CIA chief Petraeus resigns over affair

(CNN) -- Only two people know how the affair started, but the world knows now about its inglorious end. Admitting to the extramarital affair, David Petraeus stepped down as director of the CIA on Friday in a surprise move that shocked the intelligence community just days after President Barack Obama was re-elected. Immediate praise for the man poured in. The president hailed Petraeus' dedication and patriotism, while leaders from both parties said he would be missed. It appeared an abrupt end to a spectacularly successful career in public service. FBI investigates Petraeus and biographer 2010: Petraeus thanks soldiers, wife "After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours," Petraeus said in a letter to colleagues, explaining his decision to step down. "Teddy Roosevelt once observed that life's greatest gift is the opportunity to work hard at work worth doing. I will always treasure my opportunity to have done that with you and I will always regret the circumstances that brought that work with you to an end," he said. According to a U.S. official, the FBI had a tip that Petraeus was involved with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, and investigated the alleged affair to determine whether it posed a security risk. The FBI was not investigating Petraeus for wrongdoing. The concern was that he could potentially be blackmailed or put "in a vulnerable spot," the official said. Broadwell spent a year with Petraeus in Afghanistan interviewing him for the book she co-wrote, "All In: The Education of General David Petraeus." It is not clear whether Broadwell is the woman with whom Petraeus has admitted having an affair. CNN has not been able to reach Broadwell for comment. Other sources close to the CIA director told HLN anchor Kyra Phillips that the woman involved in the affair was not under Petraeus' command. The woman was not a member of the armed forces and not a CIA employee, they said. Petraeus, 60, had a distinguished 37-year career in the military before joining the CIA, helping turn the tide against insurgents while commanding forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Earning praise from both sides of the political aisle, the retired four-star general took the helm of the CIA in September 2011. Politicians react to the resignation Director of National Intelligence James Clapper hailed Petraeus, saying his "decision to step down represents the loss of one of our nation's most respected public servants." Petraeus met with Obama on Thursday to offer his resignation and explain the circumstances behind it, according to a senior administration official. The president accepted Petraeus' resignation during a phone call Friday, said the official. "By any measure, he was one of the outstanding general officers of his generation, helping our military adapt to new challenges and leading our men and women in uniform through a remarkable period of service in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he helped our nation put those wars on a path to a responsible end," Obama said in a statement. "As director of the Central Intelligence Agency, he has continued to serve with characteristic intellectual rigor, dedication and patriotism." The president expressed confidence that the CIA will continue to move forward, under the direction of Acting Director Michael Morell. Morrell, a career agency officer, was sworn in as deputy director of the CIA in May 2010. He previously served as associate deputy director and director for intelligence. Petraeus assumed command of the NATO International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces Afghanistan in July 2010, after serving for more than 20 months as commander of United States Central Command. He previously commanded multinational forces in Iraq, leading the so-called surge. The general literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency techniques by overseeing development of the Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual. Before his nomination as CIA director, Petraeus was considered the nation's most well-known and popular military leader since Colin Powell. But his reputation was potentially tarnished by the controversy over the terror attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in September. Petraeus was expected to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee next week on the Benghazi attack. Morrell will take his place, according to the office of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is chairman of that committee. "I wish President Obama had not accepted this resignation, but I understand and respect the decision. David Petraeus is one of America's best and brightest, and all Americans should be grateful for his service," she said. Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, described Petraeus as a "true American patriot." "This is a real loss for the country; a real loss for the CIA," he told CNN's Erin Burnett. Petraeus and his wife, Holly, live in Virginia. They have two grown children.

1. What are drones? This article, written by Chris Cole and Jim Wright, was originally published in Peace News in January 2010

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVS), also known as drones, are aircraft either controlled by ‘pilots’ from the ground or increasingly, autonomously following a pre-programmed mission. (While there are dozens of different types of drones, they basically fall into two categories: those that are used for reconnaissance and surveillance purposes and those that are armed with missiles and bombs. The use of drones has grown quickly in recent years because unlike manned aircraft they can stay aloft for many hours (Zephyr a British drone under development has just broken the world record by flying for over 82 hours nonstop); they are much cheaper than military aircraft and they are flown remotely so there is no danger to the flight crew. While the British and US Reaper and Predator drones are physically in Afghanistan and Iraq, control is via satellite from Nellis and Creech USAF base outside Las Vegas, Nevada. Ground crews launch drones from the conflict zone, then operation is handed over to controllers at video screens in specially designed trailers in the Nevada desert. One person ‘flies’ the drone, another operates and monitors the cameras and sensors, while a third person is in contact with the “customers”, ground troops and commanders in the war zone. While armed drones were first used in the Balkans war, their use has dramatically escalated in Afghanistan, Iraq and in the CIA’s undeclared war in Pakistan. The US has two separate ‘squadron’ of armed drones – one run by the US Air Force and one run by the CIA. Using drones, the USAF Air Force has increased the number of combat air patrols it can fly by 600 percent over the past six years; indeed at any time there are at least 36 American armed UAVS over Afghanistan and Iraq. It plans to increase this number to 50 by 2011. CIA Director Leon Panetta has recently said that drones are “the only game in town.” The CIA have been using drones in Pakistan and other countries to assassinate “terrorist leaders.” While this programme was initiated by the Bush Administration, it has increased under Obama and there have been 41 known drone strikes in Pakistan since Obama became President. Analysis by an American think tank The Brookings Institution on drone attacks in Pakistan has shown that for every militant leader killed, 10 civilians also have died. Drones UK The UK has several different types of armed and surveillance drones in Iraq and Afghanistan and others in the production or development stage. The UK began using armed drones in Afghanistan in Oct 2007 after purchasing three Reapers from General Atomics in 2007 at a cost of £6m each. The MoD confirmed in June 2008 that a British Reaper UAV had fired its weapons for the first time, but refused to give any details. In March 2009, the Daily Telegraph reported that British drones had been used ten times in armed strikes. Watchkeeper As well as armed drones, the UK has several types of surveillance drones, most notably Watchkeeper, a drone jointly produced by Israeli company Ebit and Thales UK. The UK is purchasing 54 Watchkeeper drones and ground stations at a cost of £860m. The first ten will be built in Israel and then production will transfer to a specially built facility in Leicester. Testing is taking place at Aberporth in Wales and Watchkeeper is due to enter service in 2010. There have recently been reports that Watchkeeper may be armed in the future. Serious Concern Thes UN’s Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, has said that the use of drones is not combat as much as ‘targeted killing’. He has repeatedly tried to get the US to explain how they justifies the use of drones to target and kill individuals under international law. The US has so far refused to do so. In a report to the UN he has said the US government (and by implication the UK government) “should specify the bases for decisions to kill rather than capture particular individuals …. and should make public the number of civilians killed as a result of drone attacks, and the measures in place to prevent such casualties”. A further question is the extent to which operators become trigger happy with remote controlled armaments, situated as they are in complete safety, distant from the conflict zone. Keith Shurtleff, an army chaplain and ethics instructor at Fort Jackson, South Carolina worries “that as war becomes safer and easier, as soldiers are removed from the horrors of war and see the enemy not as humans but as blips on a screen, there is very real danger of losing the deterrent that such horrors provide.” Increased Surveillance Military drone manufacturers are looking for civilian uses for remote sensing drones to expand their markets and this includes the use of drones for domestic surveillance. Drones will no doubt make possible the dramatic expansion of the surveillance state. With the convergence of other technologies it may even make possible machine recognition of faces, behaviours, and the monitoring of individual conversations. The sky, so to speak, is the limit.

Africa's Five Most/Least Peaceful Nations

Africa's Five Most/Least Peaceful Nations 01. Least: Somalia To use the old chestnut, if you looked up 'failed state', Somalia would be the author of that section. For the second year in a row it is the least-peaceful nation in the world. There is no real government, though the most recent attempt at one (the 14th since 1991) is holding on with the help of international and neighbouring forces. But even those relationships are tenuous - Somalia has a strained past with its neighbors, including a war with Ethiopia in 1977, while more recently the al-Shabab terrorist group has been crossing the border with Kenya. Nobody holds control over any large part of the country, which is divided among the government, al-Shabab and countless warlords, with pirates roaming its coasts. 05. Most: Ghana Not only was it the first sub-Saharan country that Europe traded with, but Ghana is also the first African nation to achieve independence. Yet the road after that was very rocky with coups, corruption and a period of military rule. A constitution and multi-party government established in 1992 has held firm, today making it one of the most stable countries in Africa. Not as much can be said for the country's chaotic neighbors. As such it ranks high in access to weapons and has some problems with violent crime. Nonetheless, Ghana is helping stabilise the region. 05. Least: Nigeria To understand Nigeria's challenges, you have to appreciate its diversity. There are over 500 documented languages in Africa's most populated country - and lots of ethnic tension. While led by a democratic government since 1999, years of civil war have left Nigeria with many armed groups fighting for their own territories. Most notable are the Islamic factions in the north, such as the terrorist group Boko Haram. These have enforced harsh Islamic laws, causing many to be displaced to the south of the country. Corruption around Nigeria's oil reserves is also a big problem, as is the crippling poverty many people live in - even those in oil-rich areas. 04. Most: Namibia Since gaining independence from South Africa, this home to the world's oldest desert has been stable. There were some skirmishes with rebels in the east of the country during the early Nineties. But Namibia remains a highly functional democratic society, though it has been dominated by the SWAPO party since independence. Strong-arm tactics by security forces, long detentions and ongoing land restitution cause a bit of tension, while some minority groups have felt victimised by the government. Still, Namibia is not doing too badly at all. 04. Least: Central African Republic Criminality, homicides and access to weapons are just three of this small country's major problems, followed by a bevy of other issues that keep the Central African Republic from moving forward. Since independence in 1960, the CAR has experienced numerous coups, military riots and armed rebellions. This has left the country awash with illegal weapons and corruption. In 2009 a peace deal was struck and a unity government was formed, but now the country has to deal with an insurgency of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). Being chronically underdeveloped, regional help has been keeping the CAR from falling apart. But the region is also part of its problem - two of the worst 5 African countries are its neighbors. 03. Most: Mozambique Despite only emerging from a bruising civil war in 1992, Mozambique has made great strides into becoming a peaceful society. Widespread poverty and the easy access to wartime weapons have caused some problems with crime and violent demonstrations around political disputes. But Mozambique's government has been consistently stable. Floods and droughts in recent years have put pressure on what is a poor country, yet its people have shown a resilience towards making this east coast tropical paradise a true jewel in the African crown. 03. Least: Democratic Republic of the Congo The DRC has seen more than its share of conflict, resulting in over 3 million civilian deaths since the Sixties. Some of this is due to the numerous coups, the most notorious being the rise of the dictator Mobutu Sese Seko. Meddling by neighbours like Zimbabwe and Angola have not helped and their conflicts, such as with Hutu rebels in Rwanda, have spilled over its borders. A transitional government was formed in 2003 and relations with neighbors have helped squash some of the rebel groups. But rogue militias and sporadic fighting remain a problem for the DRC. 02. Most: Botswana Conflict in neighbouring countries and the resulting refugees have soured Botswana's broth a little, but it still stands strong as one of the continent's most stable democracies. It is, in fact, Africa's oldest multi-party democracy. A healthy control of its natural resources and low corruption has kept the country's books healthy. Some problems with crime and homicides have been highlighted, as well as ongoing issues surrounding the displacement of the indigenous Kalahari bushmen population. But Botswana is the most peaceful country on mainland Africa. 02. Least: Sudan It says something when your president is wanted for crimes against humanity. It says even more when a regional conflict was solved by the south breaking away and forming an independent country. Sudan is not a happy place right now, ranking high in criminality, access to weapons, political terror and more. Its friction with what is now South Sudan has led to two civil wars and tensions are still high between the nations. In the north Sudan also has problems with indigenous groups unhappy with the minority Arab government's actions. 01. Most: Mauritius A few hundred kilometers east of Madagascar, Mauritius is an island paradise that has done well to grow its tourism, textile and banking industries. One of the oldest and most stable democracies in the developing world, this island nation is home to a diverse population. Despite recent headlines of the dramatic murder of an Irish tourist, Mauritius enjoys a low crime rate and good policing. Some poorer minorities do complain of victimisation and political unrest can also happen during elections, but rarely spills over into violence.

Official: Syrian rebels brace for showdown in Aleppo By the CNN Wire Staff

(CNN) -- Leaders of Syrian rebel forces ordered their fighters to attack hundreds of government troops heading toward Aleppo, the country's largest city, a Free Syrian Army official told CNN Wednesday. The Syrian regime withdrew about 2,000 fully equipped troops, along with their tanks and artillery, from Idlib and sent them to Aleppo, about 40 miles away, the official said. As the commercial hub of Syria, Aleppo is a crucial city in the country's 16-month conflict. If rebels eventually gain control of the city it would mark a pivotal point in the Syrian crisis and deal a heavy blow to President Bashar al-Assad's financial ties. Read more: Is there a plan for a post-Assad Syria? Across Syria at least 80 people, including nine children, were killed in fresh violence Wednesday, opposition activists said. The dead included 23 people in Damascus and its suburbs and 10 in Aleppo, the Local Coordination Committees of Syria said. Rebel forces have been trying to wrest control of Aleppo from government forces. "There is random shelling of the eastern portion of the city as the Syrian Army is trying to force out the FSA (Free Syrian Army). They are hitting civilian homes over and over," one activist told CNN via Skype Tuesday. Syrian state TV reported a crackdown on Aleppo and Qamechli and the capture of "terrorists" in Lattakia. The regime has consistently blamed the violence on armed terrorist groups. CNN's Ivan Watson, who is inside Syria, said he had noticed the rebels had become better armed in the past few months. While they only had shotguns at one point, they now have rocket-propelled grenades and assault rifles, he said. The increased firepower has helped the rebels successfully attack armored vehicles and forced some Syrian forces to resupply by helicopter. Watson said that in the village he was in, hundreds of rebels had loaded up with ammunition this week and headed to fight in Aleppo. Both Aleppo and the capital city of Damascus have been al-Assad strongholds. On Tuesday, state-run media reported that regime troops had regained control of neighborhoods in Damascus, where rebels fought al-Assad's forces last week. Alex Thomson, a journalist for CNN British affiliate ITN, confirmed the developments from Damascus. "It is quite clear that the regime has just had, in Damascus, the biggest boost to its morale in 16 months of violent civil war," Thomson wrote. "This is a comprehensive victory of the Assad regime in its own backyard and capital." Video: Fighting breaks out of Syria border gate Meanwhile, half the members of the United Nations observer mission in Syria have left the country as it starts what is set to be its final 30-day mandate, the U.N.'s chief peacekeeper Herve Ladsous said Wednesday in Damascus. As a result, "the mission operates on a reduced basis, reduced in numbers, reduced in team sites in the provinces and does what it can," Ladsous said. A U.N. Security Council resolution passed Friday highlighted that for the body to reconsider its decision to renew the observers' mandate for a final 30-day period "there needs to be very specific and sustainable progress on the level of violence, which should decrease substantially, and on the use of heavy weapons," he said. Lt. Gen. Babacar Gaye, who has taken over the leadership of the mission, said every opportunity would be taken to "alleviate the suffering" of the Syrian people. In what may be a blow to the regime, the opposition Syrian National Council said Wednesday that two senior Syrian diplomats were the latest to defect. One is the Syrian ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, Abdullatif Al Dabbagh, SNC spokesman George Sabra said. The second is Al Dabbagh's wife, who is also the Syrian envoy to Cyprus, Lamia Al Harriri. She defected to Qatar, SNC member Najy Tayyarah told CNN. She is also the niece of Syrian Vice President Farouq Al Sharea. Al Dabbagh had helped a lot of Syrians in need, Tayyarah said from Istanbul. Earlier, Turkey's customs and trade minister said "all border gates with Syria will be closed" Wednesday, Turkish state-run TV reported. A government statement was expected later in the day. Thousands of Syrians have fled to Turkey in recent months to escape violence in their country, but the refugees generally cross from fields through the border fence, not the border gates. The chaos in Syria took an ominous turn this week after a Syrian official discussed his country's weapons of mass destruction. Jihad Makdissi, Syria's Foreign Ministry spokesman, told reporters Monday that "any stocks of WMD or any unconventional weapon that the Syrian Arab Republic possesses would never be used against civilians or against the Syrian people during this crisis at any circumstances, no matter how the crisis would evolve. "All the stocks of these weapons that the Syrian Arab Republic possesses are monitored and guarded by the Syrian Army," Makdissi added. He further said that the "weapons are meant to be used only and strictly in the event of external aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic." Read more: Syria says it has weapons of mass destruction in case of foreign attack Russia said Syria had ratified 1925 Geneva protocols "banning the use of asphyxiating, toxic and other gases in military conditions" and expects the country to abide by that agreement. That protocol was "entered into force" in 1928, the United Nations said. Russia has been a friend and ally of the al-Assad regime. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Syria is not a party to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. That's the body of the Chemical Weapons Convention dedicated to eliminating the weapons. Video: Abdullah on chemical weapons in Syria Al-Assad's regime "probably has the largest and most advanced chemical warfare program in the Arab world," according to Michael Eisenstadt, senior fellow and director of the military and security studies program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. It includes "thousands of tube and rocket artillery rounds filled with mustard-type blister agents, thousands of bombs filled with the nerve agents sarin and possibly VX, and binary-type and cluster CW warheads filled with nerve agents for all its major missile systems. "Its CW infrastructure is believed to include several production facilities and numerous storage sites, mostly dispersed throughout the western half of the country," Eisenstadt said. Syria is thought to have a biological warfare research and development program but is not known to have offensive biological warfare agents, Eisenstadt told CNN. The Syrian crisis started in March 2011, when a fierce government crackdown against protesters morphed into a nationwide uprising against the regime. The LCC says more than 16,000 people have been killed in the conflict. The U.N. secretary-general said earlier this week that almost 17,000 people have died. Read more: Amid violence, Syrians race to borders

The Moscow-Damascus alliance: A tangled tale By Mark N. Katz, Special to CNN May 28, 2012 -- Updated 1056 GMT (1856 HKT)

Editor's note: Mark N. Katz is a professor of government and politics at George Mason University near Washington, D.C. He is the author of the upcoming book "Leaving without Losing: The War on Terror after Iraq and Afghanistan." (CNN) -- Many observers point to Moscow's close ties with Damascus going back to the 1950s as a reason for Russia now acting to defend the al-Assad regime in Syria against its many internal and external opponents. What has apparently been forgotten is that Moscow's ties with Syria have been plagued by tensions and disagreements throughout this entire period. Underpinning the Moscow-Damascus relationship for over half a century now has been a common antipathy toward America, Israel, and the moderate Arab states. But they have also differed on many issues. When Soviet-Syrian relations first became close during the mid-1950s, Moscow seemed to hope the then-powerful Syrian Communist Party might at least share power with the virulently anti-Israeli and anti-Western Baath Party. But the Syrian Baathists feared the communists and agreed to the 1958 merger of their country with Egypt and even accepted the leadership of the latter's ruler, Nasser, partly in order to get his help in suppressing the communists. Mark N. Katz Mark N. Katz After Nasser helped them do this successfully, he and the Syrian Baathists fell out, and Syria withdrew from their union (officially the United Arab Republic) in 1961. Moscow restored ties with Damascus, but during the 1960s and early 1970s had much closer relations with Egypt, which had allowed the Soviet Union to build up military and naval facilities there. Soviet-Syrian relations improved after Nasser's successor, Sadat, switched Egypt from being a Soviet ally to being an American one, and even made a separate peace with Israel. Moscow was also grateful to Syria for being one of the few Muslim states that did not condemn the USSR for invading and occupying Afghanistan. Nevertheless, Moscow and Damascus disagreed on several issues. Although the USSR supplied arms to Syria, Damascus complained that America supplied better ones to Israel, and that this allowed Israel to best Syria on the numerous occasions when their forces clashed. Moscow responded by saying there was nothing wrong with the quality of Soviet weapons; it was the quality of the Syrian personnel operating them that was deficient. While it broke diplomatic relations with Israel during the June 1967 Arab-Israeli War, the Soviet Union at least recognized Israel's right to exist. Syria, by contrast, did not. As a result, Syria did not cooperate even with Soviet-sponsored Arab-Israeli peace initiatives. In addition, Moscow was not pleased about Syria's intervention in Lebanon's long civil war beginning in the mid-1970's. Moscow and Damascus often found themselves supporting different factions during it. Further, while Moscow (and many Western states) supported Iraq during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, Syria -- practically alone among Arab states -- supported Iran. Syria was not happy with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev for having improved relations with America, the West, the moderate Arab states, and even Israel. And while Russian relations with America and the West deteriorated during the Yeltsin era (1991-99), this was also a period in which Russia was largely absent from the Middle East and thus did not provide much support for Syria. After Putin rose to power at the very end of 1999, it soon became clear that he wanted to reassert Russia's influence in the Middle East and elsewhere. Even so, Russian-Syrian relations did not improve for several years and were actually quite testy until 2005. Putin was unhappy that Syria was unwilling to repay its Soviet era debt -- some $12-13 billion -- to Moscow. Damascus was unhappy about the improvement in Russian-Israeli relations that occurred under Putin, and about Russia's refusal to sell advanced weapons that Syria wanted but Israel objected to it acquiring. Russian-Syrian relations, though, did improve in 2005 -- the year that Syria withdrew its forces from Lebanon in response to an amazing popular uprising in that country and possibly to Syrian fear of American intervention if it did not withdraw. Moscow and Damascus resolved the debt issue (very much in Syria's favor), Moscow began work to revitalize the use of naval facilities at the Syrian port of Tartus that the Soviet Navy had used during the late Cold War era, and the Russian oil firm, Tatneft, gained a foothold in the Syrian petroleum sector. While the West and the Arab League have condemned President Bashar al-Assad's regime for its violent oppression of the popular unrest against it that arose in 2011, Russia (along with China) has staunchly defended Damascus in the UN Security Council and elsewhere. Many of the previous Russian-Syrian differences, though, remain -- especially ones concerning Russia's close relations with Israel and the inability of Syria to obtain certain Russian weapons systems. Should the al-Assad regime manage to crush its internal opponents and remain in power, it is doubtful that these ongoing Russian-Syrian differences will disappear. Moscow is not defending the al-Assad regime because it has been such a great Russian ally. What motivates the Kremlin instead is the fear that if the al-Assad regime falls, what comes next in Syria will be worse for Russia: either a pro-Western, democratic government that has no further need of Russia, or a radical, Islamist regime that is as anti-Russian as it is anti-Western. In either case, Russia would lose influence in Syria. And since Syria is the last country in the Middle East in which it has strong influence, this means Russia will lose influence in the Middle East as a whole. Compared to this prospect, it is not surprising that Moscow prefers to see the survival of the al-Assad regime despite how difficult and uncooperative a partner for Russia it has proven itself to be.