Poll: After Newtown, Most Back Some Gun Controls


gty gun store mi 130114 wblog After Newtown Shootings, Most Back Some Gun Controls, Poll Shows

Getty Images


A majority of Americans favor such gun control measures as banning assault weapons and expanding background checks on those who buy guns and ammunition, with support for banning high-capacity ammunition magazines at a new high in ABC News/Washington Post polls.

With Vice President Joe Biden set to present recommendations that were prompted by the Newtown, Conn., school shootings last month, this latest poll shows overwhelming support for certain moves: Eighty-eight percent favor background checks on firearms buyers at gun shows; 76 percent support checks on buyers of ammunition and 71 percent back a new federal database that would track all gun sales.


For full results, charts and tables, CLICK HERE


Sixty-five percent also support banning high-capacity ammunition magazines, a high in three ABC/Post polls to test the idea since early 2011, and up by 6 percentage points since just after the Newtown shootings. Among other suggestions, 58 percent favor banning the sale of so-called assault weapons, 55 percent support the National Rifle Association’s call for armed guards in schools and 51 percent would ban semi-automatic handguns.


Notably, support for the most popular of these measures – expanded background checks, a gun database and banning high-capacity magazines – includes a majority of people who live in gun-owning households, a group that accounts for 44 percent of all adults in this country.


The intensity of support for all these proposals is also notable; “strong” support for each measure outstrips strong opposition, in most cases by overwhelming margins (save the two less-popular items, armed school guards and a semi-automatic handgun ban). For instance, 50 percent “strongly” favor banning assault weapons, twice the number who strongly opposes it. And 76 percent strongly support background checks at gun shows, while only 8 percent say they’re are strongly opposed.


Fifty-five percent in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, express worry about a mass shooting in their own communities, and 52 percent say the Newtown shootings have made them more likely to support some forms of gun control.


As noted, support for banning high-capacity magazines is at a new high in polling since 2011. But there’s no consistent change on other proposals. Support for background checks on gun show buyers is essentially the same as it was in the late 1990s; support for banning assault weapons is numerically up from its low in 2009  but still well below its levels in the mid- to late 1990s; and support for banning semi-automatic handguns has been essentially steady in recent years.


ACTION – Looking ahead to the possibility of legislative action, most Americans give the issue at least a high priority for the president and Congress to address, but not “the highest,” and more give greater priority to  ”addressing gun violence” (68 percent) than specifically “enacting stricter gun control laws” (59 percent).


While they reach majorities, both of these are lower on the list than other top-shelf issues, including the economy, cutting federal spending, restructuring the tax system and slowing the rate of growth in spending on Social Security and Medicare.


The higher priority for “addressing gun violence” versus “enacting stricter gun control laws” (in a split-sample test) likely reflects some compunctions about whether gun control measures will work. The public, for instance, divides on whether stricter gun laws or armed guards in schools would be more effective (43-41 percent), and as many or more blame gun violence on inadequate treatment of the mentally ill, and on irresponsibility among gun owners, as on other causes.


FACTORS – Many factors receive broad blame for gun crimes. Leading the list, more than eight in 10 see inadequate treatment of the mentally ill, inadequate background checks and lack of individual responsibility by gun owners as contributors to gun violence, and more than half, in each case, say these contribute “a great deal” to the problem.


Sixty-nine to 73 percent also see the availability of semi-automatic handguns, high-capacity ammunition clips and assault weapons as contributors – yet as many say the same about the prevalence of violence in TV programs, movies and video games. The fewest numerically, 38 percent, believe violence in the media contributes “a great deal” to gun violence.


There are three items on which more people say the issue contributes to gun violence than favor legislative action: Sixty-nine percent see access to semi-automatic handguns as a contributor, versus 51 percent who favor banning such weapons; 73 percent say assault weapons are a contributor, versus 58 percent who favor banning those; and 70 percent see high-capacity magazines as a factor in gun violence, while slightly fewer, 65 percent, would ban them. The gaps apparently exist at least in part because support for action is lower among those who see these as contributing “somewhat” but not a great deal to gun violence – a group that includes more pro-gun individuals, such as people in gun-owning households, men and political conservatives.


GROUPS – There are striking differences among groups on some, but not all, gun control issues. Support for gun control measures generally is higher among women than men, with the gap peaking on a ban on semi-automatic handguns, supported by 60 percent of women versus 40 percent of men.


In addition to the expected partisan and ideological divisions, support for gun control also is higher in several cases among senior citizens vs. the youngest adults, among city dwellers vs. those in suburbs or rural areas, in Democratic-voting blue states vs. more-Republican red states, and in non-gun households vs. those in which someone owns a firearm. There also are regional divisions, with support for gun control typically highest in the Northeast and lowest in the South.


These differences, however, generally fade on the issues on which agreement is most broad – background checks, a gun database and banning high-capacity magazines.


Patterns are different in support for armed guards in schools; this idea is more popular with conservatives versus liberals (63 versus 44 percent), in red versus blue states (67 versus 49 percent) and among Republicans versus Democrats and independents (65 versus 52 percent). It also gets more support from parents with minor children, 62 percent, versus 51 percent among other adults. In the biggest gap, the proposal for armed school guards is nearly 30 points more popular with people who see the NRA’s leadership favorably than among those who see it unfavorably, 69 versus 40 percent.


There are other differences among groups that inform views on gun control. Women, for instance, are 13 points more apt than men to say the Newtown shootings have made them more likely to support some forms of gun control, and 16 points more likely to be worried that a mass shooting could occur in their own area. That worry is a prime factor in support for stricter gun laws.


THE NRA – While recent polls have found the NRA to be popular overall with a majority of Americans, this survey finds a less positive assessment of the association’s leadership -  more see it unfavorably than favorably by an 8-point margin, 44 versus 36 percent, although many don’t know enough to say.


There’s a mixed result on the NRA’s influence on gun policy; on the one hand more, 38 percent, say it has too much influence versus too little (24 percent) or about the right amount (30 percent). At the same time, that makes a majority, netted, saying its influence is too little or about right.


The NRA’s leadership, naturally, has far more support among people in gun-owning versus non-gun-owning households – a 52 percent versus 22 percent favorable rating. Similarly, 49 percent in non-gun households say the NRA has too much influence over gun laws. In gun households 27 percent, agree.


METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Jan. 10-13, 2013, among a random national sample of 1,001 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including design effect. Partisan divisions are 33-24-37 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents.


The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York, N.Y.

Read More..

Quest: U.S. economy to dominate Davos




The United States and the sorry state of its political and budgetary process will be the center of attention at Davos, writes Quest




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Quest: Davos is a chance to see where the political and economic landmines are in 2013

  • Quest: People will be speculating about how dysfunctional the U.S. political process has become

  • Quest: Davos has been consumed by eurozone sovereign debt crises for three years




Editor's note: Watch Quest Means Business on CNN International, 1900pm GMT weekdays. Quest Means Business is presented by CNN's foremost international business correspondent Richard Quest. Follow him on Twitter.


(CNN) -- It is that time of the year, again. Come January no sooner have the Christmas trees been taken down, as the winter sales are in full vicious flood the world of business start thinking about going to the world economic forum, better known as Davos.


For the past three years Davos has been consumed by the eurozone sovereign debt crises.


As it worsened the speculation became ever more frantic.....Will Greece leave the euro? Will the eurozone even survive? Was this all just a big German trick to run Europe? More extreme, more dramatic, more nonsense.


Can China be the biggest engine of growth for the global economy. Round and round in circles we have gone on these subjects until frankly I did wonder if there was anything else to say short of it's a horrible mess!


This year there is a new bogey man. The US and in particular the sorry state of the country's political and budgetary process will, I have little doubt, be the center of attention.


Read more: More 'cliffs' to come in new Congress


Not just because Congress fluffed its big test on the fiscal cliff, but because in doing so it created many more deadlines, any one of which could be deeply unsettling to global markets... There is the $100 billion budget cutbacks postponed for two months by the recent agreement; postponed to the end of February.


At exactly the same time as the US Treasury's ability to rob Peter to pay Paul on the debt ceiling crises comes to a head.


Read more: Both Obama, GOP set for tough talks ahead


The Treasury's "debt suspension period" is an extraordinary piece of financial chicanery that if we tried it with our credit cards would get us locked up!! Then there is the expiration of the latest continuing resolution, the authority by which congress is spending money.


There is the terrifying prospect that all these budget woes will conflate into one big political fist fight as the US faces cutbacks, default or shutdown!!


I am being alarmist. Most rational people believe that the worst sting will be taken out of this tail....not before we have all been to the edge...and back. And that is what Davos will have on its mind.


People will be speculating about how dysfunctional the US political process has become and is it broken beyond repair (if they are not asking that then they should be...)




They will be pondering which is more serious for risk...the US budget and debt crises or the Eurozone sovereign debt debacle. A classic case of between the devil and the deep blue sea.




The official topic this year is Resilient Dynamism. I have absolutely no idea what this means. None whatsoever. It is another of WEF's ersatz themes dreamt up to stimulate debate in what Martin Sorrell has beautifully terms "davosian language" In short everyone interprets it as they will.




What I will enjoy, as I do every year, is the chance to hear the global players speak and the brightest and best thinkers give us their take on the global problems the atmosphere becomes febrile as the rock-stars of finance and economics give speeches, talk on panels and give insight.




Of course comes of these musings, it never does at Davos. That's not the point. This is a chance to take stock and see where the political and economic landmines are in 2013. I like to think of Davos as the equivalent of Control/Alt/Delete. It allows us to reboot.


We leave at least having an idea of where people stand on the big issues provided you can see through the panegyrics of self congratulatory back slapping that always takes place whenever you get like minded people in one place... And this year, I predict the big issue being discussed in coffee bars, salons and fondue houses will be the United States and its budgetary woes.







Read More..

Pakistan sacks provincial government after Shiite killings






QUETTA: Pakistani Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf on Monday sacked the provincial government in Baluchistan after meeting Shiite Muslim protesters demanding protection after a massive bomb attack.

Members of the minority community have refused to bury those killed on Thursday in Pakistan's worst sectarian bombings when suicide attackers killed 92 people at a crowded snooker hall in the provincial capital Quetta.

More than 120 were wounded in the attacks claimed by Sunni Muslim militant group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi in an area dominated by Shiites from the Hazara ethnic minority.

Shiite leaders said protesters would not call off their sit-in and bury their dead until they see official notification about steps announced by Ashraf after day break. Local TV stations showed footage of them still protesting.

The families have refused to bury loved ones until the authorities agree to put the security and administration of the city under army control.

The prime minister flew to Quetta on Sunday to listen to their grievances and announced live on television that he had accepted all their demands, including the sacking of the provincial government and the suspension of its legislature.

"We have decided to impose governor's rule in Baluchistan for two months, the provincial government will be sacked," Ashraf said after offering his condolences to grieved families.

"It is a national tragedy and the entire nation is saddened over it."

The governor can call on the army to help control the law and order situation whenever needed, the prime minister said.

He also directed the authorities to arrest the culprits behind attacks against the Shiite community and urged the families to bury their dead.

Refusing to bury the dead is an extreme protest in Islamic society, where the deceased are normally buried the same day or the next day.

The provincial government has been widely criticised in Baluchistan for being unable to control not just sectarian violence, but other attacks linked to a nearly nine-year separatist insurgency and to Islamist militants.

The sacked chief minister, Aslam Raisani, was criticised for making a trip to London while security deteriorated.

Shiites, who account for around 20 per cent of Pakistan's 180 million people, last year suffered record levels of violence according to Human Rights Watch.

- AFP/jc



Read More..

Hagel is wrong about Israel support




Former Sen. Chuck Hagel was nominated by President Obama for defense secretary.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • In 2006, Hagel said 'the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here'

  • Ari Fleischer: The support for Israel isn't because of 'intimidation,' but merit

  • Polls show most Americans view Israel favorably, but don't support Iran or Palestinians

  • Fleischer: Israel is a steady friend of the U.S. and a tolerant democracy




Editor's note: Ari Fleischer, a CNN contributor, was White House press secretary in the George W. Bush administration from 2001 to 2003 and is the president of Ari Fleischer Sports Communications Inc. He is a paid consultant and board member for the Republican Jewish Coalition, which opposes the Hagel nomination. Follow him on Twitter: @AriFleischer


(CNN) -- "The political reality is ... that the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here." -- Senator Chuck Hagel, 2006


As a result of those words and his voting record, former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel's nomination has turned a decades-long, bipartisan confirmation process for secretary of defense into an acrimonious one.


While some leading figures such as the Anti-Defamation League's Abe Foxman and the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Rabbi Abraham Cooper say Hagel's words are borderline anti-Semitism, I'm less worried about anti-Semitism and more worried about the judgment of a potential defense secretary who thinks Israel has won support because of "intimidation," not merit.



Ari Fleischer

Ari Fleischer



Israel is widely supported by the American people because Israel deserves to be supported. Israel is a lonely democratic ally and a steady friend of the United States in a dangerous and tumultuous region. Their people are like the American people -- free, independent, capitalistic and tolerant.


A Gallup poll taken last year showed 71% of the American people view Israel favorably while only 19% view the Palestinian Authority favorably and just 10% view Iran favorably.



In a Pew Research Center study last month, 50% of adults said they sympathize more with Israel in its dispute than with the Palestinians. Just 10% sympathize more with the Palestinians, while about as many (13%) volunteered that they sympathize with neither side.


Contrary to Hagel's logic, Israel doesn't enjoy widespread American support because anyone -- from any faith -- intimidated someone else; Israel earned the support of the American people because of its people's values.


Opinion: Hagel is a friend to Israel


The danger in what Hagel said is if he thinks Israel is supported on Capitol Hill because of intimidation, then it's not hard to see why Hagel is so soft in his support for our ally. He sees himself as an independent voice willing to stand up to intimidation, and he wears his anti-Israel votes as badges of honor.










But Hagel isn't independent. He's alone.


His position on Middle Eastern matters is so outside the mainstream of both parties that almost no one agrees with him.


In 2000, Hagel was one of only four senators who refused to sign a Senate letter in support of Israel.


Peter Beinart: What's behind Hagel nomination fight


The following year Hagel was one of only 11 senators who refused to sign a letter urging President George W. Bush to continue his policy of not meeting with Yasser Arafat until the Palestinian leader took steps to end the violence against Israel.


John Cornyn: Why I can't support Hagel


Contrary to America's longstanding bipartisan position, Hagel has called for direct talks with terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. In 2007, Hagel voted against labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the group responsible for the death of many American servicemen in Iraq, a terrorist organization.


And in 2008, he was one of two senators on the banking committee to oppose a bill putting sanctions on Iran. One of the measure's biggest backers was an Illinois senator named Barack Obama.


I'm a New Yorker and neither of my senators -- Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand -- supports Israel because someone muscled them into that position through intimidation. They both support Israel because the lobby that wants them to support Israel is an American lobby, made up of people from both parties and all religions and from people with no religion or political party at all.


But if Chuck Hagel believes that it's intimidation and not sound judgment that has caused his colleagues to support Israel, then Chuck Hagel should not be confirmed as our next secretary of defense.


Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion


Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ari Fleischer.






Read More..

Falcons beat Seahawks with last-second field goal

ATLANTA

Matt Bryant kicked a 49-yard field goal with 8 seconds left and the Atlanta Falcons bounced back after blowing a 20-point lead in the fourth quarter, defeating Russell Wilson and the gutty Seattle Seahawks 30-28 in an NFC divisional playoff game Sunday.




31 Photos


2013 NFL Playoffs: Divisional Playoffs



The Falcons (14-3) appeared ready to allow the biggest fourth-quarter comeback in NFL playoff history when Marshawn Lynch scored on a 2-yard run with 31 seconds left.

But Matt Ryan completed two long passes after the kickoff, setting up Bryant's winning kick and sending the Falcons to the NFC championship game for only the third time in franchise history. They will host the San Francisco 49ers next Sunday.

Wilson passed for two touchdowns and ran for another, but it wasn't enough for the Seahawks (12-6).


The rookie finished with 385 yards passing and did all he could to lead the Seahawks back from a 27-7 deficit entering the fourth quarter. When Lynch powered over in the final minute, a play set up by Wilson's brilliant scramble, Seattle celebrated like it would be moving on.

Not so fast.

Ryan, who had struggled in his first three playoff appearances, had just enough time to rally the Falcons. He hooked up with Harry Douglas on a 29-yard pass in front of the Falcons bench, and coach Mike Smith quickly signaled a timeout. Then, Ryan went down the middle to his favorite target, tight end Tony Gonzalez, a Hall of Famer-to-be playing what could've been his final game.

Gonzalez hauled in the 19-yard throw, and Smith called his final timeout with 13 seconds remaining. Instead of risking another play and having the clock run out, he sent Bryant in for the field goal try.

The Seahawks called time just before the ball was snapped, and Bryant's kick sailed right of the upright. That turned out to be nothing more than practice. The next one was right down the middle, giving the Falcons a stunning victory.

Wilson's last throw, a desperation heave into the end zone, was intercepted by Falcons receiver Julio Jones.

Read More..

Dreamliner Nightmare: Another 787 Fuel Leak













Japan Airlines said a Boeing 787 Dreamliner jet leaked fuel while undergoing tests today at the airport near Tokyo, marking the latest in a string of highly-publicized problems for the jetliner as it undergoes a safety review by the U.S. government.


The Dreamliner being examined leaked around 25 gallons of fuel from a nozzle in the left wing, according to a spokesperson for Japan Airlines. It was reportedly the same aircraft that spilled fuel onto the runway at Logan International Airport in Boston earlier this week, The Associated Press reported.


On Monday, firefighters battled an electrical fire on a grounded Japan Airlines 787, also at Logan.


"We are aware of the event and are working with our customer," Boeing spokesman Marc Birtel said in an email to the Los Angeles Times.


The jetliner, which was unveiled as a luxurious and fuel-efficient way to travel, has recently been beset by problems.










Boeing Dreamliner Breaks Out in Flames in Boston Watch Video









Dreamliner Set to Change the Face of Flight Watch Video





Japan's All Nippon Airways has reported a fuel leak, a 3-foot-long crack in a cockpit window and a malfunctioning computer in its fleet of 787s.


The Federal Aviation Administration announced a comprehensive review of the carbon-fiber plane to ensure it is safe to fly, however officials did not waver in their support of the aircraft.


"I would fly on one today," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said at a joint news conference with Boeing on Friday.


The plane will not be grounded by the FAA, and will continue to fly during the review, FAA administrator Michael Huerta said.


"Nothing suggests the airplane is not safe," Huerta said. "We believe this is a safe aircraft. To validate the work during the certification process, we'll work with Boeing to check on systems design and production.


"We want to make sure that the approved quality-control process is in place. We want to see the entire picture and not focus on individual events, to determine the root causes of these events," he said.


Huerta said the review will focus on the Dreamliner's electrical system, including the battery and the power distribution panels, and how electrical and mechanical systems interact with one another.


Aviation experts say that, except for the fire, the issues have all been minor.


"If there was something seriously wrong with this plane there is no question they would ground it," ABC News aviation consultant John Nance said. "That's not the problem here, there's nothing seriously wrong with the 787."



Read More..

Abandoning Afghanistan a bad idea




U.S. Marines from the 3rd Battalion 8th Marines Regiment start their patrol in Helmand Province on June 27.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • White House aide suggested all U.S. troops could be withdrawn from Afghanistan

  • Peter Bergen said the idea would be dangerous and send the wrong message

  • He says U.S. has abandoned Afghanistan before and saw the rise of the Taliban

  • Bergen: U.S. is seeking agreement that military will have immunity from prosecution




Editor's note: Peter Bergen is CNN's national security analyst and the author of "Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for bin Laden, from 9/11 to Abbottabad."


(CNN) -- Afghan President Hamid Karzai will meet with President Barack Obama on Friday to discuss the post-2014 American presence in Afghanistan.


The U.S. military has already given Obama options under which as few as 6,000 or as many as 20,000 soldiers would remain in Afghanistan after 2014. Those forces would work as advisers to the Afghan army and mount special operations raids against the Taliban and al Qaeda.


Read more: U.S. may remove all troops from Afghanistan after 2014



Peter Bergen

Peter Bergen



But on Tuesday, Ben Rhodes, the White House's deputy national security adviser, told reporters that the Obama administration is mulling the idea of removing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan after the NATO combat mission finishes at the end of 2014.


This may be a negotiating ploy by the Obama administration as it gets down to some hard bargaining with Karzai, who has long criticized many aspects of the U.S. military presence and who is likely to be reluctant to accede to a key American demand: That any U.S. soldiers who remain in Afghanistan after 2014 retain immunity from prosecution in the dysfunctional Afghan court system. It was this issue that led the U.S. to pull all its troops out of Iraq in December, 2011 after failing to negotiate an agreement with the Nuri al-Maliki government.


Read more: Defense officials to press Karzai on what he needs


Or this may represent the real views of those in the Obama administration who have long called for a much-reduced U.S. presence in Afghanistan, and it is also in keeping with the emerging Obama doctrine of attacking al Qaeda and its allies with drones but no American boots on the ground. And it certainly aligns with the view of most Americans, only around a quarter of whom now support the war in Afghanistan, according to a poll taken in September.


Security Clearance: Afghanistan options emerge



In any case, zeroing out U.S. troop levels in the post-2014 Afghanistan is a bad idea on its face -- and even raising this concept publicly is maladroit strategic messaging to Afghanistan and the region writ large.


Why so? Afghans well remember something that most Americans have forgotten.


After the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, something that was accomplished at the cost of more than a million Afghan lives and billions of dollars of U.S. aid, the United States closed its embassy in Afghanistan in 1989 during the George H. W. Bush administration and then zeroed out aid to one of the poorest countries in the world under the Clinton administration. It essentially turned its back on Afghans once they had served their purpose of dealing a deathblow to the Soviets.










As a result, the United States had virtually no understanding of the subsequent vacuum in Afghanistan into which eventually stepped the Taliban, who rose to power in the mid-1990s. The Taliban granted shelter to Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization from 1996 onward.


Read more: Court considers demand that U.S. release photos of bin Laden's body


After the overthrow of the Taliban, a form of this mistake was made again by the George W. Bush administration, which had an ideological disdain for nation building and was distracted by the Iraq War, so that in the first years after the fall of the Taliban, only a few thousand U.S. soldiers were stationed in Afghanistan.


The relatively small number of American boots on the ground in Afghanistan helped to create a vacuum of security in the country, which the Taliban would deftly exploit, so that by 2007, they once again posed a significant military threat in Afghanistan.


In 2009, Obama ordered a surge of 30,000 troops into Afghanistan to blunt the Taliban's gathering momentum, which it has certainly accomplished.


Read more: Inside the Taliban


But when Obama announced the new troops of the Afghan surge, most media accounts of the speech seized on the fact that the president also said that some of those troops would be coming home in July 2011.


This had the unintended effect of signaling to the Taliban that the U.S. was pulling out of Afghanistan reasonably soon and fit into the longstanding narrative that many Afghans have that the U.S. will abandon them again.


Similarly, the current public discussion of zero U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan after 2014 will encourage those hardliner elements of the Taliban who have no interest in a negotiated settlement and believe they can simply wait the Americans out.


It also discourages the many millions of Afghans who see a longtime U.S. presence as the best guarantor that the Taliban won't come back in any meaningful way and also an important element in dissuading powerful neighbors such as Pakistan from interference in Afghanistan's internal affairs.


Read related: Afghanistan vet finds a new way to serve


Instead of publicly discussing the zero option on troops in Afghanistan after 2014, a much smarter American messaging strategy for the country and the region would be to emphasize that the Strategic Partnership Agreement that the United States has already negotiated with Afghanistan last year guarantees that the U.S. will have some form of partnership with the Afghans until 2024.


In this messaging strategy, the point should be made that the exact size of the American troop presence after 2014 is less important than the fact that U.S. soldiers will stay in the country for many years, with Afghan consent, as a guarantor of Afghanistan's stability.


The United States continues to station thousands of troops in South Korea more than five decades after the end of the Korean War. Under this American security umbrella, South Korea has gone from being one of the poorest countries in the world to one of the richest.


It is this kind of model that most Afghans want and the U.S. needs to provide so Afghanistan doesn't revert to the kind of chaos that beset it in the mid-1990s and from which the Taliban first emerged.


Read more: What's at stake for Afghan women?


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion







Read More..

Britain to provide France with logistical support in Mali






LONDON: Britain will provide France with logistical military assistance during its intervention in Mali, but will not deploy any personnel in a combat role, the prime minister's office said Saturday.

"The Prime Minister has agreed that the UK will provide logistical military assistance to help transport foreign troops and equipment quickly to Mali," David Cameron's office said in a statement.

"We will not be deploying any British personnel in a combat role," added Number Ten.

It later confirmed to AFP that two military transport planes would be sent to the restive West African country.

According to a statement about a telephone conversation between Cameron and French President Francois Hollande on Saturday, the two leaders "also agreed that the peacekeeping mission from West African countries needs to be strongly supported by countries in the region and deployed as quickly as possible".

The pair discussed the need to work with the Malian government, regional neighbours and international partners "to prevent a new terrorist haven developing on Europe's doorstep".

They also stressed the need to "reinvigorate the UN-led political process," according to the release.

"The National Security Council, which was already due to meet on Tuesday, will now consider the situation in Mali and discuss what needs to be done to secure a lasting political settlement in Mali," it added.

France sent its air force on Friday to help Malian troops hold back a rebel advance towards the capital Bamako, and on Saturday Paris announced that a French military pilot had been killed.

Cameron earlier said he was "deeply concerned about the recent rebel advances in Mali, which extend the reach of terrorist groups and threaten the stability of the country and the wider region.

"I welcome the military assistance France has provided to the Malian government, at their request, to halt this advance," he added.

The British leader insisted that military intervention "is reinforced by an inclusive political process leading to elections and a return to full civilian rule."

Meanwhile in Somalia, a failed commando raid to free a French hostage held since 2009 left two French soldiers dead while "all indications" were that hostage Denis Allex also died, French officials said.

"Last night's tragic events underline how essential it is that we work together to combat terrorism in Africa," Cameron said in extending his condolences to the families of those killed.

Britain and France were at the forefront of the international military effort to unseat veteran Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi in 2011.

-AFP/ac



Read More..

Making job stress worth enduring




Defense Secretary Leon Panetta swears in reenlisting troops in Turkey. A survey found that military jobs tend to be the most stressful.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Marci Alboher: Annual list of most stressful jobs drew attention

  • She says the right issue is whether job rewards compensate for stress

  • People who take on stressful jobs that help others report satisfaction, she says




Editor's note: Marci Alboher, is a Vice President of Encore.org, a nonprofit making it easier for people to pursue second acts for the greater good. Her latest book is, "The Encore Career Handbook: How to Make a Difference and a Living in the Second Half of Life" (Workman: January 2013).


(CNN) -- A recent study with a catchy headline about the most stressful jobs of 2013 found its way to the soft hour of news this week.


The annual study by careercast.com created some buzz in the online water cooler and I was asked to appear on the "Today" show to talk about it. Colleagues e-mailed me and posted on my Facebook page about where their chosen professions ranked. My media friends couldn't help noticing that public relations professionals, reporters and photojournalists all made it into the top 10 for stress.


The "study," referred to in quotes in some of the commentary, considered some logical criteria to come up with these rankings. Proximity to risk of death (yours or others'), travel, deadlines, working in the public eye and physical demands all racked up points on the stress scale. And there's no arguing that military personnel, firefighters and police officers -- all high-rankers on the most-stressed list -- are exposed to higher stakes than your typical seamstress (holder of the second-least stressful job slot).



Marci Alboher

Marci Alboher



The job that snagged the "least stressful" slot, according to the survey, was "university professor," a designation that caused outrage among people who actually hold that job. One commenter conceded that most academic jobs don't put you in personal danger (though you can argue that point), but anyone who's ever been around professors knows that faculty politics, difficult students and pressure to "publish or perish" can cause even the most calm character to crack.


We could debate whether these designations make any sense. And whether every police officer, firefighter and member of the military faces the same amount of stress.


But let's make sure we are having the right conversation. How many people choose a profession based on how high the stress level is? And how can you measure stress objectively? If you're prone to stress, perhaps you're just as likely to feel stressed out whether you work as a librarian, a massage therapist or a commercial airline pilot (No. 4 on the stress list).


People choose their line of work for a lot of reasons. For those who are committed to making our communities and the world safer and healthier for the rest of us, minimizing stress is probably not so high on their list of criteria. And it shouldn't be. Folks who choose helping jobs that may have a high level of stress are fueled by other motivators, like wanting their work to have meaning.










They aren't deterred by the fact that their job will likely come with stress. And some people are simply by their own nature and personalities drawn to work that may be to others, dauntingly stressful. How many FBI agents do you think would prefer a gig as an audiologist (sixth-least stressful job)?


When I talk to men and women in their 50s and 60s who've decided to take on encore careers as teachers, they tell me that the work is often exhausting and stressful. They are on their feet all day, often with inadequate resources, with kids who are themselves highly stressed; even those who come from leadership roles in other sectors say they've never worked harder. Yet they almost always tell me that doing something that matters to others -- and that puts them in touch with young people every day -- compensates for the added stress.


The same is true of those tackling some of the world's most intractable problems. When I talk to Stephen and Elizabeth Alderman, whose foundation trains health-care professionals around the world to work with victims of trauma, or Judith Broder, who founded The Soldiers Project, which works with returning veterans, they rarely talk about stress. Instead they talk about how they are compelled to do what they do, because moving the needle even a fraction is better than doing nothing.


Rather than discouraging people to take on jobs that might have a lot of stress, let's instead encourage those who are designed for those jobs to do them. And let's make sure to support our friends and family members who go down these paths.


It's hard to grab headlines in the crowded space of morning television, but a good survey with a catchy title will always do that. So let's use these kinds of surveys to have the right kinds of conversations. Like why so many jobs that keep us safe and healthy, and that care for our children and the environment rarely show up on lists of the most highly compensated jobs. Now there's a conversation I'd most like to be having.


Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion


Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Marci Alboher.






Read More..

Treasury: No $1 trillion coin

A Treasury Department spokesman announced today that the department will not mint a platinum coin to sidestep raising the federal government's borrowing limit, telling the Washington Post that "neither the Treasury Department nor the Federal Reserve believes that the law can or should be used to facilitate the production of platinum coins for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the debt limit."



The idea, which had gained traction among some congressional Democrats and political analysts as a way of defanging the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip, was that the Treasury Department could simply mint a platinum coin, declare the value at $1 trillion, and deposit it into the Federal Reserve to allow continued spending in the absence of a vote to raise the debt ceiling.

With the idea now buried by Treasury, the stage is set for a full-on fight about the debt ceiling. President Obama and congressional Democrats have signaled that they simply will not negotiate on a vote to raise the borrowing limit, saying that it is Congress's duty to pay bills it has already accrued.

But congressional Republicans have given every indication that they plan to use the debt limit as a bargaining chip to extract deep spending cuts from reluctant Democrats.

Read More..