Islamic Republic cease enriching uranium.





=

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Israel warns Hizbollah over Iran

Any Hizbollah retaliation to an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would prompt Israel to launch a war in
Lebanon so ferocious that it would take a decade to rebuild the villages it destroys, a senior Israeli military officer has warned.

By Adrian Blomfield, on the Israel-Lebanon border

6:25PM BST 06 May 2012
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...over-Iran.html

Despite the inevitable international outcry, Israel would be left with no choice but to lay waste to swathes of southern Lebanon because Hizbollah has entrenched itself so deeply within the civilian population, he said.

The unusually stark warning comes after months of heightened speculation that the Israeli government is considering unilateral military action against Iran's nuclear installations despite opposition from the United States.

Although the prospect of an attack in the next few months is unlikely until after Israelis vote in a September general election, Ehud Barak, the country's defence minister, recently insisted that military strikes had not been ruled out.

Israel has always been aware of the heavy price it could incur from such an attack, with Iran able to retaliate through Hizbollah and Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that controls Gaza. Both Islamist movements have long been funded and armed by Tehran and have built up vast stockpiles of rockets capable of reaching deep into Jewish territory.

But Israel has also sensed an unexpected opportunity as a result of the Arab Spring, which has significantly diminished Tehran's regional clout.

Hamas has begun to reorient itself towards the resurgent Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and is seen as increasingly unlikely to join a regional war should Iran come under attack.

Unlike Sunni Hamas, Hizbollah remains far more dependant on its fellow Shia patrons in Iran but its popularity in the Arab world has suffered because of its support for the Assad regime in Syria, which has long backed the group.

Hoping to drive a wedge between Hizbollah and Lebanon's Sunni and Christian communities, the officer urged the Lebanese people not to be drawn into a war for which they, rather than Iran, would bear the brunt of Israel's anger.

"The situation in Lebanon after this war will be horrible," the officer, a senior commander on Israel's northern border with Syria and Lebanon, said.

"They will have to think about whether they want it or not. I hope that Iran will not push them into a war that Iran will not pay the price for but that Lebanon will."

Israel drew international condemnation in 2006 when it last launched military action against Hizbollah in an offensive that is believed to have killed more than 1,000 people, many of them civilians.

But the officer, speaking on the condition of anonymity, suggested that Israel had taken too cautious an approach in the conflict, leading to the deaths of dozens of Israeli soldiers.

No such mistake would be made in the next conflict, he said, especially as Hizbollah had built military sites in the centre of many villages and towns in southern Lebanon. Pointing to a satellite map of the town of Khiam, he identified a series of buildings that the movement had allegedly taken over for military purposes.

"In these villages where Hizbollah has infrastructure I will guess that civilians will not have houses to come back to after the war," he said.

"The Lebanese government has to take this into consideration. Many of the villages in southern Lebanon will be destroyed. Unfortunate, but we will have no other solution. The day after (we attack) the village will be something that it will take 10 years to rebuild."

Since the war in 2006, Hizbollah has acquired a stockpile of 50,000 rockets of greater sophistication and range than it had before and is capable of striking at Tel Aviv, more than 70 miles away, according to Israeli intelligence assessments.

The conflict in Syria has also made it easier for Hizbollah to smuggle weapons into Lebanon, the officer said, and there is concern that some of the Assad regime's stockpile of chemical weapons could end up in the group's hands.





=

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

12:50 07.05.12

Nukes and a fatwa

As talks resume in Baghdad on May 23 negotiators may inadvertently endorse a deal
that will leave Iran, in due course, with the ability to build the weapon it has always coveted

By Emanuele Ottolenghi
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/nukes...fatwa-1.428683

In the same week that Iranian nuclear negotiators in Istanbul mentioned an alleged fatwa issued by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei banning nuclear weapons to offer reassurances about Iran’s peaceful nuclear intentions - 12 Iranian nuclear scientists reportedly attended a failed ballistic missile test in North Korea.

This is not the first time Iranian nuclear scientists have shown an uncanny interest in military applications. In May 2008, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that a scientist employed at the Institute for Applied Physics of Tehran had included in his curriculum vitae “a Taylor-Sedov equation for the evolving radius of a nuclear explosion ball with photos of the 1945 Trinity test.” Iran’s answer about their scientist’s interest in a plutonium bomb’s nuclear explosion was elusive – and IAEA inspectors were not allowed to interview him.

Iran may now protest that its scientists’ presence had nothing to do with fitting a nuclear payload into a missile warhead – maybe they were just there on holiday. Yet, these coincidences, alongside Iran’s decade-long cover-up of its nuclear activities, are telltale signs of a military program, not a civil one.

As if this was not enough, solemn references to Khamenei’s fatwa came only days after Iran’s former nuclear negotiator, Seyed Hossein Mousavian, revealed in a Boston Globe opinion piece that Iran had reached ‘breakout capacity’ in 2002: “It is too late” said Mousavian “to demand that Iran suspend enrichment activities; it mastered enrichment technology and reached break-out capability in 2002 and continues to steadily improve its uranium enrichment capabilities.”

Mousavian was pitching a compromise proposal to a Western audience, but he also unwittingly shed light on Iran’s nuclear progress and intentions. U.S. officials insist that Iran has not yet decided whether it wants nuclear weapons – and are confident that, if this decision is ever made, they will be able to know it in time to preempt and thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

When the U.S. Department of National Intelligence published its 2007 Iran National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), it followed this logic when it postulated that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Even assuming this information was accurate – and successive IAEA reports offer abundant reasons for scepticism – the NIE never fully explained why the programme was halted. The standard assumption was that the U.S. invasion of Iraq had made Iranian leaders concerned that U.S. forces would now turn their attention to Tehran.

This approach would postpone a decision to some future date – but leave open the path to nuclear weapons. Yet, this is flawed logic, because it does not take into account how advanced the program was when it was allegedly suspended.

An answer to this question is even more critical to gauging Iran’s intentions than the motives behind the decision.

If Mousavian’s observation that Iran had “reached break-out capability in 2002” is true, then Iran’s weapons program was ‘halted’, not because its leaders’ resolve wavered, but rather because it had achieved the goal of producing a nuclear weapon short of the fissile material which the enrichment programme would later yield.

Having become the focus of intense international scrutiny on account of its previously undeclared nuclear activities, Iran stopped its efforts to build a nuclear weapon (very advanced), concentrating instead on enrichment (not advanced enough), which is critical for nuclear weapons but can be plausibly justified within the framework of a civil program.

This explains also why Iran, with its Natanz enrichment facility exposed, sought to build a new, secret underground enrichment facility near Qom, whose ‘size and configuration’ as U.S. President Obama said, ‘is inconsistent with a peaceful program.’

What about the fatwa then?

In 1984, amidst the horrors of the Iran-Iraq war, the late Ayatollah Khomeini ordered the reassembling of the Shah’s military nuclear team. Khomeini had that program disbanded in 1979 on Islamic grounds. But he reversed himself – and if there ever was a fatwa, the Islamic Republic’s founding father revoked it there and then.

Taken at the height of an existential war, this decision was clearly aimed at military, not peaceful civil nuclear developments.

As talks resume in Baghdad on May 23, negotiators should not lose sight of this fact – or else they may endorse a deal that will leave Iran, in due course, with the ability to build the weapon it has always coveted.





=

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Unannounced war on Iran

A diplomatic solution can avert disastrous consequences of
conventional warfare and unpredictable results of cyber attack

By Adel Safty, Special to Gulf News
Published: 00:00 May 7, 2012
http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columni...iran-1.1019120

At a recent fund-raising dinner for US President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign a woman interrupted the president’s speech and shouted: “No War against Iran.” Obama paused and, retaining his composure, shot back: “No war has been announced, young lady.” The audience erupted in sustained applause. It is true that no conventional war has been announced, but nonetheless, a new form of warfare is being waged, unannounced. And that is cyber warfare.

Although the Iranians seem to be more at the receiving end of cyber attacks, the situation is fluid and changeable, with unpredictable consequences.

Israel and western powers led by the United States have accused Iran of breaching its international obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). They specifically accuse Iran of using nuclear energy to develop nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT. Iran rejects the accusation and claims that its nuclear power plants are developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, which is allowed under the NPT.

The dispute grew into an international crisis, partly as a result of the urgency given to it by the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his successful lobbying of Obama. With Netanyahu threatening war, and Obama orchestrating punitive sanctions against Iran, and agreeing not to exclude the use of force to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the crisis seemed headed for a bloody confrontation. The drums of war were getting louder every day, and American officials spoke of their expectation that Israel would attack Iran sometime between April and June.

The deadlock was broken earlier this year when Iran suddenly agreed to resume suspended negotiations with the group of 5+1 (USA, Russia, China, France, England, and Germany). The meeting took place last month in Istanbul. By the assessment of the principal participants, the talks went well and the parties are now scheduled to meet later this month in Baghdad. The optimism which enveloped the Istanbul talks was partly caused by an Iranian fatwa (a religious edict) declaring nuclear weapons an evil which Iran would never embrace.

More recently, another encouraging assessment — or possibly a sign from an insider — was given by Hussain Mousavian who served as Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator. Mousavian described the forthcoming meeting between Iran and the group of 5+1, as representing a ‘historic opportunity’ to settle the dispute between Iran and the six world powers.

Perhaps even more remarkably, Israel’s military chief, Benjamin Gantz told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz last week, that he did not believe that Iran would develop nuclear weapons. He also stated that the diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran, is beginning to bear fruit. Significantly, Gantz described the Iranian leadership as ‘very rational.’ On all three points Gantz expressed a position at odds with the views publicly expressed by Netanyahu. It is noteworthy, though, that the positive prospect for a diplomatic solution to the crisis has not diminished the pre-occupation of the parties with cyber warfare.

I argued in a previous column that the successful cyber attack mounted against Iranian nuclear installations marked the beginning of a new form of warfare. And that some of the implications of cyber warfare included its ability to reduce gross conventional military inequalities between enemies; and this made the US vulnerable to cyber attacks from smaller countries that otherwise would not have dared to challenge Washington militarily.

Moreover, the success of the cyber attack by a worm named Stuxnet, which damaged and disoriented Iranian nuclear installations, may have given Iran a motivation to intensify its cyber warfare capabilities and a reason to prepare a counter-attack against the USA and Israel, which Iran holds responsible for the cyber attacks.

Such unsettling implications prompted the American congress to hold hearings, last week, titled “Iranian Cyber Threat to the US Homeland.”

Response feared

Representative Dan Lungren (Republican) of California pointed out that a 2008 report by an American security contractor estimated that Iran’s cyber-capability was “among the top five globally.”

On May 1, the Tehran Times reported that on April 22, Iranian oil installations were the subject of another cyber attack. But that the Iranians were able to detect and contain the damage before the computer ‘weapon’ wrecked havoc on the Iranian oil infrastructure.

Moreover, the Iranian Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology said in a statement dated April 29, that it had been the subject of another cyber attack but that it had repelled the attack and no vital information was lost.

The provocative nature of such repeated cyber attacks gave rise to growing concern among American law makers that Iran may have been provoked enough to contemplate a response.

Lungren told the congressional hearing that he hoped that the Iranian leaders would be deterred from launching a cyber attack against the US by the knowledge that the American response would be ‘overwhelming.’

As far as could be determined, deterrence seems to be working, for now. But for how long can the Iranian leadership resist the pressure to respond to cyber attacks against their country’s vital infrastructure?

In his testimony before Congress, the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the congressional committee that Iranian leaders may have crossed the point of no-return and are now willing to consider a cyber attack against the United States. The most salient question now, he concluded, is to ask if we are ready for an Iranian cyber attack.

In the final analysis, however, only a diplomatic solution to the crisis can avert the disastrous consequences of conventional war and the unpredictable results of cyber war. A diplomatic solution is not only the better option, it is the only option since the alternative, namely various forms of warfare, can only delay, but not remove, the underlying cause of the dispute.






=

[Be Well]

=



Folks; I have to ask..... Is anyone interested in these financial/EU di dos? I mean, I can find these news articles (but I don't know - really. If any one is actually interested in keeping abrest to this "stuff"....

TFD



=

I read the general gist of it because I want to know the general trends in everything but since I am an econimic/financial know nothing, the general gist is what I can digest. But it's definitely part of hte whole implosion/explosion. Now that commies/socialists have won in Greece, I expect the EU to really collapse pretty soon. Which WILL affect us all.

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Turkey says rebels will win in Syria

Ankara
May 8, 2012
http://www.watoday.com.au/world/turk...507-1y91l.html

TURKEY'S prime minister has met Syrian refugees for the first time since his country opened its doors to tens of thousands of those fleeing the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan vowed to defend the rights of the Syrian people, saying they were close to achieving success. He was greeted by joyous Syrians at the largest refugee camp near the border.

''Bashar is losing blood day by day,'' Mr Erdogan said in an address to thousands of Syrians at the camp near the town of Kilis. ''Sooner or later, those who have oppressed our Syrian brothers will be accounted for before their nation. Your victory is close.'' Many refugees used their mobile phones to film or take pictures of Mr Erdogan, who addressed the crowd from the top of a bus as snipers stood on rooftops.

The camp, housing more than 9500 refugees, came under cross-border fire by Syrian forces last month in an incident that left two refugees dead.

It is the most organised and well-equipped camp: refugees stay in white temporary housing units instead of tents as in nine other camps along the border. It looks like a small town with wide streets, soup kitchens, a clinic and a makeshift barber shop. A mosque with a minaret is located just outside the camp.

Mr Erdogan assured the refugees they were Turkey's guests until they decided to return home in safety, as the refugees burst into applause. He thanked them with a few words in Arabic. Turkey hosts around 23,000 Syrian refugees.

Before visiting the camp, Mr Erdogan said: ''Until the will of the Syrian people comes to power, we will continue to defend our brothers' rights there and welcome our brothers who come here with open arms. Inshallah (if God wills it) these gloomy days will be overcome.''

The Syrian government has portrayed parliamentary elections it is holding as a sign of its willingness to carry out reforms, but Syrian opposition leaders and activists are sceptical.

Regime forces continue to attack opposition strongholds and carry out arrests, while refusing to withdraw troops and tanks from streets, as required by the truce brokered by UN special envoy Kofi Annan.


Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/world/turk...#ixzz1uC1Y08DE



=

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Syria rebels 'are close to victory'

Posted Monday, May 07, 2012
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsD...storyid=329558

KILIS, Turkey: Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan yesterday told Syrian refugees that victory for the rebels in their country was not far off and President Bashar Assad was "losing blood" by the day.

Erdogan, who has tried to rally international support against the Syrian government over its 14-month crackdown on opponents, was met with enthusiastic applause and shouts of "Long live Erdogan" at the Kilis refugee camp.

"Bashar is losing blood every day," Erdogan told the crowd of about 1,500 people less than 1km from the border.

Erdogan's remarks came on the eve of a parliamentary election in Syria that Damascus says shows reforms are underway.

However, the opposition says it will change little in a rubberstamp assembly that has been chosen by the ruling Assad family, backed by the powerful secret police, for the past four decades.

"Nothing has changed. Syria's political system remains utterly corrupt and election results will be again determined in advance," said opposition activist Bassam Ishaq.

Fighting in Syria continues despite a UN-monitored ceasefire, brokered by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in place since last month.

The Syrian Network for Human Rights said Assad's forces killed three people yesterday.

A grave containing the bodies of six other people the network said were killed by Assad's forces was discovered in Oram Al Joz, in Idlib, which has been overrun by the military in the past few months.





=

[BREWER]

Posted for fair use and discussion.
http://www.debka.com/article/21978/

Change of French presidents weakens Western front against nuclear Iran
DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis May 7, 2012, 12:11 AM (GMT+02:00)
Tags: France Britain Barack Obama Binyamin Netanyahu Iran nuclear elections
Francois Hollande, new President of France

Two stalwarts of the Western confrontation against a nuclear-armed Iran suffered election defeats this week: Nicolas Sarkozy was swept out of the Elysee by the Socialist leader Francois Hollande Sunday, May 6. Three days earlier, the two parties forming UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s government coalition were trounced in local elections across Britain. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who faces an election in four months, never imagined he would be left so quickly on shifting sands against the Iranian nuclear threat.

In Washington, Dennis Ross, Barack Obama’s former adviser on Iran and frequent visitor to Jerusalem with messages from the White House said Sunday, May 6, that oddly enough Israel had attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 and destroyed Syria’s nuclear facility 2007 without talk. So why were Israelis talking so much now?

Ross answered his own question by suggesting that Israeli leaders aimed at giving the world a strong motive for raising the heat on Iran and tightening sanctions so as to stop Israel going to war; then, if sanctions and diplomacy failed, no one could complain if Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear program.

Ross appears to have forgotten the rows between the US and Israel in 1981 over attacking the Iraqi reactor and how hard Ronald Reagan leaned on Menahem Begin to stop him going through with it.

But most of all, Ross was reflecting the Obama administration’s impatience with the Iran debate going back and forth between Jerusalem and Washington for two years and is determined to wash its hands of the problem for now and get on with winning the president a second term in November.

The outgoing French President Nicolas Sarkozy spoke more forcefully and frankly than any other Western leader about the real danger of a nuclear-armed Iran and accepted that it would have to be tackled by military action. He was also stood out as one of the few French leaders of recent times prepared to fight for French and Western Middle East interests.

The role of French special forces, navy and air forces, alongside US and British forces, was pivotal in the campaign to overthrow Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi. In recent weeks, he placed French units on standby in case President Obama decided to intervene in Syria. In the event, the US president pulled back from an operation that was planned to have involved Saudi and GCC armies as well.

France’s successful military showing in the Libyan war brought no political or economic rewards. Indeed, Paris shelled out a million dollars it could ill afford to pay for it. Sarkozy’s opponent Francois Hollande did not make this an issue in his campaign, but it was certainly not lost on the French voter. The French Muslim voter no doubt settled scores with Sarkozy for his ban on the veil and pro-Israeli policies and may even have cost him the presidency, although this issue too did not come to the fore in electioneering.

David Cameron, who probably spent even more on the Libyan war than Sakrozy and could afford it even less, is paying a heavy political price for the unpopular austerity measures he is clamping down on the British people to haul the country out of a deepening recession.

Iran has therefore won a handy breather on several fronts: Barack Obama is carefully avoiding any war involvement in the course of his election campaign – he even asked world leaders to give him “space”; French President Hollande needs time to find his feet, attack the declining French economy and rescue the euro. He will have no time or attention to spare in the months to come for Iran’s nuclear threat or the Syrian bloodbath.

When ten days ago, Netanyahu sent his security adviser Yaacov Amidror on a round trip to European capitals to pitch Israel’s case against Iran, he never imagined how quickly the Iranian issue would recede into irrelevance as key Western government go swept up in more pressing business and upsets.

Netanyahu announced Sunday that he would call an early election in four months, a year before it is due.

Prime minister since 2009, he is assured by every opinion poll that he is miles ahead in popularity of any Israeli politician. He told a meeting of his party Sunday, May 6, that he didn't want "a year and a half of political instability accompanied by blackmail and populism".

Currently in his element, he may feel that it is up to him now to take the initiative for preempting a nuclear Iran. And the sooner the better.

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Heavy fighting rocks Syria

By REUTERS
Published: May 7, 2012 03:34 Updated: May 7, 2012 03:35
http://arabnews.com/middleeast/article627275.ece

AMMAN: Fighting between rebels and President Bashar Assad’s forces erupted in an oil producing province in eastern Syria, residents and activists said yesterday, the eve of a parliamentary election the authorities say shows reforms are under way.

Rebels armed with rocket-propelled grenades attacked tank positions in the east of the provincial capital Deir Al-Zor, in response to an army offensive against towns and villages in the tribal area bordering Iraq that has killed tens of people and stopped others reaching supplies and medical care, they said.

“We do not have a death toll because no one is daring to go into the streets,” said Ghaith Abdelsalam, an opposition activist who lives near Ghassan Abboud roundabout that has become a flashpoint for the fighting in the city.

“The population has been trapped and anger has been building up,” he said, adding the fighting subsided early in the morning after erupting overnight.

The army still has tanks and heavy weapons in cities and towns in violation of cease-fire being monitored by a UN team and rebels are continuing their guerrilla attacks on military convoys and army roadblocks that have cut off swathes of the country, according to witnesses and opposition sources.

Fifty out of a planned total of 300 UN observers are now in Syria to monitor the cease-fire declared on April 12, but their presence has not halted 14 months of violence.

The authorities say they are fighting what they call foreign backed terrorists in Deir Al-Zor and across the country who are bent on sabotaging what state media describe as a comprehensive reform program being led by Assad that is more advanced than in Western democracies. The authorities are touting Monday’s parliamentary election as a showcase of these reforms. However, the opposition says it will change little in a rubberstamp assembly that has been chosen by the ruling Assad family, backed by the powerful secret police, for the past four decades.

The assembly currently does not have a single opposition member and official media said half the seats would be reserved to “representatives of workers and peasants,” whose unions are controlled by Assad’s Baath Party.

“Nothing has changed. Syria’s political system remains utterly corrupt and election results will be again determined in advance,” said opposition activist Bassam Ishaq, who unsuccessfully ran for Parliament in 2003 and 2007.

“There are effectively very few seats for independents, and these will go to the highest bidder.”

Interior Minister Mohammad Nidal Al-Shaar toured the northern city of Aleppo yesterday, and declared Syria’s commercial and industrial hub was ready for the vote.

“All resources should be made available to ensure the electoral process proceeds smoothly,” Shaar, flanked by electoral officials, told state media.

Anti-government demonstrations have expanded in Aleppo after Assad’s forces killed seven student protesters at Aleppo University last month. Witnesses say street demonstrations demanding his removal have been expanding across the country after the monitors’ arrival.

Backed by old ally Russia, and with support from Iran’s clerical rulers, Assad has relied on the military to try to put down the uprising against his repressive rule, which is being mostly led by members of the country’s Sunni majority.

Unlike the autocratic leaders of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen, who have been toppled by Arab Spring revolts, Assad has retained enough support among the military and security apparatus, to withstand the popular revolt.

Yesterday, the UN monitors were due to visit the town of Zabadani near the Lebanese border, a day after a tour of Douma, another town that at one time was known as a stronghold for the armed opposition but is now back under army control.





=

[SIRR1]

Syria Moving Scuds to Israel, Turkey Borders – Report

Jordanian news site says western spy satellites show hundreds of Scud launchers moving south and north

Jordanian news site Ahbar Baladna reports that western spy satellites have recently spotted movements of Syrian heavy missile launchers northward and southward, toward Syria's borders with Turkey and Israel.

The site says hundreds of high-caliber launchers are being moved, and that these could only be long range Scud missile launchers.

Syria has threatened in the past that in the event of foreign military intervention on its soil, it will not hesitate to fire missiles at Israel and Turkey in order to ignite a large scale regional war.

Turkish and French officials said ten days ago they were mulling a potential military intervention in Syria, where civil war has been raging for 14 months.

“In the face of developments in Syria, we are taking into consideration any kind of possibility in line with our national security and interests,” Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu told parliament during a briefing to lawmakers...


http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/155505

sirr1

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...y.html?hpid=z3

Taliban kill 14 Pakistani troops, string up heads of two of them on wooden poles
By Associated Press, Published: May 6 | Updated: Monday, May 7, 8:35 AM
Comments 23

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan — Taliban fighters killed 14 Pakistani soldiers in a key militant sanctuary along the Afghan border, beheaded all but one of them and hung two of the heads from wooden poles in the center of town, officials said Monday.

The killings in Miran Shah, the main town in the North Waziristan tribal area, highlight the dilemma facing the military in dealing with an area used by both the country’s fiercest enemy, the Pakistani Taliban, and Afghan and Pakistani militants believed to be close to the government who are battling U.S.-led forces in neighboring Afghanistan.

The U.S. has repeatedly demanded that Pakistan launch an offensive in North Waziristan, especially against the so-called Haqqani network. Pakistan has promised to do so in the future, but claims its forces are stretched too thin right now fighting the Pakistani Taliban in other parts of the tribal region.

“Something has to be done, and it’s in the offing,” Lt. Gen. Khalid Rabbani, the army’s top commander in the northwest, told The Associated Press in an interview Monday. “North Waziristan is the only place left” that hasn’t been the target of an operation, he said.

Many analysts believe Pakistan is reluctant to target militants in North Waziristan with whom it has strong historical ties and could be useful allies in Afghanistan after foreign forces withdraw. But those militants are also allies with the Pakistani Taliban, complicating matters even further.

On Sunday, the Taliban ambushed a security checkpoint in Miran Shah, killing nine Pakistani soldiers, the army said. Militants had been firing on the checkpoint for the past few days before they ambushed it, the army added.

When authorities finally retrieved the bodies of the dead soldiers, they found that they had been beheaded, said intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

The army retaliated Sunday with helicopter gunships that pounded suspected militant hideouts and also hit three houses and a mosque in the town, said intelligence officials. Three civilians were killed and 20 were wounded in the helicopter attacks, they said. It’s unclear how many militants were killed.

The military also raided a house in Miran Shah on Sunday night, killing a militant commander and several of his colleagues, said intelligence officials. But the remaining militants escaped with five soldiers captured during the raid.

They beheaded four of them and hung two of their heads from poles in Miran Shah on Monday. The bodies of the others were dumped in Miran Shah bazaar, the officials said.

“This will not shy us off establishing the writ of the government in all the areas, including North Waziristan,” said Rabbani, who commands 150,000 troops in the northwest along the Afghan border.

The army unleashed its helicopter gunships again Monday, attacking a weapons market in Miran Shah where the militants who attacked the security checkpoint were believed to be hiding, said intelligence officials. The attack killed some 30 militants and destroyed dozens of shops that sold assault rifles, ammunition and rocket propelled grenades, the officials said.

Since the fighting started Sunday, 20 Pakistani troops have been injured, said the officials.

The attack on the weapons market occurred after the army had declared a curfew, so there did not appear to be any civilian casualties within the bazaar, said Haji Zafran, one of the shop owners. But a dozen people were wounded when a mosque near the market was hit, he said.

The market burned for hours after the attack, and the area reverberated with loud bangs as the flames set off the ammunition and grenades in the shops, said Zafran.

The owner of the market, Haji Noor Deen, protested the army’s attack and claimed he and the other arms dealers suffered a loss of millions of dollars.

“Our place was targeted for no reason, as nobody fired a shot from there at the army,” said Deen. “The dealers just sell arms to tribesmen.”

The army lifted the curfew so that tribal elders and militants could hold a meeting to try to resolve the conflict, said intelligence officials. The jirga included members of the Haqqani network, an Afghan group, and also Hafiz Gul Bahadur, a powerful Pakistani militant commander believed to be close to Pakistan, they said.

____

Associated Press writers Chris Brummitt and Rasool Dawar contributed to this report from Peshawar, Pakistan.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.thenational.ae/thenationa...an-has-on-iraq

Gulf has a role in how much influence Iran has on Iraq
Hassan Hassan
May 7, 2012

In a recent talk in Bahrain about national security in the GCC, Dubai's police chief, Lt Gen Dhahi Khalfan, listed Iraq's subordination to Iran as one of the top five potential security threats to the Gulf.

It is not news that Iran's influence in Iraq is growing. But there is a misplaced assumption in the Gulf that because of sectarian tendencies and proximity, Iraq's political tilt towards Iran is inevitable and natural. In light of such assessments, the Gulf has been reluctant to expand diplomatic relations with Baghdad.

Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, told me in a recent interview that a "breakthrough" is being reached in relations with the Gulf. During meetings last Monday in Baghdad, he said, progress was made towards resolving outstanding disputes. Qatar, he said, pledged to consider resumption of diplomatic relations within the year. Saudi Arabia is likely to open its Arar border crossing to boost trade with Iraq. The remaining states already have diplomatic representation in Iraq.

But even if diplomatic breakthroughs are reached, the Gulf's outlook towards Iraq is still marred by distrust and suspicion (which has only deepened during the premiership of Nouri al Maliki, who lived in Iran for a decade). Saudi Arabia appointed a non-resident ambassador to Baghdad in February but refused (along with other Gulf states) to send top-level delegations to the Arab League summit there in March.

Yet there are considerable reasons for the GCC to move closer to Iraq than to push it away.

First is the potential downfall of the Syrian regime; when this happens, Iraq will need to reengage with the Gulf - not only because of the $2 billion (Dh 7.34 billion) in annual trade between Iraq and Syria, but because the post-Assad regime will likely be friendlier to the Gulf.

Then there is economics. Iraq is projected to become the second largest oil exporter after Saudi Arabia, surpassing Iran, by the end of this decade. If that happens, power dynamics will change and it will be difficult for Iran to exert influence in Iraq. Until that happens, Iraq needs its Gulf neighbours, who are well-positioned to invest in the country.

Trade between Iran and Iraq is higher than Iraq's trade with any Gulf state ($10 billion a year) but Iranian investment is much lower (just over half a billion dollars in 2009, and $200 million in 2010). The UAE, the only Gulf country that invests heavily in Iraq, topped the list of foreign investors there in 2009, at over $37 billion. That went up to $66 billion last year. It is past time for other GCC states to follow suit.

Iraqis complain that cheap and low-quality products from Iran flood their markets, making it difficult for Iraqi-made goods to compete. Iranian investment focuses on the construction and retail sectors in the Shia holy cities as part of Tehran's strategy of influence within Iraq.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity," says Afshin Molavi, a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation and a columnist for The National. "Their handling of their 'soft power' in Iraq is a case in point. Their poll numbers are dwindling, and not only among Sunnis, but also among Shia. They are increasingly seen as heavy-handed and interfering."

Finally, there's clerical rivalry. Iraqi Shia clergy are already resisting Iranian influence as the Najaf Hawza (the world's oldest learning centre for Shia) tries to reclaim its prominence, overshadowed by Qom's Hawza in Iran since 1979. Najaf and Qom deeply differ on the concept of clerical leadership. It is safe to say that the differences between Shia and Sunni Muslims over caliphate (on who should have succeeded the Prophet) are as deep as the differences among Shiites on imamate (who can lead Muslims).

Najaf is traditionally characterised as "hawza samitah", a quietist seminary - which restricts the role of clergy to catering to followers rather than politically leading them. By contrast, Qom believes a cleric can guide and lead followers until the coming of the hidden imam (the saviour of Muslims).

Because of this rivalry, Iran is reportedly preparing Qom-based Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, an Iraqi cleric who subscribes to the Khomeinist school, to lead Iraq's Shia after the death of Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the current supreme leader of Najaf's hawza. In his official visit to Iran last month, Mr Al Maliki met with Mr Shahroudi.

To be sure, sectarian affinities play a significant role in shaping Iraqi politics. The reasons, however, must be understood in context. For Iraqi Shiites, the wounds of fighting a devastating war against Iran are still fresh; the physical and psychological pain still haunts thousands of men and women. The eruption of civil strife after the 2003 US invasion helped link the Sunnis to the Baathist regime and the Shiites to the "Safawi", sympathisers with the Iranians (from the Iranian "Safavid dynasty" that prosecuted Sunnis). Add to that the rising sectarian sentiments in the region after the Arab Spring, in the form of provocations by extremists on both sides.

But these sentiments can be rendered temporary if sectarianism is addressed and relations deepened. "No one can ignore the sectarian factor but Iraq is not, and will not be, subordinate to Iran," Mr Zebari said.

Iraq is not an Iranian "cat's paw", as some have suggested. The Gulf must not view Iraq only through its ties to Iran. The Gulf has a choice: continue to alienate Iraq and push it into the Iranian orbit, or begin a process of engagement. That choice will determine whether Iraq becomes the security threat many are fearing.

hhassan@thenational.ae

On Twitter: @hhassan140

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist...ssentials.html

06 May 2012, Sunday
GÖKHAN BACIK
g.bacik@todayszaman.com
Turkey and the US: alliance with no essentials?

The foreign policies of states are less consistent nowadays. In the past, alliance formation among states occurred on the basis of very precisely defined common interests. A typical alliance delineated the red lines of bilateral relations on various highly critical issues. Allied partners were expected not to cross those red lines. Moreover, alliances used to produce high levels of loyalty, which also affected the allied partners' relations with other states.

Now, however, world politics is almost in a post-alliances period. Alliances among states are losing their traditional capacity to generate essentials.

This is, therefore, the age of contradictions in world politics. It is now very difficult to understand who is with whom in foreign policy.

The Turkish-US strategic alliance is a brilliant example of the age of contradictions in world politics. There are very few, if any, essentials of this strategic alliance that both sides display carefully. Instead, despite the persistent strategic-alliance narrative, both sides have different agendas on many important issues of global politics.

Turkey, for example, believes that Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, embodies a vital risk to the country's interests in the region. However, the US has a different perspective. Many key actors in Washington seem unconvinced by the Turkish argument. Moreover, there are very many influential people in Washington who believe that strong relations with Maliki will help the US in the region, especially vis-à-vis Iran. On Syria, even though Turkey and the US act in line, their level of political involvement are totally different. Unlike Turkey, the US has a somehow low-profile stance on Syria. In Egypt, it is mainly thanks to the US that the Supreme Command of Armed Forces of Egypt (SCAF) is still on the political scene with absolute authority, so much so that it can hijack the revolution. It is no secret that a SCAF-dominated Egyptian politics will be a difficult place for Turkey.

The more ironic situation arises with regard to China. While Turkey and the US are at odds with China on all major issues of world politics, their key priority is to advance good relations with China. Ironically, one may argue that having good relations with China is a new essential of Turkish-US relations.

Last year Turkey and a China conducted a common military exercise, despite the official US warning to Ankara. Similar facts can be observed in Turkey's relations with Russia. The present time should be called the golden age of Turco-Russian relations. These Cold War enemies are now visa-free states. In view of Turkish citizens' visa difficulties with the major Western states (in theory Turkey's historical allies), the Russian rapprochement with Turkey is meaningful.

There is a point here: For Turkey, Russia may in the long term replace the US on the economic and social plane. Turkey expects 4 million Russian tourists in 2012. The social and economic imprint of 4 million Russians spending time in Turkey is not something that should be underestimated.

So, what are the essentials of the Turkish-US strategic alliance? I believe there is no one essential in a Cold War sense. Maybe there are several “sleeping” essentials that might become important in a crisis like a war. Or one can formulate this to project a broader picture, such as “the key American interest is to keep Turkey a market-based liberal democracy.” But I am not sure that such essentials are operationally effective.

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...ership/256789/

The End of Sarkozy, the Decline of the French-German Partnership
By Max Fisher
May 6 2012, 7:50 PM ET Comments 35

The European experiment began as an effort to bring France and Germany together. Has it ended up driving them apart?

Around midnight on Sunday night, German Chancellor Angela Merkel called up French socialist candidate Francois Hollande to congratulate him on winning the presidential election, unseating Nicholas Sarkozy, the man with whom Merkel has warily led Europe through its increasingly fraught crisis. Sarkozy and Merkel had not gotten along wonderfully -- their two countries dealt with the European Union debt crisis very differently, and their personalities clashed famously -- but they still got along. It was a partnership for the sake of the European experiment, a union for which they've both labored, and for which their predecessors have labored for over 60 years.

But Hollande looks ready to take a slightly different approach. At times, he seemed to be campaigning nearly as much against German EU policies -- and thus against Merkel and Germany -- as against Sarkozy. "Germany doesn't decide for all of Europe," Hollande said recently, one of many comments positioning himself explicitly in opposition to German leadership, and channeling the rising French frustration with German policies. He will be France's first socialist party president in 24 years, but perhaps just as significantly, he appears poised to move his country away from Germany, after decades of French foreign policy designed to move the country close to its traditional enemy. This would be a reverse of decades of French policy, but it would also be a tiny step back toward the historical norm of French-German enmity.

Since the births of the modern French and German nations, the two countries' national identities have been defined in part by their opposition to the other. The French revolution culminated in the monarchy-ousting wars against, among others, the German powers of Prussia and the Holy Roman Empire, which also ceded long-contested territory to France. Napoleon Bonaparte founded French nationalism by waging war against those same countries, and his victories against the German states so wounded them that, when Germany finally unified two generations later, it was seen as a moment of not just German national pride but of revenge against French-imposed humiliation.

When Wilhelm the First proclaimed the creation of the German Empire in 1871, finally fulfilling the long-stymied dreams of unification, he did so not in Berlin or Vienna or Munich but in Versailles, the immaculate French palace in the suburb of Paris, which his army had just conquered. A definitive painting of the moment, The Proclamation of the Foundation of the German Reich by Anton von Werner, shows Wilhelm smirking as he stands before the throne from which generations of French rulers had frustrated German ambitions. Many factors led to the two world wars, but this rise of German nationalism, which formed and militarized in opposition to French nationalism, played a significant role in the first war, the German humiliations during which contributed to the second.

In 1949, their two societies devastated by the culmination of centuries of war, French and West German leaders came together to end their conflict once and for all through the magic of economics. The French Foreign Minister proposed that both nations surrender control of their steel and coal industries to the free market, integrating their production across France and Germany. The plan would make both nations richer and more efficient, and it would also ensure that, should they return to war, the integrated steel and coal markets would collapse, leaving both nations without the means for mechanized warfare. It was so brilliant that Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands all asked to join, and over time the the European Coal and Steel Community expanded in size and scope to the European Union.

But if the European Coal and Steel Community was founded to achieve French-German peace through economic integration, then over time it was economic integration that became the greater focus. The union expanded, the economic integration deepened, and soon France and Germany were, though the two most powerful members of the club, part of something much bigger. Successive treaties integrated the energy economy, trade tariffs, immigration, and the fiscal union of the Euro.

Ironically, the European Union's emphasis on economics and on wider Europe may have ultimately distracted from, and maybe even undermined, its original 1949 mission of French-German cooperation. As the very different French and German economies dealt in their very different ways with the debt crisis -- itself an unintended but direct result of the widened fiscal union -- their leadership has naturally diverged. The two countries are economically and politically structured to want different things from the union, and to seek diverging courses. This didn't create any cultural tensions, which are much older than the EU, but the two are mutually reinforcing. Hollande's win was a culmination of that tension. "Hollande win means G[ermany] no longer on same page with F[rance]," American economist Austan Goolsbee tweeted. "Didn't seem possible but life about to get much harder in the deadzone, er, euro zone."

This is not to say that France and Germany are moving, or will move, anywhere near their historic depth of enmity. The world has changed too much in the last 70 years; the end of colonialism and the decline of Europe has made intra-European competition less likely, European democracy and free trade have made cooperation more desirable and conflict less, and the rise of non-Western powers had made cooperation much more within Europe's interests. But there is still plenty of room for the old mistrusts to emerge, if far less dangerously than before, and the economic incentives for cooperation are waning with the health of the EU. If the Union resurges, and French and German interests realign as closely as they once did, the old hand-holding days could return. But that doesn't look likely to happen.

The era of French-German warfare, so terrible that its survivors sowed the seeds of the European Union, is probably long-over. But the era of long beach-side walks shared by the French and German leaders appears to be ending as well, at least for the moment.

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...52dd2ac3ee685f

Al-Qaida surprise attack kills 20 Yemeni soldiers

By BY AHMED AL-HAJ, Associated Press – 3 hours ago

SANAA, Yemen (AP) — Al-Qaida militants staged a surprise attack Monday on a Yemeni army base in the south, killing 20 soldiers and capturing 25 just hours after a U.S. drone strike killed a senior figure in the terror network wanted in connection with the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen.

It was not immediately clear if the pre-dawn attack on the military base in the southern Abyan province was in retaliation for the death of Fahd al-Quso, a top al-Qaida leader on the FBI's most wanted list.

The militants managed to reach the base both from the sea and by land, gunning down troops and making away with weapons and other military hardware after the blitz attack, Yemeni military officials said.

Government forces later shelled militant positions elsewhere in Abyan, killing 16 militants, said the officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

Yemen has been waging an offensive on al-Qaida, whose fighters took advantage of the country's political turmoil during the past year to expand their hold in the south, seizing entire cities and towns and large swathes of land. Abyan's provincial capital of Zinjibar has been held by al-Qaida for a year.

The new Yemeni president, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, has promised improved cooperation with the U.S. to combat the militants. On Saturday, he said the fight against al-Qaida is in its early stages. Hadi took over in February from longtime authoritarian leader Ali Abdullah Saleh.

On Sunday, al-Quso, the top al-Qaida leader, was hit by a missile as he stepped out of his vehicle along with another operative in the southern Shabwa province, Yemeni military officials said.

The drone strike was carried out by the CIA, after an extended surveillance operation by the CIA and U.S. military, two U.S. officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

Al-Quso, 37, was on the FBI's most wanted list, with a $5 million reward for information leading to his capture. He was indicted in the U.S. for his role in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in the harbor of Aden, Yemen, in which 17 American sailors were killed and 39 injured.

He served more than five years in a Yemeni prison for his role in the attack and was released in 2007. He briefly escaped prison in 2003 but later turned himself in to serve the rest of his sentence.

A telephone text message claiming to be from al-Qaida's media arm confirmed al-Quso was killed in the strike.

He was also one of the most senior al-Qaida leaders publicly linked to the 2009 Christmas airliner attack and allegedly met in Yemen with the suspected Nigerian bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, before the Nigerian left to execute his failed attack over Detroit with a bomb concealed in his underwear.

In December 2010, al-Quso was designated a global terrorist by the State Department, an indication that his role in al-Qaida's Yemen offshoot, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, had grown more prominent.

Local Yemeni official Abu Bakr bin Farid and the Yemeni Embassy in Washington confirmed al-Quso was killed in Rafd, a remote mountain valley in Shabwa. It is the area where many al-Qaida leaders are believed to have taken cover, including the U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike last year.

Al-Quso's association with al-Qaida dates back more than a decade, when he met with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. Bin Laden allegedly told him to "eliminate the infidels from the Arabian Peninsula."

From there, al-Quso rose through the ranks. He was assigned in Aden to videotape the bombing of the USS Cole but fell asleep. Despite the lapse, he was declared the regional leader in Aden. He was also believed to have played a prominent role in al-Qaida's attack and the capture last year of Zinjibar.

AP Intelligence Writer Kimberly Dozier in Washington contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Related articles

* At least 32 Yemeni troops killed in militant attack
Reuters Canada - 7 hours ago
* Al-Qaida surprise attack kills 20 Yemeni soldiers
BlueRidgeNow.com - 2 hours ago
* Terrorists strike at army base just hours after leader is killed
7DAYS - 2 hours ago

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/wo...elections.html

May 7, 2012
Greece’s Woes Rise as Election Fails to Yield Clear Majority
By RACHEL DONADIO

ATHENS — A day after Greece’s two dominant parties collapsed at the polls, the leader of the center-right New Democracy party struggled on Monday to form a governing coalition amid growing uncertainty about Greece’s political stability and staying power inside the euro zone.

The prospects of political deadlock and possible new elections were rising after the traditionally dominant parties, New Democracy and the Socialists, which both backed Greece’s latest loan agreement with its foreign creditors, did not get enough of the combined vote to form a majority in Parliament. Several smaller parties, whose fortunes rose on a rich harvest of protest votes, refused to join in a coalition with the larger parties.

The lack of a government could cast Greece’s loan agreement with its foreign creditors into turmoil, with a $4.3 billion refinancing looming this month and a requirement from its lenders to cut $15 billion from the budget in June.

On Monday, the New Democracy leader, Antonis Samaras met, with a range of political leaders, including the biggest winner of Sunday’s elections, Alexis Tsipras, the leader of the Coalition of the Radical Left, or Syriza, which eclipsed the Socialists for the first time ever to place second with 16.78 percent of the vote, compared to the Socialists’ 13.1 percent.

Following the meeting, Mr. Tsipras said he would not join with New Democracy (which received only 18.8 percent of the vote) but would seek to form a coalition “chiefly of forces of the left” that like his party, oppose the bailout terms. That may prove difficult since the Communist Party, which received 8.48 percent of the vote, has said it will refuse to join any coalition.

Mr. Tsipras said that Sunday’s results showed that the signatures on the loan agreement had been discredited, and that they were “not a salvation but a tragedy.”

After his meeting with Mr. Samaras, the Socialist leader, Evangelos Venizelos, whose party suffered its worst defeat since its founding and placed third, called for a government of national unity whose “minimum goal” would be to keep Greece in the euro zone.

Mr. Venizelos, who was finance minister when Greece negotiated its second loan agreement in February, called for a four-party coalition to be led by a prime minister accepted by all sides, and who would renegotiate the terms of the loan agreement.

Mr. Venizelos suggested that the coalition should be composed of New Democracy, the Socialists, Syriza and the Democratic Left, which was founded in 2010 by Fotis Kouvelis, a former Syriza member, as a more centrist offshoot. After his meeting with Mr. Samaras on Monday, however, Mr. Kouvelis ruled out joining a coalition with New Democracy and the Socialists, noting that his party had not changed its pre-election goals of ensuring that Greece remains in the euro zone, though under a new debt deal with its creditors.

But Mr. Kouvelis still could be the kingmaker, leaving the door open to a possible coalition with Mr. Tsipras of Syriza. “We will wait to hear a precise and clear proposal, then we will comment,” he said.

Sunday’s elections also saw the far right, ultranationalist Golden Dawn party, whose members perform Nazi salutes at rallies and who routinely scuffle with illegal immigrants in downtown Athens, receive 7 percent of the vote, enough to enter Parliament for the first time, with 21 seats.

If Mr. Tsipras fails to form a coalition, Mr. Venizelos has a try, and if he fails the president of the republic summons the leaders of all parties in Parliament and tries to broker a broad coalition. If that also fails, the president appoints an interim government to bring the country to new elections in 30 days.

Reporting contributed by Niki Kitsantonis.

[Be Well]

Taliban kill 14 Pakistani troops, string up heads of two of them on wooden poles

I want our troops OUT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[OldArcher]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist...ssentials.html

06 May 2012, Sunday
GÖKHAN BACIK
g.bacik@todayszaman.com
Turkey and the US: alliance with no essentials?

The foreign policies of states are less consistent nowadays. In the past, alliance formation among states occurred on the basis of very precisely defined common interests. A typical alliance delineated the red lines of bilateral relations on various highly critical issues. Allied partners were expected not to cross those red lines. Moreover, alliances used to produce high levels of loyalty, which also affected the allied partners' relations with other states.

Now, however, world politics is almost in a post-alliances period. Alliances among states are losing their traditional capacity to generate essentials.

This is, therefore, the age of contradictions in world politics. It is now very difficult to understand who is with whom in foreign policy.

The Turkish-US strategic alliance is a brilliant example of the age of contradictions in world politics. There are very few, if any, essentials of this strategic alliance that both sides display carefully. Instead, despite the persistent strategic-alliance narrative, both sides have different agendas on many important issues of global politics.

Turkey, for example, believes that Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, embodies a vital risk to the country's interests in the region. However, the US has a different perspective. Many key actors in Washington seem unconvinced by the Turkish argument. Moreover, there are very many influential people in Washington who believe that strong relations with Maliki will help the US in the region, especially vis-à-vis Iran. On Syria, even though Turkey and the US act in line, their level of political involvement are totally different. Unlike Turkey, the US has a somehow low-profile stance on Syria. In Egypt, it is mainly thanks to the US that the Supreme Command of Armed Forces of Egypt (SCAF) is still on the political scene with absolute authority, so much so that it can hijack the revolution. It is no secret that a SCAF-dominated Egyptian politics will be a difficult place for Turkey.

The more ironic situation arises with regard to China. While Turkey and the US are at odds with China on all major issues of world politics, their key priority is to advance good relations with China. Ironically, one may argue that having good relations with China is a new essential of Turkish-US relations.

Last year Turkey and a China conducted a common military exercise, despite the official US warning to Ankara. Similar facts can be observed in Turkey's relations with Russia. The present time should be called the golden age of Turco-Russian relations. These Cold War enemies are now visa-free states. In view of Turkish citizens' visa difficulties with the major Western states (in theory Turkey's historical allies), the Russian rapprochement with Turkey is meaningful.

There is a point here: For Turkey, Russia may in the long term replace the US on the economic and social plane. Turkey expects 4 million Russian tourists in 2012. The social and economic imprint of 4 million Russians spending time in Turkey is not something that should be underestimated.

So, what are the essentials of the Turkish-US strategic alliance? I believe there is no one essential in a Cold War sense. Maybe there are several “sleeping” essentials that might become important in a crisis like a war. Or one can formulate this to project a broader picture, such as “the key American interest is to keep Turkey a market-based liberal democracy.” But I am not sure that such essentials are operationally effective.

How about a better title? "The inevitable decline and fall of the West..."

OA, out...

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17984653

7 May 2012 Last updated at 13:52 ET

Bedouin in Egypt's Sinai 'release Fijian peacekeepers'
Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) observation post The MFO is an independent force formed to monitor the borders between Egypt and Israel

Bedouin have freed 10 Fijian members of an international peacekeeping force who were briefly detained in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, security sources say.

The abductors reportedly demanded the authorities release from prison several fellow tribesmen, some of whom had been convicted of terrorism.

They freed the Fijians after receiving assurances that their demands would be met, one tribesman told the AFP.

The Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) has not commented on the reports.

In March, Bedouin blocked access to the MFO's North Camp at al-Gorah for a day to press for tribesmen's release.

They pulled back after giving officials a month to examine their demands.

The MFO is an independent force formed to monitor the borders between Egypt and Israel following the 1979 peace accord. It consists of military staff from 12 countries including the US and France.

Fiji provides an infantry battalion, whose mission is to observe and report all activities in the Northern Sector of Zone C, which includes the major border crossings at Rafah, Kerem Shalom and al-Awga/Nizzana.
Restive region

Sinai Bedouin routinely complain of unfair treatment and neglect by Egypt's government. They regularly press their demands by staging protests and blocking roads. Occasionally they take tourists hostage.
Bedouin men sit at a tribal meeting in North Sinai Bedouin tribes in the Sinai have longstanding grievances with central government

Such incidents have increased in frequency since the overthrow of the former President Hosni Mubarak last year.

The imprisonment of Bedouin arrested in the aftermath of the Red Sea attacks is a longstanding grievance.

Bombings took place at tourist locations in Taba in 2004, at Sharm el-Sheikh in 2005 and Dahab in 2006. A total of 130 people were killed.

Thousands of Bedouin were arrested by the Egyptian authorities after the bombings. Hundreds remain imprisoned without trial.

Egypt's interim government recently announced that death sentences issued to three men convicted of involvement in the bombings had been overturned after their trials were deemed unfair.
More on This Story
Related Stories

* S Korean tourists freed in Egypt 11 FEBRUARY 2012, MIDDLE EAST
* Sinai gunmen release US tourists 03 FEBRUARY 2012, MIDDLE EAST
* Chinese workers in Egypt released 01 FEBRUARY 2012, CHINA
* Fears for Africans held in Sinai 31 DECEMBER 2010, MIDDLE EAST

Related Internet links

* Multinational Force and Observers (MFO)

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

[Housecarl]

For links see article source...
Posted for fair use....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...f289337f2c.6f1

Egypt riot police 'block highway'

(AFP) – 5 hours ago

CAIRO — Hundreds of Egyptian riot police stormed out of their camp and cut off a desert highway out of Cairo following reports that an officer had killed one of their colleagues, state media reported on Monday.

"Senior security officials have managed to contain the crisis involving conscripts in the Central Security Forces who cut the Cairo-Ismailiya desert road," on Saturday, the state-owned Al-Ahram said, in a rare report of any dissent within interior ministry ranks.

A security official confirmed to AFP that hundreds of CSF conscripts had stormed out of the "January 25" camp and took to the streets.

But the official denied that a CSF conscript had been killed, and said the protest had been fuelled by "a rumour."

Video footage shot by a driver on the highway apparently shows the conscripts, in civilian clothes, walking through the streets chanting against the police.

One of the men tells the camera he is protesting because "an officer shot a conscript," in the footage posted on the Internet.

According to Al-Ahram, "an officer in the Central Security Forces attacked one of the conscripts... leading to a fight between the two, which prompted a rumour among the conscripts that their colleague had been killed."

Military police as well as riot police were called in to disperse the protest, Al-Ahram reported.

The poorly paid and badly trained CSF troops are the branch of the interior ministry deployed mainly to control protests and riots.

The CSF was heavily involved in trying to quell the protests during the first days of the uprising that ousted president Hosni Mubarak last year, before the army was deployed.

The last major CSF rebellion was in 1986, when thousands took to the streets in violent protests in Cairo following rumours that their service would be extended.

Copyright © 2012 AFP. All rights reserved. More »

Related articles

* Egypt quells riot police protest
Oman Daily Observer - 1 hour ago
* CSF officers cut desert road following rumours of colleague's death
Ahram Online - 1 day ago
* Egypt riot police 'block highway'
StarAfrica.com - 2 hours ago

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...5f3a807d55.e01

Iraq court orders release of Hezbollah commander

(AFP) – 7 hours ago

BAGHDAD — An Iraqi court on Monday ruled that a Hezbollah commander accused of plotting the killing of five US soldiers in January 2007 should be released from custody over a lack of evidence, his lawyer said.

Ali Musa Daqduq, an alleged fighter in Lebanon's Hezbollah movement, was handed over to Iraqi authorities in December as US forces completed their withdrawal from the country nearly nine years after the invasion of Iraq.

"The Central Criminal Court of Iraq issued a ruling to release Ali Daqduq today, Monday, because of a lack of evidence," his lawyer Abdulmahdi al-Mutairi told AFP.

"No document was provided that indicates the guilt of Daqduq, and all of what was shown to the court were copies and not originals. There was no testimony and the charges had no foundation."

It was unclear when precisely Daqduq would be freed.

The US embassy in Baghdad did not immediately comment on the ruling.

Daqduq was captured by US-led forces and held by American troops until he was handed over to Iraqi officials in December, though the latter period of his detention in US custody was under Iraqi government authority as part of an agreement between Baghdad and Washington.

Some members of the US Republican Party had called for leaving US forces to simply bring Daqduq, a Lebanese national, with them as they left Iraq.

But officials said that would be illegal, under security agreements between the two governments, and would have fractured the new and "enduring" relationship with Iraq that President Barack Obama has sought to build.

At the time of Daqduq's capture, the United States accused Iranian special forces of using the Shiite militant group Hezbollah to train Iraqi extremists and of planning the 2007 attack.

The US military said the Quds Force, a unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and Hezbollah were jointly operating camps near Tehran in which they trained Iraqi fighters before sending them back to carry out attacks in Iraq.

It said Daqduq, captured in Iraq's southern city of Basra in March 2007, had confessed to training Iraqi extremists in Iran.

Iran dismissed the US accusations as "ridiculous."

Copyright © 2012 AFP. All rights reserved. More »

Related articles

* Four killed in attacks across Iraq
AFP - 3 hours ago
* Iraq court orders Hezbollah commander freed
NOW LEBANON - 7 hours ago
* Bomb planted on minibus kills 2 in Baghdad
Arizona Daily Star - 9 hours ago

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.minnpost.com/christian-sc...kurdish-region

Iraq's unity tested by rising tensions over oil-rich Kurdish region
By Jane Arraf, Christian Science Monitor | 09:00 am

In the capital of the Kurdish region, a gleaming new international airport welcomes visitors to a part of the country that is increasingly striking out on its own amid mounting questions over whether a united Iraq will survive.

Unlike Baghdad, foreign visitors landing on one of the ever-growing number of international flights to Erbil need no prior visa. That's just one of the signs of autonomy in Iraqi Kurdistan, the country's most prosperous and secure region.

Newly discovered oil has fueled the prosperity underpinning Kurdistan's boldness. But it has also heightened tensions with Baghdad that have simmered for decades over land and identity. As Iraqi Kurdistan ramps up oil production that officials say could surpass Libya's output by 2019, Kurdish leaders have warned they could seek full independence if disputes over oil revenues and power-sharing aren't resolved.

"The Kurds will not live in the shadow of a dictatorial regime," Massoud Barzani, the powerful president of the Kurdish region said in a speech in Erbil Friday. "The right to decide our destiny is a legitimate one and we ask others not to try to take this right from us."

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, head of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, told the Monitor in a recent interview he believes differences between Baghdad and Erbil can be solved.

“We can reach agreement on this,” he said, referring to the wider issue of Iraq’s fragile coalition government and increasingly bitter relations between Kurdish President Barzani and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. “We Iraqis had experiences many times on the brink of civil war — we retreated from that and we came back to dialogue and national unity.”

Not everyone agrees with the president’s assessment, however. Maliki's far-reaching consolidation of power has rankled other regions and even his political allies, with Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr recently visiting Erbil for the first time in a sign of solidarity with the Kurds.
Southern, oil-rich regions also pressing for more control

Nine years after Saddam Hussein was toppled, and two decades after breaking away from Baghdad, Iraqi Kurdistan is far more prosperous and secure than any other part of the country. Security has been maintained by the regional government’s strict controls on its de facto borders, including those ostensibly under the jurisdiction of the central government.

Kurdish support two years ago for Maliki’s coalition government was essential to the Shiite prime minister retaining his post after failing to win a majority of seats. Since then a power-sharing agreement which included the Kurds and the major Sunni political bloc has fallen apart with almost none of the provisions implemented.

Because of the political wrangling, Iraq has no interior or defense minister. Instead Maliki effectively oversees both, as well as an increasing number of intelligence and security services reorganized to fall directly under his command. In a country with some of the world’s biggest oil reserves, a proposed oil law mandating how revenue is shared between the provinces has never reached Parliament for a vote.

“We have to clearly define the oil law,” says Latif Rasheed, senior adviser to President Talabani. “Not only regarding central authorities but regional authorities — this is happening in Kurdistan now; tomorrow it might happen in Basra if it’s not clear.”

In addition to Kurdistan, other regions, including the south — which has seen little benefit from its vast oil reserves — have been pressing for more control. Some local government officials in Basra and Diyala have even raised the prospect of seeking autonomy.

Mr. Barzani, who next to Mr. Maliki has emerged as the most powerful politician in Iraq, has warned that the Kurds could "resort to other decisions" if the prime minister does not follow through on a power-sharing agreement. Barzani's comments are widely seen as an implied threat to seek independence.
Legacy of Saddam's genocidal campaign

The legacy of Saddam Hussein’s military campaigns against the Kurds in the 1970s and 1980s has rekindled fears in Iraqi Kurdistan that a central government with unchecked powers could again pose a threat. That worry has been heightened by the withdrawal of US troops that served as a buffer between Erbil and Baghdad.

American protection in the form of a no-fly zone in 1991 created the semi-autonomous Kurdish region after the Kurds rose up against Mr. Hussein's weakened regime when he was driven out of Kuwait. Deeply traumatized by Saddam’s genocidal campaign, two decades later Kurdish leaders have raised concerns in Washington over Iraq’s purchase of American F-16 fighter jets.

“It’s normal for Iraq to have an army, to have advanced weaponry but the concept of against whom that would be used this is what worries us,” says Falah Mustafa, the Kurdish regional government’s de facto foreign minister. “When we have worries about the nature of that army and the loyalty of that army we have all the right to be afraid because planes have been used against Kurdish people ... so our tragic history tells us to be careful.”

Kurdish officials are adamant that they won’t seek the breakup of Iraq but many seem prepared for the possibility that Sunni-Shiite tension could splinter the country on its own.

Feeding into Iraq’s sectarian tensions, Sunni vice president Tariq al-Hashemi, wanted on terrorism charges, was given refuge in Iraqi Kurdistan and then allowed by the Kurdish government to leave the country, despite a no-travel order. He is now being tried in absentia in Baghdad.

As Kurdish political and economic power grows, ties with the rest of Iraq weaken. Most younger Kurds don’t speak Arabic and few feel a strong connection to the rest of the country.

“What is not independent about Kurdistan today?” says one Kurdish official speaking on condition of anonymity. “The fact that we get our money from Baghdad — that’s the only thing that’s left.”
Kurdish ties with Turkey improve

Kurds are looking at the possibility of replacing that revenue from an unlikely source. Opposition from powerful Turkey has been one of the main reasons the Kurds have not sought more autonomy. But as Baghdad’s relations with Ankara have soured over accusations of Turkish interference in Iraqi affairs, Erbil's ties with Turkey have improved dramatically.

Kurdish officials maintain they are discussing with Turkey plans to build crude oil and natural gas pipelines that would carry fuel directly from Iraqi Kurdistan to the neighboring country.

Talabani, who last month hosted Baghdad’s first Arab League summit in more than 20 years, maintains that it would be unrealistic for Kurds to push for independence despite calls by the younger generation to seek it.

The older Kurdish political elite spent years as mountain fighters followed by years in exile but Talabani says that for all Kurds in the region seeking control over their destiny, that era is over.

“Armed struggle is past — now we are in a parliamentarian struggle ... we are always telling this to our [Kurdish] brothers in Turkey to understand the spirit of a new era," he says. "This is not the time of partisan war or armed struggle. Look to the countries that use popular struggle; even they get freedom from dictatorship from other places, so through this kind of struggle people can achieve their goals.”

2 million barrels per day by 2019

The dispute over oil — potentially worth billions of dollars as new fields come on stream in Iraqi Kurdistan — is entangled in the wider issue of land, towns, and cities claimed by both the Iraqi and Kurdish governments — including the disputed city of Kirkuk. Kurds claim oil-rich Kirkuk as their historic capital, as do the Turkmen and other groups. Tens of thousands of non-Arabs were expelled from that city during Hussein’s campaign to Arabize the country.

“There are a number of issues that have to be sorted out — one is the disputed territories, which I think is much more serious than the oil,” says Mr. Rasheed, the Iraqi president’s adviser.

Oil though has become the driving force behind Kurdish aspirations. Since Barzani turned the tap on the first oil well in the Taq Taq field three years ago, Kurdish officials expect production to rise to 500,000 barrels per day in the next 1-1/2 years. They say it could reach 2 million barrels per day by 2019 — a higher output than oil producers such as Libya.

Reflecting the rising tension, the Kurdish government in April shut off oil exports bound for the Iraqi government pipeline to Turkey. Foreign companies have cut back production and are selling the remaining fuel within Iraqi Kurdistan — a move that contravenes long-standing agreement under which oil revenue is distributed by Baghdad. The companies and Kurdish authorities say it’s a necessary step to recover their costs after months of not being paid under existing agreements with the central government.

For many Iraqi Kurds, the question is whether the autonomy they have gained is enough or whether they should aim for more and risk losing it.

“It’s a tough one for any Kurd to balance their natural desire for any independence, which every Kurd has deep down, even Jalal Talabani, with a reality that puts what we have today in danger,” says Qubad Talabani, the Kurdish government’s representative in Washington and the president’s son. “I think that’s what every Kurd grapples with — what their heart tells them and what their head tells them.”

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://communities.washingtontimes.c...rough-silence/

Losing war on drugs and gangs through silence
Monday, May 7, 2012 - Middle Class Guy by Peter Bella

CHICAGO, May 7, 2012 — This is the third in a series of articles (here and here) on street gangs and drug lords. Associated Press reported the dangers of reporting on drug cartels in Mexico. Journalists and photographers are being brutally tortured and murdered just for doing their jobs.

Reporters and photographers are trying and dying to get stories out.

The American media is relatively mute on the menace of major street gangs and drug lords in our cities.

The media reports the body count or the numbers of wounded. They do not report on the people who lead criminal entities. There is no in depth reporting on the organizations, their structure, hierarchy, or leadership. They report on gangs and drug cartels as if they were amorphous faceless organizations.

The war on drugs and the ever-evolving war on gangs are not failing for the disingenuous reasons you are led to believe. The academics, progressives and libertarians, profiteers in the rehab industry, race baiters, experts with no expertise, and of course politicians who will say anything are all lying to the media and American public.

The given reasons for failures are distortions, fabrications, or outright lies. When people have no clue, they must prove they are intelligent, justify their expertise and grant money, and have a need to be smarter than everyone else. They make stuff up.

The wars on drugs and gang violence were lost for two reasons: metrics and politics.

Whenever you fight a war you need some type of metric to determine results. In war it is body counts, enemy casualties, POWs, and real estate taken and held. In law enforcement, unfortunately, it is heads. Heads are arrests. The more heads the more successful the war. This was really wrong and narrow.

When you are forced to measure success by heads you only get the little guys to generate numbers. The small dealers and middlemen are the soldiers of the drug trade. You do not get the major distributors, financiers, importers, or cartel leaders. You rarely get Mr. Big.

The same holds true for street gangs. The leadership hierarchy rarely gets knocked out.

One of the best tools law enforcement has to destroy organized criminal entities is the long-term investigation. Long-term investigations can take years or even decades to come to fruition. When they do, the leadership hierarchy falls like dominos and the organizations are thrown into chaos, severely weakened or crumble. These investigations do not generate a regular stream of numbers.

It is hard to justify spending millions or billions of dollars for comparatively small results, even though taking down the leadership has major consequences for drug and major gangs organizations. Just like it did for traditional organized crime.

Politicians and bureaucrats wanted to see a bang for all the bucks they spend. Law enforcement works for and is funded by the bureaucrats and politicians. They gave them what they wanted.

The drug business is willing to lose large quantities of product as the cost of doing business. For every kilo they lose an exponential amount gets through. Dope is cheap to manufacture, especially in third world countries. The same holds true for people. For every one arrested there are more to take their place.

Street gangs are ever evolving. Like traditional organized crime, they are always recruiting young people. They start them out in petty crime, and bring them through the ranks.

The political reason is the most dangerous. In the 1960s there was billions of dollars anti-poverty money floating around. Some of it was targeted at gang prevention. Social workers, community organizations, and clergy allied themselves with the gangs and the politicians to grab that money.

The gangs got larger and stronger while getting credibility and immunity for being part of “social change”. Politicians were eager and greedy to get that money and spread it around. It made them look magnanimous. The major gangs who directly or indirectly received these funds were immune from most law enforcement activity.

The gangs also became politicized. In Chicago, for example, it is not unusual for the Democrats to utilize street gangs to get out the vote or work the streets up to and on Election Day. Some gang leaders turned to social or political activism as a ploy for credibility and immunity. It worked very well.

The ministers, social workers, community organizers, national organizations, racial or ethnic groups, even reporters, columnists, enable and abet these criminal organizations. They portray them as victims of society instead of people who made free conscious choices to become criminals.

The media has ignored this.

Editors and publishers are afraid of any backlash from the so-called community, which are usually a vocal minority of politically or socially connected whiners and complainers. They are doing a great disservice to the larger public they claim to serve.

In Mexico reporters are literally dying to get the stories out. In America they are suppressing the stories to appear noble, racially and ethnically sensitive, and politically palatable.

Children are still being murdered in our streets. Poison is still being sold. The gangs are growing in strength and power. The drug lords are getting wealthier.

In Mexico journalists are being murdered for reporting the truth. Something is very wrong in American journalism.

Peter V. Bella is a retired Chicago Police Officer, freelance journalist and photojournalist, cook, and raconteur. He likes to be the irreverent sharp stick that pokes, prods, and annoys. His opinions are his and his alone.

pvbella@gmail.com

[Be Well]

I assume that the "drug war" is not being fought seriously because banks and politicians make a lot of money from it. The easy solution (well, easy to think up) is to execute all drug dealers; allow idiots to grow their own weed (NO SELLING/GIVING AWAY) and close the freaking G.D. border to illegals.

When the collapse comes, the executing drug dealers will be much easier to implement.