Category Archives: Middle East

Demoting Petraeus to a 3 Star, Spells Trouble for Hillary?

Posted on by

General Petraeus is still not out of the realm of more disciplinary action when it comes to his troubles. The ‘all-in’ for Obama, Defense Secretary Ash Carter is considering additional punishment for Petraeus and if this demotion happens, it could set a standard for how Hillary should/could be punished as her crimes were much worse.

Exclusive: Pentagon May Demote David Petraeus

The Defense Secretary is looking to put the clamp down on misbehaving generals. Pentagon insiders say Petraeus could be the next general to face the consequences.

TheDailyBeast: The Pentagon is considering retroactively demoting retired Gen. David Petraeus after he admitted to giving classified information to his biographer and mistress while he was still in uniform, three people with knowledge of the matter told The Daily Beast.

The decision now rests with Secretary of Defense Ash Carter who is said to be willing to consider overruling an earlier recommendation by the Army that Petraeus not have his rank reduced. Such a demotion could cost the storied general hundreds of thousands of dollars—and deal an additional blow to his once-pristine reputation.

“The secretary is considering going in a different direction” from the Army, a defense official told the Daily Beast, because he wants to be consistent in his treatment of senior officers who engage in misconduct and to send a message that even men of Petraeus’ fame and esteemed reputation are not immune to punishment.

Pentagon spokesperson Peter Cook told The Daily Beast that Carter had requested more information on the matter before reaching a final decision.

“The Department of the Army is still in the process of providing the Secretary with information

relevant to former‎ Secretary McHugh’s recommendation,” Cook told The Daily Beast, referring to ex-Army Secretary John McHugh, who had recommended taking no action against Petraeus. “Once the Secretary‎ has an opportunity to consider this information, he will make his decision about next steps, if any, in this matter.”

Carter could also recommend other actions that don’t result in Petraeus losing his fourth star. Or the Defense Secretary could simply allow the Army’s previous recommendations to stand.

Petraeus, arguably the most well-known and revered military officer of his generation, retired from the Army in 2011 with the rank of a four-star general, the highest rank an Army officer can achieve. If Carter decides to strip Petraeus of his fourth star, he could be demoted to the last rank at which he “satisfactorily” served, according to military regulations.

Reducing Petraeus’ rank, most likely to lieutenant general, could mean he’d have to pay back the difference in pension payments and other benefits that he received as a retired four-star general. That would amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars over his retirement. According to Pentagon figures, a four-star general with roughly the same years of experience as Petraeus was entitled to receive a yearly pension of nearly $220,000. A three-star officer would receive about $170,000.

Petraeus didn’t respond to a request for comment.

But the financial pain to Petraeus isn’t likely to be severe. He has confided to friends and acquaintances that he’s making a hefty sum from his job at a private equity firm and through speaking fees.

The demotion in rank would be a bigger, lasting blow, and take from Petraeus the rare achievement he’d set his eyes on many years ago.

At any given time, there are only 12 four-star generals in the Army, the largest of the services. By the time he was a colonel, in the mid-1990s, many thought Petraeus was destined to be one of them.

The U.S military has, on several occasions, demoted generals, increasingly for improper personal contact and not for poor battlefield decisions. But rarely does it demote four-star generals, in part because there are so few of them. It’s also more common to reduce the rank of more junior officers than of top generals.

If Petraeus were demoted, it would mark another spectacular fall. Petraeus stepped down as director of the Central Intelligence Agency in 2012 after his affair with Paula Broadwell, a writer and current Army reservist, was revealed. At the time, Petraeus had been frequently mentioned as a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2016.

Petraeus pleaded guilty last year to giving Broadwell eight notebooks that he compiled while serving as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and that he knew contained classified information. The notebooks held some of the most sensitive kinds of military and intelligence secrets, including the identities of covert officers, intelligence capabilities, quotes from high-level meetings of the National Security Council, and notes about Petraeus’ discussions with President Obama.

After leaving Afghanistan, Petraeus brought the books back to his home in Virginia and gave them to Broadwell just three days before he retired from the Army. She later returned them. No classified information appeared in her biography, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus, officials have said.

Petraeus could have faced felony charges, including for lying to FBI investigators, but was allowed to plead guilty last year to a misdemeanor count of unauthorized handling classified information. He avoided and avoid a prison sentence and received two years probation and a $100,000 fine.

But that was not the end of the matter. Last year, the FBI gave Army investigators information that the bureau had come across as it was closing up its own investigation of Petraeus, the defense official and one former U.S. official told The Daily Beast.

The information, the FBI believed, might be of interest to the Army, the defense official said. The Army investigated and decided “there was nothing new here that should change his retirement” and “recommended that there be no change” to his four-star rank, the official said. Last month, it went to the Secretary of Defense for final approval.

Army personnel regulations say that an officer doesn’t automatically retire with the highest rank he or she achieved while in uniform. And even though Petraeus had already been officially retired, through a process known as grade determination the Army can retroactively reopen his case and consider whether to demote him “[i]f substantial new evidence discovered contemporaneously with or within a short time following separation could result in a lower grade determination.”

The regulations also state that if “an officer’s misconduct while still on active duty is documented,” including by “conviction after retirement,” a new grade determination may be completed. Petraeus hadn’t yet retired when he gave Broadwell the classified information.

The Army received the information from the FBI that prompted this new review more than four years after Petraeus had retired. The Defense Department was also running its own investigation into Petraeus’ relationship with Broadwell and what classified information he gave her at the same time the FBI and federal prosecutors were pursuing their case. That may explain why the Army decided it had seen nothing new in the information it received last year from the FBI and decided not to recommend a demotion.

But Carter is said to be concerned that because he has recommended other generals be reduced in rank for actions not becoming an officer, he’ll be seen as inconsistent if he doesn’t do the same for Petraeus. The decision is as much about timing and politics as it is Petraeus’ own transgressions.

“This is about Ash Carter, not David Petraeus,” the defense official said.

Last November, Carter removed his senior military aide, Lt. Gen. Ron Lewis, for personal misconduct, and referred the matter to the Pentagon’s inspector general for investigation. Lewis was demoted a rank, to a major general.

Lewis was a long-time and influential aide to the secretary, and his removal and punishment signaled Carter’s commitment to maintaining upstanding behavior among of the military’s generals. The exact nature of Lewis’ misconduct has not been announced, but military officials have suggested he was involved in an improper personal relationship.

While few are familiar with Petraeus’ potential demotion, those who are aware of it said they were surprised that he could be punished years years after the scaNdal was presumably put behind him and after Petraeus pleaded guilty to mishandling classified information. No general in recent history has been demoted years after scandal swirled around him or her.

Those who know and have worked with Petraeus describe him as a man of extraordinary capabilities and ambition. He received his fourth star in 2007 and then served in several prestigious and demanding assignments, including commander of U.S. Central Command, the commanding general of all ground forces in Iraq, and later as commander of ground forces in Afghanistan.

Petraeus’ unorthodox thinking and willingness to buck conventional strategy was seen as key to the U.S. victory over insurgents and jihadists in Iraq during the so-called troop surge of 2007 and 2008. His reputation was so esteemed that there was talk of giving him a fifth star–a largely symbolic gesture that was highly unlikely–or renaming the road to Petraeus’ alma mater, the U.S. Military Academy, after him.

Should Carter choose to knock Petraeus down to the rank of a three-star general, he will have a chance to appeal his case to the secretary, but Congress doesn’t have to be informed of the decision, the official said.

There is no deadline on Carter to make a decision.

The last commander to lose rank for professional misconduct was Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was demoted to colonel in 2005 for the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq. The last four-star general to be demoted was Gen. William Ward who retired as a three-star in 2012 amid allegations he misspent government money on himself and his family.

Where is Barbara Boxer on the Iran Deal Now?

Posted on by

Inspectors will monitor Iran’s key nuclear facilities 24 hours a day, 365 days a year,” President Obama promised yesterday. Praising the Iran deal’s implementation, he asserted that Iran cannot build a nuclear weapon and that the Middle East has been made safer. Tellingly, the president also referenced Iran’s detention of U.S. sailors last week: “We worked directly with the Iranian government and secured the release of our sailors in less than 24 hours.” These two quotes illustrate President Obama’s kidnapping of realist international-relations theory, which, as he sees it, involves balancing U.S. interests with the realities of a complicated world. Or, as he puts it, “Don’t do stupid sh**.”

The president believes that, with a mix of hard compromise and unwavering leadership, he has prevented a nuclear-arms race and facilitated Iranian political moderation. But this isn’t realism; it is delusion.
First off, it’s willfully ignorant. Consider again President Obama’s remark on inspecting “Iran’s key nuclear facilities.” It’s relevant because it reminds us that the deal in fact prevents timely inspections of other Iranian military sites. And by describing only some nuclear facilities as “key,” President Obama is tacitly accepting Iran’s obstruction of non-key facility inspections. Iran will simply use military sites for nuclear-weaponization research and then claim those facilities are off limits or clean them up before inspections. This isn’t really debatable; after all, Iran’s ongoing ballistic-missile tests prove its public determination to build a nuclear-weapons delivery platform. Of course, announcing new sanctions yesterday on eleven individuals and organizations connected to Iranian ballistic-missile research, the president said he will “remain steadfast in opposing Iran’s destabilizing behavior elsewhere.” He neglected — as do most in the media — to mention that these new sanctions are so weak that they’re functionally irrelevant. Iran will simply use new cut-out entities and further evasion to continue its ballistic activities. The Obama administration knows this, the Sunni monarchies know this, the Iranians know this, and the Europeans — who cannot wait to get their hands on Iranian business contracts — are banking on it.

The second way in which this deal distorts realist theory is in its fatally narrow-minded strategic vision. As I noted recently at National Review Online, Iran’s unchallenged dissection of U.S. credibility on inspections, missile tests, support for regional terrorism, etc., is fueling reciprocal escalation by the Sunni-Arab monarchies. As a consequence, opportunities for political moderation in the Middle East are rapidly being displaced by sectarian extremism. Making matters worse, as attested by President Obama’s failure to meet with Jordan’s King Abdullah in Washington last week, the president seems to have decided to simply ignore America’s Sunni allies. This preference for a short-term perceived win (the Iran deal) over long-term U.S. influence with the Sunni kingdoms (promoting political reform and restraining their sectarian impulses) further exemplifies the president’s defective realism. Yet the president’s realist delusion is enabled by many in the international-relations community. Just contemplate how his Twitter supporters mobilized this weekend. Professor Daniel Drezner of Tufts University gleefully tweeted: “All US negotiations with Iran this week have been a win-win. Which, if you believe relations with Iran’s regime are zero-sum, is infuriating.” Drezner also claimed that the Iranians released in exchange for Jason Rezaian and Amir Hekmati and two other Americans were largely insignificant actors. Vox’s Max Fisher tweeted: “Amazing fact: Iran surrenders the bulk of its nuclear program, and it is considered a partisan issue in America whether that is good or bad.” From the Council on Foreign Relations, Micah Zenko tweeted that every Joint Staff and Central Command defense planner is “elated.” All these claims deserve great scrutiny. First, while defense planners hope the Iran deal will hold, they also know it fuels second- and third-order risks of sectarian escalation. Moreover, although I support the deal to release Rezaian and company, we shouldn’t pretend that the released Iranians are insignificant. They were variously involved in supporting Iran’s satellite communications capability, in stealing U.S. technology for the Iranian military, and in hacking into the U.S. power-grid and airline-service databases. According to an American cyber-investigations firm, the airport hacking involved Iranian attempts to access ground-crew credentials. It doesn’t take a genius to understand why Iran wants access to civilian aircraft and power infrastructure: the capability to launch spectacular attacks on U.S. and allied interests. Again, realism demands our assessment of the facts in the context of Iran’s previous actions. For one, we should remember Iran’s 2011 attempt to blow up a packed Washington, D.C., restaurant. Oh, and as Josh Rogin reports, two other Iranian suspects the Obama administration has agreed to stop pursuing are involved in the drowning and starving of Syrian civilians. Related: Assad Is Deliberately Starving Sunni Muslims in Syria Finally, any true realist must also accept what this deal means for hard-liners aligned with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC). Holding dominion over key sectors of Iran’s economy and controlling foreign commercial access to the economy, the IRGC is getting a big payday. Realism also requires our objective assessment as to where the IRGC will spend its money: exported death. Consider that in the past five years, the IRGC has plotted an attack on the U.S. capital, supported the Taliban, assassinated U.S. allies in cities such as Beirut, and kidnapped U.S. citizens. And upon presenting these tests of U.S. resolve, the IRGC has witnessed two distinct Obama-administration responses: silence and, as in the case of last week’s sailor kidnap, gratitude. Yesterday, we learned of another Iranian test: Within the past few days, several Americans were kidnapped by a militia in Baghdad. I would confidently venture that an IRGC-proxy such as Kataib Hezbollah is responsible. As I warned back in December, “if the IRGC leadership senses American weakness, it will take hostile action (directly, via KH, or via covert subgroups) against U.S. interests.” Don’t get me wrong; realism demands that we actively pursue diplomacy with Iran. Iran’s youthful population is an existential threat to the theocrats and a source of major internal political pressure. We must not alienate these future leaders with a leap to military action. Yet by our failure to deter Iran’s hard-liners, we only encourage them further. And in their empowerment, political moderation perishes. Foreign-policy realism demands that we sometimes deal with unpleasant people. But it also requires our commitment to honest policy.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429907/obamas-realism-iran?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=569ce98d04d3012242625e14&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

Davos: Europe’s Social Breakdown, Begins with Immigration

Posted on by

And all the signals are beginning to apply to the United States….fair warning.

Davos/World Economic Forum

Davos Boss Warns Refugee Crisis Could Be Precursor to Something Much Bigger

Bloomberg: As the crash in commodities prices spreads economic woe across the developing world, Europe could face a wave of migration that will eclipse today’s refugee crisis, says Klaus Schwab, executive chairman of the World Economic Forum.

“Look how many countries in Africa, for example, depend on the income from oil exports,”Schwab said in an interview ahead of the WEF’s 46th annual meeting, in the Swiss resort of Davos. “Now imagine 1 billion inhabitants, imagine they all move north.”

Whereas much of the discussion about commodities has focused on the economic and market impact, Schwab said he’s concerned that it will also spur “a substantial social breakdown.”

That fits into what Schwab, the founder of the WEF, calls the time of “unexpected consequences” we now live in. In the modern era, it’s harder for policy makers to know the impact of their actions, which has led to “erosion of trust in decision makers.”

“First, we have to look at the root causes of this,” Schwab said. “The normal citizen today is overwhelmed by the complexity and rapidity of what’s happening, not only in the political world but also the technological field.”

That sense of dislocation has fueled the rise of radical political leaders who tap into a rich vein of anger and xenophobia. For reason to prevail, Schwab said, “we have to re-establish a sense that we all are in the same boat.”

The theme for this year’s meeting is the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which the WEF defines as a “fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.”

While that presents huge opportunities, Schwab warns that technological innovation may result in the loss of 20 million jobs in the coming years. Those job cuts risk “hollowing out the middle class,” Schwab said, “a pillar of our democracies.”

At the same time, Schwab argues, trends like the sharing economy and the changes wrought by technology mean economists must adapt the tools they use to assess well-being. “Many of our traditional measurements do not work anymore,” he said.

After decades watching the ebbs and flows of the global economy, Schwab said the current anxiety is “not new” for him. But he said that as the world gets ever more interconnected, the consequences of such turmoil could become more grave. This week’s WEF meeting, he said, will offer policy makers “the first opportunity after the markets have come down to look at the situation and coordinate.”

Davos facts for this year:

CNNMoney: Around 2,500 participants from more than 100 countries, including 40 heads of state, attend the gathering in Switzerland, formally known as the World Economic Forum annual meeting. This year, the theme is “Mastering the Fourth Industrial Revolution.”

It takes place in the mountains. Way up. At 1,560 meters (5,120 feet) above sea level, Davos is Europe’s highest town. Its population is just over 11,000 and the average temperature in January is -5°C/23°F.

Why in such a remote, cold place? Tradition. Also, it’s much easier to secure a little town wedged between the mountains than a conference center in a big city — remember, 40 heads of states are coming.

Only once was the meeting held outside of Davos: In 2002, in New York, as a gesture of solidarity after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Davos is safe. The organizers don’t release specific information, but it is estimated that around 5,000 Swiss troops, police and security personnel guard the town.

Davos is pricey. The ticket is around $20,000 and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Travel can cost thousands, and a night in a medium-range hotel is around $600. Add to it wining, dining, and essential accessories like snow boots, and the total bill can add up to around $40,000.

Davos is green. The town’s CO2 levels fall on average up to 30% during the annual meeting, thanks to controls on vehicle emissions and the use of electric transport.

Besides the skiing, what’s it all about? Meetings. Hundreds of them. With major companies, countries and media represented, there is hardly a better opportunity to schmooze and make deals. But the forum is not about big public announcements. Meetings are informal and take place behind closed doors.

Who is coming this year? Nearly everyone who matters in the world of business. Bill Gates will be there, as will Mary Barra, Satya Nadella, Jack Ma, Eric Schmidt, Sheryl Sandberg and dozens of other CEOs.

The IMF chief Christine Lagarde will be in Davos, with ECB President Mario Draghi and the governors of 10 national central banks.

The U.S. will be represented by Joe Biden and John Kerry. Loretta Lynch, the U.S. Attorney General, is also coming, as is Penny Pritzker, the Secretary of Commerce.

The King and Queen of Jordan will be there, as will Bono, Leonardo DiCaprio, Yao Chen and will.i.am.

They’ll all be closely followed by around 250 journalists, including a posse from CNN.

And the no-shows? Neither Barack Obama nor Vladimir Putin are coming to Switzerland. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is also sitting it out this year.

NY Judge Gives Victory Decision to U.S. Islamists

Posted on by

Court Requires NYPD to Purge Docs on Terrorists Inside U.S.

Muslim community sued police over surveillance programs

FreeBeacon: The New York Police Department has been directed by a U.S. court to remove from its online records an investigation pertaining to the rise of Islamic extremists in the West and the threats these individuals pose to American safety, according to legal documents.

As part of a settlement agreement reached earlier this month with Muslim community advocates in U.S. District Court, the NYPD will purge from its website an extensive report that experts say has been critical to the department’s understanding of radical Islam and its efforts to police the threat.

The court settlement also stipulates that the NYPD make a concerted effort to mitigate the impact of future terror investigations on certain religious and political groups, according to a copy of the court documents published by the American Civil Liberties Union, which has spearheaded the case since June 2013.

Legal experts and critics of the settlement maintain that it could hamper future terrorism investigations and view it as part of a larger campaign by Muslim advocacy organizations in the United States to dismantle surveillance programs encompassing that community.

Critics expressed particular concern about the case in light of a recent surge in attacks on U.S. citizens committed by individuals pledging allegiance to terror groups such as ISIS.

A key portion of the settlement focuses on the NYPD’s purported use of a document produced by the department’s intelligence division to examine how radicalized individuals make their way to the United States and carry out terror attacks.

The document, “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat,” aimed to provide local law enforcement and policy makers with information about domestic terrorists and their operations.

As part of the settlement agreement, the NYPD will be forced to remove the publication from its database and vow not to rely on it in the future.

The NYPD and New York state government agencies included in the case “represent that they do not, have not, and will not rely upon the Radicalization in the West report to open or extend investigations,” according to the settlement. “Defendants will remove the Radicalization in the West report from the NYPD website.”

The settlement further affirms that the NYPD will be “committed to mitigating the potential impact” of future investigations on political and religious groups, such as those in the Muslim-American community.

While NYPD officials would not comment Thursday when contacted by the Washington Free Beacon, a spokesperson directed a reporter to a recent press release affirming the department’s commitment to upholding the court settlement.

The NYPD and relevant New York state agencies will “provide additional guidance to police officers as part of a settlement of lawsuits accusing the NYPD of improperly investigating Muslim groups,” according to the Jan. 7 press release. “While the City did not admit to engaging in any improper practices, the changes represent an effort to provide more detailed guidance to NYPD personnel within the existing Handschu Guidelines,” which govern how authorities investigate political activities.

The NYPD confirmed that it would remove from its website the 2007 radicalization report.

The department will additionally incorporate into the guidelines “police policies against religious profiling” and insert an additional “provision for considering the impact investigations have on people who are not targets of investigations,” according to the statement.

John Miller, the NYPD’s deputy commissioner of intelligence and counterterrorism, maintained in a statement that the settlement would not “weaken the [department’s] ability to fulfill its steadfast commitment to investigate and prevent terrorist activity in New York City.”

However, some experts have cast doubt on this statement, claiming that the decision to delete the anti-terrorism handbook will impact officers’ ability to understand how terrorists organize and operate in the United States.

Benjamin Weingarten, a writer and national security analyst who has covered the court case, said that local police departments should be relying more heavily on the now-banned counterterror analysis.

Referring to the recent shooting of a Philadelphia police officer by a radicalized individual who allegedly pledged allegiance to ISIS, Weingarten noted that the assailant followed the “‘four stages of radicalization’ detailed in the NYPD report.”

The information about radical terrorists provided in “the NYPD’s analysis may have at the least led Philadelphia authorities to dig deeper and flag him,” he said.

The settlement further reflects a larger cultural shift in America that shuns terms such as “war on terror” and “Muslim terrorism,” Weingarten said.

“To pursue a see-no-Islam counter-jihadist strategy is not only absurd and contradictory on its face, but its a severe dereliction of duty—ignorance is not an excuse, and it represents a failure to do everything necessary to defend against an ideology that seeks to undermine the Constitution and subvert and destroy Western civilization again, according to Islamic supremacists themselves,” he said.

Stephen Coughlin, an attorney and intelligence officer, expressed concern about what he described as a widening attempt by local and federal authorities to redefine the nature of domestic counter-terror efforts.

“I am greatly concerned with the imposition of [the case] which, I believe, exists to replace counter-terror efforts,” Coughlin said. “This is a continuation of a purging of evidentiary based counter-terror analysis first initiated in 2011.”

The ACLU and Muslim community advocates initially filed the lawsuit following reports after the 9/11 terror attacks that the NYPD was running a domestic spy operation centered on the American-Muslim community.

The ACLU, which would not comment on record for this report, directed the Free Beacon to a recent editorial published in the Guardian celebrating the court decision.

“Bias-based policing legitimizes religious discrimination, It can pave the way to copy-cat approaches by other agencies and set the stage for hate crimes nationwide,” wrote Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s national security project, and Ramzi Kassem, a law professor at the City University of New York.

“We hope the settlement announced this week pulls our city and its police department out of a downward spiral by reaffirming core values and principles, ones just as necessary to a local police force as they are to a rational debate on civil rights and liberties nationally,” they wrote.

*** It goes back a long way, directly post 9/11.

Germany: Migrant Rape Crisis Calls for Military

Posted on by

German finance minister calls for option to deploy troops in wake of Cologne attacks

In light of the New Year attacks in Cologne, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble has demanded the option of deploying Bundeswehr troops at home. He also reiterated his support for Chancellor Angela Merkel.

In an interview with Saturday’s edition of the “Süddeutsche Zeitung,” Schäuble said Berlin must ask itself why “under clear legal rules in support of the police, practically every other country in Europe can turn to its armed forces,” except for Germany.

“A legal basis for domestic military missions must be created,” Schäuble told the paper, adding that Germans expect the state to ensure security.

“For this you need more police and enhanced legal foundations for the police and intelligence services,” he said.

“The situation may arise, however, where both federal and state police forces are exhausted,” he added. “Every other country in the world would deploy soldiers in an emergency.”

Any deployment of the Bundeswehr within Germany is subject to extremely strict constitutional limitations, with its role described in the German Basic Law as absolutely defensive.

Refugee debate

The finance minister’s comments came amid ongoing uproar in Germany over reports of scores of sexual assaults in Cologne at the city’s New Year’s Eve celebrations.

Witnesses at the city’s main train station and iconic cathedral described women being groped, as well as subjected to lewd insults and robbery. In one instance, a rape was reported. Most of the culprits were said to have been of a North African or Middle Eastern appearance.

Support for Merkel

The reports have also renewed criticism of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open-door policy on refugees and migrants, with some 1.1 million new asylum seekers registered in the last year alone. Following criticism from within Merkel’s own Christian Democrats (CDU), Schäuble renewed his support for the chancellor.

“I support with conviction what the chancellor has said: We must solve the problem at the external borders,” Schäuble told the “Süddeutsche.”

Like Merkel, Schäuble called for a solution to the refugee crisis by means of better controls and cooperation with neighboring countries, adding that action in Europe was “still too slow.”

‘No one satisfied’

The finance minister also warned his fellow CDU party members against criticizing Merkel’s refugee policy.

“Of course, no one is satisfied with the situation,” Schäuble said, admitting that there had been “very intensive discussions” within the CDU and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union. The people want us “to solve the problems the best we can,” he said.

Schäuble’s comments published Saturday were far from comparable to those heard at the end of last year when he called for a strict limit on the number of family reunifications among refugees and compared Germany’s unprecedented influx of asylum seekers to an “avalanche.”