Tag / foreign policy

by hereandsphere

“WE HAVE REACHED AN AGREEMENT”

Image

^ Javad Zarif looks happy, John Kerry looks exhausted. Last night in Geneva, signing agreement.

—- —- —-

“We have reached an agreement.”

With those five words, tweeted at about 9:30 EST last night, Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif made history. He did not make it alone. Our Secretary of State, John Kerry, also made it. As did the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Russia, and China.

At 10:15 PM a proud President Obama addressed the nation. He outlined the specifics of the agreement.

And so it was ; Iran and the world have agreed — to the following :

1.Iran will cease enriching uranium beyond five percent grade. As verification, Iran will dismantle links between networks of centrifuges.

2.All of Iran’s existing stockpile of uranium already enriched to 20 percent, would be diluted or converted to oxide, thus making it not readily available for military use.

3.No new centrifuges, neither old models nor newer, can be installed. Centrifuges already installed, but not currently operating, can not be started up.

4.Iran can still enrich uranium to a level of 3.5 percent grade and need not dismantle its existing centrifuges.

5.In return for this interim agreement, the United States agrees to provide $ 6 billion to $ 7 billion of sanctions relief, of which about $ 4.2 billion represents Iran oil revenue presently frozen in coreign banks. It is noted that this sanctions relief requires only Executive Order, not approval by Congress.

The interim deal has a six-month time frame. This, to allow time for negotiators to agree upon the terms of a permanent agreement.

And there you have it. A deal with Iran. A year ago such a thing looked impossible. But where human beings are involved, things change. People change their minds, even people of different nations. In this case, everyone changed. Iran elected a new government with a clearly stated, change message that could not have won election without the OK of Iran’s Supreme Leader. And the Western powers — with Russia and China joining in at last — decided that they would settle for less than a permanent agreement.

And what an agreement ! It bears repeating : Iran has agreed to do what it insisted it would not do : stop enrichment of uranium and, indeed, to dilute uranium already enriched. Centrifuges turned off and no new start-ups. Centrifuge linkages dismantled.

The Boston Globe quotes as Zbigniew Brzeznski and Brent Scowcroft, former American national security advisers talking of “the apparent commitment of the new government of Iran to reverse course on its nuclear activities…” That is exactly what Iran’s new government has now done.

Of course an interim agreement leaves the future sort of open. But not completely. Agreements between nations that have barely spoken to one another, and then often vituperatively, do not congeal overnight. This first dip into the waters of concord may, however, prove addictive. Once even enemies begin to find that they have some interests in common, they often find that they have more. And thus larger agreements become doable, even desirable. It happened thus with the conflict in Northern Ireland. Why not between Iran and the West ? Iran is not a medieval tyranny. Its leaders are not desert illiterates. Iranians rank second to no one in science or in technological ingenuity. Iranians are educated, modern, entirely au courant with the cutting edge, modern world. Same for their leaders. Do not be fooled by the turbans and beards, so caliphate in appearance. These turbans tweet.

Israel’s prime minister professes to distrust this agreement. I find his distrust misplaced. I have no doubt that the new Iranian leadership is no friend of Israel ; that it will continue to fund and promote Hezbollah in Lebanon ; and that it would not mourn much were Israel to disappear. But I think it quite certain that Iran is not about to rain missiles or atomic bombs on Israel. Iran knows that that would be its end as well as Israel’s. Which means that Israel will simply have to accept that it has an undefeatable enemy nearby, and to live with it — as it has been doing quite successfully with other, nearer enemies for many decades. I think it will find a way to manage.

Meanwhile, kudos to John Kerry, our state’s former Senator, who has now brokered two heroic deals : this one, and the elimination of Bashir Assad’s chemical weapons. You haven’t forgotten that one, have you ?

—- Michael Freedberg / Here and Sphere

Image

by hereandsphere

“SECRET LETTERS To Home One Stop-Loss Soldiers story Letter#3

STOP-LOSS3

“SECRET LETTERS” to home one stop-loss soldiers story LETTER # 3

According to Wikipedia, the Stop-loss definition is:

“Stop-loss is a term primarily used in the United States military. In the U.S. military, it is the involuntary extension of a service member’s active duty service under the enlistment contract in order to retain them beyond their initial end of term of service (ETS) date and up to their contractually agreed end of obligated service (EOS). It also applies to the cessation of a permanent change of station (PCS) move for a member still in military service. Stop-loss was used immediately before and during the first Persian Gulf War. Since then, it has been used during deployments to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and after the September 11 attacks and the subsequent War on Terror.”

The policy has been legally challenged several times. However, Federal courts have consistently found that military service members contractually agree that their term of service may be involuntarily extended until the end of their obligated service.

However, in real life it is much more than that. The term and its definition are minimal at best. Truth be told, even a cynic can not sit back and agree that such an act by OUR government is that of a free country — let alone a “free-man / soldier, who has served his country — and his term.

Through the years stop-loss has become much more “in our faces”, as undeclared “wars” have called many a soldier back to a place to which they barely survived — once, never-mind a forceful twice-go-round. In a 2004 Campaign speech by the then presidential candidate John Kerry — stop-loss was described accurately as a “back-door draft”. At that time, both politicians and war activists insisted and proclaimed its use an abuse of the law. Since Congress had not officially declared a war — the basis for using stop-loss was to them as well as those affected just that : “abuse”……

Much controversy, political agenda, hype, and inaccurate depictions of this “injustice” surround the topic whenever it is brought to our attention in any form. So how do we as Americans differentiate between fact and fiction — media agenda, propaganda, misguided citizens, and hoaxes — and how do we get the real stories, the guts and grit of the truth without literally being in that situation ourselves ?

In a weekly editorial, Here and Sphere will cautiously report one brave, wounded, forgotten, scared for his life, stop-loss soldier’s story. Though we can not completely vouch for it’s full accuracy — we will deliver this soldier’s encrypted letters, each with all its content — and let you, our readers, decide for yourselves. Our job is to report the news, and bring you the stories that matter to you. In “TOP SECRET” Letter to Home — One stop-loss soldier’s story — we will do just that.

Letter #3

Today was a good day all things considered. Normally that would bring about a smile or sigh of relief — but a good day here is a nightmare at best, back on American soil.

Today my team lead by a “new guy”. The sapling of a superior was freshly dropped here in the middle of yet another cold sand-swept night. Meeting him first thing this morning — all gung-ho, and clueless as to what he would soon become a part of — was almost stomach turning. Much like a doe eyed child full of innocence about to learn something horrific and life-altering. Today our mission was “simple” — cut off water supplies and all aid to the “local threats” one town over.

When I say the word simple, I mean only that it should if carried out correctly be a mission easily achieved — without casualties, and senseless violence. Though we were lucky enough to not lose one of our own — the casualty-less mission I hoped and prayed for — did not play out as I had wished.

Before the desert sun even peaked at us,we geared up and were on our way. All orders had been given — subject to change upon arrival, if our calculations were off even the slightest — and of course they were. I took my post at the highest point of the village, finding my spot was easy — I gained access without harm to myself or anyone else. Once our team was fully in place, orders previously given — went into effect. For the sake of those that watch movies and T.V. I will use familiar lingo — as to paint a picture that may be relatable — but here it is somewhat, okay very different.

Alpha team we will call that me and my 4 watchman — steady handed and sighted on targets pre-assigned we sit and wait. Bravo team began their slow and careful descent into the village as not to awaken the chaos. Delta team came from their angles to help surround the main water source and medical tent — therein began our problem.

Previous recon missions of the medical tent had shown no guard during this particular time — on 4 separate missions, not once had one been spotted. With the main valves off — and “our equipment” that once supplied this village back in our possession — they would have no way once sealed to re-establish a water supply. Bravo team had done their job and were regrouping back at the predetermined zone before hitting target 2. Delta stayed positioned waiting patiently to assist in retrieving, or destroying the medic tent — once Bravo gave the order.

As I looked at the tent I realized that this time WE WERE WRONG… A heavily armed guard paced by the hindquarters of the medic tent — searching for any sign of attack, or threat. Intently I watched as he paced in an almost eerie nazi reminiscent fashion — 4-5 steps one way — full turn — 4-5 steps back in the previous direction. Then it happened — SPOTTED –the last of our Bravo members to get close enough was seen. The foot soldier raised his weapon and aimed as steady as he could, getting ready to summons help…………..THEN ( shot fired ) one single perfectly aimed silent bullet — a few more minutes, enough time to be ghosts, and a fire that took down a whole tent and all its supplies erupted in seconds. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!! (Disgusting)

Back on base Alpha team leader newbie sat crying like a baby — AND JUSTLY SO. I felt connected to him, I knew his disbelief and pain, anger and more. But just like he came to us — HE WAS GONE…

Why him? I am broken too, why can’t I disappear into the night and sand and cold? Why can’t I come home? — Perhaps I’ll never know, PLEASE PRAY THAT I WILL.

Signed: One stop-loss missing home soldier.

As told by:Heather Cornell

by hereandsphere

TO SYRIA OR NOT TO SYRIA ? OUR VIEW

TO SYRIA OR NOT TO SYRIA ? OUR VIEW

Image

The President is mulling things. He says he has made no decision yet on Syria. We fully understand his predicament.

It arises because the government of Bashir Assad in Syria has crossed the “red line.” They used chemical weapons to kill almost 400 Syrian civilians — women and children too. The results have been posted online, gone viral.

So what do we do about it ? Do we do anything about it ?

Ask around, and you get just about every opinion possible. Our view is that no option we may choose is a good one. We are screwed if we do nothing. We are stuck if we send troops into the battle. We look like jelly if we hit Assad with an airstrike or two. Even if we inflict a continuous air war upon him but send no troops — the option most likely — we may succeed only in adding to Syria’s misery. Can a prolonged air war by itself oust Assad and his men ? It didn’t work in World War II, in Viet Nam, or in the first iraq War. Boots on the ground were needed to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Air attack succeeded in Kosovo in the 1990s, but that was a much lower-intensity conflict and one in which distinct foes faced off. In Syria, there are at least four separate forces, maybe more, all interlocking, almost impossible to separate out. Let us look :

1.Syria’s Sunni muslim majority — is itself divided into three parts :

( a ) secular and moderately obervant, Arab Sunnis are the basic core of those who have opposed Assad from the first, two yreasrs ago when the war began.
( b ) Kurds living in the Northeast of Syria don’t really oppose Assad, but they do want to join their abutting Kurdish fellows in Turkey and Iraq in an autonomous Kurdistan
( c ) zealous Al Qaida-affiliated Sunnis joined the fight against Assad about a year ago and provide the rebels some their fiercest fighters.

2.Syria’s Christians : the oldest Christian congregation in the world, reaching back almost to Jesus’s time, total about 15 % of Syria’s population. They have been protected by Assad and his regime and do not want to oppose him, because the Arabic Sunni rebels already have it in for the Christians, whose neutrality in the civil war they see as giving Assad some legitimacy.

3.Syria’s Alawites : less than 10 % of the nation, the Alawites — an odd mixture, partly Islam and partly Syrian Christianity — are Assad’s tribe and the bulwark of his support. Unlike Syria’s other tribes, the Alawites live almost all in the coastal region — tobacco-producing mountain towns and seaside resorts. It has been guessed that Assad’s plan of last resort is to retreat into this beautiful, once highly touristed region and set up a separate state there.

6.Hezbollah-backed Shi’ites : Syria has few Shi’ites, but Lebanon has a lot, and they have aligned with the Assad regime and recently joined its fight.

For the United states, protection of Syria’s Christians of course ranks a top priority. But how to do this, without also aiding Assad ?

For our nation, removing Assad the torturer — in 27 “torture centers,” no less — and killer of at least 100,000 Syrians is a moral imperative. But how to do it without endangering Syria’s Christians ?

For America, punishing a warrior who uses chemical weapons on his own nation is something we have promised to do — this time. But why now, when during the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s we aided Saddam Hussein against the mullahs who had kidnapped our diplomats even though he was using chemo weapons ? Explanation doesn’t come easy.

Once into the Syria war, how to we resist calls to get into it even deeper ? every minute a humanitarian tragedy occurs there. Which humanitarian horrors do we punish, and which do we duck ?

These are the questions that we think matter. Among those that do notl in our view, bear on our ddcision are those involving our going into battle on the same side as Al Qaida. we can fight Al Qaida just fine elsewhere and another day. If they and we happen to concur in wanting Assad gone, why is that a problem ? It is said, though, that if we go into Syria on the rebel side, some Al Qaida militias will acquire American weapons. Maybe so; but those weapons eventually become obsolete.

None of the above gives any answer at all to the unhappy options the President is now dealing with. We hope he does not decide to go all-in. We won'[t be thrilled if he opts for a few air strikes. We will not look very tough if he decides to do nothing. As for increasing our arms ales to the revels, that aggravates the Al Qaida acquisition issue, helps fuel battles already occurring among the various rebel factions, and doesn’t do much to punish Assad.

The only option that makes any sense is a protracted air campiagn — and no boots on the ground. It probably won’t work. But it might. It’s more worth trying than any of the other options we’ve heard.

—- Michael Freedberg / Here and Sphere