Gomer Pyle

America and Afghanistan are close to signing a strategic pact which would allow thousands of United States troops to remain in the country until at least 2024, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.


The agreement would allow not only military trainers to stay to build up the Afghan army and police, but also American special forces soldiers and air power to remain.

The prospect of such a deal has already been met with anger among Afghanistan’s neighbours including, publicly, Iran and, privately, Pakistan.

It also risks being rejected by the Taliban and derailing any attempt to coax them to the negotiating table, according to one senior member of Hamid Karzai’s peace council.

A withdrawal of American troops has already begun following an agreement to hand over security for the country to Kabul by the end of 2014.

But Afghans wary of being abandoned are keen to lock America into a longer partnership after the deadline. Many analysts also believe the American military would like to retain a presence close to Pakistan, Iran and China.





Both Afghan and American officials said that they hoped to sign the pact before the Bonn Conference on Afghanistan in December. Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai agreed last week to escalate the negotiations and their national security advisers will meet in Washington in September.

Rangin Dadfar Spanta, Mr Karzai’s top security adviser, told The Daily Telegraph that “remarkable progress” had been made. US officials have said they would be disappointed if a deal could not be reached by December and that the majority of small print had been agreed.

Dr Spanta said a longer-term presence was crucial not only to build Afghan forces, but also to fight terrorism.

“If [the Americans] provide us weapons and equipment, they need facilities to bring that equipment,” he said. “If they train our police and soldiers, then those trainers will not be 10 or 20, they will be thousands.

“We know we will be confronted with international terrorists. 2014, is not the end of international terrorist networks and we have a common commitment to fight them. For this purpose also, the US needs facilities.”

Afghan forces would still need support from US fighter aircraft and helicopters, he predicted. In the past, Washington officials have estimated a total of 25,000 troops may be needed.

Dr Spanta added: “In the Afghan proposal we are talking about 10 years from 2014, but this is under discussion.” America would not be granted its own bases, and would be a guest on Afghan bases, he said. Pakistan and Iran were also deeply opposed to the deal.

Andrey Avetisyan, Russian ambassador to Kabul, said: “Afghanistan needs many other things apart from the permanent military presence of some countries. It needs economic help and it needs peace. Military bases are not a tool for peace.

“I don’t understand why such bases are needed. If the job is done, if terrorism is defeated and peace and stability is brought back, then why would you need bases?

“If the job is not done, then several thousand troops, even special forces, will not be able to do the job that 150,000 troops couldn’t do. It is not possible.”

A complete withdrawal of foreign troops has been a precondition for any Taliban negotiations with Mr Karzai’s government and the deal would wreck the currently distant prospect of a negotiated peace, Mr Avetisyan said.

Abdul Hakim Mujahid, deputy leader of the peace council set up by Mr Karzai to seek a settlement, said he suspected the Taliban had intensified their insurgency in response to the prospect of the pact. “They want to put pressure on the world community and Afghan government,” he said.







http://www.telegraph...until-2024.html

A few articles on this unfolding crisis....

Russia: NATO close to military steps in Syria for beachhead to attack Iran



After Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned Assad he faced a "sad fate" if he failed to introduce reforms, Moscow's envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin accused the Western alliance of planning a military campaign against Syria to help overthrow the Assad regime "with the long-reaching goal of preparing a beachhead for an attack on Iran."

In an interview published by Izvestia Friday, Aug. 5, the knowledgeable and high-placed Rogozin added: "This statement means that the planning [of the military campaign] is well underway. It could be a logical conclusion of those military and propaganda operations, which have been carried out by certain Western countries against North Africa."

Thursday, as the Syrian military crackdown in Hama reached a new level of ferocity with public executions in the town square, the Russian president warned Assad: "We are watching how the situation is developing. It's changing and our approach is changing as well."

debkafile's Moscow sources note that the Rogozin added Yemen to his remarks on NATO: He said he agreed with the opinion that Syria and later Yemen could be NATO's last steps on the way to launching an attack on Iran.


"The noose around Iran is tightening," he said. "Military planning against Iran is underway. And we are certainly concerned about an escalation of a large-scale war in this huge region."

The Russian envoy made a point of citing NATO – never once mentioning the United States in his remarks. However, they were definitely meant to clarify to Washington that Moscow is fully updated on the next American military steps in the Middle East and Persian Gulf.

debkafile's military sources add: The Libyan campaign taught NATO that without US military strength, alliance members were incapable of defeating even a small army on the scale of Muammar Qaddafi's six brigades, much less muster the ground, air and sea forces for striking Syria and Iran. The only power with the requisite military strength is the United States, which was therefore the unspoken address of Rogozin's warning.

Russian diplomats have repeatedly cautioned Tehran that it incurs the danger of American attack on its nuclear facilities. Now Syria has been included. Rogozin remarked that having "learned the Libyan lesson, Russia will continue to oppose a forcible resolution of the situation in Syria."


http://www.debka.com/article/21183/


-------------------





Syria: Dmitry Medvedev warns Bashar al-Assad to prepare for 'sad fate'



The warning from Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, came as the United States accused the Syrian regime of killing more than 2,000 people.

In his toughest comments on Syria to date, Mr Medvedev said that time was running out for Mr Assad to halt a crackdown against his people, hinting that the Kremlin, a traditional ally, may support tough action against Damascus in the United Nations if bloodshed continues.

“People are dying there (in Syria) in large numbers, and that is causing us huge concern,” said Mr Medvedev.

“Assad needs to urgently launch reforms, make peace with the opposition, restore civil order and create a modern state. If he cannot do that, a sad fate awaits him, and we will also be forced to ultimately take some decisions on Syria.”

Security forces opened fire on protesters yesterday, the first Friday of Ramadan, killing at least 14, as tens of thousands poured into the streets, defying a military siege of Hama, where tanks shelled residential districts around dawn. The six-day-old assault on Hama has killed at least 100 people, according to activists.



Protests spread from the capital, Damascus, to the southern province of Daraa and to Deir al-Zour in the east. Demonstrations were reported in Homs in the centre and in Qamishli, near the Turkish border.

“Hama, we are with you until death,” a crowd marching through Damascus’s central neighbourhood of Midan shouted, clapping their hands as they chanted, “We don’t want you Bashar” and “Bashar Leave,” according to videos posted online.

The violence followed a robust statement from Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, on Thursday. She reiterated that Mr Assad had lost all legitimacy. “To date the government is responsible for the deaths of more than 2,000 people of all ages,” she said.

But although Mr Medvedev’s position seemed to be moving closer to that of Washington, he appeared willing to give the Syrian president more time to defuse the crisis. Unlike Mrs Clinton, he also appeared willing to believe that Mr Assad was not personally responsible for many of the deaths there, claiming that the Syrian leader had not given “harsh orders to destroy the opposition” of the kind issued by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.

Yet signs that Moscow’s opposition to action against Syria in the United Nations is waning will alarm Damascus. Russia has been one of Syria’s closest allies since the Soviet era and Mr Assad is counting on Russia and China to keep blocking UN action.



http://www.telegraph...r-sad-fate.html



-------------------------------






US and Russia issue warning for Syria's Bashar al-Assad


The United States and Russia had harsh words for embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Thursday, a day after the UN Security Council condemned his deadly crackdown on anti-regime demonstrators.




Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, whose country has so far stonewalled firmer UN action, hinted at a possible change of heart, while the White House bluntly said Syria would be "better off" without Assad.

With its sharp rhetoric, Washington also stepped up the pressure, imposing sanctions on a businessman close to the Syrian president.

Meanwhile, witnesses and activists said security forces killed at least 37 people on Wednesday, 30 of them as tanks shelled the flashpoint protest hub of Hama.

A Hama resident, who managed to escape the city, said in Nicosia that "the bodies of 30 people who were killed during shelling by the army have been buried in several public parks."

The witness, who declined to be identified for security reasons, said scores of people were being treated in hospitals for injuries and that fires had broken out in several buildings.



"Tanks are deployed throughout the city, particularly in Assi Square and outside the citadel," he said about landmarks in the city centre.

The witness said the army had used "bombs that break up into fragments when they explode," possibly meaning cluster bombs, on Wednesday and that Hama echoed with the intermittent sound of machine-gun fire on Thursday.

"Conditions are very difficult in the city. Communications, electricity and water are cut and there are food shortages," he said.

As the crackdown continue, Assad decreed a new law authorising the creation of political parties alongside the ruling Baath party, which has been in power since 1963 with the constitutional status of "the leader of state and society."

Political pluralism has been at the forefront of demands by pro-reform dissidents who since March 15 have been taking to the streets across Syria almost daily to call for greater freedoms.

"Citizens of the Syrian Arab Republic have the right to establish political parties and join them in accordance with this law," state news agency SANA said.

But activists and analysts dismissed the law as a ploy and said constitutional change alone can pave the way to democracy.

"The regime is not serious about transforming the country from a dominant party into democracy and pluralism. Instead, it is trying to carry out some cosmetic work to improve its image," said prominent human rights lawyer Anwar al-Bunni.

In Brussels, Baroness Ashton, the EU foreign policy chief, said the multiparty reform offer is "in principle a step in the right direction, but only if they are genuinely put into effect."

The new law is the latest attempt by Assad's regime to appease protesters after the president, in April, issued orders lifting five decades of draconian emergency rule and abolishing the feared state security courts.

Assad's latest concession came after the UN Security Council condemned the crackdown and said those responsible should be held accountable – in its first pronouncement on Syria since the protests began.

Unable to agree on a formal resolution, the council settled on a non-binding statement condemning "the widespread violations of human rights and the use of force against civilians by the Syrian authorities."

Western powers had hoped for stronger action but were rebuffed by veto-wielding members Russia and China, who feared doing so would pave the way for another military intervention like the one in Libya.

But Mr Medvedev spoke forcefully about the situation on Thursday and called on Assad to "carry out urgent reforms" warning that otherwise "a sad fate awaits him and in the end we will have to take some decisions."

"We are watching the way the situation develops. As it changes, some of our perspectives also change," Medvedev said.

Meanwhile, White House spokesman Jay Carney said "Assad is on his way out.

"It is very safe to say that Syria will be a much better place without President Assad."


http://www.telegraph...r-al-Assad.html





'NATO planning military attack on Iran'



Russia's envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin says the NATO is planning a military strike against the Islamic Republic to overthrow the Iranian government.



Rogozin said in an interview with Russia's Izvestia daily newspaper published on Friday that the NATO was pursuing a long-reaching goal of preparing an attack on Iran, adding that the alliance intends to change governments whose views do not coincide with those of the West.

"The noose around Iran is tightening. Military planning against Iran is underway. And we are certainly concerned about an escalation of a large-scale war in this huge region," Rogozin added.

The Russian envoy further pointed out that Syria and later Yemen could be NATO's last steps on the way to launch an attack on Iran.

This comes as there are speculations that Israel is preparing for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities to divert attention from Palestinian efforts to join the United Nations.

Last month, former CIA agent Robert Baer said he is almost certain that such an attack has been scheduled for September ahead of a UN vote on recognizing a Palestinian state.



http://www.presstv.i...ail/192596.html

Lindsey Buckingham’s sixth solo album, Seeds We Sow, comes out September 6 via a partnership with Eagle Rock Entertainment. First single from the album, "In Our Time", will be released soon. The described "mad genius" produced and mixed the album as well as writing and performing the songs.

Brett Tuggle, Taku Hiranu and Neal Haywood will again be joining for the tour and album.

Tracklisting

1) Seeds We Sow
2) In Our Own Time
3) Illumination
4) That’s The Way Love Goes
5) Stars Are Crazy
6) When She Comes Down
7) Rock Away Blind
8) One Take
9) Gone Too Far
10) End Of Time
11) She Smiled Sweetly

The tour
SEPTEMBER
9-10: Reno, NV (Nugget Casino)
12: Boise, Id (Egyptian Theatre)
13: Salt Lake City, UT (The Depot)
14: Denver, CO (Gates Hall)
16: Minneapolis, MN (Pantages Theatre)
17: Milwaukee, WI (The Pabst Theater)
18: Chicago, IL (Vic Theater)
20: Pittsburgh, PA (Carnegie Music Hall)
22: Philadelphia, PA (Keswick Theatre)
23: Westhampton Beach, NY (WH Beach Performing Arts Center)
24: Ridgefield, CT (Ridgefield Playhouse)
25: Boston, MA (Wilbur Theatre)
27: New York, NY (Town Hall)
29: Morristown, NJ (Mayo Performing Arts Center)
30: Baltimore, MD (Goucher College)

OCTOBER
1: Durham, NC (Carolina Theatre of Durham)
3: Jacksonville, FL (Florida Theatre)
4: Fort Pierce, FL (Sunrise Theatre)
5: Clearwater, FL (Capitol Theatre)
7: Atlanta, GA (Symphony Hall)
10: Houston, TX (Verizon Wireless Theatre)
12: Phoenix, AZ (Celebrity Theatre)
13: Los Angeles, CA (Royce Hall)
14: Las Vegas, NV (Aliente Resort)
15: Palm Springs, CA (McCullum Theater)
17: Anaheim, CA (Grove of Anaheim)
18: Turlock, CA (Turlock Community Theatre)
19: San Francisco, CA (The Regency Center)
22: Vancouver, BC (Center in Vancouver for Performing Arts)
23: Seattle, WA (Little Creek Casino Resort)
25: Napa, CA (Uptown Theater)



------------------------------------

I'll be at the Turlock show. Never seen him live. I'm hoping he performs some Fleetwood Mac songs and not just solo material.

BRUSSELS – In a stern rebuke, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Friday that the future of the historic NATO military alliance is at risk because of European penny-pinching and distaste for front-line combat. The United States won't carry the alliance as a charity case, the outgoing Pentagon chief said.

Some NATO countries bristled, but Britain quickly and heartily agreed.

Gates' assessment that NATO could face "a dim if not dismal" future echoes long-standing concern of U.S. policymakers about European defense spending. But rarely, if ever, has it been stated so directly by such a powerful American figure, widely respected in the United States and internationally.

The remarks, at the close of Gates' final overseas trip, reflect a new reality of constrained American finances and a smaller global reach.

Earlier in the week Gates played "bad cop" to U.S. President Barack Obama's good, criticizing Germany's abstention from the air campaign in Libya two days after Obama lavished an award and fancy White House dinner on visiting Chancellor Angela Merkel.

But Gates spoke for the Obama administration, and his warning Friday was aimed squarely at Europe's priorities.

"The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress, and in the American body politic writ large, to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense," he said.

That assessment may cause Europeans to question the future of their defense relationship with the United States, on whom they have counted for a large measure of their security for six decades.

It comes on the heels of the withdrawal of one American combat brigade from Europe as part of a significant reduction of U.S. troops in Europe.

The U.S. has been the brawn behind NATO since its birth in 1949. But the disparity between strength and allies' investment has only grown wider.

In a question-and-answer session after his speech, Gates, 67, said his generation's "emotional and historical attachment" to NATO is "aging out." He noted that he is about 20 years older than Obama, his boss.

For many Americans, NATO is a vague idea tied to a bygone era, a time when the world feared a Soviet land invasion of Europe that could have escalated to nuclear war. But with the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO's reason for being came into question. It has remained intact — and even expanded from 16 members at the conclusion of the Cold War to 28 today — but European reluctance to expand defense budgets has created what amounts to a two-tier alliance: the U.S. military at one level and the rest of NATO on a lower, almost irrelevant plane.

Gates said this presents a problem that could spell the demise of the alliance.

"What I've sketched out is the real possibility for a dim if not dismal future for the trans-Atlantic alliance," Gates said. "Such a future is possible, but not inevitable. The good news is that the members of NATO — individually and collectively — have it well within their means to halt and reverse these trends, and instead produce a very different future."

Without naming names, Gates blasted "nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets."

A German foreign ministry spokeswoman defended that nation's contribution and noted Obama's recent praise.

However, defense spending is uneven within Europe.

Liam Fox, defense secretary in Britain, a strong U.S. ally, told NATO Thursday that European governments were undermining military co-operation with the U.S. by failing to spend enough on defense. He also said other European nations should be more willing to send their forces to NATO operations such as Afghanistan.

He praised Gates as a champion of the trans-Atlantic relationship.

"Unless Europe carries more of the share of its own defense, we should not assume his successors will do the same," Fox said.

Over the past two years, military spending by NATO's European members has shrunk by about $45 billion — the equivalent of the entire annual defense budget of Germany, one of the alliance's top-spending members.

As a result, the U.S. defense budget of nearly $700 billion accounts for nearly 75 percent of the total defense spending by NATO members. The combined military spending of all 26 European members is just above $220 billion.

The White House stood by Gates' comments Friday, though officials emphasized that the outgoing defense secretary was not guaranteeing a dim future for NATO, only saying that the possibility existed if allies cannot provide the resources needed. "I don't think anyone would argue with that," said Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council.

Gates has criticized the Europeans before. He bruised feelings at NATO by publicly calling for larger troop contributions in Afghanistan. He has also criticized the heavy restrictions many European governments set for their soldiers, including bans on night patrols that mean many of them rarely leave their bases.

In February 2010 at the National Defense University in Washington he said NATO was in danger of becoming a paper tiger.

"The demilitarization of Europe, where large swaths of the general public and political classes are averse to military force and the risks that go with it, has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st," he said then.

To illustrate his concerns about Europe's lack of appetite for defense, Gates pointed to Libya, where France and other NATO nations pushed hard for NATO intervention and where the U.S. insisted on a back seat role.

"While every alliance member voted for the Libya mission, less than half have participated at all, and fewer than a third have been willing to participate in the strike mission," he said. "Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate but simply because they can't."

Such inequality is unacceptable, Gates said, and so is the poor follow-through that occurred once the mission began.

"The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country, yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference," he said.

During his first two years on the job, Gates alternately coaxed and complained, often loudly pressing allies to send more forces and funding to Afghanistan and to lessen their restriction on the troops they had there.

After a while he scaled back his constant hounding, acknowledging that it wasn't paying off much. And he frequently joked that NATO colleagues weren't shy about mentioning his "megaphone diplomacy."

NATO did send more forces over the past two years, and Dutch, British and other European forces have taken heavy losses. But as the Afghan war approaches its 10th anniversary, the U.S. has more than twice as many forces in Afghanistan as all other nations combined. Several NATO nations have withdrawn forces or have announced plans to do so. The U.S. shares the NATO goal of ending combat there by 2015.

Gates offered praise and sympathy along with his chiding, noting that more than 850 troops from non-U.S. NATO members have died in Afghanistan. For many allied nations these were their first military casualties since World War II.

Gates spoke at the Defense and Security Agenda think tank in Brussels, where earlier in the week he attended a two-day meeting of NATO defense ministers.

http://news.yahoo.co...tes_nato_doomed


---------------------------

What does everyone think about this development? I am in the minority that thinks we should have pulled out of NATO decades ago and that the alliance serves no real purpose in the 21st century. While we do have some key allies in the alliance(most notably Britain), if push ever came to shove I think the alliance overall would have revealed itself to be a paper tiger.

The NATO expansion of the 90s and beyond was pure idiocy. It made it even weaker. You willing to risk WWIII over the protection of Slovenia? Yeah.....sure.

Even the strategy of encircling Russia is a relic. There's simply no point in doing it. Europe depends on Russia for some of its energy needs. Russia could turn off the spigots and send that region into chaos yet we're gonna pretend to surround them in a checkmate move? I'm surprised Russia even bothers to complain about this as its a waste of oxygen. Putin should have laughed in Bush and Obama's faces regarding the issue at one of their meetings. The only legitimate issue concerning the expansion is missile defense.

Regardless, a US pullout of NATO or just minimizing our role is a strategic move. Pretty much a 180 of US foreign policy in the post Cold War era and a departure from the Bush/Obama doctrine.

nazherald.co.nz writer Scott Kara tweeted this: Just interviewed Chris Cornell. Nice chap. Still recording “sonic aggressive” new Soundgarden album but nearly ready he reckons.