Islamic State new killing fields, nothing less than total domination

http://bcove.me/pqcpn5yj

THE news on Saturday felt like double hammer blows. The Islamic State’s slaughter of 129 people in Paris and the Malaysian IS militants in southern Philippines’ plan to form an “official” IS faction in South-East Asia were just plain shocking and sickening.

Back in March I wrote about my fear of the IS and decried how people who profess to want to protect Islam in Malaysia were targeting the wrong people, namely non-Muslims, and particularly the Christians.

It is with deep distress I return to this growing horror which cannot be ignored.

While I do believe our Govern­ment is completely committed to fighting IS’ influence and I am deeply relieved that our police has top-notch intelligence that – as Special Branch Counter Terrorism Division head Senior Asst Comm Datuk Ayob Khan said – ensures “that we are on top of any development concerning militant groups”, this extreme form of militant Islam continues to take root in our midst.

It was reported in October that more than 100 suspected terrorists and militants have been detained under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (Sosma) 2012. Among them were Malaysian combatants who had returned from Syria and Iraq, as well as army commandos and civil servants. Over the last few days, more have been detained.

The Star’s report on Saturday that a former Universiti Malaya lecturer, Dr Mahmud Ahmad, who trains suicide bombers, is behind the formation of an IS group that will plan attacks in Malaysia and the region is even more chilling.

More scary was Defence Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein’s revelation on Monday that the IS is targeting Malaysian leaders who are regarded as tagut. Tagut the article explains are “those who have crossed religious boundaries” which is extremely vague.

But it would appear to mean, going by online definitions, people who worship other gods as well as Muslims who “exceed their limits” like legislators who make laws in Parliament. They are deemed to be equating themselves with Allah and challenging Allah’s divine laws.

If these are all possible meanings of tagut, then all our elected representatives and government leaders, Muslim and non-Muslim, are fair game to IS.

In Graeme Wood’s article entitled “What Isis really wants” in the March issue of The Atlantic, he states that IS’ aim is to restore the Caliphate after it ended in Turkey almost a century ago. (Isis or the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham is the earlier manifestation of IS).

After some 14 months of fighting, the proponents achieved their goal on June 30, 2014, when their leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, proclaimed himself as the new caliph and successor to Prophet Muhammad in a mosque in Mosul, Iraq.

his 21st-century construct, however, is global and borderless and as such, al-Baghdadi says he is the leader of Muslims everywhere who must pledge allegiance to him. Failure to do so means being branded as an apostate, which is punishable by death.

Wood quotes Bernard Haykel, described as the leading secular expert on IS ideology, as saying these jihadists are “authentic throwbacks to early Islam and faithfully reproducing its norms of war.”

Haykel further states, “Slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings are not something that freakish (jihadists) are cherry-picking from the medieval tradition” and that IS fighters “are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and are bringing it wholesale into the present day.”

The Islamic State, according to Wood, also claims that common Syiah practices, such as worship at the graves of imams and public self-flagellation, have no basis in the Quran or the Prophet’s examples.

“That means roughly 200 million Syiah (Muslims) are marked for death. So too are the heads of state of every Muslim country, who have ele­­­­­vated man-made laws above Syariah by running for office or enforcing laws not made by God,” he writes.

He adds this is because the Islamic State is committed to purifying the world of apostates, and presumably tagut, even if it means mass killings. So back to Hishammuddin’s statement that our leaders are IS’ targets. He also declared that the threat will not stop them from fighting the terrorists. Fighting the IS should be every citizen’s responsibility, at least it should be for every citizen who still believes in a multiracial, democratic Malaysia.

At such a dangerous time, I reiterate my appeal to Muslims and non-Muslims to stand together. I cannot believe peace-loving Malaysian Sunnis would agree to IS’ desire to wipe out millions of Syiah Muslims and non-Muslims.

Unfortunately, we still have leaders wanting to play the religious card which sows confusion and suspicion between Muslims and non-Muslims. We have seen the antics of some this year and the latest one is from the Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Minister who is thinking of having mandatory halal and non-halal trolleys in supermarkets.

Thankfully, ever since the proposal came to light, many groups, including Malaysian Muslim Solidarity (Isma), have criticised it.

As Isma president Abdullah Zaik Abdul Rahman opined: It is not practical and “Islam is not about making things difficult”.

Many have also asked: With such thinking, what will follow next? Food courts to have halal and non-halal cutlery? Separate banknotes and coins?

And what about enforcement? Who gets fined if a shopper uses a halal trolley for non-halal items? Said shopper or supermarket owner?

If the minister really wants to help all shoppers, he should insist supermarkets maintain their trolleys well and give them a wash regularly. I have struggled with trolleys with bad wheels, sticky handles and grubby baskets.

Seriously, our leaders have a lot more important things to worry about, like ferreting out more IS recruiters in our schools, armed forces and government, than segregating shopping carts. This is a fight against a deadly, implacable and seductive enemy and we don’t need any distractions like these in the name of religious correctness.

It certainly won’t make us any safer or more Muslim in the eyes of the IS which is intent on annihilating the present world order to replace it with their own.

BY JUNE H.L. WONG

Aunty recalls this memorable line from Aamir Khan’s movie, PK. It is spoken by the central character, an alien stranded on Earth as he clutches the shoe of his friend who was killed in a train bomb blast: ‘Stop protecting your own god, otherwise only shoes will be left on this planet and not people.’ Feedback to aunty@thestar.com.my

Related posts:

Malaysian Islamic State militants: Dr Mahmud is forming South-East Asian terror bloc; Paris attacks !

Regional faction to unite different terror cells from Malaysia, Indonesia and Philippines KUALA LUMPUR: Wanted Malay­sian IS milittans

Can France's daring move eliminate Islamic State? Terrorism is modern society's cancer !

France vs ISIS 2015 By Li Min After the brutal terror attacks in Paris, France's Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve called for

Ini Malaysia Boleh? Fighting for Syrian jihadist! People reject regime change

Video shows man speaking Bahasa Malaysia about going 'to the battlefield' 

KUALA LUMPUR: A chilling video of a Malaysian riding in a truck with a group of militants fighting in the Syrian jihadist movement has surfaced on the Internet.

He is one of the 20 Malaysians confirmed by Bukit Aman to have taken part in the uprising in Syria.

The one-and-a-half minute video, which appeared to have been shot by the man who spoke mostly in Bahasa Malaysia with a northern accent, described his joy as they drove off “to the battlefield”.

The authenticity of the video, which had been viewed more than 5,000 times since it was uploaded to syriantube.net on June 7, was verified by Bukit Aman.

“Yes, they are among 20 Malaysi­ans who are identified as having joined the uprising in Syria. We will announce the names of all the Malaysians involved soon,” said spokesman ACP Datin Asmawati Ahmad.

Syriantube.net founder Maher Ra claimed that the video was shot in Allepo, Syria, by a Mohd Lotfi Ariffin from Kuala Ketil, Kedah.

Syriantube has been showing video footage depicting the behind the scene shots of terrorists activities and atrocities commited by militants in Syria.

Checks on Mohd Lotfi’s Facebook showed that the video did originate from his page on June 3, which had been liked and shared by many Malaysians, some of whom offered words of encouragement.

In a story first broken by Mstar Online and Star Online, the video opened with a shot of a tank from inside a truck. The tank then rolled away in a bushland with several Middle Eastern looking men, dressed in army fatigue sitting on it. The men were also heavily armed.

“Yes, the tank is moving, making its way to its destination – the battlefield. Allahu Akbar (God is great)! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!” said the cameraman in Bahasa Malaysia.

“These are our friends,” he continued, panning over to show several men – all dressed in combat gear, bulletproof vests, helmets and black bandanas, and with riffles slung around their necks.

Some of the men even smiled and showed the “V” victory sign with their fingers as the camera closed up on them.

Without the weapons and war gear, they would have appeared like a group of friends, taking pictures with their smartphones, seemingly happy about going on a drive.

The camera then rested on a bearded Middle Eastern-looking man wearing combat uniform and a blue ski cap, who shouted Allahu Akbar! as the group of about 20 men in the truck chanted along.

“Our friends, working happily!” said the cameraman in Bahasa Malaysia, who then focused his shot on a bespectacled young man wearing a black headband and holding a smartphone, who, ironically, made a peace sign.

“Yes, our friends, we are all ready to go to the fight at the battlefield. We don’t feel scared. We don’t feel nervous!” The voice was heard saying, the camera shaking as the truck engine revved up.

“We are moving! Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar,” the group chanted.

Maher claimed that the Malaysians had been in Syria for over a year.

“There aren’t 15. There are over 200 of them. Some, even as old as 60. They came with their wives and children. They stay in Aleppo and Ar-Raqqah.

“They have killed people. They have beheaded innocent civilians,” he claimed, describing himself as a pro-government Syrian who started syriantube.net to expose the atrocities committed by militant groups in the conflict-ridden country.

The Syrian government recently claimed that 15 Malaysians, purportedly involved in terrorism and jihadist activities with the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (Isil) network, had been killed.

Contributed by Nicholas Cheng The Star/Asia News Network

The people reject regime change

Syrians defeated an attempt at regime change which has a plan to ensure Western hegemony

IF one is sincere about resolving the bloody three-year-old conflict in Syria, one would regard the outcome of the presidential election held on June 3 as an opportunity for working out a viable solution.

The election was a genuine endorsement of the leadership of Bashar al-Assad.

A total 73% of eligible voters cast their ballots in the first ever multi-candidate direct presidential election in Syria.

Assad secured 88.7% of the votes. There were no allegations of electoral fraud or manipulation.

It is significant that Syrian refugees in Lebanon and Jordan – hosts to the majority of refugees from the on-going war in Syria – voted overwhelmingly for Assad.

It is of course true that those parts of the country which are still in rebel hands could not vote. This would be mainly some parts of rural Syria and one medium-sized city. But all the other cities – and they account for the majority of the population – went to the ballot box.

US officials and the Western media have dismissed the election result contemptuously because a portion of the electorate could not vote, ignoring the fact that the vast majority participated enthusiastically in the polls.

They have conveniently forgotten that in the presidential election in Ukraine on May 25, millions of Russian speaking voters in the eastern part of the country refused to participate and yet the verdict was endorsed by the centres of power in the West.

This is another example of blatant double standards. Instead of rubbishing the election result, Western leaders and commentators should try to find out why the Syrian people showed so much enthusiasm for the election and why they gave so much support to Assad.

One, for the vast majority of Syrians, the election was their repudiation of the war and the killings that have claimed tens of thousands of lives since March 2011.

It was their way of affirming their commitment to peace and stability.

Two, the Syrians know that the only leader who can bring peace and stability to their land is Bashar al-Assad since he has always commanded the support of the majority of his people.

Three, there is also a great deal of appreciation among the people for the way in which the Assad government has managed to ensure that essential goods and services are available to a broad cross-section of the people in spite of the terrible devastation and destruction caused by the war.

Four, the election result is also a show of appreciation of the role played by the armed forces which has lost at least 61,000 men in the war and which, in the eyes of the people, has succeeded in protecting the innocent and preventing some brazen massacres.

It in no way justifies, it should be emphasised, some of the excesses committed by the armed forces which a number of us have condemned from the outset.

Five, if Assad won so convincingly, it is also partly because the opposition is hopelessly divided. The different armed groups are pitted against each other. There is no common platform. They were not even able to put forward a common candidate in the election.

Six, more than the opposition’s utter disarray it is the barbaric brutality of some of the armed groups revealed in so many episodes in the war that turned a lot of Syrians against them and indirectly increased support for Assad.

What has caused even greater revulsion among the people is the claim of these groups that they are the true representatives of Islam.

Seven, since some of these groups are foreign and the foreign hands behind the war are so obvious to most Syrians, rallying around Assad in the election was the people’s response to what they perceive as a massive foreign conspiracy to break Syria’s principled resistance to US helmed hegemony that serves the interests of Israel.

Ousting Assad is central to the goal of breaking resistance.

This is why the people sought through the ballot box to foil a determined push to achieve regime change in Damascus.

This, in the ultimate analysis, is the real significance of Assad’s electoral triumph.

The Syrian people have defeated a violent, aggressive attempt at achieving regime change as part of that perpetual plan to ensure US and Western hegemony, especially in a region which is pivotal to their quest for global domination.

Apart from Israel which launched a number of air-strikes against Syria in the course of the war, some of the West’s other regional allies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey have also played a major role in pursuit of this diabolical agenda.

Given that the United States and some of its allies are democracies, will they now concede that since the Syrian people have spoken, they will respect their wishes and cease their pursuit of regime change?

It is most unlikely that they would. After all, hegemony has always taken precedence over democracy.

Hegemony trumps everything else. Does it matter to the hegemon and its allies that if they continue along this path, thousands more are going to die or become refugees in some other land?

Perhaps one should reach out to ordinary American citizens in the hope that they would persuade their government to put an end to the war and create the conditions for peace in Syria.

It may be worthwhile trying this approach.

A Pew Research Centre poll conducted in 2013 showed that “70% of Americans oppose arming the Syrian rebels”.

Can they now be convinced that arming rebels against a democratically-elected president nullifies everything that a democracy stands for?

Can we expect American citizens to share the dream of their Syrian counterparts for an end to war in their land?

Will they act to make that dream come true?

By Chandra Muzaffar

Dr Chandra Muzaffar is President of JUST, the International Movement for a Just World.


Related stories:

• Cops working with Syrian police to identify Malaysians

• Army and police officers detained in Kunak ops

• Video of possible Malaysian jihadists up on YouTube

• PAS leader among Malaysian jihadists in Syria

• Home Ministry: Bukit Aman to do thorough background checks on enforcement personnel

• Cops going after more militant group members
• Navy man among terror suspects held
• IGP: Militant group believed to have ties in Syria and southern Philippines
• IGP: Police working with Syrian counterparts to identify 15 alleged Malaysian militants 

Related posts:

Malaysians killed: died for jihad, misled by the American messes in Iraq, troubles in North African countries..

Combating home-grown hate The young must be given opportunities to have modern education so that they can be nurtured to distinguish for...

US led to Iraq Chaos, fighting to end an unfinished war

Iraq desperate for options against ISIS   George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq is now reaping its latest fruits, as uncontrollable viol...

 People's Daily warns: copying Western-style democracy leads to chaos & disasters! People's Daily warns: copying Western-style democracy leads to chaos and disaster! Ukraine political chaos could lead to economic disaster. In a commentary, the newspaper said falling into the craze for Western-style ...

US under Obama reluctant to stop making messes all over the world ; ISIS massacre in Iraq shames Washington

US President Barack Obama has been in office for more than five years, but his diplomatic practice has so far ended with misery. The ...

Malaysians killed: died for jihad, misled by the American messes in Iraq, troubles in North African countries..

Combating home-grown hate

The young must be given opportunities to have modern education so that they can be nurtured to distinguish for themselves the importance of moderate values over extremist ideas.

DURING an attack by the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (Isis) on the Iraqi SWAT headquarters in al-Anbar on May 26, a young 26-year-old Malay man, Mohd Tarmimi Maliki, blew himself up like a true suicide bomber in order to kill as many Iraqi personnel as he possibly could.

Mohd Tarmimi succeeded. He killed 25 elite Iraqi soldiers and, according to reports, he was trained by militants right here in Malaysia – in Port Dickson. It is tragic to know that young Malaysians have to give meaning to their lives in this way.

And Mohd Tarmimi was not the first. A few years ago, a bomb maker from Kluang, Noordin Mohammad Top, became notorious for massive suicide attacks during the Jemaah Islamiah’s reign of terror in Java and Bali. His comrade and fellow bomb maker, Dr Azahari Husin, was also Malaysian.

This has not gone unnoticed. Only last week the Government announ­ced the capture of four militants in Sandakan, and statements from the police seem to suggest that militancy is on the rise in our country.

Deputy Home Minister Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar was quick to announce that Malaysia would never allow itself to be used by terrorists groups, adding that the Government was serious about making our nation a moderate Muslim country.

He specifically referred to the Global Movement of Moderates, established by Putrajaya, as an affirmation that the Government was serious about fighting extremism and militancy.

There are other measures that the Govern­ment should put in place to stop more young Malaysians joining the “jihad” brigade and senselessly killing themselves.

Stopping foreign militants from infiltrating our country is a sacred duty of our armed forces, but equally sacred is the duty of all of us to ensure that young Malaysians denounce violence, and I hope our leaders regard the existence of suicide bombers from amongst our young as a serious matter that requires urgent measures.

I have some views on how we can do this.

First, we must give our young opportunities to have modern education so that they can be nurtured to distinguish for themselves the importance of moderate values over extremist ideas. Secular education makes them think, unlike religious ones which make them obey. Modern education nurtures the young minds, and allows them to examine life’s many possibilities.

They must be taught not to condone violence and the killing of others, no matter how compelling the reasons for doing so might be.

We must teach young Malaysians to respect and safeguard human life and dignity, and always defend the rights of others as they expect others to do for them.

Unless our young boys and girls have the educational training to find peaceful ways to live in this modern world and are able to tell what is good for themselves and for society versus what is harmful, extremism and fanaticism will flourish.

For such a liberal education to take root in our schools, we must put a stop to indoctrination under the guise of religious teachings, and we must not continue to imbue our young with supremacist-nationalist ideas.

If we fail to do this, we will certainly produce more young men and women who are angry with the ways of the world. They will find it attractive to engage in violence and even to kill themselves for causes they have been misled to believe are worthy of the sacrifice.

Outside the schools, Malaysians must unite to reject extremism. It is no good to retaliate against extremist positions with our own extremism, meekly telling everyone that extremism begets extremism.

Religious preachers sometimes extol violent views in the name of religious commandments, and that’s how the seed of violence is sown. For a start, we must monitor the Friday sermons – no one, not even officers of the various Religious Departments – should be allowed to preach hate.

Our leaders, political or otherwise, must be mindful of their statements and conduct so as not to encourage our young to accept violence and hate speech. It is time that leaders tempered their political posturing, and they must distance themselves from excesses and extremist acts of all kinds.

At the same time, we need to mobilise the positive elements in society to do their part. There are enough people of goodwill who can teach young Malaysians about the benefits of inclusiveness and harmony.

The sense of wanting to belong and to be a part of a larger community will always win the day if only the people work hard to instil these values instead of the vile and vicious ideas that have become commonplace in our political discourse today.

Today, the whole world is grappling with the issue of how to manage violence and extremism, and it’s not hard to see that, in the Islamic world alone, the forces represented by the Sunni and the Syiah are engaging in sectarian and tribal wars of a huge magnitude.

Just look at what has happened in Pakistan, Iraq and Syria – if Malaysia is not careful and allows itself to be dragged into the same dispute, and if we delude ourselves into thinking that Islam is “under attack” and must therefore align ourselves to certain extremist groups, then many more like Mohd Tarmimi will join the brigade.

It will be a national disaster if our young have nothing to look forward to other than a short life to be terminated by their own suicide bombs. We must ring-fence them from this violence and, instead, help them to discover hope and a sense of worth in their lives. This is the duty of every Malaysian today.

- The article is contributed by All kinds of Everything by Datuk Zaid Ibrahim from The Star/Asia News Network.
Datuk Zaid Ibrahim is highly passionate about practically everything, hence the name of this column. Having established himself in the legal fraternity, Zaid ventured into politics and has been on both sides of the political divide. The former de facto Law Minister is now a legal consultant but will not hesitate to say his piece on any current issue. He can be reached at zaid.ibrahim@partners-corp.com. The views expressed here are entirely his own.

Does this constitute jihad?

BASED on police investigations, we learn that several Malay­sians have volunteered to become jihad fighters and suicide bombers in the civil war in Syria.

The Malaysian volunteers believe they have a religious duty to fight and die for the Sunnis, who are being suppressed by the Assad regime with the help of the Syiahs from within that country and from Iran.

These Malaysian suicide volunteers believe they are fighting to save the Sunni school, which to them is true Islam, against the Syiah teachings.

It’s time for our ulamas to come out publicly to advise these gullible volunteers that there is no reason for them to die in Syria.

This is because the internal war and violence against innocent Sunni civilians there have nothing to do with religion.

On the contrary, the unending conflicts in the region have more to do with Middle East power politics. It’s all about the rivalry for supremacy in the region between the Sunni Arab countries, led by Saudi Arabia, and their neighbour, Iran.

Iran, the biggest country in the Gulf region, and the country with the longest history of civilisation, has always felt since its imperial days under the Shah that it should be the natural superpower in the region.

The Arab states, who are ruled by Sunnis, on the other hand, are nervous about the growing Iranian influence in Iraq and Syria.

The Sunni’s cry for help against discrimination and victimisation by the Syiahs is receiving wide support from the Arab states.

The Arabs fear that if the Syiahs are successful in Iraq and Syria, Iran will become more powerful and, with its nuclear ambitions, could threaten the security of Saudi Arabia itself.

The Arab concern is not so much about Saudi Arabia losing its status as the religious leader of Sunni Muslims worldwide but more about losing its strategic influence in the region, especially in the oil industry.

The role that oil plays in world finance and politics gives the Saudis a powerful voice in the international community, which the United States is well aware of and which the West has fully exploited by protecting the Saudis from Iranian threats and in return, getting the Arab regimes to cooperate to maintain peace with Israel.

Malaysian Muslims should understand that the wars in Syria and Iraq are, in actual fact, proxy wars between the Arab states and Iran in their rivalry for regional superpower status.

To checkmate each other, the Arabs and Iran are prepared to make allies with the two world powers, ie, the US on one side and Russia on the other, who actually have the power to end the war in Syria today if they really want to.

Our ulamas should understand all these realities of world politics and not let our Muslim men be easily fooled by those who claim that it is jihad to die as suicide bombers for the suffering Syrian Sunnis.

Contributed by TAN SRI MOHD SHERIFF MOHD KASSIM, Kuala Lumpur The Star Opinion/View

Related posts:

US led to Iraq Chaos, fighting to end an unfinished war

Iraq desperate for options against ISIS   George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq is now reaping its latest fruits, as uncontrollable viol...

US under Obama reluctant to stop making messes all over the world ; ISIS massacre in Iraq shames Washington

US President Barack Obama has been in office for more than five years, but his diplomatic practice has so far ended with misery. The ... 

People's Daily warns: copying Western-style democracy leads to chaos and disaster!

Ukraine political chaos could lead to economic disaster In a commentary,  the newspaper said falling into the craze for Western-style d...

US under Obama reluctant to stop making messes all over the world ; ISIS massacre in Iraq shames Washington

US President Barack Obama has been in office for more than five years, but his diplomatic practice has so far ended with misery.

The Iraq War that lasted for seven years and five months brought about radical anti-government forces that have relations with Al Qaeda and have seized northern provinces. It also brought about a more pro-Iran government.

The 13-year-long Afghan War led to a US that has to engage in negotiations with the Taliban and an Afghanistan hostile to the US.

Bashar al-Assad, whom the US has been trying to defame in every possible way, was reelected as Syrian president. The Arab Spring brought about an anti-US wave across the Middle East.

While isolating Russia due to the Ukrainian crisis, the US also finds Russia and Europe are getting closer.

While unscrupulously supporting Japan led by right-wing forces, its "pivot to Asia" strategy has become a tool to vitalize Japan's militarism. The US' "mess-making" image is hard to change.

Such an eye-watering diplomatic sheet reflects the decline of US power and the rigidness of its strategic mentality. The two time-consuming and costly wars and the financial crisis that swept the whole world have corroded the strength of the US, which corresponds to the conclusion of Paul Kennedy in his book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers that military overstretching leads to the decline of empires.

Meanwhile, the increasingly severe partisan struggles in US domestic politics serve as a negative democratic model.

The US' torture of prisoners overseas and the PRISM-gate scandal have weakened Washington's soft power. It is time for the US to reflect upon its failed global diplomacy and reform its political and economic systems.

Against the backdrop that the security of all countries are interrelated, the US still insists on alliances. In the past two decades, NATO has expanded three times and strengthened the military alliance as the US advocated the "Russia threat," which has led to the split of European security.

When Asian countries progressed into regional integration, the US advocated the "China threat" to strengthen the Asian alliance system, with the US-Japan alliance at the core, which will surely lead to the split of Asian security.

The old mentality of "alliance" has not only worsened the international environment in which the US' own domestic economic plight is to be solved, but also brought about criticism of other countries.

The US has been obstinate in pursuing its dream of hegemony. It not only excludes others in the traditional security field, but also tries to define the boundaries in new security areas, such as information warfare and cyber space.

Experts from US think tanks who remain cool-headed have reminded those in power that the driving force of the US diplomacy is a revitalized economy. The urgent task is to solve domestic problems, rather than fan up the flames of troubles around the world.

When Obama first took office in 2009, the US public expected him to take their country out of the economic downturn like former president Franklin Roosevelt did before. Five years have passed, the economy hasn't got rid of sluggishness, political extremism remains, and the gap between different social classes has widened.

The tragedy of the US diplomacy is that decision-makers habitually refuse reflection.

Last month, when Obama delivered a speech at the US Military Academy at West Point, he articulated his vision of the US' leading role in the world for the century to come.

But if the declining US that brought about numerous tragedies to the world still wants to dominate the world, the world will come to the edge of a cliff. It seems just too difficult for the US to learn to be a normal country.

By Li Haidong Source:Global Times Published
The author is a professor at the Institute of International Relations of China Foreign Affairs University. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

ISIS massacre in Iraq shames Washington

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militants boasted on Twitter Saturday that they had executed more than 1,700 Iraqi government soldiers and posted grisly on-the-spot photos. The claim of the Sunni Islamist militants shocked media outlets the world over as this latest Iraq massacre might be the largest since 2003.

ISIS already appalled the whole international community by suddenly taking over Mosul days ago, the second-largest city of Iraq. Their mass murder of thousands of war prisoners this time reveals their atrocity as well as the unpredictable abyss of the Iraq crisis. The US has sent the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush and two guided missile ships into the Persian Gulf and is hesitating about whether to launch air strikes against ISIS in northern Iraq. It seems the Iraq tragedy is caused by a continuously regenerative power that can never be eliminated by external forces.

Washington waged the Iraq War in 2003 without UN authorization and regardless of objections from major countries including China, Russia, Germany and France. US public opinion has recently been reflecting that the Bush administration might have started a wrong war, although authorized by Congress and a majority of the US public back when the US elite was confident about remolding the Middle East. The democratic system failed to broaden the limited vision of US society on the Middle East.

Thousands of US soldiers were killed at the battlefields of Iraq and tens of thousands of Iraqis lost their lives, for which then president George W. Bush and defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld would not assume any responsibility. This is indeed an error by Uncle Sam. Nevertheless it will be of positive significance to a certain degree if the Western world led by Washington can draw from the brutal war profound lessons that are expected to help change the US' way of "leading the world."

The biggest lesson is that the US is not omnipotent in reforming smaller countries it detests. The West needs to hold in awe the torn and tattered societies of Iraq and Afghanistan, which will release incredible power once their internal structures are disrupted and devour all efforts at peaceful reconstruction. There is no denying that Washington has injected power into globalization by bringing the clout of Western values to every corner of the world. However, many people may have overestimated the political meaning of US cultural communication and mistaken it for a prelude to world domination for the Western political model.

Now the White House is keen on its "pivot to Asia" strategy. History will not simply repeat itself. If the US attempts to scourge East Asia, it will probably adopt different means from those in the Middle East. East Asians should give full play to their wisdom to avoid falling into the trap of Washington.

Source:Global Times

Related posts:

People's Daily warns: copying Western-style democracy leads to chaos and disaster!

Ukraine political chaos could lead to economic disaster In a commentary,  the newspaper said falling into the craze for Western-style d...

US led to Iraq Chaos, fighting to end an unfinished war

Iraq desperate for options against ISIS   George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq is now reaping its latest fruits, as uncontrollable viol...

 

American hegemony cannot bring security to Asia 

US led to Iraq Chaos, fighting to end an unfinished war

Iraq desperate for options against ISIS

 George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq is now reaping its latest fruits, as uncontrollable violence spills over the country's borders.

JUST over a decade after George W. Bush invaded Iraq, his White House successor Barack Obama has to start clearing up the violent mess.

Today’s lethal carnage, the deadliest yet, has come courtesy of the ultra-extremist terror group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). ISIL’s threat is regional, but its focus is on Iraq for now.

This image posted on a militant website June 14 appears to show militants from the al-Qaida-inspired Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) with captured Iraqi soldiers wearing plain clothes after taking over a base in Tikrit, Iraq. (AP)

Earlier in the week, Iraq’s second-largest city Mosul fell to the militants. ISIL took over government buildings in a brazen swoop, panicking officials and flushing out half a million people in the city who suddenly had to flee for their lives.

Then on Wednesday, ISIL militants conquered Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s hometown. The irony and symbolism of it cannot be lost on local residents – US-style “regime change” to topple Saddam was supposed to end terrorism but has instead spread it like wildfire.

ISIL fighters had already embedded themselves in the central Iraqi city of Ramadi after taking over Fallujah near Baghdad. They have since announced a march towards the Iraqi capital.

In city after city, government troops fled after abandoning vital military assets including US-supplied heavy weaponry. ISIL militants then move in to seize the territory, buildings, military vehicles and weapons-filled arsenals, robbing banks and freeing jailed militants to grow from strength to strength.

ISIL also controls parts of Aleppo in Syria and the lucrative Conoco oil field in that country. For added funding, it operates extortion networks in Mosul.

There is no question that ISIL grows stronger as it sweeps across Iraq. Analysts say official Iraqi and US calculations have underestimated its actual strength.

However, some Iraqis may also have overestimated its strength. In one recent case, two divisions of Iraqi troops comprising 30,000 soldiers just turned and ran when faced with 800 ISIL fighters.

The result is that ISIL’s presumed strength becomes actual strength upon absorbing abandoned government assets. Never before has a government and its ally (the US) handed so many vital assets to an enemy force in so short a time.

No sooner had talk of Iraq retaining some US forces faded away inconclusively than even US diplomats suddenly felt they had to skip town, for good.

By Thursday, US diplomats were preparing plans to evacuate staff from their vast new embassy in Baghdad. Until recently the embassy stood as a proud testimony to post-Saddam Iraq, but now it may have to be handed over to a ruthless terror group.

UN staff are also preparing to evacuate. Iraq’s minorities who feel particularly vulnerable have already rushed for the borders.

Initially, ISIL was described as an al-Qaeda-inspired group. Then they were “disowned” even by al-Qaeda, after being found to be too undisciplined and too brutal for even al-Qaeda to handle.

Meanwhile ISIL has been busy with various activities, from kidnapping Turkish diplomats and targeting Christians in Mosul, to fighting Shi’ites and Kurds, to attacking Anbar University in Ramadi, briefly taking staff and students hostage.

ISIL is said to be financed generously by the same foreign backers who had sponsored Osama’s al-Qaeda. Then in Mosul it robbed a bank of nearly US$500mil (RM1.6bil) in cash, adding to its liquidity and immediate “cash flow.”

ISIL has had several name changes since its founding 10 years ago. It was led for a time by Abu Musab al-Zarkawi. Then it expanded operations to Syria in April last year when it also became known as ISIL and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria/al-Sham (ISIS).

Under Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s current leadership, ISIL became the most ambitious and ruthless of the region’s militant groups. Its ultra-extremism has unnerved al-Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahiri, who fears Abu Bakr’s ambition to take over his group.

ISIL wants to establish an Islamist caliphate spanning several countries in the region. In the process it seeks to compel occupying US forces to withdraw, topple the Iraqi government, murder all its associates and collaborators, and empty Shi’ite-majority Iraq of Shi’ites.

Operationally, ISIL is a Sunni umbrella grouping of several hardline Islamist groups, so internal unity is crucial. Abu Bakr’s leadership is safe so long as he can maintain organisational credibility.

By early Friday, reports emerged of the Iraqi government dispatching police and army special forces to battle the militants. Given recent events, it is doubtful what good if any they can do.

In Iraqi government circles, the thought of phasing out US forces has all but disappeared. There is a new mood to welcome and even embrace what remains of the US military.

But after more than a decade, Washington has contracted war fatigue. Iraq was never Obama’s “war” anyway.

At the same time however, the US cannot be seen to be escaping through the back door, Baghdad embassy staff notwithstanding. Speaking at the White House on Thursday, Obama said he would not rule out any response needed against the militants.

On the ground in Iraq however, resistance alone is inadequate – it means ISIL can stage a return as soon as resistance fades or ends.

In 2009, Obama declared that al-Qaeda had to be “disrupted, dismantled and destroyed.” Is he now prepared to go anywhere as far against a group that is even more deadly than al-Qaeda?

As usual, John McCain has weighed in with unhelpful partisan comments. He reportedly said that Obama’s entire security team should be sacked and replaced by the Bush team.

It is highly unlikely that the Bush team will want to clean up its own mess. It is always easier to start a war than to end one satisfactorily.

That same Bush team had invaded Iraq on the false pretexts of seizing Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and stopping terrorist operations. But there were no WMDs or terrorist groups; now terrorists roam and govern Iraq practically nationwide.

Saddam Hussein, for all his ruthlessness, made sure that no terrorist or militant groups could emerge. Everything changed after his fall.

There is another lesson with no shortage of eager students, however: that harshness and cruelty pay. That lesson is now being taught in Iraq, with the likes of ISIL lapping it up and preaching it.

Contributed by Bunn Nagara
Bunn Nagara is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (Isis) Malaysia. The views expressed are entirely the writer's own.


 Related post:

People's Daily warns: copying Western-style democracy leads to chaos and disaster!

Ukraine political chaos could lead to economic disaster In a commentary,  the newspaper said falling into the craze for Western-style democracy leads to chaos and diasaster!

Related:

Another reluctant coup hits Thailand 
Within days, Bangkok moved from a troubled democracy to martial law to a coup under an army junta without a single shot fired.

The Thailand coup and its aftermath

The Thai army remains a key player in the country’s politics, for better or worse, whether opponents and critics like it or not. 

EU teetering on the brink, almost

JUST as Europe tussled with Russia over issues of regional identity in Crimea and Ukraine, grave questions hung over its prime regionalist project: the European Union.

Still no rest for politicians

Thailand's complex politics grows ever more complicated, again producing more questions and problems than answers or solutions. 

Military priorities trump diplomacy, again

Not only is there an overwhelming reliance on the military option over Ukraine, but diplomats have retreated from the scene when they are needed most. 

Tension around the ballot box

JUST about everyone anxious about Thai politics is on edge, practically hanging on to a narrow ledge of a precipice.

The hypocrisy of some nations

Video:U.S. Hypocrisy? Telling Russia To Stay Out of Ukraine

Double standards are on display as Western leaders attack Russia regarding Ukraine, while they themselves commit or endorse worse aggression on other countries.

WORLD attention has focused on Ukraine recently. With President Victor Yanukovych making his exit and a new government formed, events shifted to Crimea, with accusations that the Russian military took over the region.

Yanukovych, resurfacing in a Russian town, said he left as his life was at risk, the new regime is illegitimate, and he is still the president.

Sizeable crowds in Crimea (many of whose population are ethnic Russian) are showing anti-Kiev and pro-Russian feelings and the Crimean Parliament had decided to hold a referendum on whether to remain in Ukraine or break away and be part of Russia.

Western leaders have attacked Russian President Vladimir Putin for his alleged invasion of Crimea.

The Russian argument is that it has not invaded, that in any case it has a legitimate interest in Crimea due to historical links and the ethnic Russians who live there have asked for protection against the new and illegitimate Kiev regime.

Whatever the merits or otherwise of Russia’s position and actions, it is clear that there has been a long historical Russian-Crimea-Ukraine relationship. The complex condition requires a correspondingly complex solution.

The rhetoric of some Western leaders is aggressive. They accused Russia of violating sovereignty and international law, among other things.

The United States plans to ban visas for selected Russian officials, followed by sanctions on Russian banks, freezing assets of its companies, and possibly trade measures.

US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have accused Putin of making use of false claims for its invasion, that Crimea is in danger.

“This is the 21st century and we should not see nations step backwards to behave in a 19th or 20th century fashion,” said Kerry. “It is not appropriate to invade a country and at the end of a barrel of a gun dictate what you are trying to achieve.”

Obama said “Russia cannot with impunity put its soldiers on the ground and violate basic principles that are recognised around the world”, adding that Russia is “on the wrong side of history”.

Listening to the American leaders lecturing Russia in their self-righteous tone, one is struck by the double standards and hypocrisy involved.

They don’t seem to realise how they have violated the same principles and behaviour they demand of Russia.

It was after all the United States that invaded Iraq in 2003, massively bombing its territory and killing hundreds of thousands, on the grounds that Saddam Hussein had amassed weapons of mass destruction.

The UN Security Council would not give the green light. No weapons of mass destruction were found. Many experts considered the war against Iraq a violation of international law, a view also expressed in a media interview by the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal in 2011 found former US president George W. Bush and former British prime minister Tony Blair guilty of crimes against humanity and genocide as a result of their roles in the Iraq war.

The United States also waged war in Afghanistan, changing the regime, resulting in thousands of deaths. In Libya, the US and its allies carried out massive bombing, which aided opposition forces and led to the killing of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Even now there are sanctions and the threat of military action against Iran on the suspicion it wants to develop nuclear weapons, which Iran has denied.

In contrast, the US turns a blind eye on Israel’s ownership of nuclear weapons. And when Israel conducted the blanket bombing of Lebanon and Gaza in recent years, with thousands of deaths, there was no condemnation at all from the US, which has also blocked UN Security Council resolutions and actions on its ally.

The US has also come under attack from human rights groups for its use of drones against suspected terrorists but which has also killed many civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen.

Last week, the UN Human Rights Council published a Special Rapporteur’s report which detailed the deaths of civilians caused by US drone attacks, and raised many questions of possible violations of international human rights law.

All these actions were done in the 21st century, which adds to many other actions in the 20th century.

It’s thus remarkable that Obama and Kerry could with a straight face accuse Russia of not acting in a 21st century manner, and being on the wrong side of history.

There appears to be still one law for the most powerful, and another for others. The former can invade and kill, while lecturing self-righteously to others.

Whatever one thinks of Russia’s action in Crimea, it should be noted that no one has been killed because of it, at least not yet. Compare that to the hundreds of thousands or millions, who have died and suffered from past and present wars of the US and other Western countries.

Though much of the mainstream media also takes the establishment view, some Western journalists have also pointed out their leaders’ hypocrisy.

In an article, “America’s Staggering Hypocrisy in Ukraine,” the well-known American journalist Robert Parry remarked: “Since World War II, the United States has invaded or otherwise intervened in so many countries that it would be challenging to compile a complete list …

“So, what is one to make of Secretary of State John Kerry’s pronouncement that Russia’s military intervention in the Crimea section of Ukraine – at the behest of the country’s deposed president – is a violation of international law that the United States would never countenance?

“Are Kerry and pretty much everyone else in Official Washington so lacking in self-awareness that they don’t realise that they are condemning actions by Russian President Vladimir Putin that are far less egregious than what they themselves have done?”

Parry concludes that the overriding hypocrisy of the media, Kerry and nearly all of Official Washington is their insistence that the United States actually promotes the principle of democracy or, for that matter, the rule of international law.

Global Trends - By Martin Khor

> The views expressed are entirely the writer’s own.

Related posts:
1.  Western hegemony & violence: ousting democratically elected leaders in Ukraine and elsewhere!
2.  Human Rights Record of the United States in 2013
3.  US double standard on terrorism encourages slaughters

Related: 

Nation of Hypocrites 

America is tragically becoming a “Nation of Hypocrites”. How is this so? ... Is it any wonder then that some people look down upon us rather than respect us?

US-Syria drums of war — a familiar beat

The only solution for the Syrian issue is a political one and a peace conference of all actors may stop further bloodshed.

A HORRENDOUS attack with chemical weapons is alleged to have killed 1,429 people in a Damascus suburb on Aug 21.

Use of such chemical weapons is a flagrant violation of international law and the culprits must be hounded and herded to the International Criminal Court.

However, it is not clear who the real perpetrators are.

The Syrian government alleges that US-supported rebels carried out the attack to turn global sentiment against Syria. Obama pins the blame on Assad and is using this as a justification for a threatened war that circumvents the UN, like Bush before him.

The claims of both sides must be investigated impartially by the UN and there should be no resort to unilateral punishment before all facts are established. It is not in accordance with due process for the accusers to arrogate to themselves the role of adjudicators.

In the meantime, one must note that in March, an Independent Commission of Inquiry of the UN headed by Carla del Ponte had concluded that the nerve agent sarin was used by US-supported rebels and not the Syrian government.

It is also noteworthy that the weapons inspection team of the UN was in Syria at the invitation of Assad who is unlikely to have resorted to such an abomination with the UN watching over his shoulders.

The US and UK have a long, catalogued history of murderous lies to construct the pretext for war.

In August 1945, the US concealed the fact that Japan was actively negotiating surrender and went ahead to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a brutal atomic attack.

The US invasion of Vietnam in August 1964 was founded on the deceitful lie that Vietnamese torpedo boats had attacked US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. The war took the lives of millions of innocent Asians and 50,000 American combatants.

In 2003, lies and skewed facts about Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction led to the pulverisation and conquest of Iraq. 

Similar deceitful warmongering led to the attacks and subjugation of Afghanistan and Libya. The Third World is now quite mindful of Western spin masters and their weapons of mass deception. 

Assad is on a winning wicket and Western allies are understandably eager to find any pretext to kill him like the way they did Saddam of Iraq and Gaddafi of Libya.

The US, EU and Israel are fomenting civil war in Syria that has so far killed 100,000 for various geopolitical reasons: to weaken Iran and Hezbollah who are the only remaining regional rivals of Israel; to thwart the proposed Iran-Syria oil pipeline; and to kill the plan to sell Iranian oil in currencies other than the almighty US dollar. The Syrian conflict is a proxy war by the US against Iran.

There is also the desire to consolidate an uncompromising version of corporatism that seeks total economic hegemony over the region. Observers have noted that “defence manufacturer” Lockheed Martin’s stock prices rose sharply since news proliferated of the chemical weapons attack!

Any attack on Syria by a “coalition of the willing” on so-called humanitarian grounds will be a gross violation of the UN Charter.

Except for the narrow exception of unilateral self-defence under Article 51, the Security Council of the UN is the only authority empowered by chapter VII, Articles 39-42 to use force against a nation that is guilty of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression.

American-style unilateralism and exceptionalism pose significant potential for abuse. This is evidenced by Nato’s destruction of Gaddafi’s regime in 2011 under the guise of a limited humanitarian operation. One must also note that the terror of war necessarily results in thousands of civilian casualties.

Secretary of State John Kerry’s description of the Damascus chemical attack as a “moral obscenity” is very touching but reeks of hypocrisy. It is well known that the US used napalm and agent orange in Vietnam; depleted uranium in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Bosnia; and white phosphorus bombs in Fallujah in 2004.

Saddam Hussein’s chemical attacks against Iran were with Washington’s full knowledge and support. In fact the chemical weapons, the feeder stock and equipment were supplied by the US, UK, Germany and Italy.

While the world has been focused on the horror in Damascus, US supported rebels have carried out a campaign of ethnic cleansing against 40,000 Syrian Kurds to force them to flee across the Tigris into Iraq.

There is not a word of Western condemnation of this atrocity.

The threatened missile attacks against Syria would cost thousands of innocent lives. In typical American style of justice, people will be butchered in order to save them from a dictator!

Weapon depots will explode, resulting in horrendous collateral damage. There is no certainty that Bashar Al-Assad will be toppled.

A broader conflict may result if Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran react against Israel and America’s bases in the Middle East.

US military intervention in Syria’s civil war will, therefore, be an enormous mistake. It will not promote US interests. The use of missiles can change the military balance but it cannot resolve the underlying historic, ethnic, religious and tribal issues that are fuelling this conflict.

The only solution for the Syrian issue is a political one. A peace conference of all actors may stop further bloodshed.

President Obama must remember that you can start a war when you will; you can’t end it when you please!

Reflecting On The Law - contributed by Shad Saleem Faruqi
Shad Saleem Faruqi is Professor of Law at UiTM. The views expressed here are entirely his own.  

Related post:
The sheriff threatens to strike Syria

The sheriff threatens to strike Syria

 

People against war: Supporters of the anti-war group Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) Coalition participate in a rally in Washington DC, in opposition to a possible US military strike in Syria. – EPA

For nearly all countries including the US, a military attack on Syria will only make things worse.

TEN years after US President George W. Bush attacked Iraq, his successor Barack Obama is set to do it with Syria.

A secular Muslim autocrat in West Asia, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, was accused of possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) so he “had” to be removed. Back then, Senator Obama had accused Bush of an unjustifiable and unnecessary war based on a flimsy pretext.

Now a secular Muslim autocrat in West Asia, Syrian President Bashar Assad, stands accused of using chemical WMDs. No evidence against Bashar had been presented before Washington’s decision to punish Syria.

Obama’s supporters may say it is a little different this time – just a little, though not much. Saddam’s case involved accusations of WMD possession, while Bashar’s involves accusations of actual use.

But what real difference is there once the bombs begin to drop? The arguments and circumstantial “evidence” so far are insufficient to support even a misdemeanour in a civil court, let alone a serious action such as war.

Just as the so-called evidence against Saddam’s Iraq was false, the same may be said of the case against Syria so far.

At a time when the US needed to convince the international community to support action against Syria, no evidence against Bashar had been offered. It nonetheless seemed sufficient to get Washington on the warpath again.

The White House says there is no doubt that Syria had used chemical weapons, but doubts persist. The Syrian government insists it did no such thing.

The issue concerns allegations of chemical weapons use in an area controlled by rebel forces just outside Damascus on August 21. The result – about 1400 civilian deaths.

Critics of military action ask why Syria had agreed to a UN arms inspection if it had just used banned chemical weapons, why it should target civilians including children who were not against it, and why it should do so knowing the likely international consequences. They also question the reliability of the evidence linking the incidents to the Syrian government, and the credibility of the source of the alleged evidence itself.

At the same time, motives also exist for falsifying evidence to blame Syria, so that US military action would weaken or dislodge Bashar. The beneficiaries are within and outside Syria.

The strongest “evidence” against Damascus comes from Israel, specifically Unit 8200 of the Israeli Defense Forces that supposedly intercepted the Syrian military’s electronic communications. According to Prof. John Schindler at the US Naval War College, Israel then fed this information to Washington and London for follow-up action against Syria.

Bashar’s Syria is the latest Muslim country in West Asia to be undermined by Israel, following Iraq, Libya and Egypt. In quietly promoting Western military action against these countries, Israel need not spend a single dollar or risk a single soldier’s life.

Western countries inclined to military action often find they have to depend on Israel. They lack the kind of intelligence information on the ground that Israel has, regardless of whether that information is trustworthy.

This also happens to benefit various militant groups hoping to seize power after Bashar – up to a point. Israel expects them to disagree among themselves and neutralise one another as Syria disintegrates, leaving the door open to Israeli interests.

In a US poll on Friday, 52% of respondents believe that once Bashar falls, Syria would be split. Over the medium and long terms, Israel would be the only beneficiary of another dismembered Muslim nation.

Within Syria, the considerable but still limited military strength of the various opposition groups has meant an armed stalemate while Bashar remains in office. The only factor likely to make a difference is Western military intervention, if that could be “arranged”.

On Thursday, an Associated Press news report said Washington remained uncertain where Syria stored its chemical weapons. US intelligence officials acknowledged that proof of Syria’s use of these weapons was still unclear, and that they were even less certain of Bashar’s guilt than they were of Saddam’s.

On the same day, a report released by the British government revealed that London did not understand why the Syrian government would want to use chemical weapons as alleged. Yet Britain was prepared to support the US position that Syria was guilty, nonetheless.

Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of international opinion is set against military action. This includes the general populations in Britain and the US.

The US Congress is divided on the issue and insists that its prior approval is needed, while the British Parliament on Thursday voted to oppose military action. But US officials have said none of this would change their plans.

Russia says no evidence exists of chemical weapons use, much less to link the Syrian government to such use. China says the UN Security Council should not be pressured on deadlines to approve any action before UN inspections are complete.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appealed for calm and for enough time for UN weapons inspectors in Syria to complete their job. Their mission ends this weekend.

Former chief UN arms inspector Hans Blix, in a similar situation a decade ago when the US had already decided to attack Iraq, now questions the right of any country to attack Syria even if it had actually used chemical weapons.

Despite the international ban on chemical weapons, no international law obligates any power to attack a country for the use of WMDs. The US itself is not restrained against its first use of nuclear WMDs.

The official US line is that “punishing” Syria is not intended to topple Bashar. In the heat of hostilities, however, nobody can guarantee there would be no regime change, especially when US forces meet with resistance and risk international embarrassment for not achieving anything substantial.

The US case for an attack also claims the “immorality” of Syria’s alleged chemical weapons use. But the moral argument is defeated when an attack could result in more civilian deaths and suffering than the supposed use of chemical weapons.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has warned that any action that escalates the Syrian conflict would only result in more civilian suffering. Unesco said the looting of Syria’s rich cultural heritage had already begun.

White House spokesman Jay Carney insisted that logically, there was no doubt about the Syrian government’s guilt. But logic remains the biggest impediment to the US argument.

Attacking another country can be legitimate only in a case of self-defence or when approved by the UN Security Council. The latter requires endorsement by all the UNSC’s Permanent Five members.

A US attack cannot cite self-defence because Syria did not attack the US. Neither will there be UNSC approval, since Russia and China are likely to vote against.

Nonetheless, the US proceeded to attack Iraq in 2003 even after China abstained. Obama may now outdo Bush by attacking Syria when both Russia and China object.

US bombs may also hit chemical weapons stockpiles, releasing poison gas and killing many more people. But then only Syrians would be affected.

Obama’s standing in the Muslim world has declined considerably since its height with his 2009 Cairo speech. Where actions speak louder than words, that decline is also happening in the developing world in general.

BUNN NAGARA is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia

Drones, computers new weapons of US waging shadow wars!

 AP FILE - This Jan. 31, 2010 file photo shows an unmanned U.S. Predator drone flies over Kandahar Air Field, southern Afghanistan, on a moon-lit night. After a decade of costly conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American way of war is evolving toward less brawn, more guile. Drone aircraft spy on and attack terrorists with no pilot in harm's way. Small teams of special operations troops quietly train and advise foreign forces. Viruses sent from computers to foreign networks strike silently, with no American fingerprint. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth, File)

Supporters of Pakistani religious party Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, burn a representation of a US flag during a rally condemning US drone strikes in tribal areas and the reopening of the NATO supply line to neighboring Afghanistan, in Hyderabad, Pakistan, Friday, June 15, 2012. (AP Photo/Pervez Masih)

FILE - In this Sept. 7, 2011 file photo, John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, speaks in Washington. After a decade of costly conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American way of war is evolving toward less brawn, more guile. Drone aircraft spy on and attack terrorists with no pilot in harm's way. Small teams of special operations troops quietly train and advise foreign forces. Viruses sent from computers to foreign networks strike silently, with no American fingerprint. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File) — AP

 
WASHINGTON — After a decade of costly conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American way of war is evolving toward less brawn, more guile.

Chart shows the number of air attacks in Pakistan — AP

Drone aircraft spy on and attack terrorists with no pilot in harm's way. Small teams of special operations troops quietly train and advise foreign forces. Viruses sent from computers to foreign networks strike silently, with no American fingerprint. 

It's war in the shadows, with the U.S. public largely in the dark. 

In Pakistan, armed drones, not U.S. ground troops or B-52 bombers, are hunting down al-Qaida terrorists, and a CIA-run raid of Osama bin Laden's hide-out was executed by a stealthy team of Navy SEALs. 

In Yemen, drones and several dozen U.S. military advisers are trying to help the government tip the balance against an al-Qaida offshoot that harbors hopes of one day attacking the U.S. homeland. 

In Somalia, the Horn of Africa country that has not had a fully functioning government since 1991, President Barack Obama secretly has authorized two drone strikes and two commando raids against terrorists. 

In Iran, surveillance drones have kept an eye on nuclear activities while a computer attack reportedly has infected its nuclear enrichment facilities with a virus, possibly delaying the day when the U.S. or Israel might feel compelled to drop real bombs on Iran and risk a wider war in the Middle East. 

The high-tech warfare allows Obama to target what the administration sees as the greatest threats to U.S. security, without the cost and liabilities of sending a swarm of ground troops to capture territory; some of them almost certainly would come home maimed or dead. 

But it also raises questions about accountability and the implications for international norms regarding the use of force outside of traditional armed conflict. The White House took an incremental step Friday toward greater openness about the basic dimensions of its shadowy wars by telling Congress for the first time that the U.S. military has been launching lethal attacks on terrorist targets in Somalia and Yemen. It did not mention drones, and its admission did not apply to CIA operations. 

"Congressional oversight of these operations appears to be cursory and insufficient," said Steven Aftergood, an expert on government secrecy issues for the Federation of American Scientists, a private group. 

"It is Congress' responsibility to declare war under the Constitution, but instead it appears to have adopted a largely passive role while the executive takes the initiative in war fighting," Aftergood said in an interview. 

That's partly because lawmakers relinquished their authority by passing a law just after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that essentially granted the White House open-ended authority for armed action against al-Qaida. 

Secret wars are not new. 

For decades, the CIA has carried out covert operations abroad at the president's direction and with congressional notice. It armed the mujahedeen in Afghanistan who fought Soviet occupiers in the 1980s, for example. In recent years the U.S. military's secretive commando units have operated more widely, even in countries where the U.S. is not at war, and that's blurred the lines between the intelligence and military spheres. 

In this shroud of secrecy, leaks to the news media of classified details about certain covert operations have led to charges that the White House orchestrated the revelations to bolster Obama's national security credentials and thereby improve his re-election chances. The White House has denied the accusations. 

The leaks exposed details of U.S. computer virus attacks on Iran's nuclear program, the foiling of an al-Qaida bomb plot targeting U.S. aircraft, and other secret operations. 

Two U.S. attorneys are heading separate FBI investigations into leaks of national security information, and Congress is conducting its own probe. 

It's not just the news media that has pressed the administration for information about its shadowy wars. 

Some in Congress, particularly those lawmakers most skeptical of the need for U.S. foreign interventions, are objecting to the administration's drone wars. They are demanding a fuller explanation of how, for example, drone strikes are authorized and executed in cases in which the identity of the targeted terrorist is not confirmed. 

"Our drone campaigns already have virtually no transparency, accountability or oversight," Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and 25 other mostly anti-war members of Congress wrote Obama on Tuesday. 

A few dozen lawmakers are briefed on the CIA's covert action and clandestine military activity, and some may ask to review drone strike video and be granted access to after-action reports on strikes and other clandestine actions. But until two months ago, the administration had not formally confirmed in public its use of armed drones. 

In an April speech in Washington, Obama's counterterrorism chief, John Brennan, acknowledged that despite presidential assurances of a judicious use of force against terrorists, some still question the legality of drone strikes. 

"So let me say it as simply as I can: Yes, in full accordance with the law - and in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States and to save American lives - the United States government conducts targeted strikes against specific al-Qaida terrorists, sometimes using remotely piloted aircraft, often referred to publicly as drones," he said. 

President George W. Bush authorized drone strikes in Pakistan and elsewhere, but Obama has vastly increased the numbers. According to Bill Roggio of The Long War Journal, an online publication that tracks U.S. counterterrorism operations, the U.S. under Obama has carried out an estimated 254 drone strikes in Pakistan alone. That compares with 47 strikes during the Bush administration. 

In at least one case the target was an American. Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaida leader, was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in September. 

According to a White House list released late last year, U.S. counterterrorism operations have removed more than 30 terrorist leaders around the globe. They include al-Qaida in East Africa "planner" Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, who was killed in a helicopter strike in Somalia. 

The drone campaign is highly unpopular overseas. 

A Pew Research Center survey on the U.S. image abroad found that in 17 of 21 countries surveyed, more than half of the people disapproved of U.S. drone attacks targeting extremist leaders in such places as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. In the U.S., 62 percent approved of the drone campaign, making American public opinion the clear exception. 

The U.S. use of cyberweapons, like viruses that sabotage computer networks or other high-tech tools that can invade computers and steal data, is even more closely shielded by official secrecy and, arguably, less well understood. 

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has been a leading critic of the administration's handling of information about using computers as a tool of war. 

"I think that cyberattacks are one of the greatest threats that we face," McCain said in a recent interview, "and we have a very divided and not very well-informed Congress addressing it." 

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and national security officials often talk publicly about improving U.S. defenses against cyberattack, not only on U.S. government computer systems but also against defense contractors and other private networks linked, for example, to the U.S. financial system or electrical grid. Left largely unexplained is the U.S. capacity to use computer viruses and other cyberweapons against foreign targets. 

In the view of some, the White House has cut Congress out of the loop, even in the realm of overt warfare. 

Sen. James Webb, D-Va., who saw combat in Vietnam as a Marine, introduced legislation last month that would require that the president seek congressional approval before committing U.S. forces in civil conflicts, such as last year's armed intervention in Libya, in which there is no imminent security threat to the U.S. 

"Year by year, skirmish by skirmish, the role of the Congress in determining where the U.S. military would operate, and when the awesome power of our weapon systems would be unleashed has diminished," Webb said.

By ROBERT BURNS, LOLITA C. BALDOR and KIMBERLY DOZIER, Associated Press

Online: Pew Research Center: www.pewresearch.org The Associated Press

Related posts:

Rightways: American drone wars and state secrecy! Jun 03, 2012