user: News: By THE NEW YORK TIMESJUNE 10, 2014

The insurgent fighters who routed the Iraqi army out of Mosul on Tuesday did not just capture much of Iraq’s second-largest city. They also gained a windfall of arms, munitions and equipment abandoned by the soldiers as they fled — arms that were supplied by the United States and intended to give the troops an edge over the insurgents.

The problem is not a new one, but it looms larger now that the United States is shifting its counterterrorism strategy away from using American armed forces directly, and toward relying on allied or indigenous troops and security forces supplied and trained by the United States. President Obama proposed last week that a $5 billion fund be set up to finance such efforts.

But those proxy forces do not always prove equal to the task, and when they buckle, the United States finds itself having unwittingly armed its enemies — a problem the Obama administration has been trying to avoid in Syria by carefully limiting its aid to the opposition there. The militants who swept into control of Mosul on Tuesday are believed to be connected to the main Islamist militant group fighting in Syria.

A broader Sunni insurgency that has been growing in neighboring Syria has shown increased audacity in Iraq.

Inadequate or unreliable local allies have allowed American military aid to fall into the wrong hands a number of times in recent years.

In August 2013, an ambitious effort to build up the embryonic Libyan army ended ignominiously when militia fighters overpowered a small guard force at a training base outside Tripoli, the capital. The insurgents looted the base of automatic rifles, night-vision goggles, vehicles and other equipment, and the American instructors were withdrawn while officials sought a more secure training site.

“You have to make sure of who you’re training,” Maj. Gen. Patrick J. Donahue II, the commander of United States Army soldiers operating in Africa, said in an interview last month. “It can’t be the standard, ‘Has this guy been a terrorist or some sort of criminal?’ but also, ‘What are his allegiances? Is he true to the country, or is he still bound to his militia?’ ”

The United States invested substantial effort over five years to build up and train Mali’s army to fight Al Qaeda-linked separatist militants in the desert north of the country, but army units melted away when the militants and allied Tuareg tribesmen mounted an offensive in late 2012. Hundreds of Malian soldiers defected, including commanders of elite units trained by the United States. The army was already in disarray after a coup in March 2012 by an American-trained officer, which allowed the militants to seize half of Mali’s territory and loot military posts. The fighters were prevented from seizing the whole country only when France and several of Mali’s neighbors sent troops to intervene.

There have been clear signs that American-supplied weapons and munitions have been leaking into the hands of Taliban fighters since the early years of the war in Afghanistan, despite efforts to track and account for matériel supplied to Afghan security forces.

Most recently, Sunni extremists in Iraq have been steadily gaining ground against the Shiite-led government of Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, routing the American-trained and equipped Iraqi military in Falluja, Samarra and elsewhere and capturing bases, weapons and vehicles.

Title: Arms Windfall for Insurgents as Iraq City Falls


News: Image by Getty Images North America via @daylife

In the wake of Jon Stewart’s biggest interview in the Daily Show’s history, a one-on-one with the sitting president, the blogosphere is chock-a-block with opinions. Some seem particularly perplexed by Stewart calling Barack Obama “Dude” at one point during the show (How could he! Good for him!); others are more focused on Obama’s notably serious tone on a Comedy Central program (Hugely important! A waste of time!)

But Time Magazine’s Jon Poniewozik hit on a line in the interview that was the most telling of them all: “I don’t want to lump you in with a lot of other pundits,” Obama said to Stewart, before laying on his criticisms.

“In saying that, Obama brought up a question that Stewart’s rising prominence, and this weekend’s Rally to Restore Sanity, have underscored: should we lump in Stewart with other pundits? Is he a social commentator or an entertainer? Is he a newsman or a fake newsman? Is he funny or serious?”

via Jon Stewart Interviews President Barack Obama on The Daily Show – Tuned In – TIME.com.

In a highly politicized era where personalities cut through clutter and opinions make noise, where does Jon Stewart fall? It’s a question with many layers and even more answers.

Earlier this week, AskMen named Stewart the most influential Man in America, a title his Wednesday evening guest should be able to claim. For those paying attention, the accolade wasn’t being awarded to a late-night clown. In fact, the site argues Stewart, who has been vocal about his disinterest in running for office, does a “better job shaping politics simply by working outside the political sphere.” In recent years, Stewart has skewed more sharply political than broadly comical, receiving recognition across the media landscape for hard hitting interviews with media and political folk on both sides of the aisle.

But as Poniewozik notes, Stewart has a distinct advantage over his hard news brethren. Given the nature and locale of his show, he can intersperse zingers, quips and moments of comic relief mid-interview, lightening a topic or mood in a way Brian Williams type cannot. For instance, when Obama said Larry Summers had done a “heckuva job,” echoing the language George W. Bush famously used to praise of his FEMA chief post Katrina, Stewart laced into him, “Dude, you don’t want to use that phrase.” He did much the same when he said to Obama, “What have you done that we don’t know about? Are you planning a surprise party for us, filled with jobs and health care?”

This weekend’s Rally to Restore Sanity in Washington takes a page not from Jay Leno but from Fox News personality Glenn Beck, who has become increasingly influential among the Tea Party set. Conveniently timed ahead of the all-important mid-term elections, Stewart’s stated goal is to counteract the “loud folks,” the 10% to 20% of the country who, as he put it, “dominate our national conversation on the on our most important issues.” Recognizing his power over the younger, left-leaning demo, Democrats are hoping he does–perhaps even banking on him doing– one better: “get party members excited about voting.”

And then there’s Hollywood, which would still love to claim him as an entertainer, a witty yuckster with a political bend. (Ironically, Beck told Forbes he considers himself an entertainer.) When will Stewart make the leap to network late-night joining the larger platforms of Leno, Jimmy Fallon and Jimmy Kimmel remains a favorite parlor game in certain Los Angeles circles. In fact, Stewart’s name has long been rumored as a potential successor to CBS’ Letterman, a commentary on their like-minded sensibility and geographic popularity. If such a move were to become a reality, it’s still a ways off: Stewart renewed his contract with Comedy Central through 2012, and Letterman has yet to even hint at retirement.

What do you think? How would you label the man making the rounds in DC this week? Is he a newsman? A pundit? A politico? An entertainer? Or is it possible there’s no longer a distinction?

Title:

assistant: The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart: Newsman? Funnyman? Pundit?