#trust votelive news | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bountyofbeads · 5 years

Text

As Kurds Tracked ISIS Leader, U.S. Withdrawal Threw Raid Into Turmoil https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/world/middleeast/isis-kurds-baghdadi.html

PLEASE READ 📖 AND SHARE THIS INCREDIBLE IN-DEPTH REPORTING by Ben Hubbard @NYTBen and Eric Schmitt @EricSchmittNYT on the relationship between the SDF (Kurds) and the U.S. Military in their HUNT for ISIS leadership and its members. There's NO WAY we COULD HAVE SUCCEEDED in the FIGHT, CAPTURE and KILLING of al-Baghdadi & other members. Their DEDICATION and DANGEROUS work SAVED AMERICAN LIVES and Trump SMASHED that 5-year relationship to SMITHEREENS after ONE CALL with Erdogan throwing hundreds of thousands of LIVES and policy into CHAOS.

The SADDEST part of the VICTORY in the killing al-Baghdadi is that Trump CAN'T even SHARE a small SLIVER of that VICTORY with our SDF partners, who have SACRIFICED their BLOOD, SWEAT and TEARS, because it would TAKE the SPOTLIGHT off of Trump.

#KurdsBetrayedByTrump #ImpeachTrumpNow

"Kurdish leaders say they hoped five years of cooperation could have ended with more respect for their sacrifices.

“All of a sudden you give it up and give it to the regime and Russia and Iran,” said Mr. Can, the S.D.F. adviser. “After that, who is going to trust the Americans and help them? No one.”

Despite their anger, the Kurds have not cut ties with the United States."

As Kurds Tracked ISIS Leader, U.S. Withdrawal Threw Raid Into Turmoil

Trump’s decision to pull troops from Syria upended a 5-year alliance and threw the plans against al-Baghdadi into disarray

By Ben Hubbard and Eric Schmitt | Published October 28, 2019 Updated October 29, 2019, 5:38 AM ET | New York Times | Posted October 29, 2019 |

QAMISHLI, Syria — When the international manhunt for Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State, zoomed in on a village in northwestern Syria, the United States turned to its local allies to help track the world’s most-wanted terrorist.

The American allies, a Kurdish-led force that had partnered with the United States to fight ISIS, sent spies to watch his isolated villa. To confirm it was him, they stole a pair of Mr. al-Baghdadi’s underwear — long, white boxers — and obtained a blood sample, both for DNA testing, the force’s commander, Mazlum Abdi, said in a phone interview on Monday.

American officials would not discuss the specific intelligence provided by the Kurds, but said that their role in finding Mr. al-Baghdadi was essential — more so than all other countries combined, as one put it — contradicting President Trump’s assertion over the weekend that the United States “got very little help.”

Yet even as the Syrian Kurdish fighters were risking their lives in the hunt that led to Mr. al-Baghdadi’s death this weekend, Mr. Trump abruptly shattered America’s five-year partnership with them.

He decided to withdraw American troops from northern Syria, leaving the Kurds suddenly vulnerable to an invasion by Turkey and feeling stung by an American betrayal, and throwing the Baghdadi operation into turmoil as the Kurds suspended their security cooperation with the United States to rush off and defend their land.

“We thought that America would keep its promises,” said Mr. Abdi, the commander of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces. “But in the end there was weakness — and disappointment.”

The United States joined forces with Mr. Abdi’s group five years ago, when it was looking for skilled Syrian fighters who could effectively serve as ground troops for an American air campaign against the Islamic State. As the alliance matured, the United States armed and trained Kurdish-led fighters and pressed them to shift their priorities to serve American interests.

The United States pushed them to take the fight against ISIS to areas outside their traditional homeland, costing them many lives. It also discouraged them from negotiating a deal with the Syrian government, telling them that sticking with the United States would win them a stake in the country’s future.

“We said being associated with the U.S. coalition would put you in a position where you would be represented,” Gen. Joseph L. Votel, former head of the military’s Special Operations and Central Commands, said in a telephone interview. “You’d be on the winning team.”

In an effort to placate Turkey, the United States convinced the Kurds to destroy their defenses, softening them up for a Turkish attack. It also sought their help in the United States’ regional struggle with Iran, a cause they had little stake in.

For the Kurdish-led forces, the sting was not that American troops were withdrawing from Syria, which they knew would happen eventually. It was that after five years of their fighting and dying alongside American troops in the battle against ISIS Mr. Trump pulled the plug so suddenly that they were ill-prepared for what came next.

“It was a stab in the back,” said Nesrin Abdullah, a spokeswoman for the Kurdish women’s militia. “The Americans kept saying they would not allow the Turks to enter, but in the end that’s what happened.”

Part of the problem was that American officials sent conflicting messages about how long the United States would stay in Syria and what it was doing there.

Obama administration officials told their Kurdish allies that the partnership would last through the defeat of ISIS, but that the United States would help them play a role in Syria’s future. That message grew even more muddled over the last year, as Mr. Trump vowed to withdraw American troops while other officials in his administration said they would stay until Iran had left the country and there was a political solution in Damascus.

While there may not have been explicit promises, to the Kurds these messages pointed to a continued American presence. In fact, even during the weeks before the withdrawal, American diplomats were advising them on programs to improve governance and security — topics that did not suggest an imminent rush for the exit.

The swift dissolution of a powerful partnership, reconstructed here through more than a dozen interviews with United States and Kurdish officials, pained not only Syria’s Kurds but also Americans who worked with them to defeat the Islamic State.

If the battles served an American agenda, it was the Kurds who died for it. Fewer than a dozen Americans were killed during the anti-ISIS campaign in Syria, compared with 11,000 from the Kurdish-led forces.

“We outsourced the dying to them,” said a United States official who worked in Syria, who was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue. “And in the end, we asked them to surrender everything they worked for: the security of their heartland, their political project, and their people. We’re ensuring that those 11,000 died for nothing.”

AN UNLIKELY PARTNERSHIP

The partnership began by chance during a crisis.

By October 2014, three years into Syria’s civil war, the Islamic State had seized territory the size of Britain straddling the Syria-Iraq border. When ISIS set its sights on the poor Kurdish town of Kobani, the United States jumped in, working with Kurdish fighters while launching hundreds of airstrikes on ISIS tanks, artillery pieces and armored vehicles.

Polat Can, a senior adviser to the Kurdish militia, said that a joint operations room in northern Iraq was so crowded that Kurdish and American soldiers slept together on the floor. He recalled the Americans’ joy whenever they blew up an ISIS target.

The partnership worked. The militants sustained their first major defeat in Syria, and the United States found a reliable Syrian partner.

When the conflict in Syria began in 2011 with an uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, the United States tried to back Arab rebels to fight the government, and later to battle the Islamic State. But those efforts failed because of rebel corruption and infighting, defections to extremist groups or lack of American follow-up.

Kobani introduced the United States to a new force, a Kurdish militia called the People’s Protection Units, which American officials found to be skilled, disciplined and loyal to a communist-inspired ideology that allowed no sympathy for Islamists.

It had come together early in the war to protect Syria’s Kurds, a long-marginalized ethnic minority concentrated in the country’s northeast. But the militia’s roots in the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a guerrilla movement that has been fighting an insurgency in Turkey for decades, complicated the new partnership.

Turkey and the United States consider the group a terrorist organization, but in 2014, American officials were so desperate for allies against ISIS that they overlooked those ties. Turkey did not, and its animosity to the Kurdish fighters in Syria would grow over the coming years.

Turkey took particular offense at Mr. Abdi, the Syrian commander who became the Americans’ main interlocutor. Mr. Abdi, also known as Mazlum Kobani, had joined the Kurdish guerrillas during university and become a protégé of the movement’s founder, Abdullah Ocalan. Officials in Turkey and Iraq say Mr. Abdi worked for the group for decades and led a special operations unit that attacked Turkish soldiers.

But the Americans found him to be a strategic thinker who kept his promises. A soft-spoken man in his late 40s, Mr. Abdi had short brown hair, a clean-shaven face and a preference for military fatigues and black sneakers. The partnership grew, with the United States providing intelligence, air cover and logistical help as Mr. Abdi’s forces routed ISIS from towns across northern Syria.

“The American military saw what could be done with local, indigenous fighters who had a will to fight hard, take instruction and were trusted not to shoot U.S. forces in the back,” said Nicholas A. Heras, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security who has advised Kurdish forces in Syria.

As Mr. Abdi’s forces advanced, they allied with Christian, Arab and other militias, rebranding themselves in 2015 as the Syrian Democratic Forces, or S.D.F.

After the group’s victories in northern Syria, the United States wanted it to pivot south, toward the predominantly Arab provinces of Raqqa and Deir al-Zour, where the Islamic State was strongest. Some Kurds resisted, asking why their youth should die for Arab lands and questioning the United States’ commitment to their people.

But their leader decided that leaving ISIS anywhere in Syria would be a threat, and top American officials reassured the Kurds that the United States would secure them a place in the country’s future.

“There were people saying, ‘Why are you going to Raqqa?” said Nasir Haj Mansour, a Syrian Kurdish researcher who is close to the S.D.F. leadership. “I told them: ‘If we don’t fight ISIS there, it will come fight us here. Now we have an opportunity with the international coalition to get rid of this organization for the good of everyone.'”

United States military assistance increased. American advisers taught Syrian fighters infantry tactics, first aid, bomb defusal and reconnaissance skills for American airstrikes.

In October 2017, backed by American jets and armed with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, they seized Raqqa, the ISIS capital, where they embarrassed their American partners and angered Turkey by unfurling a banner of Mr. Ocalan, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party founder, in a downtown square.

In the areas it liberated, the S.D.F. established local councils that followed its philosophy of community rule and gender equality.

American officials never endorsed the Kurds’ political project but made repeated if vague promises to help secure their political future.

“Truthfully, we didn’t have a solid plan for how it would end,” Gen. Tony Thomas, a former head of the military’s Special Operations Command, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” last week. “But they believed that they would be part of the fabric of the future of Syria.”

MIXED SIGNALS

Last December, Mr. Trump suddenly announced on Twitter that he was withdrawing the roughly 2,000 American troops in Syria because ISIS had been defeated, calling that “my only reason for being there.”

The decision baffled the Kurdish-led forces, who were still locked in fierce battles with the Islamic State and would not rout the group from its last patch of territory for another three months.

The withdrawal decision angered Mr. Trump’s Republican allies in Congress and even members of his administration.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis resigned, as did Brett McGurk, the presidential envoy for the fight against the Islamic State, who both considered it a mistake. Since Mr. Trump took office, top administration officials had said the American presence in Syria was not just to ensure the end of the militants but also to press for political change in Damascus and push out Iran.

The Kurds wanted continued United States help against ISIS and sought political change in Damascus, but resisted joining the struggle with Iran, especially given the United States’ shaky commitment, Kurdish officials said.

Mr. Trump compromised, ordering the military to reduce the American presence to 1,000 troops, while United States officials hinted at a longer-term presence.

Throughout the war, the Kurds had never joined the rebels against Mr. al-Assad’s government, and kept lines open in case they needed to reconcile. But Trump administration officials told them American partners should not talk to American enemies, Mr. Abdi has said, so they froze talks with the Syrian government.

When Turkey threatened to invade northern Syria to sweep Kurdish forces off its border, the United States carried out a plan that required the Kurds to blow up tunnels, destroy trenches and dig up ammunition caches they had put in place to defend against a possible Turkish attack.

Many Kurds feared the plan would leave them vulnerable, but Mr. Abdi carried it out, convinced that the United States would ensure his people’s safety.

The partnership appeared to be solid: The United States was seeking Kurdish help for the most sensitive of missions, the hunt for Mr. al-Baghdadi.

After American officials determined that he could be in Idlib Province, in northeastern Syria, the Kurdish-led force sent spies who watched the house, determined how many rooms it had and who was in it, and found a tunnel underneath, according to Mr. Abdi and a Kurdish intelligence officer. During the raid, Mr. al-Baghdadi fled into the tunnel with three children and blew himself up, killing them all.

The Kurdish spies also stole the terrorist leader’s boxer shorts and obtained a blood sample through what Mr. Abdi called “intelligence work.”

DNA testing confirmed that Mr. al-Baghdadi was inside, and Mr. Abdi’s spies kept watch while the United States planned the raid to get him.

‘YOU TRICKED US!’

They were still waiting on Oct. 6, when Mr. Trump announced after a phone call with Mr. Erdogan that he was removing American troops from the path of a Turkish attack on the United States’ Syrian partners.

The ensuing fighting killed more than 200 people and delayed the raid on Mr. al-Baghdadi’s villa as Mr. Abdi’s forces shifted their focus to fighting the Turks.

Some American officials watched in dread as Turkey attacked the very zone where the Kurds had removed their defenses.

“You tricked us!” Mr. Abdi, the Kurdish commander, yelled at American officials.

Kurdish officials rushed to the Syrian government for help, but instead of bargaining from a position of strength, they now began talks under fire.

The feeling of betrayal consumed not just the Kurds but much of northeastern Syria, where residents who had felt protected by the United States feared Turkey and Mr. al-Assad’s troops.

“The Americans betrayed the Kurds,” Farhan Mohammed, a Kurdish ice merchant, shouted as an American convoy passed his shop on its way out of Syria last week. His friends yelled insults and flashed the thumbs-down.

“Our whole future is determined by Trump’s tweets,” he said.

Mr. Trump has stood by his decision.

“We never agreed to protect the Kurds for the rest of their lives,” he said this month adding that a small contingent of troops would remain in Syria’s east at the request of Israel and Jordan and to “protect the oil.”

Other than that, he said, there was “no reason” to remain.

“Perhaps it’s time for the Kurds to start heading to the oil region,” he said in a tweet on Thursday, seeming to suggest another mission for the Kurds.

But the Kurds are busy resisting further Turkish advances that they fear could amount to the ethnic cleansing of Kurds from their homeland.

Kurdish leaders say they hoped five years of cooperation could have ended with more respect for their sacrifices.

“All of a sudden you give it up and give it to the regime and Russia and Iran,” said Mr. Can, the S.D.F. adviser. “After that, who is going to trust the Americans and help them? No one.”

Despite their anger, the Kurds have not cut ties with the United States.

Mr. Abdi, their leader, has spoken twice by phone with Mr. Trump and there is talk of his visiting Washington. And the Kurds have not rejected Mr. Trump’s suggestion that some Kurdish fighters remain in eastern Syria to protect the oil facilities.

But the trust in the White House is gone.

“The situation has changed,” said Ilman Ehmed, a top Kurdish official who was in Washington last week to speak with other American officials about continuing cooperation. “But we still trust the fact that we have many friends among the American people. In the House of Representatives. The Senate. And military leaders. I trust their support.”

*********

1 note · View note

khalilhumam · 4 years

Text

Retired military endorsements erode public trust in the military

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/retired-military-endorsements-erode-public-trust-in-the-military/

Retired military endorsements erode public trust in the military

By Thomas Burke, Eric Reid As the events of the past few weeks bring into sharp relief, even the mere hint of a partisan military risks eroding the public’s trust in that institution, and may ultimately undermine U.S. national security. The relationship between these concerns and retired military endorsements of presidential candidates is that the electorate often struggles to distinguish between the personal views of retirees and those on active duty. That confusion is arguably what presidential campaigns depend upon. As James Golby, Peter Feaver, and Kyle Dropp argue, while retirees may believe they are “drawing fine distinctions” between their personal views and those of the active-duty force, “the truth is that no one, especially not the campaigns, is very interested in their views as private citizens.” What is of interest to campaigns is cloaking their candidates in the favorable reputation and high esteem with which the military is held, with retiree endorsements intended to serve as proxies for the unspoken views of the military writ large. This presents a dilemma: disentangling the views of retirees from the active military is a “near impossibility,” thereby exposing the military to charges of partisanship where none may exist. For its part, the military has long resisted any efforts to politicize its active-duty ranks. Both standing Department of Defense policy and more recent statements by Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and retired General Joseph Votel, among many others, stress the importance of the military remaining non-partisan. Notwithstanding these efforts, both major political parties and, indeed, sitting presidents routinely attempt to use the military to “score political points” or to otherwise shore up their commander-in-chief bona fides. The logic for presidential campaigns to solicit the military retiree endorsements is no different, but the consequences to the active military’s nonpartisan reputation remain the same. However, in the current state of narrow electoral margins, neither political party believes it can risk unilateral “disarmament” with respect to courting retiree endorsements. The result is a form of mutually assured negation where no one campaign substantively benefits or, as Golby, Feaver, and Dropp suggest, the competing endorsements from both campaigns effectively “cancel each other out.” This prompts the obvious questions: If military retiree endorsements fail to move the electoral needle, especially when both parties engage in this practice, then why do it? Why risk draining the reservoir of public trust or otherwise branding as partisan one of the few remaining institutions in which the public has expressed high confidence? Mindful of these risks to the active military’s nonpartisan image, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, once argued that “for retired senior officers to take leading and vocal roles as clearly partisan figures is a violation of the ethos and professionalism of apolitical military service.” His successor as chairman, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, was no less blunt when he reminded retired military leaders that “they have an obligation to uphold our apolitical traditions,” and that those who engage in partisan politics make the job of those “who continue to serve in uniform and are accountable for our security . . . more complicated.” To be clear, neither suggested military retirees should not participate in the political process. Throughout American history, former senior military officers—from George Washington and Ulysses Grant to Dwight Eisenhower—rose to the highest political office in the land, the presidency. But in each of those instances and many others in which military retirees sought political office, they and the American people understood that their public status had changed from a once singularly military identity to a more political and partisan one. Similarly, few would discourage military retirees from opining on policies about which they are passionate; such is their obligation and duty as American citizens. But as Mullen was quick to note, “This is not about the right to speak out. It is about the disappointing lack of judgment in doing so for crass partisan purposes.” And regardless of the intensity with which senior military retirees intervene on behalf of a candidate, each endorsement contributes to the conflation that implicates the military in partisan behavior. This conflation poses another risk: a president and his or her political appointees may view the military as “disloyal” to the party in power. Such political distrust may incentivize the perverse practice of “general shopping” for those of the “correct” partisan persuasion, and the potential mass firing of general officers from previous administration or those closely associated with retired endorsers of the losing candidate. The danger to national security, David Barno and Nora Bensahel contend, is straightforward: “If (senior military leader) advice comes to be seen as compromised by partisanship, the nation’s elected leaders will not be able to objectively assess their military options, and their life-and-death decisions about when and how to use force will suffer immeasurably as a result.” This potential outcome increases in probability the more widely partisan military retirees become. For senior military retirees, the message is simple: be mindful of the consequences political endorsement may have on the military’s non-partisan image. With history as a guide, both parties are certain to solicit extensive retiree endorsements in the final months of the highly charged 2020 presidential election. To help preserve the public’s “unshakeable confidence that the military belongs to the nation as a whole—that its sole allegiance is to the U.S. Constitution and not to any political party, group, or candidate,” when the campaigns come calling, retired military leaders should respectfully decline.

0 notes

auntboldire · 5 years

Link

0 notes

lazy-native · 5 years

Link

General Votel informed Mazloum that he had received a letter from the White House two hours earlier, ordering the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria. Votel did not know the details, he told Mazloum, but he had wanted the Kurd to hear it from him rather than from the media. “It was a surprise,” Mazloum told me, at his forward operating base. “We didn’t believe that in the middle of the battle, when we’re fighting against isis, when we’re fighting against all the others, that our partners would abandon us. To be honest, the painful point for us was that America is a great country. How could a great country behave like that and abandon its allies in the middle of the fight? And, from that time on, how are people going to trust in the Americans or partner with them in any fight in the future?”

0 notes

politicalprof · 7 years

Quote

We must always be on the lookout for opportunities to seize the initiative to support our objectives and goals. Pursuing opportunities means that we are proactive — we don’t wait for problems to be presented; we look for ways to get ahead of them. It also means that we have to become comfortable with transparency and flat communications — our ability to understand our AOR better than anyone else gives us the advantage of knowing where opportunities exist. Pursuing opportunities also means we have to take risk — by delegating authority and responsibility to the right level, by trusting our partners and being willing to trust our best instincts in order to move faster than our adversaries.

General Joseph Votel, Commander of US Central Command (covering Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and other important places), explaining how to win against US adversaries there. Or, perhaps, outlining the rollout of a new insurance plan. It’s really hard to tell.

14 notes · View notes

dipulb3 · 4 years

Text

Retired generals pull support for Trump nominee after offensive tweets uncovered by Appradab

New Post has been published on https://appradab.com/retired-generals-pull-support-for-trump-nominee-after-offensive-tweets-uncovered-by-appradab-2/

Retired generals pull support for Trump nominee after offensive tweets uncovered by Appradab

Gen. Joseph Votel and Gen. Tony Thomas had both signed a letter of support for retired Army Brig. Gen. Anthony Tata, a frequent guest on Fox News and ardent defender of the President, to become the third highest official at the Pentagon before news of his controversial comments surfaced, according to a draft copy obtained by Appradab.

Now, both generals say they can no longer back Tata for the job.

“I originally signed the letter so I supported his nomination but the newly gained knowledge of these tweets makes it impossible to continue my support,” Votel, a former commander of US Central Command and Special Operations Command, told Appradab Thursday.

Thomas, who is also a former SOCOM commander, expressed a similar view.

“I supported him when he reached out but found out about the tweets much later and I no longer support him,” he said.

The Wall Street Journal first reported that the generals had withdrawn their support.

The letter signed by Votel, Thomas and more than 30 former senior military officers, former State Department personnel and other former national security officials, is dated May 29, roughly two weeks before Appradab reported on several conspiratorial and Islamophobic social media posts from Tata’s past. It is addressed to the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which will ultimately decide if Tata’s nomination process moves forward.

“While we may differ in outlook and on matters of policy or law on which we focus, we write today with one voice, in united support of the nomination of Brigadier General Anthony J. Tata (U.S. Army, Retired) as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy,” it reads.

“Throughout his decades of distinguished public service, Tony has earned widespread respect for his capable leadership, unwavering dedication and professionalism, calm demeanor, quick intelligence, and bipartisan solutions-oriented approach. We believe he is the right person at the right time for what is always a very critical post, but perhaps never more critical than now,” the letter adds.

However, some of that support has eroded after several of Tata’s previous controversial comments were unearthed by Appradab.

In several tweets from 2018, Tata said that Islam was the “most oppressive violent religion I know of” and claimed Obama was a “terrorist leader” who did more to harm the US “and help Islamic countries than any president in history.” Following the publication of the story, Tata deleted several of his tweets, screenshots of which were captured by Appradab’s KFile.

Tata, in one radio appearance, speculated the Iran deal was born out of Obama’s “Islamic roots” in an attempt “to help Iranians and the greater Islamic state crush Israel.”

He also lashed out at prominent Democratic politicians and the media on Twitter, such as California Reps. Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi, who he said “have always been the same violent extremists.” In another tweet, Tata called Waters a “vicious race baiting racist.” He used a hashtag in a different tweet that insinuated Appradab anchor Don Lemon was on “the liberal plantation.”

If confirmed by the Senate, Tata would oversee the Defense Department’s policy shop, including its national security and defense strategy, nuclear deterrence and missile defense policy, and security cooperation plans and policies. The policy chief also closely advises the secretary of defense on national security and supports the Department of Defense’s program and budget decisions.

But the prospects of that happening took a serious hit after Appradab’s report last week, as several Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee took the rare step of voicing opposition to Tata’s nomination prior to a confirmation hearing.

The panel’s chairman, Sen. James Inhofe, told Appradab on Tuesday that reports about Tata’s controversial comments “got our attention.”

“I’ve heard the same thing you’ve heard and for that reason we’re going to make a decision,” the Oklahoma Republican told Appradab when asked what his plans were for moving forward with the confirmation process and hearings for Tata.

“I don’t want to say it disqualifies him and we’re not going to consider him, but I’m saying that got our attention,” he said.

Senior officials hope his nomination will be pulled

Several defense officials tell Appradab that senior officials at the Pentagon are hopeful that his nomination will be pulled and no confirmation hearing takes place. Officials are banking on Inhofe telling the White House the nomination cannot go forward.

For his part, Tata is “regretful” for the tweets, according to a source familiar with his thinking. The embattled nominee also hopes to have the opportunity to discuss the matter with senators and emphasize his desire to focus on several of the major military challenges currently facing the US, the source said.

Some of the former military and national security officials listed who signed the letter of support told Appradab Thursday that they were concerned by reports about Tata’s comments but did not say whether they still support his nomination.

One of those individuals was retired four-star Gen. Wesley Clark, who said he was completely unaware of Tata’s social media commentary prior to signing the letter and that the posts raise some serious questions that the nominee should have to answer during his confirmation process.

“He’s been nominated for the third highest position at the Pentagon and this is a time where there is particular stress on civil-military relations,” Clark said. “The country needs a professional in that position.” Clark added that Tata needs to show he is mature enough, responsible enough and non-partisan enough to be trusted with that kind of authority.

While Clark acknowledges “it would have been a very tough call” to sign the letter of support if he knew about Tata’s comments beforehand, he told Appradab “I don’t know if he could have persuaded me.”

Still, the former NATO commander noted that his recommendation was based on the positive characteristics Tata displayed while serving in the military, which Clark observed firsthand.

Another signatory of the letter, retired Maj. Gen. James “Spider” Marks, also emphasized Tata’s positive attributes when asked if still supported the nomination.

“I’ve known Tony for decades in peace and war. He’s a bright, incredibly creative, inspirational leader with tons of global experience. His politics never were a part of any of our interactions or my opinion of him as ‘an imperfect man’… a label that I wear as well,” said Marks, who is currently a Appradab military analyst.

0 notes

myeclecticcollectorblazeus · 5 years

Link

WASHINGTON -- U.S. commandos were working alongside Kurdish forces at an outpost in eastern Syria last year when they were attacked by columns of Syrian government tanks and hundreds of troops, including Russian mercenaries. In the next hours, the Americans threw the Pentagon's arsenal at them, including B-52 strategic bombers. The attack was stopped.That operation, in the middle of the U.S.-led campaign against the Islamic State group in Syria, showed the extent to which the U.S. military was willing to protect the Syrian Kurds, its main ally on the ground.But now, with the White House revoking protection for these Kurdish fighters, some of the Special Forces officers who battled alongside the Kurds say they feel deep remorse at orders to abandon their allies."They trusted us and we broke that trust," one Army officer who has worked alongside the Kurds in northern Syria said last week in a telephone interview. "It's a stain on the American conscience.""I'm ashamed," said another officer who had also served in northern Syria. Both officers spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid reprisals from their chains of command.And the response from the Kurds themselves was just as stark. "The worst thing in military logic and comrades in the trench is betrayal," said Shervan Darwish, an official allied with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces.The next flurry of orders from Washington, as some troops had feared, will pull U.S. troops out of northern Syria altogether. Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper said Sunday that President Donald Trump had ordered the roughly 1,000 U.S. troops in the country's northeast to conduct a "deliberate withdrawal" out of the country in the coming days and weeks.The defense secretary's statement came after comments Friday pushing back on complaints that the United States was betraying allies in Syria -- "We have not abandoned the Kurds" -- even as he acknowledged that his Turkish counterpart had ignored his plea to stop the offensive.Army Special Forces soldiers -- mostly members of the 3rd Special Forces Group -- moved last week to consolidate their positions in the confines of their outposts miles away from the Syrian border, a quiet withdrawal that all but confirmed the United States' capitulation to the Turkish military's offensive to clear Kurdish-held areas of northern Syria.But as the Americans pulled back, the Kurds moved north to try to reinforce their comrades fighting the offensive. The U.S. soldiers could only watch from their sandbag-lined walls. Orders from Washington were simple: Hands off. Let the Kurds fight for themselves.The orders contradicted the U.S. military's strategy in Syria over the last four years, especially when it came to the Kurdish fighters, known as the YPG, who were integral to routing the Islamic State group from northeastern Syria. The Kurds had fought in Manbij, Raqqa and deep into the Euphrates River Valley, hunting the last Islamic State fighters in the group's now defunct physical caliphate. But the Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF, as the Kurdish and their allied Arab fighters on the ground are called, are being left behind.U.S. Special Forces and other troops had built close ties with their Kurdish allies, living on the same dusty compounds, sharing meals and common dangers. They fought side by side, and helped evacuate Kurdish dead and wounded from the battlefield."When they mourn, we mourn with them," Gen. Joseph L. Votel, a former head of the military's Central Command, said Thursday at the Middle East Institute.The Kurdish forces and U.S. military have survived previous strains, including Trump's sudden decision in December to withdraw all U.S. troops from northern Syria, a decision that was later walked back somewhat.This time may be different, and irreversible. "It would seem at this particular point, we've made it very, very hard for them to have a partnership relationship with us because of this recent policy decision," Votel said.As part of security measures the United States brokered to tamp down tensions with Turkish troops, Kurdish forces agreed to pull back from the border, destroy fortifications and return some heavy weapons -- steps meant to show that they posed no threat to Turkish territory, but that later made them more vulnerable when Turkey launched its offensive.Special Forces officers described another recent operation with Kurds that underscored the tenacity of the group. The Americans and the Kurdish troops were searching for a low-level Islamic State leader in northern Syria. It was a difficult mission and unlikely they would find the commander.From his operations center, one U.S. officer watched the Kurds work alongside the Americans on the ground in an almost indistinguishable symmetry. They captured the Islamic State fighter."The SDF's elite counterterrorism units are hardened veterans of the war against ISIS whom the U.S. has seen in action and trust completely," said Nicholas A. Heras, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, who visited the SDF in July to advise them on the Islamic State group, or ISIS.During the battle against ISIS, coordination between the U.S. military and the Syrian Democratic Forces has extended from the highest levels to rank-and-file fighters, according to multiple interviews with SDF fighters and commanders in Syria over the course of the campaign.SDF commanders worked side by side with U.S. military officers in a joint command center in a defunct cement factory near the northern Syrian town of Kobani, where they discussed strategy and planned future operations.The battle of Kobani that began in 2014 gave birth to the United States' ties to the Kurds in northeastern Syria. ISIS fighters, armed with heavy American-made artillery captured from retreating Iraqi army units, surrounded Kobani, a Kurdish city, and entered parts of it.Despite the Obama administration's initial reluctance to offer help, the United States carried out airstrikes against advancing ISIS militants, and its military aircraft dropped ammunition, small arms and medical supplies to replenish the Kurdish combatants.That aid helped turn the tide, the Kurds defeated ISIS, and U.S. commanders realized they had discovered a valuable ally in the fight against the terrorist group.Thousands of SDF fighters received training from the United States in battlefield tactics, reconnaissance and first aid. Reconnaissance teams learned to identify Islamic State locations and transmit them to the command center for the U.S.-led military coalition to plan airstrikes.Visitors to front-line SDF positions often saw Syrian officers with iPads and laptops they used to communicate information to their U.S. colleagues."For the last two years, the coordination was pretty deep," said Mutlu Civiroglu, a Washington-based Kurdish affairs analyst who has spent time in northeastern Syria. "The mutual trust was very high, the mutual confidence, because this collaboration brought enormous results.""They completed each other," he said of the SDF and U.S.-led coalition. "The coalition didn't have boots on the ground, and fighters didn't have air support, so they needed each other."That coordination was critical in many of the big battles against the Islamic State group.To open the battle in one town, SDF fighters were deposited by coalition aircraft behind the Islamic State group's lines. At the start of another battle, U.S. Special Operations forces helped the SDF plot and execute an attack across the Euphrates River.Even after the Islamic State group had lost most of its territory, the United States trained counterterrorism units to do tactical raids on ISIS hideouts and provided them with intelligence needed to plan them.Even in territory far from the front lines with the Islamic State, SDF vehicles often drove before and after U.S. convoys through Syrian towns and SDF fighters provided perimeter security at facilities where U.S. personnel were based.The torturous part of America's on-again, off-again alliance with the Kurds -- one in which the United States has routinely armed the Kurds to fight various regimes it viewed as adversaries -- emerged in 1974, as the Kurds were rebelling against Iraq. Iran and the United States were allies, and the Shah of Iran and Henry Kissinger encouraged the Kurdish rebellion against the Iraqi government. CIA agents were sent to the Iraq-Iran border to help the Kurds.The Kurdish leader Mustafa Barzani did not trust the Shah of Iran, but believed Kissinger when he said that the Kurds would receive help from the Americans.But a year later, the Shah of Iran made a deal with Saddam Hussein on the sidelines of an OPEC meeting: In return for some territorial adjustments along the Iran-Iraq border, the shah agreed to stop support for the Kurds.Kissinger signed off on the plan, the Iraqi military slaughtered thousands of Kurds and the United States stood by. When questioned, Kissinger delivered his now famous explanation: "Covert action," he said, "should not be confused with missionary work."In the fight against ISIS in Syria, Kurdish fighters followed their hard-fought triumph in Kobani by liberating other Kurdish towns. Then the Americans asked their newfound Kurdish allies to go into Arab areas, team up with local militias and reclaim those areas from the Islamic State group.The U.S. military implored the SDF to fight in the Arab areas, and so they advanced, seizing Raqqa and Deir el-Zour, winning but suffering large numbers of casualties.The American-Kurdish military alliance against the Islamic State group in Syria and Iraq "began with us helping them," said Peter W. Galbraith, the former U.S. diplomat who has for years also been a senior adviser to the Kurds in both Syria and Iraq. "But by the end, it was them helping us. They are the ones who recovered the territory that ISIS had taken."This article originally appeared in The New York Times.(C) 2019 The New York Times Company

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/32d2oIA

#Blogger

0 notes

morningusa · 5 years

Link

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

#News #Blogger

0 notes

dragonhawk1959 · 5 years

Text

0 notes

newsintodays-blog · 6 years

Text

Afghanistan says surrendered Islamic State fighters are war prisoners: U.S. general

New Post has been published on http://newsintoday.info/2018/08/08/afghanistan-says-surrendered-islamic-state-fighters-are-war-prisoners-u-s-general/

Afghanistan says surrendered Islamic State fighters are war prisoners: U.S. general

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Afghanistan told the United States that Islamic State fighters who surrendered last week will be treated as prisoners of war, and not honored guests, despite the warm welcome they had initially received, a top U.S. general said on Wednesday.

FILE PHOTO – General Joseph L. Votel, Commander of United States Central Command (CENTCOM) speaks during the Change of Command U.S. Naval Forces Central Command 5th Fleet Combined Maritime Forces ceremony at the U.S. Naval Base in Bahrain, May 6, 2018. REUTERS/Hamad I Mohammed

While pressure has been building for peace talks between the Western-backed government in Kabul and the Taliban insurgency, U.S. officials say Islamic State’s branch in Afghanistan is not part of any reconciliation push and instead must be wiped out.

Even by the bloody standards of the Afghan war, Islamic State has gained an unmatched reputation for brutality, routinely beheading opponents or forcing them to sit on explosives.

But last week, an Afghan governor’s office floated the possibility of amnesty for a large group of Islamic State fighters, including two senior commanders, who gave themselves up after being driven from their strongholds by Taliban insurgents.

U.S. Army General Joseph Votel, head of the U.S. military’s Central Command, said the Afghans acknowledged the surrender, the largest of its kind so far by Islamic State, “could have been handled better.”

“The government of Afghanistan has assured us that these ISIS-K fighters will be treated as war prisoners,” Votel told a news briefing at the Pentagon, using an acronym for the Afghan affiliate of the group.

Votel said that the fighters would be investigated and held to account for any war crimes they committed.

Civilians who fled the last clashes have accused Islamic State fighters of atrocities, giving detailed accounts of women and young girls being taken from their families, raped and, in some cases, murdered.

“They have essentially waged a pretty vicious campaign against the people without regard to civilian casualties,” Votel said.

In another example of Islamic State’s tactics, the group on Saturday claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing on a Shi’ite Muslim mosque in eastern Afghanistan that killed 39 people and wounded at least 80 others.

As the U.S.-backed Afghan army presses Afghan insurgents, the central government in Kabul is also pursuing peace with their main enemy, the Taliban, even declaring a three-day ceasefire in June that saw unarmed Taliban fighters mingling with soldiers on the streets.

Perhaps in that context, local Afghan officials had initially hoped that treating this batch of Islamic State fighters well would entice more of them to surrender.

That, however, was not the approach of the United States or of the central government in Kabul, Votel said.

Although Washington ultimately seeks an Afghan-led peace agreement with the Taliban, Votel said the U.S. and Afghan position on Islamic State was clear: “We’ve all agreed (it’s) an organization that just needs to be destroyed.”

The back-and-forth over Islamic State speaks volumes about confusion as Kabul and the West are trying to find a way to end 17 years of war against insurgents.

U.S. President Donald Trump a year ago reluctantly agreed to an open-ended deployment of U.S. military advisers, trainers and special forces and increased air support for Afghan forces. Roughly 14,000 U.S. troops are deployed in Afghanistan along with 8,000 other coalition forces, according to Pentagon data.

But Trump has proven capable of reversing himself and U.S. officials privately acknowledge a sense of urgency to show that America’s longest war can still bring a degree of stability to Afghanistan. A senior U.S. diplomat met with a Taliban representatives in Doha in July.

Votel acknowledged that the incoming U.S. commander, Army General Scott Miller, would do his own review but predicted no major changes to the war plan approved by Trump last year.

“I can’t predict exactly what General Miller may say in terms of this. But as I’ve commented, my personal view is that the strategy we have in place is the right one,” Votel said.

Reporting by Phil Stewart; editing by Grant McCool

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Source link

0 notes

bountyofbeads · 5 years

Text

The Danger of Abandoning Our Partners

The Syria policy reversal threatens to undo five years’ worth of fighting against ISIS and will severely damage American credibility and reliability.

By Joseph Votel, Elizabeth Dent | Published October 8, 2019 | The Atlantic | Posted October 10, 2019 |

The abrupt policy decision to seemingly abandon our Kurdish partners could not come at a worse time. The decision was made without consulting U.S. allies or senior U.S. military leadership and threatens to affect future partnerships at precisely the time we need them most, given the war-weariness of the American public coupled with ever more sophisticated enemies determined to come after us.

In northeastern Syria, we had one of the most successful partnerships. The Islamic State was using Syria as a sanctuary to support its operations in Iraq and globally, including by hosting and training foreign fighters. We had to go after ISIS quickly and effectively. The answer came in the form of a small band of Kurdish forces pinned up against the Turkish border and fighting for their lives against ISIS militants in the Syrian town of Kobane in 2014.

We had tried many other options first. The U.S. initially worked to partner with moderate Syrian rebel groups, investing $500 million in a train-and-equip program to build their capabilities to fight against ISIS in Syria. That endeavor failed, save for a small force in southeastern Syria near the American al-Tanf base, which began as a U.S. outpost to fight ISIS and remains today as a deterrent against Iran. So we turned to Turkey to identify alternative groups, but the Pentagon found that the force Turkey had trained was simply inadequate and would require tens of thousands of U.S. troops to bolster it in battle. With no public appetite for a full-scale U.S. ground invasion, we were forced to look elsewhere.

I (Joseph Votel) first met General Mazloum Abdi at a base in northern Syria in May 2016. From the start, it was obvious he was not only an impressive and thoughtful man, but a fighter who was clearly thinking about the strategic aspects of the campaign against ISIS and aware of the challenges of fighting a formidable enemy. He could see the long-term perils from the civil war, but recognized that the most immediate threat to his people was ISIS. After a fitful start in Syria, I concluded that we had finally found the right partner who could help us defeat ISIS without getting drawn into the murkier conflict against Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), initially composed of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), was then conceived: a fighting force that eventually grew to 60,000 battle-hardened and determined soldiers. The decision to partner with the YPG, beginning with the fight in Kobane, was made across two administrations and had required years of deliberation and planning, especially given the concerns of our NATO ally Turkey, who regards the SDF as an offshoot of the designated terrorist group the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Eventually, the YPG became the backbone of the fighting force against ISIS in Syria. Without it, President Donald Trump could not have declared the complete defeat of ISIS.

With support from what grew to be the 80-member Coalition to Defeat ISIS, which included air power, advisers on the ground, and equipment, the SDF became a force to be reckoned with and led a string of victories. In August 2016, it liberated the Syrian town of Manbij, which once functioned as a hub for ISIS fighters to cross into Turkey and is believed to be where the attackers who carried out the November 2015 Paris attacks transited. Mindful of the need for credibility as it pushed to liberate Arab-dominated areas, the YPG had succeeded in incorporating Arab units into its structure as a united Arab-Kurd fighting force. That force, the SDF, went on to liberate the so-called capital of the caliphate, Raqqa, and towns in the Middle Euphrates River Valley, culminating in the territorial defeat of ISIS in Baghouz this past March.

Over four years, the SDF freed tens of thousands of square miles and millions of people from the grip of ISIS. Throughout the fight, it sustained nearly 11,000 casualties. By comparison, six U.S. service members, as well as two civilians, have been killed in the anti-ISIS campaign. Key to this effective relationship was mutual trust, constant communication, and clear expectations. The partnership was not without its difficulties. That included working through the December 2018 announcement of our sudden departure and our subsequent agreement with Turkey to pursue a security mechanism for the border areas. But each time, the strong mutual trust built on the ground between our military members and the SDF preserved our momentum. The sudden policy change this week breaks that trust at the most crucial juncture and leaves our partners with very limited options.

It didn’t have to be this way. The U.S. worked endlessly to placate our Turkish allies.

We engaged in countless rounds of negotiations, committing to establishing a security mechanism that included joint patrols in areas of concern to the Turks, and deploying 150 additional U.S. troops to help monitor and enforce the “safe zone.” Yet Ankara repeatedly reneged on its agreements with the U.S., deeming them inadequate and threatening to invade SDF-held areas, despite the presence of U.S. soldiers.

A possible invasion from Turkey against the Kurdish elements of the SDF, coupled with a hasty U.S. departure, now threaten to rapidly destabilize an already fragile security situation in Syria’s northeast, where ISIS’s physical caliphate was only recently defeated. Nearly 2,000 foreign fighters, about 9,000 Iraqi and Syrian fighters, and tens of thousands of ISIS family members are being held in detention facilities and displaced-persons camps in areas under SDF control. What happens if we leave? The SDF has already stated that it will have to fortify defense mechanisms along the Syrian-Turkish border, leaving ISIS detention facilities and encampments with little to no security. This is particularly troubling, given that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed caliph of ISIS, recently called on supporters to break fighters out of these facilities. There have also been violent attacks in the al-Hol refugee camp, where tens of thousands of women and children are housed and where ISIS sympathy runs rampant.

The Pentagon and White House later clarified that the U.S. was not abandoning the Kurds and did not support a Turkish incursion into Syria. But the damage may already be done, because it appears the Turks have taken the shift to signal a green light for an attack in the northeast. This policy abandonment threatens to undo five years’ worth of fighting against ISIS and will severely damage American credibility and reliability in any future fights where we need strong allies.

Trump’s Sickening Betrayal

Geopolitics is a contest of bad ideas. Letting Turkey take control of Kurdish territory falls somewhere between “very bad” and “extremely bad.”

Graeme Wood | Published October 7, 2019 | The Atlantic | Posted October 10, 2019 10:10 AM ET |

The great virtue of Twitter is that it forces users to be concise. One downside is that when an extremely powerful crazy person—the president of the United States, say—uses it, he can sound a bit like the Abrahamic God in one of his more wrathful moments. “If Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!),” Trump thundered today, as House Republicans scrambled to burn offerings in the Rotunda.

The subject of this tweet, Turkey, had just hours before been the unconditional beneficiary of a sickening desertion by the United States. Late last night, the White House issued a statement confirming that the United States would stand by while Turkey asserted control over northern Syria—including territory controlled by the Kurds, who have been integral to the anti–Islamic State coalition. The Kurds were an American ally, but not a natural one: The PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), which runs Kurdish affairs in Syria, fought against Turkey in the 1980s and ’90s and remains cultish in its Maoism. (Whatever Fox News viewers think Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar believe, the PKK actually believes.) Turkey has consistently promised to strangle any Kurdish state before it becomes permanent. Apparently Trump assented to the Turkish position, and in a hurry to extricate America from northern Syria, abandoned the Kurds to the mercies of their most powerful enemy.

Geopolitics is a contest of bad ideas, with winning defined as implementing the least-bad ones. Letting Turkey take control of Kurdish territory falls somewhere between “very bad” and “extremely bad” in this range; the only question is whether the alternatives fell into the rarely visited “shockingly, horrendously bad” portion of the spectrum. To leave the Kurds to Turkey amounts, first of all, to the total betrayal of an American ally, a group whose members have died in the desert by the thousands, so that we Americans didn’t have to revisit our bad dreams of the Iraq War by fighting in large numbers. The Kurds had their own reasons to despise the Islamic State—their ideology is Marxist and atheist, and ISIS would have slaughtered them all—but anyone who prefers Arlington National Cemetery to remain uncrowded owes thanks to the Kurds who died in our soldiers’ place. Letting our allies get annihilated is a fast way to ensure that we never have allies again.

Trump’s advisers (but who can advise Yahweh?) seem to understand this: His Defense Secretary James Mattis resigned in part because he refused to sell American allies downriver; and Eliphaz the Temanite, I mean Senator Lindsey Graham, spoke up this morning to say that if Turkey attacks the Kurds, he will try to sanction it and get it suspended from NATO. The advice seems to have elicited Trump’s threat to “obliterate” Turkey’s economy, and the mysterious, false claim that he had done so before. The complication here, however, is that Trump has saved an American ally (the Kurds) by pledging to devastate, according to his awesome whimsy, another American ally. It may seem odd to refer to Turkey—an autocracy with a theocratic touch—as an ally, but it is literally an ally, in the formal sense that it belongs to NATO, and is therefore in a very elite club, with obligations of mutual defense and neoliberal omertà that the Kurds lack. It is neither simple nor wise to treat that relationship recklessly.

Nor is it possible to implement a foreign policy in Syria without some Turkish cooperation. Recall that when the Islamic State seized Mosul, Turkey had to negotiate for the lives of the dozens of Turkish diplomats kidnapped from its consulate. The terms of that negotiation remain unknown, but we do know that in the next year or so, Turkey and the Islamic State somehow avoided major confrontation, almost as if they had a time-limited armistice. During that time the fight against the Islamic State stalled.

Allies and potential allies will watch this farce of geopolitics and again wonder what an alliance with America is really worth, if it can be flushed away one night and restored the next—or if there’s always the part where Trump says something, then the part where he takes it back. Trump’s signature trait as a real-estate mogul was that a Trump deal was never, ever a deal. His word meant nothing, and if you thought it did, he’d snatch up your money and walk away with it. As president he is no different, and by this afternoon there is not one ally but two who have been reminded never to trust him—to extend him no credit, to assume he’ll reserve the right to rewrite, unilaterally, the terms of your agreement, and force you to accept his new terms. The old diplomatic wisdom was that you should reward your friends and punish your enemies. To act completely undependable, both as an enemy and as an ally, serves no obvious purpose.

Many bad decisions are made in moments of frustration, and the acute reasons for the White House’s frustration are clear from last night’s statement. It remarked on the continued failure of “France, Germany, and other European nations” to repatriate and prosecute their citizens who joined the Islamic State and are now imprisoned by the Kurds. “Turkey will now be responsible for all ISIS fighters in the area,” according to the statement. They include some inmates of al-Hawl refugee camp, swollen with about 70,000 inhabitants. The administration’s anger is wholly justified: Wild-eyed, murderous Frenchmen and Germans are in that camp, and the countries whose passports they carried owe the rest of us (most of all the Syrians and Iraqis whose territory they terrorized) an attempt to prosecute them. Instead the ISIS fighters and sympathizers are kenneled together with victims and, according to all reports, are still killing people and plotting from within the camp. Eventually the people in it will rebel, break out, and get the old jihadist bands back together—maybe in Syria, maybe in Europe, maybe somewhere else.

Unfortunately, to declare with a booming voice from the heavens that Turkey is now in charge does not solve the problem at all. Indeed, the Kurds now know that their efforts to secure the foreign fighters is getting them little respect from the United States or anyone else, and they’re likely to divert their resources away from detainment of terrorists and toward the more pressing matter of not being invaded and killed by Turkey.

The White House’s very brief statement twice mentioned that the United States had finished off the Islamic State’s “territorial ‘Caliphate.’” The triumphal tone is unmistakable: We won, and now we get to go home and leave the Turks to clean up the mess. But we never really won, because the territorial caliphate never constituted more than a part of the mess—and the solution to the mess created, as most political solutions do, a mess of its own. The Syrian war is not over, and leaving it behind won’t make it stop, though abandonment will limit our say over how it continues, and who gets killed or terrorized along the way.

1 note · View note

alamante · 6 years

Link

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s offer of dialogue with Tehran belies a hardening of U.S. policy that intensifies economic and diplomatic pressure but so far stops short of using his military to more aggressively counter Iran and its proxies.

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks about the economy while delivering remarks on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, U.S., July 27, 2018. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

U.S. officials tell Reuters that the goal of Trump’s push is to curb Iranian behavior, which America, its Gulf allies and Israel say has fueled instability in the region through Tehran’s support for militant groups.

Trump has also voiced hope for a stronger agreement with Iran to prevent its pursuit of nuclear weaponry than the 2015 deal between Tehran and world powers which Trump pulled out of in May.

But the U.S. government has not clearly defined its desired end state for its Iran policy or outlined a face-saving path for Iran’s rulers that would allow them to deescalate steadily mounting tensions between Washington and Tehran, experts say.

That has raised concerns of an increasing risk of confrontation. Significantly, Trump has also not articulated what he would do if his policies were to destabilize Tehran, which has been at odds with Washington since Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, or if U.S. pressure were to embolden hardliners.

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani warned on July 22 that hostile U.S. policies could lead to “the mother of all wars.”

Trump responded on Twitter that Iran must never again threaten the United States or it would suffer “consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before.”

Trump significantly softened his tone on Monday, saying he would meet Rouhani without preconditions. Both men are expected to address the annual United Nations gathering of world leaders on the same day in September, according to a tentative list of speakers.

REIMPOSING SANCTIONS

Iran views the United States as acting in bad faith by withdrawing from a deal that it helped negotiate and has long blamed Washington for stoking instability in the Middle East.

Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman on Tuesday said Trump’s offer to negotiate with Tehran contradicts his actions.

“Sanctions and pressures are the exact opposite of dialogue,” Bahram Qasemi was quoted as saying by Fars news agency. “How can Trump prove to the Iranian nation that his comments of last night reflect a true intention for negotiation and have not been expressed for populist gains?” he added.

Trump’s policy is already putting significant pressure on the Iranian economy, although U.S. intelligence suggests that may rally Iranians against the United States and strengthen Iran’s hardline rulers, officials say.

Iran’s currency plumbed new depths on Monday, dropping past 120,000 rials to the dollar, as Iranians brace for Aug. 7 when Washington is due to reimpose a first lot of economic sanctions following Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal.

This includes reimposing sanctions on Iran’s purchases of U.S. dollars as well as its trade in gold and precious metals.

Iran’s oil exports could fall by as much as two-thirds due to the sanctions, straining oil markets.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has strongly supported Trump’s actions, and Israel’s energy minister has said he believes the sanctions could bring Iran to a decision point within months.

FOMENTING UNREST

The Trump administration has also launched an offensive of speeches and online communications meant to foment unrest and help pressure Iran to end its nuclear program and its support of militant groups, according to U.S. officials.

As part of that effort, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on July 22 compared Iran’s leaders to a “mafia” and promised unspecified backing for Iranians unhappy with their government.

Pompeo said the U.S. government was launching a Farsi-language channel on TV, radio, digital and social media platforms. The U.S. government would also help Iranians get around internet censorship.

LAUNCHING ‘ARAB NATO’

The Trump administration is also pushing ahead with a bid to create a new security and political alliance with six Gulf Arab states plus Egypt and Jordan, in part to counter Iran’s expanding influence.

The plan to forge what officials in the White House and Middle East have called an “Arab NATO” of Sunni Muslim allies would likely contribute to tensions with Shi’ite Iran.

But similar initiatives by previous U.S. administrations to develop a more formal alliance with Gulf and Arab allies have failed in the past and it is unclear what, if any, U.S. military involvement there will be in the alliance.

One of the risks of emboldening regional allies, U.S. officials say, is that they could inadvertently trigger a conflict that could draw in the United States.

BUT NO REGIME CHANGE

The tougher U.S. posture on Iran has fueled speculation that Trump is seeking to promote enough unrest to potentially unseat Iran’s rulers.

But U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on July 27 the Trump administration had not instituted a policy of regime change or collapse toward Iran.

“We need them to change their behavior on a number of threats that they can pose with their military, with their secret services, with their surrogates and with their proxies,” Mattis said.

There have been mixed messages from Trump’s administration about the military’s role in confronting Iranian influence. White House National Security Adviser John Bolton linked the U.S military presence in Syria to the “Iranian menace.”

The head of U.S. forces in the Middle East, General Joseph Votel, clarified that the U.S. military’s job in Syria was still strictly battling Islamic State militants, which are not linked to Iran. However, the presence of U.S. and U.S.-backed forces presents a de facto check on Iranian expansion.

Reporting by Phil Stewart in Washington; Additional reporting by Yara Bayoumy, Lesley Wroughton and Roberta Rampton in Washington, Dan Williams in Jerusalem and Michelle Nichols at the United Nations; Editing by Mary Milliken and James Dalgleish

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Source link

The post Where is Trump headed with his tougher policy toward Iran? appeared first on MySourceSpot.

#News

0 notes

theconservativebrief · 6 years

Link

President Donald Trump is desperate to remove thousands of US troops from Syria — and he may be willing to make a big concession to Russia in order to do so.

During a Monday meeting with Jordan’s King Abdullah II, Trump reiterated his long-held desire to bring home roughly 2,000 US troops in Syria, according to CNN.

But what’s alarming is that Trump’s plan to do so could involve exchanging favors with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Consider what Trump reportedly plans to ask the Russian leader when they meet for a July 16 summit in Helsinki: He wants Russia to promise to not attack the small contingent of US-backed fighters in southwest Syria near its border with Jordan, even though pro-regime forces have bombed the area known as Daraa province for the past week, displacing about 45,000 people. If Russia stopped pro-Assad fighters from attacking, though, it would give Trump space to withdraw American troops that ostensibly support anti-government forces.

Trump, in return, wouldn’t impede Russia’s efforts to help Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as he gains further control of southwest Syria. That would permit the Syrian dictator to consolidate even more power, bringing him a step closer to winning his country’s seven-year-long civil war.

But that’s not all: Trump wants Russia to ensure that no more fighting happens in southwest Syria and that Iranian proxies, like Hezbollah, cannot enter the region.

Trump’s reported plan, however, has a few problems.

First, Russia has backed out of several Syria peace deals with the United States before. It’s very hard to trust Moscow’s word that it will help de-escalate violence in Syria, since the Kremlin continues to support Assad — even as he kills his own civilians with chemical weapons. Russia also wreaks havoc of its own and has dropped bombs near US troop positions.

“Trump wants to replicate the disastrous deal with Putin from July 2017, when they agreed on a ‘de-escalation agreement,’” Michael Carpenter, the Pentagon’s top Russia official in President Barack Obama’s administration, tweeted on Friday. “The only side that de-escalated was the anti-Assad opposition, while Russian, Iranian, and Syrian government forces annihilated them.”

And second, Russia and Iran are allies in Syria because of their support for Assad. It’s hard to believe that Russia would all of a sudden work against Iran solely to make a deal with the United States, unless Putin extracts a big concession from Trump.

“Is Trump trying to get Putin to move against the Iranians in Syria?” Martin Indyk, a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, told the New York Times on Thursday. “And if so, what price is he prepared to pay for that?”

A spokesperson for the National Security Council wrote me in an email, “The president believes a better relationship with Russia would be good for both America and Russia, and the President will continue to hold Russia accountable for its malign activities.”

But there might be a slight chance that Putin makes an agreement with Trump along these lines — as long as it favors Russia.

Fred Hof, Obama’s special adviser for a transition in Syria, explained it to me this way: Most of America’s small troop presence amassed in northeast Syria is there to defeat ISIS. The US-led coalition is now working to return the area to some semblance of normalcy — and pro-regime forces don’t like that.

President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin might strike a deal on Syria when they meet in Helsinki on July 16. Steffen Kugler /BPA via Getty Images

“The thing feared most by Assad, Russia, and Iran is the US succeeding in stabilizing northeast Syria following the defeat of ISIS,” Hof told me. “They are terrified it could produce an alternative to Assad. Putin will likely press Trump to abandon northeast Syria, something Trump says he’d like to do anyway.”

Thus, Putin may work to convince other world leaders that Russia will genuinely help out in Syria this time.

“Putin will try to enlist Israel’s [Benjamin] Netanyahu and Jordan’s [King] Abdullah to the cause, promising them and Trump he’ll keep Assad from doing his worst in southwest Syria, where Jordan fears new refugee flows and Israel wants no Iranian-Hezbollah presence,” Hof continued. “Trump may be tempted to leave northeast Syria to the regime and Iran, claiming he worked a marvelous deal to secure Israel and Jordan in the southwest. And, then, Putin will help Assad consolidate [power] in both places, enabling Iran and Hezbollah to emerge as the big winners.”

So the final deal would simply be this: The US removes its troops from northeast Syria as long as Russia promises to quell the Assad-led fighting in Syria’s southeast, hopefully making Israel and Jordan happy.

It’s unclear, of course, if this is what Putin has in mind. And even if he does, Trump could possibly reject Putin’s proposal. But based on Trump’s own inclinations and longstanding desire to work with Russia, Putin could convince Trump of his plan — which would give Moscow and Tehran even more freedom to do what they want in Syria.

“This is a bad idea,” Boris Zilberman, a Russia expert at the conservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, tweeted on Friday. “Once [the] US pulls out, Russia and Iran will do as they please, whatever the ‘terms.’”

If Trump makes a Putin-friendly deal that leads to the withdrawal of US troops from Syria, it could cause an even bigger rift between the president and his national security team.

At an April White House press conference, Trump said he would withdraw US troops from Syria “very soon” because “it is time to come back home.” It’s a theme he has repeated multiple times on the campaign trail and as president.

Gen. Joseph Votel is the chief US military official for the Middle East. Win McNamee/Getty Images

But at almost the exact same time that Trump was delivering his comments at the White House in April, and just a few miles away, Trump’s top advisers on Syria offered a different plan.

“We are in Syria to fight ISIS,” Brett McGurk, the State Department’s top official leading the anti-ISIS coalition, told a Washington think tank. “That is our mission. That mission isn’t over. And we’re going to complete that mission.”

Gen. Joseph Votel, the top military commander for the Middle East, added, “The hard part, I think, is in front of us.”

Continued Votel: “That is stabilizing these areas, consolidating our gains, getting people back into their homes and addressing the long-term issues of reconstruction and other things that will have to be done.”

Trump could undo that work if he agrees to remove US troops from northeast Syria in exchange for a peace agreement in the country’s southwest, as Russia may desire.

At that point, not only would the mission against ISIS end prematurely, but the US would accelerate the return of Syria to Assad and Putin — putting even more thousands of lives at risk.

Original Source -> Trump wants US troops out of Syria. Putin might use that to his advantage.

via The Conservative Brief

#IFTTT #The Conservative Brief

0 notes

blackchristiannation · 6 years

Text

LISTEN: Whyte House Family Devotions: A Prayer for the Family, the Church, the Nation and the World #320 (Friday, April 6, 2018): “Know the Bible,” by Billy Graham

https://soundcloud.com/danielwhyteiii/whyte-house-family-devotions-prayer-for-the-family-church-nation-world-320-4618

[caption id="attachment_40916" align="alignleft" width="156"] Daniel Whyte III[/caption] My family and I have had morning devotions, or family altar as some people call it, every day ever since my wife, Meriqua, and I were married 30 years ago. We have prayed and read the Bible together as well as other devotional books as a family, and it is the only reason why this family has stayed together, and the only reason why God has blessed our family and used our family in ministry all of these years. We read Ephesians 5 and 6 every morning as it relates to the role of each member of the family and how that we need to put on the whole armor of God to fight against the devil who is seeking to destroy our family and all Christian families, churches, and Christians. So, now after 30 years of doing this in our home, we are opening this up to others who don't have a family to pray with, who don't have a spouse, or who are single by choice, and to encourage all families who are still intact to go back to the family altar and have devotions together every morning. In these devotions, you may hear me deal with a temptation I'm facing in my life, you may hear me rebuke my wife about not doing what she should be doing, or you may hear me get on one of my children's cases about something they're doing. Don't be shocked; this is real life. SING "DOXOLOGY" Praise God from Whom all blessings flow Praise Him, all creatures here below Praise Him above, ye heavenly hosts Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost Amen Billy Graham said, “We do not fail to enjoy the fruit of the Spirit because we live in a sea of corruption; we fail to do so because the sea of corruption is in us.” ------ RECITE: "THE NEW APOSTLES CREED FOR TODAY" I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of Heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead; He was seen alive by Mary Magdalene and the other women, the disciples and over 500 other brethren; He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the Right Hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen. ------ EPHESIANS 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. So far, we have discussed how fathers may provoke their children to anger by capriciousness, unreasonableness, favoritism, and selfishness. Steven J. Cole writes in his commentary on this passage, “Fathers may provoke their children to anger by criticism without praise. Some fathers are just negative and critical, no matter how well a child does. The child cleans his room, but there are a few things not quite right. The dad climbs all over him for the few things that are wrong, rather than praising him for the overall good job and then gently coaching him on how to make it even better. I always liked what Ken Blanchard and Spencer Johnson wrote in The One Minute Manager, 'Catch them doing something right' and praise them for it. I have tried to apply that to our children. Rather than criticizing them for things that weren't perfect, catch them doing something right and let them know how much I appreciate it.” ------- PRAYER ------- DEVOTIONAL PASSAGE: Psalm 122:1-5 I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord. 2 Our feet shall stand within thy gates, O Jerusalem. 3 Jerusalem is builded as a city that is compact together: 4 Whither the tribes go up, the tribes of the Lord, unto the testimony of Israel, to give thanks unto the name of the Lord. 5 For there are set thrones of judgment, the thrones of the house of David. Regarding this passage, Matthew Henry writes: “The pleasure and profit from means of grace, should make us disregard trouble and fatigue in going to them; and we should quicken one another to what is good. We should desire our Christian friends, when they have any good work in hand, to call for us, and take us with them. With what readiness should we think of the heavenly Jerusalem! How cheerfully should we bear the cross and welcome death, in hopes of a crown of glory! ” --------- PRAYER FOR THE ESTATES 1. Clergy (church) 2. Government 3. People (citizens) 4. The press (media) 5. New media/Online journalists PRAYER FOR CHURCH LEADERSHIP - For all pastors, church leaders, denominational leaders, Bible teachers, missionaries, and ministry workers. GOVERNMENT LEADERS 1 Timothy 2:1-2 says, "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." President Donald Trump and his administration Vice President Mike Pence First Lady Melania Trump Second Lady Karen Pence All White House staff including: Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Justin Clark All leaders of federal agencies including: Federal Reserve System Chairman Jerome Powell All state governors including: Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts All city mayors including: Bay Harbor Islands, FL, Mayor Robert H. Yaffe All members of Congress including: Florida Representative Carlos Curbelo All law enforcement officials including: Bay Harbor Islands, FL, Police Chief Sean Hemingway All military leaders including: Defense Secretary James Mattis / General Joseph Votel, Commander of U.S. Central Command Leaders of nations around the world including: Madagascar’s President Hery Rajaon and Prime Minister Olivier Mahafaly For the peace of Jerusalem PRAYER FOR THE PEOPLE / CITIZENS PRAYER FOR THE MEDIA PRAYER FOR CURRENT EVENTS AROUND THE WORLD - For protection, provision, and salvation for the hundreds of people fleeing violence and crime in Honduras who are making their way to Mexico and the U.S. - For the recovery of the 4 people wounded in a shooting at YouTube’s headquarters; for the comfort of the families affected - For the comfort of the families of 7 people who were killed in a bus and truck crash in Egypt; and for the recovery of the 11 people who were injured. PRAYER REQUESTS Gary please save his wife; please heal him of his disability, chronic pain and memory loss Martina please have Nick C. to come to know You as his Saviour, please improve his hopeless situation and touch his heart Bill please bless him with a pastoral opportunity if it be your will THOSE WHO HAVE ACCEPTED CHRIST AS SAVIOR Trusila Hynes Bitengo THOSE WHO HAVE RECOMMITTED THEIR LIVES TO CHRIST Pascal Lineo Dorcas DEVOTIONAL READING: “Know the Bible,” by Billy Graham Isaiah 34:16 says, “Search the Book of the Lord...” A knowledge of the Bible is essential to a rich and meaningful life. For the words of this Book have a way of filling in the missing pieces, of bridging the gaps, of turning the tarnished colors of our life to jewel-like brilliance. Learn to take your every problem to the Bible. Within its pages you will find the correct answer. But most of all, the Bible is a revelation of the nature of God. The philosophers of the centuries have struggled with the problem of a Supreme Being. Who is He? What is He? Where is He? If there is such a Person, is He interested in me? If so, how can I know Him? These and a thousand other questions about God are answered in this Holy Book we call the Bible. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Now, if you do not know Jesus Christ as your Savior, allow me to show you how you can place your faith and trust in Him for Salvation from sin and Hell. First, accept the fact that you are a sinner, and that you have broken God's law. The Bible says in Romans 3:23: "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Second, accept the fact that there is a penalty for sin. The Bible states in Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death…" Third, accept the fact that you are on the road to hell. Jesus Christ said in Matthew 10:28: "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Now that is bad news, but here's the good news. Jesus Christ said in John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Just believe in your heart that Jesus Christ died for your sins, was buried, and rose from the dead by the power of God for you so that you can live eternally with Him. Pray and ask Him to come into your heart today, and He will. Romans 10:9 & 13 says, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved… For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." If you believe that Jesus Christ died on the Cross for your sins, was buried, and rose from the dead, and you want to trust Him for your Salvation today, please pray with me this simple prayer: Holy Father God, I realize that I am a sinner and that I have done some bad things in my life. I am sorry for my sins, and today I choose to turn from my sins. For Jesus Christ sake, please forgive me of my sins. I believe with all of my heart that Jesus Christ died for me, was buried, and rose again. I trust Jesus Christ as my Savior and I choose to follow Him as Lord from this day forward. Lord Jesus, please come into my heart and save my soul and change my life today. Amen. If you just trusted Jesus Christ as your Saviour, and you prayed that prayer and meant it from your heart, I declare to you that based upon the Word of God, you are now saved from Hell and you are on your way to Heaven. Welcome to the family of God! I want to congratulate you on doing the most important thing in life and that is receiving Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour. For more information to help you grow in your newfound faith in Christ, go to Gospel Light Society.com and read "What To Do After You Enter Through the Door". Jesus Christ said in John 10:9, "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." Until next time, May the Lord Bless You!

Daniel Whyte III has spoken in meetings across the United States and in over twenty-five foreign countries. He is the author of over forty books including the Essence Magazine, Dallas Morning News, and Amazon.com national bestseller, Letters to Young Black Men. He is also the president of Gospel Light Society International, a worldwide evangelistic ministry that reaches thousands with the Gospel each week, as well as president of Torch Ministries International, a Christian literature ministry. He is heard by thousands each week on his radio broadcasts/podcasts, which include: The Prayer Motivator Devotional, The Prayer Motivator Minute, as well as Gospel Light Minute X, the Gospel Light Minute, the Sunday Evening Evangelistic Message, the Prophet Daniel’s Report, the Second Coming Watch Update and the Soul-Winning Motivator, among others. He holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Theology from Bethany Divinity College, a Bachelor’s degree in Religion from Texas Wesleyan University, a Master’s degree in Religion, a Master of Divinity degree, and a Master of Theology degree from Liberty University's Rawlings School of Divinity (formerly Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary). He is currently a candidate for the Doctor of Ministry degree. He has been married to the former Meriqua Althea Dixon, of Christiana, Jamaica since 1987. God has blessed their union with seven children.

#christian #devotions #family #pray #prayer

0 notes

dipulb3 · 4 years

Text

Retired generals pull support for Trump nominee after offensive tweets uncovered by Appradab

New Post has been published on https://appradab.com/retired-generals-pull-support-for-trump-nominee-after-offensive-tweets-uncovered-by-appradab/