Mediaboss Marketing

Vehicles of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division line up for the departure of the final convoy of US military forces out of Iraq at Camp Adder near Nasiriyah, Iraq, Dec. 17, 2011. (photo byREUTERS/Lucas Jackson)

Author:Jack Detsch Posted July 13, 2017

The Donald Trump administration is pushing Congress for the authority to build new temporary facilities in Iraq and Syria as part of the US-led campaign against the Islamic State.

In a policy statementreleasedTuesdaynight, the White House argues that US troops are hamstrung by legal restrictions on their ability to expand US military infrastructure in both Iraq and Syria. The administration wants lawmakers to extend existing authorities that only cover the repair and renovation of facilities to also encompass temporary intermediate staging facilities, ammunition supply points, and assembly areas that have adequate force protection.

These facilities, supply points, and assembly areas will enable the pursuit of [IS] into theEuphrates River Valleyand help improve the security of Iraqs borders, the statement reads. Current authorities severely limit the coalitions maneuverability and its ability to respond quickly to changing operational conditions.

TuesdaysStatement of Administration Policy, which the White House uses to present its views on pending legislation, takes the House Armed Services Committee to task for not including the change in its annual defense authorization bill released last month, although it is not clear if lawmakers had received the request from the Pentagon in time. The Senate Armed Services Committeedraft, released this week, does, however, include the requested change. The House began floor consideration of the billWednesday.

The added flexibility would enable the Defense Department to go on the offensive to root out IS safe havens in Iraq and Syria, according to Corri Zoli, the director of research at Syracuse Universitys Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism.

It looks to me like what theyre trying to do is get a little more maneuverability to create some infrastructure for deepening the fight beyond Raqqa and Syria, Zoli told Al-Monitor. Its kind of an attempt to create a lily-pad structure in the Levant to go after [IS] and their entrepreneurial efforts to start miniature caliphates in the region.

Defense Secretary JamesMattis, Zoli added, is thinking a couple steps ahead. He wants to win the peace, stabilize the regionand militarily pressure Iran. If he can do it with logistics all the better.

But detractors say the effort could further draw the United States into Syrias complex civil war, even as Congress continues toresistlaunching a full-fledged debate over updating the 2001 use of force authorization that remains the main legal justification for US involvement in the region.

The concerning part is how this fits in with the bigger picture, said Kate Gould, the lead Middle East lobbyist at the Quaker group Friends Committee on National Legislation. The US is shooting down Syrian warplanes and Iranian-made drones and launching cruise missile attacks. It opens the spigot for them to establish those kinds of facilities and further entrench the US military presence in Syria for this unauthorized war.

TuesdaysWhite House statement comes as the US-led coalition in Iraq and Syria looks to accelerate military operations against IS.Earlier this week,Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend, the US commander leading the effort, saidthe campaign is now expected to expand into the Euphrates River Valley after Iraqi forces retook Mosul last week. Townsend acknowledged that a continued US military force presence in the region could include the use of temporary facilities set up on an ad hoc basis,such as those proposed by the administration, but would mostly draw upon existing bases.

While Pentagon officials have publicly downplayed the need for more outposts in Iraq and Syria, the move would shift away from defense authorization bills going back nearly a decade. Those bills largely sought to remove language associated with nation-building andcreate limits on foreign military interventions following the public backlash against the war in Iraq.

The 2008 defense authorization bill signed into law by President George W. Bush first sought to limit funding for permanent basing in Iraq following the signing of abilateral status of forces agreementthat called for the removal of American troops by 2011. Congress reaffirmed those limits in the 2012 and 2015 defense bills, providing some authority for stability operations, but retaining boundaries on permanent basing.

Read More: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/07/pentagon-build-bases-facilities-iraq-syria.html

View post:
Pentagon wants to build new US facilities in Iraq, Syria - Al-Monitor

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has commissioned its first major study of whether men and women who served in America's most recent wars passed on any health problems to their children or grandchildren.

Researchers with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine will hunt for any research that suggests soldiers who fought in the first Gulf War, the post-9/11 Iraq war and Afghanistan might have passed on any medical conditions to their descendants.

"We are evaluating whether there is any evidence out there. And if there isnt, then lets design recommendations that can help acquire that kind of data in the most effective and meaningful way," says Dr. Kenneth Ramos, chair of the committee overseeing the study.

The VA is required by law to explore potential connections between military service and negative health outcomes. Previous government studies have looked into whether veterans of the Gulf War and those on active duty since 9/11 suffered health problems after their service; the new study will be the first step in an effort to evaluate their children and grandchildren.

"The government takes these reports to heart and utilizes them to guide and inform decisions," Ramos says. "It influences their ability to make decisions regarding a path forward."

With veterans of the Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan concluding their service so recently, many havent had time to have grandchildren. Thats partly why the committee is launching the study now, he says.

"Because not enough data is available, how do we ensure that we can position ourselves to be acquiring the kind of findings and data that we need to be able to generate the information thats required?" says Ramos.

The committee wont limit itself to examining any particular health outcomes, says Ramos. But it will pay special attention to conditions linked with exposure to solvents, pesticides and certain metals.

"The reality is that these are things that to a lesser or greater degree everyone is exposed to," he says. "But because of the nature of the conflict itself and the activities of military personnel, then they become agents of interest. Disposal of residues, burning of trashthose are things that might actually influence extensive exposure."

The results of the two-year study are expected in 2019.

During the 1990-91 Gulf War, U.S. troops were exposed to chemical and biological weapons and particulates from burning oil wells. Veterans have continued to complain of health problems more than 25 years later. Commonly-reported symptoms include chronic fatigue, headaches, joint pain and memory problems.

Some Gulf War soldiers also used tank armor and some bullets containing depleted uranium. According to the VA, if a a large amount of depleted uranium enters a person's body through ingestion or a wound, it may affect the kidneys.

In a 2016 study, the National Academies found evidence of a causal relationship and/or association between Gulf War service and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Gulf War illness (generalized anxiety, depression, fatigue, gastrointestinal issues). They foundlimited/suggestive evidence of an association for Lou Gehrig's Disease (ALS) and fibromyalgia.

Ramos chaired the 2014 biannual committee on Agent Orange exposure during the Vietnam War. In that study, researchers found no evidence of medical disorders in exposed veterans children.

As part of the new study, researchers will collect veterans feedback at a public meeting in September.

See original here:
VA to study health effects of Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan on vets' families - 89.3 KPCC

This article first appeared on the Atlantic Council site.

As the chaos in Libya continues, recent reports indicate that the United States is considering ramping up its diplomatic and military involvement in Libya.

On July 10, CNN reported that the Trump administration could soon finalize a new policy for Libya to expand US presence in the country.

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

If realized, a new policy for Libya must prioritize the stabilization of the country in coordination with key European allies. Despite President Trumps initial hesitation to consider Libya of critical importance to US national security, it has become clearer that the United States cannot ignore the security threat that Libya poses to US allies in the southern Mediterranean.

Southern Europe faces three major security threats emanating from Libya: illegal migration, criminal activity, and terrorism.

Libya is the largest crossing point for migrants to Europe; more than seventy thousand migrants reached Italy this year; the number reached more than 180,000 in 2016. Criminal organizations engage in cross-border human trafficking networks from sub-Saharan Africa to the Mediterranean and smuggle products including drugs and weapons.

A member of the Libyan National Army, loyal to the country's east strongman Khalifa Haftar, in central Benghazi on July 6, 2017, after retaking the area from jihadist fighters. Libyan military strongman Khalifa Haftar on July 5 announced the "total liberation" of second city Benghazi, which was overrun by jihadists three years ago. Defense Secretary Mattis and his Italian counterpart recently discussed how to best intervene in Libya. AFP/Getty

Terrorists and other extremist armed groups in Libya benefit from these criminal activities. Libyas porous borders also benefit terror organizations; ISIS has launched attacks from Libya in neighboring countries such as Tunisia as well as in Europe.

These threats are products, rather than causes, of instability and the absence of rule of law in Libya.

The Libyan coast guards cooperation with powerful armed militia groups in the countrys coastal cities has led to criticisms of human rights abuses. UN investigators and activists have accused some armed groups of patrolling migrant sea crossings in order to protect their own criminal interests.

And while ISIS was pushed out of its Libyan stronghold in Sirte in late 2016 with the help of US airstrikes, the group is by no means eradicated from the country. ISIS may seek to draw on Libyas criminal networks as it regroups.

The UN-backed Presidency Council and Government of National Accord (PC/GNA), meanwhile, remain unable to assert authority over the country as it battles both the opposition in Tripoli and faces opponents in the east.

Against this backdrop, Italy has repeatedly called on the international community, including the United States, to elevate solving the conflict in Libya as a priority for global stability.

So far, those calls appeared to have fallen on deaf ears; Trump in March said that he did not foresee a role for the United States in Libya beyond counterterrorism.

However, the report by CNN could indicate that the administrations view has shifted or that individuals within the administration that recognize the importance of stabilizing Libya may prevail in crafting a Libya policy.

Moreover, a recent meeting between US Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Italian Defense Minister Roberta Pinotti emphasized US and Italian cooperation on terrorism and the migrant crisis; and therefore the importance of solving the Libyan crisis.

According to the CNN report, the new policy for Libya would aim to support reconciliation between rival factions in the east and west and would send up to fifty US special operations troops to Libya on a rotating basis to engage in counterintelligence sharing, as well as possible training of Libyan forces.

The Libya policy would also seek to reopen the US embassy in Tripoli and re-establish a US presence in the city of Benghazi.

This plan could face several immediate challenges. The first of which is the ongoing proxy war in Libya that has severely weakened the PC/GNA.

The United States will need to convince Egypt and the United Arab Emirates to cease their proxy support for the House of Representatives and Khalifa Haftar in the east and push for all parties to come to the negotiating table, led by the UN, in good faith.

Meanwhile, on the issue of training, European training programs for Libyan troops have not seen much success, and US efforts to train forces in Syria in the fight against ISIS also witnessed little progress.

The reestablishment of a US diplomatic presence in Tripoli would send a powerful message of support for the PC/GNA. Italys move earlier this year to become the first Western diplomatic mission to reopen its embassy in Tripoli was a significant vote of confidence for the UN-backed government.

However, fighting continues near Tripoli between rival militia forces opposed to and aligned with the PC/GNA. And although Haftar recently proclaimed Benghazi liberated from Islamists by his Libyan National Army, security in the city remains uncertain.

In particular, the statement in the CNN report that the new policy would call for closer cooperation and intelligence sharing with Haftar, should be viewed warily. It is clear that the eastern strongman must be included in a settlement to end the Libyan conflict.

However, in any settlement, a strong central government must be empowered to establish authority and promote good governance; Haftar cannot rule the country militarily. Should Haftar continue to refuse to accept civilian oversight, US intelligence sharing with him and his Libyan National Army would damage the credibility of the PC/GNA.

The United States should pursue a new policy on Libya in coordination with key European partners including Italy that elevates the stabilization of the country as the primary goal.

In doing so, emphasis should be placed on eradicating criminal networks in Libya that exacerbate the migrant issue and empower terror groups. These are the two threats that most significantly impact European national security and therefore the security interests of the United States.

Moreover, greater stability in the country could contribute to empowering the PC/GNA to undertake critical reconstruction efforts.

Italy should continue to press the Trump administration on the importance of stabilizing Libya. Coordinated Western engagement is necessary to end insecurity in the country, address major threats to shared transatlantic interests, and support Libyan efforts to find a negotiated solution to the crisis.

Karim Mezran is a resident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East.

Elissa Miller is an assistant director at the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East.

Continue reading here:
With ISIS on the Brink of Defeat, Is Trump Planning a Surge in Libya? - Newsweek

The steady recovery of oil production in Libya and Nigeria in recent months has prompted OPEC to consider limiting the output of the two African producers that are currently exempt from cuts in the deal.

The Joint OPEC-Non-OPEC Ministerial Monitoring Committee (JMMC) is gathering in Russia on July 24, and has invited Nigeria and Libya to attend to discuss their current production and short-term plans. According to Kuwaits Oil Minister Issam Almarzooq, OPEC might ask the two nations to cap output as soon as possible.

Talk of Libya and Nigeria possibly capping crude production has had little effect on the market, and analysts doubt that a limit would be lower than the current production of the two countries. Observers think that the two producers would agree to cap output when they reach their short-term production targets, which is 1.25 million bpd for Libya and 1.8 million bpd for Nigeria.

If those two OPEC members were to limit output when they reach their desired respective levels of production, all other participants may have to review their quotas to compensate for the African duos increased output, some analysts reckon.

That is, if OPEC and friends really want to do whatever it takes to erase the global oversupply and lift the price of oil.

According to OPECs latest Monthly Oil Market Report, Libya and Nigeria contributed the most to the 393,000-bpd increase in the cartels total crude output in June compared to May. Libyas output jumped by 127,000 bpd to 852,000 bpd, while Nigerian crude production rose by 96,700 bpd to 1.733 million bpd.

The combined Libya-Nigeria production growth last month was nearly half of what OPECs biggest producer, Saudi Arabia, must cut under the deal. According to data compiled by Bloomberg, the two exempt producers increased their combined output in the past two monthsMay and Juneby 440,000 bpd, almost the entire volume that Saudi Arabia is taking off the market each month.

So production growth in Libya and Nigeria is really offsetting a large part of the OPEC cuts. Related:The Major Wildcard That Could Send Oil To $120

Libya is right on track to reach its goal to raise crude output to1 million bpdby the end of July.

Nigeria, for its part, signaled on Wednesday that it would be willing to cap when it reaches a stable production of 1.8 million bpd, according to Oil Minister Emmanuel Kachikwu.

"You have to watch it for a couple of months to be sure that what you see as peace is in fact sustained, Kachikwu noted.

Nigeria is very close to reaching 1.8 million bpd, with June production averaging 1.733 million bpd per OPEC secondary sources.

According to Nordine Ait-Laoussine, president of Geneva-based consultant Nalcosa and former energy minister of Algeria, bringing Libya and Nigeria on board without revising the quotas for other members would only be exacerbating the problem of excess supply.

Its not going to be easy just to say Maybe we should just bring Nigeria and Libya into the line and it will be fine, Ait-Laoussine told Bloomberg.

And if Libya and Nigeria do reach their desired production levels, total OPEC output could be close to 33 million bpd by the end of this year, according to Ait-Laoussine.

OPEC would be producing too much if the other quotas are left unchanged, he said.

However, revising the parameters for the cuts would be like OPEC opening a big can of worms, Thomas Pugh, commodities economist at Capital Economics Ltd, told Bloomberg. There is little political will to deepen the cuts, according to Pugh.

Analysts and investment banks have been warning for some time that without steeper cuts by OPEC, oil prices could slip to US$30. The deeper cuts narrative has been going on since the market and OPEC itself had to admit that the oversupply is not diminishing at the pace the cartel had expected. In one of the most recent comments on the topic, OPECs Secretary General Mohammed Barkindo said that no further cuts are on the agenda for the July meeting of the JMMC in Russia.

While OPEC and Russian officials are saying that nothing is off the table and nothing is on the table every other day, analysts and investment banks are increasingly citing rising supply from Libya and Nigeria as the main driver together with U.S. shale for the drastic cuts in their oil price forecasts. Earlier this week, BNP Paribas slashed its WTI forecast for 2017 by US$8 to US$49 per barrel and the Brent forecast by US$9 to US$51. The cuts in the 2018 forecasts were even more drastic - down US$16 to US$45 for WTI, and US$15 off the Brent price projection, to US$48. BNP Paribas is the latest bank to slash forecasts in a series of cuts in oil price projections that major banks have made over the past month.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

More:
Capping Libya, Nigeria Output Won't Help Erase The Glut - OilPrice.com

TRIPOLI (Reuters) - Clashes between rival Libyan factions east of Tripoli extended into a second day on Monday, keeping the coastal road shut and preventing residents from returning to their homes, a local town council spokesman said.

The fighting began on Sunday when armed groups opposed to the U.N.-backed government in Tripoli tried to approach the capital and met resistance from rival groups that have aligned themselves with the government.

It is the latest in a series of attacks by armed opponents of the Government of National Accord (GNA), which have continued despite the GNA's attempts to win the cooperation of militias operating in the city and to calm bouts of violence inside or close to the capital.

"At the moment we can hear heavy gunfire," said Al-Shareef Jaballah, a spokesman for the municipality of Garabulli, about 50 km (30 miles) from Tripoli, speaking to Reuters by telephone shortly after midday.

"The clashes have resulted in severe damage to houses and shops because of indiscriminate shelling, and forced a large number of residents ... to flee," he said.

"The coastal road is still closed. The residents who have fled their homes are trapped because of the closure of the road."

The health ministry later confirmed that at least four people including two foreign workers had been killed and 21 wounded over two days of fighting.

The GNA has struggled to impose its authority since arriving in Tripoli in March last year. It has been rejected by factions that control eastern Libya, where military commander Khalifa Haftar has been consolidating his position and installing military-appointed mayors.

As temperatures have climbed this month, parts of western Libya have once again been suffering from power and water cuts that residents have criticised the GNA for failing to resolve.

Reporting by Ahmed Elumami; Writing by Aidan Lewis; Editing by Gareth Jones and James Dalgleish

More here:
Fighting persists east of Libya capital, residents displaced: town official - Reuters