Iran lawmakers authorize firm action against U.S. ’terrorist’ acts - Reuters
▻https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-usa-parliament-idUSKCN1RZ0U3
Tehran reacted to the designation, which took effect on April 15, by naming the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) a terrorist organization and the U.S. government a sponsor of terrorism.
U.S. says suspected USS Cole bombing planner killed in Yemen strike | Reuters
▻https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-yemen-military-idUSKCN1P00LL
Jamal al-Badawi, wanted by the United States for his suspected role in the attack on the USS Cole 18 years ago, was killed in a precision strike in Yemen on Jan. 1, U.S. Central Command said on Sunday.
Badawi was indicted by a federal grand jury in 2003 over his role in the October 2000 deadly bombing of the _USS Col_e, a Navy guided-missile destroyer. He escaped from prison in Yemen twice, once in 2003 and again in 2006.
[…]
It is the latest blow to Yemen’s al Qaeda branch, known as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which has lost key leaders in U.S strikes in recent years. In 2018, U.S. officials said they believed that Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, once one of the world’s most feared bombmakers, had been killed.
Saudi Arabia Planned to Invade Qatar Last Summer. Rex Tillerson’s Efforts to Stop It May Have Cost Him His Job.
▻https://theintercept.com/2018/08/01/rex-tillerson-qatar-saudi-uae
THIRTEEN HOURS BEFORE Secretary of State Rex Tillerson learned from the presidential Twitter feed that he was being fired, he did something that President Donald Trump had been unwilling to do. Following a phone call with his British counterpart, Tillerson condemned a deadly nerve agent attack in the U.K., saying that he had “full confidence in the U.K.’s investigation and its assessment that Russia was likely responsible.”
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders had called the attack “reckless, indiscriminate, and irresponsible,” but stopped short of blaming Russia, leading numerous media outlets to speculate that Tillerson was fired for criticizing Russia.
But in the months that followed his departure, press reports strongly suggested that the countries lobbying hardest for Tillerson’s removal were Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, both of which were frustrated by Tillerson’s attempts to mediate and end their blockade of Qatar. One report in the New York Times even suggested that the UAE ambassador to Washington knew that Tillerson would be forced out three months before he was fired in March.
The Intercept has learned of a previously unreported episode that stoked the UAE and Saudi Arabia’s anger at Tillerson and that may have played a key role in his removal. In the summer of 2017, several months before the Gulf allies started pushing for his ouster, Tillerson intervened to stop a secret Saudi-led, UAE-backed plan to invade and essentially conquer Qatar, according to one current member of the U.S. intelligence community and two former State Department officials, all of whom declined to be named, citing the sensitivity of the matter.
In the days and weeks after Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and Bahrain cut diplomatic ties with Qatar and closed down their land, sea, and air borders with the country, Tillerson made a series of phone calls urging Saudi officials not to take military action against the country. The flurry of calls in June 2017 has been reported, but State Department and press accounts at the time described them as part of a broad-strokes effort to resolve tensions in the Gulf, not as an attempt by Tillerson to avert a Saudi-led military operation.
In the calls, Tillerson, who dealt extensively with the Qatari government as the CEO of Exxon Mobil, urged Saudi King Salman, then-Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir not to attack Qatar or otherwise escalate hostilities, the sources told The Intercept. Tillerson also encouraged Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to call his counterparts in Saudi Arabia to explain the dangers of such an invasion. Al Udeid Air Base near Doha, Qatar’s capital city, is the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command and home to some 10,000 American troops.
Pressure from Tillerson caused Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto ruler of the country, to back down, concerned that the invasion would damage Saudi Arabia’s long-term relationship with the U.S. But Tillerson’s intervention enraged Mohammed bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and effective ruler of that country, according to the U.S. intelligence official and a source close to the Emirati royal family, who declined to be identified, citing concerns about his safety.
Later that June, Mohammed bin Salman would be named crown prince, leapfrogging over his cousin to become next in line for the throne after his elderly father. His ascension signaled his growing influence over the kingdom’s affairs.
Qatari intelligence agents working inside Saudi Arabia discovered the plan in the early summer of 2017, according to the U.S. intelligence official. Tillerson acted after the Qatari government notified him and the U.S. embassy in Doha. Several months later, intelligence reporting by the U.S. and U.K. confirmed the existence of the plan.
The plan, which was largely devised by the Saudi and UAE crown princes and was likely some weeks away from being implemented, involved Saudi ground troops crossing the land border into Qatar, and, with military support from the UAE, advancing roughly 70 miles toward Doha. Circumventing the U.S. air base, Saudi forces would then seize the capital.
Foreign Policy - Situation Report
▻http://link.foreignpolicy.com/view/52543e66c16bcfa46f6ced165vxvx.23w3/1ea399c6
Syria ops normal. Mostly. Tensions remain high between the United States and Russia after Sunday’s shoot down of a Syrian jet, and Moscow’s threats to begin tracking all coalition flights west of the Euphrates River with its warplanes and missile defense systems. There’s already been a bit of fallout. Australia announced Tuesday it had suspended its flights into Syria, "as a precautionary measure,” Australia’s Department of Defence said in a statement.
Strikes continue. A daily roundup of airstrikes released by the U.S. Central Command Tuesday showed eight strikes around Raqqa, which sits directly on the Euphrates. “Coalition aircraft continue to conduct operations [unescorted by Russian aircraft] throughout Syria,” Col. Ryan Dillon, the Baghdad-based spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS, told SitRep in an email Tuesday.
He added that despite Russian claims to have shut down the “hotline” between American and Russian military officers in Syria, “we continue to use the de-confliction line with the Russians. The Coalition is always available to de-conflict with the Russians.”
Syrians on the move. In southern Syria, government forces recently took the al Waleed border crossing, an ISIS-held crossing close to the al Tanf garrison where 150 U.S. Special Operations Forces are based. For the first time in years Syrians greeted Iraqi troops, who pushed the Islamic State from their side of the border crossing over the weekend. U.S. military officials said they believe the reports of the border meet and greet are true, but had no further comment. FP’s Paul McLeary has more on the latest complications in the almost three-year American effort in Syria.
Tomahawk Launches Practiced by U.S. Before Trump Gave Go-Ahead - Bloomberg
▻https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-07/tomahawk-launches-practiced-by-u-s-before-trump-gave-go-ahead
The U.S. used the latest-model Tactical Tomahawks, which can be redirected in mid-flight, transmit images to commanders and loiter over a potential target area, according to accounts by U.S. military officials who briefed reporters or spoke in interviews. They asked not to be identified discussing operational details.
[…]
The fusillade of Tomahawks aimed at the Shayrat airfield was one of the options prepared by U.S. Central Command in about a day after Trump condemned the April 4 gas attack, on the assumption the White House might want to act fast to back up the president’s implied threat, one of the officials said. That proved correct when the administration formally requested that the Pentagon ready alternatives.
Once Trump gave the go-ahead order for the Tomahawk strike, the operation moved at a rapid pace. Shortly after 4:35 p.m. New York time on Thursday, Army General Joseph Votel, the head of Central Command, received a call from Marine Corps General Joe Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, telling him to execute the attack. Votel, who was at an event on the U.S. East Coast, passed the order on via a secure video link even before the White House’s written authorization, according to one of the officials.
The 59 missiles launched — a 60th malfunctioned — hit an equal number of targets at the Shayrat air field, which one of the military officials said had been associated with Syrian government chemical attacks since 2013.
[…]
The Navy says it’s buying the last 100 Tomahawks this year before ending production in favor of upgrades to the inventory and starting development on a successor “Next Generation Land Attack Weapon.”
Bon, c’est le tout dernier modèle (avec les options…) mais c’est quand même du déstockage avant remplacement.
@Simplicissimus : sans compter qu’une bonne partie sont tombés on ne sait pas trop où (ou alors on ne nous le dit pas).
The United States Used Depleted Uranium in Syria | Foreign Policy
▻http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/the-united-states-used-depleted-uranium-in-syria
Officials have confirmed that the U.S. military, despite vowing not to use depleted uranium weapons on the battlefield in Iraq and Syria, fired thousands of rounds of the munitions during two high-profile raids on oil trucks in Islamic State-controlled Syria in late 2015. The air assaults mark the first confirmed use of this armament since the 2003 Iraq invasion, when it was used hundreds of thousands of times, setting off outrage among local communities, which alleged that its toxic material caused cancer and birth defects.
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) spokesman Maj. Josh Jacques told Airwars and Foreign Policy that 5,265 armor-piercing 30 mm rounds containing depleted uranium (DU) were shot from Air Force A-10 fixed-wing aircraft on Nov. 16 and Nov. 22, 2015, destroying about 350 vehicles* in the country’s eastern desert.
James Mattis, Possible Trump pick for defense post sees Israel turning into apartheid state
Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, who was known as ’Mad Dog,’ also has said that the United States pays a ’price’ for its support of Israel.
JTA Nov 21, 2016
read more: ▻http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/news/1.754253
James Mattis, a former Marine General seen as one of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s leading candidates for Defense Secretary has said West Bank settlements are turning Israel into an apartheid state.
Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, who was known as “Mad Dog,” also has said that the United States pays a price for its support of Israel, the Times of Israel reported.
Mattis met with Trump Saturday at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey
An unnamed official “familiar with the transition process” told CNN that Mattis can be considered a leading candidate for secretary of defense.
When Trump was asked by reporters whether Mattis is a candidate to lead the Defense Department, Trump said, “All I can say is he is the real deal. He is the real deal.”
Mattis ran U.S. Central Command in from August 2010 to March 2013. In that position he had command authority for all U.S. forces in the Middle East.
Le torchon brûle entre BHO et le Pentagone
7 novembre 2015vilistia
Bloc-Notes
samedi 07 novembre 2015
Deux journaux, le même jour, se font l’écho de fortes dissensions entre la Maison-Blanche et le Pentagone : Le Washington Times et le Washington Examiner, tous les deux le 5 novembre (le 6 novembre pour nous).
Ces dissensions sont nouvelles, ponctuellement provoquées par la “stratégie” adoptée par la Maison-Blanche pour la Syrie, notamment la décision d’envoyer de 30 à 50 “conseillers”, geste qui symbolise la fameuse formule Boots on the Ground et qui a déjà été l’objet ces derniers joues du lancement d’une campagne d’opposition au niveau de l’opinion publique.
D’une façon générale, les critiques portent évidemment sur la forme même de la “stratégie”, le terme attirant évidemment la critique par le simple fait du nombre ridiculement bas de soldats pseudo-non-combattants engagés. On parle ici des déclarations officielles, sans tenir compte de la réalité sur le terrain où l’on sait que des forces US ou sous patronage US sont engagées depuis longtemps, en nombre souvent significatifs. Mais il s’agit d’un autre monde. Nous parlons d’une querelle de communication à partir de narrativre en vogue et en cours… Pourtant, cette querelle recouvre, malgré sa complète irréalité, des dissensions beaucoup plus profondes. Par conséquent, les critiques sont évidentes et souvent fondées, et développent des arguments qui ne le sont pas moins.
On donne d’abord quelques extraits du Washington Examiner qui concernent surtout des experts et spécialistes de l’establishment washingtonien. Leur appréciation est qu’il sera quasiment impossible pour les “conseillers” de ne pas être engagés dans une forme ou l’autre de combat, en raison des conditions qu’ils vont rencontrer en Syrie.
« “There are places where combat is more prevalent, but the wide use of [improvised explosive devices], suicide vests, and snipers, there’s no place in Syria or Iraq that is not dead center in a combat zone,” said Chris Harmer, an analyst with the Institute for the Study of War. “It’s a distinction without a difference at this point. Anybody who goes to Syria in an American uniform is going to be a high-value target for a lot of different terrorist organization.”
» The reality of the dangers facing U.S. troops is more complex than either side claims, due to the new age of conflicts where enemies blend into society rather than facing off on traditional battlefields.It is now “very, very difficult” to define the frontlines of battle, said P.J. Crowley, a professor at George Washington University and a former assistant secretary for public affairs at the State Department. “The nature of modern conflict does not fit neatly into these kinds of categories, categories that have a lot more to do with fighting standing armies representing states than fighting non-state actors that can blend easily into a civilian population,” Crowley said.
» This type of fighting sees people who are not traditionally in combat roles, such as truck drivers tasked with carrying supplies, get ambushed and face violence, Harmer said. Because they see the situation first hand, they know they are in combat regardless of the “double speak” in Washington, he said. “To the troops it makes no difference at all. They’re probably vaguely irritated by the verbal semantics, but anyone on the ground in Syria or Iraq knows they are in combat,” he said… »
Le Washington Times, lui, se concentre sur le réactions extrêmement vives des parlementaires, avec bien entendu l’inoxydable John McCain en tête. Mais, sans surtout rien lui enlever toute l’insondable absurdité de ces postions habituelles autant que de sa “philosophie” naturelle, on admettra que, pour ce cas de la “stratégie” obamienne, les arguments de McCain ont du poids. Certes, l’argument n’est pas difficile, mais dans tous les cas il le développe avec bon sens. Savourez donc ce moment rarissime où McCain dit des choses sensées. Qui plus est, McCain nous donne un aperçu, qui est sans aucun doute bien réel, de l’intense insatisfaction qui règne dans les rangs des militaires et fonctionnaires divers du Pentagone, car il a de son côté (celui de McCain) nombre de connexions et des confidences permanentes.
« “There’s a level of dissatisfaction among the uniformed military that I’ve never seen in my time here,” said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain in an interview. “For some of us who are a little older, let’s go back and read the Pentagon Papers — what the administration is doing is the kind of incrementalism that defined much of the Vietnam conflict.”
» The Arizona Republican is known as a fierce critic of President Obama’s foreign policy, but his complaints were echoed by an unlikely source : Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. “Frustration among the uniformed service is real,” the Washington Democrat said, adding that the administration “does keep things in the White House and has not been more inclusive in the decision-making process.” But Mr. Smith also defended the administration’s overall approach to the troubled Middle East, arguing that the “sheer complexity of the situation” following the Arab Spring and the rise of the Islamic State — also known as ISIS — have defied a simple U.S. solution. “I don’t think dropping 50,000 U.S. troops down is going to fix the situation,” he said. » […]
» …But Mr. McCain argued that the frustration on Capitol Hill and at the Pentagon stems from the administration’s “complete lack of any kind of coherent strategy, much less a strategy that would have any success on the battlefield” against Islamic State and the Assad regime. “We’re sending 50 — count them, 50 — special operations soldiers to Syria, and they will have ‘no combat role,’ the president says,” said Mr. McCain. “Well, what are they being sent there for ? To be recreation officers ? You’re in a combat zone, and to say they’re not in combat is absurd.”
» But the White House, he argued, has effectively blinded itself to such absurdities by promoting a system over the past seven years that suppresses dissenting voices. “Compliant and easily led military leaders get promoted,” he said. “People who have spoken truth to power get retired.” He pointed to the cases of Marine Gen. James Mattis, reportedly dismissed as head of U.S. Central Command in 2013 for pressuring civilian officials in the White House on potential military options against Iran ; and Army Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, allegedly pushed out as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency last year amid clashes with the White House over his leadership style.
» When it comes to actual policy, Mr. McCain lamented, the administration pursues half-measures and decisions, “when they are made, consistently disregard recommendations from the uniformed military.” »
On observe déjà à un détail combien la matière extraordinairement complexe du Moyen-Orient, devenue hyper-complexe quand on passe à la formulation d’une “stratégie” à la Maison-Blanche, conduit à des situation pleines de contradiction. Aucune ne doit contrarier l’esprit mais, au contraire, le remplir d’une certaine satisfaction car c’est dans ces labyrinthes byzantins qu’apparaissent des forces antiSystème inopinées et complètement inconscientes, qui effectuent néanmoins un rude travail antiSystème.
McCain cite, parmi les chefs militaires frustrés, le général Flynn dont on a beaucoup parlé. Le voilà donc incorporé de facto dans le camp de McCain en pleine révolte contre la “stratégie” d’Obama, et le plus sympathique de cette situation est qu’il n’y a pas contradiction. Par ailleurs, – et pour nous, de façon bien plus importante, – Flynn est un des “lanceurs d’alerte” les plus inattendus, – un de ceux que McCain dénonce et considère comme traître de façon routinière, – lorsqu’il (Flynn) dévoile la façon dont l’administration Obama a objectivement soutenu, armé, renforcé le groupe Daesh depuis 2011-2012 malgré les avertissements circonstanciés de la DIA, avertissant qu’on était ainsi en train de contribuer décisivement à la la création d’un Frankenstein.
Sur ce point, McCain est complètement dans le camp opposé de Flynn, qu’il dénoncerait comme “traître” pour un peu, puisqu’il est, lui (McCain), pour l’armement maximal pout tout ce qui bouge en Syrie, pourvu que cela soit extrémiste et ennemi juré de Assad, et donc pratiquement allié objectif de Daesh malgré qu’il dénonce le peu de moyens envisagés pour combattre Daesh. (On a vu plus d’une fois McCain aux côté des chefs islamistes, comme on l’a vu, en Ukraine, auprès de leaders néo-nazis.)
Là aussi, superbe exemple, ad nomine, des contradictions directes qu’engendrent les péripéties en lacets, en croisements, en redoublements, de la scène politique washingtonienne, et qu’o,n commence à bien connaître. Superbe exemple, en fait, d’une psychologie générale et d’une communication fonctionnant selon ce que nous désignons comme le “Big Now”, c’est-à-dire cette situation postmoderne où le présent est tellement hypertrophié comme démonstration de la justesse des thèses suivies et appliquées, que le passé même proche n’existe plus, non seulement pour l’esprit (la mémoire) mais pour la psychologie elle-même : il est devenu incohérent et incompréhensible qu’il y ait un passsé avec ses enseignements, – donc, pas de passé, pas d’enseignement, et fermez le ban.
Quant au futur, à partir duquel certains prétendaient in illo tempore envisager l’avenir de l’homme selon leurs conceptions, , il a été répudié puisqu’il s’avère complètement contradictoire avec l’avenir justement, à cause des impératifs faussaires de la postmodernité, comme on l’a vu de plus en plus souvent ces derniers temps. (Pour la différence décisive entre “futur” et “avenir”, voir notamment la note du texte du 6 juin 2015 sur “la bataille pour le ‘néantissement’ de l’Histoire”.) Cela implique que la plupart des acteurs politiques, privés de toute mémoire historique et de toute capacité de pojection rationnelle des possibilités des évènements à venir, et doncembarrassés strictement d’aucune cohérence, – à part celles des énormes stéréotypes en forme d’image symboliques d’Epinal qu’ils acceptent avec enthousiasme, comme Poutine et Assad par exemple, – sont capables d’accepter des modifications radicales de situations et d’acteurs sans y suspecter la moindre contradiction, et sans éprouver la nécessité de s’expliquer de tels phénomènes.)
Par contre, le tableau général qu’on a de cette mésentente entre le Pentagone et la Maison-Blanche est inhabituel d’ampleur, d’écho public et de sérieux du fait des personnalités impliquées. Il constitue peut-être un point intéressant et important de blocage de l’appareil de sécurité nationale aux USA, c’est-à-voir selon les évènements, essentiellement à cause de la personnalité et de la psychologie de l’homme, le président, qui est incapable de prendre une décision claire et tranchée puisque sa politique naturellement modérée est constamment déformée chez lui par son désir de ne pas se mettre à dos la majorité super-belliciste des représentants de l’establishment, et donc avec une tendance irrésistible à nuancer des décisions effectivement modérées par des aspects bellicistes nécessairement incomplets et sans véritable effet.
Cas classique d’un homme qui veut marier l’eau et le feu, ne mécontenter personne, rencontrer ses propres convictions qui se démarquent de la majorité belliciste, etc. Le résultat est catastrophique mais ne manque pas d’une certaine allure exotique.
Il permet à la basse-cour washingtonienne de s’exclamer dans tous les sens et à l’action des centres subversifs US de continuer à se développer dans un contexte général d’incontrôlabilité. Et même, enfin, lorsqu’on voit ce que propose Obama, on se dit que ce désordre lui-même n’est pas plus destructeur que ce que se prépare à être la “stratégie” du président.
Chart: How much more the U.S. has bombed the Islamic State than the Taliban - The Washington Post
▻http://www.washingtonpost.com/rweb/world/us-dropping-10-million-worth-of-bombs-a-day/2015/09/18/011720527e9573d6dcef0f4c5e8fabcb_story.html
▻http://www.washingtonpost.com/rweb/api/imgs/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftabletimages.washingtonpost.com%2Fprod%2F2014-10-0
The price of waging America’s wars has gone up dramatically this week.
First, we heard Republican presidential candidates in the debates Wednesday night saying they would send thousands of U.S. ground troops into Syria and Iraq to battle the Islamic State. Earlier that day, we heard Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, head of the U.S. Central Command, tell Congress that only “four or five” Syrian trainees — from a $500 million American plan to prepare as many as 5,400 fighters this year — have ended up “in the fight” inside Syria.
#syrie #états-unis #ei #isis #Is
The $30B Iraq Experiment
The Cable | Foreign Policy
▻http://foreignpolicy.com/channel/the-cable
Bankrupt on selling. Since January, the Pentagon has picked up the tab to ship almost 300 heavily armored MRAP vehicles and dozens of Humvees to an Iraqi Army struggling to find its feet after entire divisions broke and ran earlier this year in the face of the Islamic State.
The latest shipments of equipment are only a fraction of the estimated $30 billion that the American taxpayer has paid to train and equip — now for a second time in a decade — a force that has yet to really prove itself. From 2003 to 2011, the United States spent $25 billion to build a 400,000-strong Iraqi security force that today numbers (according to anyone’s best guess) in the tens of thousands. But that original $25 billion is old news, as the U.S. investment keeps growing.
After pulling combat troops out of Iraq at the end of 2011, Washington has spent almost $6 billion to retrain and equip the Iraqi Army.
For starters, the Defense Department spent $857 million to run the Office of Security Cooperation - Iraq out of the embassy in Baghdad between 2012 and 2014. The office, which kept a small U.S. military staff, focused on mentoring Iraqi military leadership and managing and planning weapons buys. There is also the $1.6 billion that Congress agreed to in 2015 for the Iraqi Train and Equip Fund, along with the $700 million that the Pentagon has requested for the fund training in the 2016 budget.
Add to that the $3.3 billion (or $9.4 million per day) that the Pentagon has paid since last August to fly strike missions over Iraq and Syria, as well as to house, feed, and provide security for the 3,500 U.S. military trainers in Iraq.
Some of those strike missions, of course, have involved bombing military equipment that the United States handed over the Iraqi forces. In total, American aircraft have bombed 336 Humvees captured by the Islamic State, which is only a small portion of the 2,300 Humvees that Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said the jihadists captured from Iraqi forces when they abandoned Mosul earlier this year. American aircraft have also hit 116 tanks, some of which are also American-made.
Despite the tens of billions spent on training hundreds of thousands of Iraqi troops in the early 2000s, according to the latest numbers the U.S. Central Command provided to FP, there’s still plenty of work to do. A total of 11,100 Iraqi troops have gone through the newest U.S. training program in recent months, while another 3,000 are currently being run through the five U.S.-staffed training sites in Iraq.