Foreign Matters

Breivik's Manifesto Is 'Blueprint For Revolution'

Tim Marshall — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:53:01 GMT

The 1,500-page manifesto written by Anders Behring Breivik is a blueprint for a continent-wide revolution which reflects much of the thinking of Europe’s neo-Nazis.

The document - 2083 A European Declaration Of Independence - lays out a three-stage plan leading to the overthrow of Europe’s liberal democracies and replacing them with a pan-European conservative authority.

In some ways, the writings are a mirror image of those of Osama bin Laden, laying out views of why society is in crisis and how only "propaganda by deed" will inspire the masses to action.

Whereas bin Laden wanted Islam to triumph, Breivik supports a Christian Europe without large numbers of Muslims.

Breivik appears to have chosen the date 2083 because it will be the 200th anniversary of the death of Karl Marx.

Many educated neo-Nazis start from the premise that Marxism thought infected Europe, leading to a reduction in nationalism and the introduction, eventually, of liberalism and multi-culturalism.

Breivik articulates all this. At a local level, he blames the ruling Labour party for introducing multi-culturalism to Norway and, he believes, ruining the country. His writing is deeply anti-Islamic.

The neo-Nazi movement in Scandanavia, especially in Sweden, is among the strongest in Europe. The different groups are almost all in contact wth each other from Italy to Norway and from Britain to Russia.

There are two types of connection, one is intellectual, the other cultural.

One thing which brought the more openly thuggish elements together was the "White Power" music movement which sprang out of the British punk scene in the early 80s.

"White Power" bands and their supporters quickly began to forge links and attend each others concerts. These links became political and, before long, the established extreme right organisations became involved.

There is also an intellectual strand connecting the neo-Nazis in different countries.

The thinking of this movement has trickled down to the rank and file which buys into the broad theories as outlined in Breivik’s document.

The intellectual side of neo-Nazism draws on ancient European history, myths and legends.

The idea of Aryan race features prominently, especially in northern Europe, and much of the literature produced by the far right will mention ancient orders such as The Knights Templar.

Hitler's Mein Kampf is much studied. In some ways Breivik’s manifesto is reminiscent of Mein Kampf.

Written in prison, Hitler's book was a blueprint for what happend in the 30s and 40s. The Nazi leader laid out his path to power and what would then happen.

Breivik’s trial will present him with an opportunity to defend and explain the actions he is now reported to have admitted to.

If he is found to be of sound mind, and if he is jailed, he will have time to write more - but the maximum sentence in Norway is 21 years.

With time off for good behaviour, theoretically he could be free before he is 50 years old.

During that time he may become an icon for the far reaches of the neo-Nazi movement.

Publically few would dare voice support for his alledged acions but privately there will be those who will study them, and his writings, and approve of them.

Syria's Summer. Hot! Hot! Hot!

Tim Marshall — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:13:01 GMT

Syria's slow burn spring has heated up into a scorching summer which threatens to boil over into sectarian civil war.

The peaceful protests, which began in March, drew support from most sections of Syrian society but were always dominated by those from the majority Sunni community.

The pro Democracy activists western journalists speak with deny this and prefer to say there is a united front with those who have joined them from the Druze, Christian, Kurdish and even Allawite communities. Many also say that the confessional divides do not matter and that Syria has become a secular state. I don't buy this argument and sadly, the cracks are beginning to show. It's true that thousands of people from the minorities have joined the protests, but it is also true that vast majority of them, fearful of what might follow a revolution, have stayed silent.

President Assad's government, army, and Baath Party is dominated by men from the Allawite community who make up about 12% of Syria's population. The Allawites, traditionally the poorest of the poor in Syria joined the army in large numbers in the 1950's when it was considered a backwater career. In the 1960's many joined the Baath party hoping that its secular agenda would benefit a community which had been oppressed for centuries by the ruling Sunni who did not even consider them Muslims So when the Baath came to power, it had a ready made political and military apparatus to control the country.

The units involved in suppressing this years uprising are almost entirely made up of Allawites. It is no surprise that the first signs of sectarian strife have come in Homs which has Sunni and Allawite neighbourhoods. This week the mutilated bodies of three Allawite men were returned to their families. This sparked fighting between residents of different neighbourhoods including a small Christian area. Up to 30 people were killed.

This is partially why this Friday's opposition protests have been named 'Friday Day Of National Unity'. The pro democracy activists claim that Assad's regime is trying to ferment sectarian violence in order to divide the opposition movement. I disagree. Fighting between the various groups actually endangers the regime. The more sectarian this becomes, the more the army and police will splinter.

The Allawite dominated 4th Armoured Division and Republican Guard has the best trained and equipped men, but if the rest of the military defected, the regime would struggle to contain what could quickly become a civil war dragging in the similar communities of Lebanon. In that event, Assad loses. The protesters have been incredibly restrained in the face of brutal repression, but they must have their limits and may be approaching them.

The regime has a difficult balancing act. It continues to kill protesters in large numbers, at least 1,400 so far, but the more it kills the more it risks the backlash of the Sunni more of whom are now arming themselves in order to defend their neighbourhoods.

It's no good pretending that Allawaites, Druze and Christians are being killed in large numbers by the regime, they aren't. Most of them are not protesting. Those doing most of the killing are Allawite, those doing most of the dying are Sunni. Pointing this out is considered unhelpful and you can even be accused of being 'inflammatory', but to believe that, you'd have to believe that the people shooting the bullets, and those being shot at ,are unaware of who is who, and don't know their own history.

A Palestinian March To September

Tim Marshall — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 06:56:01 GMT

The march to full Palestinian recognition as a state at the UN has taken a step forward.

The jailed Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti has called for mass rallies during the week of the proposed vote at the UN General Assembly in late September in New York.

In a written statement from prison Barghouti said 'I call on our people in the homeland and the diaspora to go out in a peaceful, million man march'.

When Barghouti speaks, people listen. He is one of the few Palestinian leaders with any charisma. His detractors may point out that he is serving a life sentence for his role in murdering Israelis, but in the eyes of many Palestinians, and their supporters, that merely burnishes his resistance credentials.

If the vote and the demonstrations go ahead it will raise the stakes on what may be a volatile month. Mr Barghouti may have stressed that he wants a new strategy of 'peaceful popular resistance', and that is indeed an idea coming to the fore here, but everyone knows that the potential for violence is real.

There would likely be support demonstration in various capitals around the world, but the flash points would be in the West Bank, Gaza, and on the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese borders.

Any large gatherings there, especially ones which approach the Israeli border, run the risk of descending into violence. There remain elements in all five locations who would consider sparking violence for their own political purposes. The Israelis, shaken by the assault on their border fences last month, could easily be drawn again into
lethal force if there was a repeat of those scenes.

The publicity surrounding a 'Million Man March' would also heat the atmosphere inside the UN building where an intense diplomatic battle would be played out, mostly behind the scenes, right up to the vote.

The USA is threatening to veto any vote at the Security Council which would elevate Palestine to a 'non member state' as discussed in Tuesday's Foreign Matters. If the vote was 14-1 in favour, but the American vetoed, there would be an outburst of emotion against the USA in many quarters. Hence there is a flurry of Israeli diplomatic activity to ensure the Americans are not isolated in order to bolster the argument that a Palestinian declaration of independence at this stage would be counter productive.

September is shaping up to be a crucial month. The stakes are high. All sides know a dangerous time is approaching. The vote may still not be tabled but at the moment the march heads forward to September.

Israel: Getting Through On Gaza

Tim Marshall — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 08:33:01 GMT

Flotilla Round 2 - who won this one? The answer depends on your view, but on balance I'd say the Israelis came out the better especially if measured against last years debacle.

In 2010 they appeared completely unprepared when intercepting the large flotilla including the ferry Mavi Marmara. It was a diplomatic, public relations, and intelligence failure. In the ensuing violence they managed to shoot 9 Turkish activists dead, draw international condemnation, and deliver Turkey a diplomatic opportunity to distance itself from Israel after years of co-operation.

This year they saw it coming and headed it off at the pass, otherwise known as Greece.

Weeks ago the diplomatic wheels began to turn. The Israelis pointed out that the number of truck loads of goods entering Gaza from Israel was up 92%, and that the Rafah crossing from Egypt to Gaza was now open. A number of countries bought into the idea that a flotilla running the sea blockade was a provocation, even the Turks withdrew support and UN General Secretary Ban Ki Moon advised using the land routes to bring in aid.

The flotilla activists ignored this advice on the grounds that they were not just delivering humanitarian aid to a blockaded people, they were making a political point that the blockade was illegal and therefore had to be repeatedly challenged. Some also claimed success in that their protests were part of the international pressure which forced Israel to ease the land blockade. In this they are on firm ground.

But the Israeli tactics paid off. Going to the Greeks was a master-stroke. Athens is not known for its love of Turkey and was persuaded to use all its bureaucratic power to tie the flotilla up in anchors. Greece enforced maritime law and said the flotilla could not set out for Gaza without authorization One boat, the French yacht Dignite, got round this by declaring Alexandria as its destination and then switched course during the voyage.

By this time though there was little mainstream support or publicity for the mission. The Greeks had offered to transfer the humanitarian aid to Gaza but were turned down. The predictable theatre from both sides was then played out in the Mediterranean

The Dignite approached Gaza until it was 50 miles from the coast in international waters. 4 Israeli Navy boats surrounded it demanding a change of course. The Dignite refused, was stopped and then boarded by commandos from the elite Shayetet unit - Israel's equivalent to the SBS. The yacht was taken to Ashdod port and the activists brought ashore. All 15 foreigners on board are expected to leave Israel by the end of Wednesday.

The Israelis played this one well. They won the argument in the international arena because they were able to point to a few facts. The blockade of Gaza is now greatly diminished. Between 200 and 700 truck loads of food, medicine, aid and other goods pass from Israel to Gaza every day depending on the security situation. The more rockets fired into Israel, or an incident at a crossing, means fewer lorries, a period of calm means more. Pro Palestinian activists maintain that even the higher figure is still far below what people in Gaza need to survive.

Following the military coup against President Mubarak the Egyptian generals bowed to public pressure and opened the Rafah crossing into Gaza. Goods flow through and now men of fighting age are allowed to cross in and out without visas.

Even so, Gaza remains a place of desperate poverty, albeit one with water parks, smart hotels and expensive restaurants. This week a second, and bigger, shopping mall opened.

However, unemployment is rife, opportunities few, and hardly any of the 1.5 million inhabitants can leave even for a short period. The airport remains closed and the sea route is blocked but the Gazans have never been starving and I've seen far far greater levels of poverty in many parts of the world. This is not to underestimate the dire situation nor the terrible psychological impact of knowing they are imprisoned in a sliver of land they can never leave. But, while hope is in short supply, consumer goods are not.

The senior Reuters correspondent in Gaza, Nidal al-Mugrabi had it about right when he said '‘If pro-Palestinian activists unexpectedly manage to slip past Israel's naval blockade on the Gaza Strip in the coming days, they might be surprised by what they see in the Hamas-controlled enclave when they disembark... Roads are being paved, houses are being built, new cars have taken to the busy streets and shops are full of myriad products.' That may not fit the narrative, but it doesn't mean it's not true.

Foreign Matters on Twitter is -Itwitius

8 Weeks To Palestine?

Tim Marshall — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 07:49:01 GMT

To lunch with Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon where the talk is of little other than the proposed United Nations vote on full recognition of a Palestinian state as proposed by President Abbas.

The Minister opens with 'The way to end the conflict is not unilateral action, they must not change the rules of the game' . He continued ' It would be confrontational because it's against the agreements we have made. By breaking the agreements they also release us from the agreements'.

The vote may not happen. Many countries oppose it knowing it would be only symbolic and could lead to violence. But President Abbas has boxed himself in. If there is no vote, the pent up frustrations of Palestinians could erupt against both the Israelis and the Palestinian leadership. If there is a vote, and nothing changes, the same could happen.

Mr Ayalon warned against a third intifada. 'If there is violence they will lose all their achievements on the ground. Were the last two intifadas to their advantage? I don't think so'. Behind that statement is the truth that there has been an economic boom in the West Bank albeit one built somewhat on sand. There are new hotels, cafes, restaurants and businesses. These would all likely be smashed if there was another round of fighting.

At the moment the idea of Palestine is widely accepted. More than 100 countries recognize it as a state, but Palestine does not have full member status at the United Nations.The term was used frequently by President Bush who was then followed by President Obama and other world leaders.

In 1974 the PLO was granted 'Observer Status' at the UN. In 1988 this was upgraded to the term Palestine, and in 1998 there was a further upgrade to become a non voting member of the General Assembly. The Mission For Palestine can participate in debates and even co-sponsor proposals.

Technically the UN doesn't recognize states, that is up to individual countries, but acceptance by the UN Security Council is usually enough for de facto recognition by the UN and its 192 members.

And what difference does it make in this case? On the ground little will change. The Israeli military will still be inside various areas, the movement of goods and people will remain under Israeli control. Where it matters is in the PR war. If there is a full Palestinian,UN recognized, state, the argument will be made that the Israelis are occupying a sovereign state, as opposed to 'temporarily' occupying parts of an area on security grounds. This will play into the ongoing pressure on Israel and into the still growing de-legitmization campaign against Israel.

It may not come to pass. The Americans are dead set against, the EU is split, and many countries doubt the wisdom of the move. The possibility of an outbreak of violence is real on what would be an essentially symbolic move.

The Germans are on the Security Council at the moment. The Americans and Israelis will try to lean on them to vote against independence. If so the French would likely follow suit. That would give the British diplomatic cover. The British position is that it hasn't decided. In private I hear they are minded to vote for a Palestinian state which would mean they opposed the USA. The Germans are the key at the Council as their vote would influence all 27 EU countries. The splits in the EU over the Greek bailout and other issues are deeply troubling for those who believe in a common EU Foreign policy, they don't want another crack to show in the facade of European unity.

The Israelis, Americans, and some EU states, are busy lobbying. Mr Ayalon said 'What was supposed to be a landslide has stopped. I've been to Latin America and Europe and we are working with our friends in Asia and elsewhere'.

So the vote, if it comes, would probably not get through the Council. It could still then be taken to the General Assembly in late September for a symbolic vote where it likely would pass. But if the EU bloc swung against it - that would make the vote closer and thus bolster the idea that declaring statehood now is a dangerous move.

So will they-wont they? The Palestinian leadership (itself split - Hamas opposes the vote) is doing two sets of calculations: One on the voting, another on the wisdom of moving ahead to 'independence'.

Palestine - 'Occupation Incorporated'

Tim Marshall — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 07:04:01 GMT

An African UN worker in the West Bank recently remarked to a mutual friend 'When people see me coming they see a walking ATM machine'.

Driving through Ramallah, and then Jericho, the other day I was reminded of that quip as I looked at the smart restaurants, sparkling new hotels, and the scale of building work.

The Palestinian Authority likes to boast about the West Bank' s 8% economic growth, so does the Israeli government, which uses it to suggest that a prosperous Palestine would make an easier negotiating partner. They also know the Palestinians have more lose if a 3rd Intifada breaks out.

What they fail to remind us is that there are well over 200 NGOs in the West Bank and Gaza, and 30% of the GDP here comes from international aid. Palestinians are among the most foreign aid funded people in the world and the place is awash with money.

This underlying economic problem is further complicated by the fact that UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees stipulates that not only are the Palestinians who fled their homes in 1948 refugees, but so are their sons and daughters grandsons and granddaughters, great grandsons and granddaughters and so on into the future. In Palestine many people are born refugees. There are people who have a vested interest in this continuing. In 1950 there were 750,000 Palestinians in the Middle East, now there are 4.8 million. UNWRA is considered a 'temporary agency'.

Even if the Palestinians declare full statehood in September they would not be truly independent, not only because of the continuing Israeli occupation, checkpoints, lack of freedom of movement of goods etc, but also because Palestine is addicted to aid and as long as you are addicted you are in thrall to your supplier.

The billions that pour in here mean the Palestinian Authority does not need to try very hard to deliver the services expected by voters, it also stifles the private sector, inflates wages and causes an internal 'brain drain'.

The restaurant I went to in Ramallah had a line of expensive cars outside and ranks of NGO workers picking their way through an expensive menu inside. The NGOs do fine work alleviating suffering, helping projects with expertise etc, but they also recruit the best of the local talent and take advantage of their charitable status to get tax breaks.

No Palestinian business can compete with NGOs which routinely triple what a local firm would pay. Many NGOs fork out 'danger money' and even 'hardship payments' to both local and international staff which further undermines the local private businesses. So the NGOs get the brightest and the highest paid, and the private firms get the rest but without the tax exemptions.

“Palestine is the best-kept secret in the aid industry,” a medical NGO worker recently told This Week In Palestine, “People need field experience and Palestine sounds cool and dangerous because it can be described as a war zone, but in reality it’s quite safe and has all the comforts that internationals want'

Of course that could change. At any moment the West Bank could explode, indeed there are scenarios you can paint which suggest violence this September after the declaration, or non declaration, of statehood. But Palestine remains a friendly place, welcoming, hospitable, full of air con, hi-fi, wi-fi and wine. Journalists also take advantage of this state of affairs, writing of the poverty and suffering of Gaza for example, before retiring to very expensive sea front hotels after an excellent dinner in one of the expensive fish restaurants.

This is not to argue that NGOs are not required, many are, but they distort the situation and fundamentally the Palestinians cannot have properly functioning businesses, nor be fully independent until their leaders are partially weaned off their addiction to other peoples money.

Israel: Stamping On Image

Tim Marshall — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 08:32:01 GMT

You get used to it after 20 years. The repeated questioning at the border crossings into Israel: The security checks, the passport being taken away. If you are of a certain frame of mind, you understand it as necessary measures for a country almost permanently in a state of conflict and one whose citizens are blown up in cafes and buses. What I can never get used to is how and why on an hourly basis, at the first port of entry, Israel portrays a negative image of itself to visitors from around the world.

I approached immigration control at Ben Gurion airport armed only with a passport full of visa stamps from Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc. I knew the form, of course this would draw attention.

'Shalom' I said. 'Passport' said the officer in return. A good start. 'Please don't stamp it' I asked knowing that an Israeli stamp means you are not allowed into most Arab countries. He ignored me and went through the document for about three minutes without looking at me, then asked when was I in Syria, 'Two years ago' I replied, ' 'Exactly what dates?' - 'I don't know' - 'How can you not know when you were in Syria'? 'Two years ago. If you want the dates they should be on the visa.' I said. He looked at the passport again for about 2 more minutes without speaking, then picked up the phone. I waited another minute without him saying anything as the queue behind me grew restless. A man appeared and without saying a word to me or the officer, took my passport and walked off.

I knew exactly what was going on, and indeed why, but the sheer rudeness of the man had got to me. 'What's going on? I asked politely 'Follow him' said the officer. The man had vanished into the crowd. 'I cant see him' - 'Go and sit in that room' I went to sit in that room.

Afer 15 minutes of sitting in that room I went to find another room, any room with anyone in it who could tell me what was going on in and preferably begin a conversation with the word hello or Shalom. I found two officers chatting to each other and stood at their desk. Both women ignored me and carried on a conversation for about 3 minutes without acknowledging me even though I was the only other person present. I went back to my own room preferring the company. Then tried again. This time a women took my name and said she'd find out what was happening and directed me back to the original room.

Twenty minutes later another women arrived with my passport, checked my name, handed it to me, and walked off without saying anything. Again, I knew what has happening, I was free to go, but she hadn't said anything. I called her back: 'Does this mean I can go'? I asked. 'You can go' she said and walked off. So did I.

I'd tweeted some of this and a friend in the Israeli government called to ask if he could help. I said these things happen. He was angry that the Ben Gurion staff, despite years of being asked to improve their manners, were still behaving like officials from some tin pot banna republic. 'Just keep trying to get them to understand they are dealing with guests not criminals' I said.

That night I went for dinner in Ramallah in the West Bank and was idly leafing through my passport when I noticed, 19 pages in from where it says - 'Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty ...to allow the bearer to pass freely and without let or hindrance' - was a stamp bearing the legend 'Ben Gurion Border Control. 14 07-2011. Visa Permit 3 months'. William Hague himself wanted me to to pass without hindrance, and despite specifically being asked not to stamp my passport - they had, thus rendering it virtually useless for work purposes. I have another, but that's hardly the point.

There are many points: Imagine the level of politeness directed at Palestinians at hot, dusty check points in the West Bank from young army men and women who are simultaneously bored and nervous.

We all know Israel has a negative image in many parts of the world for reasons you can argue are wrong or right. Israeli society is rough and ready, brusque and brash. It is also friendly, full of charity, creativity, and intelligence. It is the product of 4 thousand years of history and 100 years of building a modern country out of the swamps of the coastal areas and the scrubland of much of the rest. Deep down many Israelis are hurt by the the image they know they have. At Ben Gurion they should remember - first impressions count.

Shalom Haver.

We Need To Talk About....Gaddafi.

Tim Marshall — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:28:01 GMT

Plan A was simple. Enforce the no fly zone, smash Gaddafiy's military, then assist the rebels to push on to Tripoli to meet the anti regime fighters already in the city.

Plan B was simple. Keep enforcing the no fly zone, re-arrange the rubble already hit, assist the rebels, but not too much cos we're not sure who they really are, meanwhile we'll hope Gaddafi falls underneath a passing cruise missile in order to break the stalemate we were warned about but didn't believe would happen.

Plan C is simple. Er...

Well, Plan C is currently being thought about, sometimes publicly. It appears to be along the lines of: Bother! This is dragging on a bit, and costing more than we thought so...let's carry on rearranging the rubble, keep trying to kill Gaddafi, but perhaps we ought to talk to him. No! Sorry - we meant talk about him to other people. At first.

The term 'negotiated settlement' is now being heard from many quarters including inside NATO. The Italians want it and this week the French appeared to want it, then sort of didn't, but did.

The Defence Minister Gerard Longuet suggested that perhaps Colonel Gaddafi could stay in Libya and even have some sort of father figure role, he could '“be in another room in his palace with another title,' How that fits with President Sarkozy's stance as the saviour of the rebel movement, or his relection campaign, is unclear. His
Foreign Minister, Alain Juppe, took to the airwaves, denied Saif al-Islam's claim of direct contacts with Gaddafi, but allowed that he might stay in power during negotiations. The British and Americans weighed in saying there was no change of strategy and that Gaddafi had to go. So that's clear then.

Even the rebel National Transitional Council (NTC) has softened its position. In the spring it said Gaddafi had to leave the country. Now it says it would be satisfied if he retired but stayed in Libya.

And why this change of heart? Mostly because the country is split in two with the eastern rebels having no chance of pushing westwards towards Tripoli. In the west Misurata remains an island of rebel held territory but one unable to break out of the city. In the Nafusa mountains a guerilla force can hold territory, but it's hard to see them advancing down a main road to Tripoli. Thus - a form of stalemate, unbroken by NATO's bombing campaign, which is costing a fortune and straining the military abilities of France and the UK.

Officially there is no Plan C. Behind the scenes though most NATO countries are 'relaxed' about the Russian, Turkish and South African efforts to mediate a ceasefire and a 'negotiated settlement'. Any deal which leaves Gaddafi in country, and in charge of even a downtown Tripoli cous-cous cafe would be a severe blow to the political reputations of President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Cameron, and the military reputation of NATO.

The NTC is already hinting it can deal with regime figures who do not have 'blood on their hands'. They would be difficult to find. Indeed some figures inside the NTC need a good wash and scrub to remove the red, but that is all rhetoric, the reality is that Plan C is on the table. They are talking about....Gaddafi, and if that fails, you cannot rule out them talking to Gaddafi.

Libya: 100 days Of Bombing

Tim Marshall — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:50:01 GMT

With America "leading from behind", Nato will reach the symbolic "100 days of bombing" mark on Sunday way behind schedule.

I don't know what the schedule was, but it certainly wasn't months. In March many predicted Gaddafi would fall within days, others - including Foreign Matters - argued that the civil war would quickly bog down with the Nato bombing having the effect of saving the rebel movement, but then more or less freezing the front lines.

Now despite a degree of mission creep, 12,000 sorties, 4,500 strike sorties, and 2,000 targets hit , the lines are static. The only hope of removing Gaddafi remains either him falling underneath a passing cruise missile, or the long predicted Tripoli uprising.

Moreover what of the post-Gaddafi era? The US Commander in Africa, Gen. Carter Ham, said this week that there is no post-conflict plan and that the United Nations (UN) or African Union (AU) may need to contribute ground forces to maintain law and order. US troops? No way said the General, after all - America is leading from behind on this one.

And that has been the problem all along. The US kicked off the bombing using assets only they had. They made the area safe for Nato, but then scaled down and said to the Europeans "it's your area, you do it, we're busy elsewhere with something we care more about'". Now Nato appears to be on its way to proving that, without America leading from the front, it cannot defeat a small third rate military using air and sea power after months of trying.

There have been successes - notably the saving of Benghazi along with thousands of lives and the entire rebel movement. But with the lines frozen, patience is wearing thin.

The Arab League has turned against the campaign and wants a ceasefire. The Italians have followed suit despite hosting many of the Nato jets. There have been civilian deaths, and no matter that Western leaders keep telling us that Gaddafi is isolated, he retains a degree of support from Russia, China and several African countries. Hovering like a dark cloud over all these problems is the cost of the war and the strain it is putting on the armed forces of both the UK and France. The leaders of both countries have put their international reputations on the line.

They have not yet failed, and President Sarkozy is rumoured to be demanding some sort of 'victory' by Bastille Day. Another deadline will be the six-month mark, and then Christmas. It is quite possible that the massive pressure on Gaddafi means he will have cracked by one of these psychological deadlines, but if each one is reached, and passed, there will be further cracks in the unity and psychology of the effort to remove him. 100 days... and counting.

Obama Pulls Back

Tim Marshall — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:57:01 GMT

In his speech on the long goodbye from Afghanistan the US President made a number of claims and a number of points, some in coded language. Here's a take on what he said:

Why We Are In Afghanistan – 9/11 - ‘In the days that followed, our nation was united as we struck at al Qaeda and routed the Taliban in Afghanistan.’

The reality is that the Taliban leadership were fully aware they could not withstand the American onslaught and so, to use a military term, they ‘declined the battleground’. They withdrew, regrouped, and came back strongly, they were never routed.

On the Afghan Surge - ‘Then, our focus shifted. A second war was launched in Iraq, and we spent enormous blood and treasure to support a new government there. By the time I took office, the war in Afghanistan had entered its seventh year……… in one of the most difficult decisions that I’ve made as President, I ordered an additional 30,000 American troops into Afghanistan’

This is Obama saying ‘I inherited this war from Bush who had taken his eye off the ball with Iraq, I acted to sort it out’

On Withdrawal - ‘We are meeting our goals. As a result, starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer, ‘

Obama is saying I keep my promises but there is a question on his figures and dates: Why is he committing to pulling out 33,000 troops by the summer when the ‘fighting season’ doesn’t really end until the late autumn. Critics will say he’s is operating to a political timetable ahead of the November Presidential election.

On peace talks - ‘ They must be led by the Afghan government, and those who want to be a part of a peaceful Afghanistan must break from al Qaeda, abandon violence, and abide by the Afghan constitution. ‘

This is disingenuous. The talks may well be hosted by the government, but the Taliban will talk to the people with the most guns, which means the Americans. Then, when most of the Americans have gone, the hardcore Taliban won’t be talking, they will be fighting for control of the pashtu heartlands.

On a post withdrawal Afghanistan - ‘ We won't try to make Afghanistan a perfect place. We will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely. That is the responsibility of the Afghan government, which must step up its ability to protect its people, and move from an economy shaped by war to one that can sustain a lasting peace.’

This is a clear warning to President Karzai that, despite early paragraphs saying with confidence that the Afghan forces will be up to the task, they aren’t, indeed they need to ‘step up’. The reference to the ‘economy shaped by war’ may be a reference to the rampant corruption and war profiteering by large sections of the Afghan government

On Pakistan - '… we will insist that it keeps its commitments. For there should be no doubt that so long as I am President, the United States will never tolerate a safe haven for those who aim to kill us. ‘

This translates as ‘quit the two faced behavior, and by the way you may be angry we came to get Bin Laden but we reserve the right to similar action in the future, and as for the drone strikes which I have tripled since coming to power? I’m going to keep doing them’.

On being ‘World Policeman’ - ' When threatened, we must respond with force –- but when that force can be targeted, we need not deploy large armies overseas. When innocents are being slaughtered and global security endangered, we don’t have to choose between standing idly by or acting on our own. Instead, we must rally international action, which we’re doing in Libya, where we do not have a single soldier on the ground,’

He’s saying ‘Libya is my template, regional areas must sort out their regions and as in Libya I shall lead from behind’.

On nation building - ‘America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home.

Translation ‘ ‘It’s the economy stoopid, especially in 2012 election year’.