La guerra contro i jihadisti del Califfato islamico è arrivata anche in Libano…

Lebanon’s Shiite movement Hezbollah said Sunday that at least two of its fighters were killed along with “dozens” of gunmen in clashes in the Syria-Lebanon border area.

A Hezbollah official, speaking to AFP on condition of anonymity, said the clashes occurred on Syrian territory, just over the border from Lebanon.

But a Hezbollah source on the ground and local residents said the clashes erupted outside the town of Nabi Sbat, in Lebanese territory, after gunmen from Syria attacked Hezbollah posts.

“Hezbollah posts in the mountains around Nabi Sbat, east of Baalbek, were attacked by armed groups who came from Qalamun” in Syria, the Hezbollah source in the region said.

“Hezbollah returned fire, inflicting heavy losses among the attackers.”

Lebanon’s official National News Agency also reported the clashes took place in Lebanon, saying they began after an attack launched by gunmen from Asaal al-Ward in Syria’s Qalamun province.

Residents from Nabi Sbat who fled the fighting told AFP they saw Hezbollah convoys picking up several wounded fighters from the group during the clashes.

Lebanon’s border with Syria is not officially defined and much of it is porous and unpatrolled, with local residents, smugglers and others moving freely across it.

Hezbollah maintains several military posts along inaccessible parts of the border, and it rarely gives official details on clashes with jihadists or other fighters.

The fighting could be heard in the city of Baalbek, several kilometers (miles) away, an AFP correspondent said.

Lebanese army forces were also seen deploying towards the area where the clashes were taking place, the correspondent added.

The clashes come two months after jihadists from the Islamic State group and Al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate al-Nusra Front attacked Lebanese security forces in Arsal, which also lies on the Syrian border in eastern Lebanon.

The jihadists withdrew into the mountains around Arsal after a ceasefire, but took with them around 30 soldiers and policemen as hostages.

Three of them have since been executed, contributing to rising anxiety in Lebanon over the encroachment of jihadists and spillover from the war in neighboring Syria.

Hezbollah has dispatched fighters to bolster President Bashar al-Assad’s troops against an uprising that many of Lebanon’s Sunnis support.

The conflict has exacerbated existing tensions in Lebanon, and made Hezbollah and strongholds of its support a target for extremists who have detonated bombs in several areas of Lebanon.

Source:  alarabiya.net

L’Algeria – per il momento – interviene “politicamente” tra le fazioni libiche e l’esercito, con la benedizione di Teheran…

The Iranian Foreign Ministry welcomed Algeria’s initiative for settlement of the crisis in Libya, and expressed the hope that it can create national reconciliation in the North African country.

The Pakistan Taliban pledged its allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) on Saturday and ordered militants across the region to help the jihadi group in setting up a global Islamic caliphate, a report said.

In a message released by the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), marking the Muslim holy festival of Eid al-Adha, the group said that it backs the  Islamic State goals fully and will provide the group with fighters and every possible support. It exhorted them to put the rivalries behind and maintain patience and stability as the group’s enemies join hands to defeat the  Islamic State. The message also said that all the Muslims in the world have great expectations from the group, reported the Dawn.

The Islamic State, which controls large swathes of territory in Syria and Iraq, has been making inroads into South Asia, which has been dominated by Taliban so far. Although there is little evidence that suggests an alliance between Islamic State and Taliban, yet Islamic State activists have been spotted distributing pamphlets applauding the group in Peshawar.

Source: DNA India

Sorgono dubbi sull’intervento militare turco in Siria e sul suo eventuale obiettivo: il regime o Daish?

Due giorni fa il parlamento turco ha approvato una mozione che autorizza il governo di Ankara a dispiegare truppe in Paesi stranieri e alle forze armate straniere di dispiegarsi su territorio turco. È più probabile che il governo intenda quest’autorizzazione per provare il suo legame indistruttibile con l’alleanza occidentale e per servire da deterrente per combattere, piuttosto che una scusa per violare la sovranità siriana.

Il primo ministro turco Ahmet Davutoglu ha dichiarato che il presidente siriano Bashar al-Assad rimane la prima minaccia alla sicurezza nazionale. Eppure questo è in diretto contrasto con la missione della coalizione contro Daish (conosciuto in Occidente come ISIS) guidata dagli Stati Uniti.

“La distruzione causata dagli attacchi del regime siriano diventa sempre più grave. La sua politica aggressiva continua a prendere di mira il nostro Paese”, recita il testo della mozione parlamentare. È ovvio che la motivazione centrale di questa mozione si concentra sul regime Assad e su come esso costituisca una minaccia per la Turchia e per la stabilità regionale.

Tuttavia, l’ex ambasciatore Faruk Logoglu, membro del principale partito di opposizione turco (il Partito Repubblicano Popolare, CHP) durante la sessione del 2 ottobre aveva avvertito che “se questa mozione verrà approvata, la Turchia diventerà il Paese pirata della regione”. Logoglu ha sostenuto che, a partire dal 2011, le politiche turche hanno interferito con la sovranità siriana minacciandone l’integrità territoriale, sottolineando che la Turchia dovrebbe mettere al primo posto l’integrità territoriale di Iraq e Siria in ogni sua mossa.

Sebbene la mozione del governo citi le Risoluzioni 2170 e 2178 del Consiglio di Sicurezza dell’ONU, nessuna delle due risoluzioni è diretta al regime Assad. Entrambe le risoluzioni fanno appello alla comunità internazionale affinché rispetti l’integrità territoriale siriana e prenda tutti i provvedimenti per evitare che combattenti stranieri penetrino in Siria per condurre attività terroristiche.

Nonostante la smentita del governo turco, la comunità internazionale avverte che sia il presidente Erdogan che il premier Davutoglu hanno cambiato direzione – all’ultimo momento – quando questi combattenti stranieri hanno liberamente attraversato il confine turco-siriano, peggiorando una situazione già grave.
Sebbene la NATO abbia dichiarato che l’alleanza non lascerà sola la Turchia, nella sua dichiarazione dello scorso 5 settembre al Summit in Galles (nello specifico, i paragrafi dal 35 al 37) afferma di essere pronta a fornire assistenza al governo iracheno su richiesta. Eppure il governo iracheno non ha chiesto un simile aiuto – non ancora. In poche parole, nessuna risoluzione NATO o ONU rende legittima una qualsiasi azione militare in questi Paesi.

Diversi ufficiali militari turchi in pensione hanno identificato le sfide che la Turchia si prepara ad affrontare, tra cui quella di venire considerata una potenza occupante senza l’approvazione degli USA. Gli ex ufficiali hanno inoltre sottolineato che non importa quanto sia sbagliata la politica sulla Siria di Erdogan e Davutoglu: il punto è che la Turchia non può permettere a un terrore come quello di Daish di prendere il controllo delle sue frontiere, in quanto questo non fa che aumentare le possibilità di uno scontro.

Molti nei circoli di Ankara invitano alla prudenza, benché si continui a ragionare sul tempismo di una tale azione. Intanto, il generale John Allen, l’inviato di Obama alla coalizione globale anti-Daish, visiterà Ankara a breve: questo potrebbe essere il punto decisivo per plasmare il piano d’azione turco dei prossimi giorni.

Source:  Al-Monitor

In multi-factional states in particular, stable institutions are the best guarantee of a secure nation. Anyone who looks into the history of Lebanon since 1943 cannot fail to notice that whenever the army was safe and cohesive, so was Lebanon itself.

At this juncture, I feel I must mention Fouad Chehab, the Lebanese president from 1958 to 1964, perfectly personified this fact throughout his military and later political career. Chehab, frequently regarded as “the Father of the Army,” and near-unanimously considered Lebanon’s greatest president, was no ordinary politician.

So it is a pity that the ignorant gangs and thugs, who took to the streets last week “in defence of the army” as a reaction against a critical post on Twitter by an Arab TV anchor, know nothing about Chehab’s legacy, his role, his beliefs about the importance of institutions, or his absolute belief in the unity of Lebanon and how to keep it safe and secure.

Those ignorant gangs and thugs did not realize that the army, as well as other national institutions, do not need loud slogans, empty boasts, demagogic tweets, but rather wise citizens who are aware of what threatens the existence of these institutions and undermine its neutrality. The army, the police, or the judiciary must not be closer to one Lebanese faction than another, and no faction should ever claim it “loves” the army more than others.

Excessive ‘love’

Indeed, the Lebanese have experienced such excessive “love” for the army and Lebanon at the onset of the Lebanese War during the 1970s. The result was the collapse and fragmentation of the army, and Lebanon’s very existence as a state imperiled during a civil and regional war that lasted for more than 15 years.

The Lebanese have experienced such excessive “love” for the army and Lebanon at the onset of the Lebanese War during the 1970s
Eyad Abu Shakra

I remember well what happened to the Lebanese army then, and who was working to break it up as a path to dividing and subjugating the country. I also remember how the army lost its cohesion and national support when one Lebanese faction claimed that it alone “loved” and supported it to the exclusion of other factions. Eventually, all Lebanese paid a heavy price for pushing the army into confrontations in the absence of national consensus.

Chehab, who had no children of his own, regarded the army as his child. He cared for it, and knew how dangerous it would be for it to become a vehicle for the whims of politicians. He also profoundly understood, upon taking over as president in 1958 during the height of the Cold War, how dangerous the repercussions of the Cold War, regional tensions, and international rivalry, were; thus he was keen to keep both the country and the army away from the conflicts that were boiling around Lebanon.

Chehab hailed from a princely Sunni Muslim clan that claims descent from the Quraish, Prophet Mohammed’s (peace be upon him) own tribe. However, the branch he was born into had converted to Maronite Christianity during the 18th and 19th centuries. This background helped make him a moderate who rejected religious bigotry, and a strong believer in a Lebanon devoid of sectarian privileges and discrimination. Furthermore, his military upbringing and career ensured his strong commitment to state institutions, which he believed were more important and more permanent than any traditional leadership.

Modern state of Lebanon

True to form, it was Chehab who was the real founder of the modern state of Lebanon through his far reaching reforms of the civil service, the treasury, and the judiciary. His contemporaries fondly recall his trade-mark quote “let’s see what the book says”—alluding to the constitution—whenever ministers and parliamentarians disagreed on political and legislative issues.

Thus, he was a real statesman, not a street bully or a populist charlatan who makes a habit of covering up his mistakes by deluding his followers and selling them out. He believed to the end that the army’s role was to defend the country as a whole, empowered by a national mandate, and not hired or mortgaged or used in internal conflicts. His unshakable conviction was that the national army must be above all parties.
Following the Arab defeat in the 1967 war, however, the prestige of the Arab political system suffered a near fatal blow, while what was then called the “peoples’ liberation war” gained credibility, led by the armed Palestinian movement, the Fedayeen. In Lebanon, the ascendancy of the Fedayeen led to resentment and a counter-reaction among the Christian community.

As a result of the Muslims’ whole-hearted support of the Palestinian fighters, the failure of Lebanon’s leaders to prevent polarization, and Israel’s exploitation of the situation, the Lebanese Army fought the Fedayeen in 1973. This was a bleak precursor that destroyed the army’s reputation for impartiality, and within only two years—in 1975—disaster struck and the Lebanese War erupted.

During this war Chehab’s army disintegrated, splitting into different forces: the Sunni and Shi’ite-dominated Lebanese Arab Army, the Christian 8th Brigade, the Druze 11th Brigade, and the Israeli-supported South Lebanon Army with Saad Haddad, and later Antoine Lahad, as its nominal commanders.

This state of affairs continued until the war officially ended with the signing of the Taif Agreement, an accord which was, in fact, opposed by the most influential players in the Lebanese arena today.
These players are now preventing the election of a new president, and calling for military and intelligence cooperation with the Assad regime along the border with Syria. We should remember that it is these same players who helped erase the borders between Syria and Lebanon a couple of years ago, when they sent armed militiamen into Syria to fight against the anti-Assad rebels. Today, they are trying to use the Lebanese Army as a cover in their fight against the Syrian rebels—as well as extremist groups—who have crossed the now-defunct border and into Lebanon.

Surprise situation

Such a situation should not have come as a surprise, given the exposure of the former Lebanese government’s policy of “distancing” the country from the Syrian conflict as a fallacy.
The Lebanese troops now held hostage by the extremist groups the international community is fighting are indeed the sons of all of Lebanon. They are innocent of any kind of political allegiance, and were not consulted before they were sent to the front-lines at Arsal.

On the other side, those who thought they could control the rules of military engagement in both Syria and Lebanon must be held responsible, more so since there were already some worrying signs.
The killing of the Sunni cleric Sheikh Ahmad Abdul-Wahed weakened the great respect the Lebanese army had enjoyed in Akkar (in north Lebanon), and area nicknamed “the army’s human reservoir,” from which came the largest number of the army’s martyrs during the Nahr al-Bared battle in 2007. This was followed last year in southern Lebanon where the movement of another Sunni cleric, Sheikh Ahmad al-Assir, was destroyed, amid reports that fighters from Hezbollah fought alongside army regulars.

Now the army finds itself in a bloody, sectarian quagmire. This is a catastrophic scenario for the army built by Fouad Chehab, and upon examining the record of those who are now expressing their “love,” and are thus gambling with the army’s future, one should really worry.
Among those people is a man with a longstanding and burning ambition to be president, and who, years ago, left his troops defenseless and ran away to seek refuge in the French embassy in Beirut after a quixotic battle with Syrian troops, a battle that ended with Damascus re-imposing its influence over Lebanon.

Another is a faction that views the Lebanese army, as well as all state security bodies, as mere auxiliaries to a de facto “resistance” movement that receives its orders from overseas.
May God protect the Lebanese Army from its false friends, as it is more than capable of dealing with its enemies.

Source:  Asharq al-Awsat

Dozens of soldiers were killed and more than 70 wounded in car bomb attacks and clashes between troops and Islamists around Benghazi airport, a Libyan army spokesman said on Friday, as the UN threatened sanctions.