[DAWN] THE first official Eid message of the new leader of the Afghan Taliban, Mullah Mansour, suggests that an immediate resumption of talks with the Afghan government is unlikely -- and that divisions within the Taliban leadership still exist.
While the Eid messages of the previous Taliban chief Mullah Omar ... a minor Pashtun commander in the war against the Soviets who made good as leader of the Taliban. As ruler of Afghanistan, he took the title Leader of the Faithful. The imposition of Pashtunkhwa on the nation institutionalized ignorance and brutality in a country already notable for its own fair share of ignorance and brutality... -- now believed to have been authored over the past couple of years by Mullah Mansour himself -- routinely emphasised the need for all foreign troops to leave Afghanistan, the new leader's message has called for the scrapping of the bilateral security arrangement between the US and Afghan governments that has allowed a residual American military presence to remain in Afghanistan.
Also read: Afghan Taliban factions issue contradictory Eid messages
But it is more than the seeming addition of a new precondition: the tone and tenor of the message suggest the emphasis is still on consolidating his leadership rather than continuing with his/Mullah Omar's gradual opening up to the possibility of a negotiated settlement. While the goings-on inside the Afghan Taliban leadership are notoriously opaque and difficult to predict, Mullah Mansour's switch from tentative peacemaker to placating the most hardline elements in the Afghan Taliban suggests he is yet to fully tamp down dissent against his rule.
The fact that a competing Eid message was issued by some Afghan Taliban leaders is indicative of lingering internal legitimacy issues.
Intriguingly, the new Taliban leader also made a mention of "foreign pressure" to resume talks being counterproductive and suggested it would create more problems than it would solve. The comment was likely aimed at Pakistain.
Again, however, it is difficult to know what prompted it: is he trying to appease the hawks among the Taliban or did the process of his installation as the next Taliban emir lead to some genuine friction with the Pak state?
The assumption thus far has been that the security establishment preferred the Afghan Taliban remaining united under Mullah Mansour and had worked with him earlier to make the Murree talks happen.
Could it be, though, that the extent of Pakistain's influence over him has been exaggerated, just as it was argued that Pakistain controlled the Afghan Taliban and could dictate policy to them?
Whatever the truth about the relationship between Mullah Mansour and the Pak state, it is relatively clear that the latter has its work cut out for it. Nudging the Taliban to the negotiating table and stabilising ties with Kabul ...the capital of Afghanistan. Home to continuous fighting from 1992 to 1996 between the forces of would-be strongman and Pak ISI/Jamaat-e-Islami sock puppet Gulbuddin Hekmayar and the Northern Alliance, a period which won Hek the title Most Evil Man in the World and didn't do much for the reputations of the Northern Alliance guys either.... should be the immediate priorities.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/24/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
[Hurriyet Daily News] The position of the president has been causing fierce debate for a while. There is also a boom in the number of investigations launched on charges of insulting President Recep Tayyip Erdogan ... Turkey's version of Mohammed Morsi but they voted him back in so they deserve him... .
Most recently, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu made a call to opposition leaders that consisted of a number of points: issuing a joint declaration against terror, maintaining decorum during election campaigns and respecting the privacy of the family. Davutoglu's fourth item in his call is to keep President Recep Tayyip Erdogan out of the political debate, but the opposition did not accept this one.
The chair of the Republican People's Party (CHP), Kemal Kilicdaroglu, said they had long since adopted the first three items, adding that they would agree to the fourth item only if Erdogan maintained constitutionally required impartiality.
It is a matter that needs significant attention that when the first three items are easily agreed upon, there is a disagreement when the subject is the president.
Heads of states, kings or presidents who represent the state and the unity and the honor of the nation require special respect. There are nice practices supporting this; for instance, when they enter a hall, everybody stands up. His or her movements are accompanied by ceremonial gestures to a great extent. He or she has his or her own special seal.
They have restricted powers but theirs is the highest position.
For these reasons, in all modern penal codes, there are special arrangements and sanctions to protect presidents from insults. While the rule of law maintains the honor of the presidents in penal codes and in ceremonies this way, there are also commitments in constitutions and practices on their part so that they remain impartial, non-partisan, avoid political debates and thus represent the unity of the nation.
As Davutoglu said, the president should be "kept out of political debates" but on the other side of the coin, the president has a responsibility to keep out of political debates.
Except for extraordinary periods in our history, it was only our 10th president, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, who was in the middle of debates causing very fierce criticisms because of his discriminatory approach to the headscarf issue and because he triggered an economic crisis by insulting Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit. This was included in the rulings of the Supreme Court of Appeals. Their ruling at their General Assembly on Nov. 3, 2009, is not only a legal document but it is at the same time a historical document.
A writer's severe comments about Sezer were regarded as an "insult" by the majority of the high court, while opposing members said that even if they were about the president, the expressions could not be regarded as a crime despite their irritating style and offensiveness. (Decision No: 2009/253)
Leaving aside legal details, just as respectful expressions should be used about presidents in terms of politics, it is also a requirement that presidents make efforts to earn the respect of the core of a society.
The esteemed Erdogan said he would be a "different president." Every president has different features. The personal characteristics of presidents and how they were elected do not change the constitutional status of the position.
Erdogan's campaigning in favor of "his own party" in the elections, especially using the means of his presidential position, has been criticized in OSCE reports. Can it be expected from opposition parties, which were subjected to severe accusations from the president at political rallies, "to keep the president out of political debates?"
Insulting the president cannot be accepted, but shouldn't the president abandon behaviors that elicit a reaction? If we can do all of these, if we all abide by the rules and practices, then polarization will decrease, a culture of conciliation will develop and our country will be better managed.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/24/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Muslim Brotherhood
#2
It will matter when your city is nuked by an iranian or north-korean nuke. It will matter if shariah law is enforced in America and your daughter suffers female genital mutilation. But you will be happy about it because Congress and federal bureucrats will no longer be making unnecessary laws.
#3
Folks felt the same way during the Carter years. Things can change, and when it comes it comes in a big wave of pissed off voters that the politicians have to pay attention to. I'm not sure I see a Reagan but I certainly see a wave building and hope the Republicans have the moxi to surf that wave.
#4
Drudge right now has a photo of the Pope lecturing Congress on immigration. In the photo, Boehner is weeping. We can gather 2 things from this. The first is that the tide is against us. The second is that current Republican leadership can't and won't stop it.
With Perry and Walker out of the race, there is not a single Republican candidate out of the 15 remaining who even conceivably might do something to slow the rate of decline, much less reverse it.
I keep hearing that our guys are not as bad as their guys. Reminds me of a quote from many time socialist candidate for president Norman Thomas: “The difference between Democrats and Republicans is--Democrats have accepted some ideas of Socialism cheerfully, while Republicans have accepted them reluctantly.”
Well, slow isn't good enough for me. If we're going off the cliff then put your foot down and get on with it. At least I'll have a chance to do something about it, rather than try to push the problem off on my kids.
[RealClearDefense] Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett Packard, who is now running for president, wants a bigger Army, a bigger Navy, and a bigger Marine Corps: 50 brigades, 300 to 350 ships, and 36 battalions. How would she pay for it? The debate at which she asserted those numbers provided little time for detail. Earlier, though, she had offered at least that she wouldn't replace thousands of retiring federal workers, in order to decrease "the weight, the power, the cost, the complexity, the ineptitude, and the corruption of the government." In contrast, at the Common Defense (COMDEF) forum at the National Press Club earlier this month, former Pentagon Comptroller Bob Hale repeated his oft-heard plea that federal workers get greater respect. Fiorina's words weren't likely what Hale had in mind, but he did agree that there should be fewer federal workers‐just better ones. Much of the problem lies in finding them the right work to do. Big government has failed. Time to make it smaller.
Posted by: Sven the pelter ||
09/24/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
When Carly Fiorina is the best hope America has...
#3
The US military no longer has a soul, at least inside the five sided funny farm.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
09/24/2015 13:41 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Both companies are around today so that is saying something. Lots of companies didn't survive the tech bubble, especially ones making PC clones and printer cartridges.
[Jpost] Suppose for the sake of argument that back in 2003 the US powers-that-be, with their British counterparts in tow, did some soul-searching and set themselves ten long-term goals. I think it's sarcasm---but I'm not sure
Posted by: paul ||
09/24/2015 8:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
In fact, my view of these lads is a great deal more optimistic than yours. I give them credit for planning every detail of the ensuing global catastrophe and executing the plan with unwavering commitment and ingenuity.
You, on the other hand, seem to suggest that they are so stupid and immoral that they plunged into these troubled waters without even considering the consequences.
Is there some reason both of these paragraphs cannot be correct ?
#3
Not necessarily all true. Morsi/MB was supposed to be in charge of Egypt, and another MB in charge of Syria. The former, in conjunction with the election of not-Netenyahu weakened diplomatic efforts against Israel, and the latter weakened diplomatic efforts with Iran. Jordan came in against ISJV which was not planned on account of Obama greatly scolding Abdullah over the airstrikes rather than condemning the ISJV. The Kurds were not supposed to fight so well, especially at some hinterland nowhere called Kobane which brought Turkey against the Kurds instead of against Assad. Obama even had warhawk McCain stumping for arming baby ISJV and couldn't make the sale, and Benghazi stinks of weapon sales countered by somebody not interested in those sales happening.
I'm not saying there weren't goals very similar to the list, but that setbacks, failures, and counters delayed those objectives enough to disrupt those goals beyond achievement.
You know, solid B+ stuff.
The prime goal had always been domestic, which has not gone as well as they anticipated. At least I think that is why things are getting a bit heavy handed, trying to beat the clock.
Loved Breyner's green tie, nicely matches McCain's green lapel. Nice algae green from being in the tank.
#4
The article isn't satire, it is just trying to blame Bush and Blair (timeline starts in 2003) for the current mess and insinuate they did it for evil purposes (no mention why, just that they planned it).
It completely ignores 9/11 and the fact that the region was stable when Obama took power and without that data the article is worthless nonsense.
[ZeroHedge] On Sunday, we noted that Washington's strategy in Syria has now officially unravelled.
John Kerry, speaking from London following talks with British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, essentially admitted over the weekend that Russia's move to bolster the Assad regime at Latakia effectively means that the timing of Assad's exit is now completely indeterminate. Here's how we summed up the situation:
Moscow, realizing that instead of undertaking an earnest effort to fight terror in Syria, the US had simply adopted a containment strategy for ISIS while holding the group up to the public as the boogeyman par excellence, publicly invited Washington to join Russia in a once-and-for-all push to wipe Islamic State from the face of the earth. Of course The Kremlin knew the US wanted no such thing until Assad was gone, but by extending the invitation, Putin had literally called Washington's bluff, forcing The White House to either admit that this isn't about ISIS at all, or else join Russia in fighting them. The genius of that move is that if Washington does indeed coordinate its efforts to fight ISIS with Moscow, the US will be fighting to stabilize the very regime it sought to oust.
Revelations (which surprised no one but the Pentagon apparently) that Moscow is coordinating its efforts in Syria with Tehran only serve to reinforce the contention that Assad isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and the US will either be forced to aid in the effort to destroy the very same Sunni extremists that it in some cases worked very hard to support, or else admit that countering Russia and supporting Washington's regional allies in their efforts to remove Assad takes precedence over eliminating ISIS. Because the latter option is untenable for obvious reasons, Washington has a very real problem on its hands - and Vladimir Putin just made it worse.
As Bloomberg reports, The Kremlin is prepared to launch unilateral strikes against ISIS targets if the US is unwilling to cooperate. Here's more:
President Vladimir Putin, determined to strengthen Russia's only military outpost in the Middle East, is preparing to launch unilateral airstrikes against Islamic State from inside Syria if the U.S. rejects his proposal to join forces, two people familiar with the matter said.
Putin's preferred course of action, though, is for America and its allies to agree to coordinate their campaign against the terrorist group with Russia, Iran and the Syrian army, which the Obama administration has so far resisted, according to a person close to the Kremlin and an adviser to the Defense Ministry in Moscow.
Russian diplomacy has shifted into overdrive as Putin seeks to avoid the collapse of the embattled regime of Bashar al-Assad, a longtime ally who's fighting both a 4 1/2 year civil war and Sunni extremists under the banner of Islamic State. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flew to Moscow for talks with Putin on Monday, followed by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Tuesday.
Putin's proposal, which Russia has communicated to the U.S., calls for a "parallel track" of joint military action accompanied by a political transition away from Assad, a key U.S. demand, according to a third person. The initiative will be the centerpiece of Putin's one-day trip to New York for the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 28, which may include talks with President Barack Obama.
"Russia is hoping common sense will prevail and Obama takes Putin's outstretched hand," said Elena Suponina, a senior Middle East analyst at the Institute of Strategic Studies, which advises the Kremlin. "But Putin will act anyway if this doesn't happen."
And that, as they say, it that. Checkmate. So we get to use ISIS as proxies in a (local, I hope) war with Russia?
Posted by: Blossom Unains5562 ||
09/24/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under: Islamic State
#1
Putin'sproposal, which Russia has communicated to the U.S., calls for a "parallel track" of joint military action
Ahhhh! Opportunity knocks. Perhaps some carefully crafted diplomacy could help put an end to Vlad's attempting to penetrate UK airspace with partially armed nukes as well as some of his other bullying tactics.
No, forget it. The Champ is too spiteful and narcissistic, besides, the creation of an Islamic State in the former Iraq is a monument to Bush's alleged 'failed foreign policy.' It also serves as a convenient media diversion for the Obama regime, which as we all know, is vitally important.
Champ pivoted to Africa years ago. He's lost interest in the ME.
#3
ISIL appears to be composed of a significant fraction of Central Asian (i.e. Chechens, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Afghans) mixed in with arab groups of troops: a bunch that Moscow has long wished they could get a clean shot at. They're out in the open, where you can bring troops to bear on them, if you're not too fussy about collateral damage.
As for Assad, his regime is now tied to how useful he can make himself to Vlad.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
09/24/2015 13:39 Comments ||
Top||
#4
ISIL appears to be composed of a significant fraction of Central Asian (i.e. Chechens, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Afghans) mixed in with arab groups of troops: a bunch that Moscow has long wished they could get a clean shot at.
The "Western Front" of Islamic State is run by Central Asians; the "Eastern Front" is led (for a lack of a better term) by ex-Saddam-era, Russian - excuse me - Soviet trained Baathists.
The former tend to stick with their own for fighting forces, plus the pick of the Western, North African and Asian volunteers. The Kurdish region apparently functions as a sort of boot-camp for the possibly-useful; if one survives, one gets to move up to the Western League.
The latter get the leftovers from the initial pick, plus fellow Iraqi Sunnis and whatever volunteers come in from Arabia and the African Horn.
[AsiaTimes] The great task of diplomacy in the 21st century is a sad and dreary one, namely managing the decline of Muslim civilization. There is a parallel to the great diplomatic problem of the late 19th and early 20th century, the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, which the diplomats bungled horribly.
It is no job for the idealistic, namely the Americans, nor for the squeamish, namely the Europeans. The breakdown of civil order in a great arc from Beirut to Basra has already displaced 20 million people and raised the world refugee count from 40 million in 2011 to 60 million in 2014, with scores of millions at risk. After it failed to build democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States fell into a sullen torpor in which serious discussion of intervention in the regime is excluded. The hypocritical Europeans averted their eyes until millions of desperate people appeared on their doorstep, and remain clueless in the face of the worst humanitarian crisis since the last world war.
That leaves Vladimir Putin as the last, best hope of a region already halfway over the brink into the abyss. That is a disturbing thought, because the Russian leader has played the spoiler rather than the statesman in his wrangling with Western powers over the past decade and a half. Nonetheless, Russia has an existential interest in sorting out the Levant. Muslims comprise a seventh of the population of the Russian Federation, and the growing influence of ISIS threatens to give a fresh wind to terrorism inside Russia. Mr. Putin might rise to the occasion.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[RealClearDefense] Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett Packard, who is now running for president, wants a bigger Army, a bigger Navy, and a bigger Marine Corps: 50 brigades, 300 to 350 ships, and 36 battalions. How would she pay for it? The debate at which she asserted those numbers provided little time for detail. Earlier, though, she had offered at least that she wouldn't replace thousands of retiring federal workers, in order to decrease "the weight, the power, the cost, the complexity, the ineptitude, and the corruption of the government." In contrast, at the Common Defense (COMDEF) forum at the National Press Club earlier this month, former Pentagon Comptroller Bob Hale repeated his oft-heard plea that federal workers get greater respect. Fiorina's words weren't likely what Hale had in mind, but he did agree that there should be fewer federal workers‐just better ones. Much of the problem lies in finding them the right work to do.
[ZeroHedge] On Sunday, we noted that Washington's strategy in Syria has now officially unravelled.
[AsiaTimes] The great task of diplomacy in the 21st century is a sad and dreary one, namely managing the decline of Muslim civilization. There is a parallel to the great diplomatic problem of the late 19th and early 20th century, the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, which the diplomats bungled horribly.
