Defense Secretary Mattis wants to leave US troops in Iraq after Islamic State is defeated

For some time now U.S. officials have said that even though the end of the war against the Islamic State may be in sight, U.S. troops should stay in Iraq.

In recent remarks by Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend he said that he hoped that the city of Mosul would be liberated from Islamic State control before the next U.S. troop rotation, but that U.S. troops should stay. Townsend insisted that the troops would need to stay long after the war against the IS in Iraq was over in order to arm and train Iraq's military. This view fits in with what Pentagon officials have claimed, that the rise of IS between the end of U.S. occupation in 2011 and 2014 when some U.S. troops and air support returned was due to the lack of U.S. ground troops in Iraq in spite of the fact that the U.S. had trained the Iraqi military and had a presence in Iraq for years. Townsend said that since mid-October last year the Iraqi army had had lost more than one thousand troops with about another 5,000 wounded. Only two U.S. soldiers had been killed during the same period. Townsend was addressing Fort Bragg troops.

Earlier, on March 22, , Rex Tillerson, U.S. Secretary of State also announced that U.S. troops would remain in Iraq to avert the possible resurgence of another terrorist organization saying: "The military power of the coalition will remain where this fraudulent caliphate has existed in order to set the conditions for a full recovery from the tyranny of ISIS." However Tillerson stressed that the troops would be engaged in what he called "stabilization" and "normalization" rather than "nation-building'. Tillerson continued:"Local leaders and local governments will take on the process of restoring their communities in the wake of ISIS with our support.The development of a rejuvenated civil society in these places will lead to a disenfranchisement of ISIS and the emergence of stability and peace where there was once chaos and suffering. But none of this will happen automatically. We all need to support this effort."

Both Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, and the Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Joseph Dunford also told Congress in March that a residual group of U.S. troops should stay in Iraq after the IS were defeated in order to present a resurgence of the terrorist group. The two were testifying before the Senate Appropriations subcommittee. Mattis said it would be a mistake to simply declare victory and pull out as the U.S. did in 2011.

There is no mention in these reports as to how the Iraqi government would react to all of this. The talk is always as if it is just up to the U.S. as to whether troops stay or not. But it isn't. Indeed the reason that the U.S. did not keep troops in Iraq in 2011 is because they could not strike an agreement with the Iraqi government. The Iraqis refused the US demand for immunity for their soldiers. Don't expect the main-stream media to even notice such irrelevant details!

After comments by U.S. and Iraqi officials that U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis was in talks with Iraqi PM Haider al-Abadi about maintaining a "modest" U.S. military presence in Iraq after the defeat of the Islamic State the Iraqi PM issued a denial. Al-Abadi said:"The Iraqi government has plans and strategies to develop the capabilities of our security forces through training and arming to raise their readiness to face the challenges ahead"... It is open to all international expertise to meet the aspirations of Iraq to build military institutions and security apparatuses that enjoy full readiness to face any future security challenges, whether external or internal and in accordance with the requirements of Iraqi national sovereignty."

The statement is in contrast with that of an anonymous U.S. official who said: "There is a general understanding on both sides that it would be in the long-term interests of each to have that continued presence. So as for agreement, yes, we both understand it would be mutually beneficial. That we agree on." He said the troops would number several thousand or perhaps a little more. The Iraqi PM's office said that only military advisers would remain.

At present there are almost 7,000 U.S. troops in Iraq assisting Iraqi forces in the fight against the IS. Jafar al-Husseini, a representative from the Kataib Hezbollah militia, who are closely allied to Iran, claimed the army and paramilitaries were strong enough to defend Iraq themselves: "Iraq's security forces and the Popular Mobilisation Forces [PMUs] have the ability to protect [Iraq's] internal roads and borders, so why is al-Abadi using American security partners?" Influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is also opposed to the presence of any U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq. He and his supporters may end up attacking US troops if they remain after the defeat of the IS. Al-Haidi must consider the opposition any attempt to keep U.S. troops in Iraq could produce against him. He is obviously trying to downplay any continuing presence of the US in Iraq that he will allow. The U.S. will simply ignore the issue and may end up exactly where they were in 2011.

US Defense Secretary Mattis said warning to Assad worked

(June 30) A White House warning that the Assad government was making potential preparations for a chemical attack in Syria had worked to stop a chemical attack according to U.S. national security officials.

The New York TImes reports on the issue quoting Defense Secretary Jim Mattis: "They didn't do it". Of course the TImes never bothered to ask why they would want to do it in the first place. The Times does not mention that there have recently been questions about the earlier alleged attack by Assad, that resulted in a Syrian base being attacked with Tomahawk missiles, raised by journalist Seymour Hersh.

The warning issued on Monday by White House officials, claimed that the U.S. had “identified potential preparations” by the Assad government to use chemical weapons in an attack similar to one that was launched in April from an airfield in western Syria. Note that there is no questioning that there was such an attack. It is reported as fact. Mattis said that it appeared that Assad took the warnings seriously. He refused to say whether the preparations that were noted earlier had been ended but said that there had been a lack of a chemical weapons attack since the White House warning was issued. No doubt there would have been no chemical attack even though there was no warning since there is no good reason for such an attack and every reason to avoid one. Don't expect the New York Times to stray from just "objective" reporting of whatever an important official says.

The Times goes on with more exciting news. The U.S. ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley said: “I think that by the president calling out Assad, I think by us continuing to remind Iran and Russia that while they choose to back Assad, that this was something we were not going to put up with. I would like to think that the president saved many innocent men, women and children.” A nice thought but it would be even nicer if she could give some better evidence for it. The Times does make the interesting remark that White House officials denied reports that military and intelligence officials were not aware that the statement was to be made before its release.

According to Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the principal deputy press secretary, President Trump proposed making the statement after he received information that Assad might attack again using chemical weapons. She would not give details about the evidence or say who provided it to Trump. Perhaps this is just a standard protocol to avoid transparency or maybe no one want"s to be held responsible for evidence that could be questioned. Sanders claims that the national security adviser, the director of national intelligence and the director of the CIA were all present at the meeting at which Trump suggested making the statement. She said: “The military chain of command was also fully aware of the statement as it was being prepared and later released. By the time the statement was issued, every relevant department and agency had ample opportunity to provide feedback and input.”

Reuters provides a somewhat more sceptical account of events noting the Russian response to the warning: "Russia, the Syrian government's main backer in the country's civil war, warned that it would respond proportionately if the United States took pre-emptive measures against Syrian forces to stop what the White House says could be a planned chemical attack." One possible explanation for nothing happening is this warning that the Times does not bother to mention. Perhaps the U.S. was hoping to use the alleged preparations as an excuse to attack some Assad positions but then nothing happened because of the Russian warning. I suppose one could argue then that the Russian warning worked. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that he hoped the U.S. was not preparing to use its intelligence assessments as a pretext to mount a "provocation" in Syria.

In answer to a question as to whether Mattis believed that Assad had called off any strike completely Mattis said: "I think you better ask Assad about that." Reuters claims that according to an anonymous U.S. official familiar with the intelligence behind the warning said that it was "far from conclusive" and that it did not come close to showing that a chemical weapons attack was coming. Reuters also describes the evidence saying that another U.S. official said that a Syrian warplane was being observed moving into a hangar where intelligence agencies believe Assad is hiding chemical weapons. Whatever the reason for the U.S. warning there have been no pre-emptive attacks by the U.S. and no chemical attacks so far by Assad. The appended video was not produced by Onion!

Kurds will be allowed to keep US weapons for now

Jim Mattis, US Secretary of Defense, said that the US will continue to provide weapons to Kurdish fighters in Syria even after the Islamic State has been ousted from its last main stronghold in Syria Raqqa.

The US had earlier promised that it would take back weapons that it supplied to the YPG after Turkey expressed alarm over arming Kurds on its border. The YPG, Peoples' Protection Units, are regarded by Turkey as a terrorist group but the US regards them as a key ally in the fight against the Islamic State(IS) in Syria and has supported them with arms and training. The YPG are the main component of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) supported by the US in Syria. The US said the weapons would be returned after the defeat of the Islamic State. The US is also to present Turkey with a monthly inventory of weapons that the US provides to the YPG. The Turkish defense ministry said that the first inventory had already been sent to Turkey.

Mattis now says that the defeat of the Islamic State in Raqqa does not mean that the Kurds will be required to return the weapons provided to them. Mattis claimed that the US had made it clear all along "we're going to equip them for the fight. If they have another fight, and they need, you know, the light trucks they have been using...we'll get them that". Mattis was also non-commital when asked if all the weapons the Kurds received had to be returned Mattis said: "We'll do what we can." However, Mattis did say that as fighting goes on the US will collect weapons, or take certain weapons back and provide the Kurds with others: "When they don't need certain things any more, we'll replace those with something they do need."

The US has not publicly revealed the amount or even specific types of weapons provided for the Kurds. However, anonymous officials have said that 120 mm mortars, machine guns, ammunition and light armoured vehicles are most likely what was sent. The shipments began in May and the Pentagon said only that small arms and ammunition were included. The officials said that artillery and surface-to-air missiles were not provided.

There are already clashes taking place between Turkish-backed troops in northern Syria and Kurdish forces. The Kurdish canton of Afrin has been repeatedly shelled by the pro-Turkish forces. Fire has been returned by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The YPG confirmed that attacks had increased in the area. The Syrian Observatory of Human Rights observed that there had been a build up of Turkish troops in the area and that it appears that they are planning a wide-scale military offensive in the northern Aleppo countryside.

US may send 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan

President Donald Trump recently gave Defense Secretary Jim Mattis the authority to set troop levels in Afghanistan. Mattis could officially announce the increased troop level as early as next week.

The U.S. has been in Afghanistan now for 16 years with no sign of the war ending. Indeed, the Islamic State is now active in the country and the Taliban are gaining control of more territory. Mattis is now the third U.S. commander in chief in Afghanistan. The new force will be the largest since Donald Trump took power. Mattis had said that he did not have enough forces to help Afghan forces fight off the Taliban.

An anonymous administration official claimed that most of the additional troops will be used to train and advise Afghan forces. However, a smaller number will be used for counter-terror operations. The additional troops will no doubt result in more casualties. There have been several this year but the number will remain small in comparison to the period when the U.S. was involved in combat operations. In spite of the reports Jeff Davis a Navy Captain and Pentagon spokesperson said: "No decisions had been made". Earlier recommendations at the first of May were for 3,000 to 5,000 new troops.

Daulat Waziri, a spokesperson for the Afghan defense ministry said he supported the U.S. decision to send more troops saying:"The United States knows we are in the fight against terrorism. We want to finish this war in Afghanistan with the help of the NATO alliance. We are the frontline in the war against international terrorism." Even though Trump has given Mattis authority to set troop levels, Trump will still be held responsible for increasing U.S. involvement in America's longest conflict with no end in sight or even any clear idea of the U.S. aim or strategy. However, the troop levels are nowhere near that of their peak of more than 100,000 in 2009 under President Obama. While in 2001 Bush with Afghan allies were able to oust the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, the group's rebellion still rages in 2017 with the addition of competing Islamic State fighters in a few areas. Obama had set a cap of 8,400 troops in Afghanistan although there are probably at least 2,000 more than that classified as temporary.

General John Nicholson the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan had advised that more U.S. troops were necessary to train and advise the Afghan military. Mattis has not up to now given his own thinking on a troop increase except to say that US and Afghan efforts are making progress in weakening al-Qaida and the Islamic State(IS). However, the main is opponent is not Al-Qaeda or the IS but the Taliban. Mattis told a House Appropriation panel that reconciliation remained the goal: "We're not looking at a purely military strategy. All wars come to an end. Our job is to end it as quickly as possible without losing the very mission that we've recognized, through several administrations, that was worth putting those young Americans on the line for." However, the Taliban are unlikely to agree to any peace unless all foreign troops withdraw from Afghanistan which seems unlikely in the near future. Indeed other NATO countries will also be asked to increase their troop deployments as the U.S. has done. Since 2001 the U.S. military has lost 2,400 and three were killed quite recently. As U.S. troops ground troops help the Afghan forces trying to slow down the Taliban advance they will inevitably become involved in combat with resultant casualties. However as long as the number remains small and most operations will be from the air there will not likely be much political fallout.

The Afghan government of Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah is not popular. After a recent truck bomb attack there were violent protests against the lack of security after a deadly truck bomb attack. The Americans could find that they also will also become the target of protests as their air and other attacks kill civilians. There may be more attacks against U.S. troops involving the very Afghan forces the U.S. is training.

Tension increases between US and North Korea as egos clash

North Korea and the U.S. trade threats and provocations as tension between the leaders of the two countries increases creating the danger of disastrous clashes.

In the west, the press emphasis is on North Korean actions such as nuclear and missile tests. The North Koreans take these actions as defensive responses to U.S. and South Korean actions. The U.S. and others consider them as provocations. Such actions as a U.S. aircraft carrier steaming toward North Korea and joint war games with the South Koreans that involve a simulated attack on North Korea, nor the installation of the THAAD anit-missile system are not regarded as provocations but legitimate responses to the threat of North Korea in the western press.

North Korean rhetoric does not help the situation, as Kim Jong-un threatens nuclear attacks in response to any military action against it. However, many people are concerned that after the US strike in Syria, the U.S. may take unilateral military action against North Korea. Russian officials have voiced their concern. However, Defense Secretary James Mattis tried to downplay these concerns and insists that the carrier strike group is just in the western Pacific and is not going to South Korea for any particular reason and is not intending to do anything when it arrives. However, it is clearly a show of force. The Mattis explanation contradicts what President Trump told Fox Business news that the armada was full of powerful warships, that North Korea was looking for trouble, and the U.S. intended to solve the problem. The tabloid press jumped into the competing narratives and reports that the Navy Seals who killed Bin Laden are now training to take out Kim Jong-Un!

China appears to have agreed with Donald Trump that North Korea is a threat but wants to deal with the situation through non-military means. China has already acted to ban coal shipments from North Korea:A fleet of North Korean cargo ships is heading home to the port of Nampo, the majority of it fully laden, after China ordered its trading companies to return coal from the isolated country, shipping data shows, China banned all imports of North Korean coal on Feb. 26, cutting off the country's most important export product. China's customs department issued an official order on April 7 telling trading companies to return their North Korean coal cargoes, said three trading sources with direct knowledge of the order.There are also reports that China is preparing for trouble on its 1420 kilometer border with North Korea.

China is said to be deploying about 150,000 Chinese troops to the area according to South Korea's Yonhap news agency. However, China's Xinhua news agency has not reported this deployment. Russia also has a short border area with North Korea in the far north-west of the country. There is no land crossing except for a railway. There is actually a railway car that goes from Pyongyang the North Korean capital to Moscow a distance of 10,272 kilometers or 6,383 miles, the longest direct, one-seat ride, passenger rail service in the world.

Trump and others claim that everything has been tried to get North Korea to stop its nuclear program but nothing has worked. Nothing has worked permanently but as Noam Chomsky points out:1994, Clinton made—established what was called the Framework Agreement with North Korea. North Korea would terminate its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The U.S. would reduce hostile acts. It more or less worked, and neither side lived up to it totally, but, by 2000, North Korea had not proceeded with its nuclear weapons programs. George W. Bush came in and immediately launched an assault on North Korea—you know, "axis of evil," sanctions and so on. North Korea turned to producing nuclear weapons.Bush tore up another sensible proposal in 2005. What we have now is threats not suggestions for diplomatic solutions, as in the recent flurry of tweets by Donald Trump threatening North Korea.

We are faced with two leaders often characterized as mad with huge egos confronting one another. It is not a situation conducive to global security. Sorry, I forgo Trump is now "presidential", after attacking a Syrian air base with Tomahawk missiles, according to CNN's Farad Zakaria and many others. An attack on North Korea against a mad leader will no doubt be even more presidential.

US Congress clears the way for a space arms race

(December 22) The U.S. Congress has opened the way for a space arms race and altered U.S. nuclear defense doctrine simply by removing a single word from the Defense Authorization Act.

The change could result in allowing a costly program of space-based weaponry. The change was approved by large majorities in both the House and the Senate. Experts claim that the changes could heighten tensions with Russia and China and begin a new arms race. The bill still needs to be approved by President Obama. There has been no indication what he will do.

The U.S. depends upon a missile-defense system to respond to a small-scale attack such as might come from North Korea. A large scale strike by China or Russia is deterred through the capability of massive retaliation. Crucial to this strategy was the use of the term "limited" to apply to the homeland missile defense system. This language was carefully crafted in order to avoid an arms race with China and Russia.

With virtually no public debate, the word "limited" has been removed during the final approval of the Defense Authorization Act. Another provision of the laws urges the Pentagon to begin "research, development, test and evaluation " of space-based systems for missile defense. Any such program would depend upon annual funding and decisions by the incoming Trump administration to go ahead with the program.

Trump's appointee for Minister of Defense General James Mattis was on the board of the defense contractor General Dynamics. The U.S. government has already been working on a Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) defense system. Since 2002 to last year, the Pentagon has carried out 11 test flights. The interceptors launched from underground silos to hit their targets high above the Pacific failed to destroy them in six of eleven tests. Over the same period Boeing Co. the prime contractor for the GMD collected almost $2 billion in performance bonuses.

Both proponents and opponents of the altered policy agree that the change is significant. Representative Trent Franks the Republican who introduced and guided the amendments through the House said: “These amendments were historic in nature — given the paradigm shift forward that they represent.” Some leading defense scientists considered the idea of a space-based missile defense system pure fantasy. David Montague, a retired president of missile defense systems for Lockheed, and also a co-chair of a panel of the National Academy of Sciences that studied missile defense technologies at the request of Congress, said: “It defies the laws of physics and is not based on science of any kind. Even if we darken the sky with hundreds or thousands of satellites and interceptors, there’s no way to ensure against a dedicated attack. So it’s an opportunity to waste a prodigious amount of money.” It is also a golden opportunity for defense contractors to be awarded lucrative contracts with hefty profits. Montague was hardly careful in crafting his response to the provisions calling them "insanity, pure and simple". Yet there seems to be little opposition within congress and not all that much analysis or discussion about it in the press.

In 2012 a National Academy study had estimated that even a bare-bones space-based missile defense system would cost about $200 billion plus hundreds of billions more to operate over subsequent years. Given the cost and the likelihood of failure, any U.S. program may not provoke a corresponding program by China and Russia. When Franks was asked if the U.S. could afford the program he said: “What is national security worth? It’s priceless.”

Philip E. Coyle III, a former assistant secretary of Defense who headed the Pentagon office responsible for testing and evaluating weapon systems, said the whole notion of a space-based defense system was a sham: “To do this would cost just gazillions and gazillions. The technology isn’t at hand — nor is the money. It’s unfortunate from my point of view that the Congress doesn’t see that. Both Russia and China will use it as an excuse to do something that they want to do.”

Franks said that he had drawn inspiration for his plan from President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative that took place in the 1980's. The plan was to use lasers and other space-based weapons to destroy nuclear weapons and was known as "Star Wars". While the initiative spent $30 billion of taxpayer money, there was no system deployed.

The Obama administration has objected to the elimination of the term "limited" and to placing anti-missile weapons in space, but there has as yet been no threat of a veto. A final objection to the changes came from Vice Admiral James Syring, director of the Missile Defense Agency who said: “I have serious concerns about the technical feasibility of the interceptors in space and I have serious concerns about the long-term affordability of a program like that.” The experts somehow miss the fact that the program will create many new jobs and boost the profits and stock prices of important defense contractors. The program is a generous Xmas gift for the military-industrial complex.

Trump pick for Secretary of Defense is a general who is on the board of defense contractor General Dynamics

Donald Trump's pick for Secretary of Defense, retired Marine General James Mattis, has plenty of experience in the armed forces but also serves on the board of General Dynamics, a prime U.S. defense contractor.

Dwight Eisenhower in a farewell address in January of 1961 warned that for security and liberty to prosper together that Americans must guard against the growth of unwarranted influence by what he called the "military industrial complex". Yet that is what has been happening for some time in the U.S. A study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2008 found:

In 2006, 52 contractors employed 2,435 former DOD senior and acquisition officials who had previously served as generals, admirals, senior executives, program managers, contracting officers, or in other acquisition positions which made them subject to restrictions on their post-DOD employment.The GAO found that more than 400 of those former military personnel took private sector jobs where they competed for specific Pentagon contracts that they previously oversaw.

Mattis would be moving directly to his job from his position as one of 13 independent directors of General Dynamics, a company that relies heavily on Pentagon contracts that are overseen by the Defense Secretary. Financial filings show that Mattis has been paid $594,369 by General Dynamics. He also owns stock worth about $900,000. While on the General Dynamics board Mattis testified against caps on defense spending, calling sequestration a national security threat. He said in 2015: “No foe in the field can wreak such havoc on our security that mindless sequestration is achieving.” The Defense Department directs more than $250 billion worth of contracts to private companies each year. Richard Painter, former chief ethics counsel to President George W. Bush said: “General Dynamics could try to use this relationships to get access into the Pentagon.I am very worried about this.”

General Dynamics routinely ranks among the top five Pentagon contractors receiving over $10 billion in contracts each year. The company offers a wide range of services and products from information technology to armored combat vehicles. It is a main exporter of tanks to such US allies as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The company has won a number of contracts to build a replacement fleet for present nuclear submarines costing up to $100 billion. The Center for Responsive Politics claims that General Dynamics has spent more than $100 million in lobbying over the last decade. Mattis will need to recuse himself from any decision involving General Dynamics for a period of year. But those below him would have no such prohibition. The law does not prevent Mattis from having close contact with General Dynamics.

In 2008, concern about the revolving door between the military and the corporate world resulted in the Pentagon being tasked with keeping a database to keep track of such connections. Six years later, an Inspector General's report found that the Pentagon simply failed to update its database. Mandy Smithberger, of the Project on Government Oversight said: “We really think it’s become corrosive how many senior military officers go to work for defense contractors."

While still part of the military in 2012, Mattis intervened to help the controversial blood-testing company Theranos to gain approval for military tests. On leaving the Marines he joined the Theranos board. Trump in his campaign pledged to tighten federal ethics rules and to slow down the revolving door between government and lobbying firms. However, the appointment of Mattis appears to signal that defense contractors can expect favorable relations with the government. Perhaps the Mattis appointment, plus Trumps' appointment of officials connected to Wall Street firms help explain the recent so-called Trump rally on stock markets.

Fully one third of Americans believe torture is just part of war

A recent poll by the International Red Cross (ICRC) shows more Americans and other westerners are more likely to accept torture, harsh interrogation techniques and indiscriminate bombing than they were in 1999.

A majority among those surveyed including in the U.S. still believe that bombing of populated areas and torturing detainees is wrong, but compared to an earlier survey rising numbers especially in the U.S. and the U.K. are willing to accept less humane practices if it means winning the battle quicker. However, those in areas subjected to the worst effects of wars were strongly in favor of the laws of war.

The survey was carried out between June and September of 2016, and involved 17,000 people in 16 different countries. A similar survey was carried out in 1999. Overall two-thirds of respondents thought torture was wrong but more approved harsh interrogation techniques than in 1999. ICRC Director-General,Yves Daccord, said: “In the U.S. in the last 15 years, torture seems like something which is accepted, as something that you use as a tool to get information, whereas the military interestingly enough will tell you this is not at all the tool you need to use. Not only is it not good for human dignity, but it doesn’t provide you with the right information.”

Ironically, President-elect Donald Trump, who has spoken in favor of torture, has nominated Marine General James Mattis for Secretary of Defense. In contrast to Trump, Mattis said he got further with a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers compared to using pain. In a statement Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff said:“The United States will never go back to waterboarding or any form of torture, something I believe the vast majority of the military, intelligence community and American public would never condone. Not only is it immoral, but it is also unconstitutional, ineffective and violative of both U.S. and international law."

In spite of the illegality of torture and its condemnation by many political and military officials, many in the American public accept it. One third of Americans consider torture simply part of war. 46 per cent believe an enemy combatant could be tortured to obtain important information. Just over half of Americans thought torture was wrong. Americans were more accepting of torture than Syrians, Afghans, Russians, Chinese and French.

More positive were the views of more than two thirds of those surveyed who believed that war should have limits. More than half of the respondents also felt that the Geneva Conventions kept wars from becoming worse. Three quarters of those surveyed believed attacks on hospitals and health-care providers were wrong. Russian respondents were even more disapproving of such acts than were Americans or the British. However, the actions of states with respect to the laws of war are often in contrast to majority public opinion on the matter.

Ewan Watson, who is head of Public Relations at the ICRC said of the effect of "War on Terror" rhetoric on public opinion:That definitely has gripped into popular culture. If you look at films which show torture in action, this notion of the ticking time bomb, that you must torture somebody to reveal information that will stop something tragic happening. All that provides a kind of rational framework for torture to happen. In fact, studies have shown that torture is not a method to obtain valid information. What it does, is just create enemies for life. This is in a sense ironic that people are more receptive to torture, which then creates the potential for hatred and revenge. Hence, it creates a vicious circle.Watson notes also that while International Humanitarian Law prohibits attacking healthcare facilities such attacks are seen on a daily basis on TV. He said states and non-state actors should realize that following the laws of war will not prevent them from winning and actually makes it easier to rehabilitate a country after a war is over since feelings of hatred and revenge have not been exacerbated by violations of the laws of war.

A more positive aspect of the survey is that the views of more than two thirds of those surveyed believed that war should have limits. More than half of the respondents also felt that the Geneva Conventions kept wars from becoming worse. Three quarters of those surveyed believed attacks on hospitals and health-care providers were wrong. Russian respondents were even more disapproving of such acts than were Americans or the British. The entire survey can be found on the IRC website.

U.S. surge of troops and warships in Middle East

  General James Mattis who heads up the U.S. Central Command has the approval of the Obama administration to build up troop numbers and warships especially in the Persian Gulf area. The general believes there are increasing threats in the area in particular from Iran.
    The U.S. was unable to convince Iraq to allow troops to stay there and so troops are being deployed to other countries such as Kuwait. There are approximately 15,000 troops already stationed there and their status is also under negotiation. The Kuwaiti defense minister said that the number was likely to decrease. This is highly unlikely as the U.S. is trying to negotiate stationing enough troops in Kuwait to counter any potential regional war.
  The U.S. has also sent a second aircraft carrier strike group into the Persian Gulf. This is in response to threats from Iran to close the Straits of  Hormuz. Iran in turn is reacting to the buildup of U.S. military might in the Gulf as well as crippling sanctions in what amounts to a covert war against Iran. Iran also suffers from internal terrorist activity.
   Surges such as this show that the U.S. intends to continue to protect what it regards as its interests no matter how far from the U.S. However, the interests of Big Oil demand a global cop. For more see this article.


.