TRUMP AGENDA - Expanded War on Terror

IMHO:  Those who think military power will end all terrorism are, sadly, mistaken.  They are failing to recognize that terrorists operate in small groups or are loners.  And the most dangerous are terrorists from their own country, not outsiders.

Military action can only defeat armies.  In the case of al-Shabab, they have never attacked the U.S.

"Is there a human toll of giving the military more latitude to strike terror targets?" PBS NewsHour 3/31/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  On the campaign stump, Donald Trump promised to give the U.S. military more freedom to strike terrorist targets around the world.  Now the President has approved the Pentagon's plan to intensify its targeting of al-Shabab strongholds in Somalia.  Hari Sreenivasan speaks with former State Department official Sarah Sewall about the new changes for military operations.

HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour):  Among the countries where the U.S. is fighting terrorism are Iraq, Yemen and Somalia.  Now the President has approved the Pentagon's plan to beef up its targeting of Al-Shabaab in Somalia, giving the military greater latitude to decide when and where to strike.

For more on all of this, we turn to Sarah Sewall.  She served as undersecretary of state for civilian security, democracy and human rights during the Obama administration.  She's written extensively about military operations and civilian casualties.  She's now at Johns Hopkins University.

Ms. Sewall, I want to first ask — just walk us through what the changes are that the Pentagon just announced.

SARAH SEWALL, Former State Department Official:  Well, essentially, President Obama had created two categories for thinking about the use of force in the context of the war on terror.

One was more like targeted killing with more restricted types of targets that you could both choose and were forced to identify, and it controlled the effects of those uses of force more closely.  The other is more like what Americans would understand as war, general hostilities.

And what has happened is, the President — the current President has now moved, according to reports, moved the Somalia engagement of U.S. forces from the category of more targeted uses of force to that of general hostilities.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT - Dissent in the Ranks

"State Department officials push for military intervention in Syria" PBS NewsHour 6/17/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The question of how to end the devastating five-year Syrian Civil War has split the United States foreign service.  Recently, a group of State Department officials signed an internal memo protesting U.S. policy in Syria and calling for military intervention to destroy the Islamic State and force the Assad regime into peace negotiations.  Chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Warner reports.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  How do you end the war in Syria?  It is a question that has plagued world leaders since the start of the devastating civil conflict there.

Today, we learned more about the extent of disagreement inside the U.S. State Department about the course set by President Obama.

Chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Warner reports.

MARGARET WARNER (NewsHour):  For five years, the savage Syria conflict has killed some 400,000 and put millions more to flight.

Now 51 mid-level diplomatic officials have gone on record advocating a dramatic shift in U.S. strategy.  They have signed an internal so-called dissent letter, calling for targeted military strikes against President Bashar al-Assad's government.

The dissenters argue it would help bring Assad to the negotiating table and deal a major blow to ISIS.  The document remains secret, but Andrew Tabler, an expert on Syria at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is familiar with the document's contents.

ANDREW TABLER, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy:  If the Assad regime violates the cessation of hostilities and uses it to further its position on the battlefield, in such cases, military force could be used.  Second, if humanitarian assistance is not provided or is impeded in some way, military force could be used.

MARGARET WARNER:  In Copenhagen today, Secretary of State John Kerry said he had not yet seen the memo, but welcomed it.

JOHN KERRY, Secretary of State:  I think it's an important statement, and I respect the process very, very much, and I will probably meet with people or have a chance to talk with them when we get back.

MARGARET WARNER:  The memo came through a channel created for State Department employees to register policy disagreements without retaliation.  When conflict first broke out in 2011, President Obama called for ousting Assad.  And in 2012, he threatened military action.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:  A red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.  That would change my calculus.

MARGARET WARNER:  But after a regime chemical attack killed more than 1,000 Syrians in August 2013, the President didn't launch military strikes, nor step up arming the Syrian rebels.

More recently, he's launched U.S. airstrikes in Syria, but only against ISIS.  Instead, Russia intervened last fall on Assad's behalf, bolstering him.  Today, Russian air attacks hit anti-Assad rebels battling is in Southern Syria.

A spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin warned today any U.S. move targeting Assad's forces would plunge the region into total chaos.

Andrew Tabler's response?

ANDREW TABLER:  If you look at this, over time, whether it's the United States and the threat of use of military force in 2013 or Israel's continued use of strikes inside of Syria, this is something that the Assad regime is known to respond to.

MARGARET WARNER:  All of this comes as a February cease-fire has largely dissolved.  It did let humanitarian aid reach some Syrian communities, but others remain cut off by Assad loyalists.  And peace talks backed by Secretary of State Kerry and the Russians have shown no progress.

An August 1 deadline for a political transition won't be met.  Plans now are only to resume talks then.

YOU'VE GOT MAIL - Secretary Hillery Clinton's eMail (again, and again, and again....)

COMMENT:  If you think ANY administrator, private company or government, keeps day-to-day tabs on policies that MAY effect them, you are delusional.

I would EXPECT that Secretary Clinton would have continued with the same policies regarding email as her predecessor, email policy was NOT her focus.

This is brought to you by the:  "Smear Hillary Clinton" campaign.

"Why Clinton's private email use is deemed more serious than predecessors'" PBS NewsHour 5/25/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The State Department's report condemning Hillary Clinton has brought the debate over her conduct as Secretary of State back to the forefront of the political landscape, and throws the race for the White House into uncharted territory.  Judy Woodruff talks to Rosalind Helderman of The Washington Post about the details of the report and why Clinton's violations are worse than her predecessors'.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  We take a closer look now at the State Department's inspector general report on Hillary Clinton's use of a private e-mail server.

Rosalind Helderman of The Washington Post has been covering this ongoing story.

Welcome back to the program, Roz Helderman.

So, first, tell us, what would you say the main findings of this report are?

ROSALIND HELDERMAN, The Washington Post:  So, this was a report that looked at e-mail use by the past five secretaries of state, and it concluded that there have been systemic problems in how the State Department has gone about preserving public records over the course of the tenures of multiple secretaries of state.

However, it was particularly critical of Hillary Clinton and her use of private e-mail.  It said, for instance, that, that use did, in fact, violate department policies that were put in place to ensure compliance with the Federal Records Act, public records laws.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  And does it say that the rules, the guidelines were clear, should have been clear to Secretary Clinton and the people around her?

ROSALIND HELDERMAN:  One of the big takeaways of the report was that the guidelines had been not as clear as they should be going back over a number of years, and that in fact the guidelines and training on those guidelines have not kept up with the way that e-mail has changed the way that we communicate.

That said, the report does specifically say that the warnings about the risks of using private e-mail for public business and the discouragement from doing so have become much more numerous and pointed and descriptive while Secretary Clinton was in office.

And so, whereas her predecessor, Secretary Colin Powell was also criticized by the report for using private e-mail, the dangers of doing so might, perhaps, have been more clear to Secretary Clinton.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Well, I guess what I'm what I'm trying to get at is, is there any doubt that the people around Secretary Clinton — and I guess there's no way to know what she knew — but is there any doubt that the people around her knew that they were in violation of a set of guidelines?

ROSALIND HELDERMAN:  They have said that they didn't know that they were in violation.

And one interesting thing is, she and her aides have said that she wants to cooperate with all these inquiries, but, in fact, she didn't sit with an interview with the State Department's Inspector General, and a number of the top aides didn't respond to questionnaires, which makes it harder a little bit to know what they had in their minds while they were doing this.

FACTCHECK - Netanyahu

"Netanyahu Takes Kerry Out of Context" by Eugene Kiely, FactCheck.org 3/3/2015

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s highly anticipated speech to Congress contained a curious statement.  He claimed Secretary of State John Kerry “confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess” 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium by the end of a long-term nuclear agreement that the U.S. is negotiating with Iran.  That, Netanyahu warned, could put Iran “weeks away” from an “arsenal of nuclear weapons.”

But that’s not what Kerry said.

In House testimony on Feb. 25, Kerry was asked about reports that the U.S. is seeking a deal that would reduce Iran’s centrifuges from 19,000 to between 6,000 and 7,000.   Kerry responded by saying a “peaceful program” can have a lot of centrifuges, and the purpose of the negotiations is to make sure Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful.

“[I]f you have a civilian power plant that’s producing power legitimately and not a threat to proliferation, you could have as many as 190,000 or more centrifuges,” Kerry told the committee.

Netanyahu addressed Congress at the invitation of House Speaker John Boehner at a time when the U.S. is leading negotiations on a new nuclear agreement with Iran.  The U.S. and five other countries in November 2013 reached an accord with Iran called the Joint Plan of Action, or JPA, that was designed to temporarily freeze Iran’s nuclear program to give negotiators time to work out a long-term agreement on an inspection and verification plan that would allow Iran to maintain a peaceful nuclear program and prevent it from building nuclear weapons.  In exchange, the U.S. and its allies have agreed to ease sanctions imposed on Iran’s assets.

The U.S. and Iran have been operating under a March 31 deadline for a long-term pact, and Israel has been highly critical of details of the plan that have emerged so far.

In his speech, Netanyahu warned that Iran could not be trusted and its “quest for nuclear weapons” threatened his country’s survival.

At one point, the Israeli prime minister spoke about Iran’s centrifuges, which are the machines used to enrich uranium. Iran currently has “9,400 operating centrifuges and another 10,000 that are installed but not in operation,” as reported by the Los Angeles Times.  The existing JPA allows Iran only to replace failed centrifuges, and the U.S. has been negotiating a reduction.  During negotiations, the target number of proposed centrifuges has changed from 1,300 to 4,000 and most recently to 6,500 or more.

Netanyahu recalled that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in 2014 that Iran needed 190,000 centrifuges.  But in doing so Netanyahu misrepresented what Kerry had said about Iran’s centrifuges.

Netanyahu, March 3:  Iran’s supreme leader says that openly.  He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 [discussed in negotiations] or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount — 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium.  With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.  My longtime friend, John Kerry, secretary of state, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.  Now I want you to think about that.  The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.

Kerry did not confirm “that Iran could legitimately possess” 190,000 centrifuges.

At a Feb. 25 hearing of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Rep. Ted Deutch of Florida asked Kerry about reports that the deal being negotiated would allow Iran to have 6,000 or 7,000 centrifuges.  Deutch asked “why Iran would need that many since currently there is one reactor.”

Kerry, Feb. 25:  [T]he purpose of the negotiations we’re in now with Iran is to ensure that their nuclear program is exclusively for civilian purposes.  That’s the key here.  They can have a civilian peaceful program.  So when you get into the number of centrifuges and this and that, if — if you have a civilian power plant that’s producing power legitimately and not a threat to proliferation, you could have as many as 190,000 or more centrifuges.  And there are millions of centrifuges involved, ultimately, power plants that are producing power.  So the key here is, is this a peaceful program, and are the measures in place capable of making sure you know it’s peaceful?  That’s the standard we’re trying to apply.

Kerry wasn’t saying that “Iran could legitimately possess” 190,000 centrifuges.  He was saying that “a civilian power plant that’s producing power legitimately” could have 190,000 or more centrifuges.

In fact, when Khamenei said Iran needed 190,000 centrifuges, Kerry at that time said that even 19,000 was too many.

“We have made it crystal clear that the 19,000 that are currently part of their program is too many, and that we need to deal with the question of enrichment,” Kerry told reporters at a July 15, 2014, press availability.  “And so all I will say to you is that we will continue to press.”

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told us in an email that Kerry’s reference to 190,000 centrifuges at the House hearing wasn’t about Iran or the number of centrifuges that it could possess “under or after a deal.”

“Secretary Kerry was not speaking to what Iran could or would have under or after a deal — he wasn’t talking specifically about Iran at all,” Harf said.  “He was arguing that ensuring the nuclear program is peaceful through measures like transparency and monitoring can be as important [as] the number of centrifuges, which can get quite high even in countries that peacefully enrich uranium only to produce electrical power.”

MIDDLE EAST - Peace Talks Reality Check

The war that never ends......

"Kerry:  Mideast peace talks need ‘reality check’" by Anne Gearan and William Booth, Washington Post 4/4/2014

The Obama administration is reassessing a year-long effort to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians in light of “unhelpful” actions by both sides this week, Secretary of State John F. Kerry warned Friday.

Kerry said he would return to the United States on Friday after 13 days on the road that included an emergency rescue mission to Jerusalem to try to salvage his signature diplomatic effort.  He will consult with the White House about what to do next, Kerry said.

Days of tit-for-tat diplomatic maneuvers by Israeli and Palestinian leaders left negotiations in tatters and the chief U.S. diplomat little choice but to declare a time-out.

“There are limits in the amount of time and effort that the United States can spend if the parties themselves are unwilling to take constructive steps in order to be able to move forward,” Kerry said in Morocco, the last stop on a trip that hop-scotched from Europe to the Middle East and North Africa.

Talks Kerry launched last summer after months of wheedling appeared all but dead Friday, although Kerry said both sides have told American envoys that they would like to continue.

Palestinian and Israeli negotiators had pledged to Kerry to stay at the table through the end of this month.  Absent an outright rupture or a breakthrough, the U.S.-backed effort appears likely to end then.  Kerry was trying for an agreement to extend talks this week that included significant sweeteners for both sides.

“This is not an open-ended effort,” Kerry said.  “It never has been.”

Each side is blaming the other for the impasse.  A meeting of top negotiators and chief U.S. Mideast envoy Martin Indyk devolved into a shouting match early Thursday.  Kerry’s phone appeals to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas later Thursday had no apparent effect.

“Neither party has said they have called it off, but we are not going to sit there indefinitely,” Kerry said.  His businesslike tone and bleak assessment were a contrast to previous, mostly upbeat, public remarks about the prospects for further talks.

The goal is an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, and a lasting peace treaty.  The effort is the most ambitious in six years, and has drawn Kerry and U.S. negotiators deep into the details of borders, security arrangements and the disputed status of Jerusalem.

Israel says that the Palestinians created the crisis by signing documents to become party to 15 United Nations conventions and protocols — treaties that seek to protect the rights of women, children, the disabled and civilians in times of war and conflict.

The Palestinians say they signed the treaties only because the Israelis had broken their promise, made in July, to release 104 Palestinian prisoners.

The Israelis balked at freeing the final batch of 26 prisoners because they said they were in American-led negotiations with the Palestinians to extend the talks.

A senior Palestinian official, Nabil Shaath, told Reuters that Abbas’s surprise announcement Tuesday that he was resuming efforts at the U.N. was intended only to spotlight Israel’s failure to release the prisoners.  Kerry canceled a planned trip to the West Bank to see Abbas on Wednesday because of the announcement.

“We have not abandoned the process,” Shaath said.  “We will continue these negotiations as we agreed, and I wish for once that America’s patience runs out — with Israel and not the Palestinians,” Shaath said.  He said he expects Kerry to reschedule the trip soon.

Israel’s centrist finance minister, Yair Lapid, whose party joined Netanyahu’s government on the condition Israel enter into negotiations with the Palestinians, told the news agency he questioned whether Abbas wanted a deal.

The Palestinian leader “should know that at this point in time his demands are working against him,” Lapid said.  “No Israeli will negotiate with him at any price.”

Michael Herzog, a retired Israeli general serving as a consultant to the negotiations, said Friday that the move by Abbas to return to the United Nations for greater recognition “deepened the crisis.”

Mohammed Shtayyeh, who resigned as chief Palestinian negotiator in November over frustration with continued construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, “What’s important to Netanyahu is to preserve his coalition and not to reach an agreement.”

Israelis close to the negotiations say that the final release of prisoners was contingent on “sustained, uninterrupted negotiations.”  The same advisers said that the Palestinians were looking for an excuse to break off talks.

Nonsense, said the Palestinians.

“Since Israel failed to release the last group of prisoners, the State of Palestine is no longer obliged to postpone its rights to accede to multilateral treaties and conventions,” the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Negotiations Affairs Department said in a statement.

“What the Israelis have done is to connect the release of the prisoners with continuing of negotiations, and this was something not in the original agreement,” said George Giacaman, political science professor at Birzeit University in Ramallah.  “And that is precisely the problem.”

Israeli officials have complained that the Palestinians kept adding new demands.

The Palestinians said the Israelis would never talk about substantive issues — such as borders for a future Palestinian state and whether East Jerusalem would be its capital.

Diana Buttu, a Palestinian analyst and former legal adviser to the Palestinian negotiating team, said that when the Israelis did not release the last batch of prisoners, Abbas was forced to do something, and that the Americans and Israelis, rather than being surprised about the move toward the United Nations, knew the Palestinian leader had to act.

“The reason it broke down this time is that Abbas has to appeal to his domestic constituency,” Buttu said.

Many Palestinians and Israelis have come to the conclusion that the crisis in talks is a manufactured one — that after eight months of talking, the two sides are no closer to a deal than when they started, and that despite their feelings of goodwill for Kerry’s efforts, the talks have failed.

“In my opinion, it was obvious from the beginning that most likely the negotiations would not achieve anything,” Giacaman said.  “If they do continue, as they very well might, they will not achieve anything.  It will simply be a way to manage the conflict.”

As they wrangled over blame, both sides also contemplated their next moves.

Ynet news in Israel reported that Economy Minister Naftali Bennett said Friday that if the Palestinians took a war crimes case against Israel to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, then Jerusalem would respond with its own charges of war crimes against the Palestinians for firing rockets from Gaza at civilian populations.

DIPLOMACY - What Does it Take to be U.S. Ambassador?

I've got news for my readers, ambassadorial appointments do donors have been a long tradition but usually they had something to recommend them.  Note that Sen. McCain's question to Mr. Bell highlights that Mr. Bell may not know what McCain meant by 'strategic.'

"Recent confirmation hearings raise eyebrows at ambassador nomination criteria" PBS Newshour 2/17/2014

Excerpt

GWEN IFILL (Newshour): ..... A crop of recent ambassadorial nominees, several of them big-money Obama supporters, have raised fresh questions about who gets to represent the United States abroad.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO, R-Fla.:  Mr. Mamet, have you been to Argentina?

NOAH BRYSON MAMET, U.S. Ambassador to Argentina-Designate:  Senator, I haven’t had the opportunity yet to be there.

GWEN IFILL:  That response from Noah Mamet, President Obama’s choice to be ambassador to Argentina, raised eyebrows at a Senate confirmation hearing this month.

Mamet generated more than $500,000 for the president’s reelection, and he’s one of a handful of key supporters rewarded with overseas posts.  Another is Colleen Bell, the soap opera producer tapped to be envoy to Hungary.  In January, she struggled to respond to Senator John McCain at her own confirmation hearing.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, R-Ariz.:  Do you think our — what are our strategic interests in Hungary?

COLLEEN BELL, U.S. Ambassador to Hungary-Designate:  Well, we have — our strategic interests, in terms of what are our key priorities in Hungary, I think our key priorities are to improve upon, as I mentioned, the security relationship and also the law enforcement and to promote business opportunities, increase trade…

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN:  I would like to ask again what our strategic interests in Hungary are.

AMERICA - Keystone Pipeline, U.S. State Department Report

"As State Department releases report on Keystone pipeline, pressure builds over final decision" PBS Newshour 1/31/2014

Excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour):  As the proposed Keystone oil pipeline extension cleared a major hurdle today, it set off alarms in some quarters and lifted hopes in the world of energy and business.

Jeffrey Brown has more on today’s developments.

JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour):  The pipeline would stretch from the Alberta, Canada, oil sands to refineries on the Gulf Coast, moving more than 800,000 barrels of oil a day.  There are concerns about leaks and spills, but some of the biggest environmental issues are focused on the extraction of the oil.

Juliet Eilperin has been reporting on this story for The Washington Post and joins me now.

So, Juliet, fill in the picture a bit.  What exactly was the State Department looking at in this report? And what was its key finding?

JULIET EILPERIN, The Washington Post:  They were looking the a whole range of impacts, including whether rejecting the pipeline would make a different in global greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change.

They also looked at things like what would happen if there was a spill and what about endangered species along the route, things like that.  Their overall conclusion was that no one single infrastructure project makes a huge difference, a significant difference in terms of development in the oil sands region in Canada.  And so the overall climate change impact they’re saying is not significant from this decision.  That’s their broad conclusion.

LIBYA - Senate Benghazi Report

"Senate concludes State Dept. ignored security warnings ahead of Benghazi attack" PBS Newshour 1/15/2014

Excerpt

GWEN IFILL (Newshour):  More than a year ago, a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed in an uprising in Benghazi, Libya.  The questions about the incident, why it happened, how it happened, whether it could have been avoided, have never completely gone away.

Today, after dozens of hearings and interviews, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued its own bipartisan conclusions.

Adam Goldman of The Washington Post joins us now to talk about them.

So, how did the Senate Intelligence Committee's finding differ from what we have heard about?  We have heard so much about this Benghazi episode?  Was there anything different that they discovered today?

ADAM GOLDMAN, The Washington Post:  No.

I think they came to the same conclusion as other reports that what happened in Benghazi was preventable.  I think what was new about the report was the detail they went into.  And that in itself was extraordinary.  The whole report was released.

And we really got a blow-by-blow of what happened.  And there weren't very many redactions in this report.

IRAN - National Security Advisor Rice on Iran & Afghanistan Negotiations, and Syria

"National Security Advisor Rice:  'Now is not the time for new sanctions' on Iran" PBS Newshour 11/19/2013

Excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour):  As the U.S. negotiating team readies for the next round of talks in Geneva over Iran's nuclear program, President Obama urged senators at the White House today to hold off on seeking additional sanctions on the country.

Afterwards, six senators including Democrats Charles Schumer and Robert Menendez, sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, insisting that the administration not accept an agreement that would be overly generous to Iran or not tough enough on its nuclear program.

National Security Adviser Susan Rice joins me now from the White House to talk about today's meeting and the upcoming negotiations.

WAR ON TERROR - Latest al-Qaida Threats and Reactions

"Threat of al-Qaida Attack Keeps U.S. Diplomatic Posts Closed" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 8/5/2013

GWEN IFILL (Newshour):  There was new information today about the closure of American embassies and consulates in the Muslim world.

According to a number of news organizations, the United States intercepted communications between the leader of al-Qaida, Ayman al-Zawahri, and the terrorist branch of that organization based in Yemen.  According to these reports, al-Zawahri asked his colleagues to carry out an attack as early as yesterday.  American embassies and consulates in 19 cities around the world remained shut today as diplomats and travelers alike grappled with the fallout from the closings which were announced this past Friday.

As travelers checked in for international flights over the weekend, many had more on their minds than the trips ahead.

EMAN ALI, traveler:  We're not really scared.   I mean, whatever happens happens.  But we have family over in Egypt.  And they told us everything is OK.

JAMES MELBY, traveler:  If I was going to the Middle East, yes, I would cancel my flight.   I wouldn't go anywhere, North Africa, Middle East.   I wouldn't do it.

GWEN IFILL:  In addition to the travel warning, U.S. embassies in Kabul and Baghdad were closed over the weekend, but were given the go-ahead to reopen today.

But nearly a score of American diplomatic facilities across the Muslim world will stay shuttered all week through next Saturday, including in four African cities.  Officials cited an abundance of caution, rather than a new threat.

MARIE HARF, State Department:  As we all know, one of our top priorities is protecting people on the ground.  So, going forward, we will continue to make decisions about when embassies will be open or not.  As you know, this doesn't happen that often that we close a large number of embassies.  So again our preference is not to have to do so, but security is our top priority.

GWEN IFILL:  The top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Saxby Chambliss, said yesterday it's the most serious threat from al-Qaida he's seen in years.

SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, R-Ga.:  There's been an awful lot of chatter out there.   Chatter means conversation among terrorists about the planning that's going on, very reminiscent of what we saw pre-9/11.

We didn't take heed on 9/11 in the way that we should.  But here I think it's very important that we do take the right kind of planning as we come to the close of Ramadan.

GWEN IFILL:  The intercepted chatter made headlines worldwide and Britain, Germany and France closed their embassies in Yemen through today.  Across the U.S., there was stepped-up security at the nation's airports and train stations.

"How Does Latest Terror 'Chatter' Play Into Debate on U.S. Surveillance?" (Part-2) PBS Newshour 8/5/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Gwen Ifill turns to Brian Jenkins of the Rand Corporation and Mark Mazzetti of The New York Times to discuss the broad and unspecified terrorist threat, what we know about who may be behind the chatter and how the alert is playing into a broader national conversation on America's surveillance efforts.

SYRIA - Shift in U.S. Policy

"Obama Policy Shift on Arming Syrian Rebels Triggers Concerns" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 6/14/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Having concluded that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against rebels in the last year, the White House announced that the U.S. will dramatically increase military assistance to opposition forces.  Jeffrey Brown reports on the Assad regime's response to the American findings and requests from the rebels.

"As Assad Makes Gains, Will New U.S. Strategy for Syria Change the Dynamics?" (Part-2) PBS Newshour 6/14/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Obama administration says it will send help to the rebels after determining that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons.  Jeffrey Brown assesses the decision and the risks with Vali Nasr, former State Department official, and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski.

TURKEY - Prime Minister Erdogan's White House Visit

"Obama, Turkey's Erdogan Reaffirm Urgency of Ending Bloodshed in Syria" PBS Newshour 5/16/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Barack Obama hosted Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan at the White House where talk centered on Syria.  Margaret Warner talks with Henri Barkey of Lehigh University and Steve Heydemann of the U.S. Institute for Peace about how the international community could collaborate on ending the Syrian civil war and the violence.

RUSSIA - Catches Inept CIA Spy?

"Russia Arrests U.S. Diplomat on Spying Accusations" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 5/14/2013

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour):  We turn to Moscow, where a U.S. Embassy officer was detained and accused of spying in a story that sounds right out of the Cold War.

Margaret Warner reports.

MARGARET WARNER (Newshour):  The announcement came in Moscow from Russia's federal security service, the FSB.

Releasing these photographs and video, it said U.S. diplomat Ryan Fogle in a blond wig and hat had been detained in Moscow overnight.  Officially, he's a diplomat at the U.S. Embassy, but the Russians said he works for the CIA and was caught trying to recruit a Russian intelligence agent to work for the U.S.

Later today, the Russians handed him over to the embassy and ordered him expelled from the country.  In Washington, the State Department's Patrick Ventrell confirmed a U.S. diplomat had been detained, but declined to elaborate.  The incident came as the U.S. is seeking Russian cooperation in two key areas, the investigation of the Boston bombing suspects and efforts to end the Syrian civil war.

Secretary of State John Kerry was in Moscow last week announcing a joint effort to bring about Syrian peace talks.

Gee... an embassy 'diplomat' being a CIA spy?  So, what's new?


"Incident With Diplomat Occurs as U.S. Seeks Russian Help on Boston Attacker" (Part-2) PBS Newshour 5/14/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Sounding like something out of a spy movie, Russian authorities detained an American diplomat overnight on claims he is actually a CIA agent.  Margaret Warner talks with Will Englund of The Washington Post for more details of the story and what kind of information American intelligence agencies might want to collect in Russia.

POLITICS - House Hearings on Benghazi, For Conspiracy Theorist

"Congress Sorts Through Charges and Counter-Charges in Benghazi Attack Accounts" PBS Newshour 5/9/2013

Excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour):  We return to last September's attack on U.S. installations in Benghazi, Libya.

House Speaker John Boehner demanded today that the White House order the State Department to release e-mails related to whom the agency thought was behind the attack.  Yesterday, amid a steady flow of partisan arguing by members of Congress, three State Department officials testified that senior government officials withheld embarrassing facts and didn't take responsibility for security at the Benghazi facilities.

One of the witnesses, former U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya Gregory Hicks, said he was effectively demoted after he questioned and criticized the State Department's handling of the attack.

To help us sort out some of the facts in the story, I'm joined by Adam Entous of The Wall Street Journal.

NORTH KOREA - Warning to, and Prospects/Implications of Hostile Action From

"State Secretary Kerry Warns North Korea Against Testing More Missiles" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 4/12/2013

JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour):  The unease over North Korea's military intentions topped the agenda today for Secretary of State John Kerry.  He traveled to the region and put the North on notice:  Don't go too far.

The secretary of state arrived in Seoul for meetings with South Korea's new president, Park Geun-hye, and her top aides.  And he again warned North Korea's young leader, Kim Jong-un, against any new missile launch.

SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY, United States:  It is a huge mistake for him to choose to do that because it will further isolate his country.

JEFFREY BROWN:  The North has recently moved as many as five medium-range missiles to its east coast, missiles that can reach as far away as Guam.

A possible launch was made more worrisome by parts of a Pentagon report that became public yesterday.  At a House hearing, Colorado Republican Doug Lamborn questioned Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey and read out findings by the DIA, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency.

REP. DOUG LAMBORN, R-Colo.:  DIA assesses with moderate confidence that North Korea currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles.  However, the reliability will be low.

GEN. MARTIN DEMPSEY, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman:  And your question is, do I agree with the DIA's assessment?

DOUG LAMBORN:  Yes.

MARTIN DEMPSEY:  Well, I haven't seen it, and you said it's not publicly released, so I choose not to comment on it.

JEFFREY BROWN:  A Pentagon statement later played down that assessment saying -- quote -- "It would inaccurate to suggest that the North Korean regime has fully tested, developed or demonstrated the kinds of nuclear capabilities referenced in the passage."

And the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said the DIA report is not the judgment of the overall intelligence community.

Back in Seoul today, Secretary Kerry also rejected the analysis.  And, he said, the North should have no illusions that its small nuclear weapons capability gives it world standing.

JOHN KERRY:  We are all united in the fact that North Korea will not be accepted as a nuclear power.  The rhetoric that we are hearing from North Korea is simply unacceptable, by any standard.

JEFFREY BROWN:  In turn, South Korea's foreign minister struck a firm but moderate tone toward the North.

FOREIGN MINISTER YUN BYUNG-SE, South Korea:  We have kept to our principle that we will maintain a strong deterrence and will respond strongly to North Korea's provocations.

JEFFREY BROWN:  But threats from the North, coupled with concerns about its young untested leader have ratcheted up tensions.

Near the Yalu River border with China today, a North Korean paratrooper exercise was conducted for a second day.  At the same time, the atmosphere in Pyongyang was festive, with people preparing to celebrate the birth of Kim Il-Sung, the communist state's founder.

In an odd juxtaposition, orchids were being tended near models of ballistic missiles.

Kim Jong-gum is a flower show guide.

KIM JONG-GUM, Flower Show Guide:  The situation is now very complicated, but families are still full of laughter.  I don't know whether there will be a missile launch test, but if we do, I think it will be just for national defense.

JEFFREY BROWN:  The U.S. has more than 28,000 troops in the South, and has made recent shows of force, over flights by bombers and fighter jets.  Missile defense and naval assets also have moved into the region.

In the event of actual conflict, the Combined Forces Command would carry out the response.  An American general sits atop that chain of command with a South Korean deputy; 600,000 troops from both nations are at their disposal.

"Outlining Prospects, Implications of Hostile Action From North Korea" (Part-2) PBS Newshour 4/12/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Simmering tensions between the Koreas raises concerns of what will come next.  Margaret Warner talks with Patrick Cronin of Center for a New American Security and retired Marine Lt. Gen. Chip Gregson Jr., a former assistant secretary of defense, about past conflicts with North Korea and how the U.S. might respond in the future.

MIDDLE EAST - Challenges for Secretary of State John Kerry

"New State Secretary Faces New and Old Challenges in the Middle East, Afghanistan" PBS Newshour 3/25/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  What does Secretary of State John Kerry's schedule say about the current U.S. foreign policy priorities?  How does the current secretary compare to his predecessor?  Gwen Ifill talks with Michele Dunne of the Atlantic Council and Susan Glasser of Foreign Policy about the war in Afghanistan and challenges of responding to Syria.

IRAN - U.S. Military Action on the Table

"Biden:  U.S. Will Use Military Action if Necessary to Stop Iran's Nuclear Program" PBS Newshour 3/4/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Vice President Biden warned that the U.S. will use military action to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.  Margaret Warner talks to Flynt Leverett, former National Security Council director, and former Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns about the state of diplomacy on Iran's nuclear activity.

CYBERWAR - Cyberspace Cold War

"A New Cold War, in Cyberspace, Tests U.S. Ties to China" by DAVID E. SANGER, New York Times 2/24/2013

Excerpt

When the Obama administration circulated to the nation’s Internet providers last week a lengthy confidential list of computer addresses linked to a hacking group that has stolen terabytes of data from American corporations, it left out one crucial fact:  that nearly every one of the digital addresses could be traced to the neighborhood in Shanghai that is headquarters to the Chinese military’s cybercommand.

That deliberate omission underscored the heightened sensitivities inside the Obama administration over just how directly to confront China’s untested new leadership over the hacking issue, as the administration escalates demands that China halt the state-sponsored attacks that Beijing insists it is not mounting.

The issue illustrates how different the worsening cyber-cold war between the world’s two largest economies is from the more familiar superpower conflicts of past decades — in some ways less dangerous, in others more complex and pernicious.

Administration officials say they are now more willing than before to call out the Chinese directly — as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. did last week in announcing a new strategy to combat theft of intellectual property.  But President Obama avoided mentioning China by name — or Russia or Iran, the other two countries the president worries most about — when he declared in his State of the Union address that “we know foreign countries and companies swipe our corporate secrets.”  He added:  “Now our enemies are also seeking the ability to sabotage our power grid, our financial institutions and our air traffic control systems.”

Defining “enemies” in this case is not always an easy task.  China is not an outright foe of the United States, the way the Soviet Union once was; rather, China is both an economic competitor and a crucial supplier and customer.  The two countries traded $425 billion in goods last year, and China remains, despite many diplomatic tensions, a critical financier of American debt.  As Hillary Rodham Clinton put it to Australia’s prime minister in 2009 on her way to visit China for the first time as secretary of state, “How do you deal toughly with your banker?”

In the case of the evidence that the People’s Liberation Army is probably the force behind “Comment Crew,” the biggest of roughly 20 hacking groups that American intelligence agencies follow, the answer is that the United States is being highly circumspect.  Administration officials were perfectly happy to have Mandiant, a private security firm, issue the report tracing the cyberattacks to the door of China’s cybercommand; American officials said privately that they had no problems with Mandiant’s conclusions, but they did not want to say so on the record.

That explains why China went unmentioned as the location of the suspect servers in the warning to Internet providers.  “We were told that directly embarrassing the Chinese would backfire,” one intelligence official said.  “It would only make them more defensive, and more nationalistic.”

That view is beginning to change, though.  On the ABC News program “This Week” on Sunday, Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, was asked whether he believed that the Chinese military and civilian government were behind the economic espionage.  “Beyond a shadow of a doubt,” he replied.

In the next few months, American officials say, there will be many private warnings delivered by Washington to Chinese leaders, including Xi Jinping, who will soon assume China’s presidency.  Both Tom Donilon, the national security adviser, and Mrs. Clinton’s successor, John Kerry, have trips to China in the offing.  Those private conversations are expected to make a case that the sheer size and sophistication of the attacks over the past few years threaten to erode support for China among the country’s biggest allies in Washington, the American business community.

TURKEY - U.S. Embassy Attack Update

"Terrorism Likely in Deadly Explosion Outside U.S. Embassy in Turkey" PBS Newshour 2/1/2013

Excerpt

JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour):  For the second time in five months, a U.S. diplomatic post has been the target of a deadly assault.

A suicide bomber detonated a vest with explosives outside the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, today, killing himself and a security guard.  The White House described it as a terrorist attack.

The explosion occurred around 1:15 p.m. local time.  Afterward, police tried to hold back the crowd gathered outside the U.S. facility in the Turkish capital.  Debris littered the street near a side entrance where the blast took place.  Emergency workers wheeled one of the injured into an awaiting ambulance.

U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Francis Ricciardone spoke to reporters outside the embassy.

FRANCIS RICCIARDONE, U.S. Ambassador to Turkey:  Right now, we are all dealing with our sadness at the loss of our fellow member of our embassy.  We salute his bravery, his service to Turkey and to Turkish-American friendship.  Our hearts go out to his family.

Significant excerpt

JEFFREY BROWN:  Now, the Turkish interior minister said the bomber was a member of a far left group.  What is known about this group and why they might attack a U.S. facility?

TULIN DALOGLU, Al-Monitor:  Well, this group, named Revolutionary People's Liberation Party, in Turkish, we call it, with an abbreviation, DHKP-C, was founded in 1978.

And it's a secular terrorist organization, different from the Islamist-leaning terrorist organizations.  It embraces a Marxist-Leninist ideology.  It is anti-imperialist, anti-U.S. and anti-NATO, for that matter.  It has attacked U.S. interests and facilities during and before and after the first Gulf War.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 1/25/2013

"Shields, Brooks on Obama's Second Term and Hillary Clinton's Exit From State" PBS Newshour 1/25/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks talk to Jeffrey Brown about what's ahead for President Obama's first 100 days during his second term, an identity crisis for the Republican Party, John Kerry's vision for foreign policy at his confirmation hearing and Hillary Clinton's legacy at State.