4 killed in attack on car carrying school exam papers

Four people were killed and several injured in an attack on a vehicle carrying government officials transporting school examination papers in northeastern Kenya Thursday, police said.

The incident occurred about 110 kilometers (68 miles) from Mandera, a border town with Somalia, Kenya Police Commissioner Mathew Iteere said.

It was unclear who carried out the attack on the car, he said, and police had been given conflicting accounts of what happened.

The Kenyan Red Cross said four people had been killed in heavy machine-gun fire on a small car heading from Mandera to a school.

Mandera is in a part of Kenya which suffers from chronic insecurity and both banditry and incursions by militant groups are relatively common.

Earlier this week, Kenya was shaken by twin grenade attacks in the capital, Nairobi -- one at a nightclub and a second at a crowded downtown bus station during rush hour -- which left one person dead and 20 injured.

A Kenyan man pleaded guilty Wednesday to being a member of the Islamic militant group Al-Shabaab and was charged with causing grievous bodily harm in the bus station attack.

It is not clear if Thursday's vehicle attack is linked to Monday's violence.

The U.S. Embassy in Kenya warned last week it had credible information regarding an imminent terror attack, but offered no details on who might carry out such an attack.

Kenya has been on edge since it sent troops across the border into Somalia nearly two weeks ago to pursue militants with Al-Shabaab, an Islamist group that the United States and other countries consider a terrorist organization. Kenya's action followed the recent abductions of tourists and aid workers in Kenya. It blames the abductions on Al-Shabaab, which has denied involvement.

Al-Shabaab has threatened to attack Kenya if it does not withdraw its forces from Somalia.

Read More

Al-Shabaab leaders contact Kenyan government to negotiate

Conflicting accounts emerged Thursday over whether the extremist group Al-Shabaab has signaled a desire to negotiate with Kenya amid a Kenyan military offensive targeting the group.

"They want to talk," said a Kenyan official who did not want to be named because he is not authorized to talk to the media.

A spokesman for the Kenyan government, however, disputed that account and said Kenya wouldn't talk with Al-Shabaab even if the group did want to negotiate.

"Al-Shabaab has not contacted Kenya in any way," said the spokesman, Alfred Mutua. "There are no plans whatsoever for Kenya to negotiate with Al-Shabaab. Kenya does not negotiate with outlawed groups."

He said Kenyan troops have enjoyed success since crossing the border into Somalia to pursue Al-Shabaab, which the United States and several Western nations view as a terrorist organization.

"They are running scared. I think they are busy running for their lives," Mutua said. "They don't have time to talk."

Kenyan troops struck several Al-Shabaab training sites in Somalia early Thursday, a military spokesman said. The militant group, which includes many rival factions with different leaders, operates from Somalia.

The group's leaders were said to be reaching out for possible negotiations two weeks after Kenyan troops stormed into Somalia to hunt for Al-Shabaab, which Kenya blames for recent kidnappings of foreigners in the nation.

But Sheikh Mukhtar Robow Ali, Al-Shabaab's second-in-command who is also known as Abu Mansur, told supporters protesting in Mogadishu against the Kenyan incursion that if Kenya struck targets in Somalia, the militant group would strike back.
Kenya has said its forces aim to take the Somali port city of Kismayo, described by the United Nations as a key stronghold and source of cash for Al-Shabaab. The United Nations estimates the group collects up to $50 million a year from businesses in Kismayo, about half of its annual income.

Robow urged what he said were Al-Shabaab-trained fighters in Kenya to take action in return, with the Kenyan port of Mombasa a target.

''Carry out attacks with heavy losses on Kenya," Robow said. "If Kenya closes the sea port in Kismayo, attack its banks, its port, its foreign guests and wherever there is a high-value target."

Kenyan officials have declared self-defense justifies crossing the border with Somalia, saying a recent spate of abductions threatened its security and constituted an attack. Kidnappers have seized two aid workers and two European tourists in the past month.

"We have looked at what is going on ... and decided that unless we move in now, Al-Shabaab is not diminishing, it is becoming bigger and bigger," Mutua said.

The war on terror cannot be won without dismantling the group's power, he said.

Efforts to flush out the terror group will take a "couple of months, if that," Mutua said, adding that "weeks" would be a more ideal time frame.

Analysts and diplomats have raised concerns over the incursion, saying it gives the terror group a reason to strike Kenya.

"If there is anything we have learned in the last couple of decades is that foreign intervention, especially military intervention, doesn't work in Somalia," said Rashid Abdi, an analyst for International Crisis Group. "I definitely understand Kenya's anxiety about the terror threat emanating from Somalia ... but I think there is more that Kenya could have done inside the country."

While noting Kenya's "right to defend itself," the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi said it was not part of the decision to send troops to Somalia.

"The United States did not encourage the Kenyan government to act nor did Kenya seek our views," said Katya Thomas, the embassy's press officer. "We note that Kenya has a right to defend itself against threats to its security and its citizens."

Somali President Sharif Ahmed thanked Kenya on Wednesday for helping battle the extremist group two days after he accused the nation of overstepping its boundaries.

Read More

NATO mission in Libya was ended

The United Nations Security Council voted unanimously Thursday to end military operations in Libya.

The council adopted a resolution that rescinded its March mandate for military intervention in Libya, effectively canceling the NATO mission there as of Monday.
Libya's interim leaders declared their nation liberated last Sunday after the capture and death of deposed dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, commended the NATO mission as putting Libya on a path to freedom but tempered her remarks with a word of caution.

"We're very concerned that, as we move forward, that the authorities make maximum effort to swiftly form an inclusive government that incorporates all aspects of Libyan society, and in which the rights of all Libyan people are fully and thoroughly respected, regardless of their gender, their religion, their region of origin," Rice said.

"But for the United States, and, I think, for the United Nations Security Council, this closes what I think history will judge to be a proud chapter in the Security Council's history."

The French ambassador called it a completion of a mission started by a decision to prevent Gadhafi from slaughtering his own people.

"During the seven months that have followed, we have seen dramatic events where the Libyan people have succeeded to free themselves with the support of NATO," said Gerard Araud.

Meanwhile, Gadhafi's family will file a war crimes complaint against NATO with the International Criminal Court, a lawyer representing the family said Thursday.

Members of the family believe NATO's actions led to Gadhafi's death last week, said Marcel Ceccaldi.

"All of the events that have taken place since February 2011 and the murder of Gadhafi, all of this means we are totally in our right to call upon the International Criminal Court," Ceccaldi said.

The ICC had previously issued a warrant for Gadhafi's arrest, accusing him of crimes against humanity. It still has warrants out for the arrest of Gadhafi's son, Saif al-Islam Gadhafi, and his brother-in-law and intelligence chief, Abdullah al-Sanussi.

Questions have been raised about exactly how Gadhafi was killed.

Amateur videos showed him alive when captured by the opposition. He died from a shot in the head, officials said, but the circumstances surrounding the shot remain unclear.

Ceccaldi said the Gadhafi family's complaint will be filed in the coming days.

"Now we will wait and see if the ICC is a judicial system which is independent and impartial," he added.

NATO's Libya campaign began in March, after the Security Council adopted Resolution 1973, which imposed a no-fly zone in the country's airspace and authorized member states "to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country ... while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory."

There were no opposing votes on the 15-member council, but China, Russia, Germany, India and Brazil abstained. Germany said it was concerned about a protracted military conflict.
The resolution became the basis for NATO's airstrikes in the North African nation.

In ending the mandate Thursday, the Security Council expressed concern at the proliferation of arms in Libya and said it intends to address that issue further. The resolution also expressed "grave concern about continuing reports of reprisals, arbitrary detentions, wrongful imprisonment and extrajudicial executions."

Last week, U.S. Admiral James Stavridis, commander of NATO's military forces, recommended that NATO wrap up its mission in Libya by October 31. NATO ministers gave preliminary approval to that plan.

But U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said this week that Libya's National Transitional Council wanted NATO to stick around until it could establish governance.

However, Libyan Deputy Ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi told the 15-member council Wednesday that the Libyan people were looking forward to ending the NATO mission.

While Libyans were grateful for the international community's support, he said, such measures felt like an infringement of Libya's sovereignty.

Read More

The Libyan leader's embrace of Sharia raises eyebrows

Officials with Libya's interim government are reassuring the West that their religious views are moderate, after the country's interim leader called for the country's new laws to be based on Sharia, or Islamic law.

At a rally on Sunday in Benghazi, National Transitional Council leader Mustafa Abdul Jalil said, "As a Muslim country, we have adopted the Islamic Sharia as the main source of law. Accordingly, any law that contradicts Islamic principles with the Islamic Sharia is ineffective legally."

Jalil also suggested in his speech that he would like to see new Islamic rules implemented to limit how banks charge interest, and put an end to some of the Gadhafi-era restrictions on polygamy.

"The law of marriage and divorce, which deals with polygamy -- this law is against Islamic Sharia, and is now halted," he said.

That kind of talk could raise concerns among the fledgling government's Western backers.

In many Muslim countries, Sharia law forms the basis for the constitution, but is interpreted moderately. But in some, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, it is seen as grounds for cutting off the hand of a convicted thief, or even stoning a woman to death for adultery.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, visiting Tripoli just last week, offered a warning when she was asked whether there should be a role for Islamists in the new Libya.

"Groups and individuals who really believe in democracy should be welcome into that process," she said. "But groups that want to undermine democracy or subvert it are going to have to be dealt with -- by the Libyans themselves."

But Libya's ambassador to the United States, Ali Suleiman Aujali, says the West should not be alarmed. "Sharia law, Islamic law, it is not against democracy, it is not against equality, is not against the relations with the other countries based on interests and respect and cooperation."

He says that women now enjoy new rights since the end of Moammar Gadhafi's regime. "There is no restriction against Libyan women to do anything now in Libya," he says.

And Jalil on Monday quickly reassured the international community that Libyans are moderate Muslims.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said, "We were encouraged to see President Jalil make a clarification." But she reiterated a warning to Libya and other Islamic countries in transition, saying that "the number one thing is that universal human rights, rights for women, rights for minorities, right to due process, right to transparency be fully respected."

Jalil's embrace of Islam's role in Libya comes just as voters in neighboring Tunisia handed a victory to the moderate Islamist party Ennahda.

"Islam is clearly going to play a much stronger role across the region," says Robin Wright, a Mideast expert at the U.S. Institute of Peace. "Whether it's Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and beyond -- as countries redefine their political systems, they are going to want to use the values of their faith to help define what they want next. But that doesn't mean necessarily they're going to be rigid Islamist regimes."

Still, she says, Libyan women are very concerned about equal rights in the post-Gadhafi era.

"The idea of allowing polygamy again -- or allowing the husband to marry again without asking permission of the first wife -- is something that is going to really resonate throughout Libya," she said.

Read More

2 still missing in Somalia kidnapping and one arrested

Two foreign aid workers kidnapped in Somalia remain missing but a Somali man who was believed abducted with them has been arrested, a Danish aid organization said Wednesday.

Gunman seized the two international workers, an American woman and a Danish man, after they visited humanitarian projects in the northern Galkayo area Tuesday afternoon, the Danish Refugee Council said.

"The Somalian aid worker, also missing, is now in the custody of the local police, and his role in the incident will be further investigated," the council said in a statement.

The pair, as well as the Somali man, were working for the council's demining unit, which aims to make civilians safe from landmines and unexploded ordnance.
The council said its staff members are very experienced and had been trained to work in high-risk areas. No shots were fired in the course of the kidnapping.

The organization has temporarily suspended its activities in the Galkayo area, considered part of Somalia's Puntland province, but is continuing its work elsewhere in the East African country, it said.

"We are very sad about the incident," said Ann Mary Olsen, head of the council's international department. "At the moment Somalia and the rest of Horn of Africa is in the midst of a humanitarian crisis. People are in acute need of relief aid and it is quite tragic that we are targeted like this."

Olsen said the organization is working closely with local authorities to try to resolve the situation.

The council currently helps up to 450,000 people affected by drought and conflict in the Horn of Africa, its statement said, and has been involved in humanitarian efforts there for over a decade.

A number of high-profile abductions of foreigners have occurred in recent weeks in Kenya, close to the border with largely lawless Somalia. Those kidnappings have been blamed on the Somali Islamist militant group Al-Shabaab.

Read More

Body of Saudi crown prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz arrives in Riyadh

The body of Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, the heir to the Saudi throne who died in New York on Saturday, arrived Monday in the Saudi capital, greeted by crowds of people, authorities and troops.

The body was flown into Riyadh Air Base, according to two Saudi government officials.

The death of Sultan, the half-brother of King Abdullah, raises succession questions in the key oil-producing country at a time of turmoil in the Arab world.

Sultan was thought to be in his 80s. He had been ill for some time -- various reports indicated he was battling cancer -- and was receiving treatment in a New York hospital at the time of his death.

His burial is scheduled for Tuesday, officials have said.

Sultan had served for decades as the Saudi defense minister. President Barack Obama called him a "valued friend" of the United States.

Ascension to the Saudi throne does not pass from father to son. Instead, it's a complex process, and decisions in the conservative kingdom are often cloaked in secrecy.

King Abdullah set up the Allegiance Council in 2006 to allow for more transparency in the succession. It was unclear when the group, made up of members of the royal family, will be employed to make a decision on the next crown prince.

Sultan's death leaves his brother Nayef, a reputed conservative, as the likely successor. Nayef has served as the Saudi interior minister since 1975 and oversaw the kingdom's counterterrorism efforts.

Sultan took a leading role in Saudi Arabia's involvement in the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq, heading a coalition of about half a million troops from more than 30 countries.

Abdullah left a hospital in Riyadh on Saturday following successful back surgery, the Saudi Press Agency reported. It was the third back surgery in the past year for the 87-year-old king.

Read More

Obama risks Iraq for the political expediency

In his first inaugural address in 1953, newly elected President Dwight D. Eisenhower told the American people, "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. We must acquire proficiency in defense and display stamina in purpose." This was a fitting and powerful response to the popular noninterventionism current of the 1950s from a five-star general who knew how to win a war.

The first and most important job of the president is to be commander in chief. Eisenhower knew that, as so did many of our great presidents. Today, we are in danger of losing that founding virtue.

President Obama's decision to order a full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year will most likely lead to disaster. He greatly risks losing a country in which we have invested so much time, resources and, most importantly, human life. And he risks losing it to Iran, the world's largest sponsor of terrorism and our primary enemy in a serious Middle East proxy war.
"The long war in Iraq will come to an end by the end of this year," Obama said Friday. It may come to an end for our troops, but it is far from over for the people of Iraq.

Only very few of the loudest opponents of the Iraq war advocated complete withdrawal. The U.S. military commanders recommended at least 15,000 troops remain. Obama once again ignored his generals, as he did with Afghanistan, and instead pressed ahead with a politically calculated decision.

Another view: "Who lost Iraq" is the wrong question

Perhaps this will gain him praise from the far left of his base, but this will not sit well with a vast majority of the American people. More than 4,000 Americans have died in the Iraq war.

The American people have been impatient with the war, but they know we were successful in Iraq. To throw this all away for political expediency is irresponsible. To be tired is one thing, to be irresolute is another. The frequent refrain of Osama bin Laden was that he could always wait us out and that we would eventually show ourselves to be the weak horse, not the strong horse. And, God forbid, if we lose Iraq, it will be on the shoulders of the commander in chief.

Under Obama's plan, a mere 160 U.S. troops would stay in Iraq to guard the U.S. Embassy. That is hardly enough troops to defend our own people. For comparison, the United States has 1,234 troops in Belgium, 1,894 troops in Bahrain and 678 troops in Qatar, according to the Department of Defense's active-duty military personnel records. We risk another Saigon moment by evacuating Iraq and leaving no support behind.

On my radio show, "Morning In America," Michael Rubin, who is the American Enterprise Institute's Middle East expert and teaches our troops at the Naval Postgraduate School, said with no qualifications that he thinks we will lose Iraq because of this.

Dan Senor, senior adviser and the chief spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq in 2003-2004, told me that the president's decision shocked and perplexed him. Iraq cannot survive sectarian violence and Iranian influence on its own, he added. Baghdad will surely move closer to Tehran in our absence.

Indeed, one can already see the influence of Tehran. Two weeks ago, Iraq publicly defended the actions of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, an early and telling sign that Iraq was preparing for the withdrawal of American forces. The Iranians want influence in Iraq; Obama wants out of Iraq.

The president defends his actions on the basis of his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq and former President George W. Bush's withdrawal timeline of 2011. However, just until last week, the Obama administration was negotiating the Status of Forces Agreement with Nuri al-Maliki's government with the understanding that several thousand troops would remain in Iraq -- a clear break from his campaign pledge. More importantly, total troop withdrawal was never a platform of Bush's withdrawal timetable.

We know that Tehran is celebrating the president's announcement. Just weeks after spoiling an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C., the United States will withdraw from its strongest post from which to engage Iran. We have given them an open road to Baghdad and unfettered weapons supply lines to Syria and Lebanon. By ceding Iran the high ground, the Obama administration has also undercut American and Israeli efforts to shut down Iran's nuclear weapons program.

In spite of all this, Obama will spend his re-election campaign trotting out his foreign policy accomplishments. He deserves credit where it is due. Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Moammar Gadhafi are dead. But should we see the loss of Iraq and the rise of Iran, all this will be for naught.

Read More