Editor’s Note: Frida Ghitis, a former CNN producer and correspondent, is a world affairs columnist. She is a frequent opinion contributor to CNN and The Washington Post and a columnist for World Politics Review. The opinions expressed in this commentary are her own. Why is President Trump suddenly in a rush to get out of Syria? Could the answer to Trump’s abrupt announcement that, “We’ll be coming out of Syria, like, very soon,” – which left even White House aides scrambling to figure out what the President had in mind – lead us back to Russian President Vladimir Putin? Pushback from security experts has apparently irritated the President but persuaded him for now to delay the withdrawal for the time being. At least that’s the most recent decision, subject to change by the mercurial President. But it’s worth exploring why Trump blindsided his advisers and America’s allies with a sudden push to withdraw. Related article On Syria, Trump is worse than Obama It was never a secret that Trump wanted the US involvement in Syria to be limited to defeating ISIS, but the urgency — “Very soon – very soon we’re coming out,” he said in Ohio – was unexpected. Recall that a couple of weeks ago, Trump made a controversial call to the Russian President, congratulating Putin on his re-election victory in Russia’s patently-undemocratic election, ignoring the all-caps “DO NOT CONGRATULATE”  guidance in his briefing materials, and failing to mention the poisoning of a former Russian spy in the UK despite the massive diplomatic crisis it triggered. Well, the two leaders discussed another topic that day, but, as far as the White House was concerned, you wouldn’t have known it. Curiously, the White House readout of the conversation  did not mention Syria. But the Kremlin had its own summary of the chat. It noted that, “The problem of Syria was discussed,” and “There was recognition on both sides of the need to make rapid strides toward achieving settlements.” The following week, during a speech in Ohio, Trump dropped the bombshell that it is time for America’s small but crucial 2,000-troop force to leave Syria. Since then, he has reasserted several times his intention to pull out of Syria quickly, despite a barrage of warnings and criticism from friends and foes, along with reports from unnamed administration officials who say the move would be damaging to US interests, dangerous for US allies – and beneficial to Russia, Iran and Turkey. Republican Sen Lindsey Graham said pulling out of Syria would be “the single worst decision the president could make,” calling the idea “a disaster in the making.” Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono called Trump’s Syria policy “incoherent.” Related article Seven years on, the West should stop feigning heartbreak over Syria Critics said a withdrawal now would allow ISIS to reemerge. More to the point, it would create a vacuum that would be quickly filled by Russia, Iran and Turkey. It would prove devastating to America’s friends, the Kurds and Arabs fighting under the banner of the Syrian Democratic Forces, and it would put Israel and Saudi Arabia on a collision course with Iran. Perhaps it was a coincidence that Trump announced his intention to withdraw just in time for the summit meeting of the three countries that today control that future of Syria. This week, Putin met in Ankara with the presidents of Iran and Turkey to plan for Syria’s future. The world’s sole superpower (the US, in case you were wondering) was not represented. (Neither was Syria.) The impulse to get out too quickly is particularly intriguing because it risks replicating some of the moves over which Trump as a candidate ridiculed President Obama, and it would run counter to Trump’s own stated policy on Iran. During the campaign, Trump repeatedly called Obama the “founder of ISIS.” The statement was red meat to Obama haters. He perversely refused to explain what he meant, but at last, under pressure, he explained that Obama got out of Iraq too soon, and  “that was the founding of ISIS, OK?” Strategists now warn that withdrawing from Syria would allow a not-completely-destroyed ISIS to reconstitute. Trump also mocked Obama for announcing when US troops would wrap up their missions. “I don’t want to broadcast to the enemy exactly what my plan is,” he said, “This is what Obama does.” Trump has talked in a White House meeting about a deadline of six months for withdrawal from Syria, although according to a senior US general, Trump has not laid out a specific timeline for the military to do so. An administration official told CNN, “The President blasted Obama for a timeline in Iraq, but that is in essence what we have been given.” Related article Putin is stoking the hellish war in Syria and no one is stopping him Whether or not it was Putin who prompted Trump to accelerate America’s withdrawal, Syria presents a unique dilemma for the President. From the days of the campaign, he decried previous presidents’ costly engagements in the Middle East. But his foreign policy has other key elements. Trump has vowed to reverse Obama’s policies on Iran, vowing to curb Tehran’s power. Moving out of Syria would strengthen Tehran in a way that is in stark conflict with his stated objectives. Trump declared that the US has “neglected Iran’s steady expansion of proxy forces…in hopes of dominating the greater Middle East,” noting that Tehran wants “to establish a bridge from Iran to Lebanon and Syria.” If the US withdraws before its Syrian allies are strong enough, Iran will immediately establish that Tehran-Damascus land bridge that Trump himself warned about. Iran would cement its power in Syria and Lebanon. That would make the Middle East even more unstable, with Iran at Israel’s doorstep and Saudi Arabia’s tension with Iran greatly magnified. So, Trump has a dilemma. There’s his “America First” instinct to step back from the Middle East and bring the troops home (an instinct that, incidentally, is not unlike Obama’s). And then, there is his commitment to deter Iran from escalating its strength in the region. He can bring the troops home or he can deter Iran. Which will it be? Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook The answer to Trump’s dilemma may be found in Moscow. That’s because a quick US withdrawal aligns with Putin’s objectives. The Kremlin’s foreign policy in recent years has consisted in large part of moving in where the US moves out. Russia has become the great power broker in Syria. The sooner Trump pulls out the troops, the easier it is for Putin to flex his muscle in shaping the region to his liking. The question remains, how much is Putin shaping US foreign policy?


July was the hottest month ever recorded globally But a possible La Nina pattern could global slow temperature rises July was the world’s hottest month ever, according to NASA, the tenth month in a row to break temperature records globally. But help may be on the way in the form of a developing La Nina weather pattern – it just may not arrive until 2017. On Tuesday, NASA confirmed in a statement 2016 had seen the warmest July ever, with air and sea surface temperatures almost a full degree above average, compared to measurements between 1951 and 1980. Related video The effects of La Nina Since October 2015, every month has set a new global record for hottest temperatures. it coincides with an unusually strong El Nino pattern which has caused severe heat and drought across Southeast Asia, as well as raising temperatures globally. “It appears almost a certainty that 2016 also will be the warmest year on record,” NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies director Gavin Schmidt said in a statement. July 2016 was absolutely the hottest month since the instrumental records began. pic.twitter.com/GQNsvARPDH Within the past week, the United State government’s Climate Prediction Center said there was a 55% to 60% chance of a La Nina weather pattern developing in the second half of the year. A La Nina weather event occurs when waters in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean are cooler than usual, a reverse of the El Nino pattern which sees warmer oceans. It is the cool phase of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) climate pattern and usually, but not always, follows after an El Nino. Agus Santoso, senior research associate at the University of New South Wales’ Climate Change Research Centre, said a weak La Nina appeared to be developing and could begin to affect temperatures from early 2017. “Countries on the Eastern Pacific will be cooler and the Western Pacific will be warmer and wetter, so over South America, even California, it’s going to be slightly drier and cooler … on the other side of the Pacific, Indonesia, Malaysia, it’s going to get more moisture, more precipitation and warmer air,” he said. According to the Climate Prediction Center, the conditions indicated a La Nina was most likely to arrive during fall and winter in the northern hemisphere. The surge in global temperatures, driven by climate change and a strong El Nino, could begin to slow under a La Nina pattern, Santoso said, but not completely and not until next year. “When we have an El Nino it’s going to rise (and) if it’s La Nina the rise will be weaker … but given the background warming has been accelerating we will still see an increase in temperature but it won’t be as rapid as what we’re seeing in 2015,” he said. “Next year I would expect the rise to be subdued, but still rising.”


Trump reportedly complained to Coats about Comey's handling of the FBI investigation Coats is testifying before the Senate intelligence committee Wednesday morning The top US intelligence official told associates in March that President Donald Trump asked him if he could assist in getting former FBI Director James Comey to stop investigating former national security adviser Michael Flynn as part of its Russia probe, The Washington Post reported. Following a briefing at the White House attended by officials from several government agencies, Trump asked everyone to leave the room except for Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo, according to the Post. The President then complained about Comey’s handling of the FBI investigation, officials familiar with Coats’ account told the paper. The sources said Coats concluded after the meeting that Trump’s suggestion that he intervene with Comey’s investigation would be inappropriate. Coats, who was testifying before the Senate intelligence committee Wednesday morning, denied he felt pressured when asked about the Post report. “I’ve never felt pressure to intervene or interfere in any way with shaping intelligence in a political way or in relation to the ongoing investigation,” he said. But Coats and National Security Agency Director Adm. Michael Rogers refused to say on the record whether Trump asked them to downplay investigations into whether there was collusion between Russia and Trump’s presidential campaign last year. CNN previously reported, citing multiple current and former US officials, that Trump asked Coats and Rogers to publicly deny evidence of cooperation between his campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. Comey, who will testify before Congress Thursday, reportedly wrote a memo saying Trump asked him to back off investigating Flynn. Trump has since said he was considering “this Russia thing” in his decision to fire Comey. In his much-anticipated testimony, Comey is expected to dispute Trump’s interpretation of their conversations, sources familiar with Comey’s thinking have told CNN. Trump has made a blanket claim that Comey told him multiple times that he was not under investigation. But a source told CNN Comey is expected to explain that those were much more nuanced conversations from which Trump concluded that he was not under investigation. Another source has told CNN that the President may have misunderstood the exact meaning of Comey’s words, especially regarding the FBI’s ongoing counterintelligence investigation.


The diplomat's interactions with former Trump national security adviser Mike Flynn led to Flynn's firing The Justice Department disclosed the meetings Attorney General Jeff Sessions met twice last year with the top Russian diplomat in Washington whose interactions with President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn led to Flynn’s firing, according to the Justice Department. Related article Democrats call for Sessions to resign over meetings with Russian envoy, some Republicans calls for recusal Sessions did not mention either meeting during his confirmation hearings when he said he knew of no contacts between Trump surrogates and Russians. A Justice official said Sessions didn’t mislead senators during his confirmation. The revelation prompted key Democrats to call for Sessions’ resignation, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. “Last night when I read the revelations … and his decision to mislead Congress without those contacts, I felt a knot in the pit of my stomach,” Schumer told reporters Thursday. “The information reported last night makes it clear, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Attorney General Sessions cannot possibly lead an investigation … with these revelations, he may very well become the subject of it.” Several Republicans also called on Sessions to recuse himself from Trump-Russia inquiries. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told CNN Sessions “should further clarify his testimony.” Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, said “we need a clear-eyed view of what the Russians actually did so that all Americans can have faith in our institutions.” “Jeff Sessions is a former colleague and a friend, but I think it would be best for him & for the country to recuse himself from the DOJ Russia probe,” said Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, in a statement. House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy, in an interview with MSNBC, said Sessions should recuse himself for “the trust of the American people.” An aide later said McCarthy was only referring to Sessions’ statement that he should recuse himself if there was a conflict. Meanwhile, Sen. Al Franken, D-Minnesota, told CNN’s “New Day” that Sessions’ testimony in January was “extremely misleading.” The attorney general strongly pushed back against the reports, saying he never discussed campaign-related issues with anyone from Russia. “I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign,” he said in a statement. “I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false.” Asked by NBC News Thursday morning if he would recuse himself in investigating any potential ties between Trump’s campaign and Russian officials, Sessions said he would do so “whenever it’s appropriate.” Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, is considered by US intelligence to be one of Russia’s top spies and spy-recruiters in Washington, according to current and former senior US government officials. Russian officials dispute this characterization. Sessions met with Kislyak twice, in July on the sidelines of the Republican convention, and in September in his office when Sessions was a member of the Senate Armed Services committee. Sessions was an early Trump backer and regular surrogate for him as a candidate. The Washington Post first reported on Sessions’ meetings with the official. Leading Democratic lawmakers, including Pelosi and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, called for Sessions to resign after the news broke, with Pelosi characterizing his comments in his confirmation as “apparent perjury.” “The top cop in our country lied under oath to the a people is grounds for him to resign,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday. “He has proved that he is unqualified and unfit to serve in that position of trust.” Kislyak’s potential proximity to Russian spying is one reason why Flynn’s interactions with him, and Flynn’s failure to disclose what he discussed with Kislyak, raised concerns among intelligence officials. In his confirmation hearing to become attorney general, Sessions was asked about Russia and he responded at the time that he “did not have communications with the Russians.” Sessions’ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said there was nothing “misleading about his answer” to Congress because the Alabama Republican “was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign – not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee.” “Last year, the Senator had over 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian, German and Russian ambassadors,” Isgur Flores said in the statement. A Justice Department official confirmed the meetings, but said Sessions met with the ambassadors “in his capacity as a senator on the Armed Serviced Committee.” A White House official said: “This is the latest attack against the Trump Administration by partisan Democrats. (Attorney) General Sessions met with the ambassador in an official capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is entirely consistent with his testimony.” Meanwhile, the Russian government on Thursday said it has never interfered and has no plans to ever interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries, Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov told journalists when questioned about Sessions. “Let’s say it’s not our headache,” Peskov said. In reaction to the report, Rep. Elijah Cummings, a Maryland Democrat and the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, also called for Sessions’ resignation. “There is no longer any question that we need a truly independent commission” to investigate potential ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, Cummings said. “It is inconceivable that even after Michael Flynn was fired for concealing his conversations with the Russians that Attorney General Sessions would keep his own conversations for several weeks.” Cummings called Sessions’ claim during his confirmation hearing that he did not have communications with the Russians “demonstrably false.” Franken, who asked Sessions about Russia at the confirmation hearing, said in a statement Wednesday night that Session’ testimony in January was “misleading at best.” Franken said if the reports of Sessions’ contacts with Kislyak were true, then he “cannot, in good faith, oversee an investigation at the Department of Justice and the FBI of the Trump-Russia connection, and he must recuse himself immediately.” News of Sessions’ contacts with Kislyak came as the New York Times reported Wednesday evening that officials under former President Barack Obama had sent information throughout government about potential Russian contact with Trump’s associates and interference in the 2016 election. The officials did so, the Times reported, in order to preserve the information after Obama left office. Sessions: No meeting with Russian ambassadorGraham, McCain want answers Franken: ‘Sessions must recuse himself’Timeline: What we know about Trump and Russia Sessions: No meeting with Russian ambassadorGraham, McCain want answers Franken: ‘Sessions must recuse himself’Timeline: What we know about Trump and Russia Regarding the Obama administration efforts, Obama’s spokesman Eric Schultz told CNN: “This situation was serious, as is evident by President Obama’s call for a review – and as is evident by the United States response. When the (intelligence community) does that type of comprehensive review, it is standard practice that a significant amount of information would be compiled and documented.” Two days before Trump’s inauguration, the State Department sent Sen. Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat and the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a batch of documents related to Russian attempts to meddle in elections worldwide, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN. Cardin spokesman Sean Bartlett told CNN that the senator had received the classified documents on request and that they were shared with both Republican and Democratic committee staffers. This story is being updated to reflect new developments. CNN’s Elise Labott, Jim Acosta, Kevin Liptak, Phil Mattingly, Manu Raju and Sunlen Serfaty contributed to this report.


The ICBM test represents a failure of US North Korea policy, an analyst says Experts say Trump has few good options now on North Korea US policy towards North Korea has entered an unpredictable new era, analysts say, after the rogue state announced it had tested a missile which could hit “anywhere in the world.” Adam Mount, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said US President Donald Trump had few good options to respond to North Korea. “It’s a major threshold … a really difficult question will be whether Donald Trump feels like he’s (been) backed into a corner and doesn’t have options short of war,” he said. “I think what we’ll have to grapple with in Washington is that none of our tactics or our levers mean the same thing anymore,” Mount added. On Tuesday, North Korea announced on state television it had successfully tested an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) for the first time – something which has long been seen as a red line in already fraught bilateral relations. Euan Graham, director of the International Security Program at Sydney’s Lowy Institute described the development as a foreign policy failure for the United States, going as far back as the Clinton administration. Related article North Korea's missile tests “It’s a failure that goes beyond any one (US) administration,” he said. “An ICBM actually takes the threat (of North Korea) right to the US homeland … that’s the dangerous dynamic that will be a driver for how the US responds,” Graham said. North Korea has repeatedly in the past threatened to attack the United States with a nuclear weapon, which the regime claims it has technical capability to do. South Korea is working with the US to determine whether or not the missile was an ICBM, according to Cho Han-Gyu, the director of operations at South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff. For months, there have been suggestions that an ICBM test by North Korea was imminent. In January, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un announced his country’s missile program was continuing apace. “Research and development of the cutting-edge tech weapons are actively progressing and strengthening our defense capabilities,” he said. Then President-elect, Donald Trump responded on Twitter, saying North Korea would not be allowed to create a nuclear weapon capable of hitting the US. North Korea just stated that it is in the final stages of developing a nuclear weapon capable of reaching parts of the U.S. It won't happen! “North Korea just started that it is in the final stages of developing a nuclear weapon capable of reaching parts of the US. It won’t happen!” he said at the time. In April, at a celebration of North Korea’s “Day of the Sun,” a missile was paraded through the capital Pyongyang which one analysts said could have been a type of ICBM. “The US failed to prevent the North Koreans from reprocessing their nuclear material, they failed to prevent them from testing nuclear missiles and now we’re at the threshold where the North Koreans has not just a basic missile but seven different types and all surprisingly sophisticated,” said Graham. Experts say there are no good options for the Trump administration to deal with a heavily-armed North Korea. “You can’t try to stop North Korea crossing a threshold – it’s already crossed (it). What are the sanctions for? What do we get out of pressuring China or North Korea? I think we need to step back and rethink,” Mount said. Related video S. Korea wants fresh approach to N. Korea The preferred policy of diplomatic engagement pushed by new South Korean President Moon Jae-in was unlikely to be acceptable “for the time being,” according to Mount, while a military strike remained “untenable.” “It would be devastating and against the interests of the United States,” he said, referring to the likely enormous loss of life in the South Korean capital Seoul, just across the North Korean border. Graham said the likely outcome might be learning to live with a nuclear, aggressive North Korea. “The inevitable end point will be that we do live with a nuclear North Korea with long-range missiles in some form and it is only a matter of time until that bitter pill is swallowed in Washington,” he said. “(Either way) we’ve got no doubt a rocky road for the remainder of this year.” Trump has long advocated a policy of pushing China to pressure with its neighbor and tenuous ally, North Korea. After Tuesday’s launch, he even suggested on Twitter they “put a heavy move” on the rogue state. Related video Trump holds calls with Xi, Abe over N. Korea But in the past week or so the US appears to have returned to a confrontational policy on China as it lost faith in Beijing’s ability to put the brakes on Pyongyang. “I think it’s now impossible for the Chinese to argue that they are positively restraining Kim Jong Un. If he has got to the threshold of an ICBM test and claimed that, then it shows he is not threatened by Chinese reactions or any further UN sanctions,” Graham said. “It’s a poke in the eye for China.” But Graham said China was also likely to place blame on the United States, saying if only Trump had listened to their calls for the US to back down on South Korean drills in exchange for a freeze on North Korea nuclear and missile program this might not have happened. “I think the Chinese will try to dodge any blame and say ‘We can’t control North Korea,’” he said.

United States policy towards North Korea


Pope Francis said the Vatican should study the possibility of ordaining women as deacons, answering a call that women, particularly in the United States, have been asking the church to address for decades. The Pope’s potentially groundbreaking remarks came, as they often do, in an off-the-cuff response to a question – and it was not altogether clear exactly what he meant. This time, the question came from the heads of women’s religious orders, who met with Francis at the Vatican on Thursday and pressed him for concrete ways in which women might play a larger role in leading the Catholic Church. To date, Francis has praised the “feminine genius” but has not carried through on vague promises to appoint more women to leadership positions. In a series of pointed questions – the Pope joked that he felt like a goalie fielding shots – the women called him out, asking why they can’t preach at Mass or be ordained as deacons. Women can give “reflections” at Catholic worship services, but only priests should preach homilies at Mass, the Pope answered, according to Vatican Radio, because they are acting “in persona Christi,” or, in the person of Christ. Church leaders have used a similar argument to prevent women from being ordained as priests, saying that Jesus’ disciples were all men. But in the Bible, St. Paul mentions least one woman, Phoebe, who served the early church, possibly as a deaconess. Asked about Phoebe on Thursday, the Pope said the role of Phoebe and other women wasn’t clear, and  he would ask the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to look into it. “Constituting an official commission that might study the question?” the pontiff asked, according to National Catholic Reporter. “I believe yes. It would do good for the church to clarify this point. I am in agreement. I will speak to do something like this.” It is not clear, however, whether the Pope meant that the Vatican will study the role of women deacons in history or the possibility that women could be deacons in the future. The Vatican press office declined to comment, saying they are awaiting a full transcript of Francis’ remarks. Vatican Radio, however, which is run by the church, portrayed the Pope’s remarks as a broad call “to set up a commission to study the possibility of reinstating female deacons.” The question is controversial because it would open the door for women into the Catholic Church’s all-male clergy. Since Vatican reforms in the mid 1960s, “permanent deacons” – those who do not plan on becoming priests – can perform many of the same functions as priests, including preach, celebrate marriages, lead funeral services and run parishes. They cannot hear confessions or consecrate the Eucharist, and only married or celibate men over age 35 are eligible for the diaconate. There are about 18,000 deacons in the United States, according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “Opening a commission to study the diaconate for women would be a great step for the Vatican in recognizing its own history,” The Women’s Ordination Conference said in a statement. “While WOC celebrates this step from the Vatican,” the conference continued, “until women are included in all decision-making structures and as priests and bishops of the church, equality remains painfully denied.”


Editor’s Note: Samantha Vinograd, a CNN national security analyst, served on the National Security Council from 2009 to 2013 during President Barack Obama’s administration. Follow her @sam_vinograd. CNN national security analyst John Kirby is a retired rear admiral in the US Navy who was a spokesman for both the State and Defense departments in the Obama administration. The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the authors. The State Department says Rex Tillerson is ready for “difficult conversations” when he arrives in Ankara this Friday. He’d better be. Tensions are high – so high, in fact, that Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu issued an ultimatum this week: either the United States finally does something to address Turkish concerns about their border security or the bilateral relationship breaks apart. There is, to be sure, a touch of melodrama in Cavusoglu’s threat. But the Turks have long complained about American support to Kurdish YPG fighters in Syria, whom Turkey views as terrorists aligned with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). This, Turkey believes, makes the United States complicit in attacks by these groups upon Turkish soil. But the volume on bilateral irritants has been steadily raised over the last few years. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has accused the United States of supporting the coup attempt of 2016; he has jailed thousands of government workers, educators, military officers and journalists, as well as some American citizens and embassy staff on weak – or even no – charges; he has put at risk through word and deed the small American force on the ground in Syria. Even now he presses forward – with Russian approval – an operation in Afrin that he claims is designed to rid the area of PKK, but is little more than an effort to diminish the US presence in Syria. And he has threatened to move on the Syrian town of Manbij, which is controlled right now by YPG-led forces supported by American troops. Related article Turkish official: Why US should partner with Turkey in Syria Add to this mix the cozying up of Turkey to NATO’s biggest adversary: Russia. Turkey reportedly agreed to purchase Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile batteries and has been working closely with Russia on peace plans for Syria not supported by the UN. Russian president Vladimir Putin actually hosted representatives from Turkey and Iran in Sochi last month for a “peace congress” that was boycotted by main opposition groups and achieved no meaningful results. Tillerson is going to be walking into a tough room. He must prove willing to be tough in return. The unfortunate fact is, however, that he’s going in there at a disadvantage. Almost since the start of his tenure, the White House has consistently undermined his policy positions. So it’s unclear that Turkish officials will view Tillerson as empowered to make decisions or as an actual mouthpiece for the President. So Tillerson has his work cut out for him. But it’s work perfectly suited to a US Secretary of State, and we should be glad he is taking it on. Related article The world's most progressive democracy is being born. Don't let it get strangled He must be firm, willing to call Turkey out for the dangerous and unhelpful actions it continues to pursue. He must reiterate – as American forces proved when attacked recently by pro-Syrian forces – that a move on Manbij will not be tolerated. And he must continue to urge restraint and a refocus of Turkish military actions against ISIS. But he must also look for ways to work through the current tensions and develop a framework for better cooperation and, more importantly, a better outcome in Syria. In other words, Secretary Tillerson should take the long view. We suggest this is the perfect opportunity to: 1) Start to repair US credibility as a leader on resolving the conflict in Syria. The civil war in Syria has been raging now for seven years. Hundreds of thousands of people have died. Previously, the United States led efforts to try to resolve the ongoing violence and to deal with the extremists using Syria as a base camp for operations around the world. Related article On the front lines in Syria, US troops face NATO ally's wrath Turkey and the United States have had strategic disagreements on Syria related to the Kurds, but at this point Russia is exploiting these fissures to insert itself into a mediator role. Russia does not share our interests in Syria, nor does it represent the interests of the Syrian people. Tillerson needs convince his Turkish counterparts that US leadership is the best means of achieving an end to violence and resolving the crisis in a way that’s in the interests of all parties. To do that, of course, he will need the backing of President Trump, who has thus far not shown great interest in achieving a political settlement of the civil war. To his credit, Tillerson told reporters he would discuss the peace process with his Turkish counterparts. But he should do more than just make clear we share with Turkey the goal of a united, stable and peaceful Syria that poses no threat to anyone. He should prove it by laying out a diplomatic strategy in keeping with the UN-led Geneva process. 2) Expose Russia’s malfeasance and opportunism for what it is. The Russians are in Syria primarily for one reason: to preserve their foothold in the Middle East. They don’t love Syrian President Bashar al-Assad any more than the Turks do, but they’ve placed their bets on him as the best chance to keep their presence and influence alive there. Related article Where does this end? Dangers if US leaves Syria -- or stays The deepening bonds between Russia and Turkey are neither natural nor inevitable. As recently as 2015, Turkey was one of the most vocal critics of Russian efforts to prop up Assad. Tensions reached a boiling point that year when Turkish forces shot down a Russian warplane. Tillerson would do well to remind Erdogan of the history here and of the chaos, instability and increased threat he will face with a Russian-backed Assad-led government persisting in Damascus. This is a good time to demonstrate the value of our partnership in and out of the Alliance. 3) Offer to mediate a return to Turkish-Kurdish negotiations. The two-and-a-half year ceasefire between Turkey and the PKK collapsed in July 2015, and there’s been no serious effort since to revive it. We cannot expect that to change any time soon, but given increased US influence with the YPG, it may be possible to find a way to renew some level of discussion. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook American mediation would represent the leverage the United States possesses and convey our sincerity to more fully address the threat Turkey faces from terrorism. That’s not a bad place to start. In the end, however, it really comes down to what sort of “difficult conversation” Mr. Tillerson is willing to have. The meetings in Ankara could very easily devolve into charge and counter-charge, complaint and counter-complaint. But if he is empowered to take a longer view, the US Secretary of State could begin to lay the groundwork for a better bilateral relationship. For the sake of Syria and the region, he’d better be.

United States Secretary of State Rex Tillerson


The Nigerian navy has rescued a hijacked oil tanker, arresting six men Officers engaged in a gun battle with the pirates on board, killing one of them, the Nigerian navy said This was the dramatic moment that the Nigerian Navy showed six men who they say hijacked a Saudi Arabian oil tanker off Ivory Coast. Bare-chested and handcuffed, the men were paraded in front of local and international media as the Nigerian naval officers described how they stormed the ship on Saturday and arrested the pirates off the coast of Sao Tome and Principe, West Africa. Officers engaged in a gun battle with the pirates on board, killing one of them, the Nigerian navy said. His body was later seen being carried from the ship on Monday at the Lagos naval base. The Saudi Arabian tanker, Maximus, was taken on February 11 with at least 18 crew, including 10 Indian sailors. Two of the crew are still missing after they were taken hostage by two pirates who escaped in another vessel. The hostages are believed to be from India and Pakistan. The suspected hijackers, all Nigerians, were named as Captain Mike Ugborama, Ayo Joshua, Marcus Adesoji, Adeyemi Paul, Oluwafemi Samuel, and Collins Friday. Among the haul recovered from the ship were AK47s, magazines, bullets, different currencies, satellite phones and even protection charms from local traditional medicine men. Rear Admiral Henry Babalola told CNN the ship, chartered by a South Korean company, was carrying 4.700 metric tons of diesel, which the pirates hoped to sell on the black market. They had also renamed the vessel MT-ELVIS-5 to try to avoid detection. The Indian defense attache, Capt. Gautam Marwaha, was at the scene to welcome the rescued crew. He told CNN no ransom demand had been received yet for the missing crew members. However he hailed the operation a “success,” adding “as we say in the Navy: ‘Bravo, Zulu to the Nigerians.’”


Editor’s Note: Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a vice president at New America and a professor of practice at Arizona State University. He is the author of “United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists.” David Sterman is a policy analyst at New America’s International Security Program. The opinions expressed in this commentary are theirs. Peter Bergen and David Sterman: U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan were halted for last eight months of the Obama administration President Trump has to decide whether to restart them The American drone war in Pakistan effectively ended nearly eight months ago when the US conducted its last drone strike, killing the Taliban’s leader, Mullah Akhtar Mansour. After using CIA drones regularly for 7 years in Pakistan – a country  where the United States is not waging a traditional war, such as in Iraq – the Obama administration has now presided over the longest cessation of strikes since President Obama took office, according to data collected by New America. It is in Pakistan where the majority of CIA drone strikes have occurred under Obama, resulting in the death of a minimum of 1,904 people and perhaps as many as 3,114, according to New America’s research. The drone program has continued in other countries outside of traditional war zones, such as Yemen and Somalia, but at relatively small levels, compared to the 122 strikes in one year that occurred in Pakistan at the height of Obama’s drone war there. On Friday, Donald Trump took the oath of office. He has a key decision to make as commander in chief: Will he re-start the drone strikes? That decision should be guided by the scope of the real threat emanating from Pakistan, rather than simply a desire to do something other than what the departing administration has done, which is often the impulse of an incoming administration. The threat from al-Qaeda in Pakistan has receded and the need for “force protection” of US troops in Afghanistan has much diminished with the significant withdrawals of American forces in the past years. Related video Taliban confirm leader killed in U.S. airstrike There is also a widespread perception in Pakistan that drones kill too many civilians – according to a 2014 Pew poll, two thirds of Pakistanis believe this to be the case. Any decision to reactivate the drone campaign in Pakistan should take into account that the program and the United States are quite unpopular in the country, which has a population of more than 180 million people. The incoming Trump national security team has not laid out a clear policy on drone strikes, but it has made general statements suggestive of a coming escalation. During the campaign, Trump stated, “The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families,” and called President Obama’s war on ISIS a “politically correct war.” Trump brings with him appointees who have long supported the drone war. In 2013, Mike Pompeo, Trump’s nominee for Director of the CIA, stated: “I believe the president needs a lot of space to maneuver,” adding, “He should have a lot of authority to make decisions about when they’ve identified someone who is trying to kill Americans, to be able to go in and get them.” In 2011, General James Mattis, who at the time was Commander of Central Command, which directs American military operations stretching from Egypt to Pakistan, and is now Trump’s Defense Secretary nominee, was among those who pushed for an escalation of air strikes in Yemen. On the other hand, members of Trump’s circle have also criticized the drone war. Despite his role in pushing for an escalation of strikes in Yemen, Mattis has warned that drone warfare can give a false impression that war is manageable. In January 2016, Michael Flynn, who is slated to be Trump’s National Security Adviser, told Al Jazeera, “When you drop a bomb from a drone … you are gonna cause more damage than you’re gonna cause good,” adding that “there should be a different approach.” Flynn, however, refused to condemn Trump’s comments regarding killing terrorists’ family members, commenting instead: “I would have to see the circumstances of that situation.” He added, “These are very difficult political decisions.” He has also criticized the current restraints on strikes that are meant to limit collateral damage. Trump and his team have also not laid out a clear policy on U.S. relations with Pakistan. Related video Pakistan releases phone call with Trump Trump has at times taken a conciliatory tone. Shortly after being elected, he told Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, “You are a terrific guy,” and offered, “I am ready and willing to play any role that you want me to play to address and find solutions to the outstanding problems,” according to a Pakistani readout of a call he had with Sharif. In his answers to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee before his confirmation hearing last week, Mattis cautioned that conditioning aid to Pakistan has had a “mixed history” and that the casualties Pakistan has suffered fighting terror is a “sign of its commitment,” but warned he would “review all options.” Yet in 2012 Trump tweeted a demand that Pakistan apologize for the fact that Osama bin Laden had been hiding there, commenting, “Some ‘ally.’” There are two explanations for the halt, which are not mutually exclusive: either the Obama administration made a decision to refrain from strikes or the cessation derives from a lack of need or opportunity to conduct strikes. Related video Drone victims speak out The number of strikes in Pakistan has consistently declined since their peak of 122 strikes or about ten per month in 2010. In an October interview, President Obama said he was “troubled” early in his presidency by “the way in which the number of drone strikes was going up.” Yet beyond Pakistan, there is little evidence that the Obama administration has reined in its air wars against terrorist groups. In Yemen, the United States conducted more drone strikes in 2016 than any year except 2012, the peak of the campaign in the country, according to data collected by New America. In Somalia, the United States has conducted more strikes in 2016 than during any previous year, according to New America’s research. In 2016, Washington and its coalition partners conducted more than 7,000 strikes in Iraq and Syria. And in Libya, the United States has conducted more than 350 air strikes since August as part of its military campaign against ISIS there. Alternatively, it is possible the Obama administration decided that it is not worth antagonizing Pakistan with further strikes. Though Pakistan has criticized American strikes before — publicly, at least — the strike on Mullah Mansour may have generated a more significant reaction as it occurred in the province of Balochistan, violating an agreement that restricted American strikes to Pakistan’s tribal areas. Pakistan called the strike “totally illegal, not acceptable and against the sovereignty and integrity of the country.” Such protestations have not prevented previous strikes. Another potential explanation for the cessation is that the United States is running out of targets in Pakistan. At the peak of the drone war in Pakistan, the United States had around 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, while today the United States has fewer than 10,000 soldiers there, reducing the need to conduct “force protection” strikes. The rise and fall in drone strikes in Pakistan closely mirrors the rise and fall of American troop numbers in Afghanistan. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Pakistan’s military operation to secure its northern tribal areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border in 2015 resulted in an influx of militants into Afghanistan as they fled Pakistan, further reducing the number of targets. The United States has killed more than 50 al Qaeda and Taliban leaders in Pakistan since the beginning of the CIA drone campaign. In 2011, before he was killed in a US Navy SEAL raid, bin Laden was considering moving al Qaeda’s key figures out of Pakistan to avoid the strikes. Even the Taliban’s leadership council, which has long been able to find shelter in Pakistan’s cities, may now have moved back to Afghanistan in recent months. According to General John W. Nicholson, the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, the United States has killed or captured 50 key al Qaeda leaders and facilitators in Afghanistan in 2016 alone. Given his rhetoric, Trump may well escalate the drone war in Pakistan and there isn’t much to stop him if he chooses to do so. A decade and half ago, Congress authorized the war in Afghanistan, which was extended to Pakistan first by George W. Bush and then Obama. Under Obama, the drone war in Pakistan reached its height, and Trump, should he choose to do so, can easily bring that war back.


Editor’s Note: David Miliband, president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee, is former secretary of state for foreign and Commonwealth affairs for the United Kingdom. The views expressed are his own. David Miliband: ISIS advances are significant propaganda victories Diplomatic cooperation on Syria on the U.N. Security Council is minimal, he says Almost a year on from their dramatic seizure of Mosul, Iraq’s second city, the militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria continue to expand the frontiers of their stronghold in the Middle East. The fall this month of Ramadi – the last remaining government-held city in Iraq’s largest province – and the taking, 400 miles west, of Syria’s Roman-era town of Palmyra, constitute not just important strategic gains for the group, but significant propaganda victories. Televised images of Palmyra’s ancient ruins now abound, their fate seemingly hanging in the balance. The rapid rise of ISIS has thus captured the world’s attention, and we’ve seen a coalition of Western and Arab states make common cause with Iran to try to forcibly halt the jihadists’ advance. But such cooperation has not extended to securing an end to the war in Syria, where four years of conflict and chaos have cost more than 220,000 lives (though some estimates suggest the toll is far higher), left every second Syrian in need of aid and allowed ISIS to grow from an Iraqi al Qaeda franchise into a veritable transborder operation. Remarkably, despite all this, diplomatic energies aimed at securing an end to the war – and minimizing the impact of the fighting on civilians – have ebbed to their lowest levels so far. True, early Arab League proposals, former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s six-point plan, and the January 2014 Geneva II conference yielded minimal results, But there was at least a sense of commitment and grim determination back then. Now, despite this week’s news that the United Kingdom and Russia are to resume discussions on the crisis, political inertia is so pervasive that U.N. Syria Envoy Staffan de Mistura’s focus is simply on maintaining open channels of communication through “consultations” – in essence, talks about talks. Similarly, diplomatic cooperation on Syria in the U.N. Security Council is minimal, including in the area of securing compliance with the council’s own humanitarian resolutions. Neither its members, nor states with sway in Syria, have applied appropriate pressure on the warring parties to halt the deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, the indiscriminate bombardment of densely populated areas or the continuing disruption – by means ranging from bureaucracy to besiegement – of nearly five million people’s access to aid.  My own organization saw seven of our beneficiaries killed in a bombing raid on Idlib last week. Syrian civilians’ misery is also being compounded by a further, depressing trend: the increasing mismatch between their needs and the help the international community is providing. One million people inside Syria required humanitarian assistance in 2011. That number now stands at 12.2 million, well over half of whom are internally displaced. Their needs – food, water, shelter, health care, sanitation – have increased at more than six times the rate of funding provided since the beginning of the conflict. Last year’s U.N. appeal to meet basic needs inside Syria was only 48% supported, down from 68% in 2013. The discrepancy between needs and assistance is also growing amongst the four million people who have fled Syria. In exile for years now, their economic and personal assets long depleted, these refugees urgently require food, water, fuel, clothing and education. At the same time, the countries sheltering them are buckling under the pressure of such a massive population influx. Turkey, the biggest refugee-hosting country in the world, put the cost last fall of hosting Syrian refugees at $4.5 billion. Lebanon, where Syrians now constitute somewhere between a quarter and a third of the population, will need investment of up to $2.5 billion just to restore its basic infrastructure to precrisis levels, according to a 2013 report from the World Bank. Jordan, one of the most water-starved nations on the planet, hosts nearly 630,000 registered refugees – proportionally equivalent to the United States absorbing the population of the United Kingdom. It puts the cost of hosting Syrians in 2014 at $871 million. In Iraqi Kurdistan, meanwhile, 250,000 Syrian refugees shelter alongside the well over one million Iraqis who have sought protection in the region since January last year. The Kurdish authorities simply cannot meet the spiraling demand for jobs and basic services in the territory, where the poverty rate has more than doubled over the past 17 months. Yet despite such immense need, the U.N.’s Syrian refugee appeal for 2014 was just 64% funded, down from 73% in 2013, and global pledges to resettle the most vulnerable Syrian refugees in countries outside the region have failed to even approach a level appropriate to the scale of this crisis. Such is the pressure upon their public services, economies, resources and social fabrics that Syria’s neighbors are now taking steps to restrict the flow of refugees into their territory; only the most vulnerable can enter at present, and there are reports of refugees being forcibly repatriated to Syria. So, how should the international community respond? Even within the limits of a humanitarian perspective, there are clear, urgent priorities. First, the U.N. Security Council and states with influence over Syria’s warring parties should take immediate steps to hold accountable all those who fail to honor their obligations under international humanitarian law. Pressure must be brought to bear upon all parties that restrict or undermine full, safe and unfettered humanitarian access to those in need. Second, and with this appalling interference with access in mind, the Security Council’s permanent members, as well as key regional players such as Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, should each appoint senior diplomats or politicians as humanitarian envoys, resourcing and supporting them to focus attention on the human consequences of the Syrian conflict. They should also document and challenge restrictions on access, mediate and monitor ceasefires, support the efforts of the U.N. emergency relief coordinator and work through the detail of the relevant Security Council resolutions with all stakeholders – the warring parties, their backers, the United Nations and NGOs. Finally, the United Nations’ 2015 appeal for Syria and the region must be funded. Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq should receive the direct financial assistance and long-term development investment they require to repair their shaking infrastructure, reboot their public services and start creating jobs for Syrians and the communities who host them. Support for these countries is an essential counterpart to the vital call on them to keep their borders open to those fleeing Syria. None of these measures is a substitute for the political and diplomatic drive and imagination needed to bring this conflict – or series of conflicts – to a close. The spillover of Syria’s war into Iraq means that the options available to those in the international community keen to secure regional and global stability are far more limited than they were in 2011. As this crisis becomes more and more complex, those options are set to become even narrower, their consequences increasingly unpredictable. But this is all the more reason for a renewed push to end the violence. Next month marks three years since the Geneva Communiqué, a now dormant road map for Syria’s political transition, was signed in Switzerland. Let that anniversary – as well as events in Ramadi and Palmyra – focus minds. Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion. Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion. Read CNNOpinion’s Flipboard magazine.

International community's response to the Syrian conflict


U.S. troops would be allowed to accompany conventional Afghan forces into the field The U.S. troop drawdown could be slowed to keep more troops in the country for as long as possible President Barack Obama has granted U.S. military commanders more freedom to strike Taliban targets in support of Afghan troops, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced Friday. Speaking at an event in Washington, he said that Obama approved the change to let the U.S. commander “anticipate situations in which the Afghan security forces would benefit from our support.” “This is using the forces we have here in a better way,” he told the Defense One Tech Summit, calling the expanded authority “a good use of the combat power that we have there.” The new authority for U.S. troops would pave the way for military operations to once again support conventional Afghanistan forces against the Taliban under limited circumstances, a senior U.S. military official told CNN ahead of Carter’s public comments. “This is not a blanket order to target the Taliban,” the official said. However, under the new authorities, U.S. troops would be allowed to accompany conventional Afghan forces into the field to advise and assist them. Under current rules, U.S. participation is largely limited to supporting Afghan special forces. A U.S. official said the new plan allows mainly for “close air support” strikes to ensure the safety of U.S. and Afghan forces by hitting Taliban positions. But those airstrikes may also require U.S. military “air controller” personnel on the ground to pick out targets and relay details to pilots overhead. The new rules could also open the door for more U.S. airstrikes and ground action against the Taliban to ensure U.S. and Afghan forces are protected, the official indicated. Still, the Pentagon does not believe U.S. troops will be “in direct combat,” the official said. The Pentagon and White House have been debating for weeks not only about a change to U.S. troops levels in Afghanistan, but whether to amend the current military authorities that restrict U.S. airstrikes against Taliban targets. As of now, the U.S. military broadly has authority to strike any targets on the ground under three scenarios: to protect U.S. forces on ground; to go after the remnants of Al Qaeda; and to protect Afghan forces when they are facing imminent danger of being overrun by the Taliban. The discussion inside the administration has been centered around whether to change those authorities so U.S. warplanes could now strike Taliban targets even if they do not pose a direct imminent threat. There are about 9,800 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The plan now calls for a drawdown to about 5,500 in 2017. The drawdown could be slowed within that time frame to keep more troops in the country for as long as possible, but it’s not clear that decision has been made. Broadly speaking, the U.S. believes the performance of Afghan security forces has improved, according to Brig. Gen. Charles Cleveland, the chief spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition. But there are concerns as the summer fighting season goes on that the Taliban will pose security problems in southern Afghanistan. “The Taliban has shifted their main effort down to Helmand,” Cleveland said, noting, however, that the U.S. hasn’t seen the full Taliban offensive it expected. Still, the reemergence of the Taliban threat has led to this vigorous discussion inside the administration about what to do about it, officials told CNN. The Defense Department had been expected to announce on Friday changes in the U.S. military operation in Afghanistan to increase the ability to attack Taliban targets, but it was canceled on Thursday according to several officials familiar with the effort. None of the officials CNN spoke to report to Carter, and no one agreed to be identified due to the sensitivity of the discussions inside the administration. CNN’s Ryan Browne contributed to this report.


POLITICS So much to cover … so little time. Trump’s message The most unorthodox of politicians struck a conventional presidential posture during his speech to Congress last night. Donald Trump conjured a vision of common national purpose, shifting his tone from the dark, searing approach of his previous big speeches to the nation. The question now is whether the President was previewing a new, more sober political persona or will he soon return to his combative habits? Immigration Trump wants Republicans and Democrats to work together on an immigration reform bill that allows undocumented immigrants to stay in the US  if they paid taxes and had no serious criminal record – a stance that runs counter to the tough-on-immigrant rhetoric that defined his campaign. He’s also scrapped plans to sign a reworked travel ban planned for today, and will wait until later this week to sign the order, a senior administration official said. Education Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is under fire after describing historically black colleges and universities as “pioneers” of school choice. They’re not. HBCUs arose in response to racist Jim Crow laws in the south that enforced segregation, shutting out black students from traditionally white schools. Gun control Trump signed a measure nixing a regulation aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of some severely mentally ill people. 2. SYRIA WAR It was clash of the titans at the UN Security Council yesterday. Russia and China vetoed a US-backed  measure to punish Syria for using chemical weapons,  and the Trump administration was not amused. The resolution would have condemned use of chemical weapons in Syria and placed sanctions on 21 scientists,  commanders and entities alleged to be involved in their use. 3. GAZA WAR Israeli politicians took aim at one another  following the release of a state report that criticizes the country’s  handling of the Gaza war three years ago. The report offered a strong indictment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, claiming it had no strategic goals when the 50-day war started. 4. TORNADOES Tornadoes ripped through the Midwest yesterday, killing two people – one in Missouri and a second one in Illinois. The National Weather Service reports 20 tornadoes landed in  Illinois, Missouri, Tennessee and Iowa. 5. CALIFORNIA CRASH One of the two women who survived a deadly small plane crash in Southern California was found in the bedroom of a home the plane crashed into and a second survivor was found near the crash scene. Three others on the plane were killed. Breakfast Browse People are talking about these. Read up. Join in. ‘Dancing grannies’ will face the music Beijing’s had enough of its dancing grannies. The women meet in public squares and perform synchronized dance routines with loud music. From Wednesday, the dancers in Beijing will be subject to fines. Time to switch channels Buh bye, traditional TV. Google has launched YouTube TV, which will offer a streaming TV service for people who don’t want to pay for traditional cable. War of words It’s safe to say the Obamas walked away into a sunset littered with dollar bills. Penguin Random House has won in a bidding war for a pair of books by Barack and Michelle Obama. Making history In its 130 years of existence, the Harvard Law Review had never elected a black woman as president. ImeIme Umana has changed that. The 24-year-old is the first black woman to lead the influential journal.


Three survivors of clerical sex abuse urged Pope Francis to turn his words into action against the “networks of abuse” in the Catholic Church. At a news conference in Rome, Juan Carlos Cruz, James Hamilton Sanchez and Jose Andres Murillo, all from Chile, spoke of the five days they spent with Pope Francis as his guests at Casa Santa Marta in Vatican City. Cruz said the Pope told him, “I was part of the problem. I caused this and I apologize to you.” Francis invited the survivors to the Vatican after apologizing for “grave errors” in his handling of a Chilean sex abuse scandal. The survivors each met individually for two to three hours with Francis and again as a group, they said. “The Pope was very attentive, receptive and very empathetic during the intense and long hours of conversation,” Cruz said. Pope Francis had initially discounted the survivors’ testimony against Bishop Juan Barros, whom the survivors say witnessed and covered-up abuses in Chile. The Pope appointed Barros a bishop in 2015 over the objections of residents of the southern city of Osorno.  Cruz is one of the accusers. He said Barros covered up for the Rev. Fernando Karadima, whom the Vatican found guilty of child sex abuse in 2011. Francis appointed Barros as bishop of Osorno in 2015 and defended him strenuously for three years, calling accusations against him “calumny.” Barros has denied knowing about what he called the “serious abuses” of Karadima and has said he never approved or participated in those actions. In a statement dated January 30, Barros’ diocese said, “The Bishop … expressed that he is taking everything related to the Pope with faith and joy, asking God for the truth to shine through and especially invoking the Virgin Mary so everyone can reach peace.” “For almost 10 years we have been treated as enemies because we fight against sexual abuse and coverup in the church,” Cruz said, reading a statement on behalf of the group. “These days we met the friendly face of the church, completely different from the one we had seen before,” he said. Francis did not tell the survivors what he plans to do with Barros but asked them to come up with ideas and suggestions on dealing with sex abuse and send them to him. In February 2017, Cruz revealed that a letter he had written to Pope Francis detailing the sex abuse was hand-delivered to the Pope by Cardinal Sean O’Malley in April 2015. At the news conference, Cruz said he did not press the Pope about whether he had ever read that letter or why he failed to act on it. “We will never know the full truth,” Hamilton said, “but now he is very well informed because he wanted to be really well informed. That’s why he asked for our visit.” “Everyone deserves a second chance,” Hamilton said.


Richard Spencer is founder of the alt-right movement A masked individual socked him in face Alt-right founder Richard Spencer was punched on Friday during an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation near President Donald Trump’s inauguration. Video posted online by the outlet shows the white supremacist speaking to Washington bureau chief Zoe Daniel when he was interrupted by individuals off camera. Spencer was answering questions on whether he was a neo-Nazi. He said he was not, and was then asked what the “Pepe the Frog” pin he was wearing signified. “Pepe the Frog” is an internet meme so often used by racists and anti-Semites it was designated a hate symbol by the Anti-Defamation League. As Spencer was speaking, a masked individual ran up, socked him in the face and fled. Spencer left, later tweeting there was, “no serious damage.” “It was absolutely terrible,” Spencer told CNN’s Sara Ganim by phone hours after the assault. “I’ve certain never had this happen before – a sucker punch in broad daylight.” D.C. police said there is no open investigation into the assault as Spencer has not filed a police report.  Spencer says he called 911 at the scene and plans to file a police report. “I kind of like getting into vigorous back and forth with people who disagree with me,” said Spencer.  “But punching like that just crosses a line – totally unacceptable.” He went onto say he feared future targeting, “Certainly, some people think I’m not a human being and I can just be attacked at will.” In November, the racism and anti-Semitism of the alt-right movement were on display in Washington when its members gathered to celebrate Trump’s victory. Atlantic magazine, which is recording footage of Spencer for a documentary, published a video of the same event showing audience members apparently giving the Nazi salute. “Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!” Spencer declared. His remarks then were filled with racist imagery – including references to “the black political machines” and Latino housekeepers – as he bashed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s minority supporters. Speaking to CNN on Wednesday, Spencer said his support for Trump had waned. “I am getting worried that he won’t work on really big important issues like immigration,” Spencer said. “That he’ll get caught up on little things like making fun of people on Twitter.” Spencer denied being a white supremacist in a December 2016 interview with Ganim.  But, in that interview he said, “Only white people can support what we call Western civilization.” He also has said there should be a “peaceful ethnic cleansing,” meaning individuals not of European descent should voluntarily leave the United States. CNN’s Sara Ganim and Jasmine Lee contributed to this report.


NEW: Ministry, naval officer at odds over whether sub tried to contact naval bases Sub with 44 in crew was last seen Wednesday; US assets will assist search Amid reports a missing Argentine submarine tried unsuccessfully to contact naval bases seven times, a top navy officer said Sunday there is no indication the calls came from the ARA San Juan. “The calls are being analyzed, but we do not have clear evidence that they came from that unit,” said Gabriel Gonzales, who is in charge of the base where the submarine was slated to arrive Sunday, according to state-run news agency Télam. Earlier Sunday, the country’s defense ministry said the calls came to different bases between 10:52 a.m. and 3:42 p.m. Saturday, and lasted between four and 36 seconds, the ministry said in a statement to CNN en Español. “We received seven satellite calls that likely came from the submarine San Juan. We are working hard to locate it. To the families of the 44 crew members: We hope you’ll have them home soon,” Argentina’s Defense Minister Oscar Aguad tweeted. The military is working with a US company that specializes in satellite communication to determine the location of the submarine that vanished three days ago. #Hoy en la Base Naval #MardelPlata se celebró una misa para los familiares de los 44 tripulantes del #SubmarinoSanJuan  y la dotación de la base pic.twitter.com/hvZK7P5eTn The ARA San Juan submarine and its 44 crew members were traveling through the Atlantic Ocean from a base in southern Argentina’s Tierra del Fuego archipelago to their home port in Mar del Plata. The sub was scheduled to arrive at its destination Sunday. The submarine was last spotted Wednesday in the San Jorge Gulf, a few hundred kilometers off the coast of southern Argentina’s Patagonia region and nearly midway between the bases. As officials await word on the submarine, relatives of crew members gathered Saturday for Mass at a navy base in Mar del Plata, where they prayed for their safe return. Southern Argentina’s Patagonia coast is notorious for strong storms. “Currently a powerful low-pressure system is causing wind gusts in excess of 70 kph (nearly 45 mph) and churning up the South Atlantic Ocean with swells equivalent to a two-story building. This weather will hamper the search efforts for at least the next 48 hours,” CNN Meteorologist Derek Van Dam said. The Argentine navy said it ordered stations along the coast to search their communications and listen into all possible frequencies of the submarine.” The San Juan is a 65-meter-long (213 ft) TR-1700 submarine, powered by one electric and four diesel engines, Argentina’s military said. The US Navy said Saturday it ordered its Undersea Rescue Command based in San Diego to deploy to Argentina to help with the search. The first rescue system –  the submarine rescue chamber and an underwater, remotely operated vehicle – was flown from Miramar to Comodoro Rivadavia, Argentina, where it’s expected to arrive Sunday. The second rescue system and supporting equipment will be transported using additional flights, and is scheduled to arrive in Argentina next week, the navy said in a statement. The systems allow the safe underwater transfer of sailors from a submarine. A P8-A Poseidon – a maritime, patrol and reconnaissance aircraft – has arrived in Argentina, along with a NASA P-3 Orion aircraft, the statement said. In another statement Sunday, the Navy said it was sending another P8-A Poseidon and 21 crew members to join the search effort. The P-3 is a turboprop aircraft capable of long-duration flights, according to NASA. Britain’s Royal Navy said its patrol ship, the HMS Protector, is also joining search and rescue efforts at the request of the Argentine government. It said the ice patrol ship has sonar equipment to search beneath the waves. The ship is speeding toward the search area, and is expected to arrive Sunday morning, said Capt. Angus Essenhigh, its commanding officer. He said rescue efforts are expected to start as soon as the team arrives. CNN’s  Ana Melgar, Steve Almasy, Flora Charner, Ivan Perez Sarmenti, Jason Hanna, Diane Ruggiero, Spencer Feingold and Marilia Brochetto  contributed to this report.


The two major party candidates' responses again highlighted the sharp differences in their foreign policy stances Clinton said greater intelligence gathering, not military force, was necessary Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton struck different tones following the France terror attack Thursday night, with Trump saying he’d ask for a declaration of war against ISIS while Clinton called for greater intelligence gathering to fight terror groups. The two major party candidates’ responses again highlighted the sharp differences in their foreign policy stances, with Trump reiterating his belief that the U.S. needs to be “tough” in its response to terrorism. In Nice, France, a driver plowed into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day, killing more than 70 people. On Friday, a National Security spokesman said Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Lisa Monaco has kept President Barack Obama regularly apprised of the situation and investigation. That spokesman said the White House expects Obama to speak to his French counterpart sometime soon though no call has been planned. Although it was not immediately clear whether the assailant had pledged allegiance to ISIS, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly asked Trump if he would seek a declaration of war from Congress against the terror group. “I would, I would. This is war,” Trump replied. “If you look at it, this is war coming from all different parts.” He reiterated his belief that “we have to be tough” and his view that the U.S. should reverse its decision to allow Syrian refugees into the country. “You know, in the old days, we would have uniforms, you knew what you were fighting. We are allowing people into our country who we have no idea where they are, where they’re from, who they are, they have no paperwork, they have no documentation, in many cases,” Trump said. Asked later Thursday about Trump’s response by CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Clinton said it was “clear” that the U.S. was at war with terrorist groups, but she said it “was a very different kind of war.” But, she argued, greater intelligence gathering, not military force, was necessary. “They would love to draw the United States into a ground war in Syria,” Clinton said. “I would be very focused on the intelligence surge. I would be very focused on working with our partners and allies and intensify our efforts against the ideologues that pedal radical jihadism online.” Related video Hillary Clinton on France attack: I am sick at heart Cooper then asked Clinton if the U.S. was at war with “radical Islam” – a phrase Trump often uses on the campaign trail and says is necessary to identify the threat. Clinton and Obama, however, have largely shied away from using the term, believing that associating terrorists with Islam helps to legitimize their interpretation of the religion. “We’re at war against radical jihadists who use Islam to recruit and radicalize others in order to pursue their evil agenda,” Clinton responded. “It’s not so important what we call these people as what we do about them, and I think back to our success in getting (Osama) bin Laden, it was important that we built the case, we got the information and the President ordered the raid.” Clinton also dismissed the presumptive Republican nominee’s concern about the potential of terrorists infiltrating the U.S. by posing as Syrian refugees. “I would not short-circuit the vetting process,” Clinton said. “If we are talking about women, children, orphans who are fleeing horrific violence, that’s a different category than young men or people who have some record that could be ferreted out as some concern.” Obama did not map out a response in his statement on the France attack, but called it a “horrific terrorist attack.” He pledged U.S. support to France as it investigates the attack. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who on Thursday accepted Trump’s offer to be his running mate, also issued a statement on the attack, which he said was “a horrific reminder of the threat facing Western civilization.” “As we mourn with the people of France, we must resolve to bring justice all those responsible and defeat this enemy of civilization at its source,” Pence said. Other notable political figures stood in solidarity with those affected by the attack. “Our hearts are with the victims of what appears to be yet another unconscionable act of terror,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement. Our hearts are with the victims of what appears to be yet another unconscionable act of terror. #NiceFrance pic.twitter.com/9tYczTnsdD Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tweeted, “We stand with the people of France. #NiceFrance.” We stand with the people of France. #NiceFrance https://t.co/UNn2aEFX4v Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted, “My thoughts are with the families and loved ones of those killed in Nice. The United States stands ready to support the French people.” My thoughts are with the families and loved ones of those killed in Nice. The United States stands ready to support the French people. “It appears terrorism has again struck the heart of Europe. Civilized & freedom loving nations cannot allow this to become the new normal,” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio tweeted. It appears terrorism has again struck the heart of Europe. Civilized & freedom loving nations cannot allow this to become the new normal. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi tweeted, “Hatred in all its forms must end. We stand in solidarity with France after the horrific. #BastilleDayTragedy.” Hatred in all its forms must end. We stand in solidarity with France after the horrific. #BastilleDayTragedy. https://t.co/X5xmA5ZJfY CNN’s Athena Jones and Naomi Lim contributed to this report.


Trump has become more open in his criticism of the President Obama has also offered criticism of his successor, albeit more tacitly Separated by the entire North American continent and half the Pacific Ocean, the incoming and outgoing presidents are trading barbs – both veiled and overt – from their respective holiday vacations, souring a once a collegial public relationship. Marked by insults on Twitter, perceived public slights and foreign policy disputes, the ties between President-elect Donald Trump and President Barack Obama have significantly frayed less than a month before Trump is sworn into office. Both sides say the actual mechanics of transferring power from one administration to another are proceeding smoothly. The President-elect said he spoke with Obama Wednesday in what he termed a “nice conversation.” And Trump’s spokesman said Wednesday he expected more conversations between the two men before Inauguration Day on January 20. Trump, however, has become more open in his criticism of the President since he won last month, arguing on Twitter that Obama misjudged the election and lost badly. He scaled up his disparagement on Wednesday, writing that “inflammatory” statements from Obama were hampering a smooth transition. Obama has also offered criticism of his successor, albeit more tacitly. During a historic speech Tuesday in Pearl Harbor alongside Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Obama cautioned against tribalism and isolationism – warnings that, during the campaign, he used to argue against Trump’s candidacy. The latest back-and-forth comes after two weeks of open sparring between the White House and Trump’s transition team over Russia and Israel. Once contained to sniping between aides, the squabbles have escalated to Obama and Trump themselves. The result is an openly antagonistic relationship between the commander in chief and the man who’s about to replace him, a dynamic that both men explicitly worked to avoid in the days immediately following the election. In public, both Obama and Trump had been careful to avoid direct personal criticism of one another in the weeks following November’s vote. White House officials said Obama’s instructions were to maintain a professional and helpful tone, hoping to provide Americans reassurance in the peaceful hand-off of power. Trump, too, offered conciliatory signals. He was effusive during his first meeting with Obama in the Oval Office, the bitterness of the campaign and any remnants of his “birther” conspiracy vanished. Later, Trump revealed he was speaking regularly with Obama, describing a “warm” relationship fostering discussions about potential Cabinet picks. Obama had hoped his counsel might convince Trump to maintain some of his administration’s work on climate change, health care and foreign policy. He regarded Trump as a largely non-ideological pragmatist who might be open to his guidance. A more combative tone eventually emerged, though Obama and Trump both sought to keep tensions at a minimum. Even Trump, known for his bombast, attempted to model the Obamas’ “when they go low, we go high” mantra, praising the President at rallies even as his crowd booed. The President-elect sought to brush off a tiff with First Lady Michelle Obama, saying she misspoke when she told Oprah Winfrey that “we are feeling what not having hope feels like.” Obama, too, attempted to ratchet down tensions surrounding Trump’s dismissal of US intelligence blaming Russia for a cyberintrusion in the election. After a week in which his press secretary hammered Trump’s operation for questioning the finding, Obama sought to cool the temperature, saying in his year-end news conference the matter shouldn’t be caught up in politics. But disagreements over Israel this week and a suggestion from Obama he could have won in a contest with Trump seem to have ended the politesse. “I could’ve mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind” a hope-and-change message, Obama told his senior adviser David Axelrod for The Axe Files podcast interview released Monday. It wasn’t long before Trump began tweeting in an progressively more irksome tone: “President Obama said that he thinks he would have won against me. He should say that but I say NO WAY! - jobs leaving, ISIS, OCare, etc,” he wrote on Monday. A day later: “President Obama campaigned hard (and personally) in the very important swing states, and lost. The voters wanted to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” After Obama’s Tuesday appearance in Hawaii warning against “the tug of tribalism” and “the urge to demonize those who are different,” Trump’s language on Wednesday morning was more direct. “Doing my best to disregard the many inflammatory President O statements and roadblocks,” he wrote. “Thought it was going to be a smooth transition - NOT!” The White House declined to comment on Trump’s accusation. Trump’s incoming White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, downplayed any trouble. “The current President and his team have been very helpful and generous with their time,” he said. But he didn’t temper the acrimonious messages directed toward Obama and the transition. “With respect to the tweets, they speak for themselves, I think very clearly,” Spicer said.


The Germans captured Master Sgt. Roddie Edmonds and his men in the Battle of the Bulge Edmonds stood up to POW camp commander at gunpoint, saved lives of Jewish comrades Edmonds, who died in 1985, first U.S. soldier honored by Israeli Holocaust museum There were few, if any, victorious moments to share from Master Sgt. Roddie Edmonds’ combat time in World War II. So he kept quiet. He told his son little of how his platoon, part of the 422nd Regiment, landed in Nazi Germany in 1944, a group of untested soldiers entering the final stages of the war. He kept quiet about December 19, the day Edmonds and his men were captured in the Battle of the Bulge, the last major Nazi offensive of the war, which caught Allied forces off guard. And he never told anyone what happened a month later in a prisoner-of-war camp in the heart of Germany. He took that secret to his grave when he died in 1985, two weeks shy of his 66th birthday: the story about the day he challenged the commander of the POW camp and saved all the Jews under his command. He shipped out in December 1944 with the 106th Infantry Division, arriving in Germany just in time to become a prisoner. Days earlier, Germany had launched the Battle of the Bulge. Edmonds and his men stood little chance. “They were green,” says his son, Chris Edmonds, remembering the few stories his father told. “They were just overwhelmed.” On Christmas Day, Edmonds and the other soldiers arrived in Stalag IX-B, a POW camp known as “Bad Orb” that housed more than 25,000 soldiers at a time. Thirty days later, Edmonds and the other noncommissioned officers were moved to Stalag IX-A with 1,275 other soldiers. As a master sergeant, he was the senior noncommissioned officer among the men. On the prisoners’ first day at the POW camp, the German intercom system in the American barracks crackled to life. Only the Jewish POWs were to fall out after morning roll call. At this point in the war, the Nazis were already implementing the Final Solution – their plan to wipe out the Jews of Europe that led to the killings of 6 million Jews at camps, including Auschwitz-Birkenau. That plan now extended to Jewish POWs from the Allied armies. “We’re not going to do that,” Edmonds told his men, some of them still remember 70 years later. “Geneva Convention affords only name, rank and serial number, and so that’s what we’re going to do. All of us are falling out.” Edmonds, a Christian, was true to his word. The next morning, all 1,275 soldiers stood at attention in front of their barracks. The commander of the camp was furious, storming up to Edmonds and shouting, “All of you can’t be Jewish?!” “We are all Jews here,” Edmonds responded. Standing next to Edmonds was Paul Stern, a 19-year-old Jewish soldier who heard Edmonds’ words and the exchange with the base commander. “I was so proud of him,” Stern tells me by phone from his home near Washington. He is 90 years old now but remembers every moment of that conversation. His words come between staccato breaths. Speaking seems difficult for him, but he is too excited to stop: “He was so brave to say that.” I don’t need to see Stern’s face to know he is smiling. “We are all Jews here,” Stern repeats in a whisper. It is impossible to know how many of Edmonds’ soldiers were Jewish. His son, Chris, estimates that no more than 200 were Jews, based on conversations he has had with Stern and with Lester Tanner, another soldier who imprisoned with his father. “I’m commanding you to have your Jewish men step forward,” the camp commander barked at Edmonds. Edmonds reminded the commander of the Geneva Conventions, telling him that he was entitled only to his prisoners’ names, ranks and serial numbers. The commander pulled out his gun and pressed it into Edmonds’ forehead, Stern recalls: “You will have your Jewish men step forward or I will shoot you on the spot.” Stern remembers Edmonds’ reply: “If you shoot, you’ll have to kill all of us, and you will have to stand for war crimes after we win this war.” The major turned red, furious that a POW was challenging him, but he put his gun in his holster and walked away. The men went back to their barracks and cheered Edmonds. “Although 70 years have passed, I can still hear the words he said to the German camp commander,” Stern says. The memory is just as vivid for Tanner, who is still working as a high-powered New York attorney at age 92. Tanner leans in as he speaks, and you can feel the admiration he still has for his former commanding officer. Tanner pauses and smiles, remembering the man and the moment. He is unsure who said the words, “We are all Jews here,” but has no doubt that Edmonds never backed down when the German commander pointed a gun at his forehead. Edmonds would never have called himself a hero, his son says, and he never shared the story with his family. But in 2009, Chris Edmonds Googled his father to see what would he could find. One of the results stunned him: In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon purchased a home from Tanner. It took Edmonds another two years and a trip to New York to meet Tanner, but Edmonds finally learned about his father’s actions in that Nazi POW camp in January 1945. He used his father’s war diary to find other men who corroborated the story, interviewed some of his father’s fellow soldiers and collected records about the regiment. He submitted the file to his congressman to see if his father’s actions were worthy of consideration for a posthumous Congressional Medal of Honor. What Edmonds didn’t know is that one of his friends submitted part of the file to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum in Israel. The museum considered Edmonds’ actions to be unique. It named him a Righteous Among the Nations, a venerated list of non-Jews who saved Jews during the Holocaust. He was the first American soldier to be added to the list. To this day, Chris Edmonds said he isn’t sure why his father never shared the story. “I just think, well, he’s a humble man. He didn’t go around bragging about things, and I just think he thought it was part of his responsibility, his duty, not only as a soldier of the U.S. Army to protect his men but also as a Christian, a man of faith, to do the right thing for his fellow man.”


Editor’s Note: Vital Signs is a monthly program bringing viewers health stories from around the world. A Swedish trial found workers are healthier and more productive when working six-hour days Studies show that overworking could increase the risk of coronary heart disease by 40% It may sound counterintuitive, but working less could actually result in higher productivity. Seriously. Although many of us continue the tradition of working at least eight hours per day, with an hour’s break in the middle – if we’re lucky – a recent study found that productivity is actually highest when people spend fewer hours working, according to researchers at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which examined working hours in several countries over a period of 22 years. Related article Are you addicted to work? In fact, one paper (PDF) suggested that output actually starts to fall if people work more than 48 hours per week. Data on munition plant workers in Britain during World War I showed that long hours led to fatigue and stress that not only reduce productivity, they make accidents, errors and sickness more likely. A hundred years later, we’re still facing the same issues. Today, working overtime has been linked (PDF) to higher rates of injury, illness, weight gain, alcohol use and smoking and, in general, an increased risk of mortality. One study found that putting in long hours could result in a 40% higher likelihood of coronary heart disease, compared with people who work standard hours. Afib in men vs. womenThe stages of colon cancer, explainedSleep guidelines for kids and babies Reducing our working hours could, therefore, make a huge difference to our health and well-being, in turn enabling us to work more efficiently. In Sweden, this theory is being put to the test – with promising results. In the Svartedalen elderly care home in Gothenburg, 68 nurses are working six-hour shifts in a 22-month trial (PDF) led by researchers at Pacta Guideline, a consultancy company for the public sector in Sweden. The nurses have been working these hours since February 2015. The researchers are monitoring the nurses’ health and productivity and comparing this against a control group working in a similar facility which is clocking in 38-hour weeks. The city of Gothenburg decided to run the trial in 2014 to learn what reduced working hours could mean for the country’s economy and job market, as well as the effects they could have on employees and, in this case, the elderly residents they were looking after. 10 cities with the shortest working hours “The nurses in the trial have better health,” said Bengt Lorentzon, a researcher on the project. “They are all much calmer and more alert.” After 18 months of working these six-hour days, 77% of nurses reported good health – compared with 49% in the control group – and members of the trial group have taken almost three times fewer sick days. Being in good health is especially important when it comes to care work, Lorentzon says. For these nurses, this involves feeding the elderly, taking them for walks and building caring relationships. This is more effective if the nurses are there regularly and not taking time off because of illness or stress, as they can build a rapport with their clients, which is especially helpful when caring for people with dementia. In addition to less sickness, the nurses working shorter days have been getting a lot more done, according to the report, providing 80% more activities for the elderly than the control group. This includes things like comforting them, singing, dancing and playing games with them. Related gallery Surprising reasons for stress “This is connected to the assistant nurses feeling in better health, more alert,and less stressed, and in that situation, it’s possible to take the initiative to do activities,” Lorentzon said. How to stop city life from stressing you out Despite these benefits, there’s still the question of whether this idea makes financial sense. The Svartedalen nursing home hired 17 extra nurses to ensure that the facility was properly staffed throughout the week, as reduced hours led to gaps in the care schedule. So far, the trial has cost $1.1 million, but according to the study, the addition of 17 jobs to the labor market has reduced the state’s unemployment costs by $530,000. “This is a political issue,” Lorentzon said. “There’s a lot of tension: Some political parties are against it; some parties would like to enlarge the trial.” Related article A four-day workweek could be hazardous to your health David Spencer, professor of economics and political economy at the University of Leeds in the UK, notes that the trial in Sweden is small in scale and focuses only on a particular sector, but he says it could  be replicated in other sectors. “Employers may baulk at the short-run costs of reducing work hours, but they could stand to gain along with their workers from the implementation of shorter work hour schemes. The degree to which experiments like this one can be replicated elsewhere will depend on the progressive outlook of employers and of state and national governments,” Spencer wrote in an email. It’s a contentious issue, and companies rolling out reduced working hours are certainly in the minority – but they do exist. Toyota centers in Gothenburg switched to a six-hour workday 14 years ago and reported higher profits and happier staff. Some companies in the UK are following suit, such as Agent Marketing in Liverpool and accounting firm Bright Horizon Cloud in Dorset. Senshi Digital, a tourism agency based in Glasgow, Scotland, began experimenting with the six-hour workday in March after the company director, Chris Torres, watched an ITV documentary about reduced work hours. Inspired, he walked into the office a few days later and announced that it would try the new hours. Related video We can't avoid stress, but here's how to manage it “You should have seen the look on some of the staff’s faces. They couldn’t believe it,” Torres said. “They come in at 9:30 a.m. and finish at 3:30 p.m. … They get paid the same amount as if they’re doing an eight-hour day. In fact, most of them have had wage rises since we’ve implemented it,” he said. His staff members also have a 30-minute lunch break, but their day is far more structured than it used to be. They work in 45-minute “sprints” with five-minute breaks and announce at the start and end of the day what they’ve achieved in the time. Despite the shorter hours, productivity has spiked. Torres adds that projects that used to take two or three months are now completed in one or two. “You’ve got to work a little harder, stay a bit more focused,” Torres said. “There’s less chat when they’re doing the 45-minute sprints … so I suppose the studio doesn’t have quite the buzz it used to. But at the end of the day, we all go out and have more lunches and dinners together. See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter. “I take my daughter to school in the morning, which I never used to do. … (After work), I help her out with homework, I feed my boy – and I look at the clock, and before I know it, it’s only just gone 5 o’clock.” For Torres and his team, the six-hour workday seems to have been a success, boosting cash flow and enabling the company to take on more projects – but this is a small business with 10 employees, and Torres has heard plenty of arguments against it. “I’ve heard people say it would never work for this industry or that industry. I always say, just trial it.” It might be time to have a word with your boss.