War Policies Of Obama Are Failing ACROSS The Middle East
Setting Up Israel’s Defeat When Obama Brings Troops Home
And his efforts to appease Iran have only strengthened Them
The Last Chapter of the Age of the Gentiles now being Written
Fullness of Gentile Age occurs as Israel’s spiritual blindness Ends
Veil is Lifted in Negev Wilderness at the Final Battle of Gentile Age
June 14, 2010
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
Galatians 3:24-26 – Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. [25] But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
[26] For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
II Corinthians 3:14-16 – But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. [15] But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. [16] Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
Revelation 16:16 – And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
Romans 11:25,26 – For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. [26] And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Begin Excerpt from Debkafile
The Afghan War nears end with Pakistan-aided Taliban victory
DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis June 13, 2010, 9:33 PM (GMT+02:00)
After eight years and four months, America’s longest war is about to end,
DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence report – although not in victory for the US-led NATO forces but at best in a draw, or at worst, in a win for the Taliban, al Qaeda’s extremist partner. The repercussions of the US exit in these circumstances will impinge on American influence worldwide including the Middle East.
The allies owe their reverses to five factors: Postponement of the Kandahar offensive, Taliban’s acquisition of anti-air missiles and ability to strike anywhere in Kabul, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Agency’s extensive support for the Taliban, and a UN proposal to “de-list” some key Taliban and al Qaeda figures designated as terrorists. DEBKAfile elaborates on these factors:
1. The big Kandahar offensive in southern Afghanistan this month, the centerpiece of the new strategy President Barack Obama approved last December along with a 40,000-troop surge, has been postponed until the fall – at the earliest. With the participation of American, British, Canadian and Afghan forces, this offensive was billed as the operation for turning the tide of the Afghanistan war.
Washington was understandably reluctant to announce the postponement although, according to DEBKAfile’s military analysts, it was unavoidable after the disappointment of Operation Mushtarak in Marjah, which was to have been a dress rehearsal in another part of the South, Helmand Province, for the big show in Kandahar.
In Marjah, the combined US-UK force and the Afghan army, which most of the time refused to fight, were unable to loosen the Taliban’s grip on the town or prevent the insurgents from using it as a springboard for grabbing the whole of southern Afghanistan.
Sunday, June 13, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and US commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal paid a visit to Kandahar to assure the local tribes they had not been abandoned. Karzai spoke with gusto about the coming offensive; he only “forgot” to mention a date.
With the Kandahar delay, the bottom is about to drop out of Obama’s overall war strategy.
2. Another deadly turning-point in the conflict was marked last week with the discovery that Taliban had acquired the missiles for downing Western helicopters and low-flying aircraft.
The British Prime Minister David Cameron had to cancel his helicopter flight to the main British base of Camp Bastion on June 12 after receiving intelligence that the Taliban was preparing to shoot it down.
Three days earlier, on June 9, an American Chinook crashed near Sangin in the Helmand Province killing all four US servicemen aboard. It was then that US and NATO comm
anders first realized that an unknown party had given the Taliban those anti-air missiles and instructed them in their use.
This means that US helicopters can no longer provide ground forces with close air support and must fly at higher altitudes out of missile range.
3. In their White House talks of May 10-14,Karzai and Obama glossed over their differences by agreeing that the Afghan president would convene a “peace jirga” (a conference of tribal leaders) that would include chieftains and commanders associated with the Taliban as the first step toward national reconciliation.
The conference did take off in Kabul on June 2, attended by 1,400 heads of tribes and factions.
But when President Karzai’s speech was in full flow, Taliban suicide bombers and gunmen burst in, hurling rockets and grenades. The President just managed to finish his speech before being whisked off the platform by security guards and driven away in a convoy of armored cars.
The tribal chiefs saw for themselves that neither Afghan nor American forces were capable of promising security for any peace conference, whereas the Taliban were clearly able to operate freely in the Afghan capital and any other part of the country.
4. At the same time, Staffan de Mistura, the top U.N. representative in Afghanistan, put in a good word for the Taliban when he told reporters Saturday, June 12. “The U.N. is listening to what the peace jirga is saying. Some of the people in the list may not be alive anymore. The list may be completely outdated.”
Fueling momentum for a political solution to the nearly nine-year-old Afghan war, a U.N. committee is reviewing whether certain people could be removed from blacklist that freezes assets and limits travel of key Taliban and al-Qaida figures, the top U.N. representative said Saturday.
5. On Sunday, June 13, The Sunday Times of London ran a long article under the heading: Pakistan puppet masters guide the Taliban killers. It was based on a new report by the London School of Economics according to which Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency is providing extensive funding, training and sanctuary to the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The report cites concrete evidence suggesting that support for the Taliban is the “official policy” of the ISI, which not only trains and funds the Afghan insurgents, but is officially represented on the their leadership council.
Washington was shocked by this evidence so soon after President Asif Ali Zardar assured President Obama when they met in Washington last month that he could count on the commitment of the Pakistani government and intelligence resources to fight Taliban and al Qaeda, as a solid prop of US strategy for the Afghan war.
But all the time, it transpired, behind their false face to US military and intelligence chiefs, the ISI has been collaborating with Taliban commanders in their operational planning and selection of targets, supplying them with weapons, explosives and roadside bombs and making grants to the bereaved families of suicide killers who murdered American and British troops.
According to the LSE report, half at least of the 15 members of the Taliban’s Quetta Shura (the council which runs the war from its seat in Quetta, the capital of Pakistani Baluchistan) are active officers of Pakistani military intelligence.
“It is impossible to be a member of the Quetta Shura without membership of the ISI,” said a high-ranking Taliban fighter.
Given the depth of the ISI’s integration in the Afghanistan Taliban’s war effort against NATO, the US military might as well drop their efforts to cut the Afghan Taliban’s weapons supply route from Pakistan.
The revelations of the LSE are not new, DEBKAfile reports, except for the fact that a prominent Western publication was willing to print them.
They were covered fairly exhaustively in previous issues of DEBKA-Net-Weekly in the past two years.
Most recently, on February 28, 2010, DNW 434 exposed a shady Pakistan intrigue behind the handover to the Americans of Abdul Ghani Baradar, whom they represented as Mullah Omar’s first lieutenant the lost of whom would seriously impair Taliban’s fighting ability – so they claimed It was in fact an ISI trick.
Baradar was no longer important to the Taliban and his handover no great loss because he had turned coat and was looking for an opening for peace talks with the Americans. The ISI needed to get rid of him before he succeeded
to keep the Afghan War on the boil, because as long as it lasts, both the Taliban and the Americans will be dependent on Islamabad and the Pakistanis will carry on pulling wires and playing one side against the other.
The longer the Obama administration clings to the assumption that cooperation with Pakistan and its intelligence agency is the only course for beating the Taliban and al Qaeda, the more elusive an Afghanistan triumph will be for the US and its allies.
Begin Excerpt from Ynet News
Crocker is retired today but was certainly aware of the fact that John Brennan Obama doctrine failing
Effort to appease Islam does not seem to be working for America
Zvi Mazel
Published :06.14.10
In order to further relations with Arab and Islamic countries, President Obama introduced a new policy of appeasement contrasting with his predecessors’ efforts to fight and isolate Muslim extremists.
This week was yet another painful reminder of what it means.
Ryan Crocker, who was the US ambassador to Iraq from 2007 to 2009, called for opening a dialogue with the Hezbollah, saying that the group “is a part of the Lebanese political landscape, and we should deal with it directly.” Jeffrey Feltman, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, promptly denied that such change was being contemplated. According to Reuters he said Washington could rethink its policy if Hezbollah would stop maintaining a militia, drop “terrorist” activities and evolve into a “normal” part of Lebanon’s political fabric.
The president’s assistant for homeland security and counter-terrorism, had been widely quoted as hinting that the Administration was interested in reinforcing “moderate elements” in Hezbollah.
Barely two months ago, at the beginning of April, the White House declared it would no longer use terms such as “extremist and militant Islam.” During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in late May, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of “political, economic and social forces,” and added that those planning attacks on the United States should not be described in “religious terms“.
In other words, for Brennan there is no religious factor involved when Islamist terrorists kill women and children – even if the terrorists themselves ceaselessly claim they are fighting to impose Islamic rule upon the world.
In December 2009, State Department Egyptian desk director Nicole Chapman told Egyptian daily “Almasry Alyom” that the United States was engaged in a dialogue with the Muslim Brothers in Egypt and that meetings had taken place with its leaders, without giving details about the content of these meetings. Asked why then the US refused to talk to Hamas’ Khaled Mashaal, she was quoted at having said “We work with all political parties including those belonging to the political Islamic stream in all the countries of the world.”
The following January, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton lifted the visa ban imposed on Tarik Ramadan six years earlier. Ramadan, grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, is considered the most senior representative of the movement in Europe today and the best Radical Islam propagandist in the West. According to the new White House policy, he was admitted into the United States; he was offered a teaching position at Notre Dame University.
Policy of contradictions
However, the new American policy is replete with contradictions. How will it be possible to engage in a dialogue with Hezbollah, an organization created, supported and financed by Iran and strictly supervised by the Revolutionary Guards, who while supplying it with weapons do not let it stray from their position regarding Israel and the West
?
The US also made openings to Syria in the hope it would cut its links to Iran, stop giving assistance to Hezbollah and loosen its grip on Lebanon – but to no avail. Meanwhile, the US refrained for giving support – even moral support – to the Iranian people protesting again the theft of their votes in the last election.
Returning to the Muslim Brothers – “Extremist Islam” which the White House wishes to eradicate from accepted political jargon, is at the core of the Muslim Brotherhood, a movement which has been threatening Egypt for the past 80 years and as such has been prosecuted and persecuted by successive Egyptian governments. President Mubarak keeps fighting the group because it threatened the stability of the country. After all, the motto of the Brotherhood is unchanged: “Islam is the solution”.
So how can the US maintain dialogue with an outlawed organization in a country which is allegedly a friend and an ally?
One has to see this policy of appeasement at all cost within the framework of Obama’s first actions in office.
On the very first day at his swearing in ceremony, he mentioned Islam before Judaism as having contributed to the construction of the United States. (When and how is not clear…), adding that some nine million Muslims live in the country – a wildly inflated number.
He gave his first interview to al-Arabia – the well-known Saudi TV channel – and flew to Turkey and then to Cairo to deliver his famous speech, stressing that the US and Islam share common values of justice and progress, tolerance and respect.
One can only wonder whether cutting off arms and legs, killing homosexuals, stoning adulterous women, executing people for converting to another religion represent those values of justice
and progress? And what about the Taliban, Ahmadinejad or Sheik al- Awlaki who incited Major Nidal Malik Hasan to kill fellow American soldiers?
More pressure on Israel
Unfortunately this new policy of appeasement included increased pressure on Israel and a departure from long established understandings.
The demand for so-called proximity talks with the Palestinians and for the cessation of all new construction, including in Jerusalem, is a complete reversal of traditional American positions. It upset the delicate balance achieved at Oslo and its main success, direct talks with no preconditions. Abbas and with him the whole Arab world embraced the new terms set down by Israel’s erstwhile strongest ally.
America went a step further. When the periodical review on the implantation of the NPT convened last month, it endorsed the resolution demanding that Israel sign the treaty and providing for a special meeting to be convened within two years to check implementation. In its efforts to further appease Arab and Islamic states, including Iran, it willfully ignored the fact that Israel has to deal with the threats of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas chorusing together that they want to eradicate Israel from the surface of the earth.
What is perceived as a weakening of America’s support undoubtedly led Turkey to mount a deliberate provocation against Israel. A move which drew applause from the Arab world and from the European Left, with President Obama calling on Erdogan to present his condolences on the killing of peaceful Turkish citizens (didn’t he know that they belonged to a group of Islamist terrorists?) and agreeing to an immediate meeting of the Security Council and to the condemnation of Israel and a call to end the Gaza blockade.
But what, if anything, did this policy of appeasement achieve? Nothing. No country changed its position regarding Israel or the US; on the contrary, more and more concessions are demanded of Israel since it is expected that Washington will increase the pressure.
For decades the US had made it clear in deeds and words that it was behind Israel. Public opinion in the country is overwhelmingly pro-Israel as is the case in Congress and in major media outlets. However, executive power is vested in the White House, there winds of change are blowing.
Notwithstanding
Obama’s often repeated declarations of undying support for Israel’s security, it is unclear what would happen in case of a major confrontation between Israel and its sworn enemies. What if the sanctions against Iran are powerless to deter that country and it achieves nuclear capability? Would America intervene… or leave Israel to battle alone?
Zvi Mazel, Former Ambassador of Israel to Romania, Egypt and Sweden and a Fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and State
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.