As the World Continues to Turn

October 1st, 2008
By DORIAN DE WIND

Print Print

As we wait for the bailout bill, sorry the rescue package, to be passed by our “country first” Congress, and as we wait for the low expectations debate tomorrow evening, one may wonder what is happening around the rest of our “interconnected” world.

Well, here is my quick perusal of headlines this morning:

First to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Los Angeles Times discusses how the insurgence in Afghanistan is escalating and how warlords now direct attacks against U.S. forces from havens in Pakistan, and how

Despite a flurry of U.S. airstrikes against their organizations and million-dollar bounties on their heads, the Pashtun chieftains have been able to operate, and even expand their networks, largely unmolested from bases spread along the border with Pakistan.

The New York Times reports that even General Petraeus admits to the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan in “Insurgents in Afghanistan Are Gaining, Petraeus Says”, “Certainly in Afghanistan, wresting control of certain areas from the Taliban will be very difficult.”

While the Washington Post reports the good news that “Violence Declines Further in Iraq,“ it does also have some caveats:

Security gains remain “reversible and uneven,” with the main threats coming from Iranian-backed militias and the Shiite-led Iraqi government’s slow integration of volunteer Sunni fighters, according to a Pentagon report released yesterday. Potential is growing, moreover, for politically driven violence as ethnic, tribal and religious groups vie for influence in advance of provincial elections planned in coming months, according to the congressionally mandated quarterly Pentagon report on security in Iraq.

And the Philadelphia Enquirer reports:

The number of Iraqi security forces killed in September rose by nearly a third, to 159, compared with the same period last year, Associated Press figures showed yesterday. U.S. troop deaths for the same period fell by nearly 40 percent, to 25. The figures are a sign that the U.S. military is increasingly relying on the Iraqis, including U.S.-allied Sunni fighters, to take the lead in operations so they can assume responsibility for their own security and let the Americans eventually withdraw.

While the “political” talk is all about troop reductions in Iraq, the Seattle Times reports

Six Army brigades, a National Guard unit and three military headquarters have been ordered to Iraq next summer in a move that would allow the U.S. to keep the number of troops largely steady there through much of next year.The planned deployments involve about 26,000 troops and would maintain 14 combat brigades in Iraq from about February to early fall. But the decisions do not rule out potential changes as military leaders assess the security there and eye more troop withdrawals.Even as violence in Iraq has plunged in the past year, cautious Pentagon leaders have resisted insistent public and congressional calls for more rapid and hefty troop pullouts. Instead, top commanders insist the security situation remains fragile, and the improvements reversible.

The Washington Times reports that,

The United States needs new weapon systems, including missile defenses and other advanced military capabilities, to deter and counter China’s steady buildup of nuclear and conventional arms, according to a draft internal report by a State Department advisory board. U.S. defense policy has stressed missile defenses against Iran and North Korea. The report, by the Secretary of State’s International Security Advisory Board (ISAB), is the first to recommend such defenses against China, including technology in space.

Should China now be added to the Axis of Evil?

Talking about weapons systems, U.S. weapons exports rose about 45 percent to $33.7 billion in the just-ended fiscal year, the highest total since 1993, as the Defense Department increased sales in the Middle East to improve security in the region. This according to Bloomberg.com

One of the beneficiaries of such weapons systems sales is our ally, Israel.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “Pentagon Aims to Sell Israel Fighter Jets,” as much as $15 billion worth of them:

The Defense Department formally notified Congress that it wants to sell Israel as many as 75 of the latest-model fighter jet, which is being developed under a contract led by #Lockheed Martin Corp. A sale could be worth as much as $15 billion. It would mark the first order from outside the original team of countries working on the jet, the F-35 Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter.

On the continuing Somali Pirates Caper, the New York Times reports that the “Somali Pirates Tell All: They’re In It For The Money.”:

The Somali pirates who hijacked a Ukrainian freighter loaded with tanks, artillery, grenade launchers and ammunition said in an interview on Tuesday that they had no idea the ship was carrying arms when they seized it on the high seas.
“We just saw a big ship,” the pirates’ spokesman, Sugule Ali, said in a telephone interview. “So we stopped it.”
The pirates quickly learned, though, that their booty was an estimated $30 million worth of heavy weaponry, heading for Kenya or Sudan, depending on whom you ask.

Perhaps unrelated to this, but potentially very applicable and ominous, the Navy Times reports in “AfriCom goes operational”:

After spending the past year under the wing of European Command, the fledgling U.S. Africa Command became fully operational Wednesday — even as it remains headquartered in the middle of Europe.
Stuttgart, Germany, is not the likeliest location for this hybrid military-civilian command that hopes to promote security ties between the U.S. and African nations, help build Africa’s ability to fight terrorism and piracy and focus on “war prevention rather than war fighting,” as AfriCom’s Web site proclaims.
But concerns among both U.S. and African officials about establishing a permanent American presence on the continent combined to block an effort to place even part of its headquarters in Africa.

Finally, talking about (Stuttgart) Europe, and recalling that Russia-Georgia conflict a long, long time ago, the New York Times reports that:

The European Union on Wednesday began deploying 200 civilian monitors across parts of Georgia, witnesses and officials said, despite earlier threats by the Russian military to bar them from buffer zones surrounding the separatist enclaves of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

A European Union official said that the unarmed monitors had been allowed through Russian checkpoints at several places to enter the buffer zone. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to reporters.

If TMV readers express and interest for similar, albeit somewhat “militaristic”, summaries of what is happening in the world outside US, stay tuned.




This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 1st, 2008 at 1:10 pm and is filed under Gen. Petraeus, Somalia, Georgia (Country of FSU), News Roundup, News, Africa, Foreign Affairs, Middle East, Military, War, Europe. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 2 Comments

 
close Reblog this comment
blog comments powered by Disqus



By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.