Germany's Migrant Crisis: January 2016 "Migrants Have No Respect for our Constitutional Order" by Soeren Kern • February 12, 2016 at 5:00 am ...

Germany's Migrant Crisis: January 2016 "Migrants Have No Respect for our Constitutional Order" by Soeren Kern  •  February 12, 2016 at 5:00 am Despite snow, ice and freezing temperatures across much of Europe, a total of 91,671 migrants entered Germany during January 2016. German taxpayers could end up paying 450 billion euros ($500 billion) for the upkeep of the million migrants who arrived in Germany in 2015. This would presumably double to nearly one trillion euros if another million migrants arrive in 2016. A 19-year-old migrant from Afghanistan sexually assaulted four girls between the ages of 11 and 13 at a swimming pool in Dresden. The migrant was arrested but then set free. Three teenage migrants from North Africa tried to stone to death two transsexuals in Dortmund after they were seen walking around in women's clothing. The victims were saved by police. Bild reported that politicians in Kiel had ordered the police to overlook crimes perpetrated by migrants. "The topics we cover are determined by the government. ... We must report in such a way that serves Europe and the common good, as it pleases Mrs. Merkel. ... today we are not allowed to say anything negative about the refugees. This is government journalism." – Wolfgang Herles, retired public media personality. The European Commission called for the "rejection of false associations between certain criminal acts, such as the attacks on women in Cologne on New Year's Eve, and the mass influx of refugees." In January, there were thousands of cases of migrants sexually assaulting women in Germany, including many that took place in public pools. The government began to face a rising voter backlash to the open-door migration policy, including public protests (left). In some areas, authorities have distributed cartoon guides, to "educate" migrants that sexual assault is not acceptable (right). In January 2016, the German public appeared finally to wake up to the implications of their government's decision to allow 1.1 million — mostly male — migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East to enter the country during 2015. After more than a thousand Muslim migrants sexually assaulted hundreds of women in cities across Germany on New Year's Eve, Chancellor Angela Merkel began to face a rising voter backlash to her open-door migration policy. Merkel's government has responded to the criticism by: 1) attempting to silence critics of the open-door migration policy; 2) trying to "export" the migrant problem to other countries in the European Union; and 3) announcing a series of measures — branded as unrealistic by critics — to deport migrants accused of committing crimes in Germany. Continue Reading Article

The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency Chief, Vincent Stewart, noted that a Mosul operation was unlikely to occur in 2016, underscoring that the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have far to go before being ready to recapture the city...

Iraq Situation Report:  February 2 - 11, 2016

By Patrick Martin and ISW Iraq Team Key Take-Away: The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency Chief, Vincent Stewart, noted that a Mosul operation was unlikely to occur in 2016, underscoring that the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have far to go before being ready to recapture the city. Coalition airstrikes have been successful in assisting the ISF recapture territory from ISIS, who were largely pushed out of Ramadi's eastern suburbs on February 9. Coalition-trained forces also opened a new front against ISIS south of Mosul. Members of the Coalition-trained 91st Iraqi Army (IA) Brigade, along with tribal fighters from Ninewa and Peshmerga forces, conducted operations southwest of Makhmur district towards Qayarrah to recapture villages from ISIS. The limited operation marks the first real operation under Ninewa Operations Command, the branch of the Defense Ministry responsible for recapturing Ninewa from ISIS. Additional Coalition-trained forces from the 15th and 16th IA Divisions are also being deployed to the area and away from other operations, indicating that the ISF has begun shifting a significant number of forces to the southern Mosul axis. However, any operation to recapture Mosul remains a long way off and will require intense Coalition assistance to recapture territory. Meanwhile, Iraqi Kurdistan is witnessing a large number of protests against reduced or undelivered salaries and the weak state of the economy, a situation that is exacerbating political differences between Kurdish political parties, while weekly demonstrations against corruption and for government reform continued across southern Iraq. In addition, PM Abadi announced a cabinet reshuffle on February 9, but such an initiative will depend on the support of political blocs to have any hope of succeeding. A unilateral attempt to remove ministers without the support of political blocs could increase support for a no-confidence vote against him, as major parties will not accept PM Abadi removing their senior members from the government. Ongoing political difficulties underscore the need to strengthen Iraq's central government and financial situation as part of any campaign to recapture territory from ISIS, as the Iraqi state and the Kurdistan Regional Government require increase Coalition and U.S. support to prevent from weakening further and fracturing.          Read this update online   ISW will continue updating on the situation at www.understandingwar.org  as well as on our Twitter handle @TheStudyofWar

ANTI-SEMITIC OBAMA ADMINISTRATION UNHAPPY WITH TRADE BILL PROTECTIONS FOR ISRAEL A REMINDER FROM TEXAS FRED THAT A POLITICIAN MAY BE A POLITICIAN FIRST AND A PATRIOT SECOND IS TED CRUZ TOO NICE TO WIN?...

One Citizen Speaking...

---

• ANTI-SEMITIC OBAMA ADMINISTRATION UNHAPPY WITH TRADE BILL PROTECTIONS FOR ISRAEL 
• A REMINDER FROM TEXAS FRED THAT A POLITICIAN MAY BE A POLITICIAN FIRST AND A PATRIOT SECOND 
• IS TED CRUZ TOO NICE TO WIN?

ANTI-SEMITIC OBAMA ADMINISTRATION UNHAPPY WITH TRADE BILL PROTECTIONS FOR ISRAEL  Posted: 12 Feb 2016 01:29 AM PST The Administration has officially indicated its displeasure with the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 because it protects trade with Israel. Not surprising since the Obama Administration appears to disadvantage our staunch ally Israel while seemingly promoting causes related to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.  Statement by the Press Secretary on the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 The President has been clear that our trade agreements must allow our workers and businesses to compete fairly with the rest of the world, and where that is not happening, we have and will continue to take action.  We are pleased the Senate passed the bipartisan Customs conference report because it will provide additional tools to help crack down on unfair competition by trading partners and foreign companies that put our workers and businesses at a disadvantage.  As with any bipartisan compromise legislation, there are provisions in this bill that we do not support, including a provision that contravenes longstanding U.S. policy towards Israel and the occupied territories, including with regard to Israeli settlement activity.  However, the legislation would strengthen trade enforcement at our ports and borders and improve our ability to stop evasion of our trade laws; improve transparency, accountability, and coordination in enforcement efforts; and give us unprecedented new tools to address unfair currency practices. Its passage is an important milestone in our overall trade agenda.  The President intends to sign H.R.644 into law to help strengthen enforcement of the rules and level the playing field for American workers and businesses. Statement by the Press Secretary on the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 | whitehouse.gov The actual legislation concerning Israel … Excerpts from H.R. 644 Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (Engrossed Amendment House - EAH) TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS SEC. 908. UNITED STATES-ISRAEL TRADE AND COMMERCIAL ENHANCEMENT. (a) Findings- Congress finds the following: (1) Israel is America's dependable, democratic ally in the Middle East--an area of paramount strategic importance to the United States. (2) The United States-Israel Free Trade Agreement formed the modern foundation of the bilateral commercial relationship between the two countries and was the first such agreement signed by the United States with a foreign country. (3) The United States-Israel Free Trade Agreement has been instrumental in expanding commerce and the strategic relationship between the United States and Israel. (4) More than $45 billion in goods and services is traded annually between the two countries in addition to roughly $10 billion in United States foreign direct investment in Israel. (5) The United States continues to look for and find new opportunities to enhance cooperation with Israel, including through the enactment of the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-150) and the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-296). (6) It has been the policy of the United States Government to combat all elements of the Arab League Boycott of Israel by-- (A) public statements of Administration officials; (B) enactment of relevant sections of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (as continued in effect pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act), including sections to ensure foreign persons comply with applicable reporting requirements relating to the boycott; (C) enactment of the 1976 Tax Reform Act (Public Law 94-455) that denies certain tax benefits to entities abiding by the boycott; (D) ensuring through free trade agreements with Bahrain and Oman that such countries no longer participate in the boycott; and (E) ensuring as a condition of membership in the World Trade Organization that Saudi Arabia no longer enforces the secondary or tertiary elements of the boycott. (b) Statements of Policy- Congress-- (1) supports the strengthening of United States-Israel economic cooperation and recognizes the tremendous strategic, economic, and technological value of cooperation with Israel; (2) recognizes the benefit of cooperation with Israel to United States companies, including by improving American competitiveness in global markets; (3) recognizes the importance of trade and commercial relations to the pursuit and sustainability of peace, and supports efforts to bring together the United States, Israel, the Palestinian territories, and others in enhanced commerce; (4) opposes politically motivated actions that penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with Israel such as boycotts, divestment or sanctions; (5) notes that the boycott, divestment, and sanctioning of Israel by governments, governmental bodies, quasi-governmental bodies, international organizations, and other such entities is contrary to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) principle of non-discrimination; (6) encourages the inclusion of politically motivated actions that penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with Israel such as boycotts, divestment from, or sanctions against Israel as a topic of discussion at the U.S.-Israel Joint Economic Development Group (JEDG) and other areas to support the strengthening of the United States-Israel commercial relationship and combat any commercial discrimination against Israel; (7) supports efforts to prevent investigations or prosecutions by governments or international organizations of United States persons on the sole basis of such persons doing business with Israel, with Israeli entities, or in Israeli-controlled territories; and (8) supports American States examining a company's promotion or compliance with unsanctioned boycotts, divestment from, or sanctions against Israel as part of its consideration in awarding grants and contracts and supports the divestment of State assets from companies that support or promote actions to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel. (c) Principal Trade Negotiating Objectives of the United States- (1) COMMERCIAL PARTNERSHIPS- Among the principal trade negotiating objectives of the United States for proposed trade agreements with foreign countries regarding commercial partnerships are the following: (A) To discourage actions by potential trading partners that directly or indirectly prejudice or otherwise discourage commercial activity solely between the United States and Israel. (B) To discourage politically motivated actions to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel and to seek the elimination of politically motivated non-tariff barriers on Israeli goods, services, or other commerce imposed on the State of Israel. (C) To seek the elimination of state-sponsored unsanctioned foreign boycotts against Israel or compliance with the Arab League Boycott of Israel by prospective trading partners. (2) EFFECTIVE DATE- This subsection takes effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and applies with respect to negotiations commenced before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act. (d) Report on Politically Motivated Acts of Boycott, Divestment From, and Sanctions Against Israel-  (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a report on politically motivated acts of boycott, divestment from, and sanctions against Israel. (2) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED- The report required by paragraph (1) shall include the following: (A) A description of the establishment of barriers to trade, including non-tariff barriers, investment, or commerce by foreign countries or international organizations against United States persons operating or doing business in Israel, with Israeli entities, or in Israeli-controlled territories. (B) A description of specific steps being taken by the United States to encourage foreign countries and international organizations to cease creating such barriers and to dismantle measures already in place and an assessment of the effectiveness of such steps. (C) A description of specific steps being taken by the United States to prevent investigations or prosecutions by governments or international organizations of United States persons on the sole basis of such persons doing business with Israel, with Israeli entities, or in Israeli-controlled territories. (D) Decisions by foreign persons, including corporate entities and state-affiliated financial institutions, that limit or prohibit economic relations with Israel or persons doing business in Israel or in Israeli controlled territories. (e) Certain Foreign Judgments Against United States Persons- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no domestic court shall recognize or enforce any foreign judgment entered against a United States person that conducts business operations in Israel, or any territory controlled by Israel, if the domestic court determines that the foreign judgment is based, in whole or in part, on a determination by a foreign court that the United States person's conducting business operations therein or with Israeli entities constitutes a violation of law. (f) Definitions- In this section: (1) BOYCOTT, DIVESTMENT FROM, AND SANCTIONS AGAINST ISRAEL- The term `boycott, divestment from, and sanctions against Israel' means actions by states, non-member states of the United Nations, international organizations, or affiliated agencies of international organizations that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with Israel or persons doing business in Israel or in Israeli-controlled territories. (2) DOMESTIC COURT- The term `domestic court' means a Federal court of the United States, or a court of any State or territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia. (3) FOREIGN COURT- The term `foreign court' means a court, an administrative body, or other tribunal of a foreign country. (4) FOREIGN JUDGMENT- The term `foreign judgment' means a final civil judgment rendered by a foreign court. (5) FOREIGN PERSON- The term `foreign person' means-- (A) any natural person who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20)) or who is not a protected individual (as defined in section 274B(a)(3) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3)); or (B) any foreign corporation, business association, partnership, trust, society or any other entity or group that is not incorporated or organized to do business in the United States, as well as any international organization, foreign government and any agency or subdivision of foreign government, including a diplomatic mission. (6) PERSON- (A) IN GENERAL- The term `person' means-- (i) a natural person; (ii) a corporation, business association, partnership, society, trust, financial institution, insurer, underwriter, guarantor, and any other business organization, any other nongovernmental entity, organization, or group, and any governmental entity operating as a business enterprise; and (iii) any successor to any entity described in clause (ii). (B) APPLICATION TO GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES- The term `person' does not include a government or governmental entity that is not operating as a business enterprise. (7) UNITED STATES PERSON- The term `United States person' means-- (A) a natural person who is a national of the United States (as defined in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22))); or (B) a corporation or other legal entity which is organized under the laws of the United States, any State or territory thereof, or the District of Columbia, if natural persons described in subparagraph (A) own, directly or indirectly, more than 50 percent of the outstanding capital stock or other beneficial interest in such legal entity. Bottom line … There is little doubt n my mind that many in the Obama Administration, especially those in the State Department, are anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, and pro-Muslim and will do anything in their power to disadvantage Israel. We are so screwed. -- steve

A REMINDER FROM TEXAS FRED THAT A POLITICIAN MAY BE A POLITICIAN FIRST AND A PATRIOT SECOND  Posted: 11 Feb 2016 01:15 PM PST From what I had heard, mostly from the Cruz Campaign, Pete Sessions was a standup guy. A patriot that supported constitutional conservatism and all that it implies: limited government, fewer regulations, lower taxes, a strong military, and protection of our sovereignty. Other than that, I knew little or nothing about Pete Sessions. Now, Texas Fred comes along to remind me that: one, appearances can be deceiving in the political world, and two, human nature often trumps patriotism when it comes to protecting a politicians self-interests. From our friend in Texas … My response to Rep. Pete Sessions Posted on February 11, 2016 by TexasFred    To preface this story a bit; I got a call from Pete Sessions last Sunday evening, during the last 2 minutes of the Super Bowl, and Pete wanted to talk about a post I had up where I related all the information that one of his Congressional challengers had written up.  Pete was not at all happy with me for writing that post and even though ALL of the information was *sourced* I was very skeptical of a few of the sources, they were to sites that I personally don’t use.  As I said in that story; some information was dead on the money and some was, in my opinion, seriously suspect.  My house was utter chaos at the time Pete called. My youngest daughter was here, her 2 boys, her fiancé was here and a gigantic Great Dane was here and we were having our Super Bowl party, things were, to say the least, quite hectic.  Rep. Sessions wanted me to know that he was NOT a liar, the record spoke for itself and that I could verify his voting record at GOVTRACKS.us.  Pete, what I didn’t tell you is this; I watch every vote you make. I watch closely, I have since you became my Congressman. I would think you knew that.  Now I have to tell you; I am not happy nor unhappy with Pete’s overall voting record, some of it, hell, most of it is right on the money but in MY opinion when you miss you miss by a country mile, but Pete, your voting record on House Bills is NOT my biggest issue.  I rarely try to influence the vote of my Congressman It has been my experience that to do so is simply a waste of time and energy and since I don’t know how much TIME I have left, and since for me energy is greatly lacking, I don’t want to waste either.  I did try to influence Pete Sessions on ONE vote and that was right after the election 2 years ago when I, and MANY others living in TX-32 asked Pete to take a stand against John Boehner, then Speaker of the House, and bigtime buddies with Barack Hussein Obama.  Pete totally ignored the pleas of the people that sent him to Congress and he voted FOR Boehner to remain in the Speakers seat.  Pete Sessions and John Boehner are also great friends.  Pete told me they are friends himself a while back and I accept that, BUT, friends or not, Boehner is a waste of skin, a blubbering ass kisser and did whatever Obama told him to do.  He, Boehner, is also a vindictive SOB.   After the vote for Speaker was taken John Boehner took anyone that voted against him OFF of any committee they were seated on, he removed them from any position of power.  That got me to thinking and wondering about something.    Did Pete Sessions vote FOR Boehner because he thought Boehner was really good at what he did? Because if that is the case then I had to question what MY Congressman called a worthwhile person?  Or, as I more seriously suspect, did Pete Sessions vote for John Boehner because his own chairmanship of the House Rules Committee means more to him than the PEOPLE of TX-32 and because he knew that Boehner would yank the position away from him, friends or not?  In order to avoid a conflict in front of my family I took down the post that Pete Sessions was so offended by, something I have NEVER done before and will not do again.  I present News, Opinion and Commentary on this blog and if I want to call you out on something I am damned sure going to do it, that’s the way the 1st Amendment says it’s going to happen.  Pete, there is nothing that Russ Ramsland or Michael Quinn Sullivan have said or done that influenced me nor turned me against you; it was you, all by yourself, and your way of talking *down* to people and the vote you cast for Boehner that did it for me.  When Katrina Pierson ran against you I fought tooth and nail in YOUR support, to the point of being threatened with legal action by an ignorant slug of humanity for stating an opinion backed by irrefutable facts.  I supported you then, and if you win the primary I will vote for you in the general election if you have a Democratic challenger, but I won’t be endorsing you, I won’t be blogging for you and I damned sure won’t be sticking my neck out for you.  It was YOUR actions that brought this on. I am old fashioned, and as YOU said to me the 1st time we met, at Hubbard’s when you wanted to meet with the movers and shakers of Rowlett, “You sure do expect a lot.”  Yes I do, I expect that YOU are to follow the WILL of the PEOPLE and vote that will, that desire, and if you can’t vote the will of the people make damned sure you explain WHY, don’t just vote for some POS like Boehner and expect people to be happy.  And don’t expect that everyone is going to forgive and forget. Source: My response to Rep. Pete Sessions | The TexasFred Blog Bottom line … It should come as no surprise that Donald Trump is not the only one making deals – only he appears to be more honest about buying politicians for perks, privileges, and political favors. He is, as most politicians, a weathervane that points with the prevailing winds to provide the path of least resistence, and a chameleon who can change his color to suit his background.  We should be very, very careful who we elect to the Presidency, but more importantly to the Congress. A Congress where we provided a majority for the House and they did little or nothing to put the progressive socialist democrats and their leader, Barack Obama, on the spot. A Congress where we provided a majority for the Senate, and they did little or nothing to deal with the unconstitutionality and lawlessness of the Obama Administration. So consider Texas Fred’s post a warning: not everything is as it appears and perception almost always trumps reality. We are so screwed. -- steve

IS TED CRUZ TOO NICE TO WIN? Posted: 10 Feb 2016 06:43 PM PST Today  received this rather crude e-mail from the Ted Cruz campaign … Perhaps it is me, but the idea that I am one of Ted Cruz’s friends, let alone “one of my closest and most loyal supporters,” is off-putting since I have never met the man and have never contributed to his campaign. This is little more than one of those faux-friendly messaging attempts to raise money. But it did get me to thinking. Is Ted Cruz such a nice guy that we will lose another election? Mitt Romney was a nice guy who failed to engage – even when he had the facts on his side. Would a Ted Cruz who tells us that he “will not respond” to Trump’s personal attacks be jeopardizing his chances in the primaries? According to Cruz, Trump could win the primary and then be defeated by Hillary Clinton if not for your donation. But is money alone enough if the message is meek and mild and there is no knockout delivered to The Donald? Is it like winking at a girl in the dark, you know you did it, but she remains oblivious and uninterested? Here is the e-mail … Ted Cruz Personal Email – May Include Privileged Communication Friend, Do you have a few minutes to read my email?  I hope you will stop what you are doing for just a moment and let me explain...  The results of the first two states are in, and it's clear that we are down to a two person race -- me vs. Donald Trump!  You also know -- the winner will take on Hillary Clinton.  Friend, let me be blunt. I can beat Hillary Clinton. Donald can't. That is why I am asking you -- one of my closest and most loyal supporters -- will you redouble your support for me today?  I need you now more than ever, and let me tell you why.  When I first announced my campaign, Heidi and I committed that we would run an issues oriented, positive campaign. Unfortunately, my friend, Donald Trump, didn't make that same commitment.  While Donald continues with personal attacks -- and vulgar profanities -- I do not intend to respond, but that won't stop Donald. He is so rattled by my surge in the polls, our victory in Iowa, and our strong finish in New Hampshire that he has decided to continue his scorched earth campaign in an attempt to burn down everyone and everything in his path. I can't fault Donald for this...it's the only way he can distract voters from his record:  Support for Hillary-style healthcare;  Support for partial birth abortion;  Support for bank bailouts;  Support for Obama stimulus; and  Enthusiastic embrace of eminent domain. Friend, will you help me set the record straight? Without your help, he might get away with it...and if he does, say hello to President Hillary Clinton. That's why I need your immediate help.  As I write this email to you, I'm being briefed that our Iowa and New Hampshire campaigns have taken a significant toll on my campaign budget. As of today, I'm still $490,700 short of my mid-month budget for February. With South Carolina voting next in just days -- I can't afford to come up short. That's why I'm turning to you again. Will you help me make up the difference by using one of the secure links below?  MAKE THE DIFFERENCE: I will help with $5 >> MAKE THE DIFFERENCE: I will help with $35 >> MAKE THE DIFFERENCE: I will help with $50 >> MAKE THE DIFFERENCE: I will help with $250 >> MAKE THE DIFFERENCE: I will help with $500 >> MAKE THE DIFFERENCE: I will help with $2700 >> You can make a HUGE impact on this campaign and help me win this nomination with an IMMEDIATE contribution -- no matter how small.  There is great strength in numbers.  With your personal contribution, you'll also be sending a big message to Donald Trump that tearing others down and misleading voters is not the best way to unite conservatives and make America great again.  Friend, I'll set the record straight on Donald's false attacks, secure the Republican nomination, AND DEFEAT HILLARY, but I can only get there with your continued help.  This is our time! Together, we will reignite liberty in America.  For liberty, Ted Cruz Bottom line … Trump may be loud and crude, but he is nothing like Hillary’s “B” Team – Brock and Blumenthal – who live in the slime and epitomize dirty political attacks – and who will savage Cruz at every opportunity while keeping the candidate’s hands relatively clean. Cruz is no match for those who will go to the wall for their “Hillary” even if it apparently means committing crimes and lying to federal investigators to cover-up dirty deeds. Cruz is a great debater. A well-credentialed, well-spoken, and well-experienced candidate. But is he tough enough when the fight leaves the debate state and winds up in the mud – the playground of the Clintons? Trump has shown ingenuity in getting media attention, even without major campaign expenditures, does Cruz have the same resourcefulness to extend his message when the media turns overtly hostile in the general election? Is money the only thing that matters as this e-mail implies? -- steve Related articles Who Can Beat Hillary Clinton -- August 6, 2014?

Landmark cease-fire reached in Syria. Set to begin in one week, it's designed largely to allow humanitarian aid to besieged cities (here's the UN's map of them); and bombs can still fall on the Islamic State, Nusra Front, "and any defined as terrorists by the United Nations...

February 12, 2016

Landmark cease-fire reached in Syria. Set to begin in one week, it's designed largely to allow humanitarian aid to besieged cities (here's the UN's map of them); and bombs can still fall on the Islamic State, Nusra Front, "and any defined as terrorists by the United Nations," the Wall Street Journal reports. Still undecided: what rebel groups will be included; that will be the subject of talks in coming days. State Secretary John Kerry: "The real test is whether all parties honor those commitments." Defense Secretary Ash Carter: "There is no cease-fire in the war against ISIL. Let's be clear about that," he said on the margins of his meeting with counter-ISIS defense ministers in Brussels. The opposition's reax: Their reps "weren't officially involved in the talks but held meetings on the sidelines in Munich," the Journal writes. "A member of the delegation said afterward the outcome represented "an incremental step forward." The opposition would be prepared to rejoin peace talks in Geneva, the delegation member said, if aspects of the agreement are implemented in the coming days." What's required to make this whole thing stick? "A real transformation by Mr. Putin and the continued application of diplomatic pressure by the United States and its partners," the New York Times editorial board writes. Brought to you by Monster Government Solutions Supporting the Warfighter: Recruitment, Retention, Readiness  Often the force readiness conversation is focused on the warfighters themselves, while equally important is developing and sustaining a diverse group of civilian talent to provide the military with infrastructure. On February 23rd, join this live viewcast as we discuss the manpower required to support the warfighter and their influence on shaping force readiness. Register Today

Also coming to the Syrian battlespace: UAE special operators to join Saudi SOF. Their job is to "assist in the development of local Sunni Arab fighters focused on recapturing Raqqa, the Islamic State group's capital," the Associated Press reports this morning. Ash Carter made the announcement from Brussels, but—in typical "SOF" fashion—declined to give too many specifics short of their mission being "part of an effort led by the United States and bolstered by Saudi special forces to train and enable local Arab fighters who are motivated to recapture Raqqa." And Turkey reminded everyone that they're moving into a military base in Qatar to provide air, land and naval assets to the counter-ISIS fight. A bit more about that base, from the initial announcement back in mid-December: "3,000 ground troops would be stationed at the base—Turkey's first overseas military installation in the Middle East—as well as air and naval units, military trainers and special operations forces." With a new defense budget in the works back stateside, what weapons do America's special operators want to fight ISIS? Not "U.S. weapons and ammunition," writes Aram Roston of The Daily Beast, "but rather Russian-designed arms, including hundreds of AK-47 rifles, heavy mortars, and anti-tank rocket-propelled grenades, enough to equip a battalion." (Here's a graphic with all the arms in one place.) Who gets these AKs is—naturally—not crystal clear, but Roston writes that it could include "the 'Syrian Democratic Forces' coalition made up of the Kurdish militia known as the YPG and other groups." The intrigue continues, here. Get to better know the two-headed Syrian beast that is ISIS and Nusra Front, and how the U.S. can best approach the two, via this explainer from the folks at the Institute for the Study of War and the American Enterprise Institute. It's part three of a series on the broader ISIS fight. Speaking of AEI: They're hosting U.S. Navy chief Adm. John Richardson talking the growing demands on his force this morning. That gets underway in about 15 minutes. Details here.

Democratic 2016 contenders—well the two left, anyway—tried to debate ISIS last night in Milwaukee, but wound up relitigating the 2003 Iraq invasion instead, writes Military Times' Leo Shane III. "Both candidates pledged to work more closely with U.S. allies in the Middle East to defeat ISIS forces" but "as he's done during previous debates, Sanders, an Independent U.S. senator from Vermont, called attention to Clinton's 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq war, calling it an indicator of her poor judgement — on par with their hawkish Republican rivals." Clinton hit back at Sanders' lack of international experience, arguing "she fills [the POTUS role] better than Sanders because of her past work negotiating with foreign allies and foes, calling Sanders national security credentials thin." Fightin' words: When asked to pinpoint areas of government waste that he would reduce if prez, Sanders fingered the Defense Department. Read the rest, here.

From Defense One

Time to hit pause on the U.S. Army's drawdown. The entire plan was built around the idea of an Iraq and Afghanistan "post-war calm" that never really materialized, writes AUSA head (and former Army chief of staff) Gordon Sullivan. Read his argument, here. U.S., Indian navies planning joint patrols in South China Sea. Officials say they're drafting ideas one year after leaders agreed to expand naval cooperation and ensure freedom of navigation in the area. Quartz has the story, here. Einstein's gravitational waves, confirmed. Interstellar discovery across more than 1 billion light years heralds a new understanding of the universe. Also: (potential) time travel! Tech Editor Patrick Tucker reports, here. And check out this great explainer video from our friends at Quartz. Coming up: The civilian workforce that supports U.S. warfighters is aging. How will the Pentagon attract and retain the next generation? Leaders from DOD, USAF, and DLA will lay out their plans and outlook on Tues., Feb. 23, in a livestreamed discussion with Defense OneDeputy Editor Bradley Peniston. Register to watch today, here. Welcome to Friday's edition of the The D Brief, by Ben Watson and Bradley Peniston.Happy 123rd birthday to Omar Bradley, the G.I.'s general. Send your friends this subscription link: http://get.defenseone.com/d-brief/. Got news? Let us know: the-d-brief@defenseone.com.

Lockheed to pitch Korean jet to train U.S. Air Force pilots. After kicking around the idea of designing a new plane, the company has concluded it will offer the Air Force the T-50, a plane it jointly built with Korea Aerospace Industries. The Air Force plans to buy 350 new jets to replace its T-38 Talon jet trainers, which have been around since the 1960s. Northrop Grumman and Boeing-Saab have been building new planes for the contest. Lockheed says it will make a few modifications to the T-50, which looks like a small F-16. The mods include installing a cockpit similar to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and a receptacle that will allow the plan to refuel in flight. More here. Escalation in Korea. In the wake of North Korea's recent nuclear test and rocket launch, South Korea "shut down an inter-Korean factory park that had been the rival Koreas' last major symbol of cooperation, but that Seoul said had been used by North Korea to fund its nuclear and missile programs," AP reports. Pyongyang "responded by deporting South Korean citizens, seizing South Korean assets and vowing to militarize the park." Now Seoul and U.S. officials are set to start discussions about deploying the THAAD missile-defense system to the peninsula, a move frowned upon by Russia and China. Read, here. Air Force reassigns acquisition official who did not disclose ties to Northrop Grumman. A vague announcement that Richard Lombardi, the Air Force's No. 2 acquisition official, was emailed to reporters last night. "This reassignment follows Lombardi's voluntary disclosure that he had not reported a Northrop Grumman retirement account held by his spouse in his annual public financial disclosure form," the statement reads. Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James reassigned Lombardi outside of the acquisition office and forwarded the information to the Pentagon Inspector General. Why is this such a big deal? It's all about timing. The Government Accountability Office is due to rule any day (maybe today) whether the Air Force properly awarded an $80 billion contract to Northrop Grumman to build a new stealth bomber for the Air Force. Regardless of what the ruling finds, Lombardi's connection to Northrop is sure to be used as ammo by the Boeing-Lockheed Martin team that is contesting the deal. The U.S. Army is getting new body armor. "The new Soldier Protection System is being designed to provide soldiers with as much as a 14-percent weight savings than the current soldier protective equipment, according to Col. Dean Hoffman IV, the head of Army's Project Manager Soldier Protection and Individual Equipment," Military.com reported. By way of comparison, the old body armor weighed in at 31 lbs., whereas the newer package comes in at 22 lbs. with front, back and side plates. More here. Lastly today—What's this thing you keep calling a "map?" Marine Corps Times explains for the kiddos this ancient, non-digital way of getting around the world—and now Marines will be expected to sharpen their land-nav skills in light of the newest threats to Pentagon hardware like jamming devices or the dreaded EMP detonation. "Think of all the stuff that we do that requires space-based, satellite-based communications: GPS, munitions, precision," USMC Chief Gen. Robert Neller said Thursday at the Atlantic Council in Washington. "If you were to lose that, what would that do to the way you thought you were going to fight?" Read more on his contingency, here.