Frome the Globe and Mail:

Two Turkish journalists who went missing while reporting on the uprising in Syria two months ago were released on Saturday with Iran’s help, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu announced.

The release of the pair demonstrated Iran’s influence with its ally Syria, which lost Turkey’s friendship when it cracked down on pro-democracy protests that erupted last year. Iran and Syria, both isolated by the West, have stuck by each other.
…
In remarks on his Twitter account, Mr. Davutoglu said the Turkish government was sending a plane to bring them home. His Iranian counterpart Ali Akbar Salehi had told him earlier that the journalists had been freed, he added.
…
Hopes for their release soared after Turkish officials revealed on Thursday that Iran was acting as a go-between. It was not immediately clear who had been holding them.

Other western media carry similar stories. But I have found none yet that reports the real one.

This was a prisoner exchange and it does not "demonstrate Iran’s influence with its ally Syria" but it demonstrates Turkey's influence over its puppet Free Syrian Army.

Two Iranians abducted by an armed group fighting against the Syrian government have been released, Press TV reported.

Abdolreza Shaqaqi, the spokesman of Iran's embassy in Ankara, told Press TV's correspondent that the two men, named Shahmorad Najafi and Shahqoli Ghalavand, were handed over to Turkey's gendarmerie in the southeastern province of Hatay on Friday.

Shaqaqi stated that the Iranian Embassy is taking the necessary measures to repatriate the two Iranian nationals as soon as possible, adding that it is expected that the two men will leave Turkey for Tehran on Saturday.

The Syrian government held two purported Turkish journalists and some FSA gang held two purported Iranian pilgrims. These prisoners on either side were exchanged and Iran was not a go between but a direct party of this exchange.

But if you only read western media you would not know that. There only the Turkish prisoners count and there is no connection and influence at all of Turkey over the FSA.

In reality though the Turkish intelligence service, under the guidance of the CIA, is the heart and brain of the FSA. It can simply order them to release Iranian prisoners if it benefits its plans.

There is another intelligence service, also under the guidance of the CIA, that is the heart and brain of the terrorists that blow up suicide car bombs in Syria.

Tony Cartalucci reminds us of a 2007 Seymour Hersh report in the New Yorker on the new plans the Bush government developed in 2007:

The new American policy, in its broad outlines, has been discussed publicly. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that there is “a new strategic alignment in the Middle East,” separating “reformers” and “extremists”; she pointed to the Sunni states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were “on the other side of that divide.” (Syria’s Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect.) Iran and Syria, she said, “have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize.”

Hersh further reports that this project is done in cooperation with the Saudi prince Bandar who promised to activate and control Salafi terrorists to fulfill it:

Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”

The Salafi suicide terrorists who are blowing up people in Syria are not just a random group of lunatics. They are controlled by Saudi Arabia and work for a bigger U.S.-Saudi project.

I strongly recommend to reread the full Hersh report about Bush's 2007 change of policy in the region towards destabilization of the "Shia Axis". It seems to still be followed as much as possible.

By now, of course, no one will be surprised that the Obama administration policies are just a continuation  of such lunatic Bush policies with the only change being a slightly modified rhetoric.

Just yesterday the Syrian Free Army announced that it would continue its terror campaign:

Syria's rebel leader has threatened to resume attacks because President Bashar Assad's government has not honoured a ceasefire, a pan-Arab newspaper reported today.

Free Syrian Army chief Riad al-Asaad told the London-based Asharq al-Awsat newspaper that "our people are demanding that we defend them".

Today two suicide bombers in two cars used 1,000 kg explosives to kill at least 55 people and to injury nearly 400 in Damascus. That target was a military intelligence center though that was only slightly damaged and most of the victims were just normal people on their way to work.

That is seemingly "defending our people" in the warped mind of that Colonel.

It is obvious that the Free Syrian Army are not people fighting for some right to protest. These are serious terrorist and if Syria does not get rid of them the problems they pose will also infect the neighboring countries foremost Lebanon and Jordan.

It is ridiculous that such slaughter and the danger of it spreading is now even used to argue for more violence and open war on Syria:

Anne-Marie Slaughter, a professor at Princeton, used to be the policy planning director at the State Department. She says the presence of jihadist groups in Syria shouldn't dissuade the U.S. and its allies from intervening. Rather, she says, it should wake them up to the dangers that a prolonged conflict in Syria could create.

More terrorism or war on Syrian will not be good for anyone in the Middle East. It is high time for Turkey and Lebanon to shut down those armed groups that use their territory for retreat and training and to stop the arms smuggling.

Kofi Annan is working on a plan to find a political solution for the regime and its domestic opposition. Such a solution might well be possible but it would not solve the problem of the violent extremists that are now trying to sabotage the plan and to take over the country.

There now needs to be an extended plan that will allow for and support the Syrian government and its people in their fight against the jihadis. This is in the interest of everyone except those Saudi Wahabbis who are sending and supporting these fighters.

I do expect that the Russians will forward some initiative on this. Unfortunately the U.S., with even Senator Kerry arguing for more arms for those fighters, is unlikely to be helpful in this regard. This unreasonableness will likely cost much more blood and may well, like the war on Iraq, end in a mess that everyone will later regret and lament about.

I am sorry for bothering the readers here with nitpicking on the media, but I really don't get this one.

CNN headlines: U.S. official upset over leak about double agent in bomb plot

The Merriam-Webster definition for: double agent – noun:

a spy pretending to serve one government while actually serving another

Why are CNN (and AP and the New York Times) presenting the Saudi spy that infiltrated AQAP as a "double agent"? According to CNN's own report:

The double agent, who volunteered as a suicide bomber for the terrorist group, was actually working as an intelligence agent for Saudi Arabia, a source in the region familiar with the operation told CNN.
…
The agent works for Saudi intelligence, which has cooperated with the CIA for years, the source said.

"Indeed, we always were the ones managing him," the source told CNN.

If the guy in question was always managed by the Saudis and was used to infiltrate AQAP in a kind of sting operation to go after some bomb maker. Without this man this airline bomb plot would probably never have happened. The man in question was a Saudi agent – fullstop. There was obviously never anything "double" with him.

Is there any explanation then why the media are pushing this "double agent" meme? Who is telling them to do so and why?

The Wall Stret Journal claims the U.S. Foiled a New Jetliner Bomb Plot

The U.S. thwarted a bomb plot by al Qaeda's Yemeni branch aimed at bringing down a jetliner with a more advanced version of an underwear bomb used in a failed 2009 Christmas Day attempt, officials said Monday.

The Central Intelligence Agency, working with foreign security services, was able to seize the bomb—which they believed was intended for a U.S.-bound flight—before the would-be suicide bomber was able to move ahead with his plot, officials said.

But according to the LA Times the U.S. wasn't involved in the "foiling":

…the explosive device, which the CIA obtained from another government, demonstrates …

According to CNN the Saudi's were the ones who actually stopped the plot:

A plot to bomb an airliner that al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen hatched was thwarted two weeks ago through a tip that Saudi intelligence officials provided, a source familiar with the operation said Tuesday.

The Saudis also provided intelligence for a 2010 plot that involving printers packed with explosive toner cartridges.

It seems that the stenographers at the Wall Street Journal just wrote down what the "officials" told them: "The CIA is GREAT!" Yes, it evidently can pick up the phone when the Saudis' ring it up.

But the real issue is more complex. It is very much in the interests of the Saudis to claim that there is great danger from Al Qaeda in Yemen. The Saudis very much want the U.S. to fight their enemies there. One needs to question how honest they are when they come up with this or that primitive bomb set and allegations that these are from Yemen and aimed against U.S. targets.

And what does this plot say about the wider "war on terror"? On 9/11 Al Qaeda was believed to have some 300 members mostly in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Now Al Qaeda in the Arabic Peninsula (AQAP) alone is believed to have 1,000 members. Could there be something wrong with a war which after 10 years has trippled the number of enemies?

The WSJ writers don't think so. They also writes:

The threat posed by the Yemeni branch has grown in the past six months, despite the killing of American-born AQAP cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

Neglecting the fact that there has never been any proof that al-Awlaki had any operational role at all in Al-Qaeda, why would the WSJ assume that more or less random murder by drones would actually reduce the hostility against the killers? Especially when the facts say the opposite?

News & views …

Today there were country wide elections in France, Greece and Serbia and local elections in Italy and Germany.

The outcome is in general a shift to the left but on a finer scale a shift to more outlying parties on the left as well as on the right.

In France Sarkozy is out. The fake socialist Hollande will be the new president of France. That lets me hope for a saner, less Napoleon like French foreign policy. Instead of a Merkozy European leadership of German chancellor Merkel and Sarkozy we are now in for a new combination of Merkel and Hollande. Merde?

The Greece the radicals are winning mostly on the left but also on the hard right, fascist side. It will be difficult to form a stable coalition. Any plausible combination I can think of will be against the austerity track ordered from Washington, Berlin and Brussels. Is it time for another one of those traditional U.S. steered military coups in Greece?

In Serbia the nationalist pro-Russian parties will gain and are likely to win over the pro-EU parties. That more pro-Russian way is in my opinion the better path for Serbia. The orthodox heritage of that country fits better with Russia than with the mostly catholic and protestant EU.

State elections in the German, traditionally conservative, northern state of Schleswig-Holstein brought a slight, though not decisive shift to the left with both major parties, Merkel's CDU and the social democrats now running head to head. Astonishingly the scandal plagued libertarian FDP, which is part of Merkel's federal coalition, lost only half of its share which is less than everybody expected. The Pirates, a new geek party formed against overbearing copyright protection, did win a healthy 8%. In general it can be counted on as a left party. That does give a decent chance for a new state government on the more left side of the spectrum with a coalition of the social-democrats, the greens and the pirates. This is relevant to federal policies as the state governments have a say in federal legislation via the Bundesrat (Senate). A switch from the current conservative government in Schleswig-Holstein towards the more leftist side would change the majority situation in the Bundesrat and impede some of Merkel's worst policies.

In Italy today's voting is for some thousand city councils and mayorships. The result may give a feeling for the general mood in the country towards the dictated austerity policies but there will likely be too much ambiguity in the overall situation to draw final conclusions from the results.

All together these elections are a slight, though not yet decisive, win against the austerity dictates which, I believe, was initiated by Washington and Wall Street in defense of the U.S. dollar.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other '9/11 plotters' in court

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks have appeared before a US military tribunal at Guantanamo to be charged.

Spoiler alert:

Cont. reading: KSM Trial – Spoiler Alert

During the insurgency in Syria over the last thirteen month about 10,000 people were killed. Of these some 3,500 were soldiers or policemen on the government side.

Syria has some 23 million inhabitants plus about a million refugees from Iraq. The usual statistic measurement for the rate of homicides is the number killed per 100,000 persons per year. For Syria that number would then be 38 5 per 100,000 per year. Not counting the government agents the rate is some 25 per 100,000 per year.

In 2010 the rate of homicide and non-negligent manslaughter in New Orleans was 49.1 per 100,000 per year. It was 40.5 in St. Louis, 34.8 in Baltimore, 34.5 in Detroit and 23.1 in Newark.

Why isn’t there any talk of no-fly zones over New Orleans, humanitarian corridors in St. Louis or military intervention in Baltimore? Couldn’t we at least get some UN observers to Detroit and an Amnesty International report on Newark?

Peter Lee aka China Hand has a good piece with a lot of background on the Chen Guangcheng drama at ATOL. The local rabble rouser Chen had a good deal. He left from the U.S. embassy with a promise that he would be able to study at a place away from the local security apparatus that was bothering him and his family. He then suddenly changed his mind and asked for asylum for himself and his family in the United States.

At his blog Lee adds:

Looking at today’s shenanigans, and Chen’s metamorphosis from brave legal activist to handwringing exile in waiting, I have the distinct impression that people invested in the current freedom fighter vs. tyrant polarity prevailed on Chen to blow this deal up.

It wasn't the confused and frightened man's idea to change course. That definitely came from the outside.

The involvement and of China Aid, which is an evangelical ministry in Texas run by one Bob Fu, and the Chinese lawyer and member of the Chinese Christian Rights Defence Association Teng Biao point to the deep involvement of the right-wing evangelical anti-abortion movement in the United States. The movement has certainly no interest in calming the case down. It would rather burn Chen than miss this opportunity to hit against China as well as this administrations policies.

It was this Teng Biao who in a phone call convinced Chen Guangcheng to change his mind after he left the U.S. embassy and to then suddenly ask for asylum in the United States:

Cont. reading: Chen Guangcheng And The Evangelical Anti-Abortion Movement

The story about the NED promoted blind Chinese "lawyer" Chen Guangcheng who never studied law is getting crazier by the minute.

The guy was allegedly under house arrest in some town in China and a few days ago fled with the help of some other "dissidents" (also U.S. financed?) to the U.S. embassy in Beijing. My assumption was that this was somehow arranged by some U.S. agency and the idea was probably to pressure China with this. I assumed that the Chinese were likely furious about it. Today's event challenges my assumption.

Today Clinton and Geithner arrived in Beijing for a long planned strategic and economic dialogue and the affair needed to get cleaned up as soon as possible.

After some negotiations the man decided to leave the embassy:

U.S. officials said Chen had never asked for asylum during the time he was in the embassy and emphasized that he had made the decision to leave out of a desire to be reunited with his wife and two children.

"I am pleased that we were able to facilitate Chen Guangcheng's stay and departure from the U.S. Embassy in a way that reflected his choices and our values," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in Beijing, where she arrived a few hours earlier for top-level U.S.-China talks.

"(Chen) has a number of understandings with the Chinese government about his future, including the opportunity to pursue higher education in a safe environment. Making these commitments a reality is the next crucial task. The United States government and the American people are committed to remaining engaged with Mr. Chen and his family in the days, weeks and years ahead."

China's Foreign Ministry said the blind Chen, who escaped the watch of the world's biggest internal security apparatus, had left the embassy of his own will. But the ministry criticized the United States' role, saying it was meddling in its domestic affairs.

Guangchen was accompanied by the U.S. ambassador to a hospital and left there. Just a few hours later AP contacted the man:

A blind activist said Wednesday that U.S. officials told him that Chinese authorities would have beaten his wife to death had he not left the American Embassy, where he sought sanctuary after fleeing persecution by local officials in his rural town.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, denied that the threat was issued but said Chen was told his family would be sent back home if he stayed in the embassy.

Speaking from the hospital room where he was taken after leaving the embassy, a shaken Chen Guangcheng said that U.S. officials told him Chinese authorities would send his family back home if he stayed inside. At one point, he said, the U.S. officials told him his wife would be beaten to death.

"They said if I don't leave they would take my children and family back to Shandong," Chen told The Associated Press. He said he heard the death threat from an American official whom he could not identify.

The man apparently also changed his mind about staying in China:

"Nobody from the (US) Embassy is here. I don't understand why. They promised to be here," he added.
…
Speaking on Wednesday afternoon, Chen told Channel 4 News that he wanted to leave China with his family for a while, despite previous reports that suggested he wanted to stay in China. "My biggest wish is to leave the country with my family and rest for a while. I haven't had a Sunday [rest-day] in seven years," he said.

I have no idea yet what to make of this. The guy seems confused and the whole issue is probably way over his head.

Is this just some crazy guy that the U.S., at one point, decided to promote through the National Endowment for Democracy just because he was making some points about Chinese government abortions? That promotion then made it impossible to reject the guy when he knocked at the door of embassy? Now a way had to be found to clean the situation up and some pressure was applied?

Please let me know your ideas about this affair.

News & views …

(and please behave)

To prevent criticism of its operation in Afghanistan the western ISAF military is eager to one side suppress negative news and on the other to put a false gloss on figures that demonstrate alleged progress. Here are examples for each category. First the minor issue.

The Associated Press just found that ISAF underreported the numbers of green on blue incidents in which members of Afghan security forces attack ISAF troops. Only those incidents in which ISAF troops died and the number of those died were reported. If additional people were wounded in such an incident those numbers were not disclosed. Incidents in which no ISAF troops died but some were only wounded or which resulted in no casualties were not reported at all:

Jamie Graybeal, an ISAF spokesman in Kabul, disclosed Monday in response to repeated AP requests that in addition to 10 fatal insider attacks so far this year, there have been two others that resulted in no deaths or injuries, plus one attack that resulted in wounded, for a total of 13 attacks. The three non-fatal attacks had not previously been reported.

Graybeal also disclosed that in most of the 10 fatal attacks a number of other ISAF troops were wounded.

Thirteen attacks in four month, one in every ten days, seems remarkable to me and consistent with an opposing force strategy. But even in the quoted AP report ISAF still continues to call each attack an "isolated incident".

Now onto a more serious case. Every six month the U.S. Department of Defense has to deliver a Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan. This so called 1230 congressional demanded report gives numbers on Afghan security forces strengths and capabilities.

A while ago Dan in Kabul pointed out that there is some fudging going on with the reported capabilities of Afghan forces. In the April 2011 report (pdf) the Executive Summary said (pg 3):

By the end of the reporting period, 75 percent of ANP units in key terrain districts were rated as either “Effective with Advisors” or “Effective with Assistance,” although none were yet rated as independent.

It explained how units are rated (pg 37):

"Independent" denotes a unit that is capable of the full spectrum of its missions without assistance from Coalition Forces. “Effective with Advisors” means that the partnered coalition unit does not exceed a limited guidance role. Units that are “Effective with Assistance” are those that are capable of executing operations and providing regional security with varied partnered unit assistance. …

In the October 2011 report (pdf) the Executive Summary notes (pg 4):

Force growth and professionalization efforts are translating into a more capable and effective ANSF. ANA effectiveness improved, as the number of units rated “Effective with Assistance” or better rose from 52 percent of units in September 2010 to 72 percent of units in September 2011.

Here the fudging is in setting the comparison date. The number of units rated “Effective with Assistance” or better in the April 2011 report was 73.7% and in the Executive Summary of that report boosted as 75%. That number decreased to 72.0 % in the October 2011 report. By comparing the September 2011 number with the September 2010 number and thereby skipping the latest report of April 2011 the October 2011 assessment showed progress where none was made.

There was also, as Dan pointed out, some fudging in that those units that were rated higher were almost all headquarter units. The number of actual fighting battalions, or kandaks, that were rated "Effective with Assistance" or better actually decreased from 116 in April 2011 to 115 in October 2011.

But not everything was bad. By October 2011 one of those kandaks had achieved the highest status of "Independent" while no unit had achieved that in April 2011. That was until one read further down (pg 42):

Cont. reading: ISAF Misreports Losses, DoD Fudges Afghan Security Force Progress