Month: March 2018

A Facebook executive circulated a shocking memo in 2016 which sought to justify the company’s relentless growth and “questionable contact importing” – even if “maybe it costs someone a life” by suggesting that the company is serving the greater good by connecting people, reports BuzzFeed.

Following the shooting death of a Chicago man captured on Facebook Live, VP Andrew “Boz” Bosworth, one of CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s most trusted executives, wrote in the memo titled The Ugly; “We connect people. Period. That’s why all the work we do in growth is justified. All the questionable contact importing practices. All the subtle language that helps people stay searchable by friends. All of the work we do to bring more communication in. The work we will likely have to do in China some day. All of it,” VP Andrew “Boz” Bosworth wrote.

“So we connect more people,” added Bosworth in another section of the memo. “That can be bad if they make it negative. Maybe it costs someone a life by exposing someone to bullies.

“Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools.”

The memo clearly illustrates that Facebook management is well aware of the physical and social risks of using the platform – along with the fact that their data collection practices are “questionable.” 

Bosworth, who joined Facebook in 2006 after working at Microsoft, responded to BuzzFeed story by stringing together a verbose excuse which roughly translates to: 

• I don’t actually believe what I wrote
• I was throwing out a “bad” idea for the sake of consideration
• That’s part of our process of “internal debates” that makes Facebook so awesome 

My statement on the recent Buzzfeed story containing a post I wrote in 2016 pic.twitter.com/lmzDMcrjv5

— Boz (@boztank) March 29, 2018

Two former employees describe Bosworth as “blunt.” 

“He is definitely a guy who isn’t very diplomatic — he’d blunder into internal debates and internal comms would tend to keep an eye on what he’s doing and posting,” one former senior employee told BuzzFeed News. “The memo is classic Boz because it speaks to the majority of Facebook employee views but it’s also polarizing. Tonally he doesn’t mince words. This is clearly a post meant to rally the troops.”

Yes, “rallying troops” to turn a blind eye to egregious privacy violations and attempting to justify terrorists coordinating over Facebook in the name of the “greater good” is very polarizing…

The Bosworth memo, which stresses the extent to which Facebook was built on “growth tactics,” reads as a statement of corporate principles, including phrases like “what we do” and “what we believe” and speaking of “our work” and “our imperative.” In the memo, he argued that Facebook believes its mission of connecting people is so important that anything it does in support of it is “*de facto* good” — even if it allows some to do true, even catastrophic, harm to others. –BuzzFeed

“The ugly truth is that we believe in connecting people so deeply that anything that allows us to connect more people more often is *de facto* good. It is perhaps the only area where the metrics do tell the true story as far as we are concerned,” wrote Bosworth. “That isn’t something we are doing for ourselves. Or for our stock price (ha!). It is literally just what we do. We connect people. Period.” 

Zuck Freaks Out

In Facebook’s perfect world, Hillary Clinton would be President, the Cambridge Analytica whistleblower would just be another pink-haired programmer, and their massive data harvesting operation wouldn’t have seene the light of day. 

Alas for Zuck, Bosworth’s letter couldn’t have leaked at a worse time. In response to BuzzFeed‘s story – Zuckerberg (or whoever’s in charge of damage control) wrote: 

Boz is a talented leader who says many provocative things. This was one that most people at Facebook including myself disagreed with strongly. We’ve never believed the ends justify the means.

We recognize that connecting people isn’t enough by itself. We also need to work to bring people closer together. We changed our whole mission and company focus to reflect this last year.

Translation: “That kooky Boz, he says the wackiest things! We really didn’t agree with ol’ Andy, but we changed our entire corporate focus anyway to do exactly the opposite of his callous suggestion!“

See Bosworth’s entire memo below:

***

Andrew Bosworth
June 18, 2016

The Ugly

We talk about the good and the bad of our work often. I want to talk about the ugly.

We connect people.

That can be good if they make it positive. Maybe someone finds love. Maybe it even saves the life of someone on the brink of suicide.

So we connect more people

That can be bad if they make it negative. Maybe it costs a life by exposing someone to bullies. Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools.

And still we connect people.

The ugly truth is that we believe in connecting people so deeply that anything that allows us to connect more people more often is *de facto* good. It is perhaps the only area where the metrics do tell the true story as far as we are concerned.

That isn’t something we are doing for ourselves. Or for our stock price (ha!). It is literally just what we do. We connect people. Period.

That’s why all the work we do in growth is justified. All the questionable contact importing practices. All the subtle language that helps people stay searchable by friends. All of the work we do to bring more communication in. The work we will likely have to do in China some day. All of it.

The natural state of the world is not connected. It is not unified. It is fragmented by borders, languages, and increasingly by different products. The best products don’t win. The ones everyone use win.

I know a lot of people don’t want to hear this. Most of us have the luxury of working in the warm glow of building products consumers love. But make no mistake, growth tactics are how we got here. If you joined the company because it is doing great work, that’s why we get to do that great work. We do have great products but we still wouldn’t be half our size without pushing the envelope on growth. Nothing makes Facebook as valuable as having your friends on it, and no product decisions have gotten as many friends on as the ones made in growth. Not photo tagging. Not news feed. Not messenger. Nothing.

In almost all of our work, we have to answer hard questions about what we believe. We have to justify the metrics and make sure they aren’t losing out on a bigger picture. But connecting people. That’s our imperative. Because that’s what we do. We connect people.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2GDmxAd Tyler Durden

UK police reportedly boarded a Russian Aeroflot A-321 which arrived from Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow to London’s Heathrow airport on Thursday, ordering the crew off the plane for an unannounced inspection, and offering no explanation. Russia’s Foreign Ministry called the unexpected search a “provocation”, claiming international rules were breached.

When the pilots refused to abandon the aircraft due to regulations against inspections in the absence of the crew, British police would not allow them to leave the cockpit while the aircraft was searched. 

“After the passengers deplaned, unexpectedly policemen arrived rose and demanded the crew to leave the plane in order to conduct an inspection there in the absence of the crew,” a source told Interfax (translated). 

“The British authorities asked the Russian crew, including the captain, to leave the plane. The commander of the aircraft proposed the inspection to be conducted in his presence as he’s forbidden from leaving the plane in accordance with the regulations. At the moment, the police proceed with the search without releasing the commander from the cabin and preventing him from being  present during the inspection,” she said.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry has condemned the inspection. “We’re speaking of another provocation by the British authorities,” said Maria Zakharova, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman. 

“The behavior of the British police is clearly evidence of the desire to conduct some manipulation on board without witnesses,” Zakharova said on the air of the Rossiya 24 television channel, quoted by ria.ru.

“We demand that the British authorities return the situation to the legal channel and abandon the provocative action, we draw the attention of the world community to the unacceptable, dangerous and irresponsible behavior of London,” Zakharova noted.

She called London’s actions “unacceptable, dangerous and irresponsible,” urging the international community to give them a proper evaluation. She added that Russian embassy staff was heading to the airport where the search of the plane took place.

Bizarrely, in a response on Twitter, the UK Metropolitan Police said “We are aware of a story circulating on social media. Please be advised that Metropolitan Police are not conducting a search of an Airbus inbound from Moscow at Heathrow.”

We are aware of a story circulating on social media. Please be advised that Metropolitan Police are not conducting a search of an Airbus inbound from Moscow at Heathrow.

— Metropolitan Police (@metpoliceuk) March 30, 2018

In other words, someone is lying.

Developing..

via RSS https://ift.tt/2GpHhIe Tyler Durden

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

If it seems like secession is become a more frequent topic in the global media, it’s not just your imagination. 

In recent years, talk of political separatist movements have become not only more commonplace, but are increasingly discussed as reasonable alternatives to the status quo. 

Historically, of course, established states have long sought to portray secession movements as unsavory forms of agitation pushed only by extremists. 

In the US, of course, secession has long been portrayed as strictly the realm of right-wing zealots motivated by racism, or even something worse. 

In 2014, however, it became increasingly clear that this strategy’s days were numbered. 2014, of course, was the year that 45 percent of Scottish voters voted to secede from the United Kingdom. Less than two years later, a majority of British voters voted for secession from the European Union — in spite of a hysterical scare campaign waged by pro-EU activists. 

These British secession movements were immune from the usual “arguments” against secession made in the United States. After all, were we to believe that British secessionists were pushing secession so they could impose slavery within their borders? 

Had it been used, such a charge would have been laughed at, so this new type of secession was generally ignored, or described as something other than secession. 

Moreover, the Scottish secession was problematic for the global left in general. Secession movements had often been portrayed by global elites as reactionary or at least the sort of thing that conservative malcontents would indulge in. But in Scotland, the secession movement was largely a product of the mainstream leftist parties. In the wake of the Scottish referendum, we were to believe that 45 percent of Scottish voters were extremist malcontents? Again, such a charge would have rightly been viewed as ludicrous. 

Since Brexit, two of the most notable secession movements — California and Catalonia — have also been products of the left. Given the mainstream media’s fondness for the left, the effect of this has been to push secession out of the “extremist” shadows and into the realm of allowable — if eccentric — political discourse. 

Thus, it’s not shocking that The Washington Post has now featured a study of secession movements which shows that they are proliferating. There really are more of them now than in the past:

The new in vogue term, apparently, is “sovereignty referendums”:

Since Massachusetts kicked off the trend in 1776, more than 630 sovereignty referendums have been held. There has been a surge in recent years, as you can see in the figure below. The 1990s alone saw a record 110 sovereignty referendums, largely because of the numerous autonomy and independence referendums triggered as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia broke up. The 2000s saw 88 more sovereignty referendums, many related to whether the European Union should continue expanding eastward…

Why the surge? Although each referendum has its own history, we can find some general reasons. Perhaps most important, conflicts over sovereignty have proliferated. According to a recent study, since 1945 the number of ethnic movements demanding greater self-determination has increased more than tenfold. Many former colonies voted on their independence…

What’s more, when international actors intervene in nationalist conflicts they increasingly promote sovereignty referendums. For instance, in 1999 Portugal brokered a referendum in East Timor, which was administered by the United Nations. Some observers have even suggested that there is a new international norm emerging requiring referendums to legitimate territorial realignments.

This isn’t to say that secession is now an easy thing. Status-quo states almost uniformly oppose secession movements within their own borders. This is because states naturally seek to enlarge themselves and increase their monopoly power over larger and larger territories. When geographic territories secede, they can no longer be directly taxed — and states don’t like to give up their taxing powers. In many cases, seceding territories offer geopolitical advantages that the status-quo states are unlikely to relinquish. 

In some cases, if the status-quo states are convinced that the seceding territory will continue to be friendly toward them, secession may be tolerated. This was the case when Australia and Canada were granted independence from the United Kingdom, and when the Philippines was granted independence from the United States. In all cases, it is assumed that the former territories will be reliable military allies in case of global war. 

In more conflict-prone parts of the globe, however, matters are less clear cut. As The Post notes: 

Unilateral secession referendums, in particular, are rarely implemented. Neither Catalonia nor Iraqi Kurdistan has a clear path to independent statehood. Nor do Azerbaijan’s Nagorno-Karabakh region, Bosnia’s Srpska region, or Georgia’s Abkhazia and South Ossetia, all of which voted for independence during the 1990s.

In all of these cases, the status-quo states fear that secession may lead to advantages for competing states. 

But, it is increasingly accepted that secession and “sovereignty referendums” are multi-faceted in their motivating factors. 

Moreover, research suggests that secession movements can also help to promote peace. In his dissertation, Micha Germann concluded that “self-determination referendums are likely to create a positive dynamic and increase chances for peace … they are likely to foster perceptions of fair decision-making … they may contribute to a reversal of hostile images … they may lead to referendum-related coalitions that are willing to support their outcome.”

And perhaps most importantly these movements may “increase the durability of settlements.”

However, to gain these benefits — according to Germann — secession movements must come at the end of a negotiation period in which the status quo state is convinced to allow for the referendum and abide by its results. 

Of course, states aren’t likely to sign off on these referenda unless pressure is applied, whether via international pressure, domestic protest movements, or even through violence. Secessionists have to find some way to make secession the least bad option for a state. 

At the core of all of this, however, is the realization that it is morally objectionable and absurd to insist that current borders of a state are forever sacrosanct that everyone currently within a certain state must remain forever so. 

Given the perpetual lip service paid by modern states toward “democracy,” it’s becoming increasingly difficult to dismiss sovereignty referenda without looking hypocritical. 

The realization that secession can alleviate intrastate conflicts would not come as news to Ludwig von Mises who advocated for referenda as a tool in secession and the readjustment of national borders to align with nationalist, linguistic, and cultural trends. 

Sometimes, Mises noted, the only way to protect the rights of minority groups is for them to secede from one state, and perhaps join another. 

For Mises, who was an expert on the nationalist movements of nineteenth century Europe, and who supported the Catalonian secessionist movement in his own day, “sovereignty referenda” were a natural and reasonable way to adjust political realities to cultural and ideological realities. 

Allowing majority-controlled governments to impose their values and agenda on minority population was akin to military occupation in Mises’s mind, and required secession as a solution. 

Mises, however, was writing on these matters in the 1920s, when nationalist, totalitarian, and fascist movements took a dim view of secession, to say the least. 

Today, however, it looks like Mises’s pragmatic and savvy views on secession were a glimpse into what many researchers are now coming to realize about secession and its benefits. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2pReLrW Tyler Durden

Over the past month as Libor continued its relentless upward creep and is now higher for 37 consecutive sessions, the longest streak of advances since November 2005, and rising to 2.3118% while blowing out the Libor-OIS spread to a crisis-like 59bps, a cottage industry has developed to explain what is behind the dramatic move in Libor, and which – as we noted 2 weeks ago – can be roughly summarized as follows:

• an increase in short-term bond (T-bill) issuance
• rising outflow pressures on dollar deposits in the US owing to rising short-term rates
• repatriation to cope with US Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and new trade policies, and concerns on dollar liquidity outside the US
• risk premium for uncertainty of US monetary policy
• recently elevated credit spreads (CDS) of banks
• demand for funds in preparation for market stress

To be sure, we have commented extensively on what may (or may not) be behind the Libor blow out: if as many claim, the move is a benign technicality and a temporary imbalance in money market supply and demand, largely a function of tax reform (including the Base Erosion Anti-Abuse Tax) or alternatively of the $300BN surge in T-Bill supply in the past month, the Libor move should start fading. If it doesn’t, it will be time to get nervous.

But no matter what the reason is behind the Libor move, the reality is that financial conditions are far tighter as a result of the sharp move higher in short-term rates in general, and Libor in particular, which for at least a few more years, remains the benchmark rate referenced by trillions in fixed income instruments.

Which brings us to a logical follow up question: ignoring the reasons behind the move, how does a higher Libor rate spread throughout the financial system, and related to that, how much notional debt is at risk of paying far higher interest expense, if only temporarily, resulting in even tighter financial conditions.

For the answer, we look at the various ways that Libor, and short-term rates in general “channel” into the economy. Here, as JPMorgan explains, the key driver is and always has been monetary policy, which controls short-term interest rates, and those affect the economy via several  channels. Below we list those channels along with a brief description:

1. Direct interest rate channel. Investment decisions, whether business investment spending or residential investment in housing, should depend on the socalled user cost of capital, of which the interest rate is one determinant.
2. Tobin’s q. Interest rates affect asset prices, including equity prices. When financial markets increase their valuation of corporate assets, corporations have an incentive to invest in more of those assets by boosting capital spending.
3. Consumption wealth effects. Asset prices affect not only the decision to invest, but also the decision to consume. An increase in house or equity prices historically has lowered saving rates and boosted consumer spending.
4. Consumption intertemporal substitution effects. The trade-off between consuming today versus consuming in the future should be governed in part by the rate of interest that households earn when they forgo consuming today.
5. Exchange rates. The competitiveness of firms that operate in global markets is influenced by the international value of the dollar, which in turn depends on the domestic-foreign interest rate differential.
6. Bank capital channel. Banks’ willingness to lend will depend, in part, on their capital positions. This, in turn, will be a function of the prices of assets on their balance sheet, which are influenced by the level of interest rates.
7. Balance sheet channel. The ability of households and businesses to borrow will also depend on the health of their own balance sheets, as the assets on those sheets serve as collateral for lenders.

It is worth noting that for five of the seven channels (2, 3, 5, 6, and 7) the effect of interest rates on the economy is mediated through their effect on asset prices, where the asset can be real estate, corporate equities, or foreign exchange.

For concreteness, JPMorgan urges to focus on the case study of equities: what is the appropriate interest rate to discount the stream of dividends when considering the value of a corporate claim: fed funds, Libor, or Treasury rates? Theory does not offer much immediate guidance. However, theory is clear that it should be a very long-dated interest rate.

For very long-dated interest rates that are benchmarked off Libor, i.e., interest rate swaps, there is little impact of the recent widening in Libor-OIS. For example, interest rates on 10-year swaps are currently slightly below the comparable
rate on 10-year Treasuries, and the spread between the two does not appear to be affected by the movement in the shortdated Libor-OIS spread.

No matter which longer-term interest rate we look at, the recent dislocations in shorter-dated interest rates don’t seem to matter much for longer rates, at least not yet. In principle then, these dislocations shouldn’t affect asset prices, which is usually an important channel through which policy affects the economy.

TO be sure, as of this moment, neither real estate prices nor the value of foreign currency appear to be suffering from a rise in the domestic discount rate, and it is this apparent dislocation that has puzzled so many, and while equity prices have been volatile, none of the recent volatility has been attributed to LIBOR by the analyst community.

This then leaves two relevant channels of monetary policy:

• (1) the direct interest rate channel, and
• (4) the consumption intertemporal substitution channel.

Regarding the first, JPM notes that the relevant hurdle rate for capital expenditures—whether financed internally or externally—should be longer-term interest rates, as capital goods are long-lived by nature. Recognizing this, we are forced back to the earlier point: longer-term interest rates have been unaffected by the widening in the front-end LIBOR-OIS spread.

Finally, turning to the consumption intertemporal substitution channel, the relevant interest rate is the rate available to household savers. Most measures of nationwide deposit or money market rates show little flow-through from higher LIBOR rates to higher rates available to mom-and-pop savers – unfortunately for mom-and-pop – so one shouldn’t expect this channel to be particularly powerful right now.

Last, but certainly not least, the one channel that usually isn’t enumerated in monetary theory but is especially important in practical reality and is referenced in ordinary conversation is the interest expense channel.

In the aggregate, interest expense equals interest income; someone’s higher debt payment is someone else’s higher interest receipt. Of course, if the spending propensity of the interest payer is higher than the interest receiver, things won’t net out to a zero.

Moreover, deposit and money market rates haven’t moved in sympathy with LIBOR. To quantify the maximum potential importance of this channel, JPMorgan shows the following table laying out the total amount of nonfinancial borrowers’ obligations linked to LIBOR.

According to this data, a 35bp widening in the LIBOR-OIS spread could raise the business sector interest burden by $21 billion. Whether or not that modest amount in monetary tightening is enough to “break” the market remains to be seen.

Finally, for ordinary households, the increase in debt service costs as a result of the 3M Libor spike will mostly come through adjustable rate mortgages. The recent increase in LIBOR-OIS has added about $5 billion to the annual interest expense of households, or about 0.04% of the recent level of household consumption outlays, which is sufficient nominal to not generate a crisis; if it does, there is something very broken with the “recovering” US economy.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2GYPzYI Tyler Durden

Andrew McCabe lied four times to the Department of Justice and the FBI – including two times while under oath with Inspector General Michael Horowitz, according to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) appearing on Fox News. 

This is the first time the public has heard more detail of the circumstances behind the decision to fire McCabe just over one day before he qualified for his full pension. 

JORDAN: “McCabe didn’t lie just once, he lied four times. He lied to James Comey. He lied to the Office of Professional Responsibility and he lied twice under oath to the Inspector General. Remember, this is Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director of the FBI. This is Andrew McCabe, the text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page talking about Andy’s office, the meeting where they talk about the insurance policy in case Donald Trump is actually President of the United States… Four times he lied about leaking information to the Wall Street Journal.”

Specifically, McCabe authorized an F.B.I. spokesman and attorney to tell Devlin Barrett of the Wall St. Journal, just days before the 2016 election, that the FBI had not put the brakes on a separate investigation into the Clinton Foundation – at a time in which McCabe was coming under fire for his wife taking a $467,500 campaign contribution from Clinton proxy pal, Terry McAuliffe. 

The WSJ article in question reads:

New details show that senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the strength of the evidence in a bureau investigation of the Clinton Foundation, sought to condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and, according to some people familiar with the matter, told agents to limit their pursuit of the case. The probe of the foundation began more than a year ago to determine whether financial crimes or influence peddling occurred related to the charity.

…

Some investigators grew frustrated, viewing FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the charity, these people said. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious fight for control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case.

So McCabe leaked information to the WSJ in order to combat rumors that Clinton had indirectly bribed him to back off the Clinton Foundation investigation, and then lied about it four times to the DOJ and FBI, including twice under oath.

Meanwhile – let’s not forget, the FBI had evidence from undercover informant William D. Campbell, who recently told Congressional investigators that he collected smoking gun evidence of Russia routing millions of dollars towards a Clinton charity in advance of Clinton’s State Department approving the Uranium One deal. Which McCabe was supposed to be investigating… and which the Little Rock field office took over in January of this year.

Also recall that McCabe’s team, under Director Comey, heavily altered the language of the FBI’s official opinion concerning Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information – effectively “decriminalizing” her conduct. Comey’s original draft – using the term “grossly negligent” would have legally required that the FBI recommended charges against Clinton. Instead, McCabe’s team changed it to “extremely careless,” – a legally meaningless term.

According to documents produced by the FBI, FBI employees exchanged proposed edits to the draft statement. On May 6, Deputy Director McCabe forwarded the draft statement to other senior FBI employees, including Peter Strzok, E.W. Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an employee on the Office of General Counsel whose name has been redacted. While the precise dates of the edits and identities of the editors are not apparent from the documents, the edits appear to change the tone and substance of Director Comey’s statement in at least three respects. –Letter from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI)

President Trump noted in a March 16 tweet that Comey “made McCabe look like a choirboy,” despite the former FBI Director knowing “all about the lies and corruption going on at the highest levels.“

Andrew McCabe FIRED, a great day for the hard working men and women of the FBI – A great day for Democracy. Sanctimonious James Comey was his boss and made McCabe look like a choirboy. He knew all about the lies and corruption going on at the highest levels of the FBI!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 17, 2018

At the time McCabe was fired, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement at the time that he had “made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor – including under oath – on multiple occasions.”

“Confused and Distracted” 

After he was fired, McCabe said he was “confused and distracted” when he was talking to investigators – four separate times as we’ve come to learn. 

“I answered questions as completely and accurately as I could. And when I realized that some of my answers were not fully accurate or may have been misunderstood, I took the initiative to correct them,” McCabe wrote in a Washington Post op-ed.

So it was all just a big misunderstanding, you see. 

In the meantime, people feeling sorry for ol’ Andy have set up an “official” Gofundme donation campaign for McCabe’s “Legal Defense Fund,” which raised almost $400,000 in 10 hours for McCabe.

Hilariously, the description of the campaign starts off: “Andrew McCabe’s FBI career was long, distinguished, and unblemished.” 

…which ended when McCabe lied four times about leaking to the press in order to appear unbiased after his wife took nearly half-a-million dollars from a Clinton crony. 

Good thing McCabe has that legal defense fund!

via RSS https://ift.tt/2E76Ls1 Tyler Durden

Two coalition personnel, including an American, were killed and five others wounded late on March 29, when a roadside bomb exploded in northern Syria, the U.S. military said Friday. While the military did not say where the attack took place or give the nationalities of the other casualties, it came hours after a local Syrian official said that a roadside bomb exploded in the Arab-Kurdish town of Manbij, not far from the border with Turkey.

A Department of Defense official in Washington said one of the two killed was an American service member and the other was of another nationality that the official would not specify. The killed American was the fourth US military member killed in Syria since the US became officially involved under the pretext of fighting ISIS in 2014.

Commenting on the attack, Charles Lister of the Middle East Institute said that “this is a *very* significant development ” adding that “location (as yet undetermined) is key in determining perpetrator & implications” and as a result “we’re entering a new & dangerous phase.”

2 US-led coalition troops killed & 5 wounded in IED attack in #Syria.

This is a *very* significant development – location (as yet undetermined) is key in determining perpetrator & implications. Either way, we’re entering a new & dangerous phase… pic.twitter.com/It68B8wTay

— Charles Lister (@Charles_Lister) March 30, 2018

The U.S. military statement said the attack happened Thursday night and that the wounded were being evacuated for further medical treatment; details were being withheld for the time being pending further investigation.

According to AP, no other information about the deceased American was immediately available.

The U.S. soldier killed was the fourth American to fall in Syria since the U.S. began attacking Islamic State militants there in September 2014, according to the Pentagon’s Defense Casualty Analysis System. Of the three previous deaths, Air Force Staff Sgt. Austin Bieren was specifically labeled by the Pentagon as a non-combat  death. Another, Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer Scott C. Dayton, was killed by an improved explosive device. The third, Army Spc. Etienne J. Murphy, died in a vehicle rollover.

As we reported last week, Manbij is under threat of a Turkish military operation. Ankara says Syrian Kurdish militiamen it views as “terrorists” and an extension of Kurdish insurgents inside Turkey are in control of the town.

Earlier on Friday, U.S. military spokesman Col. Ryan Dillon couldn’t immediately say who was behind the attack.

“There is an investigation under way to identify who they could possibly be. We have our initial assessment and thoughts on that but we won’t provide until the investigation is complete,” he said.

Dillon, who refused to give the nationalities of the dead or the location of the attack, said the coalition has had fatalities in Syria before. “Perhaps by different means but there have been coalition deaths in Syria over the course of three years.”

Separately, Mohammed Abu Adel, head of the Manbij Military Council, an Arab-Kurdish group in the town backed by the U.S., said the bomb went off hundreds of meters (yards) from a security headquarters that houses the council just before midnight on Thursday.

As AP adds, Manbij “has seen a number of small explosions, protests and an assassination attempt on a member of the Manbij military council in recent weeks. Local officials blame Turkey and other adversaries for seeking to sow chaos in the town that was controlled by Islamic State group militants until the summer of 2016.”

The death comes a month and a half after dozens of Russian mercenaries fighting on behalf of Syria’s president Assad were killed by US forces; however that particular incident failed to escalate to a major diplomatic scandal. Should Syrian, or Russian, involvement even be suggested in Thursday’s death, the diplomatic fallout will be dire as relations between the US and Russia – already at rock bottom level – sink even further. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2IhmQh5 Tyler Durden