The Rendering №8

The article “What Is Iran Doing in Syria” was published in The National Security on September, 21. It discusses that until recently, the Islamic Republic's military involvement in Syria was shrouded in mystery. The author Ali Alfoneh makes clear that on September 16, IRGC Commander Mohammad-Ali Aziz Jafari admitted that the IRGC's Quds Force, which is the extraterritorial operations arm of the IRGC, "are present" in Syria. But it’s necessary to point out that he added that "this does not mean that Iran has a military presence" there and that Iran's aid was limited to "consultancy and economic assistance."

Analyzing the situation Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast further complicated interpretation of Iran's messaging by condemning what he called some media outlets' "selective, incorrect, and politically motivated use" of Jafari's statements. It is an open secret that on May 26 Iranian forces were present in Syria in an attempt to "prevent great massacres" there and on August 22, Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi declared Iran's readiness to "live up to its defense and security obligations upon Syria's request”.

There is a general feeling to believe that the IRGC organization has an interest in making its presence known in order to increase its leverage over other branches of the Iranian government. The reporter mentions that the United States should negotiate with the Quds Force rather than other branches of the Islamic Republic in order to solve the problems it was facing in the Middle East and Southeast Asia. There are signed that those who desire a negotiated solution to the crisis in Syria must involve the Quds Force. It is revealed that the Foreign Ministry, on the other hand, probably opposes Iran's military involvement in Syria lest it result in the Quds Force taking the lead on Iran's Syria policy.

The correspondent considers the statements of Iranian military involvement can also be interpreted as the IRGC's way of threatening to increase its intervention, which would transform civil war in Syria into a regional war. Speaking of a certain Brigadier General Hossein Hamadani has been sent to Syria to oversee the Quds Force's operations it is necessary to point out that he has extensive experience in suppressing the Kurdish separatist movements in Iranian Kurdistan in the immediate aftermath of the 1979 revolution and during the Iran-Iraq war.

In conclusion the author suggests that with the protests in Syria having developed into an armed rebellion, and with the rebels gaining access to more sophisticated weaponry, he may find himself fighting a very different war than the one he won against peaceful protesters in the streets of Tehran. As for me, I think that there are many evidences that the Iranian government makes different plans and programs towards Syria. And it is very likely that Iran follows their own plans and it is not to help Syria.

The Rendering №7

The article “Three Wars on Terror” was published in the National Security on September, 10. It discusses that one of Barack Obama's earliest acts as president was to discard the phrase "war on terror”, however, he has been waging just such a campaign these past four years. The author John Arquilla considers that Obama's counter-terrorism strategy took down Qadaffi and was in a far less costly manner than was undertaken in Iraq by George W. Bush. It would not be wrong to assume that the difference in the approaches taken by two most recent presidents really speaks to there being two different wars on terror.

It was revealed that the Bush's strategy proved exceptionally costly and highly problematic in Iraq, and even his initial success in "going small" in Afghanistan was all too soon overtaken by a stalemate-inducing impulse to send large numbers of troops there. It is an open secret that the Obama's concept of operations, on the other hand, has been working well, and will never break the bank or exhaust our military -- especially in the wake of his realizing, and reversing, the folly of surging more troops into Afghanistan, as senior military leaders persuaded him to do early in his presidency.

Analyzing the situation after the October 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 242 Americans, Reagan and his team became deeply concerned about the terrorism problem it is necessary to mention that the campaign that Obama is now pursuing strongly resembles to Reagan’s. The correspondent stresses the importance of the signal success of this first war on terror came in a campaign against the Abu Nidal Organization - the al Qaeda of the ‘80s -- which was conducting terrorist hits for hire on behalf of Iraq, Libya, and Syria. But speaking of this success it is interesting to note that despite for all of Reagan's enthusiasm and Shultz's support, little else came to pass. This was because many senior military leaders worried about the ethics of Reagan's war on terror.

There are signs that the Weinberger/Powell approach was slavishly followed -- for the most part -- in the wake of 9/11, embroiling the United States in the two costly nation-building debacles that have characterized its second war on terror. The reporter makes it clear that but, as was the case with Reagan, there is now a similar battle going on for Obama's strategic soul. For all the nimble, networked operations he has overseen, Obama did allow senior military advisers to talk him into surging large numbers of conventional forces into Afghanistan -- at great cost and, at best, with mixed results.

In conclusion the author  gives a warning that the Reagan's strategic soul won out because they convinced him that there was far too much of the "dark side" in the Shultz-inspired plan; but in the battle for Barack Obama's strategic soul, the "overwhelming force" approach has not yet carried the day -- and with luck it won't. As for me, the US president thinks himself as an all-powerful person who can change the situation in the world. But I think that to stop terrorism it is necessary to combine the all countries’ power and work together.

My Pleasure Reading (281-325 pp)

Mrs. Bennet invited Mr. Bingley in Longbourn more and more hoping he finally would marry Jane. And her expectations were lived up to – after several days Jane became a fiancée. All members of the family were endless happy, especially Elizabeth who went through all Jane’s excruciations. Jane and Mr. Bingley spent most time together, and thus, Lizzy could not share with her rueful feelings with the sister.

Such feelings were brought by Lady Catherine who came to the Bennets’ estate one day. She felt indignant at the possible marriage between Ms. Bennet and Mr. Darcy. Moreover, she reported on Lizzy’s family as unworthy and bad-known because of the Lydia’s action. In spite of the Lady Catherine’s power and position in society, Ms. Bennet denied promising not to marry Mr. Darcy.  Elizabeth wanted but did not hope that this marriage would happen.

However, during the walking she and Mr. Darcy had a talk after which they were going to spend together their lives. Jane was the first who knew about it and she was shocked. Lizzy had to assure her in the real love to the fiancé, and then Elizabeth assured Mr. Bennet as well. Only Mrs. Bennet did not need to know about her daughter’s feelings, she was interested only in her future fortune and fame.

Jane and Elizabeth became Mrs. Bingley and Mrs. Darcy; they both were full of happiness. However, the Lydia’s marriage was not such successful and the Wickhams, losing the feeling of love to each other, needed the monetary help. The older sisters tried to give any money them but did not want to see them very often. Thus, the Bennets’ life changed, all of them received what they wanted and what they merited.

The End

Review №2

Rendition (2008)

Cast:  Reese Witherspoon,Meryl Streep, Peter Sarsgaard, Alan Arkin, Jake Gyllenhaal and Omar Metwally

Director: Gavin Hood

Synopsis: When an Egyptian-born chemical engineer disappears on a flight from South Africa to Washington, his American wife desperately tries to track him down. Meanwhile, a CIA analyst at a secret detention facility outside the U.S. is forced to question his assignment as he becomes party to the man's unorthodox interrogation.

Review

Returning home from Capetown Anwar El-Ibrahimi was caught by the US agents and sent to North Africa on suspicion of belonging to the suicide attack. While his pregnant wife Isabella and his son were waiting him home, Anwar was questioned about his connection with this accident. Isabella could not wait any more and asked for her old friend’s help. The latter, an important political figure, tried to search for any information about El-Ibrahimi and found out that the man was subjected to an illegal CIA system of terrorist’s detection. Their arguments against Anwar were only his Egyptian origin and the phone call from the supposed terrorist. The wife knew nothing about her husband, his condition and fault. We can see how the system can broke up someone’s lives. Anwar was an assiduous husband and football coach in an American school but the little circumstances made him be under the press of such “anti-terrorist machine”.

Another American, who was involved in this situation, was a CIA analyst Douglas Freeman. This suicide attack killed his partner and Douglas had to substitute him and become a person observing the El-Ibrahimi’s questioning and tortures. It was something new for him, for one of the mechanisms of this machine. However, his personal feelings and qualities did not let him just observe and, having ascertained in Anwar’s innocence, he released him and departed in the US. Inspecting Freeman’s actions we can make a conclusion that in spite of the job, personal responsibility he made what he thought was the best. And moreover, he created a scandal in the American press giving information about illegal arrest of the Egyptian-born man.

In North Africa Anwar was put to torture by a high-ranking police official Abasi Fawal. Actually, Asabi himself was a target of the suicide attack. He seemed as a rude, imperious person, who used any methods of taking out information. His own daughter Fatima could not make up mind to his desire of creating her life and in spite of the very strong religion – Islam – she left home with her boyfriend Khalid. The girl had no idea about Khalid’s belonging to the terrorist organization and his intention to kill her father through a suicide attack. Having known it she tried to stop him, but it had no sense because if he could not do it himself, the participants would kill him and the bomb would be activated anyway. That was happened, the boy and the girl were killed. In this particular story line we were down-dropped in the atmosphere of terrorism. The place, where the suicide murders were made, was a North African city. Many Muslims were misled and convinced that the one best and right way for them was jihad. Jihad is not as a striving and struggling for Allah, but as a death.

Speaking about performance I can say that I was impressed by all actors, they could show necessary emotions. Reese Witherspoon could show the pain and sorrow of the pregnant wife who was afraid of never meet her husband again. Jake Gyllenhaal showed a self-confident, understanding CIA analyst who can escape from the influence and stand against the wrong actions of the commands. Meryl Streep managed with the role of an iron lady who just does her job on the national security. But most I was impressed by the performance of Khalid’s grandmother. Her feelings and emotions of losing both her grandchildren seemed realistic. I felt with her sorrow.

To sum it up I would like to say that I like the films like this one. It opens very difficult and important themes. But except the main theme – terrorism, it is filled of different problems. The director shows how the most “democratic” country can broke up someone’s lives, how difficult lose the close people and how much pain and sorrow people can bring to each other. Terrorism has only one side – death. None of all religions in the world does not permit to kill people for God, Allah, Buddha or someone else. I do not know about Islam, but in Christianity the suicide is the worth sin. Terrorism cannot be justified by anything and anyone.

My Pleasure Reading (243- 281 pp)

The time of waiting for the news about Lydia and Mr. Wickham was terrible for each member of the family. Mrs. Bennet represented a sorrowful mother who made many problems to other daughters. Elizabeth felt disappointment about Lydia’s action and was ashamed to Mr. Darcy who knew about this incident. Even Jane stopped searching for justification of their leaving from Brighton. They did not receive the letters from Mr. Bennet but only one from Mr. Gardiner which did not bring positive news.

 After Mr. Bennet’s return from London, other letter from Mr. Gardiner was received. The latter told that he could organize the marriage between Lydia and Mr. Wickham. Mrs. Bennet was filled with admiration of this fact and surprised when her husband refused to give any money to marriage preparations.  By accident Lizzy found out that Mr. Darcy was joined this event as well. Her aunt, Mrs. Gardiner, explained that Mr. Darcy paid Mr. Wickham’s debts, thus, redeemed the honour of the Bennets.

It is become known that Mr. Bingley returned in Hertfordshire. And on the third morning after his arrival the young man visited Longbourn and Mr. Darcy accompanied him. Jane and Elizabeth were uncomfortable enough, they blushed because of their mother’s talks to Mr. Bingley and dreamed to bid farewell with the men. None of them wanted to be sad again - Jane because of love and Lizzy because of shame.  

The Rendering №6

The article “Peace Talks With the Taliban” was published in The New York Times on October, 4. It discusses that American military commanders long ago concluded that the Afghan war could only end in a negotiated settlement with the Taliban, not a military victory. The author considers that persuading militants to negotiate a peace deal was always a daunting challenge and, moreover, the Obama administration has not been persistent enough in figuring out how to initiate talks with a resilient, brutal insurgency that continues to carry out deadly attacks against American and NATO forces.

Analyzing the situation when the United States added 33,000 troops to the 68,000 in Afghanistan and put maximum military pressure on the Taliban it is necessary to note that top generals resisted negotiations, saying the focus should be on military gains but not talks. It was revealed that the talks between the United States and the Taliban began early this year but soon collapsed when the administration, faced with bipartisan opposition in Congress, could not complete a proposed prisoner swap. The correspondent stresses the importance of the Taliban division and unwillingness to meet Washington’s demands to sever all ties to Al Qaeda, renounce violence and accept the commitments to political and human rights in Afghanistan’s Constitution.

There is a general feeling to believe that the United States has not and should not give up completely on a negotiated solution or at least some movement toward reconciliation. It’s necessary to point out that Pakistan recently urged the insurgents to join the political process and agreed to help Washington vet potential new Taliban interlocutors. There are signs that the idea of the 2014 presidential election is an interim agreement under which the Afghan opposition, the Taliban and others might endorse minimum objectives rejecting Al Qaeda and supporting an inclusive political system.

In conclusion the author suggests that with American troops leaving Afghanistan, there should be an interest in advancing a political system that insurgents might see as an alternative to armed conflict. As for me, the peace talks with the Taliban have no sense. These people are terrorists and they have different views on the world. It’s impossible for the Taliban change this way of acting but the US, as a “super powerful country”, can try.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/opinion/peace-talks-with-the-taliban.html?_r=0

The Rendering №5

The article “Afghanistan, Obama's forgotten war” was published in the Telegraph on October, 1. It discusses the conflict that will define the Obama White House's approach to tackling global security issues. The author Con Coughlin considers that with the American presidential election contest reaching its climax, the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan has barely merited a mention from either candidate. It is open secret that the American forces have just chalked up the grim statistic of its 2,000th fatality since America first deployed personnel to Afghanistan in the aftermath of September 11.

Analyzing the situation  the correspondent emphasizes that American president personally authorized the deployment of an extra 30,000 American combat troops two years ago in a last-ditch effort to beat the Taliban. Speaking of the US future it is nercessary to mention that Mitt Romney seize an opportunity and articulate his own plans for the Afghan conflict, were he to win the election. There is a mention about the widespread unpopularity of the Afghan conflict among the American people that neither candidate wants to get drawn on an issue which is unlikely to win them many votes.

The reporter expresses the view that the Afghan war has become a non-issue for the presidential contenders, an omission which inspires little confidence in the ultimate fate of a conflict that is far from over. In conclusion Con Coughlin stresses the importance of this war and suggests that whoever will win November's election will no longer have the luxury of ignoring Afghanistan's fate. As for my point of view, the Afghanistan war has been started in order to show to the world the force of the US. It is necessary to finish the it and senseless deaths.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100183279/afghanistan-obamas-forgotten-war/

My Pleasure Reading (194-243 pp)

The second week of Jane and Elizabeth’s return began. All young ladies, except them, were upset about leaving of the regiment in Brighton. Only Lydia did not share the gloom because she was going to Brighton with the Forsters. Lizzy was opposed to Lydia’s departure and asked Mr. Bennet not let her go. However her wish did not play a great role and Lydia left home.

Elizabeth herself was waiting for the trip with the Gardiners to take mind off the latest events. And when it started, Lizzy had no idea about her coming meeting with Mr. Darcy. The Gardiners wanted to visit the Pemberly, the estate of Darcy family, and Mr. Bennet was to agree with this idea. There they met Mr. Darcy who behaved very polite and pleasant and promised to make a return visit. Next morning he, his sister and Mr. Bingley came to the travelers and, having had a good talk, departed.  

One morning Lizzy received two letters from Jane and got to know awful news about Lydia. The latter escaped with Mr. Wickham somewhere. It was unbelievable for Elizabeth who knew the truth about him. And because of this fact Ms. Bennet and the Gardiners were to be back home in order to support the Bennets and helped to find Lydia.