THIS IS OUR MODERN DAY PEARL HARBOR???

Russia Warns US, Supplying Arms To Ukraine “Will Have Dramatic Consequences”

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/11/2015 11:30 -0500

As Putin arrives at the Minsk Summit, his Deputy Foreign Minister makes the Russian position clear to Washington:

*U.S. ARMS SUPPLIES TO UKRAINE WILL HAVE DRAMATIC OUTCOME: IFX
*RUSSIA WILL NOT IGNORE U.S. ARMS SUPPLIES TO UKRAINE: IFX

Hardly what Merkel or Hollande wants to hear?

As Interfax reports,

U.S. LETHAL WEAPONS SUPPLIES TO EAST UKRAINE WILL HAVE DRAMATIC CONSEQUENCES, RUSSIA WON’T BE ABLE TO STAY ASIDE – RYABKOV
CHIZHOV: U.S. IS ARTIFICIALLY SUPPORTING DEBATE IN EUROPE ON SUPPLY OF WEAPONS TO UKRAINE
CHIZHOV: EUROPE UNDERSTANDS THAT SUPPLY OF WEAPONS TO UKRAINE WILL INCREASE RISK OF DIRECT INVOLVEMENT OF RUSSIA

And finally Poroshenko adds,

POROSHENKO: SITUATION WILL GET OUT OF CONTROL IF AGREEMENT ON DE-ESCALATION OF SITUATION IN DONBAS IS NOT REACHED IN MINSK

Isis war to extend far beyond Iraq and Syria under Obama’s proposed plan

Sources say White House plan will bless anti-Isis war for three years and ensure that Obama, like George W Bush, will hand over two wars to his successor

Spencer Ackerman in New York and Dan Roberts in Washington

Tuesday 10 February 2015 17.12 EST

Barack Obama’s proposed framework for the US-led war against the Islamic State will not restrict the battlefield to Iraq and Syria, multiple congressional sources said on Tuesday, placing the US into a second simultaneous global war that will outlast his presidency.

Several congressional sources familiar with the outlines of the proposal, all of whom expected the White House to formally unveil it on Wednesday, told the Guardian the so-called Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) would bless the anti-Isis war for three years.

Congressional language to retroactively justify the six-month-old US war against Isis will not, they said, scrap the broad 9/11-era authorities against al-Qaida, as some congressional Democrats had proposed, meaning the two war authorizations will coexist.

Asked if the anti-Isis AUMF opens the US to a second worldwide war against a nebulous adversary, one congressional aide answered: “Absolutely.”

Two legislative aides with knowledge of the outlines of the White House proposal said the new AUMF would clarify that the 2001 authority, which Obama has cited to justify everything from drone strikes in Yemen to detaining Taliban combatants beyond the end of US combat in Afghanistan, will no longer apply to the war against Isis.

Those military contours would abandon Obama’s current contention that his legal authorities to confront Isis in the absence of explicit congressional approval stem partially from the 2001 AUMF, a contention that has papered over the furious division between Isis and al-Qaida. The 2002 authorization for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, his other claimed residual legislative authority, would explicitly expire.

But the retention of the 2001 AUMF would back away Obama almost entirely from his May 2013 call to repeal the legal wellspring of an open-ended global war. Though Obama has boasted this year of drastically reducing the number of US forces in ground combat, the addition of another broad war authority ensures that he, like George W Bush, will also hand over two wars to his successor.

Authorization for the second global war “contrasts with the restraint that Obama likes to emphasize”, said Micah Zenko of the Council on Foreign Relations.

“Politicians often describe their war aims with restraint, but the people who have to operationally conduct war like no restraints,” Zenko said. “Obama has given everyone who will service in his administration the ability to prosecute this war in as expansive a manner as they choose.”

White House officials did not immediately respond to questions from the Guardian.

The congressional sources said that the anti-Isis AUMF – many of the terms of which were first reported on Tuesday by Bloomberg – will contain restrictions on US ground conflict in Iraq, though exceptions will remain. One congressional source told the Guardian that leaders on Capitol Hill had likened the exceptions to permitting special operations forces to rescue downed pilots, or to allowing the current 3,000 troops Obama has authorized deployed to Iraq to spot for air strikes.

Similar to language grandfathered into the 2001 AUMF through Obama-era defense bills that permitted the targeting of al-Qaida’s “associated forces”, the sources familiar with the current negotiations said Obama and his successor would have the power to target Isis’s associated forces as well.

None of the congressional sources said they knew yet whether the White House text would define those associated forces. But one source said the text was heavily influenced by a draft proposed by Senator Robert Menendez that passed the Senate foreign relations committee in December.

Menendez’s bill defined an associated force as “individuals and organizations fighting for or on behalf of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or a closely-related successor entity”.

Isis has shown itself to have adherents, or at least those willing to claim allegiance to the group, across the world. Though the group is not known to have attempted attacks on the US domestically, it has killed US citizens it kidnapped in Syria, apparently including American aid worker Kayla Mueller, whose family announced her death on Tuesday.

Adherents have appeared or have been claimed to operate in Europe, Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan and Pakistan. On Tuesday, White House counter-terrorism adviser Lisa Monaco blasted the Isis “propaganda machine” as a threat to the US online.

Fears of an overly-broad AUMF began to be voiced openly among senior Democrats on Capitol Hill on Tuesday evening as lawmakers prepared for Wednesday’s release by warning against giving the administration a “blank cheque”.

“This is the rub, this is where it’s going to be very very difficult; you are going to have Senators McCain and Graham saying it shouldn’t necessarily be limited to Iraq and Syria,” said Adam Smith, ranking member of the House Armed Services committee. “I would support a more limited version and if in a few years from now, new situations emerge, Congress can pass it again. I don’t think we should give the executive a blank cheque.”

Smith told the Guardian he believed the proposed three-year limit was a good sign that the White House was staying closer to proposed language drafted by Congressman Adam Schiff, but said Democrats would still have significant concerns.

“There is going to be a bunch of Democrats who are going to very very wary of supporting an AUMF after the experience of the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs, so it is going to have to be limited to get enough Democratic support,” added Smith.

The White House denied there had been a delay in its negotiations with Congress over the AUMF, which the president called for publicly three weeks ago in his State of the Union address.

“Well, ‘relatively soon’ would include any of the days that are remaining in this week,” the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, told reporters when pressed on earlier indications that the AUMF text would come this week.

Officials argue that leaks from Capitol Hill are a sign of progress rather than rumoured disagreement over what should be included in the authorisation.

“There are a number of conversations that have taken place, and I think the fact that some of these details have been leaked by congressional sources, I think is an indication of the large number of conversations that are ongoing between administration officials and officials in Congress,” said Earnest.

However, the White House acknowledges there is debate over whether the text should be narrowly tailored against Isis or not.

“The reason the president is seeking this ‘right-sized’ AUMF – I believe the way that he has previously described it – is because of his desire to see Congress act in support or at least demonstrate their support for the strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy Isil,” Earnest said.

Obama May Attack ISIS In Any Country He Chooses, Deploy Ground Troops On A Whim, Delay Afghanistan Pull Out

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/11/2015 13:03 -0500

The Nobel peace prize-winning president has been busy today: not only did he already petition Congress earlier to declare war on the Islamic State, a non-country which technically doesn’t exist, but now he plans to expands his “war powers” to any other place in the world. From Reuters:

MILITARY AUTHORIZATION BILL WOULD PRESERVE PRESIDENT’S ABILITY TO ORDER OPERATIONS AGAINST ISLAMIC STATE IN COUNTRIES OTHER THAN IRAQ, SYRIA – WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN
WHITE HOUSE SAYS COMBAT BOOTS ON THE GROUND MAY BE USED FOR HOSTAGE RESCUE OPERATIONS
OBAMA NOT RULING OUT DEPLOYING COMBAT TROOPS ON GROUND TO ASSIST AIR STRIKES AGAINST ISLAMIC STATE, IF PENTAGON RECOMMENDS IT -WHITE HOUSE

And not only that: also according to Reuters, Obama is considering a request from Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to slow the pace of the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, a senior administration official said on Wednesday.

“President Ghani has requested some flexibility in the troop drawdown timeline and base closure sequencing over the next two years, and we are actively considering that request,” the official said, speaking on background.

Ghani will travel to Washington next month to meet with Obama. Last month, the Afghan president spoke publicly about the U.S. plan to halve the number of troops in Afghanistan in 2015 and cut them further in 2016. He made clear he would prefer a longer timeline and said: “deadlines should not be dogmas.”

The U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan ended its combat mission after 13 years of war at the end of 2014. About 13,000 foreign troops, mostly Americans, remain to train Afghan forces.

Afghan troops continue to fight Taliban militants. Last year was the most violent since the war began, the International Committee of the Red Cross has said.

U.S. officials are looking for ways to support Afghanistan.

Because when printing money, Obamacare and epic data revisions and seasonal adjustments no longer lead to 5% growth in the US, the only other option is, of course, war.

[img[/img]