Tag: news

Pentagon Official on ISIS Bombing Campaign: "I would think in terms of years."

When
President Obama first announced that he had authorized a new round
of airstrikes in Iraq, he attempted to reassure the public that the
attacks would not lead to another war.

“I know that many of you are rightly concerned about any
American military action in Iraq,” he
said, “even limited strikes like these. I understand that.” He
offered a reminder that he ran for office in part to end the war in
Iraq. And he said he would not let a new war begin. 

“As Commander-in-Chief, I will not allow the United States to be
dragged into fighting another war in Iraq.” American forces would
play a support role only, “because there’s no American military
solution to the larger crisis in Iraq.” 

So much for “limited strikes.” The initial, narrowly targeted
campaign, a “humanitarian” mission to save a small group of people
trapped on a mountain in Iraq, according to that first speech,
quickly turned into a larger bombing campaign against militants in
Iraq and, as of last night, in Syria too. 

And Pentagon officials are saying that it’s not going end any
time soon. 

Via
The Hill:

“Last night’s strikes are the beginning of a credible and
sustainable persistent campaign to degrade and ultimately destroy”
ISIS, Army Lt. Gen. Bill Mayville told reporters.

“I would think of it in terms of years,” he added about the
length of the expected campaign against ISIS.

That sure didn’t take long. 

Really, this isn’t that surprising, considering that Obama has
already suggested the strikes could be part of an
extended military effort. But it is revealing. 

If you want to understand why Obama’s foreign policy job
approval ratings are falling, why people say they don’t trust the
executive branch, and why critics are suggesting that the Obama
administration can’t really be believed when officials promise that
ground troops won’t be part of the equation, then all you need to
do is take a look at the difference between what’s been promised
regarding the military operation against ISIS and what’s actually
happened in a space of less than two months.

The initial justification for strikes—a supposedly limited,
humanitarian mission to help a small group of desperate people on a
single mountain—turned out almost immediately to be a
pretext for a much larger effort to attack, degrade, and destroy
ISIS militants in two different countries, an effort that is now
projected to last years. All the while, the administration insists
that it’s not actually a “combat mission,” as if dropping bombs and
shooting missiles on hundreds of occasions, with the intention of
doing it hundreds more times, is somehow not really
combat. 

The implicit message of Obama’s speech last month was that you
could trust him, because he was war-weary too. The practical
message of the last two months, however, is that Obama is taking
the nation to war despite his campaign promises to the contrary,
and that he can’t be trusted at all. 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1smMyao
via IFTTT

Pentagon Official on ISIS Bombing Campaign: “I would think in terms of years.”

When
President Obama first announced that he had authorized a new round
of airstrikes in Iraq, he attempted to reassure the public that the
attacks would not lead to another war.

“I know that many of you are rightly concerned about any
American military action in Iraq,” he
said, “even limited strikes like these. I understand that.” He
offered a reminder that he ran for office in part to end the war in
Iraq. And he said he would not let a new war begin. 

“As Commander-in-Chief, I will not allow the United States to be
dragged into fighting another war in Iraq.” American forces would
play a support role only, “because there’s no American military
solution to the larger crisis in Iraq.” 

So much for “limited strikes.” The initial, narrowly targeted
campaign, a “humanitarian” mission to save a small group of people
trapped on a mountain in Iraq, according to that first speech,
quickly turned into a larger bombing campaign against militants in
Iraq and, as of last night, in Syria too. 

And Pentagon officials are saying that it’s not going end any
time soon. 

Via
The Hill:

“Last night’s strikes are the beginning of a credible and
sustainable persistent campaign to degrade and ultimately destroy”
ISIS, Army Lt. Gen. Bill Mayville told reporters.

“I would think of it in terms of years,” he added about the
length of the expected campaign against ISIS.

That sure didn’t take long. 

Really, this isn’t that surprising, considering that Obama has
already suggested the strikes could be part of an
extended military effort. But it is revealing. 

If you want to understand why Obama’s foreign policy job
approval ratings are falling, why people say they don’t trust the
executive branch, and why critics are suggesting that the Obama
administration can’t really be believed when officials promise that
ground troops won’t be part of the equation, then all you need to
do is take a look at the difference between what’s been promised
regarding the military operation against ISIS and what’s actually
happened in a space of less than two months.

The initial justification for strikes—a supposedly limited,
humanitarian mission to help a small group of desperate people on a
single mountain—turned out almost immediately to be a
pretext for a much larger effort to attack, degrade, and destroy
ISIS militants in two different countries, an effort that is now
projected to last years. All the while, the administration insists
that it’s not actually a “combat mission,” as if dropping bombs and
shooting missiles on hundreds of occasions, with the intention of
doing it hundreds more times, is somehow not really
combat. 

The implicit message of Obama’s speech last month was that you
could trust him, because he was war-weary too. The practical
message of the last two months, however, is that Obama is taking
the nation to war despite his campaign promises to the contrary,
and that he can’t be trusted at all. 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1smMyao
via IFTTT

Germany's Largest Export: Hypocrisy?

Authored by Josef Joffe, originally posted Op-Ed via Reuters,

A MG3 automatic weapon that is part of a German military aid shipment for Kurdish forces in Northern Iraq is on display for the media at a storage facility of the Bundeswehr armed forces in Waren 

Who is the world’s No. 3 arms exporter, after the United States and Russia? Surprise. It is Germany, a country bound by law to supply only allies and peaceable folks like (neutral) Switzerland or Sweden. Off limits are “areas of tension” — bad neighborhoods that actually need the stuff.

Yet somehow, Israel and Saudi Arabia, both living in the world’s powder keg, are among Germany’s best customers. So are Algeria, Qatar and  the United Arab Emirates.

What doesn’t go directly finds its way on the international arms bazaar. Consider, no self-respecting drug czar — Russian or Mexican — would flaunt a Czech-made “Skorpion.” It has to be a Heckler & Koch MP-5, also much beloved by U.S. Special Operations forces.

Pistol of a German Bundeswehr army soldier with the 3rd company of the Quick Reaction Force QRF is pictured in a combat outpost in the outskirts of Kunduz

But never, ever has Germany delivered to nonstate forces. This month marks a profound break with that tradition. Germany has agreed to send weapons to the Kurdish Workers’ Party, or PKK, a military and political group in northern Iraq, with the bulk of more sophisticated arms going to the peshmerga forces. Not exactly buddies, these two outfits are fighting the Islamic State.

The Kurdish Workers’ Party is due to receive 8,000 G3 assault rifles — almost museum pieces — that were issued to the German armed forces in 1959. The peshmerga forces get more recent hardware: 8,000 G36, the current rifle of the German army. Plus 30 antitank systems with 500 missiles. Add in a few tens of shoulder-held antitank rockets, 40 machine guns and 10,000 hand grenades. The package is worth about $90 million.

Not much compared to those modern U.S. weapons — tanks, artillery — that Islamic State militants have amassed by plundering Iraqi depots. But it is still a dramatic break with precedent.

Chalk it up to Islamic State. Every time this killer brigade murders a Western hostage, it enlarges the U.S.-led coalition. Britain, for example, refused to bomb along in Syria, making President Barack Obama desist. Now its combat planes will join the battle.

Will German troops do so, too? Don’t hold your breath.

German Bundeswehr army soldier of the ISAF mans his weapon atop of a Fuchs APC camp before leaving for a night mission in Kunduz

Consider the modest arms deliveries as a substitute for intervention — a time-honored tradition of nations that would rather not march and fight. Germany has flown along over Serbia during the Bosnia wars, and it has dispatched ground troops to Afghanistan. But compared to the fierce German onslaughts in World War One and Two, today’s Germany is as aggressive as a pussycat.

Evidently, losing two wars, and losing them big, does not favor a warrior culture. Today, Germans are as pacific as the Swedes — the scourge of Europe in the 17th century.

But it isn’t all about remorse and redemption. Far weightier is the fact that postwar West Germany could enjoy a comfortable existence under the U.S. strategic umbrella and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies. At the height of the Cold War, 300, 000 U.S. troops were deployed to Western Europe, together with thousands of tactical nuclear weapons. Half a dozen other nations were also part of the “forward defense” close to the Iron Curtain that cut Germany into East and West.

West Germany, the “Federal Republic,” could enjoy the fruits of peace Made in U.S.A. It was safety on the cheap. Whereas the United States, Britain and France devoted from 5 percent to 6 percent of gross domestic product to defense, the Germans could get away with less than 3 percent. Today, Germany is heading toward 1.3 percent.

The upshot is this: Even if the Germans wanted to intervene in Iraq, they could not. Their ground troops have shrunk to 60,000. They do not have the projection forces: ships, tankers, air transport. They don’t have space-based  surveillance systems, nor the special forces that  are replacing classical armies in the theater – as Washington demonstrates. Germany does still have two squadrons each of “Tornado” and “Typhoon” fighter/ground-attack aircraft. These, however, would have to be refueled by U.S. tankers.

Given how quickly the NATO allies ran out bombs in Libya, the United States would also have stand ready to replenish German stocks of airborne precision munitions. Yet the Germans could theoretically join the British and French on bombing missions against Islamic State fighters. Right now, that is a no-no, so arms deliveries are acting as a nice substitute.

But remember the rule: Islamic State has turned out to be the West’s best coalition builder. Secretary of State John Kerry has had a reasonably easy time to harness the willing.

As the most recent murder of a British aid worker shows, Islamic State is unlikely to end this horror soon. It is part of the plan. Assume, for example, a German is slaughtered on YouTube. Though the German public is now strongly anti-involvement, they may recoil in righteous anger. Such grisly events turn moods and long-held convictions.

If so, German bombs might follow the surplus weapons into Iraq.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1mLrmsB Tyler Durden

Germany’s Largest Export: Hypocrisy?

Authored by Josef Joffe, originally posted Op-Ed via Reuters,

A MG3 automatic weapon that is part of a German military aid shipment for Kurdish forces in Northern Iraq is on display for the media at a storage facility of the Bundeswehr armed forces in Waren 

Who is the world’s No. 3 arms exporter, after the United States and Russia? Surprise. It is Germany, a country bound by law to supply only allies and peaceable folks like (neutral) Switzerland or Sweden. Off limits are “areas of tension” — bad neighborhoods that actually need the stuff.

Yet somehow, Israel and Saudi Arabia, both living in the world’s powder keg, are among Germany’s best customers. So are Algeria, Qatar and  the United Arab Emirates.

What doesn’t go directly finds its way on the international arms bazaar. Consider, no self-respecting drug czar — Russian or Mexican — would flaunt a Czech-made “Skorpion.” It has to be a Heckler & Koch MP-5, also much beloved by U.S. Special Operations forces.

Pistol of a German Bundeswehr army soldier with the 3rd company of the Quick Reaction Force QRF is pictured in a combat outpost in the outskirts of Kunduz

But never, ever has Germany delivered to nonstate forces. This month marks a profound break with that tradition. Germany has agreed to send weapons to the Kurdish Workers’ Party, or PKK, a military and political group in northern Iraq, with the bulk of more sophisticated arms going to the peshmerga forces. Not exactly buddies, these two outfits are fighting the Islamic State.

The Kurdish Workers’ Party is due to receive 8,000 G3 assault rifles — almost museum pieces — that were issued to the German armed forces in 1959. The peshmerga forces get more recent hardware: 8,000 G36, the current rifle of the German army. Plus 30 antitank systems with 500 missiles. Add in a few tens of shoulder-held antitank rockets, 40 machine guns and 10,000 hand grenades. The package is worth about $90 million.

Not much compared to those modern U.S. weapons — tanks, artillery — that Islamic State militants have amassed by plundering Iraqi depots. But it is still a dramatic break with precedent.

Chalk it up to Islamic State. Every time this killer brigade murders a Western hostage, it enlarges the U.S.-led coalition. Britain, for example, refused to bomb along in Syria, making President Barack Obama desist. Now its combat planes will join the battle.

Will German troops do so, too? Don’t hold your breath.

German Bundeswehr army soldier of the ISAF mans his weapon atop of a Fuchs APC camp before leaving for a night mission in Kunduz

Consider the modest arms deliveries as a substitute for intervention — a time-honored tradition of nations that would rather not march and fight. Germany has flown along over Serbia during the Bosnia wars, and it has dispatched ground troops to Afghanistan. But compared to the fierce German onslaughts in World War One and Two, today’s Germany is as aggressive as a pussycat.

Evidently, losing two wars, and losing them big, does not favor a warrior culture. Today, Germans are as pacific as the Swedes — the scourge of Europe in the 17th century.

But it isn’t all about remorse and redemption. Far weightier is the fact that postwar West Germany could enjoy a comfortable existence under the U.S. strategic umbrella and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies. At the height of the Cold War, 300, 000 U.S. troops were deployed to Western Europe, together with thousands of tactical nuclear weapons. Half a dozen other nations were also part of the “forward defense” close to the Iron Curtain that cut Germany into East and West.

West Germany, the “Federal Republic,” could enjoy the fruits of peace Made in U.S.A. It was safety on the cheap. Whereas the United States, Britain and France devoted from 5 percent to 6 percent of gross domestic product to defense, the Germans could get away with less than 3 percent. Today, Germany is heading toward 1.3 percent.

The upshot is this: Even if the Germans wanted to intervene in Iraq, they could not. Their ground troops have shrunk to 60,000. They do not have the projection forces: ships, tankers, air transport. They don’t have space-based  surveillance systems, nor the special forces that  are replacing classical armies in the theater – as Washington demonstrates. Germany does still have two squadrons each of “Tornado” and “Typhoon” fighter/ground-attack aircraft. These, however, would have to be refueled by U.S. tankers.

Given how quickly the NATO allies ran out bombs in Libya, the United States would also have stand ready to replenish German stocks of airborne precision munitions. Yet the Germans could theoretically join the British and French on bombing missions against Islamic State fighters. Right now, that is a no-no, so arms deliveries are acting as a nice substitute.

But remember the rule: Islamic State has turned out to be the West’s best coalition builder. Secretary of State John Kerry has had a reasonably easy time to harness the willing.

As the most recent murder of a British aid worker shows, Islamic State is unlikely to end this horror soon. It is part of the plan. Assume, for example, a German is slaughtered on YouTube. Though the German public is now strongly anti-involvement, they may recoil in righteous anger. Such grisly events turn moods and long-held convictions.

If so, German bombs might follow the surplus weapons into Iraq.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1mLrmsB Tyler Durden

GaveKal Goes Looking For Black Swans, Finds A Soaring Skew

Via Gavekal's Capital blog,

The CBOE Skew Index made a 15-year, 11-month high last Friday and the 25-day moving average is on the rise again.

image

The latest reading puts the risk-adjusted probability of a 2 standard deviation event happening in the next 30-days at 11.75%-13.10% and a 3 standard deviation event at 2.21%-2.51% for the S&P 500.

The 1-quarter moving average of the Put/Call ratio is on the rise as well.

image

It is approaching levels which has been consistent with the 1-quarter price returns for the S&P 500 turning negative. The 1-quarter change in the S&P 500 current is at 1.61%.

image

image




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1r5lBqp Tyler Durden

The White House's Solution To Deranged Assailants

That a “knife-wielding veteran sniper rushes White House to warn Obama ‘atmosphere is collapsing'” should surprise most Americans, but, as The Washington Post reports, that he tried, and where he tried from, should surprise absolutely no one.


 

Via The Washington Post…

There are at least 32 similar incidents that have been reported since the mid-1970s, according to an assessment conducted by the Post. We included a few other interesting incidents in our total tally, but, regardless, that number is almost certainly too low. A report in 1994 indicated that the Secret Service had cataloged 23 people climbing the fence between 1989 and that year; news reports only covered a handful.

 

We took the incidents that were covered by the media and mapped them according to the point of entry — and, in some cases, point of capture — of the perpetrators.

 

 

The incidents cover a wide range of culprits and motivations, from homeless people to anti-war protestors to one remarkably drunk guy.

 

So – in response to all that…

35 breaches of The White House perimeter… “don’t worry, we got this!”

So, as long as the next ‘deranged assailant’ is shorter than 3 feet tall and unable to climb, the President appears safe (especially if he ‘resorts’ to further vacations away from The ‘endangered’ White House.)




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1wKpReo Tyler Durden

The White House’s Solution To Deranged Assailants

That a “knife-wielding veteran sniper rushes White House to warn Obama ‘atmosphere is collapsing'” should surprise most Americans, but, as The Washington Post reports, that he tried, and where he tried from, should surprise absolutely no one.


 

Via The Washington Post…

There are at least 32 similar incidents that have been reported since the mid-1970s, according to an assessment conducted by the Post. We included a few other interesting incidents in our total tally, but, regardless, that number is almost certainly too low. A report in 1994 indicated that the Secret Service had cataloged 23 people climbing the fence between 1989 and that year; news reports only covered a handful.

 

We took the incidents that were covered by the media and mapped them according to the point of entry — and, in some cases, point of capture — of the perpetrators.

 

 

The incidents cover a wide range of culprits and motivations, from homeless people to anti-war protestors to one remarkably drunk guy.

 

So – in response to all that…

35 breaches of The White House perimeter… “don’t worry, we got this!”

So, as long as the next ‘deranged assailant’ is shorter than 3 feet tall and unable to climb, the President appears safe (especially if he ‘resorts’ to further vacations away from The ‘endangered’ White House.)




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1wKpReo Tyler Durden

Satanic Mass Not Free Speech, Says Fox News Priest

||| MediaiteOklahoma City was the center of
controversy this weekend, as
worshippers of Lucifer conducted a “satanic mass” at the
city’s Civic Center.

The ritual was reportedly attended by between 40 and 50 people,
with several hundred protesting outside, and over a thousand
attending a church service nearby.

However, according to Fox News Religion Contributor, Father
Jonathan Morris, the
event should never have been allowed to occur.

Appearing on Fox & Friends Weekend, Father Morris
confusingly stated that although the participants had a “political
right to do it” the city should step in and prevent it from
occurring:

When you have a group that does this, not just because they want
to do their own little worship, but they are provoking anger and
hatred among the community, the city can step in and say: “That’s
not worship, that’s not free speech, that’s mockery, and you’re
inciting violence.”

Genuine incitement to violence may be a justifiable restriction
on freedom of speech, but there is a very dangerous precedent in
equating offensive speech—which this is—with direct incitement to
violence—which this is not.

What else would count as incitement to violence under Morris’
standard? The burning of the Koran, and advocacy of Nazism are both
given as examples of incitement to violence, despite them being
protected by the First Amendment. But there are an almost limitless
number of views, the expression of could conceivably be banned on
the grounds that they offend a particular group.

The result of such restrictions on free speech can be found
around the world, including in western countries like Canada and
Australia, where prominent conservative commentators Mark Steyn
and Andrew Bolt were hauled before the courts after their
comments were deemed offensive to particular minority groups.

The First Amendment is the world’s strongest protection for free
speech. If America is able to tolerate the vindictive and
hate-filled speech of the Westboro Baptist Church, then it is
surely able to deal with speech in support of someone as unpopular
as the prince of darkness. It might even serve as a means for
Christians to come together in shared opposition to Satanism.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1v67hND
via IFTTT