Foreign Media Readout of Obama Failed Summit

When foreign media, one from Qatar and the other from the United Kingdom provide readouts of Obama’s Gulf State summit at Camp David explaining nicely that it failed, one must worry even more.

Obama’s White House protocol office made a huge gaffe at the front end of the summit by getting a name and history wrong. Then he returned each night to the White House, leaving his invited guests to their own devices. Not only did topics like Iran and Iran get some verbal gymnastics but the matter of Syria and Russia did too. The whole charade boiled down to let us just keep channels open.

For Barack Obama, a sitting president to be so concerned, that it keeps him up at night about those dying and suffering, when he touts his special energies to human rights, his real indifference is on both sleeves for all to see that are watching.

The White House, his national security council, this connections to the United Nations and his jet-setter, John Kerry have no mission statement, no objective, no strategy and no final goal except to pass the burning of the globe on to the next administration. The death toll rises, he is cool with that, and that will frame his 8 year White House legacy.

The Guardian view on the UN talks on Syria: a waiting game while the country burns

In part:

What is going on is the classic diplomatic exercise of keeping channels of communication open in a confused situation in the hope that, as and when it changes, there will be some expertise and engagement available if new opportunities arise. De Mistura’s tactics also represent a recognition that, if there were ever a time when the Syrian war could be tackled on its own, that time has passed. It was always part of the larger regional contest between Iran and the Sunni states led by Saudi Arabia, a contest which in turn was deeply influenced by the difficult relationship between the United States and Iran, by the rise of jihadism, and by the standoff between the west and Russia.

Now all these dimensions are changing. Secretary of state John Kerry’s consultations with Vladimir Putin last week suggest a softening of US and Russian differences over Syria. Meanwhile, at Camp David, President Obama tried to allay the fears of Gulf states that Iran will exploit a nuclear agreement to become the region’s strongest power. It is indeed an open question whether Iran will become a satisfied power, interested in extricating itself from Syria and resting content with its enhanced influence in Iraq, or not. The US will both cooperate with Iran and oppose it, Obama has implied – cooperate in Iraq and parts of Syria, but oppose in other parts and in Yemen. It is a formula that must be very perplexing even to its authors. The new Saudi king, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, meanwhile, has thrown down a gauntlet in Yemen, and is propping up the Sisi regime in Egypt financially while Egypt is choosing sides in Libya. The verdict on this new Saudi forward policy has yet to be reached.

And a word or two from al Jazeera:

Another forgettable summit

The just-concluded Camp David summit promises little more than running in place.

In part:

In contrast, the just-concluded summit promises little more than running in place. For its part, Washington explained its intention to move forward with Iran on a nuclear deal while insisting that it did not portend a US pivot away from its traditional Arab friends. Arabs were and remain sceptical, and justifiably so.

Obama himself explained: “I want to be very clear. The purpose of security cooperation [with the GCC] is not to perpetuate any long-term confrontation with Iran or even to marginalise Iran.”

US initiatives

Saudi misgivings about the choices made by US presidents have a long pedigree. The kingdom has been on the losing end of US initiatives in the region for decades. Washington has proven more than willing to take advantage of Arab weakness – US Palestine policy holds pride of place in this regard.

Of equal if not greater strategic import, however, is the toxic legacy of the US’ destruction of Baghdad’s Sunni military and political leadership, offering Iran a strategic entree into Iraq it has not enjoyed for centuries.

”I do not believe it is in the United States’ interests, or the interest of the region, or the world’s interest, to [attack Iraq],” Crown Prince Abdullah told ABC News shortly before Vice President Dick Cheney’s arrival in March 2002. ”And I don’t believe it will achieve the desired result.”

Cheney dismissed Saudi concerns that war would destabilise the region. That is indeed what Bush wanted – a revolutionary break with the past out of which a new Middle East would be forged.

Death by Lethal Injection

God, rest those souls that perished and blessings to those who must deal with their lasting injuries.  A Boston jury today delivered death by lethal injection to 3 of several counts and the killer will be in a super-max prison during the appeal process, which is automatic.

 

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been sentenced to death for his role in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing that killed three people and injured more than 200.
Tsarnaev was found guilty on all 30 charges in the bombing and its aftermath by the same jury in April. The jury had to unanimously agree to sentence him to the death. Tsarnaev is widely expected to appeal, but that process typically takes years. The federal government executes prisoners by lethal injection.
A federal judge will officially sentence Tsarnaev to the death penalty at an upcoming hearing, as he is largely bound by the jury’s finding.
Defense lawyers had argued Tsarnaev had been influenced by his brother, Tamerlan, who died as officers pursued the two brothers, and that his life should be spared. But federal prosecutors painted him as a cold-hearted killer who deserves the death penalty.

In the end, the defense’s bid to humanize Tsarnaev and pin the blame on his older brother Tamerlan failed. Jurors decided that life behind bars without chance of parole was too lenient for the Russian immigrant who became a citizen months before carrying out the worst U.S. terrorist attack since Sept. 11, 2001.
Tsarnaev stood as the verdict was being read, showing no emotion.
The verdict isn’t surprising since Tsarnaev failed to show any remorse for a heinous act, said Barry Slotnick, a criminal defense lawyer in New York who isn’t involved in the case.
“He did not issue any statements during trial that he was sorry it happened, or that he shouldn’t have done it — nothing,” Slotnick said.
The penalty was announced Friday in Boston federal court by a unanimous jury of seven women and five men after about 14 1/2 hours of deliberations. Tsarnaev, 21, was found guilty by the same panel in April after a trial in which his lawyers admitted to his role in the attack.

 

ISIS On a Successful Destruction Path

Ramadi government buildings taken over by Islamic State and at least 50 are dead. They have moved into Palmyra a very ancient location protected by World Heritage and beheaded 10 people.

Embedded image permalink

Meanwhile Scotland is sounding the alarm bells.

Scotland Yard’s top anti-terror chief: ‘Jihadis staying in UK to plot attacks’

Scotland Yard’s top counter-terrorism officer today warned of a growing threat from Britons inspired by Islamic State who stay here to attempt terrorist outrages instead of fighting overseas.

Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley said “significant numbers” of extremists influenced by the “corrupt cult” are plotting attacks in Britain — as new figures reveal jihadi arrests have soared.

He said police were “wrestling to tackle” dangers involving “complex, organised” plots as well as potential attacks by “chaotic” extremists whose aims changed on a daily basis. There was also a “massive threat on the streets of the UK” posed by those who had returned from conflict in Syria and Iraq after engaging in “barbaric” atrocities.

‘ISIS is a state-breaker’ — here’s the Islamic State’s strategy for the rest of 2015

ISIS seeks a global caliphate, according to its propaganda. ISIS has articulated its global vision numerous times. Most powerfully in the fifth issue of ISIS’s multi-language Dabiq magazine, ISIS stated the following:

The flag of Khalifah will rise over Makkah and al-Madinah, even if the apostates and hypocrites despise such. The flag of Khalifah will rise over Baytul-Maqdis [Jerusalem] and Rome, even if the Jews and Crusaders despise such. The shade of the blessed flag will expand until it covers all eastern and western extents of the Earth, filling the world with the truth and justice of Islam and putting an end to the falsehood and tyranny of jahiliyyah [ignorance], even if America and its coalition despise such.

ISIS’s ultimate end is likely a global war, not a limited war for local control inside Iraq and Syria. ISIS’s vision for a prospering caliphate requires that it instigate a broader war to compromise states competing with it for legitimacy.

Driving this broader war is likely how ISIS frames its goals in 2015 beyond Iraq and Syria. ISIS must maintain its physical caliphate within these states while it approaches this second objective to expand in an environment of regional disorder. Accordingly, ISIS assigned the title of “Remaining and Expanding” to the above-referenced issue of Dabiq published in November 2014.

 

ISIS Sanctuary_12 MAY 2015Institute for the Study of War

To “Remain and Expand” is a strategic mission statement with two goals.

First, it supports ISIS’s defense inside Iraq and Syria, and second, it seeks the literal expansion of the caliphate.

ISIS announced operations to expand to Libya, Sinai, and other corners of the Arab world in late 2014 while under duress, in a moment of weakness during which rumors arose of the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ISIS’s leader. The timing of this announced expansion supported ISIS’s momentum while it faced counter-attacks inside Iraq and Syria.

Global expansion is a motif that ISIS desires to propagate at times when it is experiencing tactical losses. Expansion into new territory is therefore a defensive supporting operation. But it is nevertheless also a concrete operational plan to make its caliphate larger.

Military Parade in Rain in Baaj 19 JAN 15Institute for the Study of WarAn ISIS military parade in Baaj, in northwestern Iraq, on January 15, 2015.

ISIS is framing its strategy across three geographic rings: the Interior Ring in the Levant, the Near Abroad in the wider Middle East and North Africa, and the Far Abroad in Europe, Asia, and the United States. ISIS’s strategic framework corresponds to a campaign with three overarching goals: to defend inside Iraq and Syria; to expand operations regionally, and to disrupt and recruit on a global scale.

Iraq is central to the origin of ISIS’s caliphate, and likely also central to many among ISIS’s leadership cadre. Iraq will likely remain the epicenter of ISIS’s campaign as long as its current leadership is alive. The physical caliphate in Iraq and Syria is still the source of ISIS’s power, unless ISIS’s operations in the Near or Far Abroad achieve momentum that is independent of ISIS’s battlefield success in Iraq and Syria.

Iraq in particular holds unique and lasting significance for ISIS that it cannot easily replicate elsewhere. Expressing Iraq’s significance, ISIS issued the following quote from al-Qaeda in Iraq’s founder, Abu Mus’ab az-Zarqawi at the beginning of every Dabiq magazine issue it has published as of April 2015: 

“The spark has been lit here in Iraq, and its heat will continue to intensify — by Allah’s permission — until it burns the crusader armies in Dabiq.” – Abu Mus’ab az-Zarqawi 

Focusing anti-ISIS operations upon Iraq in 2015 therefore has merit. But it also raises questions about what the operational goal of the counter-ISIS strategy should be.

Control of cities is the metric for the success or failure of states that are challenged by ISIS. Cities are also the key to challenging the legitimacy of ISIS’s caliphate. They are not, however, the metric by which to measure the defeat of ISIS’s fighting force.

ISIS’s ability to remain as a violent group, albeit rebranded, has already been demonstrated, given the near-defeat of its predecessor AQI in 2008 and its resurgence over the intervening period. Nevertheless, ISIS in 2015 is a caliphate that has more to prove, and it likely desires to preserve the image of a vast dominion across Iraq and Syria.

In this most dangerous form, ISIS is a counter-state, a state-breaker that can claim new rule and new boundaries after seizing cities across multiple states by force, an unacceptable modern precedent. ISIS would fail to remain as an alternative political order, however, if it lost all of the cities under its control, an important aspect of the US plan to defeat ISIS strategically. 

mosul air strikes isisStringer/Anadolu Agency/Getty ImagesAir attacks are staged by coalition forces to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) militants in Vane 30 kilometers north of Mosul, Iraq on January 20, 2015.

This analysis frames the question: what will ISIS lose if it loses Mosul?

Mosul is ISIS’s largest urban prize. It is hundreds of miles from Baghdad and outside the current reach of the Iraqi Security Forces. It has been under ISIS’s overt control since June 2014, and it is a symbol of ISIS’s power. It is the city from which ISIS’s leader Abu Bakr al- Baghdadi announced his caliphate.

When the ISF mount an effective counter-attack against ISIS in Mosul, ISIS will lose credibility, not only as a fledgling polity but also as a military that will have been outperformed by a more capable force. More so than Tikrit, ISIS likely cannot relinquish such a great city as Mosul outright. ISIS will likely fight harder for Mosul and allow it to be destroyed in order to deny it to the Iraqi government. It is a valid operational priority for the Iraqi government to reclaim Mosul before ISIS destroys it to ensure Iraq’s recovery.

Mosul’s recovery will not be the end of the war against ISIS, however. In fact, ISIS will constitute a permanent threat to Mosul if its dominion over the Jazeera desert in western Iraq persists. This outcome is guaranteed while ISIS controls eastern Syria. 

ISIS controls more than cities, and freedom of maneuver outside cities will allow ISIS to reset in nearby areas outside of them without altering its overall disposition. ISIS organizes itself internally through administrative and military units called wilayats that sub-divide its territorial claims. ISIS currently operates 20 known wilayats across Iraq and Syria as of April 2015, all but two of which posted their operations with photosets online in early 2015.

ISIS Valiyat mapInstitute for the Study of War

The map at left is a graphical interpretation of ISIS’s wilayats in Iraq and Syria, created by an ISIS supporter and later branded and re-posted by ISIS through its own social media in January 2015. ISIS’s wilayat disposition shows that ISIS’s concept for territorial control considers areas, more than just individual cities.

The area approach reflects both a social mentality to occupy populations comprehensively and a military approach to eliminate gaps in ISIS’s control that would expose ISIS to internal resistance or external attack.

ISIS’s campaign in Iraq and Syria is a distinctly urban operation, but ISIS has been a desert force since its inception, and this area mentality and ability to maneuver in deserts is another reason not to limit anti-ISIS strategies to driving ISIS from individual cities. 

Driving ISIS from a city translates neither to defeating a respective ISIS wilayat, nor to the elimination of ISIS military presence in a particular area. Putting pressure on ISIS in one city at a time will only cause it to shift, rather than to experience durable loss.

Unless ISIS is cleared as comprehensively as its predecessor was in 2006-2008, ISIS’s military disposition across Iraq and Syria will likely endure, even expanding, allowing ISIS to regroup and renew its campaign to retake cities continuously.

Anti-ISIS strategies therefore need to consider how ISIS frames the terrain inside Iraq and Syria, and how it will likely posture in order to defend and eventually resume its offensive campaign to control cities permanently. Anti-ISIS strategies can use the same frame to constrain ISIS’s options and force it into decisive battles.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-is-a-state-breaker–heres-the-islamic-states-strategy-for-the-rest-of-2015-2015-5#ixzz3aDyndtrv

 

MORE and OBS, Next Revolution Fellowship

OBS Fergusonguilty-thumbThere is MORE, Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment, and OBS.

 

Remember Ella Baker? If not, then you may remember Van Jones, the Green Czar that was exposed by Glenn Beck and snuck out of the White House in the middle of the night. Yes, that guy. Van Jones carries the torch for Ella Baker.

So, this OBS and MORE with Next Revolution is based on Ella Baker’s legacy and you saw their work in Ferguson, Missouri.

Does this logo appear rather militant?

Or this one? join-thumb

 

 

 

Do you wonder about their application and approval by the IRS?

There is paid training, travel expenses and protest instructions. Enter OBS…

OBS, Organization for Black Struggle has some interesting partners. They include: Advancement Project, Black Workers for Justice, Black Youth Project, Black Lives Matter, Dream Defenders, Jobs with Justice, Justice for Reggie, Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, Million Hoodies Movement for Justice, Ohio Student Association, Peace Economy Project, Sankofa, SisterSong and there are more as listed here.

Oh joy, they have a fellowship program too. But apply quickly, the next class begins on May 22, 2015.

Parameters:

1. By joining the program, fellows agree to go through a 5-week long organization building module, to be supervised by a Youth Director.

2. Each week of the program covers crucial knowledge on how to build an organization, develop programs and campaigns, and create coalitions using Black Liberation framework.

3. Each fellow will schedule twice weekly sessions with a mental health counselor for the duration of the program. We’ve all been through a lot these past few weeks and we have to care ourselves if we hope to transform our communities.

4. Each fellow will complete weekly benchmarks.

5. After each successfully completed week, each fellow will receive a $100 stipend.

6. At the end of program, each fellow gets $500 to start an organization or project.

7. To get the start up, each fellow must meet each weekly benchmark. If all benchmarks are not successfully met during the program, they must be met within 30 days of program end date, without the stipend.

8. This program is limited to 12 fellows per session.

At the end of this program, fellows will be fully equipped to take their skill-sets back into their communities and start to organize for the change that they want to see. The hope is that during the program, fellows will become familiar enough each other so that at the end of the program, some may decide to work together, pool their resources, or create organizations with their peers.

Shocking Financial Facts on AMTRAK

AMTRAK is highly subsidized. In fact the subsidies are in the billions. Some dollars were eliminated amounting to $71 million that was due to sequestration, an effective ploy designed and implemented by the White House. There are routes that are not financially prudent to run at all.

Lawmakers appropriated more than $1.5 billion in 2013 to subsidize intercity passenger rail services provided by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation—or Amtrak—including $1.0 billion in grants for capital expenses and debt service, $0.5 billion in grants for operating subsidies, and $0.1 billion for disaster mitigation and repair work after Hurricane Sandy. Those amounts were subsequently reduced by a total of $71 million by sequestration. All told, the government covers almost all of Amtrak’s capital costs as well as more than 10 percent of its operating costs. In 1970, when the Congress established Amtrak, it anticipated subsidizing the railroad for only a short time, until it became self-supporting. Since then, however, the federal subsidies to Amtrak have totaled about $45 billion. This option would eliminate those subsidies, yielding savings of $15 billion from 2015 through 2023, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

An argument in favor of this option is that federal funding is subsidizing the operation of uneconomic services and routes (including sleeper-class service and many long-distance routes) that are not used extensively and provide little public benefit in terms of reducing congestion or emissions of greenhouse gases. Eliminating Amtrak’s federal subsidy would encourage its managers to improve operating efficiency, in part by cutting unprofitable services and routes. It is also argued that if states or localities value those routes highly, they should be prepared to subsidize their operation (as is already done in some cases).

So first out to the microphone was Nancy Pelosi blaming the Republicans for cutting funding on AMTRAK. Next up was Chuck Schumer telegraphing the same blame on lack of funding.

Another hidden fact with regard to managing rail systems is a piece of software that performs much like a governor known as PTC, positive train control. This PTC was installed in the AMTRAK train 188 but it was turned off due in part to more testing. Failed funding on rail infrastructure was no to blame for the deadly disaster, it was speed. The 2 black boxes have been recovered and prove the train and rails had not failed.

To further rebut Pelosi and Schumer, more facts need to be shared with regard to their claims of lack of funding.

Amtrak Collected $1.3 Billion From Stimulus

$850 million directly to infrastructure on top of $1.4 billion budget
In part:According to Recovery.gov, Amtrak received $1,295,804,688 from President Barack Obama’s stimulus law through a grant from the Department of Transportation (DOT) filed under “Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction.”

The grant noted that roughly 50 percent of the money went to “infrastructure improvements” in the Northeast Corridor.

The funding, all of which has been allocated, paid for 154 individual projects in 46 states, and the District of Columbia. The grant mandated that at least $850 million go directly to infrastructure.

“The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) appropriated $1.3 billion to Amtrak for capital investment,” the grant states. “The ARRA requires that Amtrak allocate $850 million for funding to rebuild and modernize infrastructure and equipment.”

Amtrak can’t be bothered to finish up a safety system on time. But did Amtrak CEO Joseph Boardman ever miss a nickel of his $350,000-a-year salary? No. Did Amtrak fail to pay employee bonuses? No—in fact, it paid bonuses to people who weren’t even eligible for them, and then refused to rescind them once it was pointed out that they were unauthorized. So Amtrak took care of Amtrak’s priorities, just like every other government agency. But Amtrak’s priorities are not its customers’ priorities. And that new safety system that was supposed to be operating by the end of the year at the latest? Maybe by 2020. Maybe not.