US to change to episodic deployment of US troops to Norway

(August 7)  n the past the US has seen multi-year deployment of troops into Norway for year-long alpine training. The US deployment that has been increased over the years as more US marines are sent to Norway.

+ Add Image

Earlier US troop deployments.

The US doubled the number of troops deployed in Norway in 2018. As a Reuters article in August 2018 reported: "Plans to increase the number of Marines in Norway to 700 from 330 and moving some of them closer to the border with Russia had triggered a sharp reaction from Moscow, which called the plans “clearly unfriendly”." The rotation of forces now lasts up to five years.

The initial posting back in 2017 ran for six months from the beginning of they year but was extended last June. The US marines had been scheduled to leave Norway at the end of 2018. Norwegian Foreign Minister Eriksen Soereide had told reporters some time ago that the deployment did not mean that the US would have a permanent base in Norway but is meant purely for training the troops to fight in winter conditions. He claimed Russia was not the target of the deployment. The US marines are the first foreign troops stationed in Norway since the second World War.

While at first the troops trained in Oslo west of the Swedish border the rotations were later pushed north past the Arctic Circle to Setermoen which is about 250 miles from the border with Russia. This no doubt will make the Russians even more apprehensive..

Deployments to become episodic

US officials have announced that beginning in October the US will no longer have any year-long deployment or limit rotations to every six months. The deployments will become episodic and fit in with Norway's own exercises. The officials were rather vague on the reasons for the change although they claimed it would increase US troop readiness. They also insisted that the change would allow for large-scale unit training. The program has evolved so as to have more US troops near the Russian border and also to prepare the US for cold weather combat as the US no doubt believes there could be conflict over resources in the Arctic.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Saudi-led airstrikes in Yemen kill at least ten civilians and wounding twelve

 (August 7) Saudi-led airstrikes targeting northern Yemen killed at least ten civilians while wounding another 12 on this Thursday. The attacks hit a number of residential areas in al-Jawf.

+ Add Image

The casualties

Among the ten killed at least seven were children. Women and children comprised most of the wounded. The recent attacks are just the latest of several Saudi attack that have hit civilian areas in the north causing substantial civilian casualties.

Saudis did not announce what if any the military targets were

The Saudis have never bothered to announce what their military targets were. Neither have the Saudis officially responded to reports of substantial civilian casualties.

.

International condemnation of Saudi air campaign

The many reports of civilian casualties caused by Saudi airstrikes in north Yemen have led to an international backlash against the Saudi operations. There have been many calls for countries to cease selling arms to the Saudis without assurances they will not be employed to kill civilians.

Last month, another Saudi-led airstrike killed at least 25 in al-Jawf as well as 10 others in the neighboring province of Hajjah,.

Background

Yemeni has had a civil war since late 2014 when a Houthi group backed by Iran seized control of much of the north including the capital Sanna. The Saudi-backed government of President Mansour Hadi was eventually forced into exile. However, a Saudi-led coalition intervened in the conflict in 2015 to help restore the Hadi government to power. Background on the Houthis featured on the appended video.

The civil war has killed tens of thousands, most civilians. Over 3 million people have been displaced and created a humanitarian disaster with more than 20 million on the brink of famine while facing the COVID-19 pandemic.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Elliot Abrams appointed US Special Envoy to Iran

 Brian Hook, US special envoy, who has been overseeing the last 3 and a half years of US hostility towards Iran has resigned. No official reason has been announced for his resignation.

Some reports suggest that the resignation is related to the US pushing next week for an arms embargo on Iran. The US move is expected to fail. Hook is being replaced by Elliot Abrams.

Hook described his time as envoy to Iran as a success. He pointed out that although there were no successful negotiations during his tenure the US had severely damaged the Iranian economy through sanctions and he left Iran weaker than when his term began. Abrams is likely to keep up the constant bellicosity towards Iran characteristic of Hook's tenure as envoy.

Elliot Abrams

Abrams has served in foreign policy positions under the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and now Donald Trump.

He is regarded a a Neo-conservative. During the Reagan administration he was involved in the Iran-Contra scandal as described on the appended video. In 1991 he was convicted of two charges of unlawfully withholding information from Congress but was later pardoned by George H. W. Bush.

Abrams was also associated with a failed coup against form Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.

Trump appointed Abrams as special representative to Venezuela. As a recent article notes: "Under Trump, Elliot was slated to return to his roots in taking on socialist leaders in Latin America. His appointment came just two days after Trump announced the U.S. would recognize opposition-controlled National Assembly leader Juan Guaidó as acting leader of Venezuela, severing ties with President Nicolás Maduro in January of last year."

So far the Maduro regime has been able to successfully resist the Guaido coup attempt supported by Abrams and the US. No doubt the same type of maximum pressure campaign will be used against Iran. Although the US claims that its aim in Iran is not regime change as in Venezuela the tactics involved will certainly cause the present Iranian regime economic problems that will no doubt cause political difficulties within Iran and could very well facilitate regime change.

The US wants the UN arms embargo on Iran to be extended after it runs out this fall. Abrams is no doubt seen as someone who can help make that happen..

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Trump says he wants to withdraw 4,000 US troops from Afghanistan by November election

 (August 5) In a recent Axios interview, Present Trump again announced that he intended to withdraw another 4,000 US troops from Afghanistan by the time of the November US election. He estimates that 4 or 5 thousand will remain.

Pentagon officials announced cuts were planned some time ago.

The US Taliban peace deal

The US and the Taliban signed a peace deal at the end of January. In accordance with the deal the US has already reduced it troop presence in Afghanistan down to 8,600 from 14,000. There is to be a complete US withdrawal by 14 months or next May 1. The Pentagon insists that any further withdrawal is conditional upon the Taliban keeping their end of the agreement which is basically to ensure that Afghanistan is not used as a base by any terrorist groups to threaten the security of the US or its allies.

Trump anxious to cut US troop levels in Afghanistan.

He promised to do so in his campaign for president. The peace deal with the Taliban furthered his desire for withdrawal and he believes that a further troop withdrawal will help his re-election campaign in November. Trump can counter any criticism by noting that he still has thousands of troops in the country and is not in violation of the treaty with the Taliban. He should be able to accommodate to some extent both hawks and doves. So far US drawdowns are ahead of schedule even though peace seems still in the future as far as conflict between the Afghan government and the Taliban are concerned.

Trump has stressed that the Afghan war has gone on much too long, almost two decades, and would like to see it end as soon as possible.

Ceasefire between Taliban and Afghan government over the recent holiday

The Afghan government has been slow in meeting the terms of a prisoner swap that was part of the Taliban US agreement.

The Taliban and Afghan government were able to negotiate a ceasefire over the recent three day Eid Al-Adha holiday. Talks will probably resume some time this week and the prisoner swap is almost complete. Conditions appear favorable for a peace agreement between the Taliban and the Afghan government.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US Secretary of State Pomeo appears to be fomenting a new Cold War with China

 (July 31) Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claimed in comments before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the "tide is turning' in favor of the US and against China. He says that he has seen more international support for US policies on China in recent days.

US seems determined to start a new Cold War with China

Pompeo has almost daily unleashed diatribes against China. He has called for a global alliance against what he calls Chinese "tyranny'. His comments today indicate he feels he is getting some response to his interest in a new Cold War against China.

Pompeo said:"We see the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for what it is: the central threat of our times."

US dismayed more countries are not joining with the US against China

Pompeo was particularly annoyed that more nations were not taking a hard line on China on the Hong Kong security law. He declared China the "central threat of our time". It is not clear how exactly China can be such a threat, Perhaps China is a threat to US economic dominance.

US tries to persuade countries not to adopt Huawei 5g technology

The US not only itself is carrying out a trade war with China but is trying to persuade other countries not to invest in Chinese technology such as that of Huawei. Many countries see little benefit to them in joining the US in a trade war against China and many may resent US attempts to stop them from investing in Huawei's 5g technology.

Huawei sold most smart phones globally in the second quarter

Research firm Canalys reports that Hawei shipped 55.8 million devices in the second quarter of 2020 with Samsung in second place. This is in spite of US actions that have made the phones somewhat less competitive outside China: "The restrictions mean Huawei phones now face a distinct disadvantage outside China because they can only run a stripped-down open source version of Google's Android operating system and don't come with the U.S. search giant's apps like Chrome, YouTube, and Google Maps. Users also have to download apps through Huawei’s own app store, not the Google Play store."

The US could very well end up losing the most in its trade war against China. Many countries even allies could resent US attempts to persuade them to abandon what could be beneficial trade relations with China. The US has closed the Chinese consulate in China prompting China to also close a US embassy in a Chinese city. Instead of expanding trade relationships between the two countries that could benefit both, the US is following what can only be a lose lose policy of cutting off such relations.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US Pentagon argues for the production of a new nuclear weapon

(July 31) Given that the US already has a huge nuclear arsenal, arguments for more spending on nuclear arms would be difficult as it would seem that no new weapons are needed.

The need for new nuclear weapons

Officials have found a way around the apparent lack of a need for new weapons. The argument is that new versions of nuclear weapons would be much safer than those in the existing arsenal. An unclassified white paper that was sent to the US Congress earlier this year warned that land-based missiles because of their design to be fired minutes after an enemy attack were prone to being fired by mistake. The new missiles would presumably not have the same vulnerability.

Critics think that developing the new sub-launched weapon, the W93, is not required as they think that the current warheads are plenty forceful. The new weapon would be too expensive they argue and developing it would harm global non-proliferation efforts.

Existing weapons have never suffered the accidents envisaged

The existing arsenal have existed for decades with no accidents of the type envisioned. The Pentagon also is asking not just for safer weapons but also more powerful weapons even though the existing arsenal itself seems far more powerful than is needed.

If the argument about needing safer methods is successful this may encourage future Pentagon planners to deliberately incorporate safety flaws in designs in order to ensure that they can argue later that the weapons need to be replaced because of safety issues.

Some criticisms of the W93

Since the W93 is lighter than earlier missiles they have a greater range and thus subs that release them can remain further from anti-submarine weapons according to officials. However, this argument goes counter to the official depiction of so-called boomer subs as being virtually undetectable and essentially invulnerable. There is no need for such further distance in the first place. These subs were able to perform deterrence patrols during the Cold War when Soviet attack submarines roamed virtually the entire globe.

Hans Kristensen an analyst with the Federation of American Scientists said: “There’s no indication that Russia’s current or foreseeable attack submarine fleet has the capability to take on the U.S. boomers on the open oceans — China even less so.”

Once W93s are in production officials must decide which current warheads should taken out of deployed inventory and in what numbers. Officials have publicly declared that introduction of the W93 would not increase the number of deployed warheads. Yet the document does not state this and government spokespersons asked about the issue would not forswear the possibility of increasing the arsenal deployed. If this happens other countries will hardly be willing to cut back their own programs according to arms control advocates.

Officials have been reluctant to call the W93 a new weapons even though the document makes it clear that it is. There is even a chapter entitled " Why Do We Need a New Weapon?"

Previously published in the DIgital Journal

US envoy to Afghanistan on mission to several countries to promote Afghan peace process

 (July 27) Zalmay Khalilzad, the US envoy to Afghanistan, left of Friday for a trip that will take him to Afghanistan plus four other countries to promote the Afghan peace process and also push for intra-Afghan talks between the Taliban and Afghan government.

Khalilzad's itinerary

The US State Department said that as well as Afghanistan, Khalilzad will visit Doha in Qatar, the site of the February talks that led to the US Taliban peace deal the end of February. He also is expected to make stops in Islamabad where he seeks Pakistani help with intra-Afghan talks. He will also make stops in Norway and Bulgaria where he will update NATO allies on the ongoing peace process.

Afghan president's statement on negotiations

Afghan president said on Sunday that the Afghan government would not be entering talks from a position of weakness. He claimed that the government would not be compromised in the negotiations: “I will not compromise on the republic. I will not compromise on Afghanistan. We are proud of the republic."

Despite continuing violence both sides are in favor of talks

Both sides continue fighting but even so both are also in favor of intra-Afghan talks between the government and the Taliban. The delay in the talks has been caused by the reluctance of the Afghan government to complete the terms of a prisoner swap that was part of the terms of the February agreement between the US and the Taliban.

The prisoner swap

The US Taliban agreement involved a prisoner swap of 5,000 Taliban for 1,000 Afghan prisoners held by the Taliban. However, the Afghan government was not involved in negotiations and was reluctant to release all the prisoners. However, no doubt under pressure from the US, the Afghan government has now released most of the 5,000 but has complained that some are too dangerous to release. The situation is even more complicated now if reports that some prisoners have been recaptured are true. Recent reports indicate that the Taliban have released about 700 Afghan prisoners and the Afghan government over 4,000.

Just last week, a Taliban spokesperson said the group was ready to start talks after the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha providing the prisoner swaps were complete by then. This year the holiday begins on Friday July 31.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Pompeo's rants amount to a new Cold War but with China

 (July 26) After almost daily rants against China, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is now indicating that the goal of US hostility is to change China as the US begins what is in effect a new Cold War against the country.

Back to the red scare era

Pompeo likened the situation as akin to the earlier Cold War with the Soviet Union. He said that other nations in the world had an obligation to defend freedom and warned that at “our children’s children may be at the mercy of the Communist party.” He also claimed that the US had changed Soviet behavior.

Pompeo's language harks back to the language of red scares. Like the Soviet reds China wants to dominate the world and is a threat to all "freedom loving" nations. The aim may be in part to cause Americans and others to fear Chinese domination in the future.

Pompeo said: “Changing the CCP’s behavior cannot be the mission of the Chinese people alone. Free nations have to work to defend freedom. If we bend the knee now, our children’s children may be at the mercy of the Communist party." Pompeo said he had faith that the US could get China to change its behavior. This rhetoric is completely bizarre but it shows what US officials believe can still be effective in manufacturing consent for US policy in the future. If the US is so intent on defending freedom why is it a close ally of authoritarian states such as Saudi Arabia and why do they recognize their own chosen coup leader Juan Guaido as the interim leader of Venezuela rather than the elected president Nicolas Maduro?

US domination may be doomed

The US is the dominant nation both economically and militarily throughout the globe. The US tries to function as world policeman backed by its economic and financial power The US uses sanctions to try and control the behavior of nations such as Venezuela that resist its policy aims.

China's huge economic growth is beginning to challenge the US dominance although even allies such as the European Union are becoming frustrated by the US use of international systems such as the SWIFT financial system as a weapon to further its own ends. Christopher Bovis, professor of international business law at the University of Hull in the UK, notes "The European Commission has been developing a system, a parallel system to SWIFT which will allow Iran to interface with European financial systems, European clearing systems, using the nominations supported and created by the European Investment Bank based on the euro."

US policy is not to engage with China

The US and China could develop a win-win trade relationship with each other but US policy seems now to see China as an evil competitor. Pompeo said that the US can "never go back to engagement" declaring it a Marxist Leninist regime that was following a bankrupt totalitarian ideology. However, China's economy has been booming and in time may come to equal US production. Meanwhile, the US appears to be not facing up to its own social and economic problems but instead is using fear of China to divert attention from problems withing the US itself. Instead of pursuing productive trade and other relations with China a win-win situation the US has chosen a path which will hurt the economies of both countries and heighten tensions a lose-lose strategy.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Passengers injured as US fighter jets buzz Iranian airliner

 (July 23) An unknown number of passengers on Iranian Mahan Air Flight 152 were injured on Thursday when 2 US fighter jets approached it over Damascus, forcing the plane to alter its direction to avoid a collision.

Passengers were tossed around

The abrupt change in course tossed passengers around, and several were injured in the process. Iran's official IRIB news agency quoted a passenger describing how his head had hit the roof of the plane during the change in altitude, and video showed an elderly passenger sprawled on the floor.

Reuters reports that after the plane landed at Beirut airport all the passengers left the plane some with minor injuries according to the head of the airport. The plane returned to Tehran without incident early Friday. There has been no further word on the condition of those injured.

Earlier report claimed the jet was a single Israeli plane

This would have been consistent with the fact there has been a string of Israeli actions against Iranians. However, the pilot of the Iranian plane said that he had actually contacted the US jets who carried out the buzz who verified that they were Americans. The appended video is an erroneous report attributing the buzz to an Israeli jet.

CENTCOM confirms airliner was intercepted

CENTCOM the US Central Command says that they had intercepted the airliner in accordance with international standards to ensure the safety of US ground troops stationed at the al-Tanf base within Syria near Damascus. CENTCOM confirmed the interception was of a Mahan Air flight but did not say whether there was any contact.

Mahan Air on US blacklist and sanctioned

The Iranian airline is both sanctioned and blacklisted by the US which accuses Mahan Air of smuggling arms. However, there is no indication that either of these punishments were a factor in the US action.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

AUS House of Representatives soundly defeat amendment to bill the would reduce defense spending by ten percent

(July 22) An amendment to make an across-the-board ten percent reduction to Pentagon spending levels authorized in the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was overwhelmingly defeated by members of both parties.

The vote

Details of the vote can be found here. The actual amendment can be found here.

The US House of Representatives voted 324 against and 93 in favor of an amendment that would have reduced the spending authorization for the 2021 Pentagon budget by ten percent. The amendment did not specify what to cut but only that the US Congress should make across the board reductions. The amendment was offered by Representative Mark Pocan a Wisconsin Democrat.

All 185 Republicans voted against the amendment but so did most Democrats 139. Only 92 Democrats voted for the amendment along with Independent libertarian Justin Amash.

Why the cut could be justified

Many would argue that the US is by far the world's most powerful nation militarily. It could easily spend less than the authorized $750 billion and yet stay safe. The $75 billion dollars could be used to meet many other pressing needs such as repairing ageing infrastructure. The economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic will require extensive expenditures.

Having to cut the budget would force the Pentagon to look for administrative bloat, more closely evaluate the costs and benefits of programs and even evaluate missions to see if they are worth continuing.

As a recent article notes money is being spent on the military when other areas are underfunded: "At a time when health workers have struggled to find masks and protective gear, the Pentagon has so many extra trucks, guns, and other gear, it hands the surplus out for free to police departments — who then use it whether they need it or not, much like the Pentagon itself."

The Pentagon does not even know where all its money is spent. However, other areas such as public health, medical research, education, housing and infrastructure lack financial resources and are chronically and severely underfunded. In the appended video Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont argues for reducing the US military budget.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US House defeats bill that would have US troops withdraw from Afghanistan

(July 20) The US House of Representatives soundly defeated an amendment to the 2021 National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA) by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) that would establish a plan to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan.

Amendment was soundly defeated

The amendment was defeated with only 129 supporting the amendment while 284 opposed it. Only a slight plurality of Democrats supported the measure while all Republicans but two opposed the amendment. Libertarian Justin Amash supported the amendment.

Trump favors withdrawing all troops

In May President Trump had said that he wanted to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan before the November election. However, since then Democratic leaders have shifted to a more hawkish position and have been trying to prevent a total withdrawal. The Democratic leadership seems to be driven by opposition to Trump's position.

The US has been fighting in Afghanistan for 19 years now, almost two decades. The Taliban show no sign of being defeated. At the end of this February there was a peace deal between the US and the Taliban. However, the Afghan government was not involved in the deal and refused to carry out the terms of a prisoner swap that was part of the deal. Conflict has continued between the Taliban and the government. However, talks between the Taliban and the government may be possible to reach a deal on the prisoner swap and a possible cease fire and peace deal.

The US Taliban peace deal

The US and the Taliban reached an agreement on February 29h this year. The agreement would require US troop withdrawal but conditional on the Taliban keeping their obligations under the deal: "Under the terms of the deal, the U.S. commits to withdrawing all of its military forces and supporting civilian personnel, as well as those of its allies, within 14 months. The drawdown process will begin with the U.S. reducing its troop levels to 8,600 in the first 135 days and pulling its forces from five bases."

The US has already reached the goal of reducing troops to 8,600. All of the troops need to be withdrawn only my May 1 next year. Trump could further reduce troop numbers but keep some there after the election to placate hawks who would accuse him or withdrawing all troops too early if he takes them all out. He can leave some for a later withdrawal without violating the agreement with the Taliban.

Prisoner swap and Taliban government talks

The Afghan government was not part of the US Taliban agreement. As part of the agreement the Afghan government was to free up to 5,000 Taliban prisoners for up to 1,000 Afghan security forces held by the Taliban. However, the Afghan government did not agree to this. However, there have been attempts to have peace talks with the Taliban and also to negotiate a prisoner swap.

So far Afghan officials claim they have released about 4,400 prisoners but they have refused to release a last batch of about 600 inmates as they insist they are too dangerous to be released and that some foreign governments also want them to remain in jail.

However, the US and the Taliban are bother urging that the prisoner swap issue be resolved and that talks on a permanent cease fire go forward.

Ross Wilson the US ambassador to Afghanistan said: “The Afghan people have made clear their impatience. Start intra-Afghan negotiations now so that discussions on a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire can begin.” The US is apparently frustrated at the Afghan government's failure to complete the prisoner swap. As a result the Taliban have continued attacks so that there has been not the reduction in violence that had been hoped. The US charges d'affairs also urged the government to move on with the prisoner swap and talks:“We urge this country’s leaders promptly to establish the new government, create the High Council for National Reconciliation, complete the exchange of prisoners, and move to the opening of intra-Afghan negotiations.”

Previously published in the Digital Journal

DHS official says federal Portland deployment could become the norm

 (July 20) Chad Wolf, acting secretary of the US Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) has been facing mounting lawsuits and complaints from Oregon officials after the federal crackdown in Portland Oregon.

However, his response was to issue a memo in which he suggested that this sort of federal action could become the norm.

In Portland, Federal law enforcement was deployed without permission from any state or local officials. The justification for their deployment was nominally to protect public buildings in the area. The federal agents fired tear gas at protesters and also in effect kidnapped suspects off the streets without any legal basis and with no arrests being made.

The Wolf memo

The memo suggested that if federal law enforcement were deployed to other US cities experiencing unrest and become the norm then specialized training and standardized equipment should be given to the agencies responding.

Wolf defended the use of DHS agents in Portland arguing that the protesters were anarchists and that the agents were needed to protect federal buildings. Some DHS officials said that the agents had just enough training to be deployed but did not seem to want to speak to the suggestion that their deployment could become the norm.

Negative reactions to the federal action

In a tweet, Oregon State Governor Kate Brown said: "I told Acting Secretary Wolf that the federal government should remove all federal officers from our streets. His response showed me he is on a mission to provoke confrontation for political purposes. He is putting both Oregonians and local law enforcement officers in harm’s way." The appended video shows Governor Brown's reaction to the federal operations.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler said that he had informed Wolf that Portland did not want or need assistance from federal officers.

Oregon Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden both Democrats as well as Democratic Representatives Earl Blumenauer and Suzanne Bonamici aaked that the Portland events be thoroughly reviewed by DHS. Merkley said that the DHS and Dept. of Justice were engaged in acts that were horrific and outrageous in the US constitutional democratic republic.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Former US officials speak at radical anti-Iran forum

 (July 19) The People's Mujahedin (MEK) a radical anti-Iran group that some consider a cult and was considered a terrorist organization until 2012 by the US held its annual Free Iran Conference on line.

Former present US officials featured speakers at the conference

The conference was held by the National Conference of Resistance of Iran a coalition headed by the MEK. The MEK is considered the premiere Iranian opposition group by the US. If hawks against Iran had their way they would have the MEK replace the current Islamic regime. US officials such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have appeared at events with MEK members.

Former mayor or New York Rudy Guiliani has been a frequent guest at MEK gathering. He spoke against the existing government in Iran claiming that the ruling mullahs are like those who ran the mafia that Guiliani prosecuted. Guiliani said: "They’re not only religious maniacs, they’re just plain common criminals, they are crooks, they are thieves. To me, the mullahs are like the people who ran the mafia, the people I prosecuted who ran the mafia, and extorted their people, the Italian American people and subjected them, except this is on a much bigger scale, and the Ayatollah is like the head of the mafia.”"

There were also two sitting members of the US Congress who spoke at the conference: Senator Martha McSally a Repulbican from Arizona, and Representative Lance Gooden also a Republican from Texas. Gooden praised MEK leader Maryam Rajavi and encouraged young people to join the fight. She also claimed that the people of the US were with her.

The MEK pays well for speeches

Among prominent former US officials who have spoken at MEK conferences are former speaker of the House New Gingrich and Senator from Connecticut. A February 2017 article notes: "Elaine Chao, confirmed this week as Trump's transportation secretary, received $50,000 in 2015 for a five-minute speech to the political wing of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, previously called a "cult-like" terrorist group by the State Department. Former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani also was paid an unknown sum to talk to the group, known as the MEK."

Although not at this year's conference, former National Security Advisor John Bolton and a prominent hawk has often spoken for the MEK. Records show he has been paid at least $180,000 for speeches over the years.

Rajavi speaks

In the MEK compound in Albania, in front of numerous screens, Rajavi spoke to the conference:. “Our first commitment is that we, the Iranian people and the Resistance, will overthrow the clerical regime and will reclaim Iran. The final word is that the mullahs have no solutions and their regime is doomed to fall in its entirety.”

Previous role of the MEK

The MEK started as a leftist organization in the 1960 in Iran. They attacked the US supported Shah's police force throughout the 1970s. The group also played a role in the 1979 overthrow of the Shah but ultimately came to oppose the new government of the Mullahs and carried out attacks against it. The MEK was driven out of Iran in the 1980's

The MEK was welcomed into Iraq by Sadam Hussein who provided them refuge at a military base Camp Ashraf. The group launched terrorist attacks into Iran and sided with Iran in the eight year war between Iraq and Iran. Many believe that the MEK has at present little support within Iran itself.

After the US 2003 invasion or Iraq the US government commissioned a report about the MEK inside their former headquarters at camp Asharaf. The report suggested that MEK was much like a cult noting “many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labor, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and limited exit options.”

Previously  published in the Digital Journal

US Navy carries out "freedom of navigation" operation off coast of Venezuela

 (July 17) The US Navy has sent another warship, the USS Pinckney to sail off the coast of Venezuela for what it euphemistically terms a "freedom of navigation" exercise.

	1 of 3

The freedom of navigation operations are meant to contest claims to territorial waters

The US has commonly used this type of operation against China. For example in late April the US Navy carried out such an operation in the Spratly Islands: "The guided-missile cruiser USS Bunker Hill on Wednesday "asserted navigational rights and freedoms in the Spratly Islands, consistent with international law," said Cmdr. Reann Mommsen, a spokesperson for the Navy's 7th Fleet, in a statement."

The US Southern Command said in a statement: "Today, the US Navy Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Pinckney (DDG 91) challenged Venezuela's excessive maritime claim in international waters during a successful freedom of navigation operation in the Caribbean Sea."

This is second US Navy operation in Venezuela

This is the second freedom of navigation operation against Venezuela within the last three weeks. Navy officials claim that they do not like what they call the "excessive maritime claims" of what they call the illegal regime of President Maduro. The US and many of its allies recognize the self-declared Juan Guaido as the interim president of Venezuela as part of a US-led coup against Maduro which has been unsuccessful so far. The PInckney was sent to challenge Venezuelan claims.

On June 23, the US Navy carried out a similar Freedom of Navigation exercise, deploying the guided-missile destroyer USS Nitze off the Venezuelan coast. The US claims its warship was more than 12 miles off the Venezuelan coast in international waters and was in compliance with international law.

Venezuela objects but without any result

Venezuela warned after the last US operation that they considered the incursion of the US ships a provocation. The US appears to be betting that this time Venezuela will again do nothing or at least anything of significance. Venezuela no doubt wants to avoid outright war with the US and would not want to encourage hawks in the US administration.

The US plan

The US is banking upon Venezuela not acting to defend their territorial water claims. This will be used to argue that their claims are not justified. US Admiral Craig Faller says the US will continue to carry out freedom of navigation operations to show that the territorial water claims of Venezuela are unlawful.

.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Saudi- led airstrikes in northern Yemen killed at least 25 civilians

(July 16) Saudi-led airstrikes in northern Yemen continued to hit civilian areas rather than military targets with the latest attacks hitting a residential area in Jawf Province, killing at least 25 civilians and destroying three houses.

Casualties

The victims in the attack included a number of women and children. In addition at least nine civilians were critically wounded as well. Saudi officials as usual refused to comment on why they attacked the houses.

Raids were second round of attacks this week

This is the second time this week there has been a round of attacks in North Yemen. In both rounds only civilian deaths have been reported. Saudi Arabia has failed to explain why the raids have hit civilian targets rather than Houthi military targets. The Saudis have long faced strong international criticism for their air attacks on civilian targets.

The Saudis have at times suggested the attacks as a response to Houthi attempts to attack Saudi military and government sites. They rarely cause much damage and at least they are choosing non-civilian targets. The Saudis on the other hand appear to target any Shi'ite civilians in areas controlled by the Houthi rebels.

The earlier attack killed a family of ten members in Washhah a district in the northwestern province of Hajjah. A Bloomberg article reported: " Ten civilians were killed and two others wounded in an air strike carried out by Saudi-led forces in the province of Hajjah, according to the Saba news agency which is under the control of Shiite Houthi rebels. The report said the strike targeted a house in the Washhah district, adding that among the casualties were women and children."

Background

Yemen has been in a civil war since late in 2014. A Houthi group backed by Iran seized much of the north of Yemen including the capital Sanaa. The Hadi government was forced into exile in Saudi Arabia but the Saudis returned to the conflict in March of 2015 in an attempt to reinstate the government of Mansour Hadi. The has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced more than 3 million while leaving 20 million on the brink of starvation.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US is considering partial nationalization of the military aviation industry

(July 15) The US Air Force worries that there are fewer and fewer companies that are capable of making huge costly planes for the world's by far the largest military.

Nationalization to generate competition

Will Roper Air Force acquisition head suggests that the solution for this lack of competition would be for the US government to nationalize chunks of the military aviation industry so that the government will have more suppliers to bid on contracts. However, the nationalization would give the government what would be in effect a monopoly on those parts of the industry.

As military plane projects become more complex only a few companies are left to bid competitively for them. Many companies have merged to share expenses and be powerful enough to bid. The government wants more choice and to see competitors survive even if they must own companies to do so.

There would be huge objections to any such plans

As it is now companies use lobbyists and the hiring of former Pentagon figures to ensure that they negotiate very profitable contracts. These powerful companies would resist any attempt to remove profitable contracts from private companies. Government companies will force the private sector to offer competitive bids and this would cut into profit margins. It could be that the government comes to favor its own companies and the private sector could dwindle as investors find there is little profit to be made in the sector any more.

Nationalization in the US may be difficult

Some companies that are regarded as necessary for the economy could be nationalized if no private investors were willing to support a private company. However, military aviation production is profitable so there is no reason for nationalization from a capitalist standpoint. President Truman tried to nationalize the industry in the 1950's but failed. Obama was able to temporarily nationalize GM to save jobs but this was just temporary. Large US private military aviation suppliers will surely have enough political clout to prevent any scheme that would see government-owned companies compete with them. Critics will no doubt point to the huge expenditures that the government would need to spend to acquire companies in the arms industry.

One analyst, Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group aviation consulting firm points out that nationalization is not necessarily needed to keep a single aircraft manufacturer alive as has been shown in France, Japan, and Sweden. However, this does not solve the problem of less competition that the nationalization is meant to address.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Taliban attacks continue as no peace deal reached with Afghan government yet

 (July 14) Pentagon officials claim the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan continues at a good pace. There are about 8,000 troops left. The US has also withdrawn from five bases as part of the agreement with the Taliban at the end of February.

The deal with the Taliban

The US signed a deal with the Taliban at the end of February this year. The first part of the deal the US has already completed: "The drawdown process will begin with the U.S. reducing its troop levels to 8,600 in the first 135 days and pulling its forces from five bases." The remainder of the troops only need to be withdrawn by May 1 next year, 14 months after the deal was signed. Withdrawal is contingent on the Taliban keeping their part of the bargain which is basically to ensure that no militant groups are allowed to remain in Afghanistan to threaten the security of the US and its allies. There are also to be power-sharing talks with the Afghan government. The Afghan government has so far refused to carry out the terms of a prisoner swap that was part of the agreement. The Taliban has continued fighting the Afghan government but not the US except when it comes to the defense of the government.

Trump and the Pentagon

Trump may view further withdrawals before the election as helping his electoral chances, but he will probably leave some troops in the country to avoid criticism that he withdrew too soon leaving the government too weak to defend itself. The Pentagon has previously said they want to maintain as much as a presence as possible with reduced troop levels.

Leaving the five bases will be crucial to showing whether the government can continue to control the base areas even with the bases closed. It may encourage the Afghan government to try and reach a deal through talks with the Taliban while the US is still present in the country in significant numbers.

Taliban attacks continue

A recent report notes: "The Taliban took credit for an attack on an Afghan government building in Aybak city in Afghanistan’s Samangan province. The attack started with a car bomb blast and a gun battle ensued, resulting in the death of at least 10 Afghan security forces. Three attackers were also killed in the violence."

Afghanistan's National Security Council has recently agreed to release the remaining 592 Taliban prisoners in their custody. Refusal to do so earlier has caused the Taliban to continue attacks on the government. Both sides have indicated that they are willing to resume talks to reach a deal. The new release of prisoners could very well be sufficient to have this happen.

Previously published in the Digital Journal