By Lisa Ferdinando

Terrorism and Russian aggression are two “very distinct threats” to European security, according to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey told Italian counterpart Chief of Defense Adm. Luigi Binelli Mantelli and Minister of Defense Roberta Pinotti each of those threats requires a “different kind of cooperation.”

The leaders discussed a variety of topics in meetings here today, including threats to Italy’s southern flank. Dempsey praised Italy for its significant contributions to coalition missions, including in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The threat from Islamic terrorists will not get any easier, the chairman said.

“I think this threat is probably a 30-year issue,” he said, noting that terrorists easily recruit young fighters via the Internet. Counter-messaging is one of the lines of strategy in defeating extremists, he said.

Italy has made important contributions to the campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, the chairman said.

Extremism and Russian Aggression

For the first time in a “very long time,” the United States and its allies are facing the “very distinct threats” of a conventional state threat from Russia, Dempsey said, and the unconventional threat of terrorism from extremists.

“Where Italy sits, strategically, you’re faced with the reality of dealing with both of those threats, as we are; I think that draws us closer together,” he said.

There is concern, both sides noted, that foreign fighters could be moving through Italy’s and NATO’s southern flanks. Close to 170,000 refugees have come through Italy’s shores in the past year.

Dempsey said the approach in dealing with extremism should consider the swath of countries from the Middle East to Africa, where ISIL and other terrorist groups operate.

“Looking at it one country at a time is not the answer,” he said, noting he and other allies will discuss the issue Wednesday and Thursday in NATO meetings in Brussels.

He said Russian aggression will also be a topic in the NATO talks.

‘Deliberate’ Pace in Iraq

Italy has made tremendous contributions to international missions, he said. Thousands of Italian troops are currently deployed in various operations including in Iraq, Kosovo, the Horn of Africa, and with the United Nations mission in Lebanon.

Italy and the U.S. are the top contributors of on-the-ground trainers and advisors who are enabling the Kurds and Iraqis in the fight against extremists, defense officials noted.

Dempsey thanked Italy for its commitment to Iraq’s peace and security, saying, “You contributed and are continuing to contribute meaningful capabilities there.”

The chairman described the pace of military efforts in Iraq as “deliberate” and steady.

“Fast is not what we are looking for,” he said.

The chairman said it is important to maintain a pace that ensures the Iraqi forces lead the effort as the Iraqi government moves to bridge the sectarian divides that have plagued the nation.

“This must be their fight,” he said.

Strong Partner to the United States

Dempsey and the Italian officials praised the strong ties between their countries.

“Our bilateral relationship has probably never been stronger, at least in recent years,” Dempsey said, remarking that Italy is a key ally and valuable partner to the United States.

“I think that’s a combination of factors; one is our deep history and the fact that our two people are so intertwined both here and back in the United States,” he said.

‘Great Foundation’ for New Italian Chief of Defense

Dempsey thanked Binelli Mantelli, who is retiring next month, for his dedicated service to Italy and its allies, and in keeping Italy safe.

“It’s a great compliment to you,” Dempsey said. “You’ve established a great foundation for (incoming Chief of Defense) Gen. (Claudio) Graziano to build on.”

The post Dempsey Says Terrorism, Russian Aggression Threaten European Security appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By John R. Haines*

I do not like to resort to quotes, but in this case, I cannot help it.  Here is a quote from another official document: the Written Statement of the United States America of April 17, 2009, submitted to the same UN International Court in connection with the hearings on Kosovo.  Again, I quote: “Declarations of independence may, and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law.” End of quote.  They wrote this, disseminated it all over the world, had everyone agree and now they are outraged.  Over what?  The actions of Crimean people completely fit in with these instructions, as it were.  For some reason, things that Kosovo Albanians (and we have full respect for them) were permitted to do, Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea are not allowed.  Again, one wonders why.

We keep hearing from the United States and Western Europe that Kosovo is some special case.  What makes it so special in the eyes of our colleagues?  It turns out that it is the fact that the conflict in Kosovo resulted in so many human casualties.  Is this a legal argument?  The ruling of the International Court says nothing about this.  This is not even double standards; this is amazing, primitive, blunt cynicism.  One should not try so crudely to make everything suit their interests, calling the same thing white today and black tomorrow                                                                                                                         -President Vladimir V. Putin, 18 March 2014

Russia and the self-declared Republic of South Ossetia[1] — which declared itself independent from Georgia in 1990 — in December completed a draft treaty “of alliance and integration” which some analysts believe could lead to South Ossetia’s de facto annexation within a matter of days or weeks.[2]   This comes less than a year after Russia’s highly contentious annexation of Crimea.

Map of South Ossetia[3]

According to Anatoly Bibilov, Chairman of South Ossetia’s parliament, “the new agreement between South Ossetia and Russia should be maximally integrative” and lead to “a United Ossetia” which he defined as “Two countries – one Ossetia.”[7]  Taimuraz Mamsurov, head of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania — a Russian Federation republic bordering South Ossetia — unsurprisingly called the draft treaty “a landmark, historic opportunity to make a big step towards integration with Russia.”[8]

South Ossetia agrees within six months to “transfer power to ensure security and defense, including the defense and security of the State border” to Russia, and its armed and security forces “become part of, respectively, the Russian Armed Forces and the Federal Security Service.”  So, too, borders and customs enforcement, and internal security, all of which are transferred to the Russian Federation.  Russia’s central bank will “assist the National Bank of the Republic of South Ossetia in the implementation of monetary policy and strengthening the financial system.”

In December Georgia was quick to condemn “the so-called treaty […] between Russia and the occupied Tskhinvali region,” claiming its terms violate Russian commitments under a 2008 six-point ceasefire agreement brokered at the time by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.  The Georgian Foreign Ministry called on “the international community to take all possible measures to prevent Russian annexation of Georgia’s breakaway Tskhinvali regions.”[9]

Former Russian Deputy Prime Minister Vladislav Surkov, who in September 2013 was appointed an aide to President Putin[10] with responsibility for South Ossetia and its fellow Georgian breakaway republic, Abkhazia[11] — and who recently described himself as “the author, or one of the authors, of the new Russian system”[12] — was quoted as saying “Obviously, now it is not the best of times for Russia as sanctions and oil price fluctuations contribute to it.  But the difficult economic situation in Russia will not be an obstacle for fulfilling our obligations and we assure you that we are ready for further cooperation and increase of financing will continue.”[13]

As Commentary recently asked, “The obvious question is: Why is Putin doing this–or at least, why now? Only Putin knows for sure, but it does demonstrate how differently the conflict is viewed from Washington and from Moscow.”[14]  Another commentator goes further, noting ominously:

Russia is preparing to absorb a province of neighboring Georgia, and delivering an ultimatum to Europe that it could lose much of the Russian gas on which it relies. […] Putin has argued that the west is simply intent on ousting him and weakening Russia… Faced with these perceived attempts to undercut him and his country, Putin suggests that he has no choice but to pull around the wagons and stick it out. This could go on a long time.[15]

About the author:
*John R. Haines is a trustee of FPRI, where he is a member of its executive, finance, and nominating committees, Executive Director of FPRI’s Princeton Committee, and is also a Senior Fellow. An active investor and entrepreneur whose current efforts focus on nuclear smuggling and terrorism, in 2010 John co-founded, as Chief Executive Officer, Ionetix Corporation, to develop proprietary particle accelerator and fissile material detection technologies. In a different field altogether, he earlier co-founded a human stem cell therapeutics company that developed what Nature ranked as the second most dominant stem cell patent estate worldwide. Beginning his career as a mathematical economist, Haines also spent time professionally in maritime operations and in government.

Source:
This article was published here by FPRI.

Notes:
[1]The Russian Federation formally recognized the independence of the Republic of South Ossetia by parliamentary decree on 26 August 2008.  The only other states to do so are Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Nauru; Tuvalu did so in 2011 but withdrew its recognition in 2014.  For its part, the Georgian government routinely refers to South Ossetia as “the occupied Tskhinvali region” and to its government as the “Tskhinvali puppet regime.”  Tskhinvali is the capital of the self-declared Republic of South Ossetia.

[2]For example, see: Thomas De Waal (2015). “Swallowing South Ossetia.” Carnegie Moscow Center Eurasia Outlook [online edition, 14 January 2015]. http://carnegie.ru/eurasiaoutlook/?fa=57706. Last accessed 14 January 2015.

[3] Source: http://www.allworldwars.com/Battle%20for%20the%20South%20Ossetia%20Augus…. Last accessed 15 January 2015.

[4] Osinform.ru is a division of the South Ossetian State TV and Radio Department.

[5]  Проект договора между Российской Федерацией и Республикой Южная Осетия о союзничестве и интеграции (“Draft treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of South Ossetia on alliance and integration”). http://osinform.ru/48181-proekt-dogovor-mezhdu-rossiyskoy-federaciey-i-r…. Last accessed 15 January 2015.

[6] “The new agreement is intended to legalize South Ossetia`s integration with Russia.”  State Information and Press Committee of South Ossetia [online English language edition, 18 December 2014].  http://cominf.org/en/node/1166503816. Last accessed 15 January 2015.

[7] “The agreement between South Ossetia and Russia should be maximally integrative: Speaker of the Parliament of South Ossetia.” State Information and Press Committee of South Ossetia [online English language edition, 23 December 2014]. http://cominf.org/en/node/1166503855. Last accessed 15 January 2015.

[8] “Taimuraz Mamsurov: the Treaty between Russia and South Ossetia is a landmark, historic chance.” State Information and Press Committee of South Ossetia [online English language edition, 7 January 2015]. http://cominf.org/en/node/1166503965. Last accessed 15 January 2015.

[9] “Georgia condemns new treaty between Russia and South.” Georgia Newsday News Agency [online English language edition, 23 December 2014]. http://newsday.ge/en/index.php?newsid=1112. Last accessed 15 January 2015.

[10] See: http://news.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/41d48f190dc2821f7392.pdf. Last accessed 15 January 2015.  The English-language The Moscow Times greeted the announcement with the headline, “Same Old Kremlin, Same Old Surkov.” http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/same-old-kremlin-same-old-…. Last accessed 15 January 2015.

[11] “Сурков в Кремле займется отношениями с Абхазией и Южной Осетией” (“Surkov to take on Kremlin relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia”).  Rusnovosti.ru [online Russian language edition, 20 September 2013]. http://rusnovosti.ru/posts/282909. Last accessed 15 January 2015.

[12] Peter Pomerantsev (2014). “The Hidden Author of Putinism.” The Atlantic [online edition, 7 November 2014]. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/hidden-author-p…. Last accessed 15 January 2015.

[13] “Moscow’s planned new treaty with Tskhinvali to be signed early next year.” Agenda.ge [online English language edition, 23 December 2014]. http://agenda.ge/news/27007/eng. Last accessed 15 January 2015.<

[14]Seth Mandel (2015). “Putin’s Gambit and the Future of Ukraine.” Commentary [online edition, 15 January 2015]. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/topic/south-ossetia/. Last accesed 15 January 2015.

[15] Steve LeVine (2015). “Putin is about to absorb part of yet another country’s land.” Quartz [online edition, 15 January 2015]. http://qz.com/327184/putin-russia-is-about-to-absorb-part-of-yet-another…. Last accessed 15 January 2015.

The post Calling The Same Thing White Today And Black Tomorrow: Is Russia Poised To Annex South Ossetia? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The United Nations human rights office confirmed Tuesday that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has established unlawful, so-called ‘shari’a courts’ in the territory under its control that have been carrying out cruel and inhuman punishments against men, women and children.

Those who are punished are accused of ‘violating the group’s extremist interpretations of Islamic shari’a law or for suspected disloyalty,’ said Ravina Shamdasani, spokesperson for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), at a Geneva briefing this afternoon.

“The ruthless murder of two men, who were thrown off the top of a building after having been accused of homosexual acts by a so-called court in Mosul, is another terrible example of the kind of monstrous disregard for human life that characterised ISIL’s reign of terror over areas of Iraq that were under the group’s control,” she added.

Last week, ISIL also posted photos on the web of two men being ‘crucified’ after they were accused of banditry. The men were hung up by their arms and then shot dead. Photos were also posted of a woman being stoned to death, allegedly for adultery.

OHCHR has received numerous other reports of women who had been executed by ISIL in Mosul and other areas under the group’s control, often immediately following sentences passed by its ‘shari’a courts.’

“Educated, professional women, particularly women who had run as candidates in elections for public office seem to be particularly at risk. In just the first two weeks of the year, reports indicated that three female lawyers were executed,” said Ms. Shamdasani.

Other civilians who are suspected of violating ISIL’s rules, or who are suspected of supporting the Government of Iraq, have also been victims. Four doctors were recently killed in central Mosul, allegedly after refusing to treat ISIL fighters. On 1 January, ISIL reportedly executed 15 civilians from the Jumaili Sunni Arab tribe in al-Shihabi area, Garma district, Fallujah.

“They were apparently shot dead in front of a large crowd for their suspected cooperation with Iraqi Security Forces. In another incident, on 9 January, ISIL executed at least 14 men in a public square in Dour, north of Tikrit, for refusing to pledge allegiance to it,” Ms. Shamdasani confirmed.

OHCHR has also been following reports of the release of a group of sick and elderly Yazidis, which included accounts that a ransom was paid. There are also reports that a ransom has been demanded made for Japanese hostages. The Japanese Government is in the process of verifying whether the video of the hostages is authentic, she said in response to questions.

Finally, she said OHCHR will continue to document human rights abuses and violations taking place in Iraq and is expected to present a report to the Human Rights Council in March.

The post Islamic State Unlawful ‘Shari’a Courts’ Meting Out ‘Monstrous’ Punishments appeared first on Eurasia Review.

“Our government will take a new approach to the UN Human Rights Council process in Geneva. We will offer a domestic mechanism for this, which could be supported by international agencies“, said Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera in a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi, reports MISNA.

Samaraweera also stressed that most of the tension with the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva was caused by positions taken by the previous regime.

After the meeting with Modi, when asked by reporters if President Maithripala Sirisena, who was the acting Defence Minister for a short period during the end of the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) war when most of the atrocities are believed to have occurred, would explain the army’s actions, Samaraweera said: “My President will cooperate fully with a domestic investigation into the issue”.

The minister added that his government has already moved on improving relations with the Tamil. President Sirisena in fact replaced the military governor of the Northern Province with a civilian, a former UN official and diplomat H.M.G.S. Palihakkara, a promise the former president, Mahinda Rajapaksa had made, but never maintained, noted MISNA.

The government is also identifying people whose land was occupied for military use to reverse their relocation. The Foreign Minister also said that the government was committed to implementing the contentious “13th amendment” of the Constitution on devolution of powers to Tamil-majority areas, but would start discussions with all parties after the next legislative elections.

Samaraweera stressed that the new government will welcome back all Sri Lankans who have fled the country in past few years.

The post Sri Lanka To Take New Approach To Charges Of War Crimes appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Guinean President Alpha Conde, whose country is among the worst hit by the deadly Ebola outbreak along with Liberia and Sierra Leone, urged the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to cancel the debts of the three nations to help in their recovery.

“The cancellation must concern bilateral and multilateral debt”, Conde said, adding that he hoped the issue would come under further discussion at the next African Union summit in June.

Conde stressed that the move would be in the direction “recommended by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa”, which in fact urged Ebola debt forgiveness in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinrea, where the epidemic has left some 8,500 dead.

The canceling of the debts in the three countries, which regards a fifth of the total, was also urged by the US.

Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone owe the IMF a total of around $480 million.

The post Call For IMF To Cancel Debts In Ebola-Stricken Countries appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Consumers perceive that organic cow milk differs from conventionally produced milk and that these differences justify the premium price for organic milk. In a review published in the Journal of Dairy Science, researchers in New Zealand found that the differences between organic and conventional milk are not so straightforward.

Reviewing almost 200 publications, researchers concluded that previously conducted controlled studies investigating whether differences exist between organic and conventionally produced milk have so far been largely ambiguous, due principally to the complexity of the research question and the number of factors and variables that can influence milk composition.

“This review presents one of the most detailed treatises to date of organic versus conventional milk composition,” commented Matt Lucy, PhD, Professor of Animal Science, University of Missouri, and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Dairy Science.

“When comparing organic and conventional milk composition (especially milk fatty acids), previous studies have generally compared organic dairying with milk produced from grass-fed cows to conventional dairying with milk produced from concentrate-fed cows. The differences in milk composition observed are actually due to the different diets of the cows (i.e. pasture versus concentrate feeding) rather than organic versus conventional farming systems,” according to lead investigator Don Otter, PhD, Senior Scientist, Food & Bio-based Products, AgResearch Grasslands Research Centre (New Zealand).

Because there are many factors that affect milk composition, it is difficult to control for all of them when comparing organic to conventional milk production.

According to the investigators, “The term ‘organic’ when applied to dairying is not universal, and to a large extent, is defined simply by regulations that differ from one country to the next. ‘Conventional’ basically is anything that is not ‘organic.’ However, in most parts of the world, conventional dairying is associated with high levels of grain feeding, the use of cow breeds which produce high milk volumes, and the application of large amounts of fertilizer (‘high input’ farming), while organic dairying is tied to pasture and forage feeding, lower amounts of fertilizer application, and the use of mixed or minority breeds (‘low input’). The vast majority of differences reported between organic and conventional milk come from what cows are fed and their breed, and is not anything unique to being organic or conventional in itself.”

Therefore in terms of nutrients in milk, there is nothing distinct about organic milk that makes it unique from conventionally produced milk once the different factors that influence milk production are compared or adjusted for. If animal genetics, health, breed, diet, management, or environment differs, then so will the composition of the milk produced.

The post Comparing Organic And Conventional Milk appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Women rate emotional images as more emotionally stimulating than men do and are more likely to remember them. However, there are no gender-related differences in emotional appraisal as far as neutral images are concerned.

These were the findings of a large-scale study by a research team at the University of Basel that focused on determining the gender-dependent relationship between emotions, memory performance and brain activity. The results will be published in the latest issue of the Journal of Neuroscience.

It is known that women often consider emotional events to be more emotionally stimulating than men do. Earlier studies have shown that emotions influence our memory: the more emotional a situation is, the more likely we are to remember it. This raises the question as to whether women often outperform men in memory tests because of the way they process emotions. A research team from the University of Basel’s “Molecular and Cognitive Neurosciences” Transfaculty Research Platform attempted to find out.

With the help of 3,398 test subjects from four sub-trials, the researchers were able to demonstrate that females rated emotional image content – especially negative content – as more emotionally stimulating than their male counterparts did. In the case of neutral images, however, there were no gender-related differences in emotional appraisal. In a subsequent memory test, female participants could freely recall significantly more images than the male participants. Surprisingly though, women had a particular advantage over men when recalling positive images.

“This would suggest that gender-dependent differences in emotional processing and memory are due to different mechanisms,” said study leader Dr Annette Milnik.

Increased brain activity

Using fMRI data from 696 test subjects, the researchers were also able to show that stronger appraisal of negative emotional image content by the female participants is linked to increased brain activity in motoric regions.

“This result would support the common belief that women are more emotionally expressive than men,” said Dr Klara Spalek, lead author of the study.

The findings also help to provide a better understanding of gender-specific differences in information processing. This knowledge is important, because many neuropsychiatric illnesses also exhibit gender-related differences.

The study is part of a research project led by professors Dominique de Quervain and Andreas Papassotiropoulos at the University of Basel, which aims to increase the understanding of neuronal and molecular mechanisms of human memory and thereby facilitate the development of new treatments.

The post Exploring How Men And Women Process Emotions Differently appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By William Chislett*

Both Spain and Greece have far-left anti-establishment parties, born out of indignation at many years of austerity and endemic corruption, that look like toppling established parties in both countries, in Greece’s case on 25 January when a snap general election is held.

Greece’s Syriza and Spain’s Podemos, part of the same bloc in the European Parliament, want an end to austerity and a major restructuring of their countries’ debt. Syriza is pressing for debt forgiveness, whose consequences could include Greece’s exit from the euro zone. This is considered unlikely, although Germany appears to be more sanguine about a Grexit. Finland has already emerged as a major hurdle to a negotiating a new bailout deal with an incoming Greek government.

Spain’s Mariano Rajoy. File photo.

Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s visit to Greece on 14 January to show political support for Antonis Samaras, his embattled counterpart, has cast a spotlight on the similarities between the two countries. They certainly exist, but so do differences –and to a greater extent–.

First, the Greek crisis has been much deeper than Spain’s: its GDP has fallen by around 25% compared with 7% for Spain. Greece, unlike Spain, was forced to accept a sovereign bailout by the ‘troika’ (the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the IMF). Some of Spain’s banks, however, had to be rescued. Madrid exited this programme a year ago, whereas Greece is still beholden to the ‘troika’.

The unemployment rates in both countries are similarly massive (see Figure 1). Spain destroyed 3.8 million jobs between 2007 and the third quarter of 2014, according to Eurostat, and Greece’s much smaller economy (2% of euro-zone GDP compared with Spain’s more than 10%) 1.1 million. While Spain generated 553,400 jobs during this period (representing 14.5% of those shed), Greece created 107,000 (9.2%).

As well as a weaker labour market, Greece’s general-government gross debt is much higher than Spain’s (175% of GDP as against almost 100% and considered unsustainable and not just by the radical left), which explains Syriza’s determined push for debt forgiveness that is frightening Europe’s leaders. Greece began its crisis with a debt load of more than 100%, while Spain’s level was under 40%. Both countries are running current-account surpluses in GDP terms (an estimated 1.5% for Greece last year and 0.2% for Spain).

More than any other European leader, Rajoy stands to lose the most if Syriza wins the election as his government’s austerity measures, more than Greece’s, are producing a glimmer of light in what has been a long tunnel of recession. Rajoy’s dogged sticking to orthodox reforms and spending cuts has made him something of a poster boy for the fiscally-conservative German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

‘The recovery in Spain is undeniable’, trumpeted Luis de Guindos, the Spanish Economy Minister. ‘We have now had growth for six quarters, job growth is faster than expected and tax revenues are on the rise. Spain is outperforming its peers in Europe and, according to the European Commission, we will continue to outperform this year and next. Spain never lost the ability to fund itself, and never lost access to the capital markets. If you look at the spreads now, they are at an all-time low’.

Bond yields show there has been a decoupling between Greece and the rest of southern Europe, including Spain. The risk premium (spread) on Spain’s 10-year government bonds over the benchmark German bunds has come down from 3.54 percentage points in October 2011, one month before the general election which swept the Popular Party back into power, to just over one point, while Greece’s has declined from 23 pp to 9.

Among the crisis-hit countries Spain has been the most reform minded. The labour market is less dysfunctional, as a result of reforms in 2012 that have reduced severance payments for unfair dismissals and given companies greater flexibility to set wages and working conditions themselves rather than through sector-wide bargaining.

Spain is now creating jobs at lower rates of GDP growth than before. In previous cycles, employment rose when growth hit 2%. Jobs were created last year with growth of around 1.4%, though many of them are temporary and precarious. GDP growth this year is put at more than 2%.

Both Spain and Greece, however, still rank at the bottom of the World Bank’s latest classification of countries by the number of weeks of indemnity pay for termination of a contract after 10 years’ employment in the same company –26 in the case of Greece and almost 29 for Spain–.

A Syriza victory could boost Podemos’ electoral prospects, though this could easily change if Syriza’s policies fail to make any headway or deepen Greece’s crisis, and produce an unravelling of the conservative Popular Party’s reforms if the party does well in Spain’s election due to be held by December.

The latest voter-intention poll by Metroscopia, published on 11 January, gives Podemos 28.2% of the vote, the Socialists 23.5% and the Popular Party 19.2%. Whereas Syriza looks like forming the next Greek government, none of the main Spanish parties would be in this position if, as the polls suggest, they all obtain between 20% and 30% of the vote. In this situation, the colour of the next Spanish government is far from certain and Podemos would not be able to govern on its own. It would need to form a coalition with the Socialists. By splitting the left-wing vote, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the Popular Party continues in power, although without an absolute majority.

The real test of the extent to which Spain is not bracketed in the same basket case category as Greece will come if, as expected, Syriza wins and its victory contaminates Spain. No one is sticking their neck out and saying the contagion for Spain would be minimal, but the improvement in the country’s macroeconomic fundamentals would suggest that Rajoy need not be too nervous.

About the author:
*William Chislett is Associate Analyst at the Elcano Royal Institute | @WilliamChislet3

Source:
The article was published by Elcano Royal Institute

The post Spain And Greece: The Same, Yet Different – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Westanna Carleton*

The United States has started the process of reconciliation with Cuba in an atmosphere of vast goodwill and a huge dosage of optimism. Surprisingly, very little opposition has been encountered. Eventually American retirees and travelers will be seeking inexpensive living, untouched beaches, and a welcoming populace on a Caribbean island that can be found only 90 miles away from U.S. shores in Cuba.

Nicaragua has begun the planning of its own canal connecting the Caribbean with the Pacific that is likely to dwarf the modernizing of the Panama Canal Project that lays mired in scandal. Meanwhile, much of the Venezuelan sources that helped prop up the regime of President Ricardo Martinelli is being lowered with the ever-decreasing price of oil.

Panama’s social security network, its incomplete metro, and other major infrastructure have been ransacked by corruption and lay in tatters while several social institutions are nearing bankruptcy. Crime has gone rampant with the U.S. Embassy having recently issued warnings to American citizens to proceed with care in Panama and avoid several areas of the country. All of these concerns stem from instances of corruption and embezzlement.

However, there is some hope as Panamanians are now crying for justice. Prosecutors have arrested and later indicted former Chief Justice of Panama’s Supreme Court, Alejandro Moncada Luna, and seized millions of dollars in his accounts. The former head of the Panama National Assistance Program and the former Secretary General of the CD party started and controlled by ex-president Martinelli are under house arrest. An investigation of the former Minister of Social Development has begun and large-scale nationwide marches of concerned citizens against “Corruption with Impunity” have taken place.

There is still hope for Panama in part due to the demands of the population calling for an end to the corruption that is ruining their lives. The hope for such a positive outcome lies with Panama’s new President Juan Carlos Varela. In less than a year, he has replaced key Panamanian officials in critical government positions, seemingly in effort to clean up the mess. However, the Panama Supreme Court may have dashed the burgeoning hopes of many Panamanians with their latest appointment of a former questionable Supreme Court Justice, who was one of the three Justices named in the Lucom case. This Justice was not named to the Supreme Court again. However, he was appointed to another important position in the Panamanian judicial system.

This new hope may have come too late for thousands of poor and malnourished Panamanian children who have been denied a huge legacy of more than one hundred million dollars. The money was left to them by an American expatriate Wilson Lucom who willed his entire fortune to the “poor children of Panama” to feed them, only to have three Justices of the Panama Supreme Court who have transferred the fortune to Lucom’s 88 year old widow, who unbeknownst to the courts in Panama and Florida, transferred her inheritance to an anonymous and secret Panamanian corporation years before the corrupt ruling. Hilda died shortly after the corrupt court ruling. According to a recently filed lawsuit in Florida, the information came out too late to prevent bribed illegal Panamanian court instructions from being introduced into the Florida Court system that misled the Florida courts.

Will President Varela and this brave new group of reformers be able to continue to expand the cry for justice from Panama’s people? The question is still whether the most powerful oligarchs will remain untouched by the investigations. This revolution for justice has been building since 2010 with the infamous court case dealing with the will of Wilson Lucom.

The Council of Hemispheric Affairs last reported on Panama’s infamous court case dealing with the poor children of Panama and Wilson Lucom’s will in 2011. The report was issued as an update to an earlier analysis in 2010. Since that time, recent dramatic developments have led to a new round of litigation. The Lucom case is extraordinarily complex. However, it is important to at least consider some of the simple facts. Wilson Charles Lucom, a multimillionaire United States citizen who expatriated himself to Panama, left a will bequeathing the bulk of his vast estate to a trust established for the purpose of feeding the poor children of Panama. Within five years of his death, Lucom’s widow and third wife, Hilda Arias, obtained legal opinions in the Panamanian Supreme Court that placed her in sole control of the estate and use it as she saw fit. Needless to say, Hilda’s vision for the estate did not include the impoverished children of Panama. To this day, not one penny of the Lucom estate has gone to feeding a single hungry child.

An Unforeseen Gift

The World Bank reports that 37 percent of the Panamanian population lives below the poverty line; 19 percent of which lives in extreme poverty. In addition, 50 percent of Panamanian children are considered poor.

During his lifetime, Wilson Charles Lucom did not have noticeable interest in statistics such as these. Media accounts of Lucom typically characterize him as gruff and curmudgeonly. Those in close familiarity to Lucom agree that he was not someone with an overriding sense of philanthropic responsibility. However, this fact does not negate the fact that he was not a man who would enjoy defying the expectations of Hilda’s children, the product of her first marriage to an upper class Panamanian. Lucom had no children of his own. Make no mistake, Lucom’s bequests to his wife and stepchildren left them very well off, but perhaps not as fabulously wealthy as they had calculated they would be after his untimely demise. Does it matter in the eyes of the law why Lucom decided to give his entire estate to benefit the poor children of Panama? No, of course it does not. Does it raise questions regarding the will’s validity if it is not consistent with expectations? It shouldn’t. Moreover, Richard Lehman, a highly regarded Florida lawyer and longtime friend and attorney of Lucom’s, sees the will as perfectly consistent with Lucom’s intelligence and wit, which he carried while alive.

No one, least of all Lucom, predicted that a corrupt Supreme Court of a country would allow Hilda’s family to gain complete control of his estate, contrary to the plain language of his last will and testament.

Lucom named Lehman as an executor in his will; yet by 2010, in a series of quick moving steps, Lehman had been removed as executor of the estate by Panamanian courts and his reputation was being called in question. Based upon a series of Panama Court rulings, press accounts for the period of 2010-2011 had suggested unethical actions by Lehman in seeking to uphold his friend’s wish to leave his fortune to a foundation created expressly for the purpose of feeding hungry children. It would be understandable if at this point Lehman had admitted defeat, especially given the incessant press reports that began appearing in U.S. media. However, giving up is not part of Lehman’s legal repertoire, especially given the egregiously corrupt treatment of the Lucom Estate.

In recent months, new previously undisclosed information became available to Lehman and his associates who include lawyers he had retained in both the United States, as well as Panama. This is information that provided indisputable evidence that the administration of the Lucom estate was fraudulent and that agents of Lucom’s widow, Hilda, acted with specific intent to besmirch Lehman’s reputation and hide assets from taxing authorities.

A Warped Legal Agenda

A separate proceeding in Panama is currently uncovering the deep-seated corruption of the Panama Judiciary. Finally, at the time of COHA’s last report (2011), attacks against Lehman in the press were beginning to surface, but had not yet risen to their crescendo.

By 2011 adverse judicial decisions and negative press permeated the case, seemingly bringing to an end any chance of the Lucom Foundation operating as Lucom intended. Lehman’s quest became less quixotic as unrelated investigations exposed corruption in Panama’s judicial system.

Interestingly, most of the revelations about the corrupt Panama rulings, came from a Panamanian lawyer previously associated with the law firm representing Hilda Lucom. The lawyer came forward with key eyewitness reports of fraud leveled by her and her former law associates and putative claimants to Lucom’s estate. Her statements reveal a deliberate effort to defraud both the United States and Panama and a craven plan to gain control of Hacienda Santa Monica, the 7,000-acre ranch on the Pacific Ocean, which was the primary asset of the Lucom estate. Now armed with these previously hidden facts about illegal Panama rulings, the truth may soon prevail.

The Panamanian lawyer disclosed Court documents that had been hidden from the US and Panamanian courts since 2007. These hidden documents, together with other disclosures showed that Hilda Lucom had transferred all of the rights to her inheritance as early as the year 2007 to an anonymous Panamanian corporation controlled by her Panama lawyers. Thus, at the time the Panama Supreme Court awarded Lucom’s Estate to Hilda, she no longer had any rights to it; fooling even the Panama Supreme Court.

Furthermore, the Panamanian lawyer disclosed the names of the parties and the modis operandi of those responsible for corrupting various members of Panama’s judiciary to issue the orders that ultimately were introduced into, and fooled both the Panama Courts and the Florida courts.

The contours and outcomes of the case from its inception in 2006 to the present day were often byzantine, bringing to mind Charles Dickens’ indictment of the English judicial system in Bleak House. The Lucom case has spawned a dizzying array of claimants to the will, with the original intended beneficiaries – the poor children of Panama – turned into the perpetual losers with every new benchmark of the case. There is good reason to believe that justice may finally prevail, now that concrete evidence is available concerning the fraudulent actions of claimants to the will and the corrupt cooperation of the Panamanian courts in recognizing Hilda Lucom as “universal heir” to Lucom’s fortune. However, nothing is so simple or as straightforward in this case or in such a tainted society as Panama.

The largest part of Lucom’s gift to the poor children of Panama has been valued at One Hundred and Fifty Million Dollars USD ($150,000,000), enough to feed Panama’s poor children and allow for their independence for decades.

In this sense, the damage extends beyond the children of Panama as a whole. Lucom’s hopes for this vast piece of property were the Grand Panama Project. The project envisioned by a group of Saudi and American investors who had two signed contracts to purchase the land from Lucom; but who never were ever permitted to claim their rights in the Panama Courts.

Grand Panama was to be a $3 billion USD branded city filled with hotels, casinos, golf courses, a marina, the potential of over 9,000 residences, and much more. This kind of development would have been invaluable to Panama and its people. Thousands of jobs would have been created during construction of the city and even more permanent jobs when it was completed, not to mention the possibilities for a boost in infrastructure. So where is this big beautiful city? The plans have been halted. Interestingly enough, the Panamanian government made no effort to continue the assembly of the city that could have been a significant boost for Panama. Some may say this is because government representatives have no real interest in the improvement or development of Panama, but only an interest in themselves.

Conclusion

Finally, for the first time since the initial reading of Lucom’s will, prospects are looking up for the children of Panama. But make no mistake, this matter is far from over. Facts favorable to the original intent of Wilson Lucom’s will are just now coming to the forefront. This is as a result of new complaints being filed in the U.S. and Panama. While the matter is in litigation, steps are being taken to ensure the primary asset of the Lucom estate, Hacienda Santa Monica, is preserved or that ultimately its proceeds are reinvested to fund the Foundation for the Children of Panama.

The plight of the hungry children of Panama is a fact virtually obscured in the unfortunate tangling of a web of deceit and fraud that has characterized the probate of Lucom’s estate. It is true that 2015 marks another yearly notch in this ongoing corruption scandal. It is also true that with the help of brave prosecutors and reformers who are willing to stand up to the power elite and help Panama live up to its potential as a land of decency and justice. With this New Year there is a good chance that Lucom’s vision for uplifting the poor children of Panama will be finally realized.

*Westanna Carleton, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

The post Panama Cries For Justice – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

McClatchy: Ben Carson stirred controversy last week when he suggested Americans could learn something from the Islamic State terrorist organization. “They’re willing to die for what they believe, while we are busily giving away every belief and every value for the sake of political correctness,” he told a Republican meeting.

In an interview Monday with McClatchy, the retired neurosurgeon, who is seriously considering a bid for the Republican presidential nomination, explained his views.

Carson believes ISIS is resolute in its commitment to destroy America: “Do we sit around and wait for them to do that, or do we take them out?”

Carson’s poverty of thought is evident in his cartoonish yet commonplace expressions.

If an ISIS fighter makes a video that appears on YouTube and in which he pumps his fist into the air, promising that America faces destruction, this is a threat that deserves to be taken about as seriously would a threat to destroy the planet by changing its orbit, hurling it towards a fiery collision with the Sun. Just because the threat is made, doesn’t make it credible.

ISIS can neither destroy America nor Europe but it has already and continues to cause an immense amount of destruction in the Middle East — not as much destruction as that wrought by the Assad regime, but it’s no exaggeration to say that ISIS threatens the stability of the whole region and threatens the lives and way of life of everyone within its reach.

How much harm ISIS can do in the West depends much less on the direct capabilities of the group than it does on the way governments and the public react to events such as the Paris attacks.

The issue for the West is not whether it needs to prevent ISIS taking over the world, but what it can do to limit, reduce and ultimately end what can objectively, without hyperbole, be described as a reign of terror.

(The fact that from overuse the phrase, reign of terror, has lost most of its punch, does not render it meaningless. A movement whose instruments of political control are public beheadings, crucifixions, throwing people off tall buildings, chopping off hands, turning women and girls into slaves, and engaging in frequent mass executions, is imposing what must be called a reign of terror.)

In this challenge, the U.S. and its European allies can and should have no more than a supporting role, so this is not a binary choice as Carson presents it, between “taking them out” or doing nothing.

At the same time, anyone who imagines that there might be some kind of purely non-military strategy for dealing with ISIS, seems to be indulging in wishful thinking.

When it comes to purity of conviction, the only group currently involved in the fight against ISIS that seems to be completely clear about what they are fighting for are the Syrian Kurdish men and women in the forces of the YPG.

If, as Carson sees it, the willingness to die and the willingness to kill, are the measure of the depth of someone’s convictions, then ISIS is indeed a force of unparalleled conviction.

The problem in reading the nature of these convictions in this way is that it presupposes that anyone who has formed such an intimate relationship with death, knows both what he is fighting for and what it means to die.

I suspect that large numbers of ISIS’s fighters understand neither and that the focus of their conviction is not a deeply understood cause served by death, but a conviction that killing and dying are inherently meaningful.

That meaning is not derived from self-knowledge or an understanding of life, but instead from a fatuous desire to be praised by others. In other words, death in ISIS, offers a gateway through which young men burdened by the sense of being nobody can (they imagine) instantly become somebody.

This is jihadist reality TV in which its stars make their names and enjoy their 15 minutes of fame on Twitter. It turns video games into real life and its appetite for carnage is no more meaningful than the make-believe carnage that gets churned out of Hollywood.

The post ISIS And The Glamour Of Deadly Convictions – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

If you’re planning to commit an act of terror in the US and want to be left alone by the FBI, make sure your target is something, or someone, that the US government doesn’t like or care about.

Consider these two terrorist plots.

Just last week, on Jan. 14, the FBI announced that it had arrested Christopher Lee Cornell, a guy in Ohio the bureau alleges had plans to attack Congress with pipe bombs and guns. Apparently acting alone, Cornell is alleged by the FBI to have “researched how to make pipe bombs” (there’s no indication that he actually made or tested any actual bombs), and to have purchased a pair of M-15 semi-automatic rifles and ammunition. How Cornell, who is described as a self-styled “jihadist,” but one with no real connection with foreign Islamic militants, planned to get past the metal detectors and tight security at the Capitol Building in Washington, was not explained, and probably was not known to Cornell himself. It also appears that the FBI was watching Cornell all along, and no doubt encouraging him too, as it was working with a snitch — a man facing prosecution who was in communication with Cornell and may well have been a provocateur, given the Bureau’s prior history of luring vulnerable people into planning terror acts which it then busts.

Compare this case with one we reported on earlier, which was in the works in the fall of 2011. I’m referring to a terrorism plot in Houston, TX, which the FBI never did report publicly, but which was instead disclosed only thanks to some documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act in 2012 by the Washington, DC-based public interest law firm Partnership for Civil Justice, and which involved an apparently well-developed plan to assassinate leaders of the Houston Occupy Movement. Those documents — internal memos sent out by FBI offices in Houston and Gainesville, FL — refer to “one identified [deleted]” that “planned to engage in sniper attacks against protesters in Houston, Texas if deemed necessary.”

The initial memo, sent to FBI headquarters in Washington from the Houston FBI office, went on to say that the “identified” plotters “had received intelligence that indicated the protesters in New York and Seattle planned similar protests in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin, Texas,” and that they “planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest group and obtain photographs, then formulate a plan to kill the leadership by suppressed sniper rifles.”

A second memo, sent out by the Gainesville, FL FBI office, says that the Houston assassination plot, while not executed, was actually just put on hold. As that memo states: “writer sent via email an excerpt from the daily [DELETED] regarding FBI Houston’s [DELETED] to all IAs, SSRAs and SSA [DELETED] This [DELETED] identified the exploitation of the Occupy Movement by [LENGTHY DELETION] interested in developing a long-term plan to kill local Occupy leaders via sniper fire.”

That’s a lot of rich detail about an evidently serious plot that never resulted in any arrests.

Yet as we reported in an article which just won a 2015 Project Censored Award, the FBI never pursued this plot and never arrested anyone. Indeed when Paul Bresson, the senior public affairs officer for the Bureau in Washington, was asked by this reporter for an explanation for this bizarre lack of interest in a known plot to murder innocent protesters, and for the identity of the terrorist plotters, he evasively replied, “The FOIA documents that you reference are redacted in several places pursuant to FOIA and privacy laws that govern the release of such information so therefore I am unable to help fill in the blanks that you are seeking. Exemptions are cited in each place where a redaction is made. As far as the question about the murder plot, I am unable to comment further, but rest assured if the FBI was aware of credible and specific information involving a murder plot, law enforcement would have responded with appropriate action.”

Actually, the response of the US Homeland Security Department to journalists who looked into the federal government’s involvement in the violent suppression of the 2011 Occupy movement don’t shouldn’t make anyone feel like “resting assured” about anything. In 2014, we learned that our publication, in fact, had been the subject back on Nov. 18, 2011, of an alert sent out by Homeland Security’s Washington Office of Threat Assessment to all Fusion Centers around the country, saying ThisCantBeHappening! had published an article exposing the Homeland Security’s central role in orchestrating the wave of local police violence against Occupy encampments across the country.

The conclusion, hard to avoid, is that the FBI and Justice Department are playing a double game when it comes to terrorism. On one hand they have been aggressively pursuing a campaign of entrapment and outright incitement, actively promoting and assisting in the development of bogus terror plots by naive or mentally unbalanced individuals, so that they can later “bust” those plots, thereby justifying their expansive police-state tactics while keeping the public in a constant state of fear. On the other hand, they are either turning a blind eye towards genuine plots aimed against activists and radical protests, such as the one “identified” in Houston in the fall of 2011, or worse, are maybe actively involved in the development of those plots, which they then do not prosecute or prevent from happening.

This is something we need to keep in mind as we watch the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the only surviving suspect or witness in the Boston Marathon bombing — an actual terrorism act that has many rational people wondering how much the government knew in advance, and others wondering or were just patsies who were set up to look that way.

The post The FBI’s Dubious Record On Prosecuting Terror Plots – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Islamic State group threatened Tuesday to kill two Japanese hostages within 72 hours, demanding a $200 million ransom for their lives from Japan’s prime minister as he visited the Middle East.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe vowed to save captives Kenji Goto and Haruna Yukawa, telling journalists in Jerusalem: “Their lives are the top priority.”

Abe faced a hard choice of rewarding extremists now targeted by a US-led coalition or asking an ally like America, which has tried a previous hostage rescue in Syria, to launch a risky operation on its behalf.

The video, released via militant websites associated with the Islamic State group and apparently made by its Al-Furqan media arm, mirrored other hostage threats it has made.

Japanese officials said they would analyze the video to verify its authenticity, though Abe offered no hesitation as he pledged to free the men.

In the video, Goto and Yukawa in orange jumpsuits with a rocky hill in the background, a masked militant dressed in black standing between them.

“To the prime minister of Japan: Although you are more than 8,000 and 500 km from the Islamic State, you willingly have volunteered to take part in this crusade,” says the knife-brandishing militant.

The post Islamic State Demands Japan Pay $200 Million To Free Two Citizens appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Osama Al Sharif

It is not clear if Israel knew it was targeting top Hezbollah and Iranian military brass who were in a convoy on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights.

Sunday’s helicopter strike killed at least seven people, including top commanders in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and senior Hezbollah officers, according to news reports. One of the victims was the son of slain Hezbollah military leader, Imad Mughniyeh, who was assassinated in Damascus in 2008. Back then the Lebanese Shiite faction accused Israel of carrying out the assassination and vowed to retaliate.

But this week’s incident is the most serious since Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers in 2006 precipitating a bloody war between the two sides that lasted for more than a month.

Confrontation between the two dire enemies ebbed since Hezbollah became involved in the Syrian civil war on the side of the regime. During the last four year, Israel carried out a number of missile strikes in Syrian territory targeting weapons storehouses and convoys bound for the group in Lebanon.

Hezbollah officials described the latest attack as provocative and vowed to avenge the killing of high-level officials. Only a few days ago, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah told Al-Mayadeen TV that Hezbollah was ready for confrontation with Israel and that the group was in possession of Iranian missiles with a range of over 200 kilometers capable of reaching all of Israel. He added that the next war would not be limited to firing rockets, but would involve land incursions in the Galilee. He also admitted that his organization had apprehended a senior official for spying for Israel. Nasrallah warned against any further Israeli provocations.

Sunday’s attack was exactly the kind of provocation that could lead to the next war between Israel and the militant group. This time the faceoff will take place in the midst of a volatile geopolitical situation in the region. The war in Syria and the political instability in Lebanon will be major factors. Iranian military presence in Syria could also heighten tensions and widen the conflict. The mere presence of Hezbollah in the Golan will raise questions about the group’s military objectives and if it was preparing to carry out attacks against Israel from the Syrian side.

Israel on the other hand, where the army has raised the alert level, the possibility of eruption of hostilities with Hezbollah is being taken seriously. The Lebanese group has proved to be a tough adversary and its missile capabilities are a source of worry to the Israeli military.

The question is why would Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu take such a risk two months before the Israeli public head to the polls? A war with Hezbollah will prove dissimilar from an attack on Gaza and Hamas. The dynamics are different and the political and military realties will dictate a diverse scenario.

The killing of senior Hezbollah and Iranian officials is a direct challenge to Nasrallah. The group is yet to avenge the killing of Imad Mughniyeh, and Sunday’s attack will put pressure on the group to carry out its threats. But Hezbollah is also aware of the repercussions of going into a new war with Israel. It realizes that this time both sides will find themselves entangled in an open conflict outcome of which is not assured.

For Israel an attack on its populated centers and strategic assets will force an unprecedented response. Lebanon in its entirety will pay a heavy price as a result.

Hezbollah is under pressure both in Lebanon and abroad. Its participation in the Syrian war has triggered harsh criticism from various Lebanese power centers. It remains the prime suspect in the international probe into the murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Al-Hariri. Its possession of a huge arsenal of weapons is a contentious issue for most Lebanese. And its close ties with Iran have not endeared it to Sunni regimes in the region.

Hezbollah has lost much of its political capital in the Arab world since it sided with the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria and supported the unrest in Bahrain. Nasrallah has tried to regain popularity by underlying the group’s historical enmity with Israel and its solidarity with Hamas and other militant Palestinian organizations.

It is unlikely that Israel would want to go to war with Hezbollah, few months after launching a deadly assault on Gaza. The Israeli public is weary but Netanyahu could be using this to serve his own political interests. Challenging Hezbollah will put him in a strong position especially among extremists and right-wing forces. But if his gambit fails and war does break out Israel’s political map could change dramatically.

The most likely scenario is that Hezbollah will bide its time and wait for an opportune moment to retaliate, perhaps outside Israel’s borders. Nasrallah admitted that he had miscalculated Tel Aviv’s response when his people kidnapped two Israeli soldiers in 2006.

This time he will make sure that his retaliation will not provoke a direct reaction.

The post Is Another War In Making? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By David Inserra*

On January 14, the FBI arrested Christopher Cornell for plotting to bomb the U.S. Capitol and then fire upon those who fled from the buildings. According to the complaint filed against him, Cornell, who was using the alias Raheel Mahrus Ubaydah, supported the Islamic State and sought to wage jihad against the U.S. This is the 63rd successful or foiled Islamist terrorist plot against the United States since 9/11 and continues the trend of homegrown terrorism.

In light of this plot and the recent Islamist terrorist attack in Paris, it is clear that the U.S. cannot simply wish away the threat of terrorism at home and abroad. Despite rhetoric about the defeat of al-Qaeda, the insignificance of ISIS, and the end of the war on terror, the reality is that the threat of terrorism remains. The U.S. cannot merely be content with its existing counterterrorism efforts, but must look to improve and build on these efforts to keep the U.S. safe.

The Plot

The criminal complaint filed by the FBI against Cornell states that he created Twitter accounts in the summer of 2014 and began posting statements and videos supportive of ISIS as well as voicing support for violent jihad and acts of terrorism around the world.[1] The FBI used a confidential informant to reach out to Cornell and investigate his intentions. In August, Cornell wrote an instant message to the informant in which he stated, “I believe we should just wage jihad under our own orders and plan attacks and everything.… [W]e already got a thumbs up from the Brothers over there and Anwar al Awlaki before his martyrdom and many others.”[2]

These messages led to an in-person meeting between Cornell and the informant in October in which Cornell described his need for weapons and his desire to attack but without specific details. In a second meeting in November, Cornell identified the Members of Congress as enemies and specified that he sought to build and plant pipe bombs near the U.S. Capitol and then shoot those fleeing the scene. Cornell showed the informant research on government buildings, the construction of pipe bombs, and the acquisition of firearms. After saving money, Cornell put his plan into motion on January 14, purchasing two semi-automatic rifles and around 600 rounds of ammunition from a store in southern Ohio. He was then arrested before the public was put in danger.[3]

Homegrown Terrorism

Cornell’s plot marks the 52nd homegrown Islamist terrorist plot or attack since 9/11 out of 63 total attacks and plots. Homegrown, lone-wolf terrorist plots present a challenge to U.S. counterterrorism efforts due to their low profile and lack of connections to other groups or individuals. In this case, Cornell forfeited his low profile by announcing his thoughts and beliefs on Twitter, but not all terrorists will be so brazen. Cyber capabilities that allowed law enforcement to find extremist and terrorist behavior online were critical to ensuring that Cornell’s plot was discovered.

The U.S. must redouble its efforts to combat terrorism by maintaining and building on current counterterrorism tools. Congress should:

• Maintain essential counterterrorism tools. Support for important investigative tools is essential to maintaining the security of the U.S. and combating terrorist threats. Legitimate government surveillance programs are also a vital component of U.S. national security and should be allowed to continue. The need for effective counterterrorism operations, however, does not relieve the government of its obligation to follow the law and respect individual privacy and liberty. In the American system, the government must do both equally well.
• Ensure that FBI information is shared more broadly with state and local law enforcement. Despite the lessons of 9/11 and other terrorist plots, the culture of the FBI continues to resist sharing information with state and local law enforcement. While cooperation with state and local law enforcement through the local Joint Terrorism Task Force was present in this case, it should be present in all cases. As large-scale, complicated terrorist attacks become harder to execute, the lone-wolf scenario becomes more of a threat. America therefore has to leverage the experience, capabilities, authorities, and relationships found in local law enforcement to detect budding terrorists before they strike. Either Congress should pass legislation to enable sharing, or the Administration should change internal FBI procedures.
• Prioritize local cyber capabilities. Building cyber investigation capabilities in the higher-risk urban areas must become a primary focus of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security grants. With so much terrorism-related activity occurring on the Internet, local law enforcement must have the ability to constitutionally monitor and track violent extremist activity on the Web when reasonable suspicion exists to do so.
• Emphasize community outreach. Federal grant funds should be used to create robust community outreach capabilities in higher-risk urban areas. Such capabilities are key to building trust in local communities, and if the United States is to thwart lone-wolf terrorist attacks successfully, it must put effective community outreach operations at the tip of the spear.

Rejecting Complacency, Remaining Alert

The U.S. cannot view terrorism and terrorists as defeated; the threat remains as real as ever. The U.S. may have ended the war on terror, but terrorists are still at war with the U.S. To win the long war against terrorism and foil future terrorist plots, the U.S. must continue to improve its counterterrorism strategies and tools.

About the author:
*David Inserra is a Research Associate for Homeland Security and Cyber Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation.

Source:
This article was published by The Heritage Foundation.

Notes:
[1] Complaint at 4, United States v. Cornell (S.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2015) (No. 1:15-mj-00024), http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/01/14/cornell_complaint.pdf (accessed January 15, 2015).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid, pp. 5–6.

The post Terrorist Plot 63: Attempt To Bomb Capitol Shows US Cannot Ignore Threat Of Terrorism – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

At the onset of 2015, left-wing extremism (LWE) in India under the aegis of the Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist) is confronted with a choice of either coming to terms with the realities of its weakness and revisit the strategy of sustaining a protracted war with the state; or continuing with carrying out periodic attacks on the security forces and other state protagonists with the long-term aim of resurrecting itself yet again in the coming years.

Although the past few years have reinforced the notion that CPI-Maoist has ceased to be the force it used to be, there is little hope that in 2015, the outfit would halt pursuing its strategy of carrying out intermittent raids as well as expanding into newer areas. How the state responds to this challenge via its reformulated strategy would be something to watch out for.

Shrinking Extremist Domination

In 2014, the trend of declining fatalities in LWE-related violence continued. According to provisional data, only 314 fatalities were registered, which is the lowest since the formation of the CPI-Maoist in 2004. While Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand account 67 per cent of these fatalities, Odisha, Maharashtra and Bihar are the other states that reported the remaining fatalities. The CPI-Maoist, which once wielded influence over almost one-third of the country’s geographical expanse, now operates with a constrained presence in these five states. A sudden expansion in the CPI-Maoist’s area of operation is unlikely in 2015. The outfit would mostly be involved in guarding its remaining influence in these states.

Persisting Weakness

Affected by surrenders, killings and arrests of a large numbers of its cadres, the CPI-Maoist is clearly on a back foot, necessitating a phase of tactical retreat when the outfit rebuilds its strength. Among the many denominators that point at the state’s tightening grip over LWE is the former’s ability to carry out largely peaceful elections in various states. Jharkhand went for an assembly elections in November and December 2014. Additionally, the CPI-Maoist largely failed to carry out its threats of disrupting the poll; the over 66 per cent voter turnout – a record percentage in the state – demonstrated a growing popular confidence in the State’s ability to provide security. A stable government, now a reality in state, has an opportunity of heralding an era of decisive action against the extremists.

Morale-boosting Assaults

The operational weakness of the CPI-Maoist, however, has not curtailed its ability to carry out periodic attacks resulting in high casualty among the security forces. In fact, such attacks would remain part of the CPI-Maoist’s continuing attempt of seeking relevance, rebuilding its organisational strength, and inflicting setbacks on the security forces. The fact that the security forces in each of the LWE-affected theatres continue to face issues of coordination, leadership and direction, would aid the extremist efforts. Successful attacks such as the one that resulted in the killing of 14 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel in Chhattisgarh’s Sukma district on 1 December 2014, has already led to a defensive mindset among the forces, with the CRPF headquarters insisting that all major operations against the extremists must be cleared by the top brass of the organisation.

Enclaves of Strength

New Delhi has assured the affected states of support in dealing with LWE. However, for the states, emerging from an era of overwhelming dependence on the central forces has proved to be difficult. Progress in enabling its own police forces to take a lead role in countering extremism has remained a non-starter. This is apparent in the significant level of popular compliance to the CPI-Maoist’s periodic calls for shutdown in various states. Even as the state makes advance establishing its writ over hitherto extremism-affected areas, several enclaves of extremist domination, especially in states like Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Odisha would continue to mock the official claims of success.

Missing Bureaucracy

Resurrecting governance over the erstwhile Maoist-dominated areas has proved to be New Delhi’s Achilles Heel. As of the beginning of 2015, the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs is pushing the state governments to appoint “officers with zeal” as district magistrates and superintendents of police in the extremism-affected districts. Even as the security forces register some successes in ending extremist domination over select areas, bureaucratic inertia in kick-starting governance has remained one of the primary hindrances in cementing success. Government functionaries are either reluctant to function in such hazardous zones or are indulging in rampant corruption exploiting the lack of accountability a conflict situation provides. The attempt to inculcate “zeal” among functionaries, both in the higher and lower levels of bureaucracy is likely to be a tough one for the state governments.

Southern Expansion

One of the less highlighted aspects of the CPI-Maoist’s activities in 2014 was its foray into Kerala. With a handful of incidents involving attacks on a forest department office and an outpost, and KFC and McDonald’s outlets, the Maoists have announced their presence in the southern state. While expansion into new areas remains an avowed objective of the CPI-Maoist exploiting fertile grounds, the divided official response has helped the outfit gain strength and sympathisers. Amid the Kerala police’s steps to deal with the emerging threat, a senior government functionary has called for a stop to the hunt and has praised the Maoists for “energising the government machinery in tribal areas.” The CPI-Maoist would continue its attempts to spread its activities into new areas in 2015. Sans a national consensus on dealing with the threat, some of these areas would lapse into new hunting grounds for the extremists.

This article was published by IPCS.

The post India: Left-Wing Extremism In 2015 – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Today’s global context is one of uncertainty, said Simonetta Sommaruga, President of the Swiss Confederation and Minister of Justice and Police. Uncertainty is prevalent in current conflicts and crisis regions as well as in the comparatively prosperous countries of Europe. “Overall, globalization has led to greater prosperity and reduced poverty, but that is not the case everywhere,” she said.

Sommaruga was speaking at the 45th World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos-Klosters, 21 to 24 January 2015. She told participants that globalization induces a deep-seated sense of uncertainty in many people. “It would be a dangerous mistake to ignore the uncertainty felt by many people,” she added. She pointed to the rise of nationalist and populist parties in many countries in Europe that are critical of globalization, reject immigration and incite scepticism towards the European Union. She called on business people and politicians to accept responsibility and address the uncertainties created by today’s global economy.

“Are we creating an economic environment in which only high performers working under constant pressure can prevail?” she asked. “Competition is growing for the highly developed economies too. In more and more countries, workers are still paid low wages but now offer highly skilled labour.”

This means that even leading economies can remain successful only if they are prepared to continuously make structural changes. “Structural change in itself is not a bad thing, but it produces winners and losers. This is something we cannot accept,” the President said.

Uncertainty has fuelled the rise of nationalist conservative parties in Europe, parties that invoke a nation’s sovereignty and a native country symbolizing familiarity and safety. This describes an ideal past that never was, she added.

Sommaruga noted that business leaders have avoided assuming the responsibility for answering questions on the inequitable distribution of the benefits of globalization for far too long. “We need business people who want to earn money but who also want something more,” she said. “We need business people who want to give others a chance; employers who set benchmarks in terms of profit and of corporate culture. We also need commodities groups that prohibit all forms of forced labour and exploitation, and that recognize the rights of others.”

The President also called on policy-makers to put in place – and enforce – a sound framework based on the rule of law, legal certainty, no corruption and protection of human rights and social justice. “These elements are key to a healthy economic and social order. This requires determination, clear values and steadfastness,” she added. “Nothing has greater value in politics than credibility.”

The post ‘Dangerous Mistake’ To Ignore Uncertainty, Swiss President Warns appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ihsan Bal*

The third wave of global terrorism, which is popularly identified with the image of two airplanes crashing into the World Trade Center in 2001, has culminated in modern-day terrorist groups like Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS. Such network-based groups are difficult to track down and know no boundaries in their acts of violence and doctrinaire extremism. Today, the global domino effect caused by rising extremist tendencies in the post-Cold War era has reached a climax. And the cruel methods devised by global terrorism, which are usually reciprocated with military-focused countermeasures, inevitably fuel a vicious cycle of revenge and reprisal.

The terrorist logic

The ideological mindset put into effect through the terrorist attacks of extremist networks is mainly shaped by an anti-Westphalian perspective, as the fundamental notions of nation-state and modernity and secularism are targeted. Within the extremist mindset, tragedies that afflict the Muslim world such as those experienced in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Palestine are instrumentalized to legitimate violence against the “other”, i.e. nation-states and the modern way of life. And with an increasing frequency and impact of such crises that are partly provoked by extremist groups in the first place, resorting to violence as a way of airing accumulated grievances has come to be considered as a more viable option than ever among downtrodden segments of Islamic societies.

The recent terrorist attacks on the people of Paris were nothing but part of a conscious campaign designed by extremist groups with a “broader” perspective, aimed at reaching beyond their narrow grassroots and winning the support of larger portions of the global Muslim population by deepening the existing rift between Muslims and the Western world.

What to do now?

At this juncture, we need to focus on strategic responses that encapsulate a diverse set of counter-measures to be taken in several fields rather than fall into the shrewdly designed trap by acting on impulse. Emotional responses and outrage on the part of the larger public should not be the guide of anti-terror efforts, for if this were to be the case, policies could seriously backfire.

Muslims should be the first to oppose the instrumentalization of violence by a small minority that falsely claims to represent them all. Muslim clerics and scholars should be the first to vehemently and publicly condemn terrorist attacks. We should not be making excuses, contrasting the magnitude of pain inflicted by the “rival party” on us with that caused by recent terrorist attacks on civilians in the West, nor should we be comparing the number of casualties when it comes to suffering and terror.

On the other hand, Western intellectuals and decision-makers should avoid discriminating against Muslims and antagonizing all Muslim nations by way of overgeneralization. It should have been obvious for all of us by now that the most efficient way to combat the terrorist mindset in the intellectual field is to develop united front irrespective of our religious convictions, cultural backgrounds, and political orientations against this menace.

Need for solidarity

Therefore, identity politics, which is the root cause of the recent blast numerous and intensity of terrorist attacks, should yield its place to internationalism and inter-cultural solidarity all across the world, at least within the upper echelons of decision-making and intellectual inquiry, if we want to alleviate the serious threat posed to us all by global terrorism. For this to happen, policy-makers, scholars, columnists, top religious figures, opinion leaders, i.e. all figures of influence, should hold humanitarian principles above all else in such emergency situations.

Finally, as USAK, and as the larger Turkish academic community, we should focus on constructive solutions and assume a prospective vision. Employing narrow-minded conspiracy theories and blaming provocateurs will not solve the problem. We should be raising awareness by offering the Turkish public the message that making incessant references to the massacres and atrocities perpetrated against Muslims in the past would only lead us to a blind alley of emotional isolation and material misery.

Of course we cannot suggest that a bright prosperous safe and secure future for all of us in an “age of extremism”. However, to pave the way for the future requires a certain intellectual capacity and a dual approach. On the one hand, looking into the past with care allows us to draw a better picture of today; on the other hand, becoming entrenched in history inhibits the creation of a bright future. Now is not the time for a blame game to be commenced between the West and the Muslim world, rather now is the time to change the mindset and promote creative thought on how to manage pluralism and multiculturalism, thus enabling us to live in peace and harmony. Seeing that we are already, unfortunately, devoting much of our human capacity to killing, it is now time to promote life. It cannot be a better time to spur our imaginations into producing innovative ideas and sanctity of all human lives.

*Ihsan Bal, Head of USAK Academic Council

The post Instrumentalization Of Violence And Charlie Hebdo Attack – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

US President Barack Obama’s participation in India’s annual Republic Day celebration is rich in symbolism. It is also a major opportunity for Washington and Delhi to reboot their relationship and set ambitious new goals for their strategic and economic partnership.

By C. Raja Mohan

President Barack Obama’s visit to India to participate in the coming annual Republic Day celebrations is likely to give a second wind to the strategic partnership that failed to meet the expectations raised a decade ago by Washington and Delhi. The historic civil nuclear initiative and a defence cooperation agreement announced by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in mid 2005 generated hopes that the United States and India had finally shed the tag of “estranged democracies”.

Although the relationship has expanded significantly over the last decade, there was a distinct sense by the end of Singh’s tenure that the ties had plateaued. Political ambivalence and bureaucratic recalcitrance in both capitals seemed to prevent the implementation of agreements signed and limit the possibilities for a genuine strategic partnership.

Breaking the taboo

In Washington, Obama appeared less willing than his predecessor, George W. Bush, to devote personal attention towards India. In Delhi, the ruling Congress Party did not seem to have the political will to consolidate the big breakthrough that Singh and Bush had engineered. The enduring sentiments in the Congress Party in favour of economic populism at home and non-alignment abroad severely limited Singh’s ability to seize the new opportunities with the US.

The massive mandate for Narendra Modi in last May’s general election has provided the moment for a renewal of the India-US partnership. Obama was quick to welcome Modi to the White House last September. Modi, in turn, surprised everyone by inviting Obama to this year’s Republic Day celebrations.

That it is the first time Delhi extended this honour to an American president underlines the deep mutual discomfort that has long hobbled the relationship between the world’s largest democracies. In breaking the taboo, Modi is signalling that he is prepared to travel farther with the US than any of his predecessors.

The surprising agreement for a second summit meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Modi in less than six months reveals a rare and simultaneous political will in Delhi and Washington to deepen the partnership. If the first summit last September in Washington arrested the recent drift in the ties between the two nations, Obama’s Delhi sojourn from 25-27 January 2015 is expected to help advance them in a decisive manner.

Strategic domain

In the strategic domain, three broad areas are in focus as the two sides work at a feverish pace to produce agreements that can be showcased during Obama’s visit. One: the effort to wrap up the outstanding issues that have prevented the implementation of the historic civil nuclear initiative.

The two sides are hoping to make progress on the vexed issues of nuclear liability that has prevented the American companies from participating in India’s atomic power programme; the question of administrative arrangements for monitoring the sensitive parts of the civilian nuclear cycle; and facilitating India’s early membership of the global non-proliferation regimes such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

Two: the two leaders are expected to renew the ten-year defence framework agreement signed in 2005, take some concrete steps to promote co-development and co-production of weapons systems in India, and generate better political understanding on how to coordinate their separate efforts to build a stable structure of peace and security in the vast Indo-Pacific region.

Three: Obama and Modi are also likely to broaden and deepen their current cooperation on combating terrorism in the Subcontinent and beyond. Taken together, substantive progress on these three fronts is bound to inject some genuine substance into the strategic partnership that the two sides proclaimed nearly a decade ago but was lost in translation.

Beyond the strategic

Beyond the strategic, two other issues are at the top of Obama’s agenda for India—economic cooperation and climate change. If the slow-down of economic reforms under the Singh government generated deep frustration in Washington, Delhi’s policies on taxation, intellectual property rights and multilateral trade negotiations had angered America.

Modi, in contrast, is making a special effort to woo American corporations and convince them that India is back as a growth story. As he takes steps to improve the ease of doing business in India, initiates a number of long overdue reforms, and signals flexibility on multilateral economic issues, Modi has created the space for more productive economic engagement with the US.

Modi’s greatest surprise, however, has been his bold introduction of some flexibility into India’s position on climate change that has long been a source of political tension between Delhi and Washington.

Officials from the two governments are said to be negotiating an ‘action plan’ on climate change that focuses less on India’s near term carbon emissions and find ways to boost India’s use of renewable energy sources like solar and wind. Such an approach will address Delhi’s need to grow its economy and Washington’s desire to lessen the weight of coal in India’s energy mix.

If agreements on nuclear, defence, and homeland security will help Delhi and Washington reboot their strategic ties, progress on issues relating to trade, investment, energy and climate change would provide a much deeper and more lasting foundation for the partnership between India and the US.

*C. Raja Mohan is a Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi and an Adjunct Professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He is also a Visiting Research Professor at the Institute of South Asian Studies, Singapore and a non-resident Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC).

The post Modi And Obama: Ready To Reboot India-US Relations? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

America’s states, fifty stars orderly represented over a background of blue in our flag, may be said to be united … but the folks who populate them certainly are not. We may claim to be the United States of America, but rest assured that we are definitely not the United People of America; never have been, and likely never will be, no matter what the pledge of allegiance might deceitfully say, or the colorful fantasy-pens we utilize in writing our history… or the misinformation in which we, fat-dumb-and-happy, live.

For generations, Americans have been touting the nation’s economic success, making such outcome a product of our diversity, and the exceptionalism granted from “Above.” Never mind that the economic reality, if studied in depth, tells us our economic success was attained not because of diversity in our population, but in spite of it. Now that globalization is tearing away Americans’ past advantages involving economies of scale in a unique, super-size market, the very negative aspects of diversity are coming home to roost. As a result, economically, things are likely to get uglier and uglier during the next decade or two as we come to accept our new, unprivileged place in the world.

Last congressional elections finally gave the United States of America its true nationalist, neocon or “neo-fascist” colors; an America which has economically disenfranchised one-fifth of its population… neatly placing them in the gutter… keeping another three-fifths waiting in the “you-next” wings. Yet, Barack Obama, a political pleaser but no neocon, commands a positive rating by as much as half of the nation’s population, according to current polls.

How can that be?

No mystery or great dilemma here. It’s all a matter of disunity, and the fact that Americans are for the most part one-issue people – clearly reflected in how they vote; the priority needs of society either relegated or skipped altogether. If you are black, you vote your blackness; if you are brown, you vote your brownness which all too often involves immigration policy; and that holds true in the many other aspects that separate the citizenry, from sexuality identification to professional identification (teachers, police, military, etc.) and all other groups in between carrying an agenda.

Selfishness has always prevailed, but its negative aspects were never profoundly felt because of the coat of wealth that separated the so-called middle-class America from much of the labor class in the third or even first worlds. As that coat slowly melts away, physiognomy of America – socially, economically and politically – opens up to show its disunity.

This American president, Barack Obama, has tapped the disunity (polarization) which exists today in the United States on immigration, wealth distribution, health and gender issues, to create a contingent of ragtime minorities which afford him a luxury which he does not deserve… that of a president with an acceptability rating of about 50 percent. A figure that would likely be considerably higher if the color of his skin was white. Amazing that this disunion is able to place Obama center stage as an almost successful president, when he is a bigger failure than his two predecessors: Clinton and Bush43!

Bill Clinton still needs to be summoned by history for the damage he helped create in the self-demolition of industrial America and quick-acceptance of globalization without a metamorphosis-plan to get us there with a more sedate pain. It won’t be long before his credit for creating millions of minimum-wage jobs, which party-faithful Democrats idiotically brag about, is replaced with the appropriate deserving blame… and he is seen for the political, self-serving scoundrel he turned out to be.

As for George W. Bush, little can be said which hasn’t already been said. A politician not just ignorant and incompetent, but one shamefully pushed by his mentor (and yet to be tried as war criminal), Dick Cheney, into unnecessary wars of choice in both Afghanistan and Iraq; wars that accentuated an unneeded anti-Islam portrait of America.

History is not likely to be kind to these two former presidents… but its fury and harshest judgment will truly be unchained when it judges the deeds the current occupant of the White House has performed when declaring economic war, via sanctions and pressure on the European Union to do the same, on Russia. De facto, imposing such sanctions on Russia was just a notch below a preemptive nuclear attack extending from Moscow to Vladivostok. Then, proudly claiming to have placed the Russian economy in tatters during his state of the union speech! Yes, incredibly abhorrent, as was the holocaustic infanticide caused by American sanctions placed on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Perhaps, saddest of all was the acclamation Obama received after his “Russian economy in tatters and America’s resolve” remark from an audience representing all our three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial. Add another couple of points to Obama’s popularity courtesy of a neo-fascist government and its belligerent attitude towards a Russia that is no longer communist but remains being Slav. Are we to add Slavophobia to our existing Islamophobia; and, will Sinophobia come next?

The post Barack Obama’s Popularity And His Annual Stage Of Disunion – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

“I only wish I had killed more.” — Navy Seal and American Shame (Sniper), Chris Kyle

“I can’t kill anyone.” — US working-class soldier before his short deployment to Iraq, Casey Sheehan

This is something that I don’t want to revisit—I never want to relive the worst experience of my life. However, with the 11th anniversary of my son’s death in Iraq on 04/04/04 approaching and the new “blockbuster” infecting movie screens around the world, I really must get this off of my chest.

Most citizens of this nation are without a doubt addicted to wars and war “heroes” without stopping for more than a few cursory seconds to count the costs or evaluate the propaganda. I despair that a movie like American Sniper grossed over 105 million at the box office over the weekend where we are supposed to be commemorating the birth of a man of peace, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Everything in American Sniper is taken for fact when the author and focus Chris Kyle already had been proven to have been a blowhard and a liar, when the facts and political motivations of Selma are being questioned.

As is the US addicted to its wars, it is also addicted to lying about them and I know this because I have my own case about Casey for proof.

We got the news about Casey about 14 hours or so after his detail had been ambushed in Iraq. After I lie on the floor screaming for I don’t know how long, the three emissaries of death couldn’t really tell us much except that he was Killed In Action (KIA)—I still can’t see a KIA brand car without my heart sinking.

Since Casey’s murder, I have found out so much about the US military I had no idea about, but when a group of troops (Battalion? Unit? Army? Murder?) get deployed to combat, some stay back as “Funeral Duty.” Two such persons came to Casey’s funeral and regaled us with stories about what a wonderful mechanic he was and how he had “volunteered” to go on the mission that killed him.

Even though neither story rang true to me, I absorbed them like a dry sponge (as I was from all the tears I shed) wanting to hang on to some news of my son because he had only been there in Iraq a few days before he was killed. We didn’t even know he was stationed at Camp War Eagle right in the heart of Sadr City, Baghdad.

Casey had joined the Army in the year 2000 for college benefits and with the promise from his lying recruiter that he could be a Chaplain’s Assistant. I knew from our many conversations that Casey hated being a Humvee mechanic, but that was the only MOS (military job) available when he got to boot camp.

Also, the very final time he was home (oh, how I wish I knew for sure it was the final time, I would have carried out my half-joking threat to run him with my car just enough to disable him) at Christmas of 2003, he told everyone he was just going to “do his job” and come home safely because, as a Christian and gentle man, he could “never kill anyone.” All of this didn’t jibe at all with Casey “volunteering.”

By drips and drabs, the truth came out. Much has been written with the Imperial spin about 04/04/04 in Sadr City—about how the First Cavalry (Casey’s unit, or whatever) was attacked by the residents of Sadr City, but from unembedded journalists we have found out that the 1st Cav went out to provoke a response to show the residents who was “in charge now.” April 4th was also right after the mercenaries of Blackwater had provoked the residents of Fallujah into an uprising that resulted in the highly publicized deaths of several mercenaries.

Four years after Casey died, I received an email from one of his buddies who was right next to him on that fateful evening.
The vet started his email with, “Sheehan was a great guy, but he was a lousy mechanic.” Which made me smile, because it rang true, but then he delivered the coup de gras:

“I don’t know why you keep telling everyone it was Bush’s fault, it was Sgt. (Name withheld by me)’s fault. He made your son go on that mission and in fact told him to ‘get your goddamn ass on that truck’ after Sheehan had said, ‘no, I am not going, I am only a mechanic.’”

Even though I sobbed when I read that, I knew it was true. Casey knew he could never kill anyone and to me he is far more of a hero for not wanting to kill than is Chris Kyle for his self-proclaimed “more than 250″ murders of what he called “savages.”

How much courage does it really take for a sniper to be given co-ordinates from a spotter and then firing from hundreds of yards away? To me that is the definition of cowardice even forgetting about the lies that got both Casey and Kyle to Iraq and the ones who made billions in profits while Casey died thousands of miles away from his loving home and a vet with PTSD would ironically end up murdering Kyle back here in the states.

I will always be proud of my son who is a grand hero to me for refusing orders in the heat of battle and ashamed by a cold-blooded killer like Kyle and a nation that lifts him up as the standard of heroism. I find it supremely ironic and sad that NOT being a killer is frowned upon here while being a happy killer makes one a best-selling author and garners all kinds of award nominations and ticket sales for those who wish to exploit this nation’s bloodlust.

This truly makes me wonder if there is any hope to end the evil of US empire, or are we doomed to “wash, rinse, and repeat” these stories of infamy and tragedy over and over again until the USA collapses from the weight of all the carnage.

The post Cindy Sheehan: Casey Vs. Kyle – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.