Editor’s Note: We’ve removed several related videos and galleries about World War II and the Pacific Theater as they may risk misinterpreting or contradicting the views expressed in this essay. Oliver Stone is an Academy Awarding winning Hollywood writer and director. Peter Kuznick is professor of history and director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University. Together they co-authored the documentary film and book series titled The Untold History of the United States. The views expressed here are solely theirs. On the 75th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, we’ve been asked to reflect on what might have happened if Japan had not launched an attack on the US fleet on December 7, 1941. The question is both interesting and relevant at a time when Japan experiences a military resurgence and America’s provocative Asia “pivot” is being rethought by the incoming and often unpredictable Trump administration. Trump’s rash statements about China, Japan, and South Korea have already roiled the waters throughout the region. The assault on Pearl Harbor was not only foolhardy, it was ultimately suicidal. Naval historian Samuel Eliot Morison dismissed it as “strategic imbecility.” Many in Japan – including most of the nine former prime ministers whom Japanese Emperor Hirohito met with a week prior to the attack – had opposed it. Yet Gen. Hideki Tojo’s government authorized the attack with the objective of destroying the US Pacific Fleet, which potentially could have blocked Japan’s access to the resources of Southeast Asia. The Pearl Harbor attack, however, was only partly successful. Though Japanese forces caused significant damage to the US Fleet and killed 2,335 US troops and 68 civilians, their attack was not fatal. The Fleet’s three aircraft carriers weren’t in Pearl Harbor when the attack occurred and many of the damaged ships and planes were able to be repaired. This would come back to haunt Japan the next June, when US forces, including two of those carriers, took out four Japanese carriers at the Battle of Midway and turned the Pacific war in the US favor. The Japanese attack had given President Roosevelt the pretext he sought to bring the US into the war. Americans may have overwhelmingly favored the Allies over the despised Nazis and sympathized with the plight of Chinese being brutalized by Japan, but few wanted to get drawn into another war. World War I had left a bitter taste in their mouths. Not only had it not been “the war to end all wars” or the war to make the world “safe for democracy,” it had enriched the greedy bankers and arms manufacturers – the “merchants of death” as they were then known – and done nothing to end colonial exploitation. By 1941, Roosevelt surreptitiously maneuvered the US into confrontations with both Germany, which had conquered much of Europe, and Japan, which had seized Manchuria and Indochina and was waging a vicious war against China. At Newfoundland in August 1941, he told Churchill that he “would wage war, but not declare it” and do everything he could to “force an ‘incident’ that could lead to war.” His overt support for Britain against Germany and decision to halt desperately needed exports of oil, metal, and other resources to Japan proved sufficient. One day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt addressed Congress, which approved his war resolution with one dissenting vote. Three days later, Germany and Italy, Japan’s allies, declared war against the United States. The world would never be the same. But here’s how it could’ve been different. The attack on Pearl Harbor has loomed large in the American imagination for several reasons. Americans considered it a cowardly “sneak” attack because the Japanese had not declared war against the US. It occurred on American territory – the US had forcibly annexed Hawaii in 1898 – and revealed a stunning failure of US intelligence, heightening fears of US vulnerability in a dangerous world. It also triggered ugly discrimination against Japanese-American citizens and Japanese immigrants alike inside the United States. Almost 120,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans were rounded up and put into internment camps until the end of the war. But had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor, the Pacific War would largely have evolved along similar lines. The US and Japan had been on a collision course for months if not years. With or without the attack on Pearl Harbor, the two countries were heading for war. What most Americans forget is that it was not only Pearl Harbor that Japan attacked on December 7, 1941. As Roosevelt told Congress on December 8, Japan had also attacked the British colonies of Hong Kong and Malaya, the US colony in the Philippines, and US holdings in Guam, Wake Island, and Midway Island. The attack on Malaya actually preceded the assault on Pearl Harbor by more than an hour. In addition, though not mentioned by Roosevelt, Japan invaded Thailand. It also attacked Singapore, which was then part of British Malaya. US officials had broken Japanese diplomatic codes in August 1940, enabling them to monitor Japan’s war planning. They knew an attack was coming. They just didn’t think it was coming at Pearl Harbor. The most likely targets in their minds were the oil-rich Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), Malaya, and the Philippines. Japan’s attack on US bases in the Philippines, Guam, Wake Island, and Midway Island would have been more than sufficient provocation for a US president eager to get the US into the war. In the Philippines alone, the cost of the American defeat was staggering, resulting in the death or capture of 23,000 American and perhaps 100,000 Filipino military personnel. While US involvement was absolutely crucial to Allied victory in the Pacific War, it was less so in the defeat of the European Axis powers. In fact, had the US not entered the European war, the outcome would have been the same. By the time the US and Britain finally initiated their promised second front in France a year and a half after Roosevelt publicly announced it would begin, the Russians had already turned the tide and German forces were in full retreat across Europe. Up to that point, the US and British had been confronting some 10 German divisions combined while the Soviets were confronting nearly 200 by themselves. Forcing Germany to fight on two fronts certainly expedited the end of the war, but it didn’t change the outcome. Contrary to American mythology, the Soviets deserve the lion’s share of the credit for victory in Europe. And they suffered immensely in bringing this about. In quantitative terms, the 27 million Soviets who died at the hands of Germany is the equivalent of one 9/11 a day every day for 27 years. It is the equivalent of one Pearl Harbor a day every day for 30 years. Despite Churchill’s hatred of Bolshevism, the British owe a huge debt of gratitude to the Soviets, without whom they might be speaking German today. They also owe a huge debt to the Americans without whom they might be speaking Russian. It is interesting to contemplate how the face of Europe would have been different if the US had remained the “arsenal” of the Allied powers without actually joining the war. It was fortuitous that Germany and Italy declared war against the US on December 11, 1941 without which Roosevelt would have had to find another justification for American entry. Where would the line between the Soviets and the West have been drawn if the US had not entered the European war? How might the Soviet economy have developed if Soviet leaders had access to the greater potential wealth of West Germany and France? Might socialism have appeared a more viable option in the postwar world if the US was not in a position to help rebuild the depression- and war-shattered capitalist economies? There are some other interesting counterfactuals that can be explored regarding the Second World War, some of which we do look at in our documentary film and book series The Untold History of the United States. What would have happened if Roosevelt had retained his visionary and controversial vice president Henry Wallace on the ticket in 1944 instead of the much smaller minded Harry Truman? Despite the opposition of the conservative Democratic Party bosses, Roosevelt had the moral authority and political muscle to insist upon Wallace remaining on the ticket as his wife and children and the majority of Americans desired. The Gallup Poll – a US public opinion survey – released on July 20, 1944, the first day of the Democratic Party convention in Chicago, reported that 65 percent of potential Democratic voters wanted the enormously popular Wallace back on the ticket as vice president. Two percent wanted Truman. The internal machinations that resulted in Truman’s selection are a sordid tale with which few Americans are familiar. Had Wallace become president upon Roosevelt’s death in April 1945 instead of Truman, there would have been no atomic bombings of Japan and possibly no Cold War. Wallace envisioned friendship between the Americans and the Soviets and a healthy competition between the two systems in which each would strive to show that it was better suited to serve the needs of humanity. He would have delivered on the $10 billion credit that Roosevelt had dangled before the Soviets to help them rebuild from a war that had turned much of the country into a wasteland. The positive repercussions that might have had in Soviet-occupied Europe are incalculable. It is also worth noting that Wallace was a fierce opponent of colonialism, who openly deplored the British and French empires, leading Churchill and the French to pressure Roosevelt to replace him on the ticket. Roosevelt largely shared Wallace’s views regarding empire. He condemned British rule in Gambia, calling it “the most horrible thing I have ever seen in my life.” He felt similarly about Dutch exploitation of the East Indies and French rule in Indochina, insisting he would not let the French back in after the war. On some level, he understood that the Pacific War was rooted in imperial rivalries, commenting privately, “Don’t think for a minute that Americans would be dying in the Pacific…if it hadn’t been for the short-sighted greed of the French and the British and the Dutch.” He promised “immediate” independence for the Philippines once Japanese troops were ousted shortly before his death. Roosevelt often wavered on this issue, but Wallace never did. He was steadfast in his hatred of colonial exploitation and the racism that justified it. Think of the lives that could have been saved and the misery that could have been avoided if colonialism had been ended peacefully in the immediate aftermath of the war. A second counterfactual is what would have happened if World War II had ended without the atomic bombs being used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan? American mythology holds that the two bombs ended the war and, by obviating the American invasion of Japan, humanely saved millions of American and Japanese lives. According to defenders of the atomic bombing, the cost, by 1950, of 200,000 dead in Hiroshima and 140,000 dead in Nagasaki was a small price to pay. The evidence is overwhelming, as we show in Untold History, that it was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, South Sakhalin, the Kurile Islands, and Korea, which began at midnight on August 8, 1945 that precipitated the Japanese surrender and not the atomic bombs. US intelligence had been forecasting such an outcome for months and Truman acknowledged that the Soviet entry would be decisive. At Potsdam on July 17, he wrote in his diary, Stalin “will be in the Jap war on August 15. Fini Japs when that comes about.” He characterized the intercepted July 18 cable as “the telegram from the Jap emperor asking for peace.” He knew the end was near and the bombs weren’t necessary. If the bombs had not been used in the war, might the US and the USSR have avoided the nuclear arms race that the atomic bombings set in motion? Soviet leaders, knowing full well that the bombs weren’t needed to defeat Japan, interpreted their use as a warning of the devastation that the US would wreak on the Soviets if they interfered with US postwar plans. We’ve lived with the threat of the extinction of life on this planet ever since. Japan’s fate was sealed when the Soviets invaded as the official US Navy Museum in Washington, DC acknowledges. The Japanese hurried to surrender to the Americans while they still had the chance, knowing that a Soviet takeover would spell the end of not only the emperor system but of the capitalism that supported it. At first, the US occupation was relatively benign and in some ways even enlightened. The US imposed Japan’s peace constitution, which disavowed the sovereign right of war and disallowed the retention of offensive military forces. It is those forward-thinking principles that the Shinzo Abe administration is presently trying to eviscerate. If the Soviets had had a greater hand in the occupation, Japan might have become a Cold War battleground as Korea did. Would the Russians have been torn between the conflicting pressures to rebuild Japan and to loot it that they faced in Germany? The animosity they felt toward the Japanese paled in comparison to their hatred and mistrust of the Germans, who had so much Soviet blood on their hands. As we know, the US quickly abandoned its progressive vision for postwar Japan and sought to rebuild it as the military and economic outpost of Western capitalist interests in the volatile Asia-Pacific region. Either way, Japanese cars, electronics, and sushi were fated to transport, connect, and feed the planet. The world would be better off, however, if the rise of Japanese militarism could have been thwarted or further delayed. World War II with its vast bloodletting, incredible toll of human life, deployment of technology to maximize killing and destruction, and prominent display of the ugly side of human nature, replete with racism, xenophobia, and ethnic and religious bigotry, serves as a cautionary tale of what happens when we unleash the forces of fear, hatred, and nationalism. Some of those same forces are rampant in the world today. Pearl Harbor should serve as a reminder. But we must be careful to draw the right lessons to avoid a repeat of the horrors that engulfed the planet more than 75 years ago.


Editor’s Note: Gayle Tzemach Lemmon is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. She is the author of “Ashley’s War: The Untold Story of a Team of Women Soldiers on the Special Ops Battlefield.” The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers. Gayle Lemmon: Recent death of Pfc. Hansen Kirkpatrick is a reminder of the problems with the Pentagon's new policy of delayed notification of US troop deaths The war in Afghanistan, which began in October 2001, has become barely noticed background noise for most Americans, whose lives remain untouched in any direct way by the conflict, she writes The Afghan war may live far from the headlines, but US soldiers are not far from the battlefield. A 19-year-old Army soldier, Pfc. Hansen Kirkpatrick, lost his life in Afghanistan due to “indirect fire” on July 3. His death marks the eighth loss this year for Americans serving in their nation’s longest war. In a Facebook post now taken down but reported on by local media, his mother, Anngel Norkist, urged people to remember the sacrifice of her son and his fellow soldiers still serving in Afghanistan.  Norkist confirmed to me by telephone that the post was hers. “Please seriously stop! Take a moment. Realize that real actual blood dropped on a battlefield for YOU. That’s what the red symbolizes on our flag. My son just died today…over on some nasty, dry battlefield in a far off land. His life was cut short at only 19. Stop and really give thanks for all those who gave and continue to give us our freedoms we so easily take for freakin granted,” Norkist wrote. “Do not comment and say how sorry you are! I don’t care!! Actions speak louder than words, so GO MAKE A DIFFERENCE!” This sentiment underscores a hard reality: These losses should be our country’s losses, and right now they don’t feel like it. They feel quarantined, experienced by a grieving few instead of a nationwide many. A fraction of the American population has fought 100% of its wars for 16 years. Precious few Americans are paying attention. In the future, news about American battlefield losses may be even slower to reach the headlines. The Pentagon has announced a new policy stating that it will hold all information about US troop deaths until one day after notification of next-of-kin. A spokesman for Army Gen. John Nicholson, who leads US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, said there are simply too few soldiers serving in Afghanistan now for “non-identifying” announcements of US deaths to remain anonymous – especially in the age of social media. “Gen. Nicholson is insistent that the support system for family members of our fallen and wounded warriors is in place with those families prior to public release; hence the 24-hour hold after next-of-kin notification,” said Capt. William Salvin, a spokesman for the US led coalition in Afghanistan. “Information that we have historically released that was considered ‘non-identifying information’ has become identifiable given that we have such a limited footprint in Afghanistan.” While the motivation to hold back potentially identifiable information is understandable, the policy should not mean that the American public hears even less than they already do about lives lost in their name. The reality is this policy shift will make little practical difference in a war in which most every casualty has become nameless and faceless for most of the nation. But as Kirkpatrick’s mother so poignantly made clear, those names and faces should be known to Americans. Related article Why the US military is delaying announcing Afghanistan combat deaths The war in Afghanistan, which began in October 2001, has become barely noticed background noise for most citizens, whose lives remain untouched in any direct way by the conflict. And the delay in notification may make the war even more remote. As Gen. Nicholson knows better than nearly anyone, it is important for Americans to hear — quickly and in a timely manner — of the losses their nation’s fighting forces are sustaining. It is important for those newly Gold Star families to know that their country is there for them, that it cares, that it understands the sacrifice and appreciates that some families are willing to incur unfathomable losses on behalf of their country. What would make the biggest difference for grieving families is for Americans to sit up and pay attention to their wars and to mourn with Gold Star families once those losses are named and faces and photos are added to the stories about war casualties. This is because war is deeply personal, even if we don’t write, talk or act like it in this country. Beyond the policy changes on notification, America’s disconnection from the Afghanistan war is about to be tested further as the Pentagon-led interagency review of the conflict launched by President Donald Trump finally draws to completion — several months later than expected.  Among the issues being debated by those conducting the policy review: the number of troops, what kinds of troops and for how long would they remain committed to the Afghan theater. Those close to the review expected an announcement in May, before that month’s NATO summit.  Indeed, in February, Defense Secretary James Mattis told reporters that “it shouldn’t take too long. I’ve got to integrate a fair number of issues to give a good recommendation for the way ahead.” Three months later, Mattis said that the Afghanistan troop recommendation “is being put together by the chairman and myself, and I expect it’ll go to (a) decision very, very soon.”  And in June, the defense secretary told Congress that he would be giving Trump his Afghanistan recommendation “very soon.” Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Recent reports suggest that Trump, who had previously said he would defer to his generals about troop levels, would cap the number of those sent to Afghanistan at 3,900 — at least without requiring military leaders to return to him for his approval. This was a month after news reports appeared, asserting that “the Pentagon will send almost 4,000 additional American forces to Afghanistan” and nearly immediately generated a statement from the Pentagon denying any decision had been made. Whenever the official troop announcement comes, it likely will be around the 3,900 mark. America must pay closer attention as those service members deploy and engage with its wars not from a distance, but as if the war had personal stakes. For the sake of families like those of Pfc. Hansen Kirkpatrick and for the sake of the country that sent him to Afghanistan in the first place, America can no longer see these fights as sterile, nameless or faceless. They are none of the above.  Every one of those losses was a father, mother, sister, wife, friend and brother.  And each one should matter — in real time — to the nation.


Trump is lending credibility to his claims that he'd put people he'd called "killers" to help American workers State and local governments offer companies tax incentives to locate, expand or remain there all the time Donald Trump staked his credibility as a negotiator – the underpinning of his grand entrance to politics – on a very specific claim. He wouldn’t just stop the trend of globalization and outsourcing. He’d convince Carrier – an Indianapolis-based air-conditioning manufacturer – to abandon its plans to eliminate more than 2,000 Hoosier jobs and shift its production to Mexico. Well before even taking office, he’s delivered – Tuesday night the company announced it would keep about 1,000 of those jobs in Indiana. And he’s shed light on how he might use the levers of government to pressure companies that plan to ship jobs overseas in the future, too. It was well-timed victory for Trump, who also rolled out his economic team, tapping Steven Mnuchin for treasury secretary and billionaire Wilbur Ross to head the Department of Commerce. Related article Bannon rejects white nationalism: 'I'm an economic nationalist' Both Mnuchin and Ross come with public relations warts – including Mnuchin’s time as a Goldman Sachs partner and hedge fund manager and Ross’ “king of bankruptcy” nickname. But in securing a deal with Carrier, Trump is lending credibility to his claims that he’d put people he’d called “killers” – meant as a compliment – to help American workers. The details of the Carrier deal remain obscure. Trump’s campaign has deflected questions on exactly how the company was convinced to stay in Indiana – pointing reporters to the company and its much larger parent, United Technologies. The fate of Carrier’s plant in Huntington, Indiana, which employed 700, is also unclear. Carrier released a few more details later Wednesday in a statement. “The incentives offered by the state were an important consideration” to staying, Carrier said, though the company didn’t specify what the incentives were. And while Trump’s campaign pledges to lower corporate taxes and ease regulations likely played a role, it was not Trump – but Vice President-elect Mike Pence – who was key to Carrier’s decision. His status as Indiana’s governor positioned him to offer Carrier tax breaks to stay in the state. It’s not a new strategy: State and local governments offer companies tax incentives to locate, expand or remain there all the time. In fact, Pence’s Indiana Economic Development Corp. has faced sharp criticism for handing millions of dollars to companies that sent jobs overseas even after receiving those tax breaks. Trump himself had even blasted the practice on the campaign trail, including in October remarks in Pennsylvania. “I’ve been watching these politicians go through this for years. I’ve been watching them give low-interest loans. I’ve been watching them give zero interest loans,” Trump said in Wilkes Barre, later adding that “the whole thing is crazy.” He made a similar case in Erie, Pennsylvania, in August. Related gallery Donald Trump's rise “Our states – I watched. Remember, they’d give the low-interest loans,” Trump said, mocking state officials for handing out tax incentives. “‘Here’s a low-interest loan if you stay in Pennsylvania. Here’s a zero-interest loan. You don’t have to pay. Here’s a this. Here’s a tax abatement of any kind you want. We’ll help your employees,’” he said. “It doesn’t work, folks.” In Carrier’s case, it does appear to have worked. It’s the second time Trump has claimed credit for a company’s decision to keep jobs in the United States. But when a Ford plant in Louisville, Kentucky, said it would not produce a sport-utility vehicle in Mexico, the decision was a facade in terms of Trump’s involvement: No jobs were on the line, and none were saved. Trump’s strategy with Carrier might not be an exact model for his broader trade and manufacturing efforts. For one, it puts states and municipalities at risk of facing threats from other manufacturers that they’d leave unless offered major tax breaks of their own. Subsidizing businesses is also a practice protectionists in the United States have long decried from foreign governments including China, and risks provoking a trade war. Trump’s broader strategy appears to be his promise to cut taxes and make it easier for companies to shift profits earned overseas back into the United States. On the campaign trail, he has also threatened companies that manufacture goods in foreign countries with stiff tariffs – the types eliminated through trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement. But his willingness to use government incentives as muscle in negotiations offers a preview of how Trump might handle similar situations in the coming years. “The President-elect and the Vice President(-elect) picked up the phone and called the CEO of the United Technologies and told them we want to keep jobs here. Can’t remember the last time a president did that,” Mnuchin told reporters in the Trump Tower lobby Wednesday. United Technologies – Carrier’s parent company – earns about 10% of its income through federal contracts for products including engines for F-35 fighter jets. If tax breaks are Trump’s carrot, the threat of losing government contracts – risky as it is when national security-related products are involved – could be his stick.


Editor’s Note: Jane Merrick is a British political journalist and former political editor of the Independent on Sunday newspaper. The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers. British Prime Minister Theresa May has cast off her “Theresa Maybe” label, confounding critics who said she is overly cautious and risk averse, by calling for a general election to be held on June 8. Her decision to hold an election while Brexit negotiations have barely gotten started has taken everyone in Westminster and Brussels by surprise – particularly as she has consistently said she would not go to the country before 2020. It is a high-risk decision, and will bring further uncertainty to a Europe undergoing huge political turbulence, with elections in France and Germany to come later this year. Related article UK snap election: What does it mean? Yet, from her point of view, she had little choice. Her party’s working majority in Parliament is only 17, giving her a weak hand over her political rivals in Britain just as she needs unity in negotiating her country’s exit from the European Union. If she were to win with an increased majority, it would settle once and for all the debate about whether the British people voted for the “hard Brexit” that May is attempting to negotiate, with its clean break from Europe’s single market and her threat to walk away with no deal if she does not get what she wants. There has been a growing sense that if May wanted to call an early election, it was now or never: fighting an election campaign whilst Brexit negotiations were in full swing would have been near impossible. A snap election also outmaneuvers the Scottish National Party, which is using Brexit to push for a second referendum on Scottish independence, arguing that Scotland voted to remain a member of the EU. A victory in June for May’s Conservative Party would give her the personal mandate for Brexit she needs and, as she said herself in her surprise statement in Downing Street, make her stronger when she fights for a deal with fellow European leaders. May said she was reluctant to call for an election and has only recently come to the decision because of what she described as “political game-playing” by opposition parties in Westminster. She said Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP were all trying to block Brexit, creating “division and disunity”. Yet this is a weak and spurious reason for calling an election: opposition parties, particularly those who officially supported remaining in the EU, are supposed to oppose the government – that is their job. The Prime Minister has never come close to losing a vote in the Commons on Brexit, so her position was never under threat. What’s more astounding is May’s claim that the country was “uniting” around Brexit. This is simply not true. The UK remains divided about whether it is right to leave the EU. By seeking a mandate for Brexit through a general election, she is tacitly admitting she does not have a mandate for Brexit – at least her hard, “no deal” version – at the moment. So in accusing others of political game-playing, the Prime Minister is game-playing herself. But what ultimately matters is that, with the Conservatives leading the main opposition party Labour in the polls by at least 20 points, May is likely to win a landslide on June 8. This will give her the authority to fight for a better Brexit deal from the EU – which is bad news for Brussels. Next month, an anti-EU candidate may win the French presidency. It would be hard for Brussels to hold the EU project together in the face of strengthened nationalist governments in the UK and France. When European Council President Donald Tusk tweeted earlier: “It was Hitchcock who directed Brexit: first an earthquake and the tension rises,” perhaps he should have added that there are plenty more earthquakes to come.


Editor’s Note: A Canadian citizen and a Yale graduate, Jiang Xueqin is a China-based educator and writer. He was formerly deputy principal of Tsinghua University High School, Peking University High School and Shenzhen Middle School. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. This is the next installment in CNN Opinion’s series on the challenges facing the media as it is under attack from critics, governments and changing technology. Jiang Xueqin: China's "fake news" is what allows political corruption and tyranny to continue And the Chinese internet firewall has only made things worse -- distinguishing truth from lies is nearly impossible, writes Xueqin I can count myself lucky that when the Chinese secret police arrested me for reporting on worker strikes and branded me a spy, all they did was deport me. It was June 3, 2002, and I was filming a worker protest undercover for a PBS documentary. As I interviewed a laid-off worker, I was jumped by thugs, thrown into a van, driven to a black spot and held incommunicado for 48 hours. Here’s what the Chinese secret police told me: I was reporting in China illegally to stir anti-China sentiment and deserved to be imprisoned for 20 years. Then they put me on a motorcade for the airport. Looking back, I can now see that what saved me from the unchecked power of China’s secret police was their fear of the unfettered response of the American media – the world’s free speech defender of last resort. China let me back into the country a year later in 2003, and today I’ve switched from being a rebellious journalist into a public educator tasked with helping China adopt Western creativity. And after ten years of teaching students how to think in a country that has truly “fake news,” here’s what I learned: A free media is a democracy’s communal classroom, where citizens learn to use facts, evidence and logic to discuss and debate ideas. A free media is based on the liberating and empowering belief that the pursuit of universal truths is what unites and armors us against the arbitrariness of authority. America’s free media is the source of American power and progress; China’s state-controlled media is what enables the corruption and tyranny that’s decaying the nation’s soul. Related article Ask the tough questions China’s Communist Party maintains its iron grip on power by controlling what’s said in the media and what’s taught in the classroom. China’s state-sponsored media warp reality to cohere to Communist Party doctrine – and thus turn truth into farce. China’s classrooms teach students that authority is always benevolent and right – and thus educate them out of the truth. In my attempt to educate Chinese students back into the truth, my most powerful tool is the American media.  When Trump calls the American media “the enemy of the people,” he’s echoing the sentiments of the Chinese government, which has built the “Great Firewall” to monitor and control their citizenry’s pursuit of truth. *** For thousands of years, China walled itself off from the world, but after witnessing the American subprime crisis and hosting the 2008 Beijing Olympics, it imagined a dominant role for itself on the global stage.  President Xi Jinping’s “China Dream” calls for Chinese schools to teach creativity to make China great again.  In this rush to reverse engineer and mass manufacture Steve Jobs clones, Chinese schools have hired me to teach Western creativity. To do so, I use the American media as the main tool to teach students how to think. In class, we analyze Atlantic and New Yorker articles, breaking down the research and thinking process of reporters. Outside class, my students translate articles from Western media and publish their own daily newspaper. I teach students how to think by having them conduct research, compile their findings in a logically coherent way and then debate their ideas openly. I believe that China can’t be creative unless people stop making facts up and stealing each other’s ideas. What drives my work is the faith that creativity comes from the pursuit of truth, which, as a universal human aspiration, is a good unto itself. When I train teachers, I force them to use multiple resources to do research, cite their sources and cross-reference facts. We read George Orwell’s “1984,” Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451” and Neil Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death” together, to learn how the consistency, coherence and clarity of words speak truth to power. I teach them new mental practices – asking questions, switching perspectives, analyzing subtext – that subvert their old cultural habit of parroting authority. But teaching creativity in China can feel like a Sisyphean struggle, because power trumps truth in China. The prime example of this is the Chinese media, which has always existed to serve the political elite, not to keep it in check. When I was arrested and deported by China’s secret police, they threatened me that if I talked to the American media, they would use the Chinese media to attack me. To control the media, the Party uses a carrot and stick approach. It slaps the hands of those who talk about sensitive topics, and it winks at those who take bribes in exchange for favorable publicity. Too often, Chinese reporters just publish word for word whatever press releases officials and executives give them. The World Wide Web once promised to break the Communist Party’s monopoly of information, but technology has only strengthened and expanded the Party’s Big Brother reach and gaze. China’s “Great Firewall” blocks foreign websites, filters out sensitive keywords and spies on its own citizens. Over the past few years, China has cracked down hard on online public expression – draconian laws hunt down “rumor-mongers,” police harass and arrest popular bloggers and an army of state-employed “public opinion analysts” monitor and manipulate online discussion. It’s hard to teach students to form opinions based on facts and evidence when the Chinese internet is so cluttered with distortions, lies and prejudices. Related article Amanpour: No free press, no democracy By being able to tunnel through the “Great Firewall” and access blocked websites such as Google and Facebook/Twitter, Virtual Proxy Networks (VPNs) are currently the only way for businesses, universities and foreign nationals to access real information and to communicate unfiltered. But the Communist Party is determined more than ever to plug the VPN leaks in the “Great Firewall.” I have endured breathing Beijing’s polluted air for many years now, but without my VPN I’d suffocate. China understands that the source of American power is in innovation. But what it cannot understand is that what empowers Silicon Valley, Wall Street and the Ivy League is the free flow of information sanctified by the Constitution and rigorously exercised by the America media. Despite all the skyscrapers and high speed railways built, China can never be as great as the United States until it frees its citizens to pursue the truth. Ironically, then, just as China struggles to adopt American innovation, Trump risks destroying it with his war on truth. The China Dream may one day still come true, if Trump fulfills the dark prophecies of Orwell, Bradbury and Postman by amusing us all into tyranny.


Editor’s Note: Steven Blockmans is a senior research fellow at the Center for European Policy Studies, a think tank based in Brussels. The opinions in this article belong to the author. In the theatrical style of a capricious reality-TV host, US President Donald Trump has been building up suspense over an American withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. He has consistently called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – which was negotiated during Barack Obama’s presidency by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) under the auspices of the European Union – an “embarrassment” that needs to be “corrected” and is not in the US’ interest. What he is talking about here is the deal’s “sunset” clauses – expiration dates after which Iran could resume uranium enrichment. The US is looking for an extension of those dates beyond 2025. Related article Trump's missiles will not fix Syria Trump also sees weakness in the inspection regime under which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verifies Iran’s compliance with its commitments because it does not provide full access to military sites. Hardliners like Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, who have now joined Team Trump in leading roles, have said that this leaves Iran with too much leeway to cheat IAEA inspectors and the international community. Facing a previous cliffhanger on the recertification of the deal, Trump passed the buck to Congress, only to discover that it was too divided to deal with the issue. When he grudgingly approved the sanctions waiver in January he threatened: “This is the last chance. I hereby call on key European countries to join with the United States in fixing significant flaws in the deal, countering Iranian aggression, and supporting the Iranian people. If other nations fail to act during this time, I will terminate our deal with Iran.” Trump’s ultimatum – and Iran’s response that the US would pay a high price for breaking the deal – have piled pressure on Europe to prevent the agreement and regional security from being plunged into even more uncertainty. So far, the EU has said that it remains “fully committed” to implementing the nuclear deal – just as Iran is, according to no fewer than 10 reports issued by the IAEA. Federica Mogherini, the EU’s High Representative for foreign affairs and security policy, has conveyed the message that nixing a key element of the international non-proliferation architecture is not in the interest of anyone, including the US, which will soon enter into direct de-nuclearization talks with North Korea. Mogherini has consistently argued that the JCPOA’s nuclear focus should not be sullied by attempts to import other issues such as ballistic missile control and regional security, which can be addressed in other forums. The US going it alone would fly in the face of the international law that workable agreements must be kept. It would also undermine the authority of the UN Security Council, whose members unanimously endorsed the agreement. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that a stronger accord could be built on the ashes of the JCPOA, which was the culmination of more than a decade of delicate multilateral talks. The EU has long stood united on these issues. But similarly to 2003, when member states infamously split over the invasion of Iraq, EU unity is again being stress-tested by a US President. Member states closed ranks when Trump withdrew the US from the Paris climate agreement and UNESCO, but several of them abstained from a vote in the UN General Assembly condemning the unilateral decision by the US to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Brexit Britain now appears pliable to American pressure and has set up an expert group on “fixing flaws” in the Iran nuclear deal. France and Germany, however, are looking for ways to accommodate Trump while leaving the JCPOA – and EU common positions – intact. They have raised pressure on Iran over its ballistic missile program, while lobbying other member states to agree to new sanctions — on top of an existing EU arms embargo and sanctions on missile technology. Of course, Trump may retaliate by imposing punishing tarrifs on European imports. European diplomats are lobbying US officials and members of Congress to create exemptions from enforcement for European companies that might be affected by a return of US sanctions against Iran. Related article Pompeo moves to reassure skeptical Dems in bid to be top US diplomat They should go further and threaten the US with legal proceedings before the World Trade Organization and adopt a retaliatory system to reimburse European companies for damages they incur in the US by imposing penalties on US assets in the EU. The latter should accompany a proposal for a “blocking regulation” like the one that made it illegal for European investors to adhere to the 1996 Helms-Burton Act imposing US sanctions on trade with Cuba, Iran and Libya. Past experience has taught the EU that such a strategy can be successful in protecting its interests while preventing a trade conflict with a belligerent White House. Extensive soul-searching back in 2003 led to the adoption of the first-ever European Security Strategy. This document was replaced by a more comprehensive Global Strategy for the EU’s Foreign and Security Policy in 2016. European countries would do well to learn from the past, serve their shared strategic interests and adopt a common position independently of the US to protect the EU’s flagship diplomatic achievement. Europe should make common cause with Russia, China and other signatories that prize the JCPOA. If, together, the EU and the P5+1 manage to keep Iran wedded to the agreement, then the deal stands a chance of surviving. They will have to persuade Tehran that, as long as it continues to honor its side of the bargain, Iran can continue receiving most of the benefits promised by the JCPOA, even if the US ceases to be a party.


For more on the most important and iconic moments of the 1970s, watch CNN’s “The Seventies,”  Thursdays at 9 p.m. ET/PT. The 1975 mission between the U.S. and the Soviets symbolized a thawing of tensions in the long-running Cold War Despite tensions over Ukraine, friendly cooperation continues in orbit aboard the International Space Station Leonov: "Cooperation means friendship, friendship means peace. Let's live in peace." On July 17, 1975 two men shook hands. One was American Brigadier General Thomas Stafford. The other was Russian cosmonaut and national hero, Alexey Leonov. The extraordinary thing about this handshake was that it happened in space, somewhere over West Germany, in a joint mission that symbolized a thawing of tensions in the long-running Cold War. “We estimate over a billion to a billion and a half people around the world saw me shake hands with Alexey and said look if people like this can work together we can work together on a lot of things,” the 84-year-old Stafford said. Up until then, space had been the stage for one of the most riveting rivalries between Russia and the United States as both nations competed for superiority in the wake of World War II. It was known as the space race. “I think that these were the best competitions, higher than Olympics,” the 81-year-old Leonov said, “because as a result of this, as you call it race, we developed brand new equipment that we’re still using.” Leonov had played a key part in the contest which began with the launch of the artificial satellite Sputnik into orbit. This world-first event was a worrying sign for America at a time of increased tensions. It implied that Russia also had the capacity to potentially launch a long-range nuclear missile. Related gallery Famous firsts in space Russia continued to clock up the milestones, sending the first animal, man and then woman into space.  When Leonov trumped U.S. plans to pioneer space walking in March 1965, it appeared that Russia had the race won. But four years later, America would claim the ultimate prize, when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the Moon. Both nations recognized the strengths and weaknesses in each other’s space programs, so when political tensions eased following the end of the Vietnam War, plans were made for a joint mission known as the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. The primary goal was to design and build an international docking system that would allow two different spacecrafts to join in orbit, allowing crews to cooperate on experiments and further exploration. After four years of planning, on July 15, 1975, Russian cosmonauts Alexey Leonov and Valeri Kubasov were launched into space aboard a Soyuz spacecraft from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in the Kazakh desert. Seven and a half hours later, the American spacecraft Apollo was sent on its last ever mission, guided by astronauts Donald Slayton, Vance Brand and Thomas Stafford. Two days later, the Russians and Americans met in space and made history. At the time, Stafford said: “When we opened this hatch in space, we were opening, back on Earth a new era in the history of man.” But the period of detente that enabled the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project to proceed, ended when Russia and the U.S. found themselves in a proxy war in Afghanistan at the end of the decade. It would be another 20 years before Russia and the U.S. docked in space again, with the MIR- Shuttle Program. Another two decades on, Russia’s annexation of Crimea has seen tensions rise again, but friendly cooperation continues in orbit aboard the International Space Station. “We rely on each other literally for our lives,” American astronaut Mark Kelly said from the International Space Station, “so despite any political differences our countries may have, or past history, we get along just great.” So too, Leonov and Stafford.  The two men remain close friends and their affection for each other was clear as they met at Moscow’s Space Museum on Wednesday to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the launch of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. Even when they re- enact the famous handshake for the cameras, it is with vigor and for them remains symbolic. Leonov even borrows from a speech his American counterpart made to students at the University of Moscow when they returned from their pioneering mission 40 years ago: “Cooperation means friendship, friendship means peace,” he quotes. “Let’s live in peace.”


President Donald Trump’s longtime confidante Roger Stone will testify before the House intelligence committee on July 24 in a closed session. Stone’s expected testimony follows news that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign chairman John Podesta on Tuesday met with House investigators digging into Russia’s efforts to alter the 2016 elections. “I am confident that Podesta most likely repeated his lie that I knew in advance about the hacking of his email, and am anxious to rebut this falsehood,” Stone said in a statement to CNN on Tuesday. “I am still unhappy that my testimony will not be in public, but believe it is more important to resolve the question of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign – which I believe was nonexistent.” Related article Who is Roger Stone? Stone has repeatedly called for an opportunity to testify in an open session. But a source familiar with the matter said the committee decided to keep the hearing closed. “It was the decision of the committee,” the source said. “We asked for open and they declined.” Stone was the recent subject of a Netflix documentary, “Get Me Roger Stone,” which chronicles his life in national politics. The Trump associate began his career as a young “dirty trickster” for President Richard Nixon. Though he endured a scandalous setback in the mid-1990s, Stone re-emerged in the last two decades, most recently during Trump’s campaign. “I acknowledge I am a hardball player. I have sharp elbows. I always play politics the way it is supposed to be played,” Stone told CNN in May. “But one thing isn’t in my bag of tricks: treason.” A spokesperson for Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, who is leading the Russia probe, did not respond to a request for comment. CNN’s Kaitlan Collins and Gregory Krieg contributed to this report


Syria and its most powerful ally, Russia, blamed Israel for striking an air base in the war-torn country on Monday, following a suspected chemical gas attack that drew condemnation from world powers. Russia’s Defense Ministry claimed two Israeli F-15 warplanes launched eight guided missiles from Lebanese territory, targeting the T-4 base in central Syria. The Defense Ministry said Syrian defense units destroyed five of the incoming missiles. The Lebanese Army issued a statement alleging a number of violations of Lebanese airspace by Israeli aircraft between Sunday and Monday. The statement stopped short of accusing Israel of being behind the attack on the T-4 base. Syrian state media said that a number of people were killed or injured in the strikes and cited a military source blaming Israel for the military action. Israeli officials have not issued any response to reports of the strike, but its warplanes hit the same facility in February, after Israel said an Iranian drone had infiltrated its airspace. Israeli officials said Iran, a key backer of the Syrian government, was using the T-4 facility as a command center. The Syrian conflict has developed into a complex proxy war, which in recent years has included Israeli strikes on Iran-linked targets. Israel’s official stance on the war is neutral, but it has acknowledged carrying out some strikes on Syrian military targets, while denying responsibility for numerous others. It has clearly stated in the past that it would respond to Iran’s growing presence in Syria. Related article Gassed where they had hidden, Syrian families killed in minutes Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said in a March interview with the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper that Israel had been acting militarily in Syria in recent months. “A large part of Israeli army activity does not find its way on to (Israeli newspapers and websites) … and that is good,” he said. “It’s just not right to say that we don’t act.” Israel and Russia have typically coordinated their military actions over Syria for deconfliction since Russian forces entered the country in late 2015. The T-4 base, located in a strategic position between the cities of Homs and Palmyra in Syria’s west, has been a key staging ground for Syrian and Russian aircraft during the war. But Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, said there had been no contact between Israel and Russia before or during Monday’s airstrike, adding the lack of communication was a “cause for concern.” Peskov said Putin intended to speak with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the issue as Russian advisers were still at the T-4 base. Syria had earlier speculated that the United States was behind Monday’s strikes, which the Pentagon swiftly denied. Syrian activist groups said toxic gas inside barrel bombs were dropped from helicopters over the rebel-held city of Douma on Saturday, killing dozens of civilians and wounded scores more. Graphic footage shot by rescuers and activists show victims – including children – dead and injured, some ghostly white and foaming at the mouth in makeshift clinics. Others were found suffocated in their homes, according to first responders. CNN could not independently verify the authenticity of the images. The Syrian government and Russia vehemently denied involvement and accused rebels in Douma of fabricating the chemical attack claims to hinder the army’s advances and provoke international military intervention. The United Nations Security Council held a special meeting Monday to discuss what appeared to be a chemical attack, and US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley excoriated Russia, saying its hands are “covered in the blood of Syrian children.” “Russia could stop this senseless slaughter, if it wanted,” she said. “But it stands with the Assad regime and supports it without hesitation.” Russia pushed back. “Nobody has invested you with the authority to act as gendarmes, policemen of the world … we call on you to return to the legal fold,” Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said. Related article Haley says Russia's hands are 'covered in the blood of Syrian children' Despite the chaos in Douma, life goes on in the capital, Damascus. The streets are choked with traffic as people commute to work and marketplaces, while young people smoke shisha pipes at street-side cafes. But there is also a sense of relief in the capital. Its residents have for years endured mortar fire from Eastern Ghouta, an enclave which Douma is part of, though that reprieve could be short lived. President Trump on Sunday warned Russia, Iran and Syria of a “big price to pay” following the attack, and slammed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as an “animal” on Twitter. On Monday he said the United States would respond in 24 to 48 hours. “It was an atrocious attack, it was horrible, you don’t see things like that as bad as the news is around the world, you just don’t see those images,” he said Monday. Related article Trump says US 'cannot allow' Syrian chemical weapons attacks The Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons said that a fact-finding mission was working to establish whether chemical weapons were used. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Monday that his country had sent experts to Douma and that there was “no trace” of the use of chemical weapons there. The attack came as Syrian forces were on the verge of reclaiming Douma, the last town held by rebels in Eastern Ghouta, which was besieged for six years and has been heavily bombarded since mid-February. On Sunday, Syrian state TV reported that the government had reached an agreement with Jaish al-Islam, the only remaining rebel group in the town, to leave within 48 hours. As part of the agreement, the group’s fighters would be transported to Jarablus in northern Syria. In exchange, the rebels would release all captives they are holding in Douma. Tamara Qiblawi reported from Damascus. Mary Ilyushina reported and Angela Dewan wrote from London. James Griffiths contribued to this report.


Some experts say drought contributed to Syrian civil war Historic drought is at least in part due to human effect on climate, scientists say Drought began in 1998 The Holy Land is experiencing a drought of biblical proportions. It’s being blamed for a brutal war and vast suffering, and if some experts are to be believed, humans bear at least some responsibility for its severity. A new study by NASA says the drought that began in 1998 in the Levant, the eastern Mediterranean, is probably the worst in 900 years. And this drought, at least in the view of other experts writing last year, helped spark the Syrian civil war – which in turn led to an exodus of millions of people, overwhelming some European countries and placing the free movement of people throughout the European Union in doubt. The authors of both studies said the severity of the drought was at least partly the result of climate change caused by human activity. “There is evidence that the 2007-2010 drought contributed to the conflict in Syria,” according to the 2015 article, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “It was the worst drought in the instrumental record, causing widespread crop failure and a mass migration of farming families to the urban centers. … For Syria, a country marked by poor governance and unsustainable agricultural and environmental policies, the drought had a catalytic effect, contributing to political unrest.” “We conclude that human influences on the climate system are implicated in the current Syrian conflict,” the 2015 article said. The authors of the newly published NASA study examined the rings of trees to determine the historical incidence of drought in the region. Thin rings indicated dry years; thick rings developed when water was plentiful. The current drought is afflicting an area that includes Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Syria and Turkey. And the new article agrees with the earlier one in finding that the current drought is, at least in part, the result of human effects on the climate. “If we look at recent events and we start to see anomalies that are outside this range of natural variability, then we can say with some confidence that it looks like this particular event or this series of events had some kind of human-caused climate change contribution,” said Ben Cook, the lead author of the study and a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University. If these scientists are correct, a biblical quote comes to mind. “They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind,” the book of Hosea says. And the end of the whirlwind may be nowhere in sight.


"This is the kind of thing that goes on in non-democracies," Toobin said He went on to predict Trump would appoint a "stooge" to lead the agency and Russia probe CNN’s Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin reacted to news that President Donald Trump had fired FBI Director James Comey Tuesday, calling the move a “grotesque abuse of power” and undemocratic. “It’s a grotesque abuse of power by the President of the United States,” said Toobin, speaking with Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room.” “This is the kind of thing that goes on in non-democracies, that when there is an investigation that reaches near the President of the United States, or the leader of a non-democracy, they fire the people who are in charge of the investigation.” Toobin compared the shock move by Trump to former President Richard Nixon’s October 20, 1973, firing of Archibald Cox, who was leading the investigation into the Watergate scandal. “This is something that is not within the American political tradition,” said Toobin, speaking moments after the news of Comey’s firing broke. “That firing led indirectly but certainly to the resignation of President Nixon.” “This is not normal,” he continued. “This is not politics as usual. This is something that is completely outside how American law is supposed to work.” Toobin acknowledged that Trump “absolutely” had the legal authority to fire Comey, but suggested the motive could only be ascribed to politics. “This is a political act when the President is under investigation, when his White House counsel was described yesterday as being told that his national security adviser was subject to blackmail by the Russians, and they fired the Attorney General a few days later,” he said. “Now they fired the FBI director,” Toobin said. “I mean, what kind of country is this?” Related video Toobin: Trump admin going to put a stooge in Later in the exchange, Toobin predicted the White House would replace Comey with a “stooge” who would turn the FBI’s Russia probe into a charade. “Can I point out the emperor is not wearing any clothes?” he asked. “If anyone thinks that a new FBI director is going to come in and the agency will just take over and continue their investigation as if this had never happened, that’s not how it works,” Toobin said. “They will put in a stooge who will shut down this investigation.” Jeffrey Toobin: They are going to put in a stooge who will shut down this investigation! https://t.co/W5F3OFUkWg https://t.co/XFd1fLxOmO “Now Donald Trump will put in maybe Chris Christie, someone who will do his bidding,” he added. Trump fired Comey on Tuesday after his attorney general and deputy attorney general recommended the FBI director’s removal. In a signed letter, Trump informed Comey that he was “hereby terminated and removed from office, effective immediately,” explaining that he reached the conclusion that Comey is “not able to effectively lead the bureau.” “It is essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission,” Trump told Comey in the letter. “I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said shortly before 6:00 p.m. ET Tuesday that Comey was “notified a short time ago,” but declined to say how Comey was notified. Comey’s dismissal took effect immediately. The White House said that Comey was fired based on the clear recommendations of both Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Sessions has recused himself from the Russia investigation because he was a member of Trump’s campaign team. CNN’s Jeff Zeleny, Jeremy Diamond and Eli Watkins contributed to this report.


He was Russia's ambassador to Turkey since 2013 Described as "quietly spoken, hospitable professional" Andrey Karlov, Russia’s ambassador to Turkey,  was shot dead Monday at an art exhibition in Ankara. Karlov, who was appointed as Moscow’s man in the capital since July 2013, was married, and had a son, according to the Russian Embassy. He had served as ambassador at a fractious time in Russian-Turkey ties; diplomatic relations hit a low after Turkish forces shot down a Russian fighter jet near the Syria border in November 2015. Related article Russia's ambassador to Turkey assassinated in Ankara In the wake of that attack, Karlov accused Turkey of encouraging an anti-Russia campaign, in an interview with Russia’s state-run TASS news agency. “Of late, Turkey more often makes unfounded accusations, in particular, that Russia’s military aircraft allegedly violate the airspace,” he said. “Most often, this misinformation launches anti-Russian campaigns in the Turkish mass media or becomes their part.” Russian airstrikes in Syria, which borders Turkey, have been conducted to bolster President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Russia has said it’s coordinating with the Syrian regime to target ISIS and other terrorists. Richard Moore, Karlov’s British counterpart in Turkey, tweeted of his shock. He described the ambassador a “quietly spoken, hospitable professional.” Sir Tony Brenton, who was Britain’s ambassador to Moscow from 2004 to 2008, did not know Karlov. However, he told CNN: “As a former ambassador myself, you always know you’re a symbol and also a target. Something like this is particularly horrifying when it happens. My first thought was sympathy for his family and colleagues.” Thoughts w. my Russian colleague Andrei Karlov, his wife & family after this terrible attack. Quietly spoken, hospitable professional. Karlov was born in the capital of the then-Soviet Union in 1954, and began his diplomatic career in his early 20s, after studying at Moscow’s State Institute of International Relations. An English and Korean speaker, he previously served as Russia’s ambassador extraordinary to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). CNN’s Elizabeth Roberts also contributed to this report.


A Latino Trump supporter caused a stir after he warned against "taco trucks on ever corner" The USHCC wants to have taco trucks register voters Marco Gutierrez, the “Latinos for Trump” founder who warned unchecked immigration would lead to “taco trucks on every corner,” might have his nightmare come true on Election Day. Sort of. The US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce is organizing an effort hoping to put taco trucks on every corner – or, rather, every polling site – on Election Day. Gutierrez recently warned, in vivid terms, of negative consequences if America did not adopt tighter immigration policies. “My culture is a very dominant culture. And it’s imposing, and it’s causing problems. If you don’t do something about it, you’re going to have taco trucks on every corner,” Gutierrez told MSNBC’s Joy-Ann Reid. Last week, treating Gutierrez’s warning as a challenge of sorts, the USHCC created the initiative “Guac the Vote.” Its aim – mobilizing taco truck owners to encourage its customers to register to vote, and park their trucks outside polling sites on Nov. 8. “The idea of taking the taco trucks is not even a Mexican or Hispanic symbol – it’s an American symbol,” said Chamber spokesman Pablo Manriquez. “The hope is that we’re going to be able to deliver quite a few trucks to quite a few polling centers.” Trump’s campaign did not immediately respond for comment to this story. What Donald Trump has said about Mexico and vice versa Manriquez said he’s not sure how many taco trucks there are in the country – but he believes its in the thousands – and there’s no recent data that shows how many election centers there are in the United States. Data in 2004 shows that there were 113,754 polling places, according to a report by the US Election Assistance Commission. In July, the USHCC endorsed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for president, which was a first for the normally nonpartisan group. “Hillary Clinton will be America’s first American small business president. She grew up in a small business. She understands the challenges of small businesses. And throughout her campaign, she’s engaged our organization and our business owners all over the country,” the group’s president, Javier Palomarez, told CNN’s “New Day” at the time. Immigration has been a hot topic in this election after Trump mentioned Mexican immigrants in his June 2015 campaign announcement. “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” Trump famously said. “They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” Since then, Trump has faced criticism for his comments about building a border wall and having Mexico pay for it, as well as accusing a US-born federal judge of Mexican heritage, Gonzalo Curiel, for being biased about presiding about a Trump University case. Trump met with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto on Aug. 31 in Mexico City, to discuss his comments about Mexico paying for the border wall Trump has pledged to build if he is president. Peña Nieto reiterated his response that Mexico would not pay for such a wall.


Russian and Syrian regime pilots bombed Syrian villages that “they thought were held by ISIS” – but were in fact occupied by US-backed coalition forces, a US general said Wednesday. Russia’s Defense Ministry denied the claim, state-sponsored Sputnik News said. Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend, the top US commander in the fight against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, said ISIS fighters had withdrawn from the towns and Syrian-Arab coalition troops had moved in. US forces serving in an advisory role witnessed the Russian and Syrian airstrikes, Townsend said. Quick calls to Russian forces through “deconfliction channels” stopped the bombing, he said. But Moscow’s Defense Ministry said neither Russian nor Syrian warplanes struck Manbij or any areas designated by US commanders. Russia has argued that the United States has not always coordinated its own bombing of targets.


French President Emmanuel Macron rejected any military solution to the North Korean crisis Tuesday in an exclusive interview Tuesday with CNN. But he also talked about love. In response to a question from CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, the still-new leader of France opened up a little about his unconventional union with Brigitte Macron, a woman 24 years his senior.. “The world is actually obsessed right now with your marriage,” Amanpour told him. “Tell us about it.” “It’s always hard to speak about that,” Macron answered. “It’s part of intimacy. Love is part of my life and my balance. I do believe that you don’t build something great and you don’t behave properly if you’re not balanced and a strong couple. I’ve been with my wife for decades now and she’s part of me.” The Macrons first met when the future president was a high school student. Brigitte Trogneux was his teacher, and Macron took part in a school play that she directed. She divorced her husband in 2006 and married Macron a year later. He’s now 39; she’s 64. Although that makes their relationship unique and has garnered them a lot of attention – not all of it kind – Macron seems grounded about it all. “For me, it’s very important for my personal balance to have somebody at home telling you the truth every day,” he told Amanpour. He continued, “Access to truth is one of the main challenges. Somebody with her deep convictions and knowing you for what you are and loving you for what you are – not for what you represent or your role or your honors … That is very important to me. That is my anchor.”


Here’s what you might have missed on CNN today:– In the end, the Austin serial bomber blew himself up. He detonated an explosive in his vehicle as police closed in, injuring one officer. Even so, police still warned the public to stay vigilant for possible package bombs still out there. – More than 4,500 flights are canceled as 70 million people brace for ANOTHER nor’easter. – President Trump is furious about the leak of a warning by national security advisers who told him not congratulate Russian President Vladimir Putin on his re-election, a source told CNN. Trump commended Putin anyway in a phone call. – A longtime Fox News analyst blasted the network as a “propaganda machine” as he announced he’s stepping down. – A Holocaust denier is now officially the Republican nominee in a Chicago-area race for the US House after running unopposed in Tuesday’s primary. – Authorities are trying to use Florida’s new gun law to restrict the Parkland shooter’s brother from accessing firearms. Zachary Cruz was caught skateboarding at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and is being held on $500,000 bond on a trespassing charge. – An “atmospheric river” in the sky could unleash catastrophic rain on Southern California. Officials, fearing flash floods and mudslides, ordered evacuations. – Stephen Hawking’s ashes will rest near the graves of other scientific greats, including Sir Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin, in tribute to the world-famous physicist. – A satellite that looks like giant disco ball and was meant to inspire humanity soon will come plummeting back to Earth, ending the party much sooner than anticipated.


Zambian author Namwali Serpell has won the 2015 Caine Prize for African writing for her short story “The Sack” – the first time a Zambian author has scooped the prestigious award. Described as “truly luminous” by Chair of the judges Zoe Wicomb, the story explores the fraught relationship between two men in a love triangle with a dead woman. Here are some of the key things you need to know about the talented 34-year-old. 1. She’s sharing her prize money In accepting the award on Monday at Oxford University’s Bodleian library, Serpell announced that she will be sharing her  £10,000 ($15,400) prize money with the four other shortlisted writers. “It felt like a way to make a statement about the way that these literary prizes work,” she told CNN. “They don’t always support writers, but rather use them to drum up some excitement. I don’t think writing is a competitive sport.” Her entry was chosen over stories by two Nigerians and two South Africans; Nigerian writer and former Caine prize winner Segun Afolabi’s “The Folded Leaf,” Elnathan John’s story “Flying,” South African FT Kola’s “A Party for the Colonel” and Masande Ntshanga’s “Space.” “I tremendously respect and admire the writing of the other candidates, so it was very easy to do,” she explained. “I don’t think writers like to compete with each other for money.” 2. She has been shortlisted for the Caine prize before Serpell’s first published story, “Muzungu,” was shortlisted for the Caine prize in 2010, but winning it for “The Sack” has given her particular satisfaction. “‘Muzungu’ was classic realism, this one is a bit more surreal and experimental,” she explained. “I’m really pleased that the Caine Prize is honoring something so strange.” The two men in the story have known each other all their lives, but are torn apart by the death of their loved one. Frantic dreams plunge one of the characters into paranoia. Serpell said the story’s motivation is best described by novelist Vladimir Nabokov. “He said, ‘I don’t wish to move minds or even to touch hearts, I want the artist-reader to feel that little sob at the base of their spine’.” 3. Born in Lusaka, she has lived in the U.S. over half her life Serpell’s father is a British-Zambian professor of Psychology at the University of Zambia; her mother is a distinguished economist who has worked for the U.N. She moved to Baltimore aged nine, going on to study literature at Yale and Havard Universities. She has lived in California since 2008, where she is an associate professor of English at the University of Berkeley. “I go home to Zambia quite frequently, more so now that I can afford the plane tickets! Things are slower there in a way that doesn’t feel bogged down, it just feels comfortable.” “You can do two or three things in a day, and that’s enough. It’s very different from the U.S.” 4. She’s a dedicated bookworm Her whole family shares her love of books. “My mother was often found as a child underneath the bed with a candle. By the time it was me it was a flashlight, reading way past my bedtime.” Moving to America in 1989 enhanced this passion. “It can be quite lonely when you move as a child to an entirely new place, where your sense of self is not quite as secure. I really immersed myself in books.” She lists her favorite African writers as Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Bessie Head, Amos Tutuola and Wole Soyinka. “I always tell people when they ask how to become a writer: just read more.” 5. She’s a feminist “I’m absolutely a feminist, born and bred,” emphasized Serpell, who was awarded the Rona Jaffe prize for emerging female writers in 2011. “I think the short story is especially available to women. I’m not saying we should only write short stories, but there’s something about its brevity that is amenable to womens’ lives. “Women are not always given a room of their own or long spates of their time on their own in which they can write.” Quiz: How well do you know African literature?


Editor’s Note: Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University and a New America fellow. He is the author of the new book “The Fierce Urgency of Now: Lyndon Johnson, Congress, and the Battle for the Great Society.” The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. Julian Zelizer: In early weeks of the 2016 campaign, candidates and potential contenders have stumbled in small ways He says Chris Christie's words about Social Security and marijuana may haunt him It’s only a few weeks since the first presidential announcement but already it feels like the campaign is in high gear. A number of politicians have officially announced their candidacies and the outline of their messages is starting to emerge. Hillary Clinton, who announced last week, even jumped into her black van for a road trip out to Iowa, including a pit stop at Chipotle along the way. Although the campaign has barely begun, most of the candidates – and some  probable candidates – are already starting to make mistakes. Most of the mistakes will simply be blips along the way, but some of them might end up being more damaging if they feed into negative perceptions that voters have about the candidates. Here are a few notable mistakes in the past few weeks: Trying to separate himself from the pack, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called for substantial cuts to Social Security. He also promised to reverse the marijuana legalization laws that many states have been enacting in response to ballot initiatives. Both of these statements could come back to bite him, should he run for president. While Christie sees Social Security cuts as a way to “go big” in crafting a platform for a possible presidential run, as many Republicans have discovered Social Security is a very popular program and one that has strong support from Americans who are over 60 – a big part of the electorate. On marijuana legalization, Christie inserted himself into an issue that has growing public support in red and blue states, especially with the younger and independent voters who Christie is promising to bring into a potential campaign. If Christie continues to veer right it will be harder to sell himself as the moderate in the race, and yet there is little chance that he will secure conservative votes over someone like Sen. Ted Cruz. Sen. Cruz impressed many observers when he announced his candidacy at Liberty University. But soon after he did something that took many people by surprise. The Texas senator, who has been one of the leading opponents of President Barack Obama’s health care plan, acknowledged that he would be enrolling in the Affordable Care Act program since his wife was taking a leave of absence from her job to help with the campaign. It will be hard for him to live this one down. Since he wants to sell himself as the authentic conservative and the Republican who will give Democrats their biggest toughest fight, the fact that he decided to join a program he has railed against – and tied up Congress with – will raise questions about whether he is just another politician, and not a true zealot over Obamacare. The decision will offer plenty of fodder to Democrats who want to remind voters that Republicans rail against government even when they and their constituents depend on it. If anyone faces authenticity questions, it is Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. As the so-called “libertarian” in the campaign, Paul is aiming to attract younger Republicans who otherwise are not interested in the party. He is also hoping to bring back hard-core anti-government conservatives who believed that their party has moved too far away from their original goals. Paul has already struggled to justify some of his recent announcements, such as calling for a more aggressive war against ISIS and his statements against gay marriage. But after announcing his presidency, he brought himself more trouble with his aggressive interaction with “Today” host Savannah Guthrie. Paul became clearly aggravated with what the host and went so far as go explain how to conduct the interview. The interview focused most media attention on Paul’s temper and his interactions with women rather than his message. In an interview on CNBC, he put his finger to his lips and said “Shhh, calm down” to anchor Kelly Evans. Both moments revealed a side of his character than until that moment had been somewhat off the radar. “You’re coming off as pretty thin-skinned in your interviews,” Megyn Kelly of Fox News told the senator. Thus far, Clinton has had a fairly smooth opening but during her first week on the trail, she did make a minor mistake. While speaking in Norwalk, Iowa, Clinton said during a discussion about immigration reform that “all my grandparents, you know, came over here” even though only one was really an immigrant. Her staff corrected the statements. “Her grandparents always spoke about the immigrant experience and, as a result she has always thought of them as immigrants. As has been correctly pointed out, while her grandfather was an immigrant, it appears that Hillary’s grandmother was born shortly after her parents and siblings arrived in the U.S. in the early 1880s.” Clinton’s campaign video seemed pitch perfect to many observers, as she largely removed herself from the story line. Her drive to Iowa demonstrated that she isn’t likely to repeat the kinds of mistakes that she made in 2008 when she failed to take the nuts and bolts of caucus organization seriously. Although the entire opening certainly had the flavor of a made for television event, it has generally been well-received. Clearly the biggest “gaffe” in the run-up to the Clinton campaign was in how she handled the story of her use of a private server rather than the State Department email system. Although she dragged out the campaign announcement, she certainly should have had more of the team in place given how much attention she would receive. At first she stumbled in her response, giving the accusers time to spin the story as reflecting a tendency to hide information and suggesting that she was still the untruthful person so many people suspected. Rubio announced his presidential run after the biggest announcement of them all: Hillary Clinton. Given that Rubio is not one of the most well-known of the candidates, outside of Republican political circles, his timing was not perfect. The announcement was overshadowed by Clinton’s video and drive to Iowa. Coming on the heels of Obama’s historic discussions with Cuba, the timing and sequence didn’t help the senator to get the kind of initial buzz that he was hoping for. Although in the long run this won’t make a difference, it might have been wise for him to delay the announcement  and give his campaign some breathing space. All of these are still relatively small missteps in the very start of the campaign. And we know from social scientists than individual gaffes and mistakes don’t really have a big impact on the outcome of these contests, so much as the “fundamentals” like the ability to raise campaign contributions and the endorsements from political elites. Still, mistakes can play a role in campaigns. While individual mistakes might be fleeting, collectively, these kinds of moments can shape how voters think of candidates when the time comes for a vote. Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion. Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion. Read CNNOpinion’s Flipboard magazine.

2016 U.S. presidential candidates' early campaign mistakes


Royal Jordanian Airlines plays off Trump's travel ban troubles Airline also poked fun at Trump during US election President Donald Trump’s ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries may be mired in legal limbo stateside, but one air carrier overseas is trying to focus on the bright side. Royal Jordanian Airlines is hoping to entice travelers to get on board while the ban is on pause, tweeting a lighthearted swipe at Trump’s legal troubles. “Fly to the US with RJ now that you’re allowed to,” the Royal Jordanian ad reads, along with a heading that’s been doctored to change “Ban” to “Bon Voyage!” ✈ 🇺🇸 ✅ #DonaldTrump #MuslimBan pic.twitter.com/rptY3dS3Xh The ad also appears to show the airline slashing its fares while the travel ban is on hiatus. Royal Jordanian on Saturday announced it would again be flying visa- and green-card-carrying nationals from travel-banned countries, based on updated guidance from US immigration officials after the ban was blocked temporarily in court. This isn’t the first time the airline has had some fun with Trump in the name of marketing. In November, a Royal Jordanian tweet on US Election Day featured a thinly veiled reference to the then-Republican nominee – and garnered thousands of retweets and likes. “Just in case he wins. … Travel to the US while you’re still allowed to!” Royal Jordanian tweeted, alluding to Trump’s campaign hints about banning Muslims from coming to the United States. 🍊 ⛔✈ #USElections pic.twitter.com/yBDVO2w3gb Clever ads aside, Royal Jordanian has played a role in the Middle East’s ongoing refugee crises. The United Nations’ migration agency has previously contracted the carrier to help bring migrant workers trapped in Syria back to their home countries. Royal Jordanian also operates out of a country that’s ground zero for the region’s refugee crisis. As a stable nation amid turbulent neighbors, Jordan has for years been a sanctuary for those fleeing violence. Jordan joins Lebanon and Turkey in hosting millions of Syrian refugees, and Amman and other Jordanian cities have become home to more than a million Iraqis over roughly the last decade. CNN reached out to Royal Jordanian Airlines for comment on their ad but has not yet received a response.


Molly Norris is in hiding after getting death threats for her cartoon At least 3 Americans have been convicted in plots to kill cartoonists Paris. Copenhagen. And now Garland, Texas. The Dallas suburb may be the latest city where depictions of the Prophet Mohammed have been met with gunfire. It’s still not clear who shot a security guard Sunday night at the “Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest” in Texas. And the motive remains unknown. But the attack isn’t the United States’ first brush with sacrilege over the Prophet Mohammed. Americans have been on the giving and receiving end of death threats. One cartoonist has been in hiding for four years. And several Americans have been arrested for plotting the death of others who they deem insulted Islam. Here are some run-ins Americans have had with such depictions, which many Muslims consider blasphemous: No one really knows what Molly Norris’ name is now. She changed her identity and disappeared, at the suggestion of the FBI, after a slew of death threats for her cartoons featuring Mohammed four years ago. Even the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki – the American-born spokesman for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula  – said Norris was a “prime target” for execution. Her controversy in April 2010 started with a cartoon published online about an imaginary group called “Citizens Against Citizens Against Humor” that proposed an “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.” “I didn’t mean for my satirical poster to be taken seriously,” Norris told Seattle’s City Arts Magazine. “It became kind of an excuse for people to hate or be mean-spirited. I’m not mean-spirited.” Norris’ cartoon inspired others to create pictures of the Prophet Mohammed on the Internet. More than 100,000 people signed up on a Facebook page. But competing sites that blasted the campaign also drew tens of thousands of followers. “When she learned about the Facebook page that had the most vulgar cartoons you can imagine, she distanced herself immediately,” said Arsalan Bukhari, executive director for the Washington chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “She realized this is the wrong thing to do, to deliberately insult a minority group.” Norris made a short film about the experiences of American Muslim women who wear head scarves. She was trying to destroy stereotypes about Muslim women, he said. It was too late, and the death threats too many. Pennsylvania resident and self-styled “Jihad Jane” Colleen LaRose pleaded guilty in 2011 to helping plot to kill Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks. Vilks had drawn a cartoon of Mohammed with the body of a dog. LaRose traveled to Europe and followed Vilks online “in an effort to complete her task,” federal prosecutors said. She was sentenced last year to 10 years in prison for the plot to kill Vilks. She’s not alone. Over the past four years, at least three American citizens have been convicted in plots to murder Scandinavian cartoonists and journalists who they believed had insulted Islam, CNN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen said. And two other Americans have also been convicted of inciting violent attacks against cartoonists in the States who they felt had insulted the Prophet Mohammed. As for Vilks, he may have dodged one plot against his life. But he came much closer to danger in February. That’s when a gunman stormed a Copenhagen cafe where Vilks and his supporters had gathered for a free speech forum. The attack killed one man and wounded three police officers were wounded. Denmark attacks: ‘We have tasted the ugly taste of fear’ Prosecutors said LaRose had  emailed former Colorado resident Jamie Paulin Ramirez in 2009 inviting her to Europe and asking her to attend a “training camp.” So Ramierez did. She pleaded guilty in 2011 on charges of conspiring to provide material support to a terrorist organization and was sentenced to eight years in prison. Why Islam forbids images of Mohammed David Headley had already played a critical role in the Mumbai terror attacks in 2008 that left 166 people dead. But after furor over what he deemed blasphemous cartoons, Headley turned his attention to Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten newspaper. Headley hatched a plan to take over the Jyllands-Posten building with multiple attackers using similar tactics to those used in Mumbai. The plan involved beheading employees working at the newspaper and throwing their heads out the windows of the building. He was eventually arrested at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport in October 2009. He later pleaded guilty to the conspiracy and was sentenced to 35 years in prison. Zachary Adam Chesser encouraged violent jihadists to attack writers of the animated TV series “South Park” for an episode that depicted the Prophet Mohammed in a bear suit. He posted online messages that included the writers’ home addresses and urged online readers to “pay them a visit,” the documents said. Chesser, who was born in the United States, converted to Islam in high school. In court, he said he tried to go to Somalia to join Al-Shabaab, an Islamic militant group that the United States considers a terrorist organization. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison. CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen and CNN’s Steve Almasy and Daniel Burke contributed to this report.


The effort to take western Mosul back from ISIS will be a battle of attrition Civilians trapped by the fighting have no easy escape route A familiar pattern is emerging as Iraqi forces begin the final phase of their offensive to clear ISIS fighters from western Mosul. They edge towards the city limits, using artillery and airstrikes to soften up the terror group’s defenses. ISIS retaliates with suicide bombs, exploits its tunnel networks and activates sleeper cells elsewhere in the city. A long battle of attrition is underway, with some 750,000 civilians caught in the middle. For the Iraqi army and government, the prize is clearing ISIS from the last city it holds in Iraq. The battle for western Mosul is likely to be tougher than that for the eastern half of the city, which took well over two months. Satellite imagery and witness accounts indicate that ISIS’ defenses are thicker here, and the warren of alleys in the old city is impenetrable to armored vehicles. On the upside, Iraqi special forces gained hard-won experience in the east. One sergeant in the Counter Terrorism Force told CNN last month that his unit had stopped using vehicles and had pushed forward at night on foot, frequently surprising ISIS fighters. In the initial stage of this latest offensive, the Iraqi Federal Police and the 9th Armored Division have begun shelling areas around Mosul’s airport, to the south of the city, ahead of a ground advance. ISIS has heavily fortified this area with road blocks and berms, and long ago rendered the airport runway unusable with trenches. Iraqi military officials said Tuesday that the first target, a hill to the south which overlooks the airport, had been taken. In support, US airstrikes have targeted ISIS operations inside the city, most notably with a bombardment of its command headquarters in the five-story Bab Sinjar building on February 17. The coalition reported heavy airstrikes Monday against ISIS command centers and more than a dozen of its mortar units. There is one major difference to this phase of the battle. When they were in eastern Mosul, ISIS fighters had the option of dropping back to western Mosul. Now they are bottled up in a small pocket of territory, with escape routes across the desert and toward Syria blocked off by Iraqi paramilitaries. The vast majority will have to choose between death and surrender – which will only make the battle even harder. There are also fewer choices for the civilians. All the bridges linking east and west Mosul have been destroyed. Escaping to the south, through the fighting, would be  perilous, but basic supplies are running short. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) says “available food and fuel supplies continue to dwindle, with residents resorting to burning furniture and rubbish to keep warm. “Food and fuel supplies are dwindling, markets and shops have closed, running water is scarce and electricity in many neighborhoods is either intermittent or cut off,” OCHA said this week. The exodus from eastern Mosul was substantial (about 180,000 at its peak) but manageable, with well-established camps beyond the city limits. A prolonged fight in the west would have worse consequences. At present, OCHA says, there is space prepared for some 60,000 displaced people. To root ISIS out of western Mosul, the Iraqi military has had to deploy many of the elite units that took the eastern neighborhoods. The risk is that ‘holding forces’ left behind are less experienced and less disciplined, according to some western observers. A CNN team in eastern Mosul last month found the brittle mood among a civilian population that was beginning to return home but wary of the fragile security situation. There has already been a spate of suicide bombs in eastern Mosul since ISIS fighters were driven back across the River Tigris. Eleven people were killed in one attack on a restaurant on February 10. It is a large area to police and Iraqi officers told CNN last month that sleeper cells were a constant worry. The worst-case scenario would be for clashes to erupt again in the east, forcing Iraqi units to fight on two fronts at once. The bigger picture, once this battle is won, is about reconstruction and reconciliation. Large tracts of eastern Mosul have been devastated. Burned-out vehicles litter the streets, thousands of homes are rubble, much of the infrastructure is ruined. Services and security need to be restored if people are to be persuaded to stay – but the price tag is likely in the billions. And that’s before the cost of the battle for western Mosul is considered. Nor is there yet any agreement on how to govern Mosul, an ethnic and sectarian fault-line where Sunni, Kurdish, Shabak, Christian and Turkmen groups – often themselves divided – will jockey for influence in the vacuum left by ISIS’ departure. Kurdish Peshmerga forces have already built a massive  berm in a unilateral attempt to draw a new border for their region. Kurdish officials are apprehensive that once Mosul has fallen, US interest in the region will wither, though senior figures in the new administration have pledged that the “strategic US-Iraq relationship” endures. Throughout 2016, US diplomatic stamina was critical in building and holding together the fractious coalition of the Kurdish Regional and Iraqi governments, as well as the various militias that want a say in how this part of Nineveh province is run. Analyst Michael Knights, who has long experience working with the Iraqi military, says continued US involvement is critical. “US forces should commit to at least three more years of extraordinary security cooperation,” to solidify the hard-won gains in Mosul and elsewhere.” The liberation of Mosul just might offer a template for sharing power and resources in Iraq – but the experience of the past 14 years is not encouraging. Sectarianism, corruption and more recently the fall in the price of oil have all hobbled efforts to put Iraq back on its feet. Even if ISIS is decisively beaten in Mosul, its deep roots in Iraq will not have been eradicated. It will try to revert to what it was – an insurgency living among Sunni populations throughout northern Iraq, hiding out in areas like the sparsely-populated Hamrin mountains. Since Mosul’s capture by ISIS fighters in June 2014, Mosul has been a vital stronghold for ISIS.The largest city under ISIS control in Iraq and Syria, it was the city from which the group first declared the establishment of its so-called caliphate. Since then, ISIS has gradually lost its other Iraqi cities – Ramadi, Tikrit and Falluja – to government forces. About 1 million people are estimated to remain in Mosul, once a cosmopolitan trade hub of 2 million residents. In areas of Diyala province and around the town of Tikrit, ISIS is already showing signs of renewed life. Earlier this month, the Governor of Salahudin province appealed for help from Baghdad after a spike in attacks. The Institute for the Study of War – which monitors the security situation across Iraq – says ISIS is “returning to traditional … terror tactics outside of its efforts to govern and hold cities.” One Kurdish intelligence official, Lahur Talabani, told Reuters last week that even if ISIS evaporates “another group will pop up under a different name, a different scale.” “These next few years will be very difficult for us, politically,” Talabani said. Nowhere is that more true than in Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city. Rasha al Aqeedi, one of the many Mosulawi in exile, says it would be a tragic mistake for people to think “there is only one kind of resident in Mosul, one kind of Muslim, or one kind of anything else.” “The place is just not that simple, and missing the details is bound to end in tears for everyone.”

Iraqi military offensive to retake western Mosul from ISIS