Mass March in Gaza!

Mass march in Gaza remembers Abu Ali Mustafa, demands to break siege: Full remarks by Comrade Jamil Mizher

Aug 27 2017

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine organized a mass march in Gaza City on Saturday, August 26, marking the 16th anniversary of the assassination of PFLP General Secretary, Comrade Abu Ali Mustafa. This central mass rally in Gaza was led by the cadres of the Popular Army and a massive Palestinian flag.





Marchers proceeded from the Gaza City municipal park to the Square of the Unknown Soldier, raising Palestinian flags, PFLP banners and signs demanding an end to the siege on Gaza, Palestinian national unity and the liberation of Palestine. The march included a street vendor with a trolley representing the plight of Palestinian workers as well as a child laying in a hospital bed with health workers around him, highlighting the situation of Palestinian sick children denied medical treatment due to the killer policies of occupation and siege.



Comrade Jamil Mizher, member of the Political Bureau of the PFLP and leader of its branch in Gaza, delivered the main speech at the rally and march. The full text is below:



We come together today to commemorate the martyrdom of an exceptional leader of the Palestinian people with a rich experience ofstruggle and a leader among the great and dedicated leaders who gave his life to struggle and resistance as a model leader and symbol of the Palestinian revolution. In the spirit of national unity, his life and martyrdom were a living example of sacrifice and courage, marking a torch of struggle to illuminate the path of resistance and liberation. He is the national leader, Comrade Abu Ali Mustafa, General Secretary of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who lived his life on the field of struggle and died as a martyr.

On this occasion, we must not forget the heroes of the operation in response to the assassination of Comrade Abu Ali Mustafa, the heroes of October 17, who took down the Zionist racist propagandist of “transfer” Rehavam Zeevi. Today, we salute the General Secretary of the Front, always consistent on the principles, Comrade Ahmad Sa’adat, and the struggling Comrades Ahed Abu Ghoulmeh, Majdi Rimawi, Mohammed Rimawi, Hamdi Qur’an and Basil al-Asmar.



The Zionist occupation is continuing its crimes and racist plans to deepen its occupation and control over more land and holy sites and attempt to establish the principle of the “Jewish state” amid frantic American and Western attempts to liquidate the Palestinian cause. The division and its repercussions continue to cast a shadow on the Palestinian scene, especially amid the catastrophic situation in the besieged Gaza Strip, which has only been exacerbated by the recent measures taken by the leadership of the PA. This has been done as it prepares to cook up a National Council in Ramallah and rush towards the projects of the U.S. administration that serve the interests of the occupation. Meanwhile, there is an attempt to transform the Palestinian land into a subsidiary or pawn in regional arenas of conflict and the situation in our Palestinian camps in Lebanon is degraded, the situation deteriorating amid attempts to make the camps battlefields for war and fighting.



We in the Popular Front for the Liberation emphasize the following on this occasion with full national concern and responsibility:

1) The fulfillment of our pledge to the martyr Abu Ali Mustafa and all the martyrs requires us to conduct a comprehensive political review that includes and ensures an in-depth understanding of the nature of the enemy as a settler-colonial Zionist project. Victory requires adherence to the strength of resistance and confrontation, not abandoning it or wasting time going down the wrong road. A comprehensive policy review means re-consolidating the slogan of the unity of the land, people and decision, in the sense that we, here in besieged Gaza, which continues to bleed, stand together with our people in Umm al-Fahm, in Dheisheh, in Yarmouk and Ain el-Helweh, and we refuse to be a weapon against the sons and daughters of the camps.

2) The need to adhere firmly to the resistance in word and deed as did the martyr Abu Ali Mustafa, not only as an option, but as a consistent presence, dignity and life of resistance and support for the steadfastness of our people. The Palestinian people’s legitimate resistance directs its blows toward the Zionist enemy. As the martyr Abu Ali Mustafa said, “Who says that there is a people in the world under occupation who will address their cause by sweet thoughts – this does not occur at all.” “Comrades, if the enemy presses the trigger with a finger, we must press the trigger with ten fingers and target the Zionist soldiers and the settlers.”



3) We must recognize that our strength is in our unity. National unity is the basis of the liberation of peoples. But no one should imagine that unity can be based on fraud, quotas or any approach that does not reflect the constants of our people. Instead, it must be based on democracy, honesty and ethics. An integrated national front begins with a comprehensive national dialogue and real implementation of its decisions.

4) The responsibility of this struggle requires our people and national and Islamic forces to maintain a national framework to organize the energies of our people. In light of this responsibility, we affirm our position to hold a national unity council that reinforces the prestige of the PLO as a tool that brings together the energies of our people on a national program that is popular and effective. It must re-examine the nature of the Authority, its function and its security policies and protect our people from the effects of the division and its repercussions. This National Council was agreed upon in Beirut with the participation of all national forces. In this context, we in the Popular Front warn the leadership of the dangers that would arise from convening the PNC in Ramallah, whether deepening the division or developing a high-level conflict over representation and legitimacy. We will confront the policy of monopoly over the Palestinian national decision and the kidnapping of the PLO and Palestinian national institutions away from the Palestinian national cause and program.



5) We renew our call to the Palestinian official leadership not to gamble on the mirage of settlement under American administration, noting that the visit of the American delegation to the region and its meetings with Arab leaders come to prepare a poisoned meal in the framework of a regional solution of normalization and liquidation of the Palestinian cause through the adoption of a Zionist “solution.” We in the PFLP stand with the masses of our people and we will form a blockade to confront all American-Zionist schemes that attempt to obliterate the identity and will of the Palestinian people.

6) In a few weeks, we will witness the anniversary of the signing of the Oslo Accords. In this context
and on the anniversary of the martyrdom of Abu Ali, from the land of Guevara Gaza, we affirm the death of the Oslo agreement for all eternity and that our people have the initiative to correct the course and confront everyone who relies on a return to the path of compromise and conciliation.



7) The need to put an end to the policies of collective punishment that have led to the aggravation of the suffering of our people in the Gaza Strip. The siege is escalating on a daily basis, the social, humanitarian and economic crises are increasing and the Strip is on the verge of a real catastrophe impacting all aspects of life, from health to education to basic services. No electricity – no water – the rates of poverty and unemployment among the highest in the world as thousands of graduates and an army of unemployed are left to wander the streets, neglected. In light of the insistence of the leadership of the PA to intensify its attacks and sanctions in this war of starvation and threaten yet more, in this dangerous situation, the PFLP demands the PA to atone for its crimes and stop these attacks and work instead to strengthen the steadfastness of our people. In turn, we call on Hamas to dissolve the Administrative Committee to remove the pretexts being used to impose further actions against the Gaza Strip.

We demand that the siege imposed on the Gaza Strip be broken immediately as a national, Arab, Islamic and human mission. In light of this dangerous situation, international institutions must declare the Strip a disaster zone. We also call for the formation of a mass popular pressure campaign to push for completing the file of reconciliation in order to strengthen the steadfastness of our people.



8) We call on Egypt to end the siege imposed on Rafah crossing and to take a stand against the humiliation and indignities imposed upon Palestinians traveling from Cairo to the Rafah crossing and vice versa. Historically, Egypt stood with Palestine with the blood of its army and people.

9) The need to build on the achievements made in the city of Jerusalem, the popular victory and the situation of popular unity in the homeland and diaspora with our people there, contributing to the formation of a broad national front to unite and confront Zionist schemes and threats to the Palestinian cause.



The memory of the martyrdom of Comrade Abu Ali Mustafa will always remain an important milestone for our people, especially the oppressed classes, as an incubator of popular resistance in order to raise their voices loud with outrage against the occupation, its settler-colonial projects, the Authority and the projects of liquidation. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine will remain on this path, a thorn in the eye of the Zionist occupation and the enemies of the Palestinian cause, and we will continue to march confidently toward our national liberation despite the ongoing targeting of its leaders and cadres.

In conclusion, we salute the memory of a great revolutionary leader who emerged from the womb of the poor and working class to form a model and example of revolutionary struggle. We assure him that we are on his road to Haifa, Yafa and Jerusalem. We promise you and all of the martyrs that we will not allow the flag to fall and it will remain soaring high in the skies of Palestine. The resistance will remain with the rifle, which we will not give up or hand over. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine will continue to be a voice of the oppressed people and popular classes in Ain el-Helweh, Rafah, Jabaliya, Dheisheh, Balata and all of Palestine from the river to the sea. Long live the sacrifices of the Palestinian people – Victory is inevitable!

Of Islamophobia-Kalpita Das

Demonising a religion and its followers will only worsen the situation at the global level
Kalpita Das

Srinagar, Publish Date: Aug 30 2017 11:06PM | Updated Date: Aug 30 2017 11:06PM

File Photo Kalpita Das

Post 9/11 Islamophobia brought fear and insecurity among the Muslims the worldover as they were negatively perceived, suspiciously watched and unfairly targeted in the name of national security. This was more pronounced in western countries especially in the United States of America. In America there has been escalation of civil rights violations targeting Muslims in the workplace, at religious institutions and at the schools in addition to hate crimes post 9/11. Islam as a religion was vilified deeply hurting and alienating Muslims in a multicultural society like the US. India the largest democracy where Islam is the second largest religion and home to 172 million Muslims is no exception as anti-Muslim prejudices have risen that had a very demeaning effect on the moral of Muslims. From amongst many prejudices that the world holds against Islam, the prejudice that Islam is against modernity has been used as a propaganda tool to depict Islam in a poor light. This article probes into the relationship between Islam and modernity from historical perspective.

Modernism, the cultural form of modernity arose from far-reaching transformations in multiple theatres such as, state, society, culture, science etc. in the western world during late 19th and 20th centuries. It championed rationality, positivism, progress, free thinking and forcefully rejected metaphysical ideas. It also paved the way for technological developments. Interestingly Islam’s tryst with modernity and its philosophical position is much older, it goes back  to the period between 8th century to 13th century, considered as the golden years of Islam in which science, economy, democracy and culture flourished. During this era Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad had set up ‘Bait-ul-Hikmah’ (House of Wisdom) laying the foundation of rationality and sciences, which welcomed scholars of all creeds, religions and beliefs. Most of the scholars in this phase of Islamic history belonged to Mu’tazalite school of thought based on free thinking and rationalism. ‘Ijtihad’ or independent reasoning was the prerogative of the lay believer during the era rather than conformism. It was through Arab philosophers and scientists that the rich patrimony of the Greeks reached the leading lights of modern rationalism. The father of modern scientific research Roger Bacon was a disciple of the Arabs and George Sarton the father of the modern history of science strongly felt that Arabs not only transmitted ancient knowledge but they created new ones. It is even interesting to know that when Europe was stuck in dark-ages, science and philosophy flourished in the Islamic world. All through this golden period, Muslims flaunted the names of Al-Khawarizmi, Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd, Al-Razi and Omar Khayyam. These early scholars not only enriched Islamic civilization but also inspired the west towards science and modernity. As a matter of fact it’s not just the scholars who contributed towards proliferation of rational ideas in the wider society but even democratic Muslim rulers during the era helped nurturing a political environment conducive to growth of modern rationalism.

Moreover Islam’s relation with modernity goes even prior to the golden years (much prior to 8th century). Beginning with the holy Quran itself where it is evident that Islam has profound support for democracy, which is an inseparable aspect of modernity. The Quran lays emphasis on Shura meaning consultation. Even the messenger of Allah is required to consult people. Liberal scholars argue that the Quran does not support authoritarianism in any form and support their argument with the fact that the institutions of monarchy did not exist during the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Similarly, integration of state and religion widely believed to be an essential aspect of Islam actually didn’t have any doctrinal position in Quran. Further like freedom of speech and freedom of conscience the Quran never denied individual rights, which are essential for functioning of liberal democracy. The Quran promotes pluralism by recognizing other faiths, differences of opinion and equality of sexes.
Then there are pertinent questions, which arise viz. if the holy Quran is not against modernity and Islam’s interface with modern rationalism dates back to 8th century then why radicalism and fundamentalism are the norms in the Islamic world or why most of the Islamic countries follow authoritarianism and not democracy? Amongst various other factors the dominant ullema culture that arose between the 11th Century and 12th Century could be responsible to a considerable extent for ‘decay’ in Muslim countries. It spearheaded the decline of modernity in Islam as the ullemas closed the doors on all kinds of free and rational thinking (Ijtihad) that had been flourishing in Islamic societies since 8th century. Ullemas vigorously advocated and enforced blind obedience (Taqlid) to ideas that appeared against science, democracy and modern rationalism through such interpretation of Quran, which suited their vested interests. It’s a well-established fact that there could be no single interpretation of religion and there should be multiple ways to know it. Religion Islam, which is based on text, provides more scope for such exploitations. Ulema, however collaborated with the authoritarian ruling class and gave legitimacy to all their actions in lieu of patronage. Unfortunately this ideological and political hegemony continued for centuries (from medieval to modern day)  resulting in near stagnation in the sphere of social, political and intellectual fields in Islamic countries. In 19th and 20th centuries Islamic scholars and modernizers like Syed Ahmed Khan, Jamaluddin-al-Afghani, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad etc spent their lifetimes engaging Islam with science and modernity while negating various myths and misconceptions that surrounded Islam. Unfortunately their impact on the community remained marginal in comparison to the orthodox ullemas who ruled the roost.

Even today the orthodox ideologues supportive of erstwhile Ullema tradition, relentlessly try to establish the idea through writings and discourses that Islam and modernity are antithetical to each other, and that modernity is imposition of western values; propagation of such ideas are not only befooling the Muslims but also contributing towards  radicalization of Muslim societies.

External factor like hegemony of western countries in general and American interference in particular have undeniably played an important role in shaping the socio-religious and political outlook of Muslim countries of the Middle East, however, ‘politicization of Islam’ that took place within the community is to large extent responsible for present situation. It has been responsible for purging all the humanitarian and pluralistic values of Islam and giving an interpretation to the world, which is ambiguous and misleading. The past glory can be restored by promoting ‘Ijtihad’ and modern thinking, which will eventually set up a liberal democratic culture. A democratic culture in return supports spread of liberal education, reform in cultural and traditional norms, which would comprehensively enhance rights and freedom bring transformations in overall quality of life. It has to be realized that democratization of Islamic countries is a gradual process that requires persistent efforts from within the community. The Arab Spring that spread across the Arab world in 2011 could be seen as a remarkable effort towards that process. The West could also contribute in that process by creating a global consensus on contentious geo-political issues concerning Muslims treatments to which hitherto appears discriminatory and prejudiced. People holding prejudices against Islam must understand that elements of radicalism are present in all religions and much depends on how those elements are engaged with by political dispensation. History stands witness to the fact that Christianity suffered from orthodoxy till 18th century and was opposed to democracy and modernity transformed itself by 19th century and supported Christian West in embracing modernity.

Demonising a particular religious community is dangerous to the extent that could intensify clashes between communities, societies and nations.

(Kalpita Das is Research Scholar JNU, New Delhi)

ISIS – Always-Always Claims Responsibility!

ISIS – Always-Always Claims Responsibility!

Whenever a terrorist attack hits somewhere in Europe or the world, wait a few hours and the police or media report ISIS / ISIL / Daesh claims responsibility. To enhance credibility, they usually say it was confirmed by ISIS news agency Amaq. As soon as this little piece of info is out, the upset populace takes a deep breath and falls at ease. It’s the usual culprits. It’s them, not us. We are fine. We can go back to business as usual.


This in Europe alone has happened more than 40 times since May 2014 – that’s as many ‘Muslim-induced terror attacks’ Western Europe has endured; from Paris to Nice, Brussels, London, Berlin, Munich, Würzburg, Copenhagen, Zvornik (Bosnia & Herzegovina), Moscow, Istanbul, and many more. And almost without fail, the alleged perpetrator(s) were killed, though most of them were not armed and could have been apprehended by police, questioned and brought to justice. Dead men don’t talk. That’s more convenient.

The latest Barcelona terror Amuck-run on the Rambla is not different. It is a case in point and a typical case for confusion. There were several chief-perpetrators suspected and killed. Many names circulated – and, of course, a passport, leading to a Spanish enclave in Morocco was found. The owner of the passport, immediately reported it to the police as stolen, with a solid alibi. But then, suitably his 17-year-old brother stole the passport and left it in the white van, when he fled on foot, injured from an explosion the night before, in a residency some 230 km south of Barcelona – or was that really him? – and several hours after the Rambla assault, he was caught by police in Cambrils, 120 km south of Barcelona in another attempted pedestrian run – and killed among one of five terrorists who happened to be squeezed into the same Audi. Ever wondered, why so many terrorists in one car? – Or was he really one of those killed?

By now, the people are really-really confused. Nobody knows up from down in this chaos. Better leave it to the authorities. They know best to handle the situation. Let us go back to normal – until the next terror attack hits – Allahu Akbar – very likely next in a theatre near you, somewhere in this old, purposefully and increasingly militarized police state, called Europe.

What happened to the real and innocent owner of the passport? – Does anybody know? Or can we ask ten ‘official’ sources and get ten different answers?

How come special police throughout Europe apply the same philosophy – kill to shut them up? Isn’t there a police ethics code – shoot only in self-defense? Most cases were no self-defense, as the ‘terrorists’ were visibly not armed. Have European secret and special police forces been receiving collective, well-focused training: no Muslim-Terrorist Survivors!

Why not? – That would also explain why never anybody questions the ISIS claim to murder and mayhem. Why would ISIS / ISIL / Daesh want to hurt those who fund them, train them, arm them, feed them? – It’s not even secret any more. Hillary said so already years ago, We created them, now we have to deal with them. Former CIA officials admitted that they recruited, funded, trained and armed them – later the ISIL / Daesh reign was expanded with additional financial backing by the Saudis, other Gulf States and Turkey – and, of course, all the holy western allies. – So, why would ISIS want to hurt the cow whose milk they drink? Strange – isn’t it?

Maybe what meets the eye is not reality. Could it be that ISIS / ISIL / Daesh, out of sheer gratitude to its benevolent sponsors have agreed to take the blame whenever a western orchestrated terror attack strikes somewhere in Europe or the world? Can’t be excluded, can it? It’s not even blackmail. After all, lending a helping hand to the Big Brothers, NATO, France, Germany, UK, US of A and many more lesser contributors, but contributors all the same – who keep you alive, would not be out of the world. – Right? – This is all done in connivance with massive support of European secret services, led by the usual villains, CIA, MI6, Mossad.

Is it therefore far-fetched to conclude that European governments are utterly complicit in instigating and executing these ‘false flag’ terror attacks, sacrificing the lives of hundreds of their citizens, just so they can pursue their goal of totally militarizing the Continent?  – That they are as faithful vassals following the pattern of their trans-Atlantic partners – aiming at Full Spectrum Dominance – World Hegemony, a New World Order under a One World Order governed by Washington and its Deep Dark handlers? – Barcelona, Paris, Berlin are mere little pebbles in the Big Picture mosaic of world dominion. And the people, the mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, children who are killed – they are just menial collateral damage. After all, slaves – what is their value?

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 4th Media (China), TeleSUR, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Peter Koenig, Global Research, 2017

 

Russia Fears New U.S. Bomb Ups Risk of Nuclear Strike



File Photo:B61-11 "Bunker Buster" bomb

Russia Fears New U.S. Bomb Ups Risk of Nuclear Strike
News Week- 30-08-20917

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs fears updated, high-precision U.S. models of nuclear bombs will lower inhibitions to use nuclear weapons in combat, Russian state news agency Itar-Tass reported on Tuesday.

The B-61 model 12 is a weapon that the U.S. has worked on for some time, testing a mock-up of it in 2015. The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration announced on Tuesday that it had carried out another non-nuclear test of the model 12 and would continue doing so in the next three years, hoping to clear it for service. The weapon is meant to be the first precision-guided atomic bomb, and Russia does not like the sound of it.

“The advantage of the new modification of the B61-12, according to U.S. military experts themselves lies in the fact that it will be, as they put it, ‘more ethical’ and ‘more usable’,” Mikhail Ulyanov, the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Nonproliferation and Weapons Control Department told Tass.
Referring to comments made by former undersecretary of defense James Miller and ex-President Barack Obama’s key nuclear strategist General James E. Cartwright, Ulyanov expressed fears the U.S. may develop a more laissez-faire view of nuclear arms’ use, knowing they “cause less catastrophic consequences for the civilian population.

“From this we can conclude that the clearing of such bombs for service could objectively lead to lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear arms,” Ulyanov said. “This, we can imagine, is the main negative impact of the ongoing modernization.”

The upgrade is, in the eyes of some U.S. defense experts, a needed replacement of an integral part of U.S. nuclear capabilities whose design dates back to the 1960s. Former U.S. General Cartwright defended the program in 2016, noting that increasing precision and shrinking the size of the arms means fewer will be needed to act as a deterrent in the first place.

Ulyanov, however, felt the U.S. and any of its NATO allies that may benefit from the upgrade sought the B-61 model 12’s potential clearing in response to what they perceive as Russian nuclear posturing. Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials have issued a handful of verbal reminders that Russia’s own nuclear capabilities exist to back up its foreign policy if needed.
North Korea’s current nuclear missile program has topped the list of concerns for the U.S. of late, with a missile test flying over Japan taking place on Tuesday morning. Though Russia formally opposes the North’s nuclear program, Moscow chose to once again condemn the U.S. for provoking the test by carrying out its annual defense drill with regional ally South Korea.

Mandaithivu boat tragedy

Mandaithivu boat tragedy Bodies of six youth handed over to families

By 2017-08-30

 

BY Mirudhula Thambiah

The bodies of the six Advanced Level students, who died when their boat capsized at sea, off Mandaithivu, Jaffna on Monday (28), were handed over to their families following an autopsy yesterday (29).

The incident occurred around 1.30 p.m. when seven students travelled to Mandaithivu for a boat ride to celebrate one of their birthdays.

Initially five out of seven students died due to drowning, one went missing and the other was rescued, Police said.

However, the body of the missing youth was also recovered from the Mandaithivu seas.

The deceased students were identified as Nanthan Rajeevan (18) Nagasilogan Sinnathamby (17)and Jayasanth Thinesh (17) from Urumpirai, Thanurathan (20) from Kokkuvil, Praveen (20) from Nallur and Thanushan (18) Sandilippay.

Preliminary Police investigations revealed the boat was not fit to be put to sea. Police also believe that the students had been under the influence of liquor.

However, Jaffna Teaching Hospital Director T. Sathiyalingam told the media that certain body samples of the deceased were sent to Colombo for further medico-legal examinations, which would reveal whether the students had been under the influence of liquor.

Altogether, 18 students had travelled to Mandaithivu to celebrate the birthday, however the boat in which seven of them travelled separately had capsized.

Meanwhile, another five students, of the 18, including the one who was rescued from the sea, were arrested by policeand later released following investigations and severe warnings.

Hayleys Group buys Sri Lanka Shipping for Rs. 4.9 billion

---

Tuesday, 29 August 2017 00:40

Hayleys Advantis, the transportation and logistics arm of Hayleys Plc, has acquired 94.8% stake in the Sri Lanka Shipping Company Ltd. for Rs. 4.9 billion.

The company, a subsidiary of conglomerate Hayleys Plc, in a disclosure to the Colombo Stock Exchange said the acquisition is in line with the group’s strategy on expanding its maritime operations and paving the way for the establishment of the largest marine and shipping company in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka Shipping has enjoyed an excellent and respected position in the local shipping industry and is headquartered in its own building named after its founder Chairman Robert Senanayake.

The group of the company offers the local and international shipping community the full range of maritime services such as a liner and tramp ship agency, joint venture investment in ship agency companies, stevedoring, Customs house agents, clearing and forwarding, heavy lift haulage, towage and salvage, bagging of bulk fertiliser, warehousing and warehouse management and tea blending and other related services to the export of tea.

Its Board of Directors were Capt. Lester Paul Weinman (Chairman), Mrs. Sonia Weinman, Mohamed Reza (Managing Director) and Feroza Delpechitrea.

=================

Note:

Hayleys  is one of Sri Lanka’s largest multinational business conglomerates* with a history spanning 135 years. We drive a globally competitive business portfolio encompassing 12
defined sectors of enterprise cutting across manufacturing, agriculture and services. Commencing commercial operations in 1878 as Chas. P. Hayley and Company, we were
incorporated as Hayleys Limited 61 years ago. The Group accounts for 3.17% of Sri Lanka’s export income, and 4.5% of tea and 2.2% of rubber production.
(* Often, a conglomerate is a multi-industry company.)

About Us

Commencing commercial operations in 1878 as Chas. P. Hayley and Company, we were incorporated as Hayleys Limited 61 years ago. Embracing innovation and entrepreneurship,
we’ve added value for people and businesses across the country and beyond. It is this spirit that has characterised our growth and the building of a strong and successful enterprise
that is active in local and global markets. In addition to Sri Lanka, Hayleys today has manufacturing facilities in Indonesia and Thailand, and marketing operations in Australia, India,
Bangladesh, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, UK and USA. The Group accounts for 3.17% of Sri Lanka’s export income, and 4.5% of tea and 2.2% of rubber production.

பிணம் புதைக்க நிலம் இல்லா ஈழம்!

Source:Tamilnet Poster ENB

https://youtu.be/CkJIldM5Oas

David Petraeus: Allies will be in Afghanistan for decades

 

David Petraeus: Allies will be in Afghanistan for decades

 

Deborah Haynes, Defence Editor | Michael Evans

August 28 2017, 12:01am,

The Times UK

 

David Petraeus



American forces are likely to stay in Afghanistan for decades after an increase in troop numbers, a former commander of US and Nato troops in the country has indicated.

 

General David Petraeus, a former director of the CIA who is credited with quelling the insurgency in Iraq that came after the US-led invasion, pointed to the presence of US forces in South Korea ever since the Korean war and in Europe during the Cold War.

 

“The analogy with Afghanistan isn’t perfect, given that is a true shooting war, but when we have had significant national interests at stake we have sustained efforts, and I think that is why a sustained commitment is important here but also why that has to be sustainable,” he told The Times.

 

He “wouldn’t hazard a prediction” on how long Nato forces would be in Afghanistan, but indicated that the 16-year war, America’s longest, was set to last. “This is not the fight of a decade, much less a few years,” he said. “We are engaged in a generational struggle. That is why we need sustained commitments that are sustainable. I believe that this is a sustainable sustained commitment.”

 

General Petraeus, 64, a former candidate for secretary of state, declined to say whether President Trump or members of the administration, including Lieutenant-General HR McMaster, the national security adviser, who he knows well, had sought his opinion in devising their strategy for Afghanistan and the rest of south Asia, announced last week.

 

The Times UK Graphic Afghan 2017

However, he was supportive of the policy, which is expected to mean that an additional 3,900 American forces — taking the number of US troops to 12,300 — would be sent.

 

A second former US military chief said that the increase would be “helpful but not decisive”. General Jack Keane, who for family reasons turned down the chance to serve as secretary of defence, said that tens of thousands of troops were required to defeat the Taliban but realised that there was no longer support in Congress for action on such a scale.

 

Mr Trump’s goals in Afghanistan appear to be less ambitious that those of his predecessors, General Keane said. The president aims to stop the Taliban from overthrowing the Afghan government, not to defeat them. In time it is hoped that political reconciliation could be achieved with the insurgents.
 

There are already more than 12,000 Nato-led troops, more than half of them American, in Afghanistan helping to train and advise the Afghan security forces. A separate counterterrorism mission of up to 2,000 US special forces as well as elite British and other troops is focused on al-Qaeda, Islamic State and the Taliban.

 

General Petraeus welcomed the absence of an “artificial deadline” for the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. He directed veiled criticism towards the Obama administration for constraining commanders by setting exit timelines. “I applaud the commitment to conditions-based decision-making,” he said.

 

The boost in numbers will enable Nato-led forces to reassert their presence lower down the Afghan chain of command, with officers offering more training and advice to counterparts who are closer to the frontline rather than focusing their efforts at the corps and divisional level. It could also mean more aircraft providing surveillance and reconnaissance as well as a greater capacity to launch airstrikes. Having Nato personnel closer to the front line will enable Afghan forces to take greater advantage of US jets and drones.

 

General Petraeus said he was confident that Britain and other Nato allies involved in Operation Resolute Support train and advise mission would follow the US lead by increasing troops. The required increase is thought to be up to 2,500 personnel. He would not be drawn on whether a British plan to add 85 troops, including special forces, on top of its 500-strong presence was adequate. “I think at the end of the day we will see Nato countries come through,” he said.

 

When judging the utility of continuing the campaign, which has cost the lives of more than 2,400 US military personnel, the former commander said that it had prevented al-Qaeda from launching another September 11-style attack from the country. “That remains a national security priority,” he said.
 

The US presence in Afghanistan also secures a launchpad for counterterrorism operations across the region, such as the raid into Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden, he said.

 

General Petraeus said that the security situation in Afghanistan was “as a Brit would say, fraught” less than three years after Nato declared an end to combat operations. On Saturday the funeral took place of the latest American serviceman killed in Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Aaron Butler, a member of the Green Beret special forces, died in an explosion in Nangarhar province.

 

Yesterday at least 13 people were killed in a car bomb attack in Helmand.

 

General Petraeus attributed a rise in attacks and increase in Taliban-held territory to a number of factors, including the requirement, supported by Barack Obama and David Cameron when they were in power, for the withdrawal of combat troops.

 

A relaxing last year of the rules of engagement for airstrikes, taking away limitations on striking Taliban forces, would help the renewed push to support the Afghan government, according to the former general, now a partner at a private equity firm. He resigned as director of the CIA in 2012 after an extramarital affair was revealed but remains a highly regarded figure because of his military record.

 

Source:The Times UK-Subscription Article


பேரறிவாளன்: 26 ஆண்டு சிறைவாசத்துக்குப் பின் ஒரு மாத 'சிறைவாச நல்லொழுக்க விடுமுறை`!

ENB Editorial Poster PerarivaaLan

முன்னாள் பிரதமர் ராஜீவ் காந்தி கொலை வழக்கில் தண்டிக்கப்பட்டு 25 ஆண்டுகளுக்கும் மேலாக சிறையில் இருக்கும் பேரறிவாளன் முதல் முறையாக வியாழக்கிழமை சிறை விடுப்பில் (பரோலில்)* வெளியே வந்தார்.

தமிழக அரசு அவருக்கு 30 நாட்கள் சிறைவிடுப்பு அளித்து உத்தரவிட்டதைத் தொடர்ந்து அவர் வெளியே வந்துள்ளார்.

ராஜீவ் காந்தி கொல்லப்பட்ட வழக்கில் தற்போது 7 பேர் சிறையில் அடைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளனர். இவர்களில் பேரறிவாளனின் உடல்நிலையைக் கருத்தில் கொண்டும் உடல்நலமின்றி அவதிப்படும் அவரது தந்தையாரைப் பார்ப்பதற்காகவும் சில நாட்களாகவது சிறைவிடுப்பு அளிக்க வேண்டுமென அவரது தாயார் அற்புதமம்மாள் கோரிவந்தார்.

ஆனால் இந்தக் கோரிக்கையை பேரறிவாளன் அடைக்கப்பட்டுள்ள வேலூர் சிறையின் கண்காணிப்பாளர் நிராகரித்தார்.

இதையடுத்து, இந்த விவகாரம் குறித்து தமிழக அட்வகேட் ஜெனரலின் கருத்தை மாநில அரசு கேட்டது. பேரறிவாளன் மத்திய அரசுச் சட்டத்தின் கீழ் தண்டிக்கப்பட்டிருந்தாலும் அவர் தன் தண்டனைக் காலம் முழுவதையும் அனுபவித்துவிட்டதால், மாநில அரசில் உள்ள பொருத்தமான அதிகாரிகள் அவருக்கான சிறைவிடுப்பு குறித்து முடிவு செய்யலாம் என அட்வகேட் ஜெனரல் தன் கருத்தை அளித்தார்.

இந்நிலையில், அவருக்கு ஒரு மாத காலம் சிறைவிடுப்பு அளிப்பதாக தமிழக அரசு அறிவித்துள்ளது.
இது தொடர்பாக தமிழக அரசின் கூடுதல் தலைமைச் செயலர் நிரஞ்சன் மார்டி வெளியிட்டுள்ள உத்தரவில், "1982-ஆம் ஆண்டின் சிறை தண்டனை நிறுத்திவைப்பு விதிமுறைகள் - விதி 19-ன் படி பேரறிவாளனுக்கு 30 நாட்கள் சிறை விடுப்பு அளிக்கலாம்.

அவர் சிறை விடுப்பில் இருக்கும் காலகட்டத்தில் அவருக்கு கடுமையான போலீஸ் பாதுகாவல் அளிக்க வேண்டும்" என்று குறிப்பிட்டுள்ளார்.

கடந்த 1991-ஆம் ஆண்டு ஜூன் மாதம் கைது செய்யப்பட்ட பேரறிவாளன், 26 ஆண்டுகள் கழித்து சிறை விடுப்பு கிடைத்துள்ளது.

இந்த வழக்கில் தண்டனை அனுபவித்துவரும் சிலர் இதற்கு முன்பாக சிறைவிடுப்பு பெற்றுள்ளனர் என்றாலும் அவர்களுக்கு சில நாட்கள் மட்டுமே அவ்விடுப்பு கிடைத்தது. முதல்முறையாக இவ்வழக்கின் தண்டனைக் கைதி ஒருவருக்கு ஒரு மாதகால விடுப்பு கிடைத்துள்ளது.

ராஜீவ் காந்தி கொலைவழக்கில் சாந்தன், முருகன், பேரறிவாளன் ஆகியோருக்கு விதிக்கப்பட்ட தூக்கு தண்டனையை ஆயுள் தண்டனையாக உச்சநீதிமன்றம் குறைத்தது.

இந்த வழக்கில் தண்டிக்கப்பட்ட 7 பேரையும் குற்றவியல் நடைமுறைச் சட்டம் 435ன் கீழ் விடுவிக்கப்போவதாக 2014ஆம் ஆண்டில் அப்போதைய முதல்வர் ஜெயலலிதா அறிவித்தார்.

மத்திய அரசின் ஒப்புதலோடுதான் இந்தச் சட்டப்பிரிவைப் பயன்படுத்தி அவர்களை விடுவிக்க முடியும் என்று உச்சநீதிமன்றம் தீர்ப்பளித்துள்ளதாலும், மத்திய அரசு ஒப்புதல் அளிக்க மறுத்ததாலும் ஏழு பேரையும் விடுதலை செய்யும் விவகாரம் கிடப்பில் உள்ளது.
======================
* parole

pəˈrəʊl/

noun

noun: parole

the temporary or permanent release of a prisoner before the expiry of a sentence, on the promise of good behaviour

==================================================

சமரன்: 2017 - நக்சல்பாரி தியாகிகள் நினைவு நீடுழி வாழ்க!

சமரன்: 2017 - நக்சல்பாரி தியாகிகள் நினைவு நீடுழி வாழ்க!: செப்டம்பர்-12-தியாகிகள் நினைவு நாள்! தோழர் பாலன் நினைவு நீடூழி வாழ்க!  * பன்னாட்டு, உள்நாட்டுக் கார்ப்பரேட்டுகளுக்கு சேவைசெய்யும் புத...

Trump's Afghanistan policy a chance to India increase influence in South Asia



ENB Editorial Poster

***************************************************************************

Sreemoy Talukdar

Donald Trump's Afghanistan policy presents India a chance to increase sphere of influence in South AsiaSreemoy Talukdar
Senior Editor at Firstpost.com



 

At one level, Donald Trump's policy on Afghanistan and South Asia isn't really that different from Barack Obama's. As a candidate, Trump promised to pull out American troops at the earliest and end its longest and "unwinnable" war. But as he said from Fort Myer, Virginia, on Monday, things look very different from behind the Oval Office desk. So instead of a pullout, which he admitted was his original instinct, he has decided that more US soldiers will descend on Afghan soil.

But the similarity doesn't end here. Trump's grand strategy is to stabilise Afghanistan so as to prevent it from becoming another Iraq — which sounds awfully like what Obama and George W Bush before him intended to do, and he plans to do so by eventually bringing Taliban to the negotiation table.

"Military power alone will not bring peace to Afghanistan or stop the terrorist threat arising in that country. But strategically-applied force aims to create the conditions for a political process to achieve a lasting peace," said Trump.

He wants to achieve a goal that is political through a route that is military, by "killing all terrorists". And has decided that threatening Pakistan against nurturing a bread basket of jihadists and urging India to increase its capacity-building role in Kabul would be the key tenets of this strategy.
Again, not much different from what administrations before him had tried to do. American's clear tilt towards India as a strategic hedge in a troubled South Asia started with Bush and it was taken forward by Obama. Wariness about Pakistan's duplicity had permeated successive US administrations, even if they had been unable to stop Islamabad's various rent-seeking practices.

For instance, during a joint news conference in 2011 with Pakistan's then foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar, then secretary of state Hillary Clinton had said that Pakistan can't expect to rear snakes in its backyard and hope that it only bites its neighbours.

The broad strokes indicate that Trump's Afghanistan strategy is not nearly as "dramatically different" as he touted it to be.

And yet at the macro level, Trump's approach is indeed radically different than Obama or Bush's before him. And it is here that India has been presented with an unprecedented opportunity to increase its sphere of influence in South Asia.

Before we get to that, let's look at the point of departures. Trump's address clearly brought out the essential difference between him and Obama. Whereas Obama — a politician, statesman and an intellectual — subscribed to America's role as a global security provider and 'democracy evangelist', Trump — a tycoon who runs an intercontinental business empire through laser focus on balance sheets — sees efforts to "use American military might to construct democracies in faraway lands or try to rebuild other countries in our own image" as a complete waste of time, energy, money and "American lives".

What this means is that despite his grand strategy of strengthening Afghanistan, Trump has redefined 'victory' and set for himself much smaller goals, and consequently has more chance of achieving those goals than Obama or Bush administrations before him. He has also shifted some of the responsibilities that the US had traditionally set or itself, to others.

Trump is clear that Afghanistan people will have to "take ownership of their future", "govern their society" and "carry their share of military, political and economic burden" to "achieve an everlasting peace" because the US is "not nation building again" and will limit its role only to "killing terrorists."
The dissonance that arises is that what constitutes a "strong Afghanistan" that won't fall prey to forces of instability? And if that happens, will America's greater purpose of not letting Afghanistan become another Iraq, be served? Trump claimed to have an answer.

For him, "victory will have a clear definition — attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing Al-Qaida, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge. We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy, with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own. We are confident they will."

So the key point that emerges is that while Trump wants a stable Afghanistan, he won't (at least doesn't plan to) go beyond the self-set parameters. At the heart of this 'new' policy is Trumpian realism, which manifests itself in his comments that "we must address the reality of the world as it exists right now". By accepting the reality and eschewing grand notions of American exceptionalism, Trump hopes to live up to his billing as a "problem solver."

Why is this an opportunity for India?

Trump's policy is guided by a nativist impulse that wants to cut losses in a 'bad deal'. This tunnel vision forces Washington to seek greater help from "NATO allies and global partners". This is not a bad approach. But there is a problem. India, a key player in South Asia and a force for stability, is not a treaty ally of the US. It's not a coincidence that Trump heaps oodles of praise on India, calling it the linchpin of US South Asia strategy.

"Another critical part of the South Asia strategy for America is to further develop its strategic partnership with India, the world's largest democracy and a key security and economic partner of the United States."

This is classic Trumpian transactionalism. By elevating India's bilateral status to a non-declared ally (at least a strategic partner), Trump hopes to bind India with a moral responsibility for sharing its burden in Afghanistan. Just to press the point — in comments that once again reflect his barter approach — he reminds India that it makes "billions of dollars in trade with the US" while urging it to "do more" in the "area of economic assistance and development."

Trump is at fault here. India's relationship with Afghanistan goes deep and is not incumbent on what the US president wants it to do. New Delhi's relationship with Afghanistan (long before Pakistan became a buffer state) is underwritten by social, cultural, economic and security ties.

As Afghanistan’s Ambassador to India Shaida Abdali pointed out during a recent Brookings India lecture on India-Afghanistan Strategic Relations, India "is the biggest regional donor to Afghanistan and fifth largest donor globally with over $3 billion in assistance". And these cover a wide network of infrastructure development areas. New Delhi has built "over 200 public and private schools", sponsors "over a 1000 scholarships", hosts over "16,000 Afghan students", and has assisted in the construction of critical infrastructure including roadways, highways, dams, electricity lines and even the Afghan Parliament building. It also trains Afghan military officers.

Even so, allowing for Trump's limited understanding of the traditional and dynamic imports of India-Afghanistan relationship, New Delhi can still make a virtue out of necessity.

India can increase its foreign aid and commit more in capacity-building efforts. A transactional US president can sell it to his electoral base by claiming that he has "forced India to do so". This may make Trump amenable for a greater Indian role in South Asia and limit Pakistan's subversive influence. This quid-pro-quo also carries a lot of intangible benefits.

Already, New Delhi is being seen for all purposes as a strategic US partner. True, this is likely to increase Pakistan's anxiety, but little that India does will not induce Pakistan's 'strategic anxiety' — a chronic condition that its generals have sold well to the world so far.

Trump's policy on terror carries no equivocation on Pakistan and is a clear reinforcement of India's argument. His focus on more action and less diplomacy is also good news for India because it reduces the chance of Indo-Pakistan hyphenation.

Pakistan has been firmly cubbyhole into a problematic corner. Trump has not only put Islamabad on notice for running with the hare and hunting with the hound, a senior official has indicated to US media that sanctions may be imposed on Pakistani officials with ties to terrorists. Clearly, this US president is willing to walk the talk, unlike earlier ones.

India is now being recognised as a clear force for the good, a sponsor of democratic values and stability. This isn't a tacit endorsement, but a loud one that has huge implications for India in South Asia where it jostles for influence with a mercantile China. The Narendra Modi government must play its cards well.

Published Date: Aug 23, 2017 Source: First Post.com
The views are of the author

World reacts to Trump's new strategy on Afghan war

World reacts to Trump's new strategy on Afghan war

India, UK and NATO express support for US president's policy, but Pakistan, China and Russia offer little enthusiasm.

Politicians from across the world have reacted to US President Donald Trump's new strategy for the war in Afghanistan.

Trump vows to keep US troops in Afghanistan

A Pakistani army spokesman dismissed Trump's remarks, saying Pakistan had taken action against armed groups on its soil.

"There are no terrorist hideouts in Pakistan," spokesman Major General Asif Ghafoor said.

Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khwaja Muhammad Asif met US ambassador David Hale and reiterated the country's "desire for peace and stability in Afghanistan", a statement by the foreign ministry said.
He "underlined Pakistan's continued desire to work with the International Community to eliminate the menace of terrorism," the statement said.

NATO

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg welcomed Trump's "conditions-based approach" and said the US-led alliance was committed to increasing its presence in Afghanistan.

He said: "Our aim remains to ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists who would attack our own countries."

More than 12,000 troops from NATO and partner countries have been helping to "train, advise and assist" Afghan security forces since January 2015, after the alliance wound down combat operations there.infographic number of us troops Afghanistan

India

India has welcomed Trump's demand that Pakistan stops offering safe havens to armed groups and reaffirmed its policy of extending reconstruction aid to Afghanistan.

India's Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement that it welcomed Trump's "determination to enhance efforts to overcome the challenges faced by Afghanistan and in confronting issues of safe havens and other forms of cross-border support enjoyed by terrorists".

Without naming its rival Pakistan, the ministry said: "India shares these concerns and objectives."
India has provided a total of $2bn to Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban.

United Kingdom

The UK welcomed Trump's commitment to step up the military campaign against the Taliban, saying the US and its allies must "stay the course in Afghanistan" to reduce threats to the West.
"The US commitment is very welcome," British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said in a statement.

"It's in all our interests that Afghanistan becomes more prosperous and safer: that's why we ‎announced our own troop increase back in June," he said.

China

China defended its ally Pakistan after Trump's sharp rebuke, saying the country was on the front line in the struggle against "terrorism" and had made "great sacrifices" and "important contributions" in the fight.

"We believe that the international community should fully recognise Pakistan's anti-terrorism," Hua Chunying, a spokeswoman for China's foreign ministry, told a daily news briefing.

China hoped "the relevant US policies can help promote the security, stability and development of Afghanistan and the region," she said.

Russia

Russia does not believe Trump's new strategy will lead to any significant positive changes in Afghanistan, the Interfax news agency cited an unnamed Russian foreign ministry source as saying on Tuesday.

Source: Al Jazeera and news agencies

US President Trump's Speech on Afghanistan - Full

 

https://youtu.be/wAOEkTEuFKo

 

 

Full Transcript: Donald Trump Announces His Afghanistan Policy

“No place is beyond the reach of American might and American arms.”

 

President Trump speaking from Fort Myer in Arlington, Virginia    

Joshua Roberts / Reuters

 

In primetime remarks Monday night, President Trump unveiled the broad strokes of a new U.S. strategy for the war in Afghanistan without offering details about changes to troop levels.

 

The announcement marks a turnabout for Trump, who as a private citizen once advocated for full U.S. withdrawal. Since launching his campaign in 2015, Trump has been far less vocal publicly about how the United States can best approach the now-16-year-old conflict. As my colleague Krishnadev Calamur has reported, even Afghanistan experts have been conflicted about what to do in the country, “where the conflict between the Afghan government and the Taliban is at a stalemate, where corruption continues to hamstring governance, and where regional and ethnic loyalties often trump loyalties to the central government.”

 

After months of deliberation, the administration finalized its Afghanistan plan on Friday at a meeting between the president and national-security officials at Camp David in Maryland. An announcement about increased troop levels had been expected, but Trump said in his remarks Monday that the administration would no longer reveal such information. Earlier this year, Trump had authorized Defense Secretary James Mattis to send nearly 4,000 additional troops to the area, but they have not yet been deployed.

 

 Here, a full transcript of the president’s remarks.

 

Vice President Pence, Secretary of State Tillerson, members of the Cabinet, General Dunford, Deputy Secretary Shanahan, and Colonel Duggin. Most especially, thank you to the men and women of Fort Myer, and every member of the United States military at home and abroad. We send our thoughts and prayers to the families of our brave sailors who were injured and lost after a tragic collision at sea, as well as to those conducting the search-and-recovery efforts.

 

I am here tonight to lay out our path forward in Afghanistan and South Asia. But before I provide the details of our new strategy, I want to say a few words to the service members here with us tonight, to those watching from their posts, and to all Americans listening at home.

 

Since the founding of our republic, our country has produced a special class of heroes whose selflessness, courage, and resolve is unmatched in human history. American patriots from every generation have given their last breath on the battlefield for our nation and for our freedom. Through their lives, and though their lives were cut short, in their deeds they achieved total immortality. By following the heroic example of those who fought to preserve our republic, we can find the inspiration our country needs to unify, to heal, and to remain one nation, under God. The men and women of our military operate as one team, with one shared mission and one shared sense of purpose. They transcend every line of race, ethnicity, creed, and color to serve together and sacrifice together in absolutely perfect cohesion.

 

That is because all service members are brothers and sisters. They’re all part of the same family. It’s called the American family. They take the same oath, fight for the same flag, and live according to the same law. They’re bound together by common purpose, mutual trust, and selfless devotion to our nation and to each other. The soldier understands what we as a nation too often forget: that a wound inflicted upon a single member of our community is a wound inflicted upon us all. When one part of America hurts, we all hurt. And when one citizen suffers an injustice, we all suffer together. Loyalty to our nation demands loyalty to one another. Love for America requires love for all of its people. When we open our hearts to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice, no place for bigotry, and no tolerance for hate. The young men and women we send to fight our wars abroad deserve to return to a country that is not at war with itself at home. We cannot remain a force for peace in the world if we are not at peace with each other.

 

As we send our bravest to defeat our enemies overseas—and we will always win—let us find the courage to heal our divisions within. Let us make a simple promise to the men and women we ask to fight in our name: that when they return home from battle, they will find a country that has renewed the sacred bonds of love and loyalty that unite us together as one.

 

Thanks to the vigilance and skill of the American military, and of our many allies throughout the world, horrors on the scale of September 11th—nobody can ever forget that—have not been repeated on our shores. But we must acknowledge the reality I’m here to talk about tonight: that nearly 16 years after the September 11th attacks, after the extraordinary sacrifice of blood and treasure, the American people are weary of war without victory. Nowhere is this more evident than with the war in Afghanistan, the longest war in American history, 17 years. I share the American people's frustration. I also share their frustration over a foreign policy that has spent too much time, energy, money, and most importantly lives, trying to rebuild countries in our own image instead of pursuing our security interests above all other considerations.

 

That is why shortly after my inauguration, I directed Secretary of Defense Mattis, and my national-security team, to undertake a comprehensive review of all strategic options in Afghanistan and South Asia. My original instinct was to pull out, and historically, I like following my instincts. But all my life I've heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office. In other words, when you're president of the United States. So I studied Afghanistan in great detail, and from every conceivable angle. After many meetings, over many months, we held our final meeting last Friday at Camp David with my Cabinet and generals to complete our strategy. I arrived at three fundamental conclusions about America's core interests in Afghanistan.

 

First, our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives. The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve a plan for victory. They deserve the tools they need and the trust they have earned to fight and win.

Second, the consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable. 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in our history, was planned and directed from Afghanistan, because that country was ruled by a government that gave comfort and shelter to terrorists. A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and Al-Qaeda, would instantly fill just as happened before September 11th. And as we know, in 2011, America hastily and mistakenly withdrew from Iraq. As a result, our hard-won gains slipped back into the hands of terrorist enemies. Our soldiers watched as cities they had fought for, and bled to liberate, and won, were occupied by a terrorist group called ISIS. The vacuum we created by leaving too soon gave safe haven for ISIS to spread, to grow, recruit, and launch attacks.

 

We cannot repeat in Afghanistan the mistake our leaders made in Iraq. Third and finally, I concluded that the security threats we face in Afghanistan, and the broader region, are immense. Today 20 U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations are active in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The highest concentration in any region, anywhere in the world. For its part, Pakistan often gives safe haven to agents of chaos, violence, and terror. The threat is worse because Pakistan and India are two nuclear-armed states whose tense relations threaten to spiral into conflict. And that could happen. No one denies that we have inherited a challenging and troubling situation in Afghanistan, and South Asia. But we do not have the luxury of going back in time and making different or better decisions. When I became president, I was given a bad and very complex hand. But I fully knew what I was getting into: big and intricate problems. But one way or another, these problems will be solved. I'm a problem solver, and in the end, we will win.

 

We must address the reality of the world as it exists right now, the threats we face, and the confronting of all of the problems of today, and extremely predictable consequences of a hasty withdrawal. We need look no further than last week's vile, vicious attack in Barcelona to understand that terror groups will stop at nothing to commit the mass murder of innocent men, women, and children. You saw it for yourself, horrible. As I outlined in my speech in Saudi Arabia, three months ago, America and our partners are committed to stripping terrorists of their territory, cutting off their funding, and exposing the false allure of their evil ideology. Terrorists who slaughter innocent people will find no glory in this life or the next. They are nothing but thugs and criminals and predators, and that's right—losers. Working alongside our allies, we will break their will, dry up their recruitment, keep them from crossing our borders, and yes, we will defeat them, and we will defeat them handily. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, America's interests are clear. We must stop the resurgence of safe havens that enable terrorists to threaten America. And we must prevent nuclear weapons and materials from coming into the hands of terrorists, and being used against us, or anywhere in the world for that matter. But to prosecute this war, we will learn from history.

 

As a result of our comprehensive review, American strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia will change dramatically in the following ways. A core pillar of our new strategy is a shift from a time-based approach to one based on conditions. I've said it many times how counterproductive it is for the United States to announce in advance the dates we intend to begin or end military options. We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further military activities. Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on. America's enemies must never know our plans, or believe they can wait us out. I will not say when we are going to attack, but attack we will.

 

“We are not nation building again. We are killing terrorists.”

 

Another fundamental pillar of our new strategy is the integration of all instruments of American power—diplomatic, economic, and military—toward a successful outcome. Some day, after an effective military effort, perhaps it will be possible to have a political settlement that includes elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan, but nobody knows if or when that will ever happen. America will continue its support for the Afghan government and the Afghan military as they confront the Taliban in the field. Ultimately, it is up to the people of Afghanistan to take ownership of their future, to govern their society, and to achieve an ever-lasting peace. We are a partner and a friend, but we will not dictate to the Afghan people how to live or how to govern their own complex society. We are not nation building again. We are killing terrorists.

 

The next pillar of our new strategy is to change the approach in how to deal with Pakistan. We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe-havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond.

 

Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists. In the past, Pakistan has been a valued partner. Our militaries have worked to together against common enemies. The Pakistani people have suffered greatly from terrorism and extremism. We recognize those contributions and those sacrifices. But Pakistan has also sheltered the same organizations that try every single day to kill our people. We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars. At the same time, they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change. And that will change immediately. No partnership can survive a country’s harboring of militants and terrorists who target U.S. service members and officials. It is time for Pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to civilization, order, and to peace. Another critical part of the South-Asia strategy for America is to further develop its strategic partnership with India; the world’s largest democracy, and a key security and economic partner of the United States. We appreciate India’s important contributions to stability in Afghanistan, but India makes billions of dollars in trade with the United States—and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development.

We are committed to pursuing our shared objectives for peace and security in South Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific region. Finally, my administration will ensure that you, the brave defenders of the American people will have the necessary tools and rules of engagement to make this strategy work, and work effectively, and work quickly.

 

I’ve already lifted restrictions the previous administration placed on our warfighters that prevented the secretary of Defense and our commanders in the field from fully and swiftly waging battle against the enemy. Micromangement from Washington, D.C., does not win battles. They’re won in the field, drawing upon the judgment and expertise of war-time commanders and front-line soldiers acting in real time with real authority and with a clear mission to defeat the enemy. That’s why we will also expand authority for American armed forces to target the terrorists and criminal networks that sow violence and chaos through Afghanistan. These killers need to know they have nowhere to hide, that no place is beyond the reach of American might and American arms. Retribution will be fast and powerful as we lift restrictions and expand authorities.

 

We’re already seeing dramatic results in the campaign to defeat ISIS, including the liberation of Mosul in Iraq. Since my inauguration we have achieved record-breaking success in that regard. We will also maximize sanctions and other financial and law-enforcement actions against these networks to eliminate their ability to export terror. When America commits its warriors to battle, we must ensure they have every weapon to apply swift, decisive, and overwhelming force. Our troops will fight to win. We will fight to win. From now on victory will have a clear definition: Attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing Al Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terrorist attacks against America before they emerge.

 

We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own. We are confident they will. Since taking office I have made clear that our allies and partners must contribute much more money to our collective defense. And they have done so. In this struggle, the heaviest burden will continue to be borne by the good people of Afghanistan and their courageous armed forces. As the prime minister of Afghanistan has promised, we are going to participate in economic development to help defray the cost of this war to us. Afghanistan is fighting to defend and secure their country against the same enemies who threaten us. The stronger the Afghan security forces become, the less we will have to do.

 

Afghans will secure and build their own nation and define their own future. We want them to succeed, but we will no longer use American military might to construct democracies in faraway lands, or try to rebuild other countries in our own image. Those days are now over. Instead we will work with allies and partners to protect our shared interest. We are not asking others to change their way of life, but to pursue common goals that allow our children to live better and safer lives. This principled realism will guide our decisions moving forward. Military power alone will not bring peace to Afghanistan or stop the terrorist threat arising in that country, but strategically applied force aims to create the conditions for a political process to achieve a lasting peace. America will work with the Afghan government as long as we see determination and progress. However, our commitment is not unlimited and our support is not a blank check. The government of Afghanistan must carry their share of the military, political, and economic burden. The American people expect to see real reforms, real progress, and real results. Our patience is not unlimited. We will keep our eyes wide open in abiding by the oath I took on January 20. I will remain steadfast in protecting American lives and American interests. In this effort, we will make common cause with any nation that chooses to stand and fight alongside us against this global threat. Terrorists, take heed: America will never let up until you are dealt a lasting defeat. Under my administration, many billions of dollars more is being spent on our military and this includes vast amounts being spent on our nuclear arsenal and missile defense. In every generation, we have faced down evil and we have always prevailed. We have prevailed because we know who we are and what we are fighting for.

 

Not far from where we are gathered tonight, hundreds of thousands of America’s greatest patriots lay in eternal rest at Arlington National Cemetery. There is more courage, sacrifice, and love in those hallowed grounds than in any other spot on the face of the Earth. Many of those who have fought and died in Afghanistan enlisted in the months after Sept. 11, 2001. They volunteered for a simple reason: They loved America and they were determined to protect her. Now we must secure the cause for which they gave their lives.

 

We must unite to defend America from its enemies abroad. We must restore the bonds of loyalty among our citizens at home. And we must achieve an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the enormous price that so many have paid. Our actions, and in months to come, all of them will honor the sacrifice of every fallen hero, every family who lost a loved one, and every wounded warrior who shed their blood in defense of our great nation. With our resolve, we will ensure that your service, and that your families, will bring about the defeat of our enemies, and the arrival of peace. We will push onward to victory with power in our hearts, courage in our souls, and everlasting pride in each and every one of you. Thank you. May God bless our military, and may God bless the United States of America. Thank you very much. Thank you.