Six Steps to Victory Against the Iraqi Insurgency

[politbureau]

@king wu

[quote=“spook”][quote=“king wu”]Another option: Wipe out the US Okkkupiers and there wont be an insurgency at all XD

How do account for the insurgency in Xinjiang, King Wu?
[/quote]

lol… there isnt one… and if there was i would care.[/quote]

I see why communists don’t like freedom of speech. It’s tough competing with the facts.

Human Rights Watch

"Post 9/11: labeling Uighurs terrorists

, , , China claimed that “Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan had provided the ‘Eastern Turkestan’ terrorist organizations with equipment and financial resources and trained their personnel,” and that one particular organization, the “Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement” (ETIM) was a “major component of the terrorist network headed by Osama bin Laden.”

By October the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman declared that, as “a victim of international terrorism,” China hoped that “efforts to fight against East Turkestan terrorist forces should become a part of the international efforts and should also win support and understanding.”

On November 12, 2001, China told the U.N. Security Council that anti-state Uighur groups had links with the Taliban in Afghanistan and claimed that they were supported from abroad by radical Islamist organizations. . . .

In its efforts to win support for its post-September 11 equation of Uighur separatism with international terrorism, China has released a number of documents describing in some detail the alleged activities of Uighur terrorists groups in China. The first of these was published by the Information Office of the PRC State Council in January 2002, under the title: “East Turkestan Terrorist Forces Cannot Get Away with Impunity.” It offers the most comprehensive account to date of anti-state violence in Xinjiang and provides a catalog of violent acts allegedly committed by separatist groups in Xinjiang over the past decade. The document asserts that “East Turkestan terrorist forces” had conducted “a campaign of bombing and assassinations” consisting of more than 200 incidents resulting in 162 deaths and 440 people injured over the preceding decade. This was the first time the Chinese authorities provided detailed specifics about violence in Xinjiang. The document also asserted that Uighur organizations responsible for the violence had received training and funding from Pakistan and Afghanistan, including direct financing from Osama bin Laden himself. . . .

In December 2003, the Chinese government released a second report designed to legitimize its policies in Xinjiang and to enlist the support of the international community. The document listing “East Turkestan terrorist groups and individuals” was issued by the Ministry of Public Security and gave the names of four “Eastern Turkestan” terrorist organizations and eleven individual members of these groups, and called for international support to stop their activities, including a request for Interpol to issue arrest warrants. The document points to the presence of Chinese Uighurs in Pakistan and Afghanistan, including some among the Taliban forces. It suggests that all Uighur opposition to Chinese domination, including non-violent resistance, is connected to international radical-Islamic terrorism."

[MikeN]

[quote]Last month, the length of the Iraq war surpassed the time the nation was involved in World War II. By spring, the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global fight against terrorism are expected to surpass the $536 billion in inflation-adjusted costs of the Vietnam War. That’s more than 10 times President Bush’s prewar estimate of $50 billion.

Through the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, Congress had authorized about $436 billion in war spending, according to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

In October, Bush signed legislation that tacked on $70 billion, bringing the total to more than $506 billion. That number will rise once Congress appropriates Iraq stabilization and reconstruction funding.

The armed services, seeking to replace aging equipment and address quality-of-life issues for military families, are believed to be seeking $100 billion to $160 billion in a supplemental spending bill for spring.

If that’s approved, war funding – three-quarters of it going to Iraq-related operations – would reach nearly $700 billion.[/quote]

dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/16175487.htm
Star-Telegram | 12/06/2006 | $500 billion and counting

Fred Smith, May 25, 2004:

My understanding however is that 50K is the long-term goal and that nears being a plan. We have spent US$18 billion for reconstruction of Iraq. That was originally to have been US$2 billion but the looting was unexpected. Okay. We are over budget US$16 billion there but now Iraqi revenues are going to pay for reconstruction. No one is envisioning any more money for that.

Anyone wishing to take a nostalgic look backward, just search “fred smith” and “Iraq”.

You’ll learn how the insurgency in Anbar has been decisively defeated, why it only has the support of a tiny fraction of Sunnis, why al-Sadr is a loser and out of the picture, how victory has been achieved in Fallujah, how victory has been achieved in Fallujah part Deux, how Iraqis are flocking back to rebuild their country, how growth is in double digits every year, how only 503, 782, 1,096… US troops have died, how this year troops will be reduced to 35,000, no, this year they’ll be reduced to 80,000 and then 50,000 next year, hey, now that the insurgency has been defeated troops will be reduced to…the Iraqi police are stalwart uprights who would never engage in sectarian violence…and GEORGE BUSH IS ALWAYS RIGHT SO GET OVER IT YOU LIBERAL TERRORIST LOVING APPEASENIKS- HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!

A fascinating psychological study in how someone can be wrong about everything and still soldier on in total defiance of reality.

[MikeN]

[quote]Bush praised Hakim for his 'strong position against the murder of innocent life”.

[/quote]
tradearabia.com/tanews/newsd … 5_cnt.html

The head of the FUCKING BADR BRIGADES???

We are now officially disconnected from any form of reality. Please resume your normal programming.

[games]

[quote=“MikeN”]You’ll learn how the insurgency in Anbar has been decisively defeated, why it only has the support of a tiny fraction of Sunnis, why al-Sadr is a loser and out of the picture, how victory has been achieved in Fallujah, how victory has been achieved in Fallujah part Deux, how Iraqis are flocking back to rebuild their country, how growth is in double digits every year, how only 503, 782, 1,096… US troops have died, how this year troops will be reduced to 35,000, no, this year they’ll be reduced to 80,000 and then 50,000 next year, hey, now that the insurgency has been defeated troops will be reduced to…the Iraqi police are stalwart uprights who would never engage in sectarian violence…and GEORGE BUSH IS ALWAYS RIGHT SO GET OVER IT YOU LIBERAL TERRORIST LOVING APPEASENIKS- HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!

A fascinating psychological study in how someone can be wrong about everything and still soldier on in total defiance of reality.[/quote]

As I was told just today, the correct term for this is “a narcissistic need to be involved in ‘transforming history’.”

Suits communists as well as you know who.

[fred_smith]

I still believe that in the end the 50K will be the number of troops that stay and they will stay for 60 years.

You are right. This is costing more than expected and taking much longer than expected, but now that the original $18 billion has been spent, I have not seen any more approvals going through. I have seen some of Iraq’s debt forgiven (and as always, those European nations who were committed to delivering said amounts of aid have not ponied up). Has the US budgeted more money than the original US$18 billion for reconstruction? If so, I am unaware so please supply any figures on that if you have them.

I think where the costs are is in maintaining the armed forces at the current levels of 140K and in fighting an insurgency BUT what would the costs be of maintaining 50K troops in Iraq? THAT was always going to carry a price tag as well.

Anyway, no excuses. This is not going according to plan. Things are not where any of us wanted them one, two or even three years ago. BUT I am still committed to staying. I think Rumsfeld had the right idea on maintaining a smaller footprint. 500,000 troops was not and is not the answer.

Look either there is going to be some sort of political compromise or there isn’t. With or without that, there is not much the US can do. Therefore, the original plan should be followed, we move our troops out to where they are out of harm’s way in those “permanent” bases that give Spook such a frisson of outraged outrage. We leave them there as a strategic “hammer and anvil” (deliberate) and if anyone gets out of control or rocks the boat too much. Wham. We let them have it. In the meantime, the Iraqis are going to have to sort out the kind of country that they want and until they do, it is pointless for us to try to keep them from killing each other.

That said, I am highly satisfied that the original goals of the invasion have been accomplished: removal of Saddam, determination that the wmds were not going to be a threat and moving Iraq onto a more pluralistic form of governance (three elections and a constitution). Whether the Iraqis step up to the challenge to create a better future is their own responsibility. We have given them that opportunity. We cannot force them to take it. I am not ready to throw my hands up and declare this a disaster. It is a major challenge. If I had any complaints, it would be that we are not taking this war to all the places where it needs to be fought. Why should Syria and Iran be allowed to influence events in Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq that are directly counter to our interests and not pay any sort of price at all? That is most confusing to me and I would like to see that remedied.

[fred_smith]

Double

[Elegua]

[quote=“fred smith”]I still believe that in the end the 50K will be the number of troops that stay and they will stay for 60 years.

You are right. This is costing more than expected and taking much longer than expected, but now that the original $18 billion has been spent, I have not seen any more approvals going through. I have seen some of Iraq’s debt forgiven (and as always, those European nations who were committed to delivering said amounts of aid have not ponied up). Has the US budgeted more money than the original US$18 billion for reconstruction? If so, I am unaware so please supply any figures on that if you have them.

I think where the costs are is in maintaining the armed forces at the current levels of 140K and in fighting an insurgency BUT what would the costs be of maintaining 50K troops in Iraq? THAT was always going to carry a price tag as well.

Anyway, no excuses. This is not going according to plan. Things are not where any of us wanted them one, two or even three years ago. BUT I am still committed to staying. I think Rumsfeld had the right idea on maintaining a smaller footprint. 500,000 troops was not and is not the answer.

Look either there is going to be some sort of political compromise or there isn’t. With or without that, there is not much the US can do. Therefore, the original plan should be followed, we move our troops out to where they are out of harm’s way in those “permanent” bases that give Spook such a frisson of outraged outrage. We leave them there as a strategic “hammer and anvil” (deliberate) and if anyone gets out of control or rocks the boat too much. Wham. We let them have it. In the meantime, the Iraqis are going to have to sort out the kind of country that they want and until they do, it is pointless for us to try to keep them from killing each other.

That said, I am highly satisfied that the original goals of the invasion have been accomplished: removal of Saddam, determination that the wmds were not going to be a threat and moving Iraq onto a more pluralistic form of governance (three elections and a constitution). Whether the Iraqis step up to the challenge to create a better future is their own responsibility. We have given them that opportunity. We cannot force them to take it. I am not ready to throw my hands up and declare this a disaster. It is a major challenge. If I had any complaints, it would be that we are not taking this war to all the places where it needs to be fought. Why should Syria and Iran be allowed to influence events in Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq that are directly counter to our interests and not pay any sort of price at all? That is most confusing to me and I would like to see that remedied.[/quote]

Duh…you have no strategic option but to stay at this point. The rest is re-arranging deck chairs. The amount of control the US will be able to exert over the outcome in Iraq will only decrease as time goes on. We’ve given Syria & Iran more freedom to operate then they’ve ever had before. As for other proliferators, the credible threat of military action is now a completely empty threat.

If only we’d gotten them while they were lined up on Highway 1.

[fred_smith]

Duh…

How eloquent…

you have no strategic option but to stay at this point.

How cute. Someone got ahold of the Democrat PR talking points book. Yeah, THAT is exactly why I have been laughing up my sleeve regarding the disastrous midterm elections. We are going to see a real change in US policy aren’t we? haha A total disaster for the Bush team? haha Anyway, I appreciate remarks such as yours. They give me hope.

The rest is re-arranging deck chairs.

They really did “communicate” those points to you didn’t they?

The amount of control the US will be able to exert over the outcome in Iraq will only decrease as time goes on.

I also read THAT article.

We’ve given Syria & Iran more freedom to operate then they’ve ever had before.

Apparently, curiously, amazingly, most journalists seem to agree with you right now or is it vice versa? haha

Yes, the Iraq Study Group. Yawn. Let’s “talk” to Syria and Iran? Please… Let’s see how far THAT goes… My advice would be to send the first message at the tip of a cruise missile lobbed at one of the “secret” training camps for insurgents.

As for other proliferators, the credible threat of military action is now a completely empty threat.

Really? Depends on what kind of threat you are referring to. I seem to think that the North Korean leadership as well as that in Iran have squealed a number of times when presented with various policy options. There is a lot that we can do to make life very difficult for both regimes short of an invasion. And just to make a case in point… Why not rock Syria’s world just a bit? I would find that an object lesson for most of the thugs in the region. Think of it… A few agents from Lebanese factions opposed to the Syrian propensity to assassinate their politicians with car bombs… Returning the favor to various persons in Damascus… and maybe in Teheran… If someone is going to send out invitations to the “party,” I really think that the person doing the inviting should be expected to show up and join in the “fun,” don’t you?

If only we’d gotten them while they were lined up on Highway 1.

I know what you mean. All those naked protesters in California. One quick spray with some dangerous chemical and we could have rid the state of thousands of mindless but concerned, “informed” yet provincial, “caring” yet narcissistic 60s throwbacks. Pity we didn’t make more of that opportunity but I hear that there may be another naked bike ride to protest… um… well, they are out to protest something and maybe this time the Bush administration will finally get its shit together and do as you have suggested (something about it)!

[cfimages]

@fred smith

Let’s “talk” to Syria and Iran? Please… Let’s see how far THAT goes… My advice would be to send the first message at the tip of a cruise missile lobbed at one of the “secret” training camps for insurgents.

That’s your advice, huh? So what do you think of the new defence secretary, Robert Gates, who, during his confirmation

Said the US should attack Iran only as a last resort and he would not support military action against Syria

Notice that - the Defence Secretary will not support military action against Syria. A cruise missile sure sounds like military action.

And - only attack Iran as a last resort. A cruise missile instead of talks doesn’t sound like a last resort.

[Elegua]

[quote]Quote:
Duh…

How eloquent…[/quote]

Well, …say something stupidly obvious…

[quote]Quote:
you have no strategic option but to stay at this point.

How cute. Someone got ahold of the Democrat PR talking points book. Yeah, THAT is exactly why I have been laughing up my sleeve regarding the disastrous midterm elections. We are going to see a real change in US policy aren’t we? haha A total disaster for the Bush team? haha Anyway, I appreciate remarks such as yours. They give me hope.[/quote]

No we won’t. But have I not been saying this for some time now? - long before the mid-term elections? - ie the humpty dumpty jokes? But it is a disaster for the Bush team - from a narrow minded, short-term political perspective (they lost the election), but more importantly this was an ‘optional’ war - there was no need to fight it right then. As you said (correctly), this is a political fight, not a miltary one. I think the neocon’s and Bush confused the two, add a healthy dose of poor planning, selective listening and voila…Iraq. A pointless war that achieves minimal strategic benefit with a huge strategic downside.

Let’s put aside for a moment all of the ‘bleeding heart’ issues like the cost of Haji getting VBIED on the way to the market. Hell, we might even find out it took a bloody tyrant to hold a country like Iraw together. (for the sarcasim impaired, I’m being sarcastic).

[quote]Quote:
The amount of control the US will be able to exert over the outcome in Iraq will only decrease as time goes on.

I also read THAT article.

Quote:
We’ve given Syria & Iran more freedom to operate then they’ve ever had before.

Apparently, curiously, amazingly, most journalists seem to agree with you right now or is it vice versa? haha

Yes, the Iraq Study Group. Yawn. Let’s “talk” to Syria and Iran? Please… Let’s see how far THAT goes… My advice would be to send the first message at the tip of a cruise missile lobbed at one of the “secret” training camps for insurgents.
[/quote]

I’ve been saying that since the war began. Check my posts.

[quote]Quote:
As for other proliferators, the credible threat of military action is now a completely empty threat.

Really? Depends on what kind of threat you are referring to. I seem to think that the North Korean leadership as well as that in Iran have squealed a number of times when presented with various policy options. There is a lot that we can do to make life very difficult for both regimes short of an invasion. And just to make a case in point… Why not rock Syria’s world just a bit? I would find that an object lesson for most of the thugs in the region. Think of it… A few agents from Lebanese factions opposed to the Syrian propensity to assassinate their politicians with car bombs… Returning the favor to various persons in Damascus… and maybe in Teheran… If someone is going to send out invitations to the “party,” I really think that the person doing the inviting should be expected to show up and join in the “fun,” don’t you?
[/quote]

Credible threats are important. If you take the military option off the table, then you’re negotiating like the EU - fat lot that’s got them.

Ah… if the world were so simple…N. Korea is a showcase on why mutli-lateral solutions don’t work when all the other sides have no interest in resolving the issue. That is why neither the previous nor current admisitration has been able to deal with them effectively. N Korea would be out of business tomorrow if the Chinese wanted it.

As for Syria & Iran - Clearly we’ve cowed Syria & Iran into not supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon. Haven’t we? Or what was that ruckus in S. lebanon something other than a show of force by above? (that is is a classic case of Arab ‘winning’ by losing is irrelevant)

[quote]Quote:
If only we’d gotten them while they were lined up on Highway 1.

I know what you mean. All those naked protesters in California. One quick spray with some dangerous chemical and we could have rid the state of thousands of mindless but concerned, “informed” yet provincial, “caring” yet narcissistic 60s throwbacks. Pity we didn’t make more of that opportunity but I hear that there may be another naked bike ride to protest… um… well, they are out to protest something and maybe this time the Bush administration will finally get its shit together and do as you have suggested (something about it)![/quote]

I tell ya - we coulda, we shoulda won.

[fred_smith]

I know what you both mean because Saddam was in Iraq where he was the leader of the country and he was there because he was in power. The Iranians are in the country kind of to the East while the Syrians are sorta to the West, but the goal of Damascus has always been to dominate Lebanon which is even farther to the West but Hizbollah are in Lebanon too but they cooperate mostly with Iran so the issue is clearly that all of this is in no way really directly connected to Saddam and Iraq which is what I have been saying all along at least for this week or has it been for 10 days but clearly the Iraq thing is something that Bush should have considered more and better than he did because that is what Gates thinks and so does the Iraq Study Group. So when the al Qaeda got involved so did the UN but that was a mistake because of the Oil for Food program, but if Kofi had not told Rumsfeld about the issue then perhaps Bolton might never have brought it up because of that I think Bush is to blame regarding the Saudi position on rising oil prices and nothing is going to get resolved on these issues until someone does something about the Palestinian plight because they are people who have issues with Israel. Know what I mean? I have been saying this all along…

[Elegua]

Is that really what I’ve been saying?

[fred_smith]

Is that really what I’ve been saying?

Absolutely… not. I am just being flippant.

Fred

[cfimages]

@fred smith

The Iranians are in the country kind of to the East while the Syrians are sorta to the West, but the goal of Damascus has always been to dominate Lebanon which is even farther to the West but Hizbollah are in Lebanon too but they cooperate mostly with Iran so the issue is clearly that all of this is in no way really directly connected to Saddam and Iraq which is what I have been saying all along at least for this week or has it been for 10 days but clearly the Iraq thing is something that Bush should have considered more and better than he did because that is what Gates thinks and so does the Iraq Study Group.

Now that is one hell of a sentence.

@fred smith

So when the al Qaeda got involved so did the UN but that was a mistake because of the Oil for Food program, but if Kofi had not told Rumsfeld about the issue then perhaps Bolton might never have brought it up because of that I think Bush is to blame regarding the Saudi position on rising oil prices and nothing is going to get resolved on these issues until someone does something about the Palestinian plight because they are people who have issues with Israel.

That one’s not too shabby either.

Know what I mean? I have been saying this all along…

No, I haven’t got a clue what you mean. With sentences like those, you should have become a politician.

[fred_smith]

No, I haven’t got a clue what you mean.

Actually, I think you do. haha

[Elegua]

@fred smith

[quote]Is that really what I’ve been saying?

Absolutely… not. I am just being flippant.

Fred[/quote]

I see…practicing your Rumsfeldian listening skills? Or White House Speakerategery? Well. I must give you credit…it sounds consistant to the obfuscation used this administration to answer hard questions.

Just kidding.

[politbureau]

Just six more steps to the edge of the cliff where nirvana awaits:

1. Stay the course: deny, deny, deny
2. Attempt to permanently occupy Iraq “for its own good” and hope no one will notice
3. Ignore what Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt say is the core problem in the Middle East
4. Bomb Iran
5. Bomb Syria
6. Borrow like an out-of-control bimbo to pay for 1 through 5 and stick someone else with the bill

[TainanCowboy]

[url=http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7820&Itemid=18]Iraqi Forces on track to take the lead
Wednesday, 06 December 2006

Iraqi and American Soldiers wait in a field for a Blackhawk helicopter to pick them up after they conducted an air assault operation into a village in eastern Yusufiyah, Iraq to search for a suspected terrorist mortar team and for weapons caches. Official U.S. Army photo.

BAGHDAD — Iraqi Security Forces are on track to take care of their own security and combat operations virtually free of Coalition support within the next year, Multi-National Force – Iraq’s spokesman told reporters Tuesday.

“The Iraqi Security Force is making progress toward ensuring that Iraq’s future will be determined by Iraqis who want unity and prosperity, and not by outside forces who seek to sow chaos and discord,” Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV said during an operational update briefing at the Combined Press Information Center here.

The transition process is already well under way.

Caldwell told reporters Coalition Forces this week handed the 3rd Iraqi Army Division command and control responsibility over its section of Ninewa province, which includes such major Iraqi cities as Tal Afar and Mosul.

“The ability of the 3rd Iraqi Army Division to control its own maneuver space and maintain stability and security in the area will determine the level of assistance they receive from Coalition Forces,” Caldwell said. “Thus far, the 3rd Iraqi Army Division headquarters has demonstrated that it is fully capable of taking over security operations in their area.”

The most recent transfer of responsibility, Caldwell explained, means that Iraqis have taken the lead in seven of the 10 Iraqi Army divisions.

“The Iraqi Security Force is increasingly taking the lead every day,” Caldwell said. “They are battling the insurgency in order to establish a safe and secure nation.”

In keeping with an accelerated transition timetable, as agreed upon by President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki at their meeting last week in Amman, Jordan, Caldwell said Iraqi commanders will be in control of all Iraqi divisions by spring 2007.[/url]

Good thing. Then they can concentrate their efforts to establish the new Caliphate in Britain & the USA.

[fred_smith]

Just six more steps to the edge of the cliff where nirvana awaits:

Gosh what are they spookster?

1. Stay the course:

Exactly!

deny, deny, deny

I don’t know what you mean. I never said that we should leave or that we should stay and I didn’t say that either so please do not think that I actually thought that you said that I should think that you said that you were thinking that I was saying…

2. Attempt to permanently occupy Iraq “for its own good” and hope no one will notice

Yeah. The masses in Germany, Korea and Japan clearly have never noticed that they were “permanently occupied” otherwise they would have resented us very much. Anyway, you KNOW that we are not leaving and in 60 years we will have this same debate hopefully over vastly improved circumstances. Or am I getting my East Prussian tendencies back because of the hunting feast. Can’t you just picture me saying that the Reich will last for 1,000 years! I shall give you a special rendition of said speech on Saturday. How sad to be degraded to such a level where I can only bloviate about 60 years. Look what the years have wrought on our proud messianic tradition.

3. Ignore what Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt say is the core problem in the Middle East

Shouldn’t you rephrase this as ignore what the unelected dictators of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt are telling us are the “core problems” in the Middle East? haha

4. Bomb Iran

Don’t want to but don’t want to let them off the hook with no action taken either. We didn’t bomb Eastern Europe to free it. Perhaps, there are other alternatives?

5. Bomb Syria

What about just a few stray bombs near the border with a hint that others might be falling at a neighborhood near you?

6. Borrow like an out-of-control bimbo to pay for 1 through 5 and stick someone else with the bill

I completely agree and that is why I am so pleased that you are calling for cuts or massive reform of the biggest money suckers in the budget: medicare, medicaid, prescription drug coverage, social security, education, welfare and public housing. I suppose a reformed tax code and and end to subsidies of all manner and nature are being called for as well. Sign me up. When we are finished with these priorities we can go back to the 1.5 percent of the budget that makes up spending on Iraq and Afghanistan. Thanks for pointing so clearly to where our priorities should be! I agree with all of them!

[politbureau]

[quote=“fred smith”]

@spook

3. Ignore what Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt say is the core problem in the Middle East

Shouldn’t you rephrase this as ignore what the unelected dictators of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt are telling us are the “core problems” in the Middle East? haha[/quote]

It also means ignoring what our closest ally is saying:

"British Prime Minister Tony Blair says resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the core of bringing peace to the Middle East and he is urging Iran to join in the effort to bring peace to the region. . .

Part of the effort, he said, must be what he called a “whole Middle East” strategy, which focuses on relieving “pressure points” throughout the region. First and foremost, the prime minister said, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. . . ."
– Voice of America