Under a new military doctrine, Pakistan has now officially recognized that “homegrown militancy” is the top threat that the country faces, replacing neighboring India for the first time.

For decades, it has been an unofficial policy of Pakistan to cultivate ties with militant groups for use as proxies in battles against external enemies. These groups could be used in either direction across Pakistan’s border, to the west towards Afghanistan or to the east towards India. Among these, the Haqqani Network remains the perpetrator of some of the most deadliest attacks within Afghanistan, with Pakistan viewing the organization as a hedge towards retaining influence in the state as the United States prepares for a drawdown and eventual exit.

Likewise, the deadly coordinated Mumbai attacks of 2008, in which gunmen killed over 164 in a single day in India’s largest city, was conducted by terrorists on the order of and with assistance from Pakistan. In recent years, however, Pakistan has found itself plagued by similar terrorist organizations, including the Pakistani Taliban, which is recently responsible for shooting a young girl named Malala Yousafzai. For the Pakistani Army — which often exercises control of the state either through periodic coups or the so-called “deep state” — to label militants as the primary threat that the state faces is a momentous shift.

Despite this, the army attempted to play down the importance of the change in policy:

“Army prepares for all forms of threats. Sub-conventional threat is a reality and is a part of a threat matrix faced by our country. But it doesn’t mean that the conventional threat has receded,” Maj-Gen Asim Saleem Bajwa, the director general of the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) told The Express Tribune.

According to the BBC, the new Army Doctrine talks about unidentified militant groups and their role to create unrest in the country. It also mentions that Pakistani militants have found refuge across the Durand Line in Afghanistan.

Since the partition of 1947, Pakistani leaders have believed that India posed the country’s greatest existential threat. The perceived threat was exacerbated by tensions over control of territory in the state of Kashmir, which was the cause of three of the four wars that the states have fought. While the new doctrine does not negate the premise that India is a threat, its downgrading could be the key to a lasting upgrade in relations between the two.

In the same way, tensions between the United States and Pakistan have often been the result of the latter’s ties to groups operating in Afghanistan from bases in Pakistan. The radio silence between the two during the raid that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden was due to the belief within the United States that someone within Pakistan’s military with ties to militants would leak details of the attack. As a result, the raid caused a deep chill in U.S.-Pakistani relations.

Two editorials by major American newspapers on Friday highlight the need for increased oversight and transparency over the United States’ counter-terror targeted killing programs. The editorials, in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, are responding to a recent court ruling that the Obama administration was not required to disclose a document outlining its legal justification for killing American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2011. Though the judge in the case, Colleen MacMahon, called for greater transparency with respect to the drone program, she also concluded she was legally incapable of ordering it, a point the New York Times — one of the plaintiffs challenging the government in the suit — took issue with:

For starters, various government officials have spoken publicly about the American role in killing Mr. Awlaki and the circumstances under which the government considers targeted killings, including of American citizens. At President Obama’s nominating convention last summer, a video prepared by his campaign listed the killing of Mr. Awlaki prominently among Mr. Obama’s national security achievements.

Such a selective and self-serving “public relations campaign,” as the judge termed it, should have been deemed a waiver of the government’s right to withhold its legal rationale from public scrutiny. Moreover, disclosing the document would not have jeopardized national security or revealed any properly classified operational details. The ruling, which is inconsistent with the purpose and history of the information disclosure law, richly deserves overturning on appeal.

While the Los Angeles Times is more sympathetic to MacMahon’s legal reasoning, it also believes more transparency is needed on the legal justification for killing Awlaki, writing that “If [the Obama administration] is going to act as judge, jury and executioner, the least it can do is divulge its legal reasoning.”

Some of the arguments in the government’s 50-page memo justifying the strike on al-Awaki have been released publicly. It appears to argue that since al-Awlaki was waging war on the United States as a member of al-Qaeda, it would be lawful to kill him despite his citizenship if and only if he cannot also be captured. CAP’s Ken Gude agrees with this reasoning, writing that the al-Awlaki case “was an airstrike that resulted in the death of a legitimate military target based on the power Congress granted the president in the 2001 AUMF [Authorization to use military force].” Critics charge, for example, that such reasoning would only apply if al-Awlaki were on a battlefield in active combat with American forces. It is hard to assess this debate without access the government’s full legal justification for the strike.

Read more

A new poll by an Israeli newspaper has found that the majority of those surveyed support the creation of a Palestinian state but remain unconvinced that one is likely to come into existence.

Conducted by Israel Hayom, the poll asked 800 Israeli citizens whether they “support or oppose the idea of two states for two peoples, i.e. the creation of a Palestinian state independent from Israel.” Fifty-four percent of respondents were in favor of a Palestinian state, with only 38 percent opposed. The result in favor is down slightly from a survey published in December by Smith Research, which found that 62 percent of Israelis supported a two-state solution at the time.

Likewise, the new poll shows both concerns about the likelihood of a Palestinian state ever coming about and ambivalence towards the ever-expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank. In the case of the former, 54 percent of those polled believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is impossible. Support for settlements were almost exactly split in half, with 43 percent opposed and 43 percent in favor.

The split in the poll results may reflect the changing tone of Israeli politics. With a general election for the Knesset scheduled to take place in just a few weeks, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Beitenu party remains set to take the plurality of seats in the new session. Right-wing parties are also due to hold the majority of seats over center and left-wing groups like the Labor and Liberal parties.

However, due to the coalition-making that is an ingrained part of Israeli political culture, Netanyahu may find himself pushed even further to the right on the issue of the West Bank. According to pre-election polling, pro-settlement party Jewish Home alone is poised to increase their allotment of the 120 seats in the Knesset from 3 to 14. Netanyahu’s Cabinet has already signed off on several controversial expansions of West Bank settlements, including the E1 section of the territory that may make a contiguous territory within the West Bank impossible for Palestine.

Furthering that trend would position Netanyahu and his future Cabinet for further scorn and condemnation from his allies around the world. The settlements also remain illegal in the eyes of international law and an obstacle in the path to a lasting peace deal, rendering the uncertainty of those surveyed valid.

Former Republican congressman turned MSNBC host Joe Scarborough on Friday lambasted those attacking former GOP senator Chuck Hagel, who’s name has been floated as President Obama’s choice as the next Secretary of Defense.

Since word spread that Hagel may be the nominee, neocons led by the Weekly Standard and its editor Bill Kristol started a smear campaign against the Nebraska Republican, calling him an anti-Semite and anti-Israel and criticizing him for urging caution against attacking Iran over its nuclear program.

Scarborough and his fellow MSNBC colleagues Mika Brzezinski and Chuck Todd shot back today on “Morning Joe.” “It is a total witch hunt against a guy that gave his all in uniform for the United States of America,” Scarborough said, later calling the neocon smear campaign “disgusting.” “It’s disgraceful,” Brzezinski added. “It’s unbelievable,” Chuck Todd said, “I am stunned at this Hagel thing.”

“I agree with what you guys are saying about Hagel,” former top Obama adviser David Axelrod said during the segment. Watch the clip:

The push back against the “neocon smear machine” on Hagel as been vast, wide, high profile and bipartisan, including from prominent journalists, retired military brass, former national security advisers, former U.S. ambassadors and veterans and military families.

A former head of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service, has leveled harsh criticism at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak for their determination to take Israel to war with Iran.

Yuval Diskin in an interview published in Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth on Friday expressed severe doubt in the ability of Israel’s current leadership to be able to successfully wage a campaign against Iran. “We didn’t trust their motives,” Diskin said, speaking for his colleagues dealing in Israel’s security. “We were worried that they might pursue various moves that would compromise Israel based on irrelevant considerations or via underhanded ways.” Among the evidence for concern Diskin recounted were tales of high-level security meetings accompanied with alcohol and cigars.

Diskin said that Netanyahu tried to convince Israel’s security chiefs to approve what he called an “illegal” decision to attack Iran, a policy that, according to Diskin, remains at the forefront of Netanyahu’s agenda, at the expense of other priorities:

“I have a very deep feeling that when it comes to Iran, Netanyahu is possessed by Menachem Begin, who attacked Iraq’s nuclear reactor, and by [Former Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert, who many claim is responsible for the attack on Syria’s reactor. Bibi wants to go down in history as the person who did something on this size a scale. I have heard him belittle what his predecessors have done and assert that his mission on Iran is on a much grander scale.“

Netanyahu and Barak have since backed away slightly from their rhetoric about the danger Iran poses. Barak in October stated that since Iran had converted a large amount of its enriched uranium stockpile into a form unable to be further enriched that an Israeli strike was no longer immediately forthcoming. Likewise, on Thursday Netanyahu declared that Iran had yet to cross the “red-line” that he had set that would prompt an Israeli attack.

The Office of the Prime Minister provided a statement to Yedioth Ahronoth in reaction to the interview, saying “Diskin’s ridiculous statements, made by a man who until six months ago wanted to be head of the Mossad, are recycled at this time for political reasons and stem from his own frustration about not being named to head the Mossad.” Israel is currently only weeks away from an election in which Netanyahu’s Likud Betinyahu party is in danger of losing seats to even parties even further to the right.

Diskin is the latest in a string of current and former Israeli officials who have warned about the possibility of Israel striking Iran’s nuclear program unilaterally. While their reasoning varies, including the fact that an attack may galvanize an uncertain Iran into accelerating its program and that diplomacy stands the best chance of resolving the issue, all appear convinced that striking Iran now would be disastrous for Israel.