Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !

Home Front: WoT

Petraeus takes over at U.S. Central Command

2008-10-31

By Andrew Gray TAMPA, Florida (Rooters) - U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus took over the command running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on Friday and said it was vital to combine military and civilian power and work with allies. Petraeus, hailed as an outstanding U.S. military leader for helping to pull Iraq back from the brink of all-out civil war, took charge of U.S. Central Command in a ceremony at the headquarters in Tampa, Florida. Central Command, known as Centcom, oversees U.S. military operations and strategy in a volatile swathe of the world that covers 20 countries and stretches from Egypt across the Middle East and into south and central Asia. Petraeus, 55, a fiercely competitive, media-friendly soldier who holds a doctorate in international relations from Princeton University, leaves on Saturday to visit the region. His most pressing problems include rising insurgent violence in Afghanistan and safe havens for Taliban and al Qaeda militants across in border in Pakistan. "From trans-national extremist organizations and industrial-strength insurgencies to weapons proliferation, a rise in piracy and persistent ethno-sectarian conflict, the Centcom area contains innumerable challenges," Petraeus said. "Addressing these challenges requires comprehensive approaches that employ the whole of our government's capabilities in close coordination with host country and coalition governments and security forces," he said. His remarks reflected Petraeus' belief that violence and instability cannot be solved by force alone and that economic development and political measures are also needed to address underlying causes. Petraeus, 55, pursued that approach as the top commander in Iraq from February 2007 until last month and violence dropped to its lowest level in more than four years. PRE-EMINENT SOLDIER While other major factors also contributed to the security gains in Iraq and analysts argue about how durable they are, Petraeus' leadership has earned him widespread praise in the United States and beyond. "He is the pre-eminent soldier-scholar-statesman of his generation and precisely the man we need at this command at this time," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said at the ceremony, conducted outdoors in bright sunshine. "Under his leadership, our troops have dealt our enemies in Iraq a tremendous blow. Now he will take aim at our adversaries in Afghanistan." One of Petraeus' main challenges will be to maintain his cautious approach to troop cuts in Iraq while meeting commanders' requests for more forces in Afghanistan, where insurgent violence has worsened this year. That task may be more difficult if Democrat Barack Obama defeats Republican John McCain in next week's U.S. presidential election. Although he has reserved room for maneuver, Obama has suggested removing combat troops from Iraq in 16 months. Petraeus took over at Central Command from Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, in temporary charge since Navy Adm. William Fallon quit in March after a magazine article said he was pushing President George W. Bush to avoid war with Iran.

Link

Iraq

Our generals almost cost us Iraq

2008-09-24

By Mackubin Thomas Owens The dominant media storyline about the Iraq war holds that the decisions about how to conduct it pitted ignorant civilians -- especially the president and secretary of defense -- against the uniformed military, whose wise and sober advice was cavalierly ignored. The Bush administration's cardinal sin was interference in predominantly military affairs, starting with overruling the military on the size of the force that invaded Iraq in March 2003. But it's not just the media that peddles this story. As Bob Woodward illustrates in his new book, "The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008," it also resonates among many senior uniformed military officers. The plausibility of the narrative rests on two questionable principles. The first is that soldiers have the right to a voice in making policy regarding the use of the military instrument -- that indeed they have the right to insist that their views be adopted. The second is that the judgment of soldiers is inherently superior to that of civilians when it comes to military affairs. Both of these principles are at odds with the American practice of civil-military relations, and with the historical record. In our republic the uniformed military advises the civilian authorities, but has no right to insist that its views be adopted. Of course, uniformed officers have an obligation to stand up to civilian leaders if they think a policy is flawed. They must convey their concerns to civilian policy-makers forcefully and truthfully. But once a policy decision is made, soldiers are obligated to carry it out to the best of their ability, whether their advice is heeded or not. Moreover, even when it comes to strictly military affairs, soldiers are not necessarily more prescient than civilian policy makers. This is confirmed by the historical record. Historians have long recognized that Abraham Lincoln's judgment concerning the conduct of the Civil War was vastly superior to that of Gen. George McClellan. They have recognized that Gen. George C. Marshall, the greatest soldier-statesman since George Washington, was wrong to oppose arms shipments to Great Britain in 1940, and wrong to argue for a cross-channel invasion during the early years of World War II, before the U.S. was ready. Historians have pointed out that the U.S. operational approach that contributed to our defeat in Vietnam was the creature of the uniformed military. And they have observed that the original -- unimaginative -- military plan for Operation Desert Storm in the Gulf War was rejected by the civilian leadership, which ordered a return to the drawing board. The revised plan was far more imaginative, and effective. So it was with Iraq. The fact is that the approach favored by the uniformed leadership was failing. As the insurgency metastasized in 2005, the military had three viable alternatives: continue offensive operations along the lines of those in Anbar province after Fallujah; adopt a counterinsurgency approach; or emphasize the training of Iraqi troops in order to transition to Iraqi control of military operations. Gen. John Abizaid, commander of the U.S. Central Command, and Gen. George W. Casey, commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq -- supported by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers -- chose the third option. Transitioning to Iraqi control was a logical option for the long run. But it did little to solve the problem of the insurgency, which was generating sectarian violence. Based on the belief by many senior commanders, especially Gen. Abizaid, that U.S. troops were an "antibody" to Iraqi culture, the Americans consolidated their forces on large "forward operating bases," maintaining a presence only by means of motorized patrols that were particularly vulnerable to attacks by improvised explosive devices. They also conceded large swaths of territory and population alike to the insurgents. Violence spiked. In late 2006, President Bush, like President Lincoln in 1862, adopted a new approach to the war. He replaced the uniformed and civilian leaders who were adherents of the failed operational approach with others who shared his commitment to victory rather than "playing for a tie." In Gen. David Petraeus, Mr. Bush found his Ulysses Grant, to execute an operational approach based on sound counterinsurgency doctrine. This new approach has brought the U.S. to the brink of victory. Although the conventional narrative about the Iraq war is wrong, its persistence has contributed to the most serious crisis in civil-military relations since the Civil War. According to Mr. Woodward's account, the uniformed military not only opposed the surge, insisting that their advice be followed; it then subsequently worked to undermine the president once he decided on another strategy. In one respect, the actions taken by military opponents of the surge, e.g. "foot-dragging," "slow-rolling" and selective leaking are, unfortunately, all-too-characteristic of U.S. civil-military relations during the last decade and a half. But the picture Mr. Woodward draws is far more troubling. Even after the policy had been laid down, the bulk of the senior U.S. military leadership -- the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, the rest of the Joint Chiefs, and Gen. Abizaid's successor, Adm. William Fallon, actively worked against the implementation of the president's policy. If Mr. Woodward's account is true, it means that not since Gen. McClellan attempted to sabotage Lincoln's war policy in 1862 has the leadership of the U.S. military so blatantly attempted to undermine a president in the pursuit of his constitutional authority. It should be obvious that such active opposition to a president's policy poses a threat to the health of the civil-military balance in a republic. Mr. Owens is a professor at the Naval War College and editor of Orbis, the journal of the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

Link

Home Front: WoT

Petraeus takes command of Middle East

2008-07-11

The US Senate has confirmed Gen. David Petraeus as commander of the military headquarters responsible for US operations across the Middle East. The Senate confirmed Petraeus by a vote of 95-2 on Thursday. Harkin (Dhimmi-IA) and Byrd (D-KKK) voted no. Does Byrd even know what planet he's on? The Harry F. Byrd Memorial Planet? I doubt he's oriented to person, place and time ... It also confirmed 96-1 the nomination of Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno as top commander in Iraq, replacing Petraeus. Harkin again. How did Odierno get Byrd's vote? Did he promise to name a tank after him? Yes, but they have to keep it in West Virginia ... Odierno, who previously served as Petraeus' deputy in the war, will be promoted to full general. As head of Central Command, Petraeus will oversee military operations in a region that includes Iran, Pakistan and 25 other countries, as well as strategically and economically significant international waters, including the Persian Gulf. Petraeus' nomination followed the resignation of Adm. William Fallon after a reported break with the Bush administration over Iran policy.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Obama says He'll vote for Petraeus for new military job

2008-04-28

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, who has called for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq, said on Sunday he will vote to confirm the top commander there for a new job as head of the military's Central Command. "Yes," Obama told "Fox News Sunday" when asked if, as a senator from Illinois, he would approve Petraeus. "I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq." President George W. Bush has nominated Gen. David Petraeus, who led the buildup of troops in Iraq, to be in charge of operations across the Middle East and Central Asia. If confirmed by the Senate, Petraeus will still be in that job when the next president replaces Bush at the White House in January 2009. Obama hopes that person is him. Obama has said he would start pulling out more troops as soon as he became president. "My hope is that Petraeus would reflect that wider view of our strategic interest," he said on "Fox News Sunday."I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he has accumulated over the last several years," Obama said. "It would be stupid of me to ignore what he has to say. "It would be my job as commander in chief to set the mission, to make the strategic decisions in light of the problems that we're having in Afghanistan, in light of the problems that we are having in Pakistan, the fact that al Qaeda is strengthening," Obama said. Obama also said he was a "big respecter" of Petraeus' predecessor Adm. William Fallon, who resigned after a magazine article depicted him as openly criticizing Bush administration policy over Iran. "It was unfortunate that the administration wasn't listening more to the observations of Fallon, that we have to think about more than just Iraq, that we've got issues with Iran and Pakistan and Afghanistan, and our singular focus on Iraq I think has distracted us," Obama said.

Link

India-Pakistan

With a Quiet Blessing, U.S. Attacks on Al Qaeda Spike

2008-03-23

The United States has stepped up its use of pilotless planes to strike at Qaeda targets along Pakistan's rugged border area, a measure that in the past drew protests from President Pervez Musharraf but now has his government's tacit approval. Since January, missiles reportedly fired from CIA operated Predator drones have hit at least three suspected hideouts of Islamic militants, including a strike last Sunday on a house in a South Waziristan village called Toog. The surge began after visits to Pakistan at the beginning of the year by senior U.S. officials, including intelligence czar Mike McConnell, CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden and Adm. William Fallon, who recently resigned as commander of the U.S. forces in the region. Some news reports said at the time that Musharraf had "rebuffed" U.S. proposals to step up combat operations inside Pakistan. But U.S. officials and Pakistani sources, who asked for anonymity discussing sensitive information, said the recent wave of Predator attacks are at least partly the result of understandings the high-level visitors reached with Musharraf and other top Pakistanis, giving the United States virtually unrestricted authority to hit targets in the border areas. One former official said that the United States has been relying on its own intel to uncover terror targets because Pakistani intelligence agencies are weak on espionage in the tribal areas. By contrast, U.S. forces have a heavy presence on the Afghan side of the border. Bruce Riedel, a retired CIA expert on the region, said that a new wave of terrorism inside Pakistan—there were 62 suicide attacks last year, after just six in 2006—has forced Musharraf and the new military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, to acknowledge that the same extremists threatening Americans now also pose a growing threat to Pakistan's internal security. Another reason for the rise in Predator strikes, according to a current U.S. official: Washington fears that any newly formed civilian government in Pakistan will be more hostile to U.S. operations there than Musharraf's current regime. Time to act, in other words, may be running out.

Link

Iraq

U.S. general accuses Iran of continuing to support Iraqi insurgents

2008-03-05

(Xinhua) — A U.S. senior military officer accused Iran on Tuesday of continuing to support Iraqi insurgents by providing training and weapons. "We have no doubt they are still supporting insurgents," said the former senior military commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, at a press conference in Washington. However, Odierno did not view Iran's support to insurgents as along-term threat to Iraqi stability, but he acknowledged the need to "constantly watch it." Meanwhile, the general noted a positive change of Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army, which was considered the biggest challenge to U.S. efforts to stabilize the country. "I think he's trying to move them away from a militia-based organization to one that is more - as it started out to be - helping the poor Shiite community have a role and a vote in what goes on in the government of Iraq," he said. Echoing Odierno's concern on Iran, Adm. William Fallon, the chief of the Central Command governing the troops in the Middle East, told a Tuesday hearing at the Senate that Iran was fanning the flames of global terrorism. He claimed that although the Irani government denied charges of harmful meddling in Iraq, "the facts prove otherwise." However, Fallon also described Irani President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's two-day trip to Iraq this week as a "mixed bag" that could offer an opportunity for the Iraqi government to push Iran directly to stop supporting insurgents and start cooperating with coalition forces. Ahmadinejad's visit to Iraq was the first by an Iranian leader since the country's 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Link

Africa Horn

U.S. steps up anti-piracy ops

2008-01-12

From Geostrategy-Direct, subscription. The commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said last week that the U.S. Navy has been ordered to step up anti-piracy operations against ship-borne criminals near East Africa. Adm. William Fallon said pirates in the region have become bolder and are attacking larger ships. “I have given some guidance to our naval commanders, and we've been able to get some approvals to do some things that are a little more aggressive than we had in the past. We were pretty much in a passive mode," Fallon told Voice of America. “We're going to continue to operate in this area and to do everything we can to discourage this kind of activity.” How about following pirate vessels back to port with a UAV and then make a crater of the dock area for a radius of 100 meters. Navy ships recently retook a pirated ships and blocked pirates from getting supplies from shore. Small boats used by pirates also have been destroyed off the coast of Somalia. Pirates pose a threat to stability in the region. “This kind of behavior, lawless behavior, if it's allowed to continue, just fosters an atmosphere of total disregard for accepted norms of behavior. And one thing leads to another, and if you allow this kind of behavior, whether it's ashore or afloat, typically there's a downward spiral. And that's what I think we've seen in this area. So, we're trying to clean up the neighborhood.” Master of the Obvious, understatement of the week..... An estimate 200 pirates are believed to operate in East African waters and until recently operates a number of criminal enterprises that were engaged in stealing ship cargo and kidnapping crews and vessels and seeking ransom.

Link

Home Front: WoT

U.S. Troops to be sent to Pakistan early next year

2007-12-27

This story was posted to the Washington Post on the 26th. It bears watching to see if the troop deployment will still going forward since Bhutto's assasination. Beginning early next year, U.S. Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence in Pakistan, as part of an effort to train and support indigenous counter-insurgency forces and clandestine counterterrorism units, according to defense officials involved with the planning. These Pakistan-centric operations will mark a shift for the U.S. military and for U.S. Pakistan relations. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the U.S. used Pakistani bases to stage movements into Afghanistan. Yet once the U.S. deposed the Taliban government and established its main operating base at Bagram, north of Kabul, U.S. forces left Pakistan almost entirely. Since then, Pakistan has restricted U.S. involvement in cross-border military operations as well as paramilitary operations on its soil. But the Pentagon has been frustrated by the inability of Pakistani national forces to control the borders or the frontier area. And Pakistan's political instability has heightened U.S. concern about Islamic extremists there. According to Pentagon sources, reaching a different agreement with Pakistan became a priority for the new head of the U.S. Special Operations Command, Adm. Eric T. Olson. Olson visited Pakistan in August, November and again this month, meeting with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, Pakistani Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Chairman Gen. Tariq Majid and Lt. Gen. Muhammad Masood Aslam, commander of the military and paramilitary troops in northwest Pakistan. Olson also visited the headquarters of the Frontier Corps, a separate paramilitary force recruited from Pakistan's border tribes. Now, a new agreement, reported when it was still being negotiated last month, has been finalized. And the first U.S. personnel could be on the ground in Pakistan by early in the new year, according to Pentagon sources. U.S. Central Command Commander Adm. William Fallon alluded to the agreement and spoke approvingly of Pakistan's recent counterterrorism efforts in an interview with Voice of America last week. "What we've seen in the last several months is more of a willingness to use their regular army units," along the Afghan border, Fallon said. "And this is where, I think, we can help a lot from the U.S. in providing the kind of training and assistance and mentoring based on our experience with insurgencies recently and with the terrorist problem in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we share a lot with them, and we'll look forward to doing that." If Pakistan actually follows through, perhaps 2008 will be a better year.

Link

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

DEBKA: US to return to Lebanon, build big air installation near Syria

2007-10-10

It's Debka, so take it FWIW. But wouldn't that just twist knickers in Teheran? The air base, according to DEBKAfile’s military sources, will be located at Kleiat in northern Lebanon roughly 75 air miles from Damascus, which these days doubles as a shared Syrian-Iranian military hub and Tehran’s eastern Mediterranean forward base. The American air installation will also lie 22 air miles from Tartous, Syria’s main naval base and the Russian Mediterranean fleet’s command center. And the aircraft posted there will be minutes away from the joint Syrian-Iranian arms and missiles industries at Homs and Hamma. DEBKAfile’s source report the Bush administration’s drastic change of policy on Lebanon was settled in consultations at the Pentagon and National Security Council after the talks the chief of the US Central Command Adm. William Fallon held with Lebanese government heads on July 29. This new direction was confirmed after the Israeli air raid over Syria of Sept. 6. It brings the American military back to Lebanon after a 25-year absence. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan pulled US troops out of the country after Syrian military intelligence orchestrated terrorist bombing attacks on the US embassy and Marines headquarters in Beirut, which left more than 300 soldiers, diplomats and CIA agents dead. The first stage of construction will reactivate the small defunct air base at Kleiat as a joint US-Lebanese venture. Prime minister Fouad Siniora will explain that the four months of bloody fighting to crush the Fatah al-Islam revolt in the northern Nahar al-Bared camp demonstrated how badly the Lebanese army needs an operational air base in the region. US Air Force engineers and technicians have begun work on the new air field. At a later stage, it will be expanded for American military use.

Link

Afghanistan

Afghan Northern Alliance commander: Taliban talks 'long and complex'

2007-09-22

An anti-Taliban commander who fought alongside US forces during the 2001 invasion predicted that proposed peace talks would be a "long and complex process" but likely would be snubbed by hard-liners and foreign fighters in the Islamic militia. The comments by Gen. Bismillah Khan - made during a visit by the most senior US military chief for the region - appeared to reflect a more cautious approach by some in the Afghan military toward a push by President Hamid Karzai to open talks with the Taliban. "This could be a beginning," Khan said following meetings with Adm. William Fallon, the head of US Central Command. "But it's a long and complex process. It's not something that will have a significant effect in the short term."

Link

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Abizaid: World could abide nuclear Iran

2007-09-18

Yeah, we may be able to deter Iran from using them. Directly. But the regime has stated that they are at the service of those who would undo the US. Which means to me that they will hand them one-off deniable nuclear material/bombs and wait to see what happens next. In my opinion, Abizaid isn't factoring this in, or he isn't giving it the weight he should be. Or maybe he is . . . . Insurgency grew during his command. Is shrinking under Petraeus. I respect the general but I think he's mistaken: once Iran has the bomb it will do two things. First is to mate it to a missile and use the threat of that to cow neighboring states to their well. Second is to work for the day they can hand it to their favorite group of terrorists with plausible deniability. Either outcome is really bad for us. WASHINGTON - Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday. John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them. "Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon." The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability. "I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States. "There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well." None of whom were/are waiting for the twelfth imam to appear. He stressed that he was expressing his personal opinion and that none of his remarks were based on his previous experience with U.S. contingency plans for potential military action against Iran. Abizaid stressed the dangers of allowing more and more nations to build a nuclear arsenal. And while he said it is likely that Iran will make a technological breakthrough to obtain a nuclear bomb, "it's not inevitable." Abizaid suggested military action to pre-empt Iran's nuclear ambitions might not be the wisest course. "War, in the state-to-state sense, in that part of the region would be devastating for everybody, and we should avoid it — in my mind — to every extent that we can," he said. "On the other hand, we can't allow the Iranians to continue to push in ways that are injurious to our vital interests." So we should avoid war but shouldn't avoid war. He suggested that many in Iran — perhaps even some in the Tehran government — are open to cooperating with the West. The thrust of his remarks was a call for patience in dealing with Iran, which President Bush early in his first term labeled one of the "axis of evil" nations, along with North Korea and Iraq. He said there is a basis for hope that Iran, over time, will move away from its current anti-Western stance. Starting the day after the Mad Mullahs™ are deposed. Abizaid's comments appeared to represent a more accommodating and hopeful stance toward Iran than prevails in the White House, which speaks frequently of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions. The administration says it seeks a diplomatic solution to complaints about Iran's alleged support for terrorism and its nuclear program, amid persistent rumors of preparations for a U.S. military strike. Abizaid expressed confidence that the United States and the world community can manage the Iran problem. "I believe the United States, with our great military power, can contain Iran — that the United States can deliver clear messages to the Iranians that makes it clear to them that while they may develop one or two nuclear weapons they'll never be able to compete with us in our true military might and power," he said. Containment worked modestly well with the old Soviet Union because nearly the entire West was -- officially, at least -- signed on to it. It didn't work with Iraq because Germany, France, China and Russia wouldn't agree to continue sanctions. Why would anyone think containment work with Iran, given the situation is likely to be similar to Iraq? China and Russia have already made clear that they'll do business with the Mad Mullahs™. He described Iran's government as reckless, with ambitions to dominate the Middle East. "We need to press the international community as hard as we possibly can, and the Iranians, to cease and desist on the development of a nuclear weapon and we should not preclude any option that we may have to deal with it," he said. He then added his remark about finding ways to live with a nuclear-armed Iran. And if none of that works, what then? Abizaid made his remarks in response to questions from his audience after delivering remarks about the major strategic challenges in the Middle East and Central Asia — the region in which he commanded U.S. forces from July 2003 until February 2007, when he was replaced by Adm. William Fallon.

Link

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

U.S. rewards Lebanon army victory with weapons support

2007-09-11

The United States has pledged to ship additional weapons to Lebanon. Officials said the Bush administration has sent a series of messages that the Lebanese Army would receive additional U.S.-origin weapons and platforms. They said the administration was encouraged by the army's victory over Fatah Al-Islam in northern Lebanon. "Our partnership includes the commitment of the United States to provide the LAF with the supplies they need to battle — and conquer — the armed extremists in the North," U.S. ambassador to Beirut, Jeffrey Feltman, said. The administration has allocated more than $270 million for Lebanon in fiscal 2007, which ends in October. So far, the United States has delivered 130 Humvee combat vehicles, and was preparing to send another 165 to Lebanon over the next few months, Middle East Newsline reported. U.S. Central Command chief, Adm. William Fallon, said Lebanon would soon receive additional military equipment. In late August, Fallon held talks with Lebanese military and political leaders to discuss Beirut's requirements. "As for the future, I would like to offer my services and the services of my command to work with you to complete issues that you consider beneficial to build the Lebanese Army to become an institution that could even be more beneficial than now for this country," Fallon said. Lebanon has complained of the slow pace of U.S. deliveries as well as the type of weapons sent. Lebanese Army Chief of Staff Gen. Michel Suleiman and Defense Minister Michel Murr said Beirut requires new platforms rather than munitions. "Arming and equipping the LAF is of great importance for the defense of Lebanon's sovereignty and for the continuation of the war on terrorism that does not only threaten Lebanon, but the countries of the region and the world," Murr said. "It is in the best interest of friendly nations to cooperate with and support the LAF to combat this dangerous phenomenon." But U.S. officials cited the war in Iraq as well as force protection issues for the delay in weapons deliveries to Lebanon. They said both Washington as well as European allies have refrained from supplying the Lebanese Army with major weapons platforms, particularly combat helicopters, out of concern that they would come under the control of the Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah.

Link

Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More