Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Forces Loyal To Gaddafi Retake Towns Near Libyan Capital

From the AP and Yahoo News:

Gadhafi forces retake towns near Libyan capital



A Libyan army soldier loyal to Libyan Leader Moammar Gadhafi, poster in background, sits in a tank, in Qasr Banashir, southeast of the capital Tripoli
AP – A Libyan army soldier loyal to Libyan Leader Moammar Gadhafi, poster in background, sits in a tank, in …

By MAGGIE MICHAEL and SARAH EL DEEB, Associated Press Maggie Michael And Sarah El Deeb, Associated Press – 1 hr 3 mins ago

TRIPOLI, Libya – Moammar Gadhafi's forces battled poorly armed rebels Tuesday for control of towns near the capital trying to create a buffer zone around his seat of power. The increasingly violent clashes threatened to transform the 15-day popular rebellion in Libya into a drawn-out civil war.



Amid the intensified fighting, the international community stepped up moves to isolate the longtime Libyan leader.



U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he ordered two ships into the Mediterranean, including the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge, and he is sending 400 Marines to the vessel to replace some troops that left recently for Afghanistan.



Military leaders weighing a no-fly zone over Libya said it would be a complex task that would require taking out Gadhafi's air defenses, and Russia's top diplomat dismissed the idea as "superfluous" and said world powers should focus on sanctions.



Gadhafi's son, Seif al-Islam, warned Western forces not to take military action against Libya and said the country is prepared to defend itself against foreign intervention.



"If they attack us, we are ready," he told Sky News, adding that the Gadhafis are ready to implement reforms.



Facing an unprecedented challenge to his 41-year rule, Gadhafi's regime has launched the bloodiest crackdown in a wave of uprising against authoritarian rulers in the Middle East. Gadhafi has already lost control of the eastern half of the country but still holds Tripoli and other nearby cities.



An exact death toll has been difficult to obtain in the chaos, but a medical committee in the eastern city of Benghazi, where the uprising began on Feb. 15, said at least 228 people had been killed, including 30 unidentified bodies, and 1,932 wounded.



Click image to see photos of protests in Libya





AFP/Patrick Baz

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has cited reports that perhaps 1,000 have died in Libya.



Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told Congress that the U.S. must lead an international response to the crisis, including expanding already tough financial and travel sanctions against Gadhafi, his family and confidants and possibly imposing a no-fly zone over Libya.



"In the years ahead, Libya could become a peaceful democracy, or it could face protracted civil war. The stakes are high," she said.



Gadhafi's regime has retaken at least two towns and threatened a third, while rebels repulsed attacks on three other key areas — Misrata to the east, Zawiya to the west, and the mountain town of Zintan to the south of the capital.



One of those retaken was the strategic mountain town of Gharyan, the largest in the Nafusa Mountains, which overlooks Tripoli, a resident said, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of government retaliation. The town fell after dark Friday in a surprise attack, and the government troops detained officers who defected to the rebels and drew up lists of wanted protesters and started searching for them, the resident added.



Gadhafi supporters also have said they were in control of the city of Sabratha, west of Tripoli, which has seemed to go back and forth between the two camps in the past week.



But witnesses in Zawiya, 30 miles (50 kilometers) west of the capital, said rebels shouted "Allahu akbar (God is great) for our victory," and carried an air force colonel who had just defected after six hours of overnight gunbattles failed to dislodge anti-Gadhafi forces who control the city.



"We were worried about air raids but that did not happen," said one resident, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.



The Zawiya rebels have tanks, machine guns and anti-aircraft guns. They beat back pro-Gadhafi troops, armed with the same weapons, who attacked from six directions. There was no word on casualties.



In Misrata, 125 miles (200 kilometers) east of Tripoli, pro-Gadhafi troops who control part of an air base on the city's outskirts tried to advance Monday. But they were repulsed by opposition forces, who included residents with automatic weapons and defected army units allied with them, one of the opposition fighters said.



No casualties were reported and the fighter claimed that his side had captured eight soldiers, including a senior officer.



The opposition controls most of the air base, and the fighter said dozens of anti-Gadhafi gunmen have arrived from farther east in recent days as reinforcements.



In Zintan, 75 miles (120 kilometers) south of Tripoli, residents said an attack by pro-Gadhafi forces Monday night was the second since the city fell in rebel hands late last month. But, they added, Gadhafi's loyalists were bringing in reinforcements.



One person in Zwara, which fell to anti-government forces days ago, said guards were posted at every sensitive building and all the entrances to the town.



"We are threatened every day by pro-Gadhafi forces," the nervous Zwara resident said, adding that a pro-Gadhafi figure met with the town's leaders a few days ago and told them they had "a choice" to go back in to orbit "and he will forget what happened, or else he is going to attack us with military force. He even offered us money."



One sergeant in the Libyan army who is of Tuareg ethnicity and is fighting on Gadhafi's side said the military is divided.



"Us foreigners, we don't have much choice. We have to support Gaddafi," he said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press in Mali. "It because of him we are here."



He added that everyone who supports Gadhafi has not been watching any foreign news.



"There is nothing that's going to convince Gaddafi to quit," the soldier said. "The only way Gaddafi is going to go is if someone puts a bullet in his head, and I can't imagine that. The soldiers who are close to him would never let it happen."



Many young citizens of Mali and Niger who flocked to Libya in the 1970s and 1980s were ethnic Tuaregs and were recruited into an "Islamic Legion" modeled on the French Foreign Legion.



With fears high that Gadhafi could wage airstrikes against his own people, the European Union and the United States have raised the possibility of a no-fly zone over Libya — a tactic used successfully in northern Iraq and Bosnia.



But Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called the idea "superfluous" and said world powers must instead focus on fully using the sanctions the U.N. Security Council approved over the weekend. Russia is a veto-wielding member of the Security Council.



Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, meanwhile, urged Gadhafi to consider exile, saying she's worried the African nation could plummet into a "humanitarian disaster."



"It's important that he get off the stage," Rice said told CBS on "The Early Show."



More than 140,000 people have streamed into Tunisia and Egypt, and the situation at the Tunisian border has reached a "crisis point," with up to 75,000 people gathering in just nine days said U.N. refugee agency spokeswoman Melissa Fleming. Many have returned to their homes in Tunisia and Egypt.



But thousands of Vietnamese and Bangladeshis at the Libyan side of border with Tunisia are "in urgent need of food, water and shelter," said Jemini Pandya, a spokeswoman for International Organization for Migration. Nepalese, Ghanaians and Nigerians are also sleeping unprotected at the borders, she added.



Thousands of foreigners — many of them Egyptians — have been stranded for at least a week at Tripoli's airport, where they have little food, no shelter and face mistreatment by Libyan authorities.



The workers were willing to stay in their homes across in various cities, including Tripoli, but said they were attacked by locals who stole their money, cell phones and threatened to shoot them unless they left. They said they came to the airport, thinking it would be safe, but have endured harsh conditions since arriving, unable to enter the terminal or even a bathroom at a mosque, without paying.



The grass in front of the airport terminal were littered with clothes, shoes, sheets, cans and garbage.



Mohammed Shahat, 26, who works in a ceramics company in Zawiya, said he has camped at the airport for a week.



"I was told that I can enter the terminal but first I have to pay 200 dinars (about $160). I paid, but then they took my passport and kicked us out," he said.



On Tuesday, Gadhafi's regime sought to show that it was the country's only legitimate authority and that it continued to feel compassion for areas in the east that fell under the control of its opponents.



A total of 18 trucks loaded with rice, flour, sugar and eggs left Tripoli for Benghazi, the country's second-largest city 620 miles (1,000 kilometers) east of the capital. Also in the convoy were two refrigerated cars carrying medical supplies.



People in opposition-controlled areas were running low on medical supplies.



Dr. Abdullah Gleissa, head of surgery at Jalaa Hospital in Benghazi said that while it had enough basic medical supplies, it was short of some instruments, narcotics and personnel skilled in certain types of surgery.



"We are still clearing up cases that have been waiting for operations," he said.



The battles were not limited to Libyan cities and towns.



Libyan state television channel Jamahiriya-2 said on a news ticker that jamming of unknown origin had temporarily affected broadcasts of the main state-controlled channel, Jamahirya 1. The main channel was back on the air Tuesday night.



The news website Quryna, which has ties to Gadhafi's son, Seif al-Islam, has been down for days. On Tuesday morning, it bore a monarchist flag of the pre-Gahdafi era and a statement saying the site had been hacked by the rebels. Later, it opened to a mostly blank page that read: "This Account Has Been Suspended."



___



Associated Press correspondents Paul Schemm in Benghazi, Bassem Mroue in Cairo, John Heilprin in Geneva, Matthew Lee in Washington and Martin Vogl in Bamako, Mali, contributed to this report.



Friday Iran Talking Points

From Antiwar.com Blog:

Feb 11, 2011 2:59 PMFriday Iran Talking Pointsfrom Antiwar.com Blog by Eli Cliftonfrom LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for February 11th, 2011:




The Weekly Standard: Stephen Schwartz writes on “Iran’s Conspiracy Industry” and observes that “conspiracy theories have long flourished in the lands of Islam.” Schwartz offers a rundown of recent anti-Semitic television programming in Iran, warning, “all of this might seem like nothing more than typical, daily insanity in Iran.”



The Washington Post: Charles Krauthammer writes, “Of course, yesterday it was just George W. Bush, Tony Blair and a band of neocons with unusual hypnotic powers who dared challenge the received wisdom of Arab exceptionalism – the notion that Arabs, as opposed to East Asians, Latin Americans, Europeans and Africans, were uniquely allergic to democracy.” Krauthammer goes on to identify the new totalitarianism as “Islamism” and argues, “as in Soviet days, the threat is both internal and external. Iran, a mini-version of the old Soviet Union, has its own allies and satellites – Syria, Lebanon and Gaza – and its own Comintern, with agents operating throughout the region to extend Islamist influence and undermine pro-Western secular states.” He concludes, “We are, unwillingly again, parties to a long twilight struggle, this time with Islamism – most notably Iran, its proxies and its potential allies, Sunni and Shiite.”



The Washington Post: Michael Gerson asks, “Do Egypt’s protests mean American decline?” He warns, “The emergence of a Sunni version of Iran in Egypt would be a major blow,” and “There’s a reason shahs are sometimes followed by mullahs – because religious extremism is the opiate of a humiliated people.”



National Review Online: The Foundation For Defense of Democracies’s Benjamin Weinthal blogs, “The failure of the West to energetically confront Iran’s bellicose policies might very well be revealed in the post-Mubarak era.” He argues, “Iran’s understanding of a new Egyptian political system mirrors the fiercely anti-democratic goals of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.” Weinthal segues the jubilation over Hosni Mubarak’s resignation into a call for tighter sanctions on Iran, writing, “If the West, particularly the Obama administration, is serious about the business of democracy-promotion in Egypt and in the Muslim world, then an accelerated round of hard-hitting sanctions ought to be implemented against Iran’s energy sector… Crude-oil sanctions targeting Iran serve the twin goals of advancing democracy in Egypt and perhaps contributing to the demise of the Iranian regime.” He concludes, “In short, democratic change in Egypt is arguably contingent on blocking the spread of revolutionary Iranian Islam in the Middle East.”




Egypt: The Reality Of The Muslim Brotherhood

From Middle East Affairs Information Center:

Egypt: The Reality of the Muslim Brotherhood


Posted on Sun, February 13, 2011 at 2:03 am, in Egypt, Global Islam, Islamism, Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia, Taqiyya, The Middle East .
Sat, Feb 12, 2011
MuslimsDebate.com
Tarek Heggy







Egypt: The Reality of the Muslim Brotherhood

This analysis of the Muslim Brotherhood, written by Tarek Heggy, is one of the best written recently. This analysis might also reflect what Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, the current rulers after the resignation of Husni Mubarak, believe as well. This article should be read by American and European policymakers and those who think of the Muslim Brotherhood as a moderate Islamist movement. Or as former Egyptian minister Dr. Ali El Deen Hilal Dessouki puts it “there is no such thing as a moderate Islamist.” This article was first published at MuslimsDebate.com and is re-printed here for your convenience and for educational and discussion purposes.



The Muslim Brotherhood was launched in 1928 to restore a caliphate, a global religious government aimed at fighting the “non-believers” (specifically, Christians, Hindus, and Jews) and at spreading Islam. The group opposed the existence of any secular states in all Muslim societies throughout the Middle East.



The Brotherhood killed Egypt’s Prime Minister Mahmud Fahmi Nuqrashi in 1948 and plotted to kill President Gamal Abdel Nasser in the early 1950s. An offshoot group, Islamic Jihad, led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, later Osama bin Laden’s number-two man, assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Al-Sadat in 1981 and tried to kill President Hosni Mubarak in 1995.



I. Muslim Brothers’ Political Thought



The Brotherhood remains extremely opposed to Western civilization and to a political peaceful settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Hamas is a Palestinian offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.



This group’s political thinking can be summarized as follows:



1) Political Freedoms: Unlike Western democracies, which guarantee the political participation of every citizen regardless of ideology, opinion, or religion, the Muslim Brothers make the political participation of individuals in society subject to the principles of Islamic Sharia.



2) Freedom of Belief: The Muslim Brothers guarantee freedom of belief only for the followers of the three revealed (Abrahamic) religions, otherwise known as “the people of the Book.”



3) Personal Freedoms: While Western democracies guarantee the absolute freedom of the individual as long as it does not impinge on the freedom of others, the Muslim Brothers set freedom of thought within the strict parameters of a moral code derived from the Sharia.



They call for the restoration of hisbah, which allows a private citizen to prosecute any individual who commits an act he considers a breach of the Sharia even if the plaintiff himself has not been personally injured by such an act.



The right of hisbah was recently exercised by a private citizen in Egypt against the respected intellectual Dr. Nasr Hamad Abu Zayd, whose writings he considered as running counter to the teachings of Islam. The court ruled for the plaintiff, branding Dr. Abu Zayd an apostate and ordering him to divorce his wife on the grounds that a Muslim woman cannot be married to an apostate. Dr. Abu Zayd fled with his wife to the Netherlands.



4) Women’s Rights: In Western democracies, women enjoy the same political rights as men: they can hold public office and participate in political life without any restrictions based on gender. But as far as the Muslim Brothers are concerned, women’s political participation would be limited to municipal elections; there is no question, for example, of a woman ever becoming head of state. To further marginalize women and exclude them from any meaningful role in public life, the Muslim Brothers call for educational curricula to include material that is appropriate for women, tailored to suit their nature and role, as perceived by them. In addition to special curricula for girls, they insist on a complete segregation of the sexes in the classrooms, in public transportation, and in the workplace. The Islamist perception of women as lesser beings was illustrated in Kuwait, where Islamists temporarily blocked passage of a bill granting political rights to women.



5) The Economy: The Muslim Brothers call for the establishment of an economic system based on the respect of private property. At the same time, however, they insist that it be based on the principles of Islamic Sharia, which criminalizes bank interest. They also call for state ownership of public utilities.



6) System of Government: Contrary to the system of government applied in a democracy, which is based on the peaceful rotation of power through elections, the Muslim Brothers call for a system of government based on the principles of Sharia and the revival of the Islamic Caliphate.



7) Civil Society: The freedom of movement enjoyed by civil society organizations in a democracy would, in an Islamist system, be conditional on their adherence to the strictures of Sharia.



8) Government: The Muslim Brothers oppose the notion of a state based on democratic institutions, calling instead for an Islamic government based on the shura (consultative assembly) system, veneration of the leader, and the investiture of a Supreme Guide. In this they are close to Iran’s system.



9) Political Freedoms: While the legislative branch of government monitors the actions of the state to ensure that they conform to the rules of democracy, the actions of the state are monitored by the Muslim Brothers to ensure that they conform to the rules of Islamic Sharia.



10) The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Muslim Brothers were the first to send volunteers to fight Israel when it was founded in 1948. They have opposed all attempts to reach a peaceful resolution of the conflict, in particular the peace agreements between Egypt and Israel initiated by the late President Sadat. It would be true to say that the Muslim Brothers will never recognize the existence of Israel as legitimate.



11) Religious Minorities: Although the Muslim Brothers of Egypt do not go as far as their counterparts in Saudi Arabia, where the construction of houses of worship for non-Muslims is prohibited, their position on the question of religious minorities include the barring of any non-Muslim from becoming president and the subjection of non-Muslims to the principles of Sharia on which the entire legal system is based.



12) The Legal System: The Muslim Brothers call for the establishment of a constitutional and legal system based on the principles of Sharia, including the application of corporal punishments in the penal code (stoning, lashing, cutting off the hands of thieves, etc.)



13) Violence against Civilians: The Muslim Brothers have never condemned the use of violence against civilians, except if it is directed against Muslim civilians and even that only selectively.



Finally, “progress” in today’s world is realized by two tools, “science and modern management”; two qualities that the Muslim Brothers have neither access to nor interest in.







II. The Necessity to Dialogue



Nevertheless, the harsh and often illegal treatment to which the Muslim Brotherhood is subjected is both unacceptable legally and self-defeating in that it hardens attitudes on both sides. In fact, the only way to resolve this problem with the Islamists is through dialogue, by opening channels of communication and engaging in a frank interchange of views. Debating the issues is the only way to transform a religious party, in the long term, into a civil political party that subscribes to the main tenets of democracy: acceptance of the “Other”, rotation of power, and respect for other religions and for women.



The transformation will be complete when political Islam abandons its distorted understanding of our religion from one rooted in the Middle Ages and reflecting the mentality of Bedouins bred in a harsh and unforgiving desert environment. Civil society is entitled to protect itself from any group that remains locked in a time warp and would have us all retreat with it into a distant past.



As reform in Egypt is a thousand times better than its takeover by any of a number of alternatives so too is reform in Saudi Arabia a thousand times better than its takeover by alternatives that could plunge the entire region into unprecedented chaos. Maintaining the stability of Saudi Arabia and all its neighbours is imperative. But guaranteeing stability is impossible without a historical operation against the extremists. The question is whether the sane elements in Saudi Arabia will follow a course similar to the one taken by their famous forbearer eighty years ago or whether they will continue to coexist with them until the ship sinks with everyone on board.







III. The Requirements of the Dialogue



Dialogue with Islamists should be based on seeking the answers to the following questions:



1. Some of the Muslim Brothers (MB’s) now expound the idea that Copts (Egyptian Christians) are “Fully First Class Egyptian Citizens.” Would this imply that a Copt could be, in principle, elected president of Egypt?



2. Would the Muslim Brothers follow the Saudi model of segregating girls from boys in educational institutions such as schools and universities as well as all other organizations?



3. Non-History-Related-Tourism (i.e., beach tourism) generates in excess of 75 percent of Egypt’s tourism revenues. What are the Brotherhood’s views on the sale of alcoholic beverages, gambling, and casinos, and women dressing in any way they choose?



4. What is the Brotherhood’s opinion concerning the peace treaties between Egypt and Israel, and between Jordan and Israel?



5. What do the MB’s think of the different forms of economic cooperation between Egypt and Israel (the Qualifying Industrial Zones [QIZ], in which joint enterprises receive special privileges for exporting goods to the United States, for instance)?



6. How do the MB’s describe the killing of Israeli civilians in Hamas or Islamic Jihad suicide operations?



7. Do the MB’s believe that Sayyid Qutb’s doctrine known as al-Hak’imiyya — that government must be based exclusively on Allah’s law and which rejects democracy and human law as apostasy — is still the basis of their political system?



8. What are the views of the Brotherhood on women holding high government offices including ministries, the prime ministership, and Supreme Court judgeships?



9. What are the group’s views on the vision of a “two state” solution for Israel and Palestine to live peacefully next to each other? Would they then accept and recognize the right of Israel to exist? Would they also accept that the Jewish section of Jerusalem is Israel’s capital?



10. Egypt’s legal system since 1883 has been based on the juridical notions of the European legal system. What are the Brotherhood’s plans with this regard? And what do they think of physical punishments, such as the sanctions applicable in Saudi Arabia?



11. Like all modern societies, the Egyptian banking system is based on the notion of interests for lending and savings. Will the Brotherhood keep it?



12. Is Iran a factor of stability (or instability) in today’s world?



Finally, one must know that the Brothers are likely to use taqqiyya, a principle which — according to some clerics such as Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya — allows Muslims to lie if so doing assists them in ultimately defeating the infidels!





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

About the author,





Tarek Heggy, طارق حجى (born October 12, 1950, Port Said, Egypt) is an Egyptian liberal political thinker and international petroleum strategist. His extensive writings advocate the values of modernity, democracy, tolerance, and women’s rights in the Middle East – advancing them as universal values essential to the region’s progress. As one of the contemporary leading Egyptian liberal theoreticians, he has lectured at universities throughout the world, including Oxford University, the University of Tokyo, the University of Melbourne, Sydney University, Princeton University, Columbia University, King’s College London, Erasmus University (The Netherlands), the American University in Cairo, and the University of California Berkley. He has also lectured at Marrakesh (Morocco), Fes (Morocco), Zaytouna (Tunis) and Manouba (Tunis) universities. Due to his knowledge of the Middle East, he has been called upon to speak at various international institutions and think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the National Endowment for Democracy, the American Enterprise Institute, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the Council on Foreign Relations. Because of his intellectual project advocating universal human values, he also participates in international organizations addressing the holocaust and genocide, such as Project Aladdin and the Stockholm International Forum.



Tarek Heggy’s main themes are the need for economic, political, cultural and educational reforms in Egypt and the Middle East. His liberal voice calls for self criticism and massive reforms and frankly admits the failures of the political ideologies/dogmas dominating Egypt and the Arab world. Moreover, this voice calls the conspiracy theories and overblown rhetoric that pervade the region signs of a cultural crisis that needs resolution. Finally, he advocates the imperative need to develop a genuine ending to the Aarb-Israeli conflict and therefore establish a true peace between Egypt, the Arab countries and Israel. Tarek Heggy castigates a large portion of Egyptian and Arab media for their promotion of a hate culture and criticizes this media for reintroducing the radical rhetoric of the 1960s that led many Arab countries to catastrophe.



For more information, please visit his web site at: Tarek-Heggy.com.





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

Turkish Regime Sees Egypt Revolution As Opportunity For Repression And Islamism

From Middle East Affairs Information Center;

Turkish Regime Sees Egypt Revolution as Opportunity for Repression and Islamism


Posted on Sun, February 13, 2011 at 14:30 pm, in Democracy, Egypt, Human Rights, Islamism, Turkey . Sun, Feb 13, 2011
The Rubin Report
By Barry Rubin







Turkish Regime Sees Egypt Revolution as Opportunity for Repression and Islamism

While all eyes are on Egypt, Turkish regime policy during this time is worth mentioning. The Turkish government has pressed for more Islamization in Turkey and the strengthening of the Muslim Brotherhood there. It even combined with Iran’s ally Syria — a far worse dictatorship than Mubarak’s — in offering advice on democracy.



Now it has arrested 162 more military officers on trumped-up charges as part of its long-term campaign to subordinate the army. Here’s a first-hand account of what’s happening.



Whatever happens in Egypt, the Islamist forces are on the march in the rest of the region. And contrary to what some in the West seem to think, they definitely do not view events in Egypt as a setback for them.





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

Meanwhile, Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan Moves Against The Military

From The American Thinker:

February 13, 2011


Meanwhile, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan moves against the military

Rick Moran

Since the time of Ataturk, the Turkish military has acted as a bulwark against Islamic extremism. Several times since the end of World War I, the military has overthrown a civilian government - often because they felt that a secular Turkey was under threat from fanatics. (See Stephen Green's excellent piece at PJ Media about the military's role in post World War I Turkish history).



The election of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in 2002 has brought dramatic changes to Turkey. Erdogan has instituted what some are calling "soft Sharia" by incrementally altering Turkish institutions and society to reflect a more Islamist approach to government. And now, Erdogan is moving against the one force that can stop Turkey's slide into extremism.



Claire Berlinsky at Richochet links to a piece describing Erdogan's attempt to intimidate the military:





A Turkish court ruled Friday that 133 current and former military officers must be jailed pending the outcome of their trial on charges of plotting to overthrow the government and issued warrants for the arrests of 29 other officers, Anatolia news agency reported.

Security forces immediately closed all courthouse doors and detained the defendants, including the former air force and navy chiefs, broadcaster NTV reported. The officers began chanting military songs to protest the court's decision, the TV station reported.



The officers, including several high-ranking generals, are on trial accused of conspiring to topple Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's government in 2003. All but one officer had been free until Friday's hearing.



She also links to a piece from the son of one of the accused that paints a disturbing picture:



THE REACTION we got from the country's liberal intelligentsia was symptomatic. The Turkish intelligentsia has made common cause in recent years with the AKP government, thanks in large part to the AKP's success in presenting itself as a force for democratization and civilianization of Turkish politics. These intellectuals see Sledgehammer and other similar trials as a chance to make ultra-secularists and militarists accountable for the crimes of the past. Given Turkey's history of military coups, this is understandable; we saw things pretty much the same way until recently.

What was much more difficult to fathom was these intellectuals' unwillingness to question their beliefs in light of mounting evidence that the defendants had been framed. Many of Turkey's leading "liberals" simply turned their backs on the evidence that we had amassed. They refused to meet with us, failed to show up at panels where we presented our findings, and left our e-mails unanswered. The reporter who first broke the Sledgehammer story in the newspaper Taraf, a ubiquitous presence in the Turkish media, declined invitations to debate us on TV. Ironically, while we were in Turkey prosecutors were forced to reveal-after presistent demands from lawyers-reams of material pointing to the inconsistencies we had identified (and more), which they had chosen to disregard (and hide from the defense).



Obviously, the son of one of the "ringleaders" of the plot is hardly an unbiased source. But if even some of his accusations are true, this is extremely troubling. Turkey, once a strong ally of Israel, recently sponsored the Gaza "Freedom Flotilla" and has been cozying up to Iran in recent months. To continue to fall away from the West and embrace Islamization would mean a shift in the strategic situation of the United States. Turkey is a member of NATO and to see them drift toward Iran would make a gigantic hole in our position in the Middle East while seeing Iran gain an ally in a vital part of the world.



If the military is leashed and is sidelined by Erdogan's ploy, can Turkey protect itself from the extremists? Erdogan can't be trusted to do it himself.









Posted at 11:56 AM

Obama's Middle East Disaster

From The American Thinker:

February 13, 2011


Obama's Middle East disaster

Thomas Lifson

Barack Obama's Middle East fumbles are clearly explained and placed in context by Niall Ferguson, whose Harvard/Oxford/Stanford credentials are difficult for ruling class elitists to ignore. In essence, Obama is winging it (my term, not Ferguson's), lacking a "grand strategy" (Ferguson's term) for the Middle East, and (my phrasing) caught by surprise by events, just making it up as he goes along, saying whatever sounds good at the moment. Ferguson:





The president has alienated everybody: not only Mubarak's cronies in the military, but also the youthful crowds in the streets of Cairo. Whoever ultimately wins, Obama loses. And the alienation doesn't end there. America's two closest friends in the region-Israel and Saudi Arabia-are both disgusted. The Saudis, who dread all manifestations of revolution, are appalled at Washington's failure to resolutely prop up Mubarak. The Israelis, meanwhile, are dismayed by the administration's apparent cluelessness.





Personnel is policy, as the old DC saying goes:





...no president can be expected to be omniscient. That is what advisers are for. The real responsibility for the current strategic vacuum lies not with Obama himself, but with the National Security Council, and in particular with the man who ran it until last October: retired Gen. James L. Jones. I suspected at the time of his appointment that General Jones was a poor choice. A big, bluff Marine, he once astonished me by recommending that Turkish troops might lend the United States support in Iraq. He seemed mildly surprised when I suggested the Iraqis might resent such a reminder of centuries of Ottoman Turkish rule.





Astonishing incompetence, right up there with DNI Clapper's assertion that the Muslim Brotherhood is secular. Why does the President suround himself with fools?





Incompetence leads to a lack of foresight:





I can think of no more damning indictment of the administration's strategic thinking than this: it never once considered a scenario in which Mubarak faced a popular revolt. Yet the very essence of rigorous strategic thinking is to devise such a scenario and to think through the best responses to them, preferably two or three moves ahead of actual or potential adversaries. It is only by doing these things-ranking priorities and gaming scenarios-that a coherent foreign policy can be made. The Israelis have been hard at work doing this. All the president and his NSC team seem to have done is to draft touchy-feely speeches like the one he delivered in Cairo early in his presidency.





Newsweek has just added the distinguished professor to its roster of columnists in the wake of its takeover by The Daily Beast, as surprisingly hopeful sign for what had become a reliably moribund leftist leftover. This column deserves a read in its entirety.

Posted at 12:53 PM

Rift Between Ayatooah Rafsanjani And Iran's Regime Deepens

From Middle East Affairs Information Center:

Rift between Ayatollah Rafsanjani and Iran’s Regime Deepens


Posted on Sun, February 13, 2011 at 20:35 pm, in Iran, Shi'ism . Sun, Feb 13, 2011
The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center





Rafsanjani (left, standing) and Mahdavi-Kani (sitting to his right)



Rift between Ayatollah Rafsanjani and Iran’s Regime Deepens

With the elections for the Assembly of Experts leadership coming up next month, in recent weeks government supporters in the conservative camp have stepped up their criticism of Ayatollah Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, chairman of both the Assembly of Experts and the Expediency Discernment Council. There have been more and more calls to impeach him from the chairmanship of the Assembly of Experts and replace him with top conservative cleric Ayatollah Mohammad-Reza Mahdavi-Kani, the secretary of the conservative Combatant Clergy Association.



A commentary article published this week by the conservative website Mahramaneh News says that the chairman of the Assembly of Experts has to be a person who is not involved in political and partisan battles, and works for unity while putting the good of the regime over personal interests. Rafsanjani’s conduct following the presidential elections indicates that he is not such a person. The website claimed that, following the elections, Rafsanjani preferred his family’s interests to the interests of the regime, did not defend the Supreme Leader, and did not take action to achieve unity among the various forces of the regime. His declarations and actions even serve the interests of foreign media to slam the Iranian regime. His activity this past year shows, according to the website, that he has been ineffective as leader of the Assembly of Experts, and should therefore step down for Ayatollah Mahdavi-Kani (Mahramaneh News, February 7).



In this context, the conservative Fars News Agency has accused people in Rafsanjani’s inner circle of attempting to slander Mahdavi-Kani to prevent him from submitting his candidacy for chairman of the Assembly of Experts. The news agency claimed that more than 50 of the 86 assembly members support Mahdavi-Kani’s appointment for chairman (Fars, February 4).



Rafsanjani’s absence from last Friday’s prayer in Tehran, which was led instead by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was also cause for strong criticism against him. The conservative website Raja News claimed that Rafsanjani’s absence proved once again that he is interested in isolating himself from the regime. By his actions, Rafsanjani has proven that he would rather pursue the interests of the leaders of “incitement” (a term used to refer to the reformist opposition) than take the side of the Supreme Leader. The website estimated that Rafsanjani’s insistence on sticking to the mistakes he had made this past year would lead to his impeachment from the chairmanship of the Assembly of Experts (Raja News, February 6).



Meanwhile, Rafsanjani has issued a memorandum of opinion addressing the latest developments in Tunisia and Egypt. In the memorandum, Rafsanjani expressed support for the popular uprisings in both countries, stating that they were the result of the policies adopted by Egyptian and Tunisian leaders, who refused to heed the voice of the people. No tyrant can stand against a popular movement, even with the support of foreign powers, Rafsanjani argued.



The chairman of the Assembly of Experts expressed his confidence that the popular uprising would not remain limited to Egypt and Tunisia, and that it would expand to many other countries in the world where oppression still prevails. In a possible insinuated reference to the situation in Iran, Rafsanjani stressed that it was the duty of the political and social elites across the globe not to wait until it’s too late, to exercise wisdom, and to comply with the people’s desire for democracy (Aftab, February 7).





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