Those looney libs at Defense News are at it again!
There are two articles here.
Key points from the first article: words do matter, and Trump's words at home may haunt us abroad for years to come; Arab states historically prefer Republicans to Democrats because Republicans have the closer mindset; US-Arab relations have relied mostly on historical relationships with the Bush family; and Dems tend to creep out the Arab states by pushing for democracy and democratic reforms.
The second article brings up a great point: sending in U.S. ground troops to Syria could backfire by making US rather than IS the target--those currently fighting IS with us could turn and fight us with IS. The article somewhat inferred Republicans in Senate might be holding Pentagon funding hostage if they don't get their way regarding how it's spent (i.e., sending in ground troops)...?
DUBAI
and WASHINGTON — Anti-Muslim sentiments issued from front-runners in
the Republican primary could damage the party's future security
engagements with Gulf Arab leaders, experts warn.
Since the terrorist attacks in Paris, some GOP candidates have ridden a wave of anti-Muslim commentary. But the issue came to a head Dec. 7, when Donald Trump, comfortably ahead in most polls among GOP candidates, called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." This followed previous calls from Trump for surveillance on mosques and a database of Muslims living within the US.
Two days later, 10 Gulf Arab leaders condemned the "hostile, racist" remarks made against Muslims and Syrian refugees.
"The supreme council expressed its deep concern at the increase of hostile, racist and inhumane rhetoric against refugees in general and Muslims in particular," the Gulf Cooperation Council said in a statement at the GCC heads of state meeting in Riyadh.
While other candidates and Republican leaders distanced themselves from Trump's latest statement — presidential hopeful Sen. Lindsey Graham pointedly told Trump to "go to hell" after his comments — other GOP candidates such as Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz have previously called for halts to immigration of Muslim refugees while suggesting it is OK to accept Christian refugees.
And Trump's comments appear to be in line with the Republican electorate. According to findings from a Bloomberg Politics/Purple Strategies PulsePoll, almost two-thirds of likely 2016 Republican primary voters favor Donald Trump's call to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the US, while more than a third say it makes them more likely to vote for him.
But what plays in the homeland does not always work abroad, and the wave of anti-Muslim sentiment could come back and harm the GOP in the future, analysts warn.
"Such statements will definitely affect the relationship between the Republican Party and the Gulf despite it being made for local consumption," said Abdullah Baabood, director of the Gulf Studies Program at Qatar University.
"Local populations in the Gulf now are more aware because of widespread media and Internet access, this will cause an embarrassment for the GCC governments if and when they deal with a new Republican administration," Baabood said. "This will hurt [the Republican Party] internally. They might lose not only the moderate voices but also Muslim voices. This also gives them a bad reputation in the Arab and Islamic world, whose support they need in their current war."
The Pentagon said Dec. 9 that such statements would be counterproductive to their ongoing fight against the Islamic State group, also known as ISIL.
"Anything that tries to bolster, if you will, the ISIL narrative that the United States is somehow at war with Islam is contrary to our values and contrary to our national security," Department of Defense press secretary Peter Cook said. "We are, as I mentioned, working with Muslim nations right now. We want to, in essence, take the fight to ISIL with the help of Muslims and others around the world. And anything that somehow challenges that, we think would be counterproductive to our national security."
Historically, Republican administrations have had closer ties with GCC leaders than their Democratic counterparts, Baabood said.
"This is election propaganda, however Republicans are closer in mindset to GCC governments while the Democrats are not," Baabood said.
GCC leaders prefer the Republican Party to the Democratic Party, he said, because the Democrats have been more rigid in their dealings over the years.
"[The Democrats] have also been trying to influence democratic agendas in the Gulf populations in the past, which make the Gulf leaders uncomfortable," he said.
Emirati political analyst and author Abdel Khaleq Abdullah said that the relationships between the Republican Party and the Gulf have been developed by the Bush family after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
"The relationship between the Republicans and the GCC governments has been focused on the Bush family's personal relations with GCC leaderships," Abdullah said. Despite that, he expects that the GCC governments' inner circles are taking these statements seriously.
The business community around the Gulf has taken a stand by removing any Trump-related products or affiliations.
"It's a case against an individual and not a party; it might end up being a bubble that pops later," he added.
"It's very, very destructive," said Nawaf Obaid, visiting fellow at the John F. Kennedy school and previous adviser to Saudi officials. "We're going to be hearing about this for years to come, what Donald Trump said."
Retired US Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, former national security adviser to President Barack Obama and now chairman of the Atlantic Council's Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, said last week that people overseas take "our politicians much more seriously than Americans do."
Added Barry Pavel, former special assistant to the president and senior director for defense policy and strategy on the National Security Council staff: "I think it's corrosive, and we're in a world now where it's not just nation-states who have power, but nonstate actors, and people have power and connectivity.
"When you see mass shootings once a week, Muslim or otherwise, and then you see statements from one of the leading party's presidential candidates that people of a certain religion should not be allowed into the United States, a country that was founded on immigration, it's yet another detriment of others' perceptions of us," Pavel said.
Pavel added that such statements have contributed to a perception of an erosion in US influence and role as a model.
"I think that we seem to misunderstand as a government and as a people that we are operating from a very significant deficit right now, a deficit of pubic perception of US leadership, and we really need to start digging out of the hole and not digging deeper," he said.
The rising support from Republican voters, according to Dania Al Khatib, a UAE-based specialist in US-Gulf relations, is evidence of an isolationist US strategy.
"America is already disengaging from the Gulf, there is an isolationist policy," she said. "First of all [such speech] will go back and affect [the US] one way or the other through the propagation of extremism; number two, their mistakes in the region starting with how they dealt with Iraq and now with Syria are evidence of a strong isolationist movement."
Khatib said that America is no longer interested in the Gulf.
"They used to look to Saudi Arabia to counterbalance Iran, but now they are friends with Iran," she said. "The second reason is the oil; the US will be an exporter by 2020 so there are no more strategic interests in the Gulf."
Since the terrorist attacks in Paris, some GOP candidates have ridden a wave of anti-Muslim commentary. But the issue came to a head Dec. 7, when Donald Trump, comfortably ahead in most polls among GOP candidates, called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." This followed previous calls from Trump for surveillance on mosques and a database of Muslims living within the US.
Two days later, 10 Gulf Arab leaders condemned the "hostile, racist" remarks made against Muslims and Syrian refugees.
"The supreme council expressed its deep concern at the increase of hostile, racist and inhumane rhetoric against refugees in general and Muslims in particular," the Gulf Cooperation Council said in a statement at the GCC heads of state meeting in Riyadh.
While other candidates and Republican leaders distanced themselves from Trump's latest statement — presidential hopeful Sen. Lindsey Graham pointedly told Trump to "go to hell" after his comments — other GOP candidates such as Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz have previously called for halts to immigration of Muslim refugees while suggesting it is OK to accept Christian refugees.
And Trump's comments appear to be in line with the Republican electorate. According to findings from a Bloomberg Politics/Purple Strategies PulsePoll, almost two-thirds of likely 2016 Republican primary voters favor Donald Trump's call to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the US, while more than a third say it makes them more likely to vote for him.
But what plays in the homeland does not always work abroad, and the wave of anti-Muslim sentiment could come back and harm the GOP in the future, analysts warn.
"Such statements will definitely affect the relationship between the Republican Party and the Gulf despite it being made for local consumption," said Abdullah Baabood, director of the Gulf Studies Program at Qatar University.
"Local populations in the Gulf now are more aware because of widespread media and Internet access, this will cause an embarrassment for the GCC governments if and when they deal with a new Republican administration," Baabood said. "This will hurt [the Republican Party] internally. They might lose not only the moderate voices but also Muslim voices. This also gives them a bad reputation in the Arab and Islamic world, whose support they need in their current war."
The Pentagon said Dec. 9 that such statements would be counterproductive to their ongoing fight against the Islamic State group, also known as ISIL.
"Anything that tries to bolster, if you will, the ISIL narrative that the United States is somehow at war with Islam is contrary to our values and contrary to our national security," Department of Defense press secretary Peter Cook said. "We are, as I mentioned, working with Muslim nations right now. We want to, in essence, take the fight to ISIL with the help of Muslims and others around the world. And anything that somehow challenges that, we think would be counterproductive to our national security."
Historically, Republican administrations have had closer ties with GCC leaders than their Democratic counterparts, Baabood said.
"This is election propaganda, however Republicans are closer in mindset to GCC governments while the Democrats are not," Baabood said.
GCC leaders prefer the Republican Party to the Democratic Party, he said, because the Democrats have been more rigid in their dealings over the years.
"[The Democrats] have also been trying to influence democratic agendas in the Gulf populations in the past, which make the Gulf leaders uncomfortable," he said.
Emirati political analyst and author Abdel Khaleq Abdullah said that the relationships between the Republican Party and the Gulf have been developed by the Bush family after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
"The relationship between the Republicans and the GCC governments has been focused on the Bush family's personal relations with GCC leaderships," Abdullah said. Despite that, he expects that the GCC governments' inner circles are taking these statements seriously.
The business community around the Gulf has taken a stand by removing any Trump-related products or affiliations.
"It's a case against an individual and not a party; it might end up being a bubble that pops later," he added.
"It's very, very destructive," said Nawaf Obaid, visiting fellow at the John F. Kennedy school and previous adviser to Saudi officials. "We're going to be hearing about this for years to come, what Donald Trump said."
Retired US Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, former national security adviser to President Barack Obama and now chairman of the Atlantic Council's Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, said last week that people overseas take "our politicians much more seriously than Americans do."
Added Barry Pavel, former special assistant to the president and senior director for defense policy and strategy on the National Security Council staff: "I think it's corrosive, and we're in a world now where it's not just nation-states who have power, but nonstate actors, and people have power and connectivity.
"When you see mass shootings once a week, Muslim or otherwise, and then you see statements from one of the leading party's presidential candidates that people of a certain religion should not be allowed into the United States, a country that was founded on immigration, it's yet another detriment of others' perceptions of us," Pavel said.
Pavel added that such statements have contributed to a perception of an erosion in US influence and role as a model.
"I think that we seem to misunderstand as a government and as a people that we are operating from a very significant deficit right now, a deficit of pubic perception of US leadership, and we really need to start digging out of the hole and not digging deeper," he said.
The rising support from Republican voters, according to Dania Al Khatib, a UAE-based specialist in US-Gulf relations, is evidence of an isolationist US strategy.
"America is already disengaging from the Gulf, there is an isolationist policy," she said. "First of all [such speech] will go back and affect [the US] one way or the other through the propagation of extremism; number two, their mistakes in the region starting with how they dealt with Iraq and now with Syria are evidence of a strong isolationist movement."
Khatib said that America is no longer interested in the Gulf.
"They used to look to Saudi Arabia to counterbalance Iran, but now they are friends with Iran," she said. "The second reason is the oil; the US will be an exporter by 2020 so there are no more strategic interests in the Gulf."
Correction:
Due to a reporting error, an earlier version of this article published
at 2:02 p.m. ET misattributed a quote by Sen. Mike Lee to Sen. Jeff
Flake, R-Ariz.
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Ash Carter told lawmakers on Wednesday that adding a significant US ground force to the fight against the Islamic State group would “Americanize” the fight and fuel “a call to jihad” in Iraq and Syria.
The Pentagon is urgently calling on Congress to lift a hold on $116 million in funding for its rebooted Syria train-and-equip program after Gen. Lloyd Austin, the chief of US Central Command, revealed its stunning failure at a Capitol Hill hearing in September. The $500-million program had only a handful of trained Syrian fighters left.
Despite pressure from lawmakers, Carter said that he and Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have not recommended sending US ground troops. The US has deployed about 3,500 US troops to Iraq in noncombat roles, and Carter announced last week that it would deploy a new “specialized expeditionary force” to augment US special operations forces there and assist local forces.
“While we certainly have the capability to furnish a US component to such a ground force, we have not recommended this course of action for several reasons,” Carter told the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC). “In the near-term, it would be a significant undertaking that, realistically, we would embark upon largely by ourselves; and it would be ceding our comparative advantage of special forces, mobility, and firepower, instead fighting on the enemy’s terms. In the medium-term, by seeming to Americanize the conflicts in Iraq and Syria, we could well turn those fighting ISIL or inclined to resist their rule into fighting us instead.”
This raised the ire of SASC Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., who questioned Carter’s logic — arguing that as long as the Islamic State controls its stronghold, Raqqa, that it will be able to orchestrate attacks and grow into neighboring countries, like Libya. McCain pressed for the US to be part of a larger multinational force to “go in there and take those people out.”
“There is 20[,000] to 30,000 of them,” McCain said. “They are not giants.”
In a sign the White House and Pentagon are intensifying their efforts, Carter said he is willing to send American helicopters and troops to Anbar province to help the Iraqi military forces close in on and seize Ramadi from Islamic State militants.
“The United States is prepared to assist the Iraqi army with additional unique capabilities to help them finish the job, including attack helicopters and accompanying advisers if circumstances dictate and if requested by Prime Minister [Hader al-] Abadi,” Carter said.
His comments came amid reports that the Iraqi security forces have advanced into downtown Ramadi and seized a key military operations center.
Hundreds of US troops are deployed in Anbar province, but their mission has been limited primarily to inside-the-wire training activities at Al Asad Air Base and Taqaddum Air Base.
Carter, in his last appearance before the committee, said “we’re at war” with the Islamic State, also called ISIL or ISIS. Since then, 14 people died a San Bernardino, California, couple inspired by the terror group, prompting President Obama to make a televised address reassuring the nation a strategy to defeat the Islamic State is in place.
After the Nov. 13 terrorist attacks in Paris, and intensified by San Bernardino, Obama has come under increased scrutiny from lawmakers — particularly Republicans — for not adopting a more aggressive strategy to wipe out Islamic State group strongholds in Iraq and Syria.
US forces have been involved in airstrikes and training assistance in the region for 16 months without a new military force authorization for the mission, which Obama called for Congress to provide in the televised address.
On Wednesday, Carter said the targeting force — operating at the invitation of the Iraqi government — will be used to gather intelligence, conduct raids more frequently, capture Islamic State leaders and free hostages, Carter said.
“We want this expeditionary targeting force to make ISIL and its leaders wonder when they go to bed at night, who’s going to be coming in the window,” Carter said.
One tenet of the administration’s strategy is to develop capable, motivated, local ground forces, with US and coalition forces enabling them. A US presence, military officials worry, would prove a recruiting tool for the Islamic State.
“If we fall into the trap of radical Islamic violent extremists baiting us into a ground fight, we’re actually doing exactly what they want us to do,” said Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
Because the territory ISIS occupies is mostly Sunni, the Pentagon would like to see indigenous local Sunni fighters working with the support of Sunni Arab allies from the region. Despite their initial participation in the air campaign, however, Gulf allies are “disinclined” to provide ground troops, particularly as they are preoccupied with the war in Yemen, Carter said.
Carter “urgently” called on Congress to lift "holds" on the final tranche of funds in the Syria equipping program, which amounts to about $116 million dollars. The Pentagon is seeking the money to provide and transport ammunition, weapons, and other equipment for anti-ISIS fighters in Syria, like the Syrian-Arab Coalition.
“We need these funds to provide and transport ammunition, weapons and other equipment to further enable the progress being made against ISIL in Syria by partners like the Syrian-Arab coalition,” Carter said.
McCain pushed back, citing an obligation to taxpayers. The previous effort yielded a handful of fighters for roughly $40 million spent, a result Carter acknowledged as “disappointing.”
While the previous program sought to build fighting units, the new program is working with existing units such as the Syrian Arab Coalition. Rather than vet fighters to the individual level, the US has vetted the allegiances of 20 of the group’s leaders, which with a force of 1,600, is working their way through three villages in eastern Syria, Carter said.
The US does not exercise command and control over these forces, but “we exercise influence,” Selva said. The relationship is “transactional” with the US providing ammunition and advice to strike specific targets.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, asked whether the fighters share the same goals and vision for Syria as the US, and whether those goals might one day shift out of alignment.
Selva declined to provide a full answer outside of a classified setting, but said, “Today they share the goal of wanting to take their homes back and beat ISIL in doing so. And that is necessary and sufficient to get at the fight in eastern Syria and working our way back towards Raqqa."
Staff writer Andrew Tilghman contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Ash Carter told lawmakers on Wednesday that adding a significant US ground force to the fight against the Islamic State group would “Americanize” the fight and fuel “a call to jihad” in Iraq and Syria.
The Pentagon is urgently calling on Congress to lift a hold on $116 million in funding for its rebooted Syria train-and-equip program after Gen. Lloyd Austin, the chief of US Central Command, revealed its stunning failure at a Capitol Hill hearing in September. The $500-million program had only a handful of trained Syrian fighters left.
Despite pressure from lawmakers, Carter said that he and Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have not recommended sending US ground troops. The US has deployed about 3,500 US troops to Iraq in noncombat roles, and Carter announced last week that it would deploy a new “specialized expeditionary force” to augment US special operations forces there and assist local forces.
“While we certainly have the capability to furnish a US component to such a ground force, we have not recommended this course of action for several reasons,” Carter told the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC). “In the near-term, it would be a significant undertaking that, realistically, we would embark upon largely by ourselves; and it would be ceding our comparative advantage of special forces, mobility, and firepower, instead fighting on the enemy’s terms. In the medium-term, by seeming to Americanize the conflicts in Iraq and Syria, we could well turn those fighting ISIL or inclined to resist their rule into fighting us instead.”
This raised the ire of SASC Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., who questioned Carter’s logic — arguing that as long as the Islamic State controls its stronghold, Raqqa, that it will be able to orchestrate attacks and grow into neighboring countries, like Libya. McCain pressed for the US to be part of a larger multinational force to “go in there and take those people out.”
“There is 20[,000] to 30,000 of them,” McCain said. “They are not giants.”
In a sign the White House and Pentagon are intensifying their efforts, Carter said he is willing to send American helicopters and troops to Anbar province to help the Iraqi military forces close in on and seize Ramadi from Islamic State militants.
“The United States is prepared to assist the Iraqi army with additional unique capabilities to help them finish the job, including attack helicopters and accompanying advisers if circumstances dictate and if requested by Prime Minister [Hader al-] Abadi,” Carter said.
His comments came amid reports that the Iraqi security forces have advanced into downtown Ramadi and seized a key military operations center.
Hundreds of US troops are deployed in Anbar province, but their mission has been limited primarily to inside-the-wire training activities at Al Asad Air Base and Taqaddum Air Base.
Carter, in his last appearance before the committee, said “we’re at war” with the Islamic State, also called ISIL or ISIS. Since then, 14 people died a San Bernardino, California, couple inspired by the terror group, prompting President Obama to make a televised address reassuring the nation a strategy to defeat the Islamic State is in place.
After the Nov. 13 terrorist attacks in Paris, and intensified by San Bernardino, Obama has come under increased scrutiny from lawmakers — particularly Republicans — for not adopting a more aggressive strategy to wipe out Islamic State group strongholds in Iraq and Syria.
US forces have been involved in airstrikes and training assistance in the region for 16 months without a new military force authorization for the mission, which Obama called for Congress to provide in the televised address.
On Wednesday, Carter said the targeting force — operating at the invitation of the Iraqi government — will be used to gather intelligence, conduct raids more frequently, capture Islamic State leaders and free hostages, Carter said.
“We want this expeditionary targeting force to make ISIL and its leaders wonder when they go to bed at night, who’s going to be coming in the window,” Carter said.
One tenet of the administration’s strategy is to develop capable, motivated, local ground forces, with US and coalition forces enabling them. A US presence, military officials worry, would prove a recruiting tool for the Islamic State.
“If we fall into the trap of radical Islamic violent extremists baiting us into a ground fight, we’re actually doing exactly what they want us to do,” said Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
Because the territory ISIS occupies is mostly Sunni, the Pentagon would like to see indigenous local Sunni fighters working with the support of Sunni Arab allies from the region. Despite their initial participation in the air campaign, however, Gulf allies are “disinclined” to provide ground troops, particularly as they are preoccupied with the war in Yemen, Carter said.
Carter “urgently” called on Congress to lift "holds" on the final tranche of funds in the Syria equipping program, which amounts to about $116 million dollars. The Pentagon is seeking the money to provide and transport ammunition, weapons, and other equipment for anti-ISIS fighters in Syria, like the Syrian-Arab Coalition.
“We need these funds to provide and transport ammunition, weapons and other equipment to further enable the progress being made against ISIL in Syria by partners like the Syrian-Arab coalition,” Carter said.
McCain pushed back, citing an obligation to taxpayers. The previous effort yielded a handful of fighters for roughly $40 million spent, a result Carter acknowledged as “disappointing.”
While the previous program sought to build fighting units, the new program is working with existing units such as the Syrian Arab Coalition. Rather than vet fighters to the individual level, the US has vetted the allegiances of 20 of the group’s leaders, which with a force of 1,600, is working their way through three villages in eastern Syria, Carter said.
The US does not exercise command and control over these forces, but “we exercise influence,” Selva said. The relationship is “transactional” with the US providing ammunition and advice to strike specific targets.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, asked whether the fighters share the same goals and vision for Syria as the US, and whether those goals might one day shift out of alignment.
Selva declined to provide a full answer outside of a classified setting, but said, “Today they share the goal of wanting to take their homes back and beat ISIL in doing so. And that is necessary and sufficient to get at the fight in eastern Syria and working our way back towards Raqqa."
Staff writer Andrew Tilghman contributed to this report.
posted by Dot Calm @ 6:06 PM
<< Home