The head of the Arab League and the prime minister of Qatar called on the U.N. Security Council today to take action against the dramatic increase in violence around Damascus and endorse an Arab League peace plan to facilitate Syrian President Bashar Al Assad’s handover of power. But while the League sought Security council support for their peace plan, new documents gives insights into the disorganized and chaotic Arab League monitoring mission which was suspended two days ago.

Arab League monitors in Syria experienced shortages of equipment and severe restrictions in movement imposed by the Syrian government according to a confidential account [PDF] of the mission acquired by ForeignPolicy.com’s Colum Lynch today.

The document shows that “many of the 166 Arab observers parachuted into Syria on Dec. 24 to document the widening violence were utterly incapable of enduring the rigors of life in a country roiled by social upheaval and conflict…” writes Lynch.

Despite the grim picture painted in the document, Gen. Mohamed Ahmed Moustafa Al-Dabbi, the chief of the Arab League monitoring mission and the author of the document, warned that “Any termination of the work of the mission after this short term will undermine the positive results — even if incomplete — that have been achieved so far.”

The leaked report mainly focuses on the logistical problems faced by the mission, the Arab League’s first major attempt at a monitoring mission, but a recommendation within the report that Arab governments not give up their mediating role to U.N. Security Council sparked a strong reaction from European diplomats. They argue the Arab League mission had no business making such a self-interested assertion while Russian officials say the Security Council should review the League’s full account of the mission, reports Lynch.

Lynch reports that European diplomats have also taken issue with the report’s omission of key details in the death of a French television journalist. Al-Dabbi writes that “reports of the mission already indicate that the French journalist died, and a Belgian reporter injured, as a result of mortar attacks fired by the opposition,” but a European official told ForeignPolicy.com’s Turtle Bay blog that the report didn’t include testimony from other reporters who reported that the French journalist was “exposed to enemy fire deliberately” by pro-government supporters.

Last November, the U.N. nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran has engaged in nuclear activity that is “specific to nuclear weapons.” While an Obama administration official noted that the report “does not assert that Iran has resumed a full scale nuclear weapons program,” the IAEA’s director general has repeatedly reiterated, in order to “alert the world,” that Iran’s nuclear program “suggests the development of nuclear weapons.”

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the Senate Intelligence Committee today that Iran has not decided on whether it will go forward with building nuclear weapons, and CIA Director David Petraeus concurred with that assertion. When Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) said during the hearing that the IAEA “must make transparent and public what they find” in Iran, Petraeus pointed to nuclear watchdog’s November report, calling it “the authoritative document” on Iran’s nuclear program:

PETRAEUS: The IAEA inspectors are in Iran right now. I believe their past report was a very accurate reflection of reality, of the situation on the ground. I think that is the authoritative document when it comes to informing the public of all the countries of the world of the situation there. Iran is supposedly, reportedly trying to be more open this particular time perhaps trying to reassure countries as it feels the increased bite of the new sanctions, of the Central Bank of Iran sanctions and the reduction in the purchase of oil from some of its key customers and so I look forward, as do others, to seeing what that public report will provide this time believing again that it will be again the authoritative open source document on the program that Iran is pursuing in the nuclear field.

Watch the clip:

IAEA inspectors were just in Iran getting clarification about concerns it has regarding nuclear weapons related activities and will report their findings to the director general.

Last summer, anti-Muslim activists Pamela Geller and Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney launched a smear campaign against Muslim GOP candidate David Ramadan who was running for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates. Ramadan won the race but he and his defenders faced an onslaught of accusations that Ramadan’s candidacy was a form of “stealth Jihad.” Gaffney held a press conference with the McCarthyesque topic of “explor[ing] what is known – and as yet unknown – about Mr. Ramadan’s character and caliber.”

The fear-mongering against Ramadan grew so vociferous that Edwin Meese, former Reagan administration Attorney General and Ronald Reagan Chair in Public Policy at the Heritage Foundation, became a target of Geller and Gaffney’s campaign after he endorsed Ramadan. Geller wrote:

James Lafferty, SIOA board member and VAST [Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force] chairman, just advised me that Ed Meese bought into stealth jihadist David Ramadan’s ruse. That’s just what this country needs, more Muslim Brotherhood plants in the legislature.

And Gaffney, Geller, and Islamophobic blogger Robert Spencer — all of whom are featured in the Center for American Progress’s report, “Fear Inc.: The Roots Of the Islamophobia Network” — issued a letter to Meese, demanding he withdraw his endorsement.

Yesterday, Meese explained to NewsMax TV why he chose to endorse Ramadan and how the hate campaign against Muslims goes against American values. Meese says he supported Ramadan because he’s a “fine man” who “thought very much in terms of political lines the same way I do.” Watch it:

Gaffney, Geller, Spencer and others’ attacks on Ramadan didn’t deter Meese because he saw them as a “fringe group” accusing Ramadan of “…not being totally an American or being an Islamist or somehow not being worthy of running for office.” The attacks strengthened Meese’s conviction in helping Ramadan’s candidacy. “I felt that this was an unfair attack and persisted in my support of him because of that,” said Meese.

Meese says his exposure to the “fringe group” that attacked Ramadan concerns him because “I think it’s always serious when any American is disparaged [...] solely because of their religion or their background when there’s no basis for it.”

It’s heartening to see conservatives begin to speak out against the forces of intolerance within their camp; hopefully, Meese will find more allies than opponents among fellow Republicans.

During today’s Capitol Hill hearing on global threats faced by the U.S., Iran’s nuclear program naturally came up several times. Taking questions from Members of Congress, the top U.S. intelligence official confirmed the reported U.S. intelligence estimate that Iran has not yet decided on building a nuclear weapon, and said pressure on the Islamic Republic could work to prevent such a decision from being made.

In response to a question from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said, “[I]f the decision has been made to press on with a nuclear weapon — and there are certain things they have not done yet to eventuate that — that this would be based on a cost-benefit analysis. We don’t believe [Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei]‘s made that decision yet.”

After introducing Iran’s cost-benefit analysis, Wyden then pressed Clapper on what factors might inform it:

WYDEN: What could convince them, in your view, that their hold on power is being undermined by their nuclear effort?

CLAPPER: Well, I think a restive population because of economic extremis that the country of Iran is incurring. If you look at the plunging value of the Rial [and] the extremely high unemployment rate in Iran. This, I think, could give rise to resentment and discontent among the populace. And this is not to say there haven’t been other examples of that elsewhere in the region.

Watch the video:

Later in the hearing, Clapper added, “I think they do pay attention to international opinion and what others think of them.”

In his prepared testimony (PDF), Clapper said Iran had shifted to a more aggressive posture against the U.S. — even on U.S. soil, as a foiled alleged plot against the Saudi ambassador in D.C. shows — “in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”

Just four days after ThinkProgress reported that the United States military academy at West Point was planning to host an Islamophobic general as its featured speaker at the National Prayer Breakfast, that general has now pulled out of the event. West Point just issued this news release:

LTG (Ret) William Boykin has decided to withdraw speaking at West Point’s National Prayer Breakfast on 8 February 2012. In fulfilling its commitment to the community, the United States Military Academy will feature another speaker for the event.

VoteVets, the coalition of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, is to be commended for raising this issue and putting pressure on West Point to do the right thing. VoteVets Chairman Jon Soltz told ThinkProgress this evening, “This is why VoteVets exists — the calls from veterans, activists, and civil rights leaders around the country made this decision possible. I’m glad that the cadets will not be forced to hear the words of an anti-Muslim general whose rhetoric does not align with the values of our military and also endangers our troops in combat.”

Boykin has a deep record of anti-Muslim rhetoric. For instance, he said there should be “no mosques in America“; Muslims worship an “idol“; “Islam is a totalitarian way of life, it’s not just a religion”; “it should not be protected under the First Amendment”; Muslims operate “under an obligation to destroy our Constitution.”

Hopefully, Boykin will learn from this incident that his rhetoric is both wrong and hurtful.

Amid the riveting tales from Somalia of a daring special operations rescue of aid workers, captures of Somali pirates, and, today, news of Ethiopian forces pressing a new front in their battle for the anarchic Horn of Africa state, comes the harrowing story of journalist Hassan Osman Abdi.

The 29-year-old director of Shabelle radio network was shot to death on Saturday outside his home by unknown assailants. Abdi, known by his nickname “Fantastic,” covered corruption in Somalia.

The advocacy group Reporters Without Borders said of his death:

Violence against journalists in Somalia is sustained by impunity for those responsible. It is quite clear that Abdi was deliberately targeted. We call for a serious and impartial investigation that leads to the identification of his murderers.

His colleagues said they believe the al Qaeda-linked Al Shabab militant group that rules large swaths of Somalia by force orchestrated the killing. “Absolutely, we are sure it is al-Shabab,” Abdi’s colleague told Al Jazeera. An Al Shabab website offered up the killing as a “lesson” to other journalists, further pointing to the group as the killers.

Another journalist, Abdisalan Sheikh Hassan, was killed just over a month ago. In the past three years, 13 journalists in Somalia died in targeted violence, according to the Committee To Protect Journalists, an advocacy group that meticulously documents such killings and confirms motivations behind the killings.

The deaths — and continuing threats — are having a chilling effect on reporters in Somalia, which has lacked an effective central government since 1991. Five employees of Shabelle radio alone lost their lives in attacks, and Abdi is the third news director to be killed. His colleagues are disheartened. Station editor Muhyadin Hassan said the threats continued:

We sleep at the radio station because we can’t go home. We don’t know why we are being targeted. You can’t know who is going to kill you.

Another colleague noted that they couldn’t even attend his funeral service: “We can’t even pay respects to our fallen colleague since al Shabab is threatening us.”

Somalia’s president Sharif Ahmed, who controls little territory in the country despite foreign forces attempting bolster him, condemned Abid’s killing as a “senseless murder.” AMISOM, the African Union force fighting militants in Somalia, offered its condolences for the killing and said it would help the federal government in any investigation.

Projected global population growth from 7 billion to 9 billion by 2040 will lead to a dramatic rise in demand for resources. Population growth and a mushrooming global middle class will, by 2030, require a 50 percent increase in food production, 45 percent more energy, and 30 percent more water, according to a new report released by the United Nations.

The report, “Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing,” [PDF] explores the dramatic increases in demand for natural resources facing the world in coming decades and concludes that the current trajectory for global development is unsustainable [PDF]:

We can no longer assume that our collective actions will not trigger tipping points as environmental thresholds are breached, risking irreversible damage to both ecosystems and human communities. At the same time, such thresholds should not be used to impose arbitrary growth ceilings on developing countries seeking to lift their people out of poverty. Indeed, if we fail to resolve the sustainable development dilemma, we run the risk of condemning up to 3 billion members of our human family to a life of endemic poverty.

The U.N. report finds that a renewed political commitment to sustainable development pays dividends in the long-term but faces short-term political challenges. The authors argue that economic policymakers fail to see sustainable development as an increasingly crucial component of global economic development. They write:

Most economic decision makers still regard sustainable development as extraneous to their core responsibilities for macroeconomic management and other branches of economic policy. Yet integrating environmental and social issues into economic decisions is vital to success.

The U.N.’s “High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability,” which issued the report, calls on the international community to form a “new political economy” for sustainable development that “recogniz[es] that in certain environmental domains, such as climate change, there is ‘market failure’, which requires both regulation and what the economists would recognize as the pricing of ‘environmental externalities’, while making explicit the economic, social and environmental costs of action and inaction.”

While the panel finds that the current problems resource and population challenges can be fixed with sound public policy, they conclude that major reforms of the global economy must be undertaken quickly. “Tinkering on the margins will not do the job,” they write. “The current global economic crisis …offers an opportunity for significant reforms.”

Last week, VoteVets called on West Point last week to cancel a planned speech by ret. Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin, who has a long history of issuing hate-filled rhetoric about Muslims. In the past, Boykin has said Muslims worship an “idol” and that “Islam is a totalitarian way of life, it’s not just a religion.” Last week, the military academy stood by its decision.

Now, the veterans’ organization is now asking Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno to cancel the National Prayer Breakfast in February. “LTG Boykin’s values are inconsistent even with current Army doctrine,” they write in a letter to Odierno. The group is calling on its 100,000 members to also email Odierno urging him to cancel the event.

FreeThoughtBlogs reports that West Point cadets and faculty members are beginning to organize in protest to Boykin’s appearance.

The Forum on the Military Chaplaincy, a group led by retired chaplains, and including members from many faiths represented in the military chaplaincy, today called on the West Point Chaplain to reconsider the invitation for Boykin. “A prayer breakfast isn’t an academic discussion, where controversial views can be challenged and debated,” pointed out Tom Carpenter, former Marine and co-chair of the Forum. “Nor is it an appropriate place to present views, however cloaked, that disrespect those Muslims and gays who are honorably serving in the U.S. military.”

On HBO’s Real Time Friday night, host Bill Maher said the Republicans “were such sour pusses” during President Obama’s State of the Union speech last week. “Just in your own self interest, wouldn’t it be good to fake it when he’s talking about American succeses?” Maher wondered. Panelist Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) told Maher why the Republicans were in such a foul mood:

ROHRABACHER: Here we have a president of the United States who is just profusely saying how wonderful he thinks of the military and we know, all of us who are sitting in the audience, he’s trying to gut the military!

Maher, co-panelists Kennedy from Reason TV, MSNBC’s Martin Bashir and even the audience joined in to collectively chastise the California Republican for his blatantly false claim. “That’s absolutely not true,” Kennedy said, later adding, “I love the military. I like my SEALs groomed and ready to go but you have to tell the truth.”

“Can I give you the facts?” Maher asked Rohrabacher. “So far every budget Obama has had has increased military spending,” he said. “This year they’re asking a reduction from $531 billion to $525 billion, 1.6 percent. You mean our freedom is in trouble because of that 1.6 percent?” Maher later added, “How paranoid do you have to be to say that this guy is gutting our military?” Watch the clip:

Of course, Maher, Kennedy, Bashir (and the audience) are right, Obama is not gutting the military, not even close. And while the Obama administration has outlined a plan to reduce military spending by nearly $500 billion over the next 10 years, that figure is taken from levels of projected spending. As the New York Times noted this week, “over the next four years, the Pentagon budget would rise each year, reaching $567 billion by 2017.” The Times adds that “adjusted for inflation, the increases are small enough that they will amount to a slight cut of 1.6 percent of the Pentagon’s base budget over the next five years.”

Our guest bloggers are Sarah Margon, associate director for Sustainable Security at the Center for American Progress and Alex Rothman, special assistant with the national security team at CAP.

In recent weeks, the security situation in Libya has become increasingly precarious, with Ian Martin, the U.N. special envoy to Libya, warning the Security Council earlier this week that the continued presence of armed “revolutionary brigades” and loose weapons presents a significant threat. But as the situation on the ground takes a turn for the worse, the Security Council remains divided and distracted by political infighting about civilian casualties from the NATO bombing campaign.

Critics of the intervention, most significantly South Africa and Russia, have prominently called for an investigation into civilian harm caused by the NATO airstrikes. But a closer analysis suggests that this posturing may be more motivated by a desire for political gain than concern for the rights of noncombatants.

In March, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1973, authorizing the creation of a no-fly zone over Libya as well as “all necessary measures…to protect civilians.” At the time, neither South Africa nor Russia outright opposed the intervention. In fact, South Africa voted in favor while Russia abstained. As the intervention in Libya progressed, however, both countries became more explicitly critical of NATO’s extensive involvement, arguing that the NATO airstrikes overstepped their mandate. In the words of South African U.N. Ambassador Baso Sangqu, Resolution 1973 approved a no-fly zone but not “regime change or anything else.”

While the numbers of civilians inadvertently killed or wounded by NATO is likely on the lower end, a NATO investigation would nonetheless be beneficial for two reasons. First, while NATO maintains it took care to minimize the effects of its air campaign on civilians, an examination of instances in which these precautions failed would provide lessons as to how the alliance can take more effective protection measures in the future. For example, the NATO tactic of “double tapping” targets (in which two sequential air strikes were carried out on the same target) appears to have unnecessarily imperiled those who rushed to aid victims of the first attack. Second, investigating civilian victims of the bombing campaign would present a first step towards allowing NATO and/or the Libyan National Transition Council to make amends.

Such steps are tremendously important as political reform in Libya continues. Early efforts to build a government that is accountable to and responsible for its citizens can help build trust in national institutions — something that has been absent in Libya for more than four decades.

But while a NATO inquiry may be warranted, it is disingenuous for countries like Russia and South Africa to use the issue of civilian deaths to score points at the U.N. Security Council. As the victims advocacy organization CIVIC points out in a recent press release and op-ed, “Libyan civilians are not pawns to be used in a political game between those who did and did not support the NATO operation.”

Instead, Russia and South Africa should support the work of the U.N.’s International Commission of Inquiry for Libya, which is undertaking an independent review of civilian harm in the Libyan conflict, and focus their efforts at the Security Council on addressing the threats that continue to harm civilians in Libya.

Republicans and their allies on the right reacted yesterday with expected indignation to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s announcement of a 2013 Pentagon budget and five-year plan that flattens previously proposed spending levels. In a statement, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said:

I am deeply concerned that the size and scope of these cuts would repeat the mistakes of history and leave our forces too small to respond effectively to events that may unfold over the next few years.

House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) released a statement saying:

This move ignores a critical lesson in recent history: that while high technology and elite forces give America an edge, they cannot substitute for overwhelming ground forces when we are faced with unforeseen battlefields.

And Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s defense policy adviser Max Boot writes in the neoconservative magazine Commentary:

The fault in that line of thinking was displayed in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we quickly found out there was no substitute for a humble rifleman to impose our will on the enemy at bayonet point. Now the Obama administration is fooling itself into thinking we will never have to fight another major ground war again.

The notion that the Obama administration’s cuts to previously proposed budget numbers — which on average over the next two years actually increase the budget but, accounting for inflation, amounts to holding spending steady — are setting up a U.S. inability to fight a ground war or prepare for the next conflict doesn’t hold water. Even if the full amount of nearly $950 billion in reductions are enacted — if sequestered cuts are added to the ones outlined yesterday — the military budget would still be at 2007 levels, when the U.S. was fighting two ground wars.

Furthermore, McClatchy newspapers today notes that “planned reduction in ground forces by 2017 would still leave a larger military than before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” And Center for a New American Security fellow Andrew Exum points out that hardware is much harder to scale up than troop levels should a war arise: “[I]n the event of a major war, you can recruit and train new infantry battalions quicker than you can design and build ships.”