After Iran hit Iraqi-military bases that housed US troops in retaliation of the death of their top general, the US President Donald Trump announced new sanctions against the crumbling Iran’s economy and officials. For now, it was an end to a possible military confrontation between the two countries, but it seems that both go to a shadow war across the region, as they did for 40 years.

The Middle Eastern region has been largely the main shadow battleground between the United States and Iran and Iranian proxy forces. The sandwiched country between the Middle East and South Asia, Afghanistan may turn into another shadow battleground between the United States and Iran, amid peace efforts to end 18-year long insurgency in the country.

The United States has been the strategic partner of Afghanistan for 18 years and helped the country to build national institutions from the ashes of civil war in the 1990s, from the military to judicial. On the other hand, Afghanistan shares borders and long complicated and extensive political, social, and economic ties with Iran.

“The government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan assures the people and its neighbors that, according to the security agreement with the United States, the territory of Afghanistan in no circumstances will be used against another country,” said President Ashraf Ghani of Afghanistan in a statement days between the death of top Iranian general and missile strikes into Iraqi military bases.

As the tension between the United States and Iran drags on, the US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad met in silence with the Taliban representatives, discussing reduction of violence and ceasefire to reach an agreement for peace in Afghanistan and withdrawal of US troops. Afghans fear that US-Iran tension hurt the chance of peace for Afghanistan.

“Iran has refused to join the regional and international consensus for peace, and is, in fact, actively working to under the peace process by continuing its long global effort to support militant groups there [in Afghanistan],” said US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at a State Department news conference. “Taliban’s entanglement in Iran’s dirty work will only harm the Afghanistan peace process.”

Over 18 years that the United States poured in millions of dollars and deployed nearly a million US troops in Afghanistan, while Iran cultivates connection with elements within the Taliban group. US and Afghan officials accused Iran of arming the Taliban group, a charge Iran denied. In addition, Iran recruited, trained, and paid thousands of Afghan Shiites to fight for Iran in the Syrian war under the division of Fatimyoun.

The influence of Iran in Afghanistan came to light when US killed Qaseem Suleimani, head of Iran’s Quds force. Ex-President Hamid Karzai, who was saved by US Special Forces for years and was backed in power for 13 years, condemned the strike against Suleimani and named him as a “man of dignity.” Former National Security Advisor Hanif Atmar, the official who signed the strategic security agreement with the United States, called Suleimani as a “martyr.”

Photos of Afghan ambassador to Iran circulated on social media showing him in the funeral of Suleimani in Tehran. At least two Afghan politicians were seen at the funeral of Suleimani in Tehran. Abdullah Abdullah, the chief executive of the United States backed and brokered government, went to the Iranian embassy in Kabul to pay his tribute and to sign a memorial book on Suleimani.

“We expect an escalation of tech-Mil support [for the Taliban] by the Iranian regime plus the potential deployment of Fatimyun bridge on the Afghan battlefields this coming fight season [spring is usually the start of insurgency season],” said Tamim Asey, former deputy for Afghan defense minister. “Time and this coming fighting season will tell.”

The New York Times reported that the United States “air assets in Afghanistan have repeatedly come up in discussions over a potential response to Iran, though the top United States commander in Afghanistan has urged caution about such plans.”

Turning Afghanistan into a battlefield might be too costly for both the United States and Iran. The United States have already been fighting an endemic insurgency in the country with the Afghan government is entangled with widespread combat with the Taliban group across the country. Iran, meanwhile, fights and supports proxy forces across the Middle East, from Lebanon to Yemen.

“If Iran escalates its proxy war through Taliban and Fatimyun, they will be the biggest losers themselves,” said Tamim Asey. “It essentially amounts to shooting themselves in the front i.e. opening two fronts in both western [Iraq] and eastern borders [Afghanistan].”

L'articolo Afghanistan Swept Between United States and Iran proviene da InsideOver.

There are fears of a spillover into violence from a mutiny by some units of the Sudanese intelligence in some parts of the Sudanese capital Khartoum, including an area near Khartoum International Airport.

The mutiny erupted on January 14 when several armed units of the intelligence agency took to the streets, blocked them and started shooting into the air. This show of force came against the background of refusal by the members of the units involved in the mutiny of the ongoing reform of the intelligence agency, the Sudanese cabinet said.

Sudan’s cabinet has decided to reform the intelligence agency as part of ongoing efforts in Sudan to end the presence of the loyalists of ousted President Omar al-Bashir in Sudanese institutions, including inside the security and military establishments.

Sudanese Information Minister, Faisal Mohamed Saleh, said the reform would include ending the service of some of the workers of the intelligence agency, including the members of the units staging the mutiny.

Nonetheless, these members are rejecting the end of service gratuity offered them by the government, Saleh said. Nevertheless, those following the new development in Sudan point to more than just a refusal of an end of service gratuity, amid reports of Sudan’s transition staggering because of Bashir’s loyalists and the Sudanese deep state, which is controlled by members of the ousted president’s party as well as the nation’s Islamists.

Over 30 years of rule, Bashir succeeded in making the members of his Islamist National Congress Party in control inside all Sudan’s institutions, especially inside important state agencies, including the intelligence agency.

These people – some of them are not known to be backers of Bashir’s regime – will prove a hard nut to crack for the new administration in Sudan and as the poor African state tries to chart a new future.

The same post-revolution transition difficulties were manifest in Arab Spring states Tunisia and Egypt where the followers of the Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and the Hosni Mubarak regimes tried to hamper progress in the two states after the downfall of the two regimes in 2011.

The ongoing mutiny by the members of the intelligence agency threatens to morph into a wider confrontation, especially after the deployment of Sudanese army troops around the areas where the mutiny is taking place.

Sudanese Prime Minister, Abdalla Hamdok, tried to assure Sudanese citizens that his government can bring the situation under control.

“They will not stop us and our mission nor will they be a reason for us to retreat from the goals of this revolution,” Hamdok said.

“This situation stresses the need for the current partnership and the need to push it forward to achieve our higher goals,” Hamdok wrote on Twitter.

Sudan has already taken several precautionary measures, including the closure of its airspace and Khartoum International Airport. Sudanese citizens have started descending on the streets and some public shows of anger are in the making.

A Sudanese citizen has been injured by gunfire and other human casualties are expected to happen in the coming hours, especially if the members of the units staging the mutiny refuse to surrender to the Sudanese army or lay down their arms as the Sudanese government asks them to do.

The Sudanese Professionals Association, the umbrella coalition of Sudanese political forces during the uprising against Bashir, has called on Sudanese citizens to stay at home or at least away from the areas where the mutiny is taking place.

It said it rejects attempts to terrorize Sudanese citizens. The association also called on Sudanese state authorities to intervene. The situation is still unfolding, and this opens the door for all possibilities in the coming hours. The Sudanese army will be trying to contain the mutiny and prevent it from developing.

A member of the Sudanese Sovereign Council, a body made up of Sudan’s political forces and the military, did not rule out political motivations behind the mutiny.

“Some security officials are not happy with the reform of the intelligence agency,” Shams Eddine al-Kabashi said. “Nevertheless, the army will take the whole matter into its own hands if this group refuses to surrender.”

L'articolo Violence Erupts In Sudan Amid Fears of Nationwide Confrontations proviene da InsideOver.

Working for the United States Department of Defense at The Pentagon is usually the highlight of both military and civilian professionals, especially when they reach the upper echelons of the organization. However, a steady stream of retirements, including some surprise departures, have left the department – and by extension, US President Donald Trump – with a gaping hole once occupied by adept military expertise.

In April 2019, the tide picked up in earnest beginning with five out of seven members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff being replaced, according to The Wall Street Journal. Regional commanders in charge of command posts abroad were not immune to the turnover either, which by design to some extent. 

“The scheduled and periodic turnover of senior leaders throughout the US military at all echelons is a common occurrence and one for which we are well-prepared as an institution,”  said Air Force Col. Pat Ryder, spokesman for the Joint Staff. 

While that is true to some degree, the exodus has continued during what has arguably the most turbulent period of US foreign relations since the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960s. What began in April continued throughout the end of December, with the defense department closing 2019 with five resignations over a two-week span. 

The December resignations included: Tina Kaidanow, senior advisor for international cooperation; Steven Walker director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; Jimmy Steward, undersecretary of defence for personnel and readiness; Kari Bingen, principal deputy undersecretary of defence for intelligence; and Randall Schriver, assistant defence secretary for Indo-Pacific security affairs. 

Forced Out 

While resignations allowed some officials to leave their posts with dignity, others were not afforded the same opportunity. In the case of Navy Secretary Richard Spencer, Defence Secretary Mark Esper fired him in a highly publicised event. The move came as a result of controversy surrounding Navy SEAL Chief Eddie Gallagher.

Spencer’s handling of the affair, notably circumventing the chain of command and trying to deal directly with the Trump administration to preserve Gallagher’s SEAL rank, ultimately contributed to Gallagher retaining his status and becoming a conservative icon.

Spencer served four years as captain in the Navy.

In July, Adm. William Moran announced he would retire and suddenly declined the top naval post of Chief of Naval Operations. The position also would have placed the four-star officer to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

While Moran was not forced out in a technical sense, it was undoubtedly in the works after he was discovered to be relying on a public affairs advisor who had been reprimanded for partying with junior officers. The questionable judgement was viewed as unbecoming and unprofessional by Spencer, who was still in his position at the time, and he indicated that he would have asked for Moran’s resignation had he not willingly provided it.

Battle-Hardened Servicemen Relinquished Coveted Top Posts

Higher up the chain, Ryan Zinke resigned as Secretary of the Interior amid allegations surrounding a development project in his home town of Whitefish, Montana. Zinke had previously served in the Navy as Commander in the famous SEAL Team Six. Notably, he was the first SEAL to ever serve on a presidential cabinet. 

Turning to generals, Trump replaced Gen. Jim Mattis replaced with Lt. Col. Mark Esper from the Army for the position of Secretary of Defence. While Esper did accumulate 20 years of military service, it was less than half of Mattis’ 44 years, from 1969 to 2013. Mattis did not leave on good terms after turning in his resignation, alluding to differences of strategy. Trump decided to expedite his departure, essentially firing him before his planned resignation date.  

Like Mattis, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster had decades of experience before serving as Trump’s national security advisor. Also like Mattis, McMaster was initially viewed as a possible counter to Trump’s impulsive decision-making. When it became clear the two had different opinions on foreign policy, Trump chose to replace him with John Bolton, who was also subsequently either fired or dismissed, depending on whose account you believe. 

Gen. John Kelly had the most experience of them all after serving in the Marine Corps. Trump picked him to fill the post of Secretary of Homeland Security before promoting him to White House Chief of Staff. The relationship between Trump and Kelly deteriorated so much that it was reported the two were no longer on speaking terms shortly before Kelly left his position. 

Kelly had been most-aligned with Trump, mostly in his support of stricter immigration controls. Kelly’s successor, Mick Mulvaney, went on to tell the press that quid pro quo, as in the case of Ukraine, happens “all the time” and that the media should “get over it.”

Finally, Dan Coats, director of national intelligence, had 2 years of military experience from 1966 to 1968. While his service record was brief, he went on to graduate from law school before serving as representative, ambassador to German, and two stints as senator before joining the Trump cabinet. 

Most critically, Coats disagreed with Trump on foreign policy hotspots including North Korea, Iran, and Russia. He was dismissed shortly after Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was made public, signalling that Trump blamed Coats for it.

Pompeo and Esper Fill the Void

The high-profile departures of military veterans begs the question of “Who is left?” After Trump decided to assassinate Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, US Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky, said the president had received “bad advice” when making the decision. A brain-drain in both the Pentagon and White House may have simply left no one to give good advice. 

Two cabinet members remain who possess military expertise and the rarer quality of having Trump’s ear: Esper and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Coincidentally, both men have professional experience working the aircraft industry, Esper as executive vice president of the Aerospace Industries Association and Pompeo at several manufacturers he purchased with some military friends. 

Pompeo, on the other hand, remains composed while under pressure and demonstrates a wealth of emotional intelligence. He has shown that his political views mostly align with Trump and that he is capable of keeping the president from making rash decisions. Pompeo’s professional qualifications are impressive; he is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, West Point and Harvard graduate, former congressman, and entrepreneur. 

In a way, he is like an alternate reality version of Trump, where the future president succeeded at his military boarding school and chose not to dodge the military draft. In that world, Trump may have returned from the war a different man; a man much like Pompeo.

L'articolo Washington Military Leadership Vacuum Grows proviene da InsideOver.

The state of the Egyptian military’s involvement in politics is hidden from no one: the country has been ruled by members of the armed forces for almost 65 of 66-years post-independence history. 

From the long, illustrious role of Gemal Abdel Nasser in the ‘50s to Hosni Mobarak leading the charge for 30 years until 2011, a non-military politician has been at the helm for a mere 12 months, only to be replaced in a coup. 

It is no wonder that much is said about the media freedoms and the state of human rights in the country. But what’s less highlighted is how it has impacted the economy and the distribution of factors of production. 

This is exactly what a recent report from the Carnegie Institute’s Middle East Centre discussed at length. In a comprehensive 360-page publication titled Owners of the Republic: An Anatomy of Egypt’s Military Economy, the think tank gives a detailed account of how the country’s armed forces have managed to enter the economic sphere, from the inception of the republic. 

Starting from the days of Nasser, the military began expanding its footprint in economic affairs with the establishment of the Ministry of Military Production, setting up iron and steel plants as part of import-substitution drive. The military business (milbus) picked up pace during the reign of Anwar Saadat when Arab Organization for Industrialization was founded in 1975. 

The years that followed saw major developments as after the Camp David Accords, the Egyptian Armed Forces led the rehabilitation and reconstruction work in the Suez Canal zone. It was further given a boost with the signing of the peace treaty with Israel, which was quickly reacted to by a pouring of US aid to the country. 

As of now, the military exercises its influence both directly and indirectly: the former through a multitude of official agencies such as Ministry of Military Production, Ministry of Defense, Egyptian Armed Forces etc, each operating in some sphere of the business world, while the latter exerts through its network of veterans and the mandate to issue permits. 

The more blatant involvement means the said agencies are undertaking production of a range of goods themselves, often under the pretext of maximising under-utilised factors. From fertilisers and steel to oil and electronics, the military spans across sectors. 

On the other hand, the indirect control is exerted through retired personnel who take important positions in key industries and companies and use their influence to award hefty contracts to the military agencies. 

“Compelled to deal with labyrinthine bureaucracy in order to do business, numerous private companies hire retired officers to deal with government agencies responsible for issuing permits and regulating contracts. Often labelled “public relations” or “government affairs” directors, their task is to clear bureaucratic hurdles and increase the chances of winning contracts. Fixers often deal with fellow retirees embedded in the state agencies with which they work,” the document says.   

While many in Egypt perceive the extent of military control to account for exorbitant proportions of the national output, such a perception isn’t backed by evidence. The report suggests that their contribution to the GDP is between one and two per cent. However, in terms of value, that still yields around $3.32-6.64 billion, depending on the exchange rate as Egyptian pound saw a massive plunge in 2016. 

But with Sisi in charge of the government, that trend is fast changing. The current president has extended the reach of the military, with a number of measures. “Sisi, who was elected president in May 2014, catapulted the military into a more central economic position. Since then, acting on his orders, it has managed roughly one-quarter of total government spending on a crash program of public infrastructure and housing projects, stepped in to resolve shortages of food commodities and medical supplies in civilian markets, intervened in productive sectors deemed strategic with the ostensible aim of stabilizing prices, and generally scrambled to generate revenue for the state treasury,” the report states.   

“According to the EAF Engineering Authority, it implemented 473 strategic and service projects between 2012 and 2014. But in the next two years up to June 2016, it reportedly undertook 1,737 projects, an increase of 367 per cent,” it adds. 

However, overreaching and powerful as it may be, the military’s business isn’t all that profitable. In fact, the minister for military production admitted that the majority of his ministry’s twenty companies were still making losses in 2018. As per the document: “The MOMP still needed annual subventions from the Ministry of Finance; according to the Central Accounting Organization, these amounted to approximately EP 3.6 billion ($190 million) between the 2010-2011 and 2014-2015 fiscal years. In June 2014, the Ministry of Finance wrote off EP 1.15 billion in cumulative debt from 1994-1995 and allowed the MOMP to carry remaining losses forward, but the latter ministry nonetheless built up arrears of EP 960 million over the next year.”

This is despite the armed forces enjoying a host of benefits, which can range from getting free land in strategic locations to employing cheap labour through a vast army of conscripts. In addition to that, the military’s control over permits further enables it to limit entry of competitive players as it can always prevent them on grounds of national interest. 

Land is yet another integral part of the milbus: time and again, Egyptian leaders have come up with lofty plans of building state-of-the-art cities along the Suez Canal Zone, raking in millions of dollars in contract money. 

Sisi announced in March 2014 that the MOD would cooperate with the UAE’s Arabtec construction to build one million residential units – partly aimed at youth and low-income groups – at a cost of $40 billion over five years.

“Presidential Decree 143 of 1981 expanded this requirement to include all “desert land,” that is, any area not previously registered in cadastral surveys as zimam – owned by legal persons or entities, public or private, and subject to real estate tax.17 This encompassed an estimated 90–95 per cent of Egypt’s total surface area, thereby expanding the military’s potential economic benefits significantly,” it reveals. 

L'articolo Military Inc: Egyptian Army’s Control Over the Economy proviene da InsideOver.

US troops are currently present in 53 out of 54 African countries, without Congress’ knowledge or approval. Missions tend to be small and carried out under the radar.

On October 4 2017, four US soldiers were killed in Niger by what the US military alleged were “ISIS-affiliated militants travelling by vehicle, carrying small arms and rocket-propelled grenade launchers.” Africa hosts some

South Carolina senator at the time, Lindsey Graham – a member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services – would initially admit that he did not know about the presence of 1,000 US troops in Niger.  He would soon pledge his support to those troops, stating that the US military “determines who the threats are.”

“The war is morphing,” Graham said. “You’re going to see more actions in Africa, not less; you’re going to see more aggression by the United States toward our enemies, not less; you’re going to have decisions being made not in the White House but out in the field.”

It is a fundamental American myth that the American war machine has always fought against terrorism.

Following on from the propaganda machine of WWII, America has always been at war against its enemies, not the ideologies of said enemies. This was the same belief that fuelled the physical brutality and torture meted against black slaves in the US. Although already fully oppressed, they had to be crushed with physical violence, because they were threats to white America. The US army determines ‘who’ the threats are, not ‘what’ the threats are.

US military troops have long been accused of imperialist ideologies. Military veteran turned author, Bevin Alexander, wrote a book in 2005, titled, How America Got It Right: The U.S. March to Military and Political Supremacy. Two years later, Alexander published a book on the Nazi war machine: How Hitler Could Have Won World War II: The Fatal Errors That Led to Nazi Defeat.

Alexander would apply this same logos to his 2008 publication of, How the South Could Have Won the Civil War: The Fatal Errors That Led to Confederate Defeat. In it, he appeals to the reader not to take from his book any pro-slavery or pro-aristocratic sentiments.

“I sincerely hope no reader will conclude that this book’s title implies in any way that I am advocating some reappraisal of the Lost Cause or some nostalgic longing for what is gone with the wing,” he writes.

Yet, How America Got It Right speaks to the pro-imperialist sentiments of the US military since its victory in World War Two. It is no surprise that Alexander would pen a book titled: Korea: The First War We Lost.

Washington has spent billions of dollars in its African Command (AFRICOM). In December 2018, President Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton announced: “Under our new approach, every decision we make, every policy we pursue, and every dollar of aid we spend will further US priorities in the region.”

“Our first priority, enhancing US economic ties with the region, is not only essential to improving opportunities for American workers and businesses. It is also vital to safeguarding the economic independence of African states and protecting US national security interests.”

Today, Africa holds the highest number of US military deployments after the Middle East. This number rose from three per cent to 17 per cent between 2010 and 2016.

Currently, China is Africa’s top trade partner. The USA’s economic trade with Africa lies in energy, finance and aid. 90 per cent of US-Africa trade, for example, is in crude petroleum exports.

China’s strategy for neocolonialism is financial; the USA’s strategy is militarisation. By indebting the continent into billions of dollars that it cannot afford to pay back, China’s power over Africa grows. The US, on the other hand, is following its centuries-long strategy of creating a huge ideological monster out of a smaller enemy.

The US wants to “defeat violent extremism in West Africa,” Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford said.

“This area is inherently dangerous. We’re there because ISIS and Al Qaeda are operating in that area.”

Neocolonialism plagues Africa. The USA, China and, now, Russia, are on the hunt for imperialism in the continent. The same hard power techniques the US operates in Latin America is slowly and secretly taking over Africa. Once again, the rise of the continent would be destroyed by the imperialist war machine of the Pentagon.

L'articolo Why are US Troops Present in 53 Out of 54 African Countries? proviene da InsideOver.

Though the Middle East has hardly ever been an oasis of stability, the past few years have turned it into an unimaginably complex battleground with multiple rival blocs and players vying for hegemony. Traditionally, it was the Arab world under the leadership of Egypt and then Iraq versus Israel, both enjoying some support from global powers, but now it’s a whole matrix. 

The emergence of Iran as a major force, looking to expand the influence of the Shiite block through proxies like Hezbollah, and Saudi Arabia – flanked by the United Arab Emirates – doing the same via its non-state actors to export Wahabi Islam has become the main theme for conflict in the region. But then there is the Jewish state, backed by the US, looking to protect its interests and finally, the newest kid on the block: the Qatar-Turkey duo, sort of a split faction from the erstwhile Sunni pole, giving way to a multi-dimensional game of power politics.  

And the outgoing week saw further strengthening of this latest pole when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan touched upon Doha for a single-day official visit on November 25 to attend the fifth meeting of Qatar-Turkey Higher Strategic Committee. 

Erdogan was received by the Qatari Deputy Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani and Minister of State for Defense Affairs Khalid bin Mohammad Al Attiyah and the event saw discussions on a range of bilateral and regional issues. 

The Turkish head of state met Qatar’s Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani and together signed seven agreements in areas of economy, urbanization, trade, industry, technology and standardization etc. 

He later visited the newly completed Turkish base in Qatar, named after the legendary Islamic commander Khalid Bin Waleed, where some 5,000 troops are stationed and said: “It [Turkey-Qatar Combined Joint Force Command] serves stability and peace of not only Qatar but also the Gulf region,” Erdogan said. 

A joint communique published by the official Qatar News Agency after the meetings “stressed the importance of the unity of the Gulf Cooperation Council, especially in light of the challenges surrounding the region and… mutual respect and full sovereignty of states and non-interference in their internal affairs”.

“We have also been discussing regional issues where Turkey and Qatar have the same position,” he continued, adding the two countries share “excellent cooperation” in areas such as the war in Syria, the Gulf region, and “even beyond,” Turkish foreign minister said.

Meanwhile, Erdogan remarked: “We have never left our friends alone in any period of history against threats and risks, and we never will,” 

This was the second high-level meeting between the two countries just in November as Turkish Foreign Minister had visited Doha for the preparations of the summit and held discussions with Al Thani. And since the 2017 Saudi blockade, it was Erdogan’s third visit. 

The increasingly close partnership between Ankara and Doha stemmed out of both necessity and ideological convergence. When Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, joined by other smaller Muslim states, blockaded Qatar for its deviations from the regional policy, Turkey stepped up with humanitarian aid and backed Doha. 

Beginning from their softer position Iran to support for Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, both Ankara and Doha have found themselves at odds with the other bloc, led by Riyadh. While Qatar attracted the wrath of the opposite camp in 2017, the rift between Turkey and Saudi Arabia was widened when journalist Jamal Khashoggi was brutally murdered in the latter’s territory. 

Qatar also put its weight behind Turkey when it announced its military offensive against Syrian Kurdish militias even though the other Arab states lashed out at Ankara. 

But to have a truly close and mutually beneficial relationship, the two states have to look beyond their current focus on defense and security needs – where geopolitical interests are always temporary. That fact is indicated by the minimal trade between the two states: Turkey merely exported some $632 million worth of goods to Qatar in 2017 while its imports were even fewer at a meagre $258 million. 

In comparison, Turkey’s trade volume with Saudi Arabia exceeds $4 billion and almost $15 billion with the United Arab Emirates. To have a more reliable partnership, Ankara and Doha must expand their energies beyond military cooperation as well, which would enable them to further expand their influence in the region through economic opportunities. With Turkey’s large population and Qatar’s stacks of dollars, it shouldn’t be that hard.

L'articolo Turkey, Qatar and the Power Nexus in the Middle East proviene da InsideOver.

American weapons are still finding their way to Yemen, even following both international backlash and bipartisan condemnation in the US Congress. Recent footage obtained and published by CNN showed shipments being delivered to the port of Aden, Yemen. Heavy armoured vehicles can be seen driving from the port through the streets of Aden in the video. 

Illegal Transfers

Both the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are allegedly passing shipments of US equipment and weapons through to militias in Yemen, not arming their troops in the area. CNN verified that one such shipment was delivered by the Saudi vessel Bahri Hofuf last week after it left Jeddah. From there, it made port in Sudan. Then it turned off its transponder and “went dark,” falling off the radar, before arriving in Aden.

US law forbids the transfer of military equipment and technology by the purchaser, but last week’s occurrence is not the first time CNN has caught equipment making its way to regional militias. In February, the network published an in-depth investigative report that the UAE and Saudi Arabia were passing along weapons, including mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles. At the time, US Democratic Senator Chris Murphy called the investigation a “bombshell” and had hoped it would be the final straw for American support in the Yemen war. 

Military officials disagreed, however, citing the threat to American lives in the region if it were to end its support of Saudi Arabia, according to Gen. Joseph Votel, top US commander for the Middle East. Despite the evidence that American allies were violating the terms of their arms agreements, US President Donald Trump insisted they could not simply be torn apart because “I don’t want to lose all of that investment being made into our country,” he said. 

Congressmen made several attempts in the wake of the CNN report and murder of Jamal Khashoggi to limit US support of the UAE and Saudi Arabia, but they were consistently vetoed by Trump. Furthermore, responsibility for the shipments to Yemen in violation of US law is continuously denied. 

Denials

“Oshkosh Defense strictly follows all US laws and regulations relating to export control,” the MRAP manufacturer told CNN. 

After a similar incident was caught unfolding by CNN in October,  Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Uriah L. Orland stated that he could not comment on any investigations by the US military and also insisted that American MRAP usage in Yemen is not forbidden. While that statement may be technically true, the Arms Export Control Act expressly prohibits customers from transferring American military technology to other state or non-state actors.

Saudi Col. Turki Al-Maliki also denied legal transgressions, stating “all military equipment is used by Saudi forces under terms and conditions of Foreign Military Sales adopted by the US government and in pursuance of the Arms Export Control Act.” Likewise, a senior UAE official said “in no uncertain terms that we violate end-user agreements in any manner.” 

In its defense, the UAE argued that the Giants Brigade which was filmed taking possession of MRAPs is a “part of Yemeni forces” and therefore part of a coalition which has “collective possession” of the military equipment. The US Department of Defense viewed the situation differently and said the UAE did not have permission to transfer weaponry to third parties.

“The United States has not authorized the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates to re-transfer any equipment to parties inside Yemen,” said Johnny Michael, Pentagon spokesman.

Turning the Tide

A 2014 deal with the UAE contained $2.5 billion for 4,500 MRAPs, which now appear to be falling into the wrong hands. The Giants Brigade which used to fight on the side of the government, has now seemingly switched to fighting against it. The Abu Abbas Brigade, an al-Qaeda linked militia, has also managed to obtain some of the vehicles after the group joined the Yemeni army. 

For Yemen militias, US weapons are a form of currency to sway local support in their favor. Militants are just as prone to human nature as everybody else and it is natural to want to be on the winning team. 

“There are lethal and powerful weapons that the militias were using against the people. American weaponry is deadly. If the militias or others have them, they may be the winning side,” said Hussein Mohammed Talbi, Yemeni National Army soldier. 

In some cases, American MRAPs have been found abandoned on roadsides and CNN reporters were even able to enter them. The leak of US equipment to militias in Yemen poses a significant risk beyond the immediate conflict. Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) are the largest killer of American and allied forces in the Middle East. MRAPs help shield soldiers from them, but if the technology falls into the wrong hands, it could be reverse-engineered, limiting its effectiveness in future battles. 

Several congressional sources told CNN that MRAP deliveries to the UAE are now delayed pending a Pentagon investigation. Furthermore, the US House Foreign Affairs Committee requested an urgent meeting with both Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark Esper in a press release dated Oct. 28.

L'articolo Yemeni Militias Continue to Receive US Military Equipment  proviene da InsideOver.

Five years ago, the US troops stationed in Poland could fit on a bus. That was before shadowy, insignia-less soldiers crossed from Russia into the Ukraine, annexing the Crimean peninsula. Aghast at Moscow’s seizure of sovereign land, the West began a concerted, if cautious, military build-up in Eastern Europe. But now, a more decisive step forward – one thousand extra American soldiers are to be deployed on Polish soil. It’s a modest move, some believe, but one that reflects the mounting anxiety over Russian aggression. 

For a year now, Poland has been trying to coax President Trump into upping his military presence. Warsaw’s head man, Andrzej Duda, knows how to entice his US counterpart: money, loyalty, praise. He’s willing to foot the bill for a new base – around $2bn – and has appealed to the President’s swollen ego, offering to name it ‘Fort Trump’. And it seems to have paid off for the Pole – precise details of new US facilities, which, according to Mr Trump, will be “very beautiful”,  are now being firmed up.

But the White House’s commitment falls short of Duda’s ultimate goal: a permanent US deployment in Poland. Instead of an embedded division, he’s getting 1,000 extra American troops, who will join the 4,500 already rotating in and out of the country. There will be a squadron of Reaper drones, a helicopter brigade, and a smattering of special forces units also.     

Each will serve as a tripwire should Russia mount an invasion – a prospect the Poles are taking seriously. The Kremlin is “definitely very, very aggressive,” says General Rajmund Andrzejczak, Warsaw’s army chief. Unlike their Central European neighbours (and even some of their Eastern ones) Poland shares a land border with Russia. Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave, which sits on the nation’s northeast frontier, and is home to some of Moscow’s most advanced nuclear-capable Iskander missiles.  

The arithmetic is less clear for America’s mercurial leader, who seems rather fond of Mr Putin. But having grudgingly endorsed the NATO framework, Trump is keen to cosy up with his European allies – so long as they pay their bills. Alliance members are obliged to meet 2% GDP expenditure on defence, a pledge each renewed in 2014 but only a fraction fulfil. Poland is one of them, having embarked upon an American-built spending spree this summer (rocket launchers, planes, air defence systems). By 2030, the plucky Eastern European state plans to hit 2.5%.

Germany, by contrast, is lagging behind. Come January 2024, forecasts suggest just 1.5% of Berlin’s budget will be arms-related – billions of dollars short of their NATO commitments. Little coincidence then that the US troops destined for Poland will be shifted from German garrisons. Ever the wily businessman, Mr Trump is frustrated with allies not pulling their weight – the US accounts for two-thirds of NATO’s expenditure – and seems happy to punish the most egregious under-spenders.     

But not all are convinced. General Ben Hodges, a former US Army commander, believes Germany to be America’s most important European ally, having built up a complex military and bureaucratic framework in the country since 1945. To achieve any semblance of this on Polish soil would take not just time, but stratospheric sums of money. 

Indeed, the American contingent presently based in Poland endure a distinctly sub-par infrastructure. About a quarter live in a tent city near the town of Powidz, suffering spotty internet service and dismal water pressure. Duda’s accord with Trump will hope to address these shortcomings, experts say, focusing closely on development and longevity. 

“[The agreement] ensures the long-term sustainability and support of American forces in Poland,” says Ray Wojcik, Warsaw Director at the Center for European Policy Analysis. “[It also] emphasizes that more is needed to prepare for the sustained, robust, and enduring presence of US forces in Poland.”

But what Poles deem military peace-of-mind, the Russians interpret as provocation – and not without good reason. In 1997, NATO promised it would not permanently station troops in Eastern Europe, a commitment now hanging by a thread. Senior officials would argue that Russia’s Crimean land grab changed the rules of the game – but Moscow is clear in its belief that America is threatening regional stability.    

Regardless of who is at fault, the permanent deployment proposition can’t escape a central fallacy: if the Russians come, a temporary detachment will serve the tripwire purpose just as effectively. Rotational or otherwise, if an American unit is engaged, a response will be forthcoming and matters will escalate. Deterrence is about force, but it can also be an exercise in diminishing returns.

This will mean little to the Poles, who value strength and security above all else. Theirs is blood-soaked history, a country carved up by bigger neighbours time and again. In Trump, they see a man who can offer permanent protection. But the cost could be high. A bump in NATO’s regional presence might be justified by Russian belligerence – but it also invites challenge. One miscalculation, and the consequences could be historic. 

L'articolo Trump Deploys More Troops In Poland Amid Russia Fears proviene da InsideOver.

It’s a day like any other in Tripoli. The city is waking up in the early hours of the morning before the humid July heat becomes unbearable. About five kilometres from the centre, a cloud of black smoke is rising, not visible because of the blanket of humidity and smog. It’s the war which wants to let you know it’s there. As if nothing has happened, the traffic is moving normally, the restaurants and bars are opening and welcoming lots of people who are sipping an espresso or smoking a water pipe.

The city is trying to live normally, but it is swamped by many problems: no electricity and drinking water or fuel. The face of a capital which is desperately trying to disregard the fact that it is under siege, which is what is happening a few kilometres away from its historic centre, in the war-torn suburbs. Derelict houses, craters in the asphalt created by the bombing, bullet-riddled buildings with the windows blown out and mounds of sand with containers serving as roadblocks or to impede passage. Day and night.

Many months have gone by since the beginning of the besiegement of the city by the forces of Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar who, on 4 April, decided to strike the fatal blow of his “operation dignity”, relied upon by him to unify Libya and “combat Islamic radicalism in the country” and advanced by his armed forces under the name of the Libyan National Army (LNA). An army made of up fighters with very little experience, foreign troops and mercenaries led by former officers of the Rais. But it has come up against strong resistance from the militias which, on account of economic interests and power, defend the Government of National Accord, established in 2015 and recognised by the international community.

The Tripoli front, divided into around 8 urban fronts (without counting the external zones like Gharyan, a town of strategic importance still being fought over today which is about 80 kilometres from the capital and located on a hill) seems more like a war of attrition than an open conflict. A slow battle, which is split into violent clashes and very often nothing happens.

The militias defending the areas controlled by the GNA mainly come from Misrata (considered by Libyans as “tipping the balance” in the conflict given their military and economic power acquired during the 8 years following the end of the Jamahiriya government). They believe more in money than in the defence of an apparently democratic government. According to various sources, each solider will receive the sum of around 2,000 Libyan dinars per day (about 450 euros).

To gain access to the GNA front lines, simply change district and go through the various checkpoints located at the start of the off-limits area. The war zone. From there, the city becomes a ghost town. The rubbish increases together with the deafening silence punctuated only by the sound of military vehicles.

The commander of the 21st Misrata brigade, Hashim Ahamd Abbriah, pulls up in his Toyota 4×4 at the last checkpoint in the district of Salah Ad-Din, south of the capital. “We have reconquered the area and we currently find ourselves in a defensive position ready to repel any enemy attack, aerial, cannon fire or bombing. We’ve also had to evacuate civilians because of the bombing”. A peculiar thing is the fact that civilians who have fled their homes and have poured into the city centre, making it overcrowded, can return to their homes in the middle of the battle. Together with the military vehicles, after the checkpoints, you see civilian vehicles regularly hurtling along returning to check the state of their homes or to pick up something they’ve forgotten.

Hashim takes us to the general district of the brigade, located at a military base next to the Wardak front line in the firing line. His men are resting in two small rooms and relieving the soldiers holding the line. When there’s electricity they also have air conditioning, TV and a refrigerator next to the many rifles, bulletproof vests and ammunition. The check Facebook when they are relaxing, even if the connection is weak.

Hashim hands over command to Walid, a soldier who’s 40ish, to head towards the Yarmuk line. As they leave the base, the 4×4s wind their way through the soft sand dunes and mounds of shattered asphalt, speeding past the abandoned houses and derelict villages, made from grey bricks, all the same colour, in order to avoid being tracked by the Haftar drones, supported by the UAE and Egyptian air forces.

The vehicles reach the front line and hide under some maritime pine trees. The odours given off mingle with the scent of the Mediterranean and remind you more of a holiday resort than a battlefront.

Hashim’s soldiers are actually in an abandoned villa. In the lounge, which doesn’t have walls any more because of a round of heavy artillery fire which caused an enormous hole, the soldiers relax on missile launchers, machine guns and ammunition. They hide, stretched out on mattresses, with sniper rifles trained on enemy lines stationed a few hundred metres away. When Walid arrives, he looks through binoculars for any movement and then grabs the machine gun and shoots at the enemy barking instructions.

Hassan, on the other hand, is sitting behind the house, sheltered from the aircraft. Sheikh Hassan, as he’s called. “He’s the sheikh of the revolution,” says Walid. Hassan is a former fighter of Gadaffi’s army. “Where are the international forces to support us? Where are our Italian friends?” he shouts in an ironic, but serious, tone, while he tries to modify a missile to put into one of the missile launchers on his beige 4×4 using a file. “We’re fighting because a few kilometres away a dictator like Muammar wants to create a new regime. Look at the sort of armies we’re fighting against. They have the United Arab Emirates air force and American weapons behind them”. After a few moments, Hassan loads the missile into its launcher and sets off quickly venturing a hundred metres from the building on the left. He takes aim before moving the vehicle a few metres back. To Walid’s cry of “Allahu Akbar,” he launches the device which triggers an explosion and creates a cloud of smoke, dust and sand, while the earth shakes.

On the Ain Zara frontline, next to Yarmuk. the situation is the same. A group of boys control the front from a rooftop, singing “we love war and death”. They are laughing, having fun. They are aiming and firing some bullets when they detect movement from the other side. But the time drags so they get bored and smoke hashish. Neither side is gaining any ground. In spite of this the GNA militiamen are galvanised: “Haftar, son of a bitch, will never manage to capture Tripoli shouts a wounded soldier. The young boys are sure that the morale of the enemy soldiers is shattered and they have no strength to counter-attack.

The front line near the international airport, on the other hand, is different. A less inhabited area so there are open spaces. The international airport has been firmly in the hands of the LNA for some months now and it’s difficult to overcome this situation. A symbolic place for the Libyan civil war. The GNA soldiers are stationed at the extreme ends, creating fronts with mounds of sand to protect against the open spaces. “On the other side, about 400 metres away, the enemy is stationed – observes Mohamed, taking shelter from the sun under a tree and a tent built specially to rest in on some mats – The enemy is in a weak position. It’s not difficult to defend here because they cannot attack us but the danger is their aircraft which strike us every night. But on the ground, we’re winning”.

Like Mohammad, the majority of the soldiers are civilians. Ahmad, a nuclear engineer, juggles his working life and the front line to lend support. “I do a bit of everything here, I help with logistics, I fight. It’s the responsibility of all Libyans to fight against the dictator and defend democracy and the establishment of a civilian government. That’s why we had the revolution in 2011. In these years I’ve always fought and gone back to work. When the siege began I was in Vienna at a nuclear conference and I came home straight away to defend what I believe in”.

But if many people say they want to fight for democracy and unity, many people claim that the GNA stands for exactly the opposite. This is what Mahmoud, a young lawyer, who works as a waiter in a restaurant says: “The militias are only fighting for power, money and oil. Not for democracy. Here in Tripoli, over 80% of the population wants Haftar to get in but only whoever wins will fight him. To give an example, a bus driver was beaten on the head with sticks, and died, just for having listed to the national Libyan army anthem. If that’s freedom”. People agree with Mahmoud’s words but no one wants to be quoted for fear of retaliation and violence against their families.

Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between. It’s actually in Tripoli where life goes on despite the suffering. Friday afternoon, when the sun starts to go down, in Martyrs’ Square (formerly known as Green Square under the Gadaffi regime), the pigeons overrun the area to the side of the vendors of toys made in China and stalls of candy floss, which bring joy to the families and children out for a stroll. It’s like nothing is happening when the missiles fall on their abandoned homes in the suburbs. But nothing is happening. Everything is “Mia bil mia” (100%).

Translation by Ruth Lebens

L'articolo Tripoli: On the Frontline proviene da InsideOver.

A cursory look at the history of Pakistan shows that its Army wields an enormous amount of power. From foreign policy to security strategy, Pakistan’s Army almost always gets its way, at times even superseding the democratically-elected governments.

So, last week when the country’s top 25 business tycoons met with the Army Chief General Qamar Jawed Bajwa at the garrison city of Rawalpindi, it only reaffirmed the grip this all-encompassing institution holds on the country.

In an interactive session, the army chief was flanked by the country’s finance, revenue ministers and the chairman of the country’s tax collection authority. According to news reports from those who were part of this exclusive tete-a-tete, the army chief asked businessmen to share their views on how to improve the economy and urged them to invest more.

The businessmen, however, were primarily interested in resolving their issues with the Khan-led government, who in the process of macro stabilization, has brought the economy to a standstill.

Ever since Imran Khan assumed office, he has undertaken a not so politically savvy macroeconomic adjustment which on the ground has meant no fuel price subsidies, increasing utility – gas and electricity – prices, lay-offs, pay cuts etc. The situation is further complicated by the conditions attached to the International Monetary Fund-led $6 billion bailout which has forced the government to slash spending and increase revenues.

Speaking to the country’s news agencies, businessmen said the discussions with the army chief were held in a cordial environment and that they were given assurances that their grievances will be resolved at the earliest. They said they had been meeting with the country’s civilian leadership but their requests had fallen on deaf ears and they were left with no choice but to meet the army chief.

On the other hand, the army’s official media statement said that the army chief views “National security … intimately linked to economy while prosperity [a] function of balance in security needs and economic growth.” But as some welcome the country’s most-respected institution’s increased interest in the economic affairs, others fear for the future of democratic governments.

However, businessmen’s complaints are not ill-founded, the Khan-led government has introduced a plethora of policies to bring about the much-needed structural reforms to set the economy on a road to recovery. But high interest rates, ambitious tax targets, slashes in development spending have shrunk economic output.

Although, most of the economic problems faced by his team were as a result of last government’s failures, the pace of adjustment has raised fears of political uncertainty as opposition parties have begun to circle around the federal capital. Recently, one of Khan’s leading critic, Mullah Fazlur Rahman – leader of the hardcore party Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam – has announced a sit-in at Islamabad and has vowed to overthrow Khan’s government.

Although, there are doubts over Rahman’s political ability and support base to bring down Khan’s government, analysts fear his movement could gain momentum and things could take the turn for worse if other opposition parties join in.

But the statements after the meeting suggest that Khan’s government is going nowhere. It seems as if Pakistan is at a unique point in its history, where the political and military leadership seem to be on the same page. Khan has also repeatedly and openly spoken of his party’s relationship with the army and even gave army chief Bajwa a three-year extension in August.

But as Khan cedes more and more space to the military establishment in running the country’s affairs, his authority as a democratically elected leader of the country will only diminish.

L'articolo Pakistan’s Businessmen Seek Help from Military proviene da InsideOver.