Displaying posts published in

January 2016

Europe Curbing Defense Cuts to Counter ‘More Assertive Russia,’ NATO Says Jens Stoltenberg also says U.S. has requested NATO surveillance planes to help fight Islamic StateBy Julian E. Barnes

BRUSSELS—Russia’s will to “change borders in the east” has helped reduce defense-spending cuts among the European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, according to the group’s general secretary.

Jens Stoltenberg made the comments Thursday, while noting that the U.S. had requested the assistance of NATO planes in the battle against Islamic State.

NATO published its annual report Thursday, which showed that military spending and cuts to the size of European armed forces have begun to plateau. NATO heralded the trend as a sign that years of austerity-driven spending reductions have slowed or ended.

Mr. Stoltenberg said the alliance will step up its military exercises this year, noting that Russian operations near the alliance’s borders have increased dramatically. “We see a more assertive Russia to the east…that has shown a will to change borders in Europe,” he said.

Mr. Stoltenberg also said the U.S. had requested NATO deploy some of its Awacs surveillance planes to help fight Islamic State. Awacs are used to monitor airspace—a mission that has become more important with Russia’s intervention in Syria.
Regarding armed forces spending, Mr. Stoltenberg said 2015 saw a “dramatic slowing of cuts,” adding “we have started to move in the right direction. The cuts have now practically stopped among European allies and Canada.”

Military spending last year by the European members of NATO fell about 0.4%, the smallest reduction since at least 2008, NATO officials said.

After Losing Land, Boko Haram Responds With Bombs From its Nigerian bases, the Islamic State affiliate causes havoc in Cameroon, Chad and Niger By Yaroslav Trofimov

GANCEY, Cameroon—Just before dawn prayers earlier this month, a young man wearing a belt of 12 explosive canisters walked into the squat, ochre-colored building that serves as the mosque of this Cameroonian village.

As he recited the prayers in the dissipating darkness, the young man accidentally stepped on the foot of Abba Ali, a 70-year-old villager.

“I looked up at him and suddenly realized that this was a stranger,” Mr. Ali said. “That scared me.”

Moments later, the intruder detonated his device in one of some 40 suicide bombings that Boko Haram, a militant group that has become the West African “province” of Islamic State, unleashed on Cameroon’s Far North region since July.
Luckily for the faithful of Gancey, the explosives belt malfunctioned and nobody except the attacker died in the blast. But that doesn’t mean the villagers are feeling secure.

“Everyone is afraid that we will have another suicide bomber here soon,” said the Gancey mosque’s imam, Moustapha Goni. “They have tried it once, and they will likely try it again.”

Boko Haram, the deadliest of Islamic State’s many affiliates world-wide, expanded its long-running conflict with Nigeria into the neighboring Cameroon, Chad and Niger over the past year and a half. Some of these offensives involved attacks by formations as big as a thousand men, aided by columns of armor pilfered from Nigeria’s military bases.

Republican Debate: Without Donald Trump, Issues Stand Out While the presidential front-runner held his own event, serious policy differences emerged By Gerald F. Seib

Donald Trump missed Thursday night’s Republican presidential debate, and a funny thing happened: A serious conversation broke out.

The conversation was, among other things, about what it would take to ensure American security in a time of Islamic State terrorism, what it means to be a conservative in the mixed-up environment of 2016 and, most heatedly, about what to do with illegal immigrants.

The seven candidates who did show up argued with one another, pointedly and occasionally angrily but rarely on personal terms. Significant differences emerged, which is what is supposed to happen in debates.

The last Republican presidential debate before the Iowa caucuses focused on many issues from immigration to Putin. Watch the highlights in two minutes. Photo: Getty

The consensus second-ranking contender, Sen. Ted Cruz, had to explain why there was no inconsistency between his votes against defense budgets and his fiery rhetoric about sending waves of American bombers to attack Islamic State forces in Syria and Iraq.

Sen. Marco Rubio tried to sound the toughest notes on fighting extremists. At one point he said Islamic State forces “want to trigger an apocalyptic Armageddon showdown” and “need to be defeated militarily, and that will take overwhelming U.S. force.”

Hillary’s Vast Inspector-General Conspiracy Team Clinton prepares to give investigators the Ken Starr treatment.

The Hillary Clinton apparat has never obeyed Marquess of Queensberry political rules, and they’re most vicious when cornered. So perhaps it reveals something about the probe into Mrs. Clinton’s mishandling of classified material on her personal email server that her enforcers are now assailing the integrity of the investigators.

The latest target is David Seide, who serves as counselor and acting senior adviser to State Department Inspector General Steve Linick. A decade ago as an assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, Mr. Seide was tangentially involved in the prosecution of David Rosen, the finance director of Mrs. Clinton’s New York Senate campaign in 2000, who was acquitted at trial.

“You have a guy who used his former position to conduct a wide-ranging investigation into Mrs. Clinton that amounted to nothing, who then continues that work in the State Department. That has fingerprints on it that are just too visible and just lead to all sorts of questions,” Steve Israel told Politico for a Jan. 25 hit and run.

The wired-in New York House Democrat is a Clintonista in good standing, and Mr. Israel went on to speculate: “It actually seems to be a pattern emerging. This is the second known high-ranking official in the IG office with a glaring conflict of interest.” Emilia DeSanto, the deputy IG at State, is a former aide to Republican Senator Chuck Grassley.

A spokesman for the IG denied any conflict, noting that Mr. Rosen was indicted by a different federal prosecutor after Mr. Seide left the government. Mr. Seide did investigate the same 2000 Brentwood gala and fundraiser whose alleged campaign-finance violations led to the Rosen charges, and he won a conviction against a separate Clinton donor, who helped bankroll the event, for stock-price manipulation.

U.S. ‘Re-Issues Old Labeling Requirement’ But Ignores its Original, Now Invalid, Basis By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus

There is no viable Palestinian State. There is no enforceable Oslo Accords. There is no unity Palestinian Arab government. That’s why the source of country labeling requirement was ignored and so it should remain.

Things continue to go downhill in the diplomatic world of U.S.-Israel relations. This week the U.S. State Department re-issued a nearly 20 year old regulation – written at a very different time, under very different circumstances – and insists it will “strictly enforce” this ancient rule which requires any goods produced in the disputed territories be designated as place of origin other than “Israel.”

This old-new restriction came up in one of the most unlikely of places, the Cargo Systems Messaging Service, which is part of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The very short introduction explains that the message was issued in order to “provide guidance to the trade community regarding the country of origin marking requirements for goods that are manufacture in the West Bank.”

This latest message from the Cargo Messaging Service was issued literally in the dead of night – 12:53 a.m. on Saturday, Jan. 23. Hmmm.

And the “requirements” to which that message is referring, are ones that require labeling of goods produced in the disputed territories, or as the U.S. likes to call them – despite chastising Israel constantly for “creating facts on the ground” – the West Bank and Gaza but not Israel.

Obama Joins Israel Boycott, Labels West Bank Goods

In a step towards joining an Israel boycott, the U.S. is now requiring goods originating from the West Bank (also known as Judea and Samaria) to be labeled separately from products from the rest of Israel, following the European Union’s crackdown on products from the disputed territories.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection service, which falls under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has issued new mandates requiring that West Bank products not be marked “Israel,” citing a notice from the year 1997 that offers such instructions.

The memo from DHS, titled, “West Bank Country of Origin Marking Requirements,” reads:

“The purpose of this message is to provide guidance to the trade community regarding the country of origin marking requirements for goods that are manufactured in the West Bank.”

According to the instructions, “It is not acceptable to mark” goods from the West Bank as having been from “Israel,” “Made in Israel,” or from “Occupied Territories-Israel.”

In its statement, U.S. Customs threatens, “goods that are erroneously marked as products of Israel will be subject to an enforcement action carried out by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.”

80 Islamist Terrorist Plots: The U.S. Needs to Redouble Its Counterterrorism Efforts By David Inserra and Riley Walters

It is less than a month into 2016, and two terrorist plots have occurred, one foiled and the other successful. Additional information has become available regarding a case from December 2015, resulting in another addition to The Heritage Foundation’s list of terrorist plots and attacks. The FBI’s release of more information in December about the shooting at two Chattanooga military facilities in July 2015 also adds to the list, bringing the total number of Islamist-inspired terrorist plots and attacks against the U.S. since 9/11 to 80.
Chattanooga, No. 74

The Heritage Foundation is now adding the July 16, 2015, shooting at two military facilities in Chattanooga that killed four Marines and a sailor to its list of Islamist terrorist plots. While there were news reports pointing to an Islamist motivation, Heritage preferred to wait for the outcome of the FBI’s investigation before making a final determination.

In December 2015, FBI Director James Comey announced that the shooter, Mohammad Abdulazeez, “was inspired, motivated by a foreign terrorist organization’s propaganda.”[1] Comey further claimed that it was difficult “to untangle which particular source,” as there “are lots of competing [terrorist] poisons out there.”[2] The FBI, however, certainly knows the general kind of terrorist poisons to which Abdulazeez was attracted: They were of a violent, Islamist nature.

The FBI’s failure to provide the American people with this information means that other sources need be relied upon. Multiple news organizations reported that Abdulazeez attacked these facilities for Islamist reasons. Counterterrorism sources for ABC reported that Abdulazeez searched the Internet to learn how such violence could remove his sins and found justifications and guidance on violent Islamist websites.[3] Reuters reported that Abdulazeez was inspired by the general propaganda of violent Islamists.[4] Sources for NBC reported that Abdulazeez had downloaded audio recordings of al-Qaeda cleric and propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki.[5] The FBI conclusion, added to varied news reports is enough evidence to add the Chattanooga attack to the list of Islamist-inspired attacks.
Mohamed Elshinawy, No. 77

Over the course of 2015, Mohamed Elshinawy conspired with others to support ISIS. Starting in February 2015, Elshinawy discussed with a co-conspirator the possibility of attacking the U.S., being careful to avoid discussing specific plans because he feared that he was being monitored. Elshinawy and his co-conspirator regularly took precautions to avoid detection by using false names and different phones, lying to authorities, and concealing connections to ISIS and to each other.[6]

Israel’s Wrong Public Relations: By Ruth King

Israel’s supporters in America from the top to the lower community organizers and from left to right agree on one subject, namely that Israel needs better public relations and there is a need to disseminate positive information to portray Israel and its policies in a glowing light.

Unfortunately most of these efforts sound more like the complaints of poor relations rather than good public relations. Even Israel’s staunchest protagonists fall into the trap of thinking that listing Israel’s numerous concessions to its enemies will soften or convince hardened anti-Semites.

As a matter of fact, enumerating Israel’s serial appeasements and the catastrophic results only show a weak, forlorn, and desperate nation begging to be liked by the wrong people at the wrong time. It also displays a nation unable to learn from history which has lost the will to assert its historic and legitimate rights. And, worst of all, it shows political leadership which cravenly puts the escalating demands of its adversaries before defense of its citizens.

Furthermore, too much of this propaganda hints that “recognition of its right to exist as a Jewish state” is what is to be negotiated. A disproportionate number of post-colonial era nations have disintegrated into swamps of famine, chaos, genocide, jihad and tyranny, and only Israel has to plead for “recognition of its right to exist?” That is both idiotic and morally depraved.
A good public relations policy starts with the declaration that Israel will not reward enemies with jihad as their agenda. The nation’s priority is to defend its citizens and the state’s remarkable accomplishments.

Principle over Politics in Iowa By The Editors

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz both have been described as “insurgency” candidates, but it is important to ask: Insurgents on behalf of what, exactly? An excellent example of what this means in real terms is the question of ethanol, the useless gasoline additive that the federal government inflicts on American consumers at the behest of corn growers, processors, and related special interests.

Ethanol is, inevitably, dear to many hearts in corn-producing Iowa, which makes it a tender subject for presidential candidates of both parties facing the early test of the Iowa caucus. It presents a test of principle. One of the basic problems of American governance is the interaction of what is known in political-economy terms as “concentrated benefits and dispersed costs.” A manufacturing tax credit that subsidizes Starbucks as a “manufacturer” to the extent that it puts beans into bags doesn’t mean very much to the average taxpayer or member of Congress, but it may mean a lot to Starbucks. Special-interest groups will fight very hard for their perks, and no one has as strong an incentive to fight against them.

RELATED: Refusing to Kiss King Corn’s Ring in Iowa

The ethanol program is pure corporate welfare. It is marketed as an environmental initiative to the Left and a hedge against filthy “foreign oil” to the Right, but it is simply a mandate, a federal rule that says gasoline producers must buy ethanol and mix it into their product. It’s nice to have a marketing department with nuclear weapons and an IRS, so the corn-juice guys are very defensive about their mandate.

To stand against the ethanol mandate in Iowa is a test of political character.

Media Elites Slam Charlie Hebdo for Mocking the Marginalized — Then Do the Same Themselves By Brendan O’Neill —

One year after the slaughter of its staff, Charlie Hebdo still stands accused of committing what liberals have decreed to be the worst crime in comedy: “punching down.” Satire is meant to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, chants every Charlie-phobic cartoonist, novelist, and hack, seemingly having confused drawing vulgar pictures for a living with being a Pope Francis–style warrior against injustice. The problem with Charlie Hebdo, they say, is that it mauls the marginalized — it obsessively pokes fun at Muslims. In a shameless act of victim-blaming and back-stabbing, Doonesbury drawer Garry Trudeau wrote in The Atlantic magazine, in April 2015, that the scabrous French mag committed “the abuse of satire” and was always “punching downward.”

It’s time to put this myth of punching down to bed. For two reasons. First: If Charlie Hebdo does sometimes punch down, then it’s far from alone. Many of the American and European liberals who clutch their pearls over Charlie’s mocking of Mohammed frequently engage in a punching-down of their own, ridiculing what they view as the Neanderthal white trash who lurk in the dark heart of America or in run-down bits of Europe. And second: It simply isn’t true that Charlie’s assault on Islam (the thing it’s most famous for) is “punching down.” In fact, its ridicule of Mohammed is a clear case of punching up — up against Europe’s vast system of censorship that seeks to strangle “hate speech” against belief systems.