Category: America

  • Top U.S. Commander in Afghanistan Is Fired

    Top U.S. Commander in Afghanistan Is Fired

    By Ann Scott Tyson Washington Post Staff Writer
    Tuesday, May 12, 2009

    250px David D. McKiernan
    General David McKiernan

    Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced yesterday that he had requested the resignation of the top American general in Afghanistan, Gen. David D. McKiernan, making a rare decision to remove a wartime commander at a time when the Obama administration has voiced increasing alarm about the country’s downward spiral.

    Gates, saying he seeks “fresh thinking” and “fresh eyes” on Afghanistan, recommended that President Obama replace McKiernan with a veteran Special Operations commander, Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal. His selection marks the continued ascendancy of officers who have pressed for the use of counterinsurgency tactics, in Iraq and Afghanistan, that are markedly different from the Army’s traditional doctrine.

    “We have a new strategy, a new mission and a new ambassador. I believe that new military leadership is also needed,” Gates said at a hastily convened Pentagon news conference. Gates also recommended that Lt. Gen. David M. Rodriguez, a former head of U.S. forces in eastern Afghanistan who is serving as Gates’s military assistant, be nominated to serve in a new position as McChrystal’s deputy. Gates praised McChrystal and Rodriguez for their “unique skill set in counterinsurgency.”

    McKiernan, an armor officer who led U.S. ground forces during the 2003 Iraq invasion, was viewed as somewhat cautious and conventionally minded, according to senior officials inside and outside the Pentagon.

    Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander of U.S. forces in the region, has pressed aggressively to broaden the military’s mission in Afghanistan and Iraq beyond killing the enemy to protecting the population, overseeing reconstruction projects and rebuilding local governance. Petraeus played a key role in the Obama administration’s strategic review of the Afghanistan conflict and was involved in the decision to remove McKiernan, which Petraeus said in a statement he “fully supports.”

    The decision to fire McKiernan represents one of a handful of times since President Harry S. Truman’s removal of Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1951 that U.S. civilian leaders have relieved a top wartime commander, and is in keeping with Gates’s style of demanding accountability by dismissing senior military and civilian officials for a host of problems, including nuclear weapons mismanagement and inadequate care for wounded troops.

    McChrystal is the director of the Pentagon’s Joint Staff. From 2006 to August 2008, he was the forward commander of the U.S. military’s secretive Joint Special Operations Command, responsible for capturing or killing high-level leaders of the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq.

    Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently tapped McChrystal to lead an effort to manage the rotations of senior officers to shore up a base of experience on Afghanistan.

    In a statement, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that Obama agreed with the need for new leadership but that he was “impressed” by McKiernan’s calls for more troops for Afghanistan. McKiernan had successfully pressed the administration to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, forces that have only now begun to arrive in the country.

    Gates did not criticize McKiernan directly and instead praised his decades of “distinguished service.” But senior officials said McKiernan’s leadership was not bold or nimble enough to reenergize a campaign in which U.S. and other NATO troops had reached a stalemate against Taliban insurgents in some parts of Afghanistan.

    One senior government official involved in Afghanistan policy said McKiernan was overly cautious in creating U.S.-backed local militias, a tactic that Petraeus had employed when he was the top commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

    “It’s way too modest,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “We don’t have 2009 to experiment in Wardak province,” where one such militia has been set up. “I think we’ve got about two years in this mission. The trend lines better start swinging in our direction or we’re going to lose the international community and we’re going to lose Washington.”

    Other U.S. military and Afghan officials disagreed with the criticism, however, saying McKiernan’s approach was prudent.

    Incidents in which U.S. forces caused high numbers of civilian casualties in Afghanistan had emerged as a major source of discomfort for Gates and Mullen during McKiernan’s tenure, but officials said that was not the reason for his removal. “McKiernan got it, and he’s been much better about responding,” a senior military official said. Gates noted yesterday that civilian deaths in Afghanistan had declined 40 percent since January compared with the same period last year.

    Since the Obama administration took over this year, Gates had been weighing whether to replace McKiernan and had asked Mullen and Petraeus for their opinions. Mullen informed McKiernan two weeks ago that a change was needed. Gates then broke the news to McKiernan during an hour-long, one-on-one dinner at Camp Eggers in Kabul on a trip to Afghanistan last week.

    Asked by reporters whether this decision would effectively end McKiernan’s military career, Gates replied: “Probably.”

    In a statement, McKiernan said it had been his “distinct honor over the past year to serve with the brave men and women” from the 42 nations that have contributed to the international effort in Afghanistan and with the members of Afghanistan’s security forces. “I have never been prouder to be an American Soldier,” he said.

    McKiernan took command of the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan in June and was scheduled to serve in the post for two years, a U.S. military official said. Like other top U.S. commanders before him, McKiernan pressed the Pentagon firmly and publicly to provide additional forces to combat rising violence and an escalating Taliban insurgency.

    McKiernan oversaw initial troop increases under the Bush administration as well as the ongoing deployment of an additional 21,000 troops this year ordered by Obama. McKiernan has an outstanding request, which neither the Pentagon nor Obama has approved, for 10,000 more troops next year.

    Gates told Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), the top members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, yesterday morning that he was replacing McKiernan. At the news conference, Gates urged the swift Senate confirmation of McChrystal and Rodriguez.

    McChrystal has come under criticism for his role in the military’s delay in acknowledging the “friendly fire” death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman, a former NFL player, in Afghanistan in 2004, an incident likely to come up during confirmation hearings.

    Staff writers Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Greg Jaffe and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

  • BAKU AND YEREVAN DOWNBEAT ON A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

    BAKU AND YEREVAN DOWNBEAT ON A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

    Shahin Abbasov and Gayane Abrahamyan 5/11/09

    While international mediators give an upbeat assessment to the May 8 tête-à-tête between Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, within Azerbaijan and Armenia there is a scarcity of optimism.

    Novruz Mammadov, head of the Azerbaijani presidential administration’s Foreign Policy Department, put it bluntly. “The [Minsk Group] co-chairs’ optimism does not correspond with reality,” Mammadov told ATV television on May 9. “The presidents’ meeting was unsuccessful.”

    Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov had earlier asserted that the Armenians “again did not show a constructive approach.” He did not elaborate.

    Yerevan cast the two leaders’ Prague meeting in somewhat of a more positive light. The talks with President Aliyev were “useful,” the Armenian presidential press service said in an official statement, since they “allowed the parties to further define approaches over the basic principles for the NK [Nagorno-Karabakh] conflict resolution, as well as to bring positions of the parties over some issues closer together.”

    In a May 8 interview with RFE/RL’s Azeri-language service, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza, the Minsk Group’s American co-chair, asserted that Aliyev and Sargsyan now agree on the major concepts for how to resolve the Karabakh conflict. Details will be sorted out “during the upcoming two weeks,” Bryza said. “After that the whole concept [of resolution] should be quickly agreed. It is realistic by autumn of this year.”

    In a separate interview with the Ekho Moskvy radio station on May 11, Bryza had this to say (according to an unofficial translation): “In the end, the [occupied Azerbaijani] territories will be returned, and there will be, in addition, a return of Azerbaijani displaced persons to these territories.”

    “At present, I can’t predict what will be [the case] with Karabakh itself,” Bryza continued. “We know that it will have some kind of new status. How that status is defined … well, negotiations are still going on about that.”

    Armenian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tigran Balaian, responding to Bryza’s Ekho Moskvy comments, said that “during the May 8 meeting in Prague, the issue of taking Armenian troops out of the disputed [occupied] territories was not discussed at all.”

    In an interview with Russia’s Ekho Moskvy radio station, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner stated that “each side follows its own line and responds to the scenarios in a very different manner.” He added, however, that “there is no need to be disappointed.”

    One Azerbaijani analyst pinpoints a strategic reason for the mediators’ persistent optimism. “Turkey and the United States are hurrying to make progress on a Karabakh solution because they want to open the Armenian-Turkish border this year,” opined Elhan Shahinoglu, head of the Baku-based independent think-tank Atlas. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. “It is clear now that Ankara will not be able to open the border by separating this issue from the Nagorno-Karabkah talks. So progress is urgently needed.”

    The Prague talks took place against a background of unprecedented diplomatic activity. During the last month and a half, Turkey and Armenia agreed on a “road map” to reconciliation, presidents Aliyev and Sargsyan both paid visits to Moscow and US President Barack Obama visited Turkey, a key Azerbaijani ally.

    The pronouncements about progress worry one former Armenian foreign minister. “There has always been a limit to the compromise the Armenian side could afford, so the sides could not reach agreements when the Azerbaijani position did not fit within the framework acceptable to the Armenian side,” Vartan Oskanian, who served as foreign minister from 1998 to 2008, told the Armenian news site Yot Or in a May 8 interview. “What is it now that makes it possible to talk about an agreement? Is it because Azerbaijan has lowered the benchmark for its demands, or is it Armenia?”

    In Azerbaijan, ANS-TV quoted an unnamed government source as saying that Armenia had gotten tougher at the talks. Sargsyan, the source claimed, demanded that a date be set for a vote within Karabakh about the territory’s status in exchange for an Armenian withdrawal from five Azerbaijani regions bordering the territory. No mention of such a proposal has been made in Armenia.

    Within Karabakh itself worries are growing that the territory’s fate will be decided without its de facto government having a say in the matter. “No one can decide [Karabakhis’] fate sitting there, in Yerevan,” asserted the region’s former de facto defense minister, Samvel Babaian, at a May 9 news conference. “The people in Karabakh will not obey any decision when they feel danger. I am confident of it.”

    On May 9, President Sargsyan visited Karabakh, where he was born, and spoke with the region’s leader, Bako Sahakian. In remarks to reporters, Sahakian expressed confidence that Armenia is trying to have Karabakh included in the negotiations. Karabakh was represented in the talks until 1998. “[E]verybody realizes there can’t be any final decision without the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic’s participation,” Panorama.am reported Sahakian as saying.

    But if Karabakh’s future status becomes the sticking point, the chances for a breakthrough would appear even slimmer, added one Baku observer. “Azerbaijan is not ready for any compromise on this issue,” independent analyst Rasim Agayev told ANS TV on May 8.

    One Azerbaijani analyst argues that any future progress will depend on the results of revived dialogue between Russia and the United States. President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedyev are scheduled to meet in July in Moscow. “If Moscow and Washington will agree on the wide spectrum of problems in US-Russian relations, I would expect a breakthrough at the Karabakh talks as early as the autumn,” commented Rauf Mirkadirov, political columnist for Baku’s Russian-language Zerkalo (Mirror) daily.

    Still, getting a clear grasp on how the Prague meeting will affect further talks poses a challenge, noted one Armenian analyst. “One needs to be at least a fortune-teller to judge [the future] from Bryza’s words,” said independent political expert Suren Aivazian.

     

    Editor’s Note: Shahin Abbasov is a freelance correspondent based in Baku. He is also a board member of the Open Society Institute-Azerbaijan. Gayane Abrahamyan is a reporter for ArmeniaNow.com in Yerevan.

  • Azeri diaspora to counter Armenian-American influence

    Azeri diaspora to counter Armenian-American influence

    AZERBAIJAN: DIASPORA ORGANIZATION TRIES TO COUNTER ARMENIAN-AMERICAN INFLUENCE IN WASHINGTON
    Jessica Powley Hayden 5/08/09

    A new front has opened in the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict and it is centered in Washington, DC. Frustrated by the effectiveness of Armenian-American advocacy groups to shape debates in the United States, Baku is now looking to its diaspora for a little public-relations support.

    Last year, a group of Azeri-Americans founded the US-Azeri Network (USAN), which advertises itself as a grassroots advocacy organization. The new, Washington, DC-based group hopes to connect Azeri-American voters to promote a pro-Azerbaijan agenda in the United States.

    That agenda is a point-by-point refutation of policies sought by the Armenian-American advocacy groups: increased aid to Azerbaijan; decreased aid to Armenia; the elimination of humanitarian aid to the breakaway region of Nagorno-Karabakh; the immediate withdrawal of Armenian forces from Karabakh; and recognition of massacres perpetrated against Azerbaijanis by ethnic Armenians in 1918, marked in Azerbaijan as the “Day of the Azerbaijani Genocide.”

    USAN casts itself in the role of the underdog. “[Azeri-Americans] see that political activism can go a long way… [W]e can achieve a lot and ’compete’ with the big boys like the Armenian diaspora and its lobby,” commented USAN Executive Director Adil Baguirov.

    It will be an uphill challenge. If garnering aid from the United States were a competition, Armenia would clearly be winning. From 1992 to 2007, Armenia received almost $2 billion worth of assistance from the United States ($1,745,930), while Azerbaijan came away with about a billion less: $743,400,000.

    In addition to lobbying for limits on aid to Azerbaijan, Armenia has invested substantial resources into lobbying US legislators and the president to recognize as genocide the Ottoman Turks’ slaughter of an estimated 1.5 million ethnic Armenians in 1915.

    Armenian advocacy and lobby groups also have a long history of promoting Armenian policies among American lawmakers. Armenian political action committees (PACs) contributed nearly $200,000 to various races across the US in the 2008 election cycle, according to Federal Election Commission documents.

    Rough estimates put the size of the Armenian-American population at nearly 1 million.

    Azeri-Americans are less organized, young, far fewer in estimated number (some 400,000, according to USAN), and have not had as much success in getting their agenda before US policymakers.

    In meetings on Capitol Hill last summer, Azerbaijani parliamentarians were told: “Look, Armenians are my constituents and I am accountable to them,” recounted Petro Morgos who runs the parliamentary program at DAI (Development Alternatives, Inc.), an international civil-society development organization, and attended the meetings.

    USAN believes that American politicians are not getting the whole story. In addressing the American public, USAN’s Baguirov states that his organization covers what it terms “crimes against humanity and genocidal acts perpetrated by Armenians against Azerbaijani, Turkish, Kurdish, Jewish, and other civilians in the Caucasus and East Anatolia since the 19th century, culminating more recently with the Khojaly Massacre in 1992.”

    Hundreds of Azerbaijani civilians were killed – according to Baku, by Armenian forces – trying to escape from the village of Khojaly in Karabakh during the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the territory. The Armenian government blames Azerbaijani forces for their deaths.

    Azerbaijan’s emphasis on informing foreigners about alleged acts of Armenian aggression can also be seen in Baku. In April, Fazil Mustafa, a member of the Milli Majlis, proposed creating a genocide museum in Baku, emphasizing its value in educating foreign guests. A museum already exists in Yerevan that chronicles the events of 1915.

    The recent push to energize Azeri-Americans to promote Azerbaijan’s interests appears to be the result of frustration within Azerbaijan itself. In 2006, President Ilham Aliyev accused Armenian-American groups in the United States for distorting Azerbaijani history. Aliyev, at the time, suggested that Azerbaijan would cultivate its own diaspora.

    Since Aliyev’s speech, an Azerbaijani consulate has been opened in Los Angeles. Consul General Elin Suleymanov explained that Los Angeles was chosen in part because of the large Armenian Diaspora located in California. “We wanted Azerbaijan’s voice to be heard on the West Coast and for public opinion not to be shaped by the Armenian side alone,” he told EurasiaNet.

    Another diaspora-based organization, the Azerbaijan-American Council, was opened in California in 2006 with the “primary purpose of facilitating active integration of Azerbaijani-Americans into U.S. public life and strengthening Azerbaijani-American identity.”

    Suleymanov, however, cautions that focusing too heavily on “narrow ethnicity-based ideology” is counterproductive to achieving peace in the region. “Unfortunately, some in the Armenian community still focus on the past and see our region in simplified, confrontational terms,” he said.

    “I think focusing on the future, not that past – without, of course, either forgetting or ignoring the latter – is the best way forward for our part of the world,” Suleymanov said.

    USAN’s public relations campaign to bring attention to the past, though, is beginning to pay dividends. Several members of the US House of Representatives have made official remarks in the Congressional Record commemorating the Khojaly massacre. Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons released a proclamation recognizing March 31 as “Azerbaijani Remembrance Day.”

    The Nevada proclamation sparked a firestorm in the Armenian-American community, which objected to the proclamation’s definition of Azerbaijan as including Nagorno-Karabakh. “The Armenian-American community throughout the state of Nevada is shocked that Governor Gibbons was so easily misled and manipulated by foreign interest groups representing the governments of Azerbaijan and Turkey and their high-priced lobbyists,” stated Razmik Ablo, spokesman for the Armenian National Committee.

    The “high-priced lobbyist” tag is one that is commonly used against USAN. But Baguirov claims his organization has a “very modest operating budget which is fully raised from our grassroots.” He declined to give an exact figure. Combined with its sister organization, the US Turkic Network, USAN claims it has 15,000 members.

    While Baguirov is optimistic that USAN’s influence over American policy will increase with time, it concedes that, as a numbers game, diaspora Armenians will continue to exert greater influence in American politics. “Obviously, we are the David in this story, but we are very content with what we were able to achieve in such a short time-span,” Baguirov said.

     

    Editor’s Note: Jessica Powley Hayden is a freelance reporter based in Baku.

  • Al-Sadr’s visit to Turkey- end to Iran’s influence in Iraq

    Al-Sadr’s visit to Turkey- end to Iran’s influence in Iraq

    al_sadr_muqtada1Azerbaijan, Baku, May 5 /Trend News, U.Sadikhova, R.Hafizoglu/

    The visit of the leader of Shiite resistance of Iraq Muktada Al-Sadr to Turkey will strengthen Al-Sadr’s position as a political leader and weaken the influence of Iran on the Shiite party of Iraq, experts say.

    “With his position, Al-Sadr showed that he moved from the level of a religious figure to the political level, Turkish leading analyst on the Middle East, Mustafa Ozcan told Trend News in a telephone conversation from Istanbul. – Al-Sadr seeks to strengthen in the internal policy of Iraq, therefore, it is not excluded that he wants to weaken the influence of Iran.

    In the end of last week, former Head of Mahdi Army, Al-Sadr, who has resisted the U.S. presence in Iraq, discussed with the Turkish President Abdullah Gul and Prime Minister Rajap Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara the question of establishing stability in Iraq, as well as the upcoming elections in Iraq in December 2009, TRT Russian website reported.

    Al-Sadr’s visit to Turkey was the first public appearance of the leader of the Shiite resistance since 2007, supporters of whom – “sadrities” – took 28 out of 275 seats in the Iraqi Parliament.

    Al-Sadr was the top of the list of persons searched by the USA after a series of explosions, organized by his supporters in the Iraqi cities. He also opposed the agreement on security between Baghdad and Washington, envisaging the stay of the American troops in the country by the end of 2011.

    Analysts believe that Al-Sadr is interested in strengthening ties with Ankara, which maintains the same attitude towards all political and religious groups in Iraq.

    Al-Sadr supported preserving the unity of Iraq and non-division of the country into autonomies, said Joost Hiltermann, an analyst on the Iraq policy.

    “The forces inside Iraq that save a stronger central state and the national Iraqi identity are more eager to meet with neighboring states that also saver to Iraq staying as a single country,” Hiltermann, deputy director of the Middle East program at the International Crisis Group, told Trend News in a telephone conversation from Istanbul.

    He said that it is not excluded that this visit is directed against some Iraqi Shiites, who focused on the decentralization of Iraq.

    Analysts regard al-Sadr’s position as his move from the category of religious leaders to the political category, given the dissolution of the religious Shiite movement Mahdi Army, which is based in major cities Mosul and Kerbala.

    Ozcan believes that al-Sadr wants to create a political party like the Lebanese Shiite party Hezbollah.

    Al-Sadr’s interest in the upcoming elections in Iraq and the presence of 30 supporters in parliament show a desire to strengthen its position as a political leader, experts said.

    His visit to Turkey will help to join the ranks of political leaders of Iraq, to which Ankara maintains a neutral attitude, said a leading analyst for the Middle East Husni al-Makhally.

    “Visit [Al-Sadr], in Sunni country [Turkey] is very important to most of Iraq’s internal problems,” al-Makhally told Trend News over phone from Istanbul.

    He did not rule out that the visit is aimed at weakening Iran’s influence in Iraq, which is among the Shiite political and religious factions.

    Iran has close ties with Shiite communities Kerbala and Najaf, and also liaises with the Government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, the Shia by the origin and leader of Al-Dawa party.

    Sadrities seek to weaken Iran’s influence and consider communications between Baghdad and Ankara as important relations with Tehran, believes al-Makhally.

    Mustafa Ozcan also does not exclude that the United States welcome the visit of al-Sadr to Turkey, as it puts off Iran from the internal politics of Iraq.

    Al-Sadr himself is not enthusiastic about the influence of Iran, and therefore wants to put an end to Iran’s influence on domestic politics of Iraq “-said Ozcan.

    In March, President of Turkey Abdullah Gul traveled to Iraq – for the first time over 33 years of relations between the two countries. Ankara, receiving Sadr after President Gul’s visit to Baghdad, once again proved how important it for political unity and territorial integrity of Iraq

    Do you have any feedback? Contact our journalist at: [email protected]

    Source:  news-en.trend.az, May 5 2009

  • Turkey’s Davutoglu leaves for US

    Turkey’s Davutoglu leaves for US

    Turkish FM Davutoglu left for the United States on Saturday.

    Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu left for the United States on Saturday.

    He will attend a meeting on the Middle East at UN Security Council in New York.

    In his first visit to the US as a foreign minister, Davutoglu will hold official talks in New York.

    Davutoglu is expected to hold official talks in UN on Monday.

    He will be back to Turkey on Tuesday. The details of Foreign Minister Davutoglu’s visit is due today.

    AA

    Source:  www.worldbulletin.net, 09 May 2009

  • US Gulen Movement Organizational chart

    US Gulen Movement Organizational chart

    fetullah-gulen

    Here’s what Gulen had to say in a sermon in 1999 aired on Turkish television:

    You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers … until the conditions are ripe, they [the followers] must continue like this. If they do something prematurely, the world will crush our heads, and Muslims will suffer everywhere, like in the tragedies in Algeria, like in 1982 [in] Syria … like in the yearly disasters and tragedies in Egypt. The time is not yet right. You must wait for the time when you are complete and conditions are ripe, until we can shoulder the entire world and carry it … You must wait until such time as you have gotten all the state power, until you have brought to your side all the power of the constitutional institutions in Turkey … Until that time, any step taken would be too early-like breaking an egg without waiting the full forty days for it to hatch. It would be like killing the chick inside. The work to be done is [in] confronting the world. Now, I have expressed my feelings and thoughts to you all-in confidence … trusting your loyalty and secrecy. I know that when you leave here-[just] as you discard your empty juice boxes, you must discard the thoughts and the feelings that I expressed here.

    Simply put, he is brilliantly and patiently employing taqiyya on a global scale, because this strategic approach is not confined to Turkey.

    Here in the U.S. the FGC runs over 90 charter public schools in at least 20 states.

     

    source: