Now it's the UAE ...

We'll make it quick - another post on the spreading conflicts across the Arab world. This time one of the small conservative monarchies that usually receives little attention, the United Arab Emirates, is involved.

Where is the UAE?

Answer, it is in a rather delicate location, ie. a key location, making up the peninsula of land that separates the Persian Gulf from the Indian Ocean. Which means the UAE sits with a bird's eye view of over 35% of the world's sea-borne oil traffic (in a rather unstable region to say the least).

The UAE, like a thorn poised to puncture a balloon loaded with oil ... Though if one looks closely at the map, the actual point of the thorn is an exclave of Oman. Graphic from wikipedia.

Iran, all the land to the right in this photo, has long declared its intentions to sink a few of those oil tankers traveling through the narrow Strait of Hormuz, if it felt threatened. Photo from www.infowars.com

Oil tankers threading through a number of military vessels. Teatree isn't sure if this congestion is normal, or from one of many tension-filled spats in the recent past. Photo from www.newsbomb.gr

Wikipedia states "UAE's total population was 9.2 million; 1.4 million Emirati citizens and 7.8 million expatriates." Somewhere close to the truth, though estimates range from 3.8 million native Arabic speaking citizens and the balance are foreign workers. The point is that there are substantially more non-native dwellers - a situation that is alleviated by the fact that citizens and residents alike in the small set of emirates enjoy a wealthy income average.

Established in late 1971, the country is a federation of seven emirates (equivalent to principalities). Each emirate is governed by a hereditary emir who jointly form the Federal Supreme Council, the highest legislative and executive body in the country. One of the emirs is selected as the President of the United Arab Emirates. The constituent emirates are Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras al-Khaimah, Sharjah, and Umm al-Quwain. The capital is Abu Dhabi, which is one of the two centers of commercial and cultural activities, together with Dubai.

Abu Dhabi and Dubai are the UAE's two major cities - it is rather hard to believe the wealth and commercial buildings that have been built up in this small country. Photo from www.sohbetna.com

Where are a lot of those workers from? Again from Wikipedia, "UAE and India are each other's main trading partners, with the latter having many of its citizens working and living in the former."

Actually an interesting picture that shows ethnic UAE arabs and many Indian office workers. They were evacuating the breathtaking high towers, after some earthquake tremors in 2013. Photo from www.daijiworld.com

What's UAE been up to?

Soberingly enough, last week the UAE, in partnership with Egypt who provided support from its western air bases, sent fighter jets to the North African coast, to bomb Islamist positions surrounding Libya's main airport in Tripoli. Egypt and the UAE, and one supposes other Arab nations are acting on their own to support a faction in Libya more to their liking than Islamist militias.

A UAE F-16 fighter jet in an unrelated photo, but likely the model used in action in Libya. Photo from Canada's National Post

Libya, of course, was the showcase three years ago for Western powers on how to depose a ruthless dictator Colonel Ghadaffi and usher in an Arab version of democracy all with relatively risk free cruise missiles and bombers. An all-important endorsement at the time of the Arab League for brief, limited intervention was deemed and trumpeted as essential, and expectations were that Libya could steadily move forward with representative elections. However, as the US and Western allies' narratives of smart diplomacy and international coalitions as the correct approach began to diverge while the continued conflicts and fighting between militias escalated, a vacuum of leadership and power emerged and deepened, complete with dueling parliaments. Now,the UAE and Egypt have opted to go it alone in support of their own interests in Egypt's neighbor, not even bothering to communicate with the Western nations ahead of time.

A very cleaned up map of Libya, that nonetheless hints at some of the ancient ethnic lines running through this artificially constructed nation-state. Graphic from www.telegraph.co.uk

Smoke rises from the area near Libya's main airport in Tripoli after UAE airstrikes in support of a Libyan General's forces fighting Islamist militias. (However, in spite of the airstrikes, Islamists - under the banner of "Dawn of Libya" - still took control of the airport) For an illuminating article, read this by The Guardian newspaper last week.

A fair number of airplanes now sit on Tripoli airport tarmac, damaged by fighting. Photo from Reuters

That's it. Libya is splintering, many sides are available to be backed, the UAE has felt compelled to participate, and Western powers are sidelined across the region, as the Arab world unravels.

Egypt's conflict highlights Western dogma and Islamist challenge

First, let's agree that the recent spate of bloodshed in Egypt is troubling, to be condemned, bad, and truly a growing challenge that will have to be reconciled in that country's political future. The latest count is now over 800 fatalities from protests and street fighting. The majority of the casualties are supporters of the ousted President Morsi, mainly within the ranks of members of the Muslim Brotherhood or its conservative Salafist ally. However there also losses among anti-Morsi supporters (most notably Coptic Christians) as well as the police and military.

Click on image for full picture
Photos of the clashes are everywhere in the world's media, so here's another unfortunately familiar dreary picture to get us oriented, from www.spiegel.de

The US has apparently retreated, once again, to diplomatic bromides and half measures - for example highlighting the cancellation of a planned joint military exercise with Egypt's authorities, yet quietly continuing its foreign aid to the military rulers. The European Union is "urgently" scheduling a review of its aid to Egypt, and the reasoning given is where the heart of this blogpost begins. An EU spokesperson describes the Western premise as this, "In cooperation with its international and regional partners, the EU will remain firmly engaged in efforts to promote an end to violence, resumption of political dialogue and return to a democratic process..."

Let's look at those three points: an end to violence, resumption of political dialogue, return to a democratic process. Does this fit Egypt? Peace is not merely the absence of violence, but a holistic concept where justice and tolerance are embedded. Political dialogue takes place where all parties submit to the concept of give and take. A democratic process is more than technical elections every so often, a procedure that plenty of authoritarian rulers have become experts at, without the heart of the governing concept.

Click on image for full picture
from the German news magazine der speigel, "So far, calls by US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns (left, shown in discussion with acting president Adly Mansour) for an agreement between current leaders and Morsi supporters have gone unheeded."

A basic question

Teatree wonders whether Islamists by definition can truly be democratic. If their end goal is the rule of Sharia law, is there opportunity to step back, give and take? Or will they use the tools of the democratic process as mere stepping stones to imposing their brand of theocracy.

If one remembers correctly, the Muslim Brotherhood has given the world al-Qaeda, while the "purer" versions of Islam have given not only the West, but fellow Muslims, a string of statements: embassy bombings, 9-11, bus bombings, suicide bombings, the Taliban and its early act of shelling and destroying old Hindu shrines, and the latest in Mali, the tearing apart of old Muslim shrines. With Islamic extremists, is there realistically an opportunity for dialog, an end to violence, or a commitment to a democratic process?

Another familiar angry picture of Islamists riled up by their religious teachers. This image is from Newsweek's coverage of the non-existent video narrative that was cooked up for unknown purposes by the US government to cover for lax security at its Libyan and Egyptian embassies in 2012.

Some new twists emerge

Yet, while the secular, modern West wrings its hands over the Egyptian violence, support for Egypt's military rulers is coming unexpectedly from one moderate Muslim kingdom - Jordan. Equally surprising, Palestinian President Abbas has also signaled his support for the Egyptian military. Several other Arab countries have voiced support for Egypt's military but these two leaders' positions are worth taking notice.

Click on image for full picture
Palestinian President Abbas sides with Egypt's ruler against the Muslim Brotherhood

Could these leaders be the harbinger of moderate Muslim voices finally rising up to say enough? Is it similar to the more violent 2006 uprising in Iraq where Sunni tribes (with much to resent regarding the new Shiite led Iraqi government), finally said enough to the ultra violent Al-qaeda.

Click on image for full picture
Mohammed Al-Zawahiri, the brother of Al-Qaeda Chief Ayman Al-Zawahiri, has reportedly been arrested in Egypt. Photo from www.news.com.au

Ethnic cleansing occurring quietly in Egypt? Or just "acts" of ethnic cleansing.

Amid heavy coverage and soul searching regarding the Egyptian military response, there has nevertheless been a string of reporting regarding the Muslim Brotherhood turning its anger against Coptic Christians in Egypt. The Christian minority in that country (10% of the nation's total population of around 85 million) has experienced a wave of arson attacks against churches (approximately 50 have been burned or looted in the past several weeks) as well as highly publicized killings of priests and Christian leaders. One Catholic article rather breathtakingly described the situation as an early posture of ethnic cleansing.

St. Mary Church in Fayoum attacked, looted. Caption and photo from http://egyptianstreets.com

But on a more hopeful note. There are also reports that neighborhood watches are forming, resisting the mobs of the Muslim brotherhood. And of moderate Muslims taking the risky stand to protect neighbors and churches in their locale - at least this is the story floating around on the internet accompanying the photo below. (Teatree is becoming a bit suspicious of this photo as no authoritative source can be found.)

Click on image for full picture
An unfamiliar, yet hopeful, necessary, sign. (Unfortunately, the timeline of this photo is a little vague, as well as the specific church. One report says it was St Georges in Sohag - if so, then this picture was taken a while ago, because according to the Washington Post, that church was indeed attacked and burned in just the past few days.)

The confrontation between responsible moderate Muslims and the extremists is probably the battle that must first be enjoined before moving on to the next step of building political democracy and the three "pillars" described earlier by the EU. What is the heart of Islam? Is it jihad against the infidel, or a more moderate set of beliefs that can live in the larger world. Perhaps in Egypt, the most populous Arab nation that has always exercised leadership, there can emerge a home-grown, internal religious stance against extremists, showing tolerance and acceptance of others.

And perhaps it is best the West is "left out" of the forefront of this revolution as its presence morphs the tensions and violence into a geopolitical framework. As with the tense situation in Pakistan, and the disaster in Syria, these confrontations are overwhelmingly Muslim vs Muslim - with Shiite-Sunni reverberations yes - and ultimately a conflict where extremism will take over this world religion if not challenged.

US Secretary of State: What difference does it make ...?

Yesterday was US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton's last day on the job - John Kerry, former Senator of Massachusetts, will be sworn in Friday afternoon for this important post. As Mrs Clinton leaves her position, her rhetorical question in hearings several days ago regarding the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack will, unfortunately, linger for some time.

A region where intelligence matters

Mrs Clinton was defending her agency and the administration's handling of the incident nearly 5 months ago when US Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, was killed by terrorists. When pressed to explain why the Obama administration clung to a theme of a video inciting passions from a mob for nearly two weeks after the killing, she shot back, "“Was it because of a protest or is it because of guys out for a walk one night and they decide they go kill some Americans?” she asked rhetorically, before adding: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

The difference is key - and strangely, neither reason mentioned by Clinton was yet the right one. "It" was neither a protest, nor a spur of the moment decision. The correct answer, for some reason still not able to be acknowledged by the Secretary of State, was a deliberate attack by al-Qaeda linked groups. Her answer, in retrospect, was also testimony to a variety of questionable foreign policy lines being followed by the US.

One of the more damning issues of the case revolved around repeated requests by the American diplomatic corps in Libya over the summer for more protection from growing extremist threats - assistance that never arrived. In the months that have followed the attack, there has still been no progress in determining the militant groups, and continued fog over when assistance was asked for, and how far up in the Obama administration did the requests go.

The US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans, including the US Ambassador to that country, were killed

Connected to the lack of response to providing increased security, another question is whether the Obama administration has allowed its own narrative of describing the last two years of unrest in Arab nations as a positive "Arab Spring" to cloud a clearer, and more sober assessment. Also linked, the Obama administration trumpeted its Libyan response - one of leading from behind and gaining the support of the Arab League and the UN before it acted to topple Gadaffi - as the smart approach versus the previous administration's efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Does intelligence matter?

First, even Teatree recognizes that Mrs. Clinton's answer was 100% political, in response to 70% politically motivated questions by preening US Senators. It is Teatree's opinion at the same time, that the current administration is only 50% as interested in pursuing the matter as it should be.

With that said and returning to the question, in the middle of the Iraq war, many journalists noted that the intelligence gathering efforts by young US captains among the Iraqi population was the key to a slowing of the civil war. Deliberately putting US forces out in the neighborhoods during the 2006 surge also spurred further "understanding" between arguments, revenge killings, ethnic fighting, and al-qaeda attacks - all critical to the country's return to less violent levels.

The "horrors" of rendition, enhanced interrogation, and Guantanamo's detention center all revolve around collecting intelligence in order to act more precisely. Teatree notes that the unease over these actions ebb and flow with a high degree of correlation to the political winds ...

The Obama administration's reliance on drone attacks are increasingly being challenged, though only quietly in articles or speeches that do not become mainstream media fodder. The UN is even out front on this one by beginning an inquiry into the use of lethal drone strikes where collateral damage to those around the target person are seemingly discounted. More practically, military experts note that each drone strike obliterates future intelligence gathering from that individual in question, or those around that person.

The increasing reliance on armed predator drone strikes by the current US administration as its preferred approach to handling the "war on terror" is only heightened by the near unanimous and silent acquiescence by the Western media.

The question lingers

The ill-put question by Mrs Clinton has no partisan boundaries. Intelligence or the lack thereof concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2003 will forever taint that conflict, even if Iraq is able to successfully emerge with hope from its dark and brutal days under Saddam Hussein.

Mrs Clinton testifying and defending her actions, along with the Obama administration, in Benghazi Libya prior to September 11, 2012, and the nearly five months since.

In contrast to the vague responses by the US, the UK, Netherlands and others called for their citizens to leave Benghazi due to possible further terrorist attacks just since Clinton's Senate grilling. And the increasingly apparent lack of followup in Libya as to securing weapons caches has resulted in security turmoil in the Sahel.

Yes, Mrs Clinton, who did what, when, why and how makes all the difference ...

As one opinion piece from America's Southern Wisconsin heartland summarizes: "It was like asking: “What’s the difference between hitting a deer that bolts out in front of your car or running over some kids on a field trip because you’re blind drunk.” One is an accident; the other is a catastrophic failure of judgment.

The administration now acknowledges the assault in Benghazi was a deliberate, planned terrorist act. It is reasonable—indeed, necessary—to ask if State did everything reasonable to mitigate the risk.

We know there was no shortage of funds or other resources. Senior State Department officials have repeatedly testified there was no problem there—though some politicians continue to cry poverty on behalf of the administration. Clearly, the problem was the department’s failure to plan adequately before the attack and respond adequately once it began.

Seeing no difference between a riot and a raid also suggests Clinton doesn’t understand the nature of the threat. “Islamist terrorists,” wrote my colleague Middle East scholar Jim Phillips, “are motivated to kill Americans not because of emotional reactions to alleged slights such as the questionable video on Mohammed, but because they seek to seize power and impose their Islamist totalitarian ideology on other Muslims.”

Clinton just doesn’t get that. Her testimony revealed a leader unapologetic for her failure to act or understand. Worse, she showed no real interest in learning from the incident. Such knowledge could help her department better adapt to the emerging threats in the region."

Fast rising issues where what we know makes a difference

The validity of intelligence gathering will be critical in containing the fallout of yesterday's Israeli strike in Syria over weapons being moved to Lebanon.

The left-wing terrorist suicide bombing at the gates of the US embassy in Turkey today (Friday, February 1, 2013)has been more quickly characterized than has been the Benghazi attack in September.

West African sahel region sinks into turmoil

Suddenly, France, Algeria (two countries who have their own long story of conflict as colonizer and colony), Mali, and al-Qaeda affiliates are involved in a rapidly escalating conflict in Western Africa.

Click on image for full picture

Arena of the rapidly escalating conflict in NW Africa

Centered in Mali, which has been covered at least twice in this blog, Islamist groups (Ansar Dine and Islamic Maghreb), have been inching south closer and closer to Bamoko, the capital city the past several months. What had been a shearing off of the northern half of the country last July by a mixture of Tuareg tribes and Islamists was followed rather rapidly by a entrenchment of those positions by the Islamist group(s) - increasingly we hear more of Islamist extremists rather than Tuaregs, more on that later - and an encroachment towards towns and cities further to the south.

The UN had in July 2012 authorized a collection of West African military forces to gather and take back the desert regions of Northern Mali, but had left a, shall we say, very leisurely pace to be set - actually no specific timetable, but the fall of 2013 has been mentioned - before serious actions would be undertaken. See http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2012/sc10698.doc.htm for the text of resolution 2056

French Intervention

France, led by its Socialist President Hollande, did not see a luxury of time, and at the end of 2012, began gathering military assets together in Southern Mali to fend off the Islamists.

Click on image for full picture

French fighter aircraft, and attack helicopters came in first, but are now being buttressed by up to 2500 ground troops.

Last week, French warplanes attacked Islamist forces around the town of Diabaly, causing Islamist forces to run for cover. While fleeing exposed positions, the Islamists did not leave the town, rather mixed with the local population, and ended up being accused of using locals as human shields.

Now, french troops are being flown in, from an original 800 to 2500. And on-the-ground fighting is underway in Diabaly as of Wednesday, January 16.

French ground troops on the move towards Diabaly (on what appears to be an unusually modern and well maintained paved road ...)

One more thing

In one further step of escalation, however, in retaliation for last weeks attacks from French warplanes, Islamists seized employees of a natural gas drilling operation in Algeria. As NBC news reports, "A number of Americans have been seized by militants at a gas field in Algeria, U.S. defense secretary Leon Panetta said Wednesday, in what he described as a terrorist incident. The militant group that claimed responsibility said it was in revenge for Algeria's support of France's operation against al-Qaeda-linked Malian rebels groups far to the southeast. It said it was holding 41 foreigners, including seven Americans."

A natural gas facility in Algeria, similar to that where Islamists have taken hostages

Note that the natural gas facility is a long way from the Mali border, but very close to Libya. It is a reminder that Libya continues to fester after the 2011 removal of Gaddafi, a country where the 2012 killing of the US ambassador Chris Stevens on September 11 was only reluctantly acknowledged as a terrorist attack, and the overthrow itself widely recognized as having swamped the region with plenty of arms for all persuasions.

A bit of history:

The rebel takeover of northern Mali began soon after the fall of Gaddafi in Libya in October 2011, when Tuareg fighters from northern Mali, who had been fighting alongside Gaddafi’s forces, returned home with weapons from Libyan arsenals.

They joined with Al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamist militants who had moved to the lightly policed region from Algeria, and the two groups easily drove out the weakened Malian Army in late March and early April last year. The Islamists then turned on the Tuaregs, routing them and consolidating control in the region in May and June. So, the liberation of Awazad, which had been the Tuareg's longtime cry for self governance, has been silenced, as has peace in this region for years to come.

Islamists triumphant in Mali. Local residents must now fear for their hands and heads - removable items if they commit specific offenses under Sharia law.

The Tuaregs, long neglected within their own lands and with many justifiable points as to their resistance to broader Malian governance, nevertheless chose sides badly by linking themselves with Islamists.

Questions remain

US President Bush was excoriated for his decision to take on Saddam Hussein in 2003 - the world heard from all quarters: the US was out of control, did not seek adequate consensus, did not focus on coalition building ..., etc. The ouster of Libya's Gaddafi, in contrast, was trumpeted by US President Obama as the "smart" way to lead change, and that from behind. The action had UN consensus, plus the Arab League was on board - passing the new Global Test, as it was put. However, eager to move on after Gaddafi was killed, little effort was made to contain or shape the aftermath, The result, increasingly apparent from the Mali crisis, is that unsecured weaponry flowed across the region. One could describe the Libyan action with consequences still unfolding, as not at all following the script advanced by Western politicians. (And are we close to seeing this situation play out again in Syria where chemical and advanced weaponry may yet end up in Hezbollah hands or elsewhere ...)

Did French President Hollande collect the approval of the UN, or build a consensus before intervening in a matter of weeks? No, and apparently the Western world is not outraged or concerned. Is he the new cowboy of the world? Or once again, is the Western media selective and arbitrary in its formulations.

The highly technological West continues to favor aerial attacks, cruise missiles, and drones (the new US favorite)as weapons of choice - minimal damage or exposure to conflict for its own forces, but with clear limitations on the scouring out of an enemy, or at the very least, the securing of abandoned or hidden weapon caches.

What was derided as a needlessly provocative phrase, the "war on terror" was replaced by the Obama administration in 2009 with the phrase "overseas military contingencies." Apparently, three years later, the phrase "war on terror" is back, only it is US Secretary of Defense Panetta using the term, not the former president/cowboy from Texas.

Finally, the long history of neglect for the peoples of northern Mali, followed by the armed insurgence of the Tuaregs and their own dalliance with Islamists leading to their demise can be found at the following link. It is a detailed and doleful story that brings us to today's headlines.
http://www.irinnews.org/report/95252/mali-a-timeline-of-northern-conflict

al Qaeda-Islamist attack on 9/11/12 - just a "bump in the road"?

On September 11, 2012, eleven years after the twin towers attack in New York City, Muslim protests erupted in two Arab countries Egypt and Libya, and nearly two weeks later, had been seen in Tunisia, Morocco, Nigeria, Yemen, Somalia, Gaza, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, Qatar, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Lebanon, Greece, and Turkey.

Western Embassies targeted by Muslim protests

The first protests, while genuine and against what the crowds had been told was a film insulting the Prophet Mohammed, were initially described as "spontaneous" though that description quickly lost credibility over the next few days. The remaining protests became more and more clearly understood as being the work of Islamists or governments intent on whipping up anti-Western sentiment in broad terms.

In particular, Lebanon's Hezbollah Islamist leader, Sheikh Nasrallah, was delighted with the opportunity. He called for a week of protests not only against American embassies, but also to press Muslim governments to express their own anger to the US. He branded the video an "unprecedented" insult to Islam - worse, he said, than Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses and the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, which were published in a Danish newspaper in 2005.

Most sobering, the death toll itself began climbing immediately on September 11 with the killing of the US Ambassador to Libya along with three other American diplomatic staff who had been trapped in the Libyan city of Benghazi. Through today, 30 more have been reported dead: four NATO soldiers in Afghanistan, 15 Pakistanis involved in the protests in that country, and 11 Libyans.

The unrest seems to be subsiding, though Monday, September 24th, a Pakistani lawmaker placed a $100,000 bounty on the head of the alleged filmmaker from California, even as Pakistan's government distanced itself from that lawmaker's call.

The most shocking incident occurred in Libya, where US Ambassador Chris Stevens - a strong supporter of the promises possible within the "Arab Spring" and fluent in Arabic - along with three other of his diplomatic staff were hunted down and killed.

Even in Greece, riot police had to be called out to contain Muslim protests. French and German embassies were also targeted in various countries in the past dozen days.

The fundamental details in this spasm of violence remain disputed

* The US Embassy in Egypt, which had been breached for hours by protestors on September 11, quickly apologized to the crowds for the film. That apology however, was later disputed by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, and later rescinded or "clarified" differently by the White House.

* The "film" was described as being produced by a variety of culprits. One after another, names surfaced as to who was responsible. First, there were reports that it was the work of the infamous Koran-burning pastor from Florida Terry Jones, next by a Coptic Christian, then a Californian named Steve Klein and finally along came another mysterious consultant called Sam Bacile. As a week passed, there were accusations of others being involved, characterized interestingly as a "Jew" or an "evangelical Christian" each increasingly appearing as continuing attempts to provide the right labels to keep the outrage alive.

* Reports after the first few days, however, showed up backing down slightly from the film. For example, the film was described as "a crude effort", then alternatively a homemade video, (which incidentally had been on you-tube for over two months). After a full week since the killings in Libya, and after the media had generated stories by the hundreds accepting the "film" label, the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor both published articles noting that the word Muhammed was dubbed over in post-production, as were essentially all other offensive references to Islam. Each article questioned whether this film/video with the intent to insult the Prophet was genuine, or had someone doctored it with religious terms for their own purposes.

Nevertheless, the organizers of the protests have carried the day, and the dominant media narrative remains "an insulting film."

US stumbles on reaction

* The White House stuck to the story for several days that the US ambassador was killed by protestors, in spite of numerous claims, including by the Libyan government itself, that the killers were either Islamist militias or an al-Qaeda affiliate - Ansar al-Sharia or Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb - taking advantage of the protests.

* After the evidence grew overwhelming, President Obama vowed that the killers would be brought to justice and that Marines were being sent to bolster security in a number of embassies. Two destroyers were moved towards the Libyan coast.

* Yet after a week of relative silence in the search for those responsible, Libyans themselves took it upon themselves to rush known Islamist militia strongholds in Benghazi and other cities and chased them out at the cost of another eleven dead. Apparently the US, with all its military and intelligence assets could not ferret out what the locals knew, or did not calculate that it was worth the effort to bring them to said justice.

What is next?

The challenge is on for most Arab governments (Iran and Gaza probably the exceptions) to balance the anger whipped up over the film or video, with the responsibility to provide security for Western embassies. For example, Egypt's new President Mohammed Morsi, an Islamist who is Egypt’s first freely elected president said "Expressing opinion, freedom to protest and announcing positions is guaranteed but without assaulting private or public property, diplomatic missions or embassies.”

Protests okay (staged and encouraged) in Muslim countries, along with fatwas, but not free speech in Western countries?

The US administration is under pressure with questions of why more security was not being provided for staff at embassies in volatile nations - reports are that Marines at the Egyptian embassy were not allowed to carry live ammunition.

President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, White House spokesman Jay Carney, have yet to agree on the timetable of events, their policy position, and the importance of future actions

President Obama was under scrutiny by a growing number of journalists for his low-key, and unclear stance regarding the US ambassador killing and response as well as his statement just today. "In the interview itself, Obama was responding when asked if recent events in the Middle East gave him pause for supporting governments that came to power following a wave of regime changes known as the Arab Spring.

He said he has long noted that events were going to be rocky, adding that the question itself ‘‘presumes that somehow we could have stopped this wave of change.’’

‘‘I think it was absolutely the right thing for us to align ourselves with democracy, universal rights. ... But I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road because — you know, in a lot of these places — the one organizing principle has been Islam.’

In the next few days, a UN gathering of world leaders in New York City will provide plenty of opportunity for inflaming rhetoric, vague contradictory platitudes, and one might only hope a few more courageous and wise observations of leadership.

Iran's president anticipating his remarks on the world stage ...

Libya election moves country forward, Syria begins disintegration

Across the restive Arab world, two countries are heading in different directions.

Libya, after its savage dethroning of the dictator Gadaffi (with some estimates of approximately 100,000 lives lost), has held an important election that has resulted in "liberal" secular political forces taking the lead. Perhaps tentative still, these initial results compare favorably to Egypt's continuing turmoil with the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood along with other Islamist leanings. We shall see ...

Libya, set along the Mediterranean Sea, is an important oil producing country, and has emerged from 50 years of dictatorship under Colonel Gadaffi.

In the first nationwide free election in more than 50 years approximately 80% of those eligible turned out to vote for candidates filling 80 seats out of the 200 in the National Assembly (or parliament). The election commission said former interim Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril's National Forces Alliance won 39 seats, or nearly half of those allocated for parties. The Muslim Brotherhood's Justice and Construction party came in second with 17 seats. Smaller factions won the other 24 seats set aside for parties. Jibril's party showed particular strength in Libya's two largest cities - Tripoli and Benghazi - and won everywhere across the country.

A positive aspect of the election was the strong support for the liberal alliance across the country, and in particular, the two largest cities Tripoli and Benghazi. Libya's population of just 6.4 million is predominately centered in the north and along the coast, while the desert regions to the south are sparsely settled.

The balance of power lies with the 120 seats set aside for independent candidates, some of whom are likely affiliated unofficially with parties. (Teatree is unsure whether these seats will be filled via a separate election or some other process.) The 200-seat National Assembly is tasked with forming a new government to replace the NTC's Cabinet.

Men preparing to vote

Women in line to vote

Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril's National Forces Alliance is in an initial commanding position for determining the country's future.

Syria, in stark contrast, has by all accounts, drifted into a deepening civil war. These past few days have witnessed sustained clashes in the capitol city, Damascus, the defection of more high ranking officials (a general and an ambassador), and just this morning the assassination of the country's Defense Minister and other inner-circle leaders.

Syrian fighting has now reached the capitol, Damascus, in sustained clashes. The country, with a population of nearly 21 million, is comprised of several tribal and ethnic groupings, with President Assad himself from a minority Alewite tribe.

As CNN reported, "A deadly attack on top Syrian officials Wednesday delivered the harshest blow yet to President Bashar al-Assad's regime, bringing the bloodshed into his inner circle, and even his family.

Four top officials were killed in an explosion at a national security building in Damascus, and some other people were wounded, state TV reported. Defense Minister Dawood Rajiha; Deputy Defense Minister Assef Shawkat -- al-Assad's brother-in-law; Hasan Turkmani, al-Assad's security adviser and assistant vice president, and Interior Minister Mohammed Ibrahim al-Shaar were killed, the state TV reports said.

The attack, during a meeting of ministers and security officials, was coordinated by several rebel brigades in Damascus, said the deputy head of the opposition Free Syrian Army, Col. Malek al-Kurdi. The government described it as a suicide bombing. But al-Kurdi said a remote control was used to detonate an explosive device planted inside the meeting room."

Syria's Defense Minister Dawood Rajiha, among the top four reported killed.

Smoke hangs over Damascus neighborhoods

Reports state that Bashir al-Assad has pulled units from Syria's border with Israel, back into Damascus to protect the ruling family's power center.

Studied avoidance of public intervention by Western powers, public support from Russia and China, and active quiet support - the proxy war - from Hezbollah and Iran for Assad's regime, has resulted in today's dire picture. The US and others have raised specific concerns over his stockpiles of chemical weapons (don't use them, and keep them secure), and the more general concern over Al-Qaeda's taking advantage of the complex conflict.

Syria reportedly manufactures Sarin, Tabun, VX, and mustard gas types of chemical weapons to the amounts of several hundred tons per year. Syria is one of only 7 nations which is not a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Like Libya, Syria's population is not equally spread across the country, but concentrated in the west, with heavier populations in the fertile northwest along Turkey's border, and in the Southwest, in Damascus.