Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Why US Had to Kill the Syrian Ceasefire FINIAN CUNNINGHAM |

Why US Had to Kill the Syrian Ceasefire

There are several sound reasons for concluding that the US-led air strike on the Syrian army base near Deir Ezzor last weekend was a deliberate act of murderous sabotage. One compelling reason is that the Pentagon and CIA knew they had to act in order to kill the ceasefire plan worked out by US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
The compulsion to wreck the already shaky truce was due to the unbearable exposure that the ceasefire plan was shedding on American systematic involvement in the terrorist proxy war on Syria.
Not only that, but the tentative ceasefire was also exposing the elements within the US government responsible for driving the war effort. US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter – the head of the Pentagon – reportedly fought tooth and nail with Obama’s top diplomat John Kerry while the latter was trying to finalize the ceasefire plan with Russia’s Lavrov on the previous weekend of September 9 in Geneva.
While Sergey Lavrov and media reporters were reportedly kept waiting several hours for Kerry to finally emerge to sign off on the deal, the American foreign secretary was delayed by intense haggling in conference calls with Carter and other military chiefs back in Washington. Even days before Kerry’s diplomatic shuttle to Geneva, Carter was disparaging any prospective deal with Russia on a Syrian ceasefire.
It is well documented that both the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have been running clandestine programs for arming and training anti-government militants in Syria since the outset of the war in March 2011. Officially, Washington claims to be only supporting «moderate, vetted opposition». However, on occasion, Western media reports allude to the deeper sinister connections between the US military and terrorist groups when it has been reported that American weaponry «accidentally» finds its way into the hands of extremist jihadist networks.
This pretense by the US – and its other NATO and Arab allies – of supporting «moderate rebels» and of having no involvement with recognized terror groups like Al Nusra and Daesh (ISIS) was being exposed by the latest ceasefire.
It is conceivable that the diplomatic corps of the Obama administration, including President Barack Obama and his foreign emissary John Kerry, may be benighted about the full extent of America’s dirty war in Syria and its systematic connections to the terrorist brigades. Perhaps, this Obama flank is gullible and venal enough to believe in Washington’s propaganda of a dichotomy between «moderate rebels» and «terrorists».
Thus, when Kerry announced the ceasefire plan with Lavrov in Geneva on September 9, the American diplomat’s calls for the US-backed «moderate rebels» to separate themselves from the terror groups may have been made out a naive notion that such a distinction might exist. How else could we explain such a futile public appeal?
Not so, though, the Pentagon and CIA. The covert warmongers in the Pentagon and at Langley know the vile truth all along. That is, that all the militant groups in Syria are integrated into a terrorist front, albeit with a plethora of different names and seeming differences in commitment to al Qaeda Wahhabi ideology. The masters of war know that Washington is a sponsor of this terrorist front, along with its NATO and Arab allies.
Anyone with an informed knowledge about the origins of Al Qaeda from CIA authorship in Afghanistan during the 1980s would not be surprised in the slightest by such a systematic American role in the Syrian conflict.
This perspective reasonably explains why Carter. and the US military generally, were making conspicuous objections to Kerry’s ceasefire plan with Russia. They knew the ceasefire was not only infeasible because of the systematic links between the US and the terror groups, but also that a failing ceasefire would furthermore expose these systematic connections, and create wider public awareness about American complicity in the Syrian war.
And, as it transpired, the apprehensions of the Pentagon and the CIA terrorist handlers were indeed founded. Within days of the Kerry-Lavrov ceasefire being implemented on September 12, the following was undeniable: there was no separation of «moderates» and «terrorists». All militant groups were continuing to violate the nominal truce in the northern battleground city of Aleppo and in other locations across Syria.
The US and Western media then began venting about the Syrian «regime» and its Russian ally not delivering on giving humanitarian aid access to insurgent-held areas of eastern Aleppo. But that rhetorical gaming could not disguise the fact that the ceasefire was being breached by all the militant groups, which made it impossible for humanitarian aid convoys to enter Aleppo. Another factor played down by the Western media was that the Turkish government refused to coordinate with the Syrian authorities in the routing of UN truck convoys from the Turkish border into Aleppo. Given Turkey’s past documented involvement in using «humanitarian aid» as a cover for supplying weapons to insurgents, the vigilance demanded by Damascus is understandable.
The floundering ceasefire was thereby providing a withering world exposure of American terrorist complicity in Syria. The US lie about backing «moderates» as opposed to «terrorists» was being shown once and for all to be a cynical delusion. Evidently, US claims of supporting a «legitimate» opposition were seen for what they are – an utter sham. That leads to an even more damning conclusion that the US government is a sponsor of a terrorist proxy army in Syria for its criminal objective of regime change in that country. In theory at least, this disclosure warrants legal prosecution of Washington and its allies for the commission of war crimes against the state of Syria.
Given the grave stakes for American international standing that the ceasefire was endangering, it is reasonable to posit that a decision was taken by the Pentagon to sabotage. Hence, on September 17, American, British and Australian warplanes struck the Syrian Arab Army elite forces’ base near Deir Ezzor,  in eastern Syria, killing over 60 personnel and wounding nearly 100 more.
The US, Britain and Australia have since claimed that it was an accident, and that their aircraft were intending to attack Daesh militants in the area. The US-led coalition claims it will carry out an investigation into the air strike. As with many times before, such as when the US devastated a hospital in Afghanistan’s Kunduz killing more than 30 people last year, we can expect a cover-up.
Briefly, a few factors for doubting the US coalition’s claim of an accident are: why did the Daesh militants reportedly launch an offensive operation on the Syrian army base less than 10 minutes after it was struck by F-16s and A-10s? That suggests coordination between the coalition air forces and the terrorists on the ground.
Secondly, it defies credibility that sophisticated air power and surveillance could mistake an army base and adjacent air field containing hundreds of troops for ragtag guerrilla units.
Thirdly, as Russian military sources point out, the US coalition had previously not been active in that area over the past two years of flying operations. The Syrian army was known to be recently waging an effective campaign against Daesh around Deir Ezzor. That suggests that the US air power was being deployed to defend the terrorist units, as the Syrian and Russian governments were quick to claim after the US-led air strike on Deir Ezzor. That is consistent with the broader analysis of why and how the entire Syrian war has been fomented by Washington for regime change.
But perhaps the most telling factor in concluding that the US and its allies carried out the massacre at Deir Ezzor deliberately is the foregoing argument that the Pentagon and CIA war planners knew that the flawed ceasefire was exposing their terror tentacles in Syria. And certainly, if any US-Russian joint anti-Daesh operations were to take place as envisaged by the Kerry-Lavrov plan, then the charade would definitely be blown apart.
In that case, only one thing had to be done as a matter of necessity. The unwieldy, discomfiting ceasefire had to be killed off. And so the Pentagon decided to make a «mistake» at Deir Ezzor – a «mistake» that has gutted any minimal trust between the US and Russia, unleashing recriminations and a surge in ceasefire violations.
The American and Western media respond in the usual servile way to aid the cover-up. The massacre at Deir Ezzor is being largely ignored as a news story, with much more prominence given to a relatively minor bombing incident in New York City on the same weekend in which no-one was killed. Or, when reported on, the US media in particular have automatically accepted without question that the air strike was an accident. CNN also dismissed out of hand Syrian government claims of it being proof of American collusion with terrorists as «absurd». A claim that would otherwise seem fairly logical.
The New York Times had this gloss to paint over the air strike:
«The United States’ accidental bombing of Syrian troops over the weekend has put it on the defensive, undercutting American efforts to reduce violence in the civil war and open paths for humanitarian relief».
The American so-called newspaper-of-record then adds:
«The United States had thought that if a deal to ease hostilities in Syria, struck by Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart in Geneva nine days ago, fell apart, it would reveal Russia’s duplicity in the war, in which Moscow has supported the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad».
How ironic. According to The New York Times, the Americans anticipated that the ceasefire deal would reveal «Russia’s duplicity in the war». Maybe, they calculated that Russia and Syria would not abide by the cessation, which they very much did during the first week, showing discipline and commitment to finding a peaceful settlement.
Far from revealing Russia’s «duplicity», it is Washington that emerged as the culprit, as the Pentagon and CIA had feared all along because of their deep complicity with the terrorist proxies.
Killing the Syrian ceasefire was like the necessity to extinguish a spotlight that had suddenly come on and begun exposing the putrefaction and bloodied hands in America’s dirty war. 
Tags: Al Qaeda  Pentagon  ISIS   Syria http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/09/20/why-us-had-kill-syrian-ceasefire.html

Erstes Ergebnis des "Wahlerfolgs" in Berlin? SPD: Ja zu CETA!

 SPD kungelt übers Wochenende  Ja zu CETA aus!!!!!!

CETA schränkt Handlungsspielraum der Parlamente ein 

In dem Leitantrag der SPD-Spitze heißt es zudem, dass „der politische Gestaltungsspielraum von Parlamenten und Regierungen nicht eingeschränkt werden darf“. Dies kann CETA jedoch gar nicht gewährleisten, wie der Völkerrechtler Prof. Dr. Markus Krajewski von der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg in einem weiteren, heute veröffentlichten Gutachten belegt. Darin heißt es: „Alle Freihandelsabkommen, die sich mit nicht-tarifären Handelshemmnissen befassen, enthalten Vorgaben darüber, wie staatliche Regulierungen auszugestalten sind. Hieraus folgt, dass Regulierungen, die diesen Vorgaben nicht entsprechen, rechtswidrig sind (...)." Insofern würde das Recht eines Staates, Gesetze zu erlassen, durch CETA durchaus eingeschränkt. Den Wortlaut des SPD-Leitantrags hat foodwatch ausführlich analysiert, falschen Versprechungen markiert und richtiggestellt. (siehe unten food watch)

DIe Junge Welt Ausgabe vom 20.09.2016, Seite 2 / Inland berichtet 

CETA: Grünes Licht für Gabriel 

Parteikonvent**** unterstützt Abkommen mit Kanada. Proteste am Tagungsort

Protest gegen CETA vor dem Tagungsort des SPD-Konvents am Montag in Wolfsburg
SPD-Chef Sigmar Gabriel hat auf einem Parteikonvent grünes Licht für das europäisch-kanadische Handelsabkommen CETA bekommen. Der Kleine Parteitag habe »mit einer Mehrheit von mindestens zwei Dritteln den Weg freigemacht zur Zustimmung« im Handelsministerrat der Europäischen Union (EU), sagte Gabriel am Montag nach dem Delegiertentreffen in Wolfsburg. Bis Ende Oktober werde noch eine rechtsverbindliche Erklärung der EU-Kommission und Kanadas mit Klarstellungen erwartet. »Das heißt, wir haben noch ein Stück des Weges vor uns.« Bevor das EU-Parlament im kommenden Jahr die vorläufige Anwendung von Teilen des Abkommens beschließe, solle das Parlament noch einen umfassenden Anhörungsprozess starten. Das sei »ein richtig guter Tag innerhalb der SPD« und für Regeln zur Globalisierung. Während der Parteikonvent sich auf ein Ja zu dem Vertrag festgelegt hat, gibt es vor allem an der Basis erheblichen Widerstand.
Am Montag vormittag war zunächst der Parteivorstand zusammengekommen. Nach Angaben von Teilnehmern der Beratung billigte das Gremium eine neue »Kompromisslinie«, auf die sich zuvor Gabriel mit dem Sprecher der Parlamentarischen Linken in der SPD-Bundestagsfraktion, Matthias Miersch, und dem SPD-Europaabgeordneten Bernd Lange verständigt habe. Demnach soll das Europaparlament einen Konsultationsprozess starten, bevor entschieden wird, welche Teile des Abkommens vorläufig anwendbar sind. Mit Miersch hat Gabriel damit einen Mann auf seiner Seite, der bisher als prominenter parteiinterner CETA-Kritiker galt. Der 47jährige sagte unmittelbar vor Beginn des Konvents im Südwestrundfunk, alle in der Partei hätten den Willen, »dass wir gemeinsam einen Weg beschreiten«. Die SPD habe Änderungen im Vertragstext »angemahnt«, die »teilweise berücksichtigt« worden seien. Weitere Modifizierungen durch Zusatzprotokolle zum bereits fertig verhandelten Vertragstext wurden im Leitantrag des Vorstands an den Konvent gefordert.
An der Tagung nahmen rund 200 Delegierte teil. Die SPD-Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Arbeitnehmerfragen (AfA) und die Jungsozialisten (Jusos) hatten es bislang abgelehnt, Gabriel grünes Licht für eine Zustimmung zu CETA im EU-Handelsministerrat zu geben. Vertreter der Parteiführung wiesen darauf hin, dass in den Verhandlungen über das Abkommen bereits viele Verbesserungen erreicht worden seien. So seien Positionen der SPD zum Investorenschutz und zur Sicherung von Arbeitsbedingungen durchgesetzt worden, sagte Parteivize Thorsten Schäfer-Gümbel der Rheinischen Post (Montagausgabe). Der Wohlstand Deutschlands als Exportnation hänge von internationalen Freihandelsabkommen ab, erklärte er.
Vor dem Tagungsort hatten sich einige hundert Demonstranten versammelt. Sie forderten die Delegierten auf, Parteichef Gabriel kein Mandat für eine Zustimmung zu CETA zu geben. (AFP/dpa/Reuters/jW)

****Der Parteikonvent ist das höchste Beschlussgremium der SPD zwischen Bundesparteitagen. Er wurde im Zuge einer Reform 2011 eingeführt und ersetzte den bisherigen Parteirat.
Der Konvent soll mindestens einmal im Jahr als "kleiner Parteitag" tagen. 200 Delegierte des Konvents werden von den Bezirken gewählt, dazu kommen die 35 Vorstandsmitglieder, so dass 235 SPD-Politiker stimmberechtigt sind. Jeder der 20 Bezirke erhält ein Grundmandat, die weiteren 180 Mandate werden laut SPD nach dem Delegiertenschlüssel für die Bundesparteitage auf die Bezirke verteilt. Der Konvent befasst sich mit inhaltlichen und organisatorischen Fragen.
Er wird mit zwei Monaten Vorlauf einberufen. Der Konvent, der am Sonntag über die Aufnahme von Koalitionsverhandlungen entscheidet, hatte nach der Bundestagswahl Sondierungsgesprächen mit der Union zugestimmt - er war danach formal unterbrochen worden. Auf Wunsch kann der Konvent nichtöffentlich tagen, so wird es am Sonntag sein. Er kann jedoch keine Personalentscheidungen treffen, das ist dem alle zwei Jahre stattfindenden Bundesparteitag vorbehalten. http://www.pnp.de/nachrichten/tagesthemen/freitag/1080895_Hintergrund-Der-Parteikonvent-der-SPD.html?&em_redirect_url=%2Fnachrichten%2Ftagesthema%2Ffreitag%2F

Parteikonvent zu CETA: So trickst die SPD-Spitze

In ihrem Leitantrag zu CETA, dem Freihandels­­­abkommen zwischen der EU und Kanada, verspricht die SPD-Spitze Nachbesserungen. Damit sollen die Teilnehmer des Parteikonvents am kommenden Montag überzeugt werden, CETA zuzustimmen. Zwei aktuelle Gutachten von Rechtsexperten zeigen jedoch, dass diese Versprechen nicht haltbar sind:  Ist CETA einmal unterzeichnet und wird vorläufig angewendet, sind Korrekturen nur schwer möglich – und liegen schon gar nicht in den Händen der SPD.
Die SPD-Spitze verspricht Nachverhandlungen zu CETA und will so erreichen, dass die Delegierten auf dem Parteikonvent am Montag in Wolfsburg der Unterzeichnung von CETA zustimmen. Doch ist CETA einmal unterzeichnet, könnte es über Jahre „vorläufig angewendet“ werden – ohne die in Aussicht gestellten Verbesserungen. Kurzfristig Korrekturen durchzusetzen, ist unmöglich. Denn die Bundesrepublik kann nicht einseitig den Inhalt eines völkerrechtlichen Vertrages zwischen der Europäischen Union und Kanada ändern. Das belegt ein heute veröffentlichtes Gutachten des Völkerrechtlers Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Weiß von der Deutschen Universität für Verwaltungswissenschaften Speyer. Damit Korrekturen „rechtsverbindlich“ sind, müssten alle Beteiligten zustimmen: der Ministerrat (also die Regierungen aller EU-Staaten), das EU-Parlament sowie Kanada. 

CETA schränkt Handlungsspielraum der Parlamente ein 

In dem Leitantrag der SPD-Spitze heißt es zudem, dass „der politische Gestaltungsspielraum von Parlamenten und Regierungen nicht eingeschränkt werden darf“. Dies kann CETA jedoch gar nicht gewährleisten, wie der Völkerrechtler Prof. Dr. Markus Krajewski von der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg in einem weiteren, heute veröffentlichten Gutachten belegt. Darin heißt es: „Alle Freihandelsabkommen, die sich mit nicht-tarifären Handelshemmnissen befassen, enthalten Vorgaben darüber, wie staatliche Regulierungen auszugestalten sind. Hieraus folgt, dass Regulierungen, die diesen Vorgaben nicht entsprechen, rechtswidrig sind (...)." Insofern würde das Recht eines Staates, Gesetze zu erlassen, durch CETA durchaus eingeschränkt. Den Wortlaut des SPD-Leitantrags hat foodwatch ausführlich analysiert, falschen Versprechungen markiert und richtiggestellt.

Offener Brief an SPD-Delegierte: Bündnis wirbt für „Nein“

In einem Offenen Brief hat foodwatch heute gemeinsam mit dem Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND), Campact, dem Deutschen Kulturrat, Greenpeace und Mehr Demokratie die Delegierten des SPD-Parteikonvents aufgefordert, das geplante Handelsabkommen CETA zwischen der EU und Kanada abzulehnen. „CETA öffnet die Tür zu einer neuen demokratie-, bürger- und europafeindlichen Handelspolitik. Wir bitten Sie, verhindern Sie das! Machen Sie sich nicht mitverantwortlich und stimmen Sie gegen CETA und dessen vorläufige Anwendung!“, heißt es in dem Schreiben. Die sechs Organisationen kritisieren, dass die SPD-Spitze zwar Verbesserungen in Aussicht stellt, diese jedoch erst nach der Unterzeichnung vorschlagen will. „Wer das Abkommen inhaltlich wirklich verbessern will, darf es deshalb jetzt weder unterzeichnen noch dessen vorläufiger Anwendung zustimmen“, heißt es in dem Brief an die SPD-Delegierten.

Washington Grossly Violates Russia-US Agreement on Syria Hurting Its Own Interests

Washington Grossly Violates Russia-US Agreement on Syria Hurting Its Own Interests
ALEX GORKA | 20.09.2016 | WORLD

US-led coalition delivered air strikes against a Syrian military base in Deir ez-Zor on September 17. As a result, it killed dozens of Syrian soldiers enabling Islamic State fighters to advance. The attack marked the first known direct American strike on President Bashar Assad's forces to endanger the US-Russian brokered cessation of hostilities which came into force on September 12. The agreement is widely believed to be the last chance for peace in Syria.

A senior Obama administration official, who requested anonymity, told Fox News the United States has «relayed regret» for the unintentional loss of life of Syrian forces fighting the Islamic State group.
According to him, the notification was sent through Russia.
The US military said it was targeting Islamic State (IS) militants and if it hit Syrian troops, it was an accident. The Central Command halted its air raid against the Islamic State terror group in eastern Syria after learning it struck the Syrian military.
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) immediately held an emergency meeting at Russia's request to discuss the strike. Samantha Power, US ambassador to the United Nations, lashed out at Russia for requesting an emergency UNSC, calling the request a «stunt». Washington has refused to make public the text of the agreement reached with Russia on Syria, including the members of the Security Council. Moscow will not release it unilaterally. It creates hurdles on the way of adopting a UN resolution as the UNSC cannot vote for something it has not studied in detail.
Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said if the coalition (Australia also participated in the strikes) attack was launched by mistake; the reason for it was a «stubborn reluctance by the American side to coordinate its action against terrorist groups in Syria with Russia».
The agreement has been violated many times by the forces the US is responsible for. The Syria’s ceasefire «will not hold out», a senior rebel official in Aleppo warned on September 17, as air strikes and shelling continued.
Russia’s defence ministry said conditions in Syria were worsening, adding that rebels had breached the ceasefire 199 times as of September 17.
According to it, the United States would be responsible if the deal failed.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said he remained positive over the ceasefire, but claimed that it was being used by rebels to regroup.
According to him, Washington’s refusal to make public the agreement on Syria could be motivated by the desire to preserve the combat potential of the US-supported forces of the Syrian opposition in the fight against the legitimate authorities of the country.
US airstrikes at the Syrian army lead to the conclusion that Washington defends the Islamic State group, Russian Foreign Ministry’s official spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told Rossiya 24 TV channel on September 18.
Perhaps, the strike was a failure of US military intelligence. In theory, it would be logical to surmise that it could also be an attempt by military brass hats to frustrate the Russia-US deal they don’t approve.
After all, the proposed level of US-Russian interaction has upset several leading national security officials in Washington, including Defense Secretary Ash Carter and National Intelligence Director James Clapper.
As one can see, the implementation of the Russia-US agreement won’t be a bed of roses. It will face many tests before coming close to reality. But the unique opportunity should not be missed as it is the only chance to stop the bloodshed. Everyone, but jihadis, will win.
The agreement provides a basis for preventing incidents and coordinating activities with Russia. It certainly serves the interests of the US incumbent administration paving the way for an offensive to capture Raqqa, the informal Islamic State (IS) capital, without being opposed by Russia-supported Syrian forces and their allies.
After all, IS holds territory and is a relatively easy target. But fighting the Islamic State group is senseless without striking Jabhat al Nusra, the former Al Qaeda branch recently renamed into Jabhat Fatah al-Sham. The group is the Salafi-jihadi movement which is the main fighting arm of the non-IS rebel movement. It has been in the forefront of all major rebel offensives.
No peace has a chance while al Nusra is not routed. The fight against it, however, is far more complex, as it is embedded in rebel-held areas and has fought with a range of other rebel organizations on several fronts. The most difficult part of the Russia-US deal is to define the zones controlled by the extremist group and overcome disagreements on who is and who isn't an ally or member of al Nusra - the group not included into the cessation of hostilities agreement.
Many opposition figures see the Russia-US deal and whatever comes from it as a conspiracy against them. It’s hard to change this mindset. Besides, they may not be able to kick out al Nusra forces even if they wanted to. The group is too strong in military terms to be forced to pull out. The US is to exert enough pressure to make the rebels sever the ties with the extremist group, according to the agreement.
«Going after Nusra is not a concession to anybody», US State Secretary John Kerry said. According to him, «It is profoundly in the interests of the United States».
Indeed, the deal is achieved at the time President Obama badly needs a success in Syria before he leaves office.
There are lots of different ways this agreement could fail on the ground due to its complexity. With so many different parties, there is no simple way to create the conditions for a durable truce. But that is the best plan the two powers have formulated yet. So long as the opposition and Assad continue to fight over the future of Syria, it will be nearly impossible to marshal a ground force that could stamp out al Nusra and IS groups.
With the fighting stopped and extremist groups sidelined, the government and the main rebel factions might be able to come to terms and make it a major foreign policy achievement by the Obama administration. By holding up its end of the bargain, the US does no favors to Russia or anybody else. President Obama cannot afford to disrupt the media’s perception and the electorate’s belief that the United States has made significant progress in resolving the Syrian conflict. The foreign policy is not a feather in the hat of Hillary Clinton - the Democrats’ presidential candidate.
The Democrats badly need a foreign policy success before the voting in November. The news about progress in Syria hitting headlines would be a boon for Clinton and an important legacy left by President Obama. The next administration may prolong his party’s reign in the White House, but it will not vindicate him if the region continues to crumble and suffer at the hands of Islamic State.
The GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for cooperation between Russia and the US in Syria. If the deal is scuttled, he will use it to his advantage in the election campaign. The best thing for the US administration is to comply with the agreement and make it work against all the odds, even if the military and intelligence top officials oppose it.
Peace in Syria is the way to boost the chances of the Democratic Party at the elections and help the world to settle the crisis that negatively affects so many countries. This is a wrong moment for the US to stymie the hard-won deal and let all the efforts go down the drain dashing all the hopes. Be it a mistake or an intended action committed by the military, the gross violation of the agreement hurts the US more than anybody else.