History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:25 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:43 am 

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:02 am
Posts: 16140
Location: Planet Earth, Milky Way, Universe
Sweden Cracks Down on Illegal Immigrants as Failed Asylum-Seeker Kills 5
100+ Geller Report by Geller Report

Police in Sweden have started cracking down on illegal immigrants after a failed asylum-seeker killed five in Stockholm.

It’s a shame the left always has to wait until somebody gets killer or hurt to see the truths of open borders.

But at least the country’s now acting.

Police in recent months have been staging wider sweeps in offices and places of business, checking paperwork of workers to make sure they belong in the country. Those who can’t produce the papers?

They’re taken into custody.

Police in Sweden are actually starting to go after illegal immigrants and bring them in for questioning, detention and — gasp — deportation. Wow, what a concept — going after lawbreakers. Next thing you know, Sweden’s liberal leadership might suggest shuttering borders. Can’t you hear the civil rights attorneys crying in the streets already?

The E xpress has the story:

In the past months, police have staged wider sweeps on workplaces to check papers, netting undocumented workers, sending a warning to employers and sparking heated debate in a nation that has been traditionally tolerant to migrants.

In May, police carried out their biggest raid so far when dozens of officers swooped on a constructions site in Stockholm.

Nine were caught and sent to detention centres, while another 40 escaped by scrambling onto scaffolding and across roof tops.

Swedish authorities had already started to tighten up on illegal immigrants, but police stepped up their activities after Uzbek construction worker Rakhmat Akilov drove into Stockholm shoppers in April.

“We have an unlimited amount of work,” said Jerk Wiberg, who leads the Stockholm police unit in charge of domestic border controls.

A 22-year veteran who has caught thousands of illegal immigrants, Wiberg led the raid at the construction site in May.

After Akilov became another militant in Europe to use a truck as a weapon, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven made it clear that “no means no” for those whose asylum bids are rejected. Akilov, whose lawyer said he had admitted to committing the crime, had been in hiding after his asylum request was denied.

The Migration Agency estimated 10,000 asylum-seekers a year will choose to disappear rather than be deported. Up to 50,000 undocumented immigrants already work in hotels, transport, construction and restaurants, the agency said last year.

Migration Minister Morgan Johansson said that a “dual labour market … where a growing group lives on the outside of society and remains in Sweden” after having been denied residency was unacceptable.

“It also increases the risk of them being exploited. We cannot have it that way,” he said, adding: “One way is to go after the employers … (using) expanded workplace checks.”

While cheap migrant labour is welcomed by some small businesses, government officials and economists worry that the shadow economy undercuts Sweden’s economic model, whose generous welfare provisions and high wages are built on high rates of productivity and one of the world’s heaviest tax regimes.

Tough measures against immigrants go against the grain for many in Sweden, a country of 10 million which once called itself “a humanitarian superpower” that generously welcomed migrants fleeing conflict in the Middle East and Africa.

I am Charlie

 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:59 am 

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:02 am
Posts: 16140
Location: Planet Earth, Milky Way, Universe
nationalinterest.org Why Victory in Mosul Is Overblown
Daniel L. Davis

5-6 minutes

U.S. leaders seem to believe that America can kill its way out of this mess—and that’s totally wrong.

The battle for Mosul is all but completed, and any question about the strategic significance of its conclusion has yet to be answered by military leaders. That being so, it is time to start asking the difficult questions, such as why the current administration—which ran and won on the promise to change American foreign policy—continues to follow the path of its two previous predecessors in embarking on tactical combat missions that do not contribute to U.S. national security nor the accomplishment of strategic objectives?

The next tough question: Why does Washington continue expending the lives and limbs of its service members and hundreds of billions of dollars on lethal military operations that not only fail to enhance American security, but arguably diminish it?

Brig. Gen. Andrew Croft, deputy commanding general for Air, Combined Joint Forces Land Component Command, Operation Inherent Resolve, claimed that the battle to liberate Mosul would be completed “within days,” and then heaped effusive praise on the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF). Their accomplishment, he boasted, “would challenge the best military in the world,” and that the nine-month struggle in Mosul was “like Stalingrad, but it's 10 times worse.”

Such a statement is a gross distortion of historical reality, as an estimated 1.9 million men, women and children were killed in Stalingrad during World War II. In an interview with USA Today in March, the head of Central Command, Gen. Joseph Votel, said less than eight hundred ISF troops had been killed in the fighting up to that point. There is, however, a powerful emotional connection with the word “Stalingrad,” as most are aware that the Nazi tactical defeat there in 1943 signaled the beginning of the strategic end of Hitler’s Germany. ISIS losing Mosul will not have the same strategic result.

Instead, the result will likely be the end of its hold on that territory and the transition to another phase of its radical efforts. Evidence already indicates that ISIS will follow the lead of Al Qaeda after the United States utterly routed it from Afghanistan in early 2002. Al Qaeda simply transitioned back into a shadowy terror group and continued to launch attacks.

General Croft gave some indication of what the end of the battle for Mosul is going to mean for American forces. Once the fighting is over, he explained, “we go where the Iraqis go,” because, as the Air Force Times paraphrased, “The Iraqi government decides how it wants to move forward in its war against ISIS and the coalition provides support.”

As should be painfully clear by now, there is no military solution to the scourge of ISIS. U.S. leaders seem to believe that America can kill its way out of this mess—if it bombs terror groups, deploys more ground forces and trains enough foreign troops, the thinking goes, America will eventually kill enough “bad guys” to quell the threat. Such calculus is out of step with the past sixteen years.

The conditions that allowed ISIS (and Al Qaeda before it) to flourish still persist today. Killing legitimate enemies of the United States is a valid course of action when necessary, but even that is not a substitute for a strategy. The complex regional problem at the root of Middle Eastern violence is not something the United States can solve. Trying to do so has proven to be both expensive and ineffective. That’s why America isn’t “winning.” It’s not because its tactics just aren’t right or because it has applied too little power to a given situation. America isn’t winning because it’s stubbornly using the wrong tactical instrument to solve the problem while avoiding sound strategy that might actually accomplish American objectives.

It is time to embark on a new course of action, one that jettisons the failed policies of continuing to attack everywhere, and instead seeks to contain the violence so it does not spread to other geographic locations. America must seek to diplomatically and politically reduce the reasons men join terror organizations in the first place, and must strengthen homeland security to ensure they don’t harm this country and its citizens. Failure to deviate from the status quo will simply delay and ultimately escalate this grave threat.

Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow at Defense Priorities and a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army. He retired in 2015 after twenty-one years of service, including four combat deployments. Follow him @DanielLDavis1.

I am Charlie

 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:02 am 

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:02 am
Posts: 16140
Location: Planet Earth, Milky Way, Universe
Qatar Needs to be Brought to Heel
American Greatness by Brandon J. Weichert

Since June, a Saudi Arabian-led coalition of Arab states that includes Egypt and Jordan have initiated a blockade against the small Arab state of Qatar. This is a strange state of affairs, since the dividing line in the Middle East today is between the Sunni Muslim and Shia Muslim community. Qatar is predominantly Sunni Muslim and it is nestled on the edge of the Arabian Peninsula. For all intents and purposes—at least at first glance—Qatar should be closely aligned with the Sunni faction, as led by Saudi Arabia. Instead, however, Qatar is at once a close ally of Shiite-dominated Iran and is also a notorious (self-admitted) state sponsor of terrorism. Of course, Saudi Arabia is also a critical source of jihadism in the Mideast. The upper echelon of the ruling House of Saud remains pro-American, however, and is generally supportive of the West. Indeed, Saudi security forces are often instrumental in the ongoing intelligence war against jihadist networks globally.

The Qatari government, on the other hand, supports pernicious Islamist parties, such as the Muslim Brotherhood. It pours millions of dollars into the Muslim Brotherhood yearly, and are critical supporters for the Brotherhood’s efforts to influence Western governments into denying that Islamism—a radical, revolutionary, political movement based on Islam—is a real threat to the West.

As noted counterterrorism expert Stephen Coughlin, documented in his magnificent book on the subject, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad:

The Muslim Brotherhood is not a moderate alternative to more radical groups like al-Qaeda, but rather the gateway entity from which these ‘radical’ groups spring and gain momentum. Far from ‘moderate,’ the Brotherhood is the most dangerous player in the War on Terror—not least because of its demonstrated ability to penetrate and subvert [Western governments].

Coughlin continues, “The public face of Islam in America is framed by the Muslim Brotherhood and that, in effect, Islam in America takes the form favored by the Muslim Brotherhood.” Indeed, the Muslim Brotherhood, Coughlin says, “manages the ocean in which fish like al-Qaeda swim.”

In a way, it’s similar to how the old Soviet fifth columnists operated in the United States during the Cold War.

The Muslim Brotherhood began as a movement opposed to the British and secular pan-Arab Socialist movements that dominated in Egypt in the 1920s. It quickly expanded into a full-fledged revolutionary movement intent on reinstituting Sharia Law as the governing principle for the entire Muslim world. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of al Qaeda Prime operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan, began his “career” as a committed Islamic insurgent in his homeland of Egypt, fighting for the Brotherhood. After spending years in an Egyptian prison, he was released, and ultimately joined up with the mujahideen fighting in the Soviet-Afghan War (where he eventually fought beside Osama Bin Laden, his future boss).

Since then, the Muslim Brotherhood has mutated into an international umbrella group aimed at managing the perceptions in non-Muslim (mostly Western) countries and serving as the political and intellectual force driving the Islamist revolution throughout the Muslim World. Major Muslim lobbying groups, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), have long-standing ties with the Muslim Brotherhood. Remember, in 2014, the United Arab Emirates and much of the Arab states labeled CAIR as a terror network.

Meanwhile, after the 2011 Egyptian Revolution that toppled long-time American client, Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian people voted for the Muslim Brotherhood to replace him. Overnight, Egypt was no longer a stable, status quo power obviously allied with America.. Soon, anti-Semitic and anti-American rhetoric were on the rise, and Egypt was at risk of becoming a key source of instability in an-already chaotic Mideast. If not for the Egyptian military’s coup in 2013, it is likely that the Muslim Brotherhood would have completed its rise to ultimate power and become a Sunni-version of the Islamist regime that governs Iran. Egypt would have become an American adversary.

Qatar has long supported the Muslim Brotherhood and refuses to step back from its support. Then, of course, there is Qatar’s friendly relationship with Iran. Of course, this is a sensible policy that they’ve taken toward Iran. After all, Iran and Qatar are linked together economically: Iran and Qatar are jointly developing one of the region’s largest natural gas fields. So, despite the fact that Qatar is an overtly Sunni state, economics links it to the majority-Shiite state of Iran. Also, Turkey, a country that stands to gain from the Iranian-Qatari natural gas development deal, has come down on the side of Iran and Qatar (color me surprised).

Many may be asking why the Qataris are so intent on turning their backs on their fellow Sunni Arab states? We cannot discount the role that nationalism plays in this.

Despite sharing a land border with Saudi Arabia; despite existing as part of the Sunni Arab world—which has historically been led by Saudi Arabia—the Qataris are fiercely independent. While they share a common faith, history, and geography, the human foible of stubbornness is in play here. Qatar does not like having its sovereignty threatened by its neighbors.

Plus, Qatar’s cushy economic relationship with Iran is threatened by Saudi Arabia’s insistence that the Arab Sunni states create a unified front against Iran. And, as a leading Salafi Sunni state, Qatar is religiously committed to backing Islamist movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

Since at least 2014, the Arab states have decried Qatar’s persistent support of both the Muslim Brotherhood and revolutionary Iran. However, the Obama Administration always opposed taking decisive action to put Qatar in line with the rest of the region. This was partly because the U.S. Air Force depends on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. It is from this base that U.S. forces routinely conduct decisive strikes against ISIS militants and other terrorists operating in the Mideast (and former President Obama feared that America’s position in Qatar would be threatened should his administration come down too hard on Qatar). More troubling, though, was the fact that the Obama Administration relied heavily on Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated individuals, such as Louay Safi, a Syrian-American Muslim, to help craft its policies for the Mideast.

Now, however, things are different.

Beginning with his first trip to the Mideast, President Donald Trump went about laying the groundwork for a reinvigoration of the old balance-of-power scheme that the United States relied upon from 1945-1991 in the Mideast. Of course, there is a slight difference: it is no longer nationalism that the United States is relying upon in the Mideast to act as a balancing force.

Instead, as Trump indicated, he’s accepting the Sunni-Shiite divide as irrevocable and is building a new balancing system based on the ethno-religious and national divisions of the region. Part of this strategy means that the United States needs to trust its friends on the ground—the Egyptians, Saudis, Jordanians, and Israelis, for instance—to identify potential shared threats and neutralize them according to their own methods.

While many Western observers of the situation in Qatar fret over the decisions of the Saudis and our Arab partners–and while we should be cautious in pushing the Qataris too hard, out of fear of losing access to our base in Qatar–America must look at the bigger picture. We no longer can afford (or want) to commit our young men and women to fighting Middle Eastern wars. Yet, we simply cannot step back from the region and leave it entirely to its own devices. A middle way is therefore needed: the United States needs to empower regimes that are friendly to its interests (keeping the oil flowing, countering Islamic extremism, containing Iran, and leaving Israel alone) in order to allow for the United States to return to its birds’ eye view in the Middle East—something that it has not been able to fully do since Desert Storm.

Accept it: America’s Sunni Arab allies are doing the right thing regarding Qatar. The Trump Administration is right to not come down too hard on the Saudis for doing something that will ultimately further America’s strategic interests in the region. Don’t listen to the media on this, either. If you do, you’ll end up supporting Muslim Brotherhood talking points. Qatar is a dangerous threat to America in the region: they support terrorism and do business with Iran. They must be brought to heel.

The post Qatar Needs to be Brought to Heel appeared first on American Greatness.

I am Charlie

 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group