Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump introduces retired Marine Corps general James Mattis as secretary of defense during a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina, on December 6, 2016. (AP Photo / Gerry Broome)

In the splurge of news, media-bashing, and Bannonism thats been Donald Trumps domestic version of a shock-and-awe campaign, its easy to forget just how much of what the new president and his administration have done so far is simply an intensification of trends long underway. Those who already pine for the age of Obamaa president who was smart, well-read, and not a global embarrassmentneed to acknowledge the ways in which, particularly in the military arena, Obamas years helped set the stage for our current predicament.

As a start, Nobel Prize or not, President Obama sustained, and in some cases accelerated, the militarization of American foreign policy that has been steadily increasing for the past three decades. In significant parts of the world, the US military has become Washingtons first and often only tooland the result has been disastrous wars, failing states, and spreading terror movements (as well as staggering arms sales) across the Greater Middle East and significant parts of Africa. Indicators of how militarily dependent Obamas foreign policy became include the launching of a record number of drone strikes (10 times as many as in the Bush years), undeclared wars in at least six countries, the annual deployment of Special Operations forces to well over half of the countries on the planet, record arms sales to the Middle East, and a plethora of new Pentagon arms and training programs.

Nonetheless, from the New START treaty (which Trump has called another bad deal, as he does any deal the Obama administration concluded) to the Iran nuclear deal to the opening with Cuba, Obama had genuine successes of a sort that our present narcissist in chief, with his emphasis on looking tough or tweeting at the drop of a hat, is unlikely to achieve. In addition, Obama did try to build on the nuclear-arms-control agreements and institutions created over the previous five decades, while Trump seems intent on dismantling them.

Still, no one can doubt that our last president did not behave like a Nobel Peace Prize winner, not even in the nuclear arena where he oversaw the launching of a trillion-dollar modernization of the US nuclear arsenal (including the development of new weapons and new delivery systems). And one thing is already clear enough: President Trump will prove no non-interventionist. He is going to build on Obamas militarization of foreign policy and most likely dramatically accelerate it.

Its no secret that our new president loves generals. Hes certainly assembled the most military-heavy foreign-policy team in memory, if not in American history, including Gen. James Mattis (ret.) at the Pentagon; Gen. John Kelly (ret.) at Homeland Security; Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster as national-security adviser (a replacement for Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who left that post after 24 days); and as chief of staff of the National Security Council, Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg (ret.).

In addition, CIA Director Mike Pompeo is a West Point graduate and former Cold Warera Army tank officer. Even White House adviser Steve Bannon has done military service of a sort. The military background of Trumps ideologue-in-chief was emphasized by White House spokesman Sean Spicer in his defense of seating him on the National Security Council (NSC). Bannons near-brush with fame as a naval officer came when he piloted a destroyer in the Gulf of Oman trailing the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz that carried the helicopters used in the Carter administrations botched 1980 attempt to rescue US hostages held by Irans revolutionary government. As it happened, Bannons ship was ordered back to Pearl Harbor before the raid was launched, so he learned of its failure from thousands of miles away.

When it comes to national-security posts of any sort, its clear that choosing a general is now Trumps default mode. Three of the four candidates he considered for Flynns spot were current or retired generals. And thats not even counting retired vice-admiral Robert Harward, who declined an offer to take Flynns post, in part evidently because he wasnt prepared to battle Bannon over the staffing and running of the NSC. The only civilian considered for that role was one of the more bellicose guys in town, that ideologue, Iranophobe, former UN ambassador, and neocon extraordinaire John Bolton. The bad news: Trump was evidently impressed by Bolton, who may still get a slot alongside Bannon and his motley crew of extremists in the White House.

Another early indicator of the military drift of future administration actions is the marginalization of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and the State Department, which appears to be completely out of the policy-making loop at the moment. It is understaffed, underutilized, slated to have its funding slashed by as much as 30 percent to 40 percent, and rarely even asked to provide Trump with basic knowledge about the countries and leaders hes dealing with. (As a result, White House statements have, on several occasions, misspelled the names of foreign heads of state, and the president mistakenly addressed the Japanese Prime Minister as Shinzo, his first name, not Abe.) The State Department isnt even giving regular press briefings, a practice routinely followed in prior administrations. Tillersons main job so far has been traveling the planet to reassure foreign leaders that the new president isnt as crazy as he seems to be.

Although Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were far more involved in the crafting of foreign policy than Tillerson is likely to be, the State Department has long been the junior partner to its ever-better-resourced counterpart. The Pentagons budget is currently 12 times larger than the State Departments (and thats before the impending Trump military build-up even begins). As thenSecretary of Defense Robert Gates once noted, there are more personnel in a single aircraft-carrier task force than there are trained diplomats in the US Foreign Service.

Given the way President Trump has outfitted his administration with generals, the already militarized nature of foreign policy is only likely to become more so. As former White House budget official and defense expert Gordon Adams has pointed out, his military-dominated foreign-policy team should be cause for serious concern. Policy-by-general is sure to create a skewed view of policy-making, since everything is likely to be viewed initially through a military lens by men trained in war, not diplomacy or peace.

For the military-industrial complex, however, many of Trumps national-security picks are the best of news. Theyre twofers, having worked in both the military and the arms industry. Defense Secretary Mattis, for instance, joined the administration from the board of General Dynamics, which gets about $10 billion in Pentagon contracts annually and makes tanks and ballistic-missile submarines, among many other weapons systems. Trumps pick for secretary of the Air Force, former New Mexico Representative Heather Wilson, is an Air Force veteran who went to work as a lobbyist for Lockheed Martins nuclear weapons unit when she left Congress. Deputy National Security adviser Keith Kellogg has worked for a series of defense contractors, including Cubic and CACI. (You may remember CACI as one of the private companies that supplied interrogators implicated in the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal during the US occupation of Iraq.) This practice is rife with the potential for conflicts of interest, as such officials are in a position to make decisions that could benefit their former employers to the tune of billions of dollars.

While rule by generals and weapons company officials may be problematic, an even more disturbing development is the tendency of President Trump to rely on a small circle of White House advisers led by white-nationalist Steve Bannon in crafting basic decisions, often with minimal input from relevant cabinet officers and in-house experts. A case in point is Trumps disastrous rollout of his Muslim ban. Homeland Security head John Kelly asserts that he was consulted, but Bannon disregarded his advice to exclude green card holders from the initial ban. Kelly later issued a waiver for them.

Mattis was evidently only informed about the contents of the executive order at the last minute. Among the issues he later raised: The ban was so expansively drawn that it could exclude Iraqi translators who had worked alongside American troops in Iraq from entering the United States. Now that the courts have blocked the original plan, the Trump team is working on a new Muslim ban likely to be almost as bad as the original. And the fingerprints of Bannon and his anti-immigrant sidekick Stephen Miller will be all over it.

Numerous commentators have welcomed the appointments of Mattis and McMaster, hoping that they will be the experienced adults in the room who will help keep Bannon and company in check. Former Obama Pentagon official Derek Chollet, a member of Foreign Policy magazines shadow cabinet, put it this way: Other than the dark figures in the White House cabal, Trumps national security team is led by nonideological, level-headed policy technocrats from the military or industry. President (and also General) Dwight D. Eisenhower, who introduced the term military-industrial complex in his farewell address to the nation, is probably rolling over in his grave at the thought that a government packed with ex-military men and former arms industry officials is in many quarters considered the best anyone could hope for under the Trump regime.

Lets think for a moment about what such a best case scenario might look like. Imagine that, in the battle for Trumps brain, Mattis, McMaster, and Kelly wrest control of it from Bannon and his minions when it comes to foreign-policy decision-making. The assumption here is that the generals have a far saner perspective than an extreme ideologue (and Islamophobe), among other things because theyve seen war up close and personal and so presumably better understand whats at stake. But we shouldnt forget that Mattis and McMaster were at the center of one of the most disastrous and unsuccessful wars in American history, the invasion, occupation, and insurgency in Iraqand it appears that they may not have learned what would seem to be the logical lessons from that failure.

In fact, as late as 2011, overseeing Washingtons wars in the Greater Middle East as the head of Central Command (CENTCOM), Mattis actually proposed a radical escalation, an expansion of the conflict via a direct strike inside Iran. The Obama administration would, in fact, remove him as CENTCOM commander five months early in part because the president disapproved of his proposal to launch missile strikes to take out either an Iranian power plant or an oil refinery in retaliation for the killings of US soldiers by Iranian-backed militias. In August 2010, shortly after taking control of Central Command, Mattis was asked by President Obama what he thought were the top three threats in his area of responsibility, which stretched from Egypt to the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan and included the active war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. His classic (and chilling) response, according to a senior U.S. official who witnessed it: Number one: Iran. Number two: Iran. Number three: Iran. He will now have a major hand in shaping Washingtons Iran policy.

The stakes are higher now than ever. Get The Nation in your inbox.

As for McMaster, a warrior-strategist widely respected in military circles, his biggest potential flaw is that he may be overconfident about the value of military force in addressing Middle Eastern conflicts. Although his 1997 book Dereliction of Duty opens with a searing indictment of the costs and consequences of the failed US intervention in Vietnam, he may draw a different set of lessons from his experiences in the Middle East and Iraq in particular. McMaster cut his teeth in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, a quick and devastating defeat of Saddam Husseins overmatched military, a force notably short on morale and fighting spirit. Along with General David Petraeus, McMaster was also a key player in crafting the much-overrated 2007 surge in Iraq, a short-term tactical victory that did nothing to address the underlying political and sectarian tensions still driving the conflict there. Military analyst Andrew Bacevich has aptly described it as the surge to nowhere.

Boosters of the surge in Iraq frequently refer to it as if it were partial redemption for the disastrous decision to invade in the first place. At a staggering cost in money and Iraqi and American lives, that invasion and occupation opened the way for a sectarian conflict that would lead to the rise of ISIS. It cannot be redeemed. And the suggestion that things would have turned out better if only President Obama had kept significant numbers of US troops there longeroverriding both the will of the Iraqi parliament and a status of forces agreement negotiated with Iraqs leaders by the Bush administrationis a pipe dream.

Logically, the American experience in Iraq should make both Mattis and McMaster wary of once again using military force in the region. Both of them, however, seem to be go big or go home thinkers who are likely to push for surge-like actions in the war against ISIS and possibly in the Afghan war as well.

The true test of whether there will be any adults in the room may come if Trump and Bannon push for military action against Iran, an option to which Mattis has been openas a long history of statements and proposals urging exactly that course of action indicates. Such a war would, of course, be better sold to Congress, the public, and the media by the generals.

Ultimately, another Middle Eastern war planned and initiated by generals is unlikely to be any more successful than one launched by the ideologues. As Ali Vaez, an Iran expert at the International Crisis Group, noted after thenNational Security Adviser Flynn declared that the administration was putting Iran on notice: In an attempt to look strong, the administration could stumble into a war that would make the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts look like a walk in the park.

Trumps generals should know better, but theres no reason to believe that they will, especially given Mattiss history of hawkish proposals and statements about the Iranian threat. Even if he and McMaster do prove to be the adults in the room, as we all know, adults, too, can make disastrous miscalculations. So we may want to hold off on the sighs of relief that greeted both of their appointments. Washington could go to war in Iran (and surge in both Iraq and Afghanistan), regardless of whos in charge.

Continue reading here:
Trump's Obsession With Generals Could Send Us Straight Into War With Iran - The Nation.

Irans destructive role across the Middle East has become common knowledge and crystal clear for all. During the past two decades, especially, the presence of this regimes proxy militias and affiliated Shiite groups has been considered an overt secret. Yet the question is how has Iran been able to dispatch so many fighters, and on a constant basis, to various flashpoint scenes in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

Iran has trained, equipped, financed and dispatched thousands of fighters to various battlegrounds across the region. However, with its own economy literally in peril, how has Tehran afforded such an expensive campaign?

The mullahs regime is also known to plunder billions from the Iranian peoples pockets, leaving millions across the country living in poverty. Whereas it is worth noting Iran is one of the richest countries in the world in natural resources, registered as enjoying the second largest gas reserves and fourth largest crude oil reserves.

Not long ago Iranian and western media showed how many Tehran locals were resorting to sleeping in graves in the winter cold. The number of homeless people in Iran is skyrocketing at an alarming rate. Unfortunately, many Iranians have been forced to sell body parts, such as kidneys, to help make ends meet, making this a huge market in Iran.

Rallies and demonstrations are also on the rise in Iran as more and more people are protesting very poor living conditions rendered through the disastrous policies implemented by the mullahs regime. Just recently residents of Ahwaz in the oil-rich province of Khuzestan in southwest Iran staged a week-long rally demanding Tehran bring an end to its disastrous desertification campaign that has devastated the local economy. Thousands of people also took to the streets in Tehran in late February demanding secure employment and delayed paychecks.

As the Iranian people suffer, the money needed to provide for their needs is used by the mullahs regime to pursue their own domestic and foreign agendas. As a voice focusing on unveiling such efforts, the Iranian opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) relies on a vast social base inside the country to gather such intelligence to unveil some of the regimes most sensitive projects.

Senior U.S. officials have in the past acknowledged how the Iranian opposition, People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), has warned the globe over the most important aspects of Irans nuclear program, such as the Natanz uranium enrichment plant and the Arak heavy water plant back in 2002 that sent shockwaves across the globe.

The Iranian opposition has through the years delivered significant blows to the mullahs through over 100 different revelations shedding light on most specifically Tehrans nuclear weapons program. Without such an important campaign the mullahs will most definitely have obtained nuclear weapons by now, placing them in a dangerously powerful position in a tumultuous Middle East.

The MEK has also provided valuable information on Irans terrorism and Islamic extremism, such as unveiling the names of 32,000 hired agents in Iraq back in 2007; training and financing Iranian and non-Iranian forces in Syria in the summer of 2016 along with details and maps; and the Revolutionary Guards role in massacring Aleppo residents in December 2016.

To train its foreign fighters Iran has launched a network of bases across the country, 14 of which were identified and made public by the NCRI in a February press conference held in Washington. Other such militias are being trained in Syria and Iraq near the very warfronts they are then sent off to.

Iran trains Iraqi Shiite militias in bases across Iraq, dispatching such individuals to pursue Irans objectives in Iraq. Iran also used this asset to target Iranian opposition members formerly in Iraq in 8 different attacks that targeted their camps, Ashraf and Liberty, leaving over 175 MEK members killed and more than 1,000 injured. These attacks were mainly carried out by Iraqi militias under IRGC orders.

To end Irans ability to use proxy militias to wreak havoc across the Middle East the new U.S. administration should target the main entity behind this campaign, being none other than the mullahs cherished IRGC. The designation of this lethal entity as a foreign terrorist organization is long overdue, and such a measure will most definitely send a signal to Iran that both America, and the international community, mean business.

Tehran has to understand that such undertakings will no longer be tolerated, and continuing with such actions and further missile tests will bear a heavy price tag. This approach will place America as a shoulder to shoulder with the Iranian peoples plight to establish freedom and democracy.

Shahriar Kia is a political analyst and member of Iranian opposition (PMOI/MEK). He graduated from North Texas University. He tweets at @shahriarkia.

The views expressed by this author are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Excerpt from:
Iran: The story of proxy militias - The Hill (blog)

(Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

IRBIL, Iraq Iraqi officials on Monday praised the Trump administrations decision to exclude Iraq from a list of Muslim-majority countries whose citizens will be temporarily banned from entering the United States, calling it an acknowledgment of their nations unique role in the struggle against global extremism.

A previous ban had prompted widespread anger and disbelief in Iraq, a country destabilized by cycles of conflict since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 and a front-line battlefield in the fight against the Islamic State militant group.

A revised executive order signed by President Trump on Monday imposes a 90-day ban on the issuance of new visas to citizens of Iran, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria and Libya, citing national security concerns, but it called Iraq a special case.

Despite the continued presence of the Islamic State in the country, the order said, other factors justified Iraqs exclusion from the list, including close cooperation between Baghdad and Washington as well as the significant presence of United States forces in Iraq.

[Revised executive order bans people from 6 Muslim-majority nations from getting visas]

A spokesman for Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said Trump and the Iraqi leader had discussed the ban in a telephone call several weeks ago and that the U.S. president had promised to review Iraqs status. The decision on Monday showed an appreciation for the partnership with Iraq in fighting terrorism and would speed up the fight against the Islamic State, the spokesman said.

The relief in Iraq was in sharp contrast to the criticism of the revised order from human rights groups, which derided it as effectively a ban on Muslims, as well as refugees and their advocates. The order suspends the U.S. refugee program for 120 days.

The order heartlessly targets the most vetted and most vulnerable population to enter the United States, David Miliband, president and chief executive of the International Rescue Committee, which resettles refugees in the United States, said in a statement.

This ban doesnt target those who are the greatest security risk, but those least able to advocate for themselves. Instead of making us safer, it serves as a gift for extremists who seek to undermine America, he said.

The Trump administration says the ban is critical to public safety, and officials asserted Monday that the revised order would eliminate the chaos at airports worldwide that accompanied the initial executive order, issued in January.

Mohamed Gabr, a Syrian refugee who lives with his family in Cairo and said he was supposed to be resettled in New Jersey before the initial ban, was still waiting to hear from his resettlement agency about when and if his family would be able to travel.

[Trumps new travel ban still wouldnt have kept out anyone behind deadly U.S. terror attacks]

(Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

My condition is intolerable. For a year and eight months, we have been stuck here. For two months, I have been told to wait, he said.

Despite the uncertainty about their future, Gabr and his wife, Lamis el-Hamawi, said they were happy that the executive order had been narrowed, if only slightly. We wish the Iraqis all the best, Hamawi said. They are just like us, they faced the same horrors. We dont see any difference between us and them. We dont hate or discriminate.

They do, she said, referring to U.S. officials. But we dont.

The revised executive order comes as the United States isstepping up its involvement in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq, including by sending hundreds of military advisers to front-line positions with Iraqi security forces wrestling for control of the northern city of Mosul.

The original White House ban was seen as especially egregious by Iraqi troops and commanders representing units that have suffered heavy losses in the grinding fight for Mosul.

It showed no appreciation at all for the sacrifices of Iraqis in fighting terrorism, said Lt. Gen. Sami al-Aridhi, commander of the second division of Iraqs U.S.-trained counterterrorism forces.

It had a negative impact on the psyche and morale of fighters, especially for the special forces, because we deal directly and closely with the Americans, he said.

On Monday, some of the resentment abated, Aridhi said, adding that he hoped to visit the United States someday, when the fight against the Islamic State has ended, and enter the country with respect: as an Iraqi who fought against terrorism consistently since 2003.

Heba Mahfouz in Cairo and Louisa Loveluck in Beirut contributed to this report.

Read more:

What Trump changed in the new travel ban

Away from Iraqs front lines, the Islamic State is creeping back in

Tragedy inside Mosul as food runs out and the battle against ISIS drags on

Todays coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

More here:
Iraq, excluded from travel ban, praises new White House executive order - Washington Post

Tens of Thousands Join Exodus From Mosul as Iraq Renews Offensive Wall Street Journal (subscription) MOSUL, IraqThe fight against Islamic State in west Mosul has unleashed a torrent of people, with the International Organization for Migration estimating Monday that more than 50,000 people have fled their homes in the two weeks since Iraqi forces ...

Go here to read the rest:
Tens of Thousands Join Exodus From Mosul as Iraq Renews Offensive - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

by Sinclair Broadcast Group

WASHINGTON (Sinclair Broadcast Group) - Iraq is no longer on a list of countries "compromised by terrorism" that need "a more rigorous vetting process."

RELATED | Iraq welcomes removal from revised US travel ban

The White House released new guidance Monday related to President Trump's refreshed executive order suspending visa applications from Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.

Trump privately signed the new order Monday while Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Attorney General Jeff Sessions formally unveiled the new edict. They did not take questions from reporters.

The administration, releasing a Q&A document explaining the process, stated Iraq is being treated "differently" because negotiations have resulted in an increased "cooperation with the U.S. Government on the vetting of its citizens applying for a visa to travel to the United States.

Foreign nationals from the six designated countries, however, are not eligible to enter the U.S. if they didn't have a valid visa as of 5 p.m. ET on January 27, 2017.

People who do hold a valid visa will not be affected.

According to a media briefing call, the White House stated they made a decision to go forward with the new executive order to address court concerns; they assert there was nothing wrong with the first order - signed in January.

The new order does not apply to refugees already scheduled to travel to the U.S. by the State Department.

However, the Refugee Admissions Program will be suspended for the next 120 days "while DHS and interagency partners review screening procedures to ensure refugees admitted in the future do not pose a security risk."

When the program resumes, no more than 50,000 people will be admitted to the U.S. within the refugee program for the fiscal year.

In the meantime, The White House stated they will adhere to being transparent by releasing information from the Department of Homeland Security every 180 days.

That information will include the number of foreign nationals who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the U.S., removed from the states based on terrorism-related activity, and info regarding the "number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including so-called 'honor killings,' in the United States by foreign nationals."

Explaining the reason behind the ban, the administration used an example from 2014 to argue their point.

In Portland, Oregon, a refugee from Somalia was arrested for "attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction in connection with a plot to set off a bomb at a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony."

He was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

The low-key rollout was in contrast to the first version of the order, which Trump signed a week after his inauguration in a high-profile ceremony at the Pentagon's Hall of Heroes as Secretary of Defense James Mattis stood by.

In addition, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer was not scheduled to hold an on-camera briefing Monday, leading to the appearance that the president was distancing himself from the order, which was a signature issue during his campaign and the first days of his presidency. The order also risks being overshadowed by unsubstantiated accusations Trump made over the weekend that former President Barack Obama had ordered the wiretapping of his phone during the campaign.

Trump officials say that even with the changes, the goal of the new order hasn't changed: keeping would-be terrorists out of the United States while the government reviews the vetting system for refugees and visa applicants from certain parts of the world.

Tillerson described the new order Monday morning as "a vital measure for strengthening our national security."

The original travel ban caused chaos at airports around the country as Homeland Security officials scrambled to interpret how it was to be implemented and travelers were detained before being sent back overseas or blocked from getting on airplanes abroad. The order quickly became the subject of several legal challenges and was put on hold last month by a federal judge in Washington state. The original order was rescinded Monday.

Kelly said Congress and others have been briefed about the order, which won't take effect until March 16, and there should be no surprises. He called the effort "prospective" and reiterated that it applies only to refugees who aren't already on their way to the United States and people seeking new visas.

----

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

See the rest here:
Iraq removed from visa restriction list; travel order will apply to new applicants - WJLA