La Fédération burkinabè de floorball a tenu à Ouagadougou le 3 novembre 2024 son Assemblée générale élective (AGE). Une AGE dans le cadre des renouvellements des structures dirigeantes des sports et des loisirs, à l'instar des autres fédérations. La famille du floorball burkinabè, à l'issue de ses travaux, a élu par acclamation Adama Koanda et son bureau par 12 voix sur 12. L'AGE, s'est déroulée sous la supervision de deux agents du ministère en charge des sports, Adama Balima et Christian Héma.
La Fédération burkinabè de floorball a à peine 12 mois d'existence. Elle a été portée sur les fonts baptismaux le 16 septembre 2023. Les superviseurs du ministère en charge des sports ont lu à l'assistance les conditionnalités de l'élection : code électoral, récépissés des clubs et mandats valides, mode de scrutin. Avant l'entame proprement dite du processus électoral, le président Koanda est revenu succinctement sur les quelques activités menées par la fédération dans le laps de temps d'une année. Il s'est agi du bilan des activités, les championnats nationaux séniors et U17, qui ont eu lieu les 16 et 17 décembre 2023, les finales des championnats nationaux tenus avec 22 équipes venant de 12 clubs en hommes et dames, en provenance de quatre régions : le Plateau central, le Centre-ouest, le Sud-ouest et le Centre, et tout récemment il y a eu les finales des championnats séniors en hommes et en dames les 21 et 22 septembre 2024.
Les délégués de l'Assemblée générale élective.À la suite du bilan plutôt élogieux pour une jeune fédération, un bureau de séance de quatre personnes a été mis en place. Il a eu à vérifier les documents du collège électoral qui comprend les clubs, les districts, les ligues et les identités des votants. Le décompte des voix des votants a donné 12 voix. Le président-candidat, M. Koanda a brossé à l'assistance son programme électoral. Sur ce, les élections pouvaient commencer. Il s'est agi d'un scrutin par liste du candidat, avec un bulletin unique, où le votant inscrit « Oui » ou « Non ».
Au terme du processus, les dépouillements ont donné 12 voix sur 12, avec des acclamations de la salle.
Le nouveau président Adama Koanda s'est réjoui de l'aboutissement heureux de l'AGE. Il a fait savoir que pendant les quatre ans, il va travailler en symbiose avec son équipe, à la consolidation des acquis, poursuivre la vulgarisation de la discipline qui n'est pas encore bien connue. Le Bureau exécutif (B E) de M Koanda est composé de 19 membres et deux commissaires aux comptes. Il compte trois vice-présidents, le secrétariat général est assuré par Tégwendé Louis Nonguierma et le secrétariat général à l'organisation par Abdoulaye Konaté, la trésorerie du B E échoit à Mme Nadège Somda.
L'AGE s'est déroulée sous la supervision de deux représentants du ministère en charge des sports, Adama Balima(gauche) et Christian Héma.Le problème de l'Association burkindi de floorball(ABF), une aile dissidente dans le floorball, n'a pas été occulté. Le président Koanda a informé l'assemblée qu'il a eu à convier l'ABF pour des échanges, dans la perspective de son intégration dans le B E, mais cette dernière ne s'est pas montrée coopérative, elle campe sur ses positions en voulant faire un diktat sur la composition du bureau exécutif. Les superviseurs du ministère en charge des sports, a félicité l'organisation impeccable du processus électoral, ils ont exhorté le président et son bureau à maintenir le même engagement et la même volonté qui les ont guidés pour créer cette fédération afin de la faire grandir, ils invitent le B E, à travailler dans un climat apaisé par la concertation permanente.
Barthélemy KABORE
(Collaborateur)
La deuxième édition des Journées régionales de l'agroécologie des Hauts-Bassins se tient du 5 au 7 novembre 2024 à Bobo-Dioulasso. Ces journées sont organisées par la direction régionale de l'agriculture des Hauts-Bassins, avec l'appui du projet de « Protection et réhabilitation des sols pour améliorer la sécurité alimentaire (ProSol) ». Cette édition 2024 est placée sous le thème : « Quelles contributions de l'agroécologie à la sécurité alimentaire ? ».
Au cours des trois jours de travaux, il est prévu des panels, des débats et des témoignages, qui seront tenus par les acteurs du domaine tels que des cadres de l'administration, des chercheurs et agriculteurs. Les différentes communications vont permettre aux différents acteurs de réfléchir sur la contribution de l'agroécologie à la sécurité alimentaire au Burkina Faso et particulièrement dans les Hauts-Bassins. Il est prévu également des expositions dans la cour de la maison de la culture Mgr Anselme Titianma Sanon, en vue de faire découvrir aux participants la richesse des initiatives menées par les acteurs.
Les participants présents à la cérémonie de lancement des Journées régionales de l'agroécologieLes expositions concernent, entre autres, les produits issus de l'agriculture agroécologique ainsi que les produits et services qui facilitent la mise en œuvre de l'approche agroécologique notamment des pépiniéristes, des fournisseurs d'engrais organiques et biopesticides et des fabricants d'équipements agricoles, etc. Cette deuxième édition des Journées régionales de l'agroécologie des Hauts-Bassins se tient dans un contexte marqué par la rareté des ressources financières. « C'était un challenge pour nous l'organisation de cette édition. Malgré la modestie des moyens et la rareté des partenaires, nous avons pu relever le défi de l'organisation de cette édition », a confié le directeur régional de l'agriculture des Hauts-Bassins, Éric Pascal Adanabou.
Le directeur régional de l'agriculture des Hauts-Bassins, Éric Pascal Adanabou, se réjouit de la tenue de cette deuxième éditionCette deuxième édition des Journées régionales de l'agroécologie des Hauts-Bassins réunit les acteurs autour d'un thème essentiel et porteur de solutions. Il s'agit du thème : « Quelles contributions de l'agroécologie à la sécurité alimentaire ? ». Ce thème s'inscrit, selon les organisateurs de l'évènement, en continuité de la réflexion initiale sur l'état des lieux et les perspectives de l'agroécologie dans les Hauts-Bassins, lors de la première édition. Il s'agira, cette fois-ci, d'examiner la manière dont cette approche peut renforcer la sécurité alimentaire pour les communautés des Hauts-Bassins.
Promouvoir l'agroécologie au Burkina Faso
Aujourd'hui plus que jamais, l'agroécologie retient l'attention à travers le monde, confronté aux crises climatiques, aux défis de sécurité alimentaire et aux pressions économiques qui pèsent lourdement sur nos systèmes agricoles. Le contexte environnemental actuel du Burkina Faso est caractérisé par la dégradation de sols et l'amenuisement des ressources en eau, la perte de la biodiversité et la récurrence des sècheresses et inondations.
L'approche agroécologie apparaît ainsi comme une réponse adaptée à la sauvegarde du patrimoine naturel, au maintien des productions et à l'amélioration de la qualité de vie des populations.
C'est ainsi que le gouvernement a adopté en février 2023 la Stratégie nationale de développement de l'agroécologie. Cette stratégie 2023-2027 vise à renforcer l'agroécologie comme une solution durable pour l'agriculture nationale et une contribution solide à la sécurité alimentaire de notre pays.
Les échanges au cours de ces journées seront donc l'occasion d'approfondir ces enjeux et d'envisager des réponses concrètes. Les réflexions au cours des travaux vont s'orienter sur la contribution des acteurs à l'atteinte des objectifs de l'Offensive agropastorale et halieutique à l'horizon 2025. « Nous sommes dans un contexte de l'Offensive agropastorale et halieutique et toutes les contributions de nature à booster la production agricole au niveau des Hauts-Bassins sont les bienvenues », a justifié l'organisation de cette deuxième édition le directeur régional de l'agriculture des Hauts-Bassins, Eric Adanabou.
Ces journées visent la promotion de l'agroécologie dans la région des Hauts-Bassins. Le directeur régional de l'agriculture des Hauts-Bassins, Éric Pascal Adanabou, a traduit ses remerciements à tous les acteurs et partenaires pour leurs multiples actions dans l'organisation de ces journées, notamment au ProSol. Ce projet est financé par le ministère fédéral allemand de la Coopération économique et du développement et mis en œuvre par la GIZ. A la cérémonie de lancement de ces journées, c'est le coordonnateur régional du ProSol, Ahmed Sanon, qui a représenté le coordonnateur du Cluster transformation des systèmes agroalimentaires de la coopération allemande.
La photo de familleIl a rappelé que l'agroécologie, qui constitue un modèle agricole résilient et adaptatif, est au centre des préoccupations de la coopération allemande et de nombreux autres partenaires internationaux. « Au cœur des efforts déployés pour promouvoir une agriculture durable et résiliente, le Cluster transformation des systèmes agro-alimentaires de la Coopération allemande, regroupant huit projets engagés pour un appui structurel au monde agricole, se réjouit de pouvoir accompagner cette initiative. Cela témoigne de notre engagement à soutenir l'agriculture burkinabè et à renforcer sa résilience face aux défis actuels », a souligné Ahmed Sanon. Tout en réitérant la disponibilité de la coopération allemande à contribuer au succès et au rayonnement de ce cadre de concertation, il a témoigné sa volonté de faire de l'agroécologie un pilier central pour le développement durable dans les Hauts-Bassins et au-delà.
Il a par ailleurs salué les partenaires qui accompagnent l'organisation de cette activité notamment le ministère de l'Agriculture, le ministère de l'Environnement, le projet FAIR Sahel, l'IFDC à travers son projet Soil Values, le projet PAPEA du consortium HELVETAS-SNV ainsi que les collectivités territoriales et la société civile. C'est le haut-commissaire de la province du Tuy, Issiaka Segda, qui a représenté le gouverneur des Hauts-Bassins à cette cérémonie.
Le haut-commissaire de la province du Tuy, Issiaka Segda, félicite les organisateurs pour l'organisation de ces journéesPour sa part, il a rappelé que les pratiques agroécologiques sont en plein développement au Burkina Faso et ces journées constituent un cadre de partage d'expériences et de valorisation de l'agroécologie et sont en phase avec les actions mises en œuvre par l'Offensive agropastorale et halieutique. Il a par ailleurs souhaité que les échanges lors de ces travaux soient à la hauteur des attentes et aboutissent à des recommandations réalistes et réalisables pour l'avenir de l'agroécologie au Burkina Faso.
Romuald Dofini
Lefaso.net
As passions continue to rise in this country, it is interesting to compare our situation with that of the English Civil War (1639–1650), in which the number of dead and wounded, as a percentage of the population of the country, exceeded that of the First World War. This is astonishing when one thinks that this was “brother against brother” and “hand-to-hand” combat. Optically, it is not unlike the “Battle of the Capitol” on January 6, but much, much deadlier. Such fratricidal hatred could only arise when rival parties felt that their core identities were deeply challenged: how did this happen?
The simplistic view of the English Civil War was that it was a confrontation between a would-be autocrat, Charles I, and his Parliament over who should govern the country. The “Whig Interpretation of History” is that Parliament’s final victory represents “Progress” with a capital “P,” in that an elected body (Parliament) triumphed over a politically inept King who believed that his personal rule was ordained by God. Defeated in a succession of conflicts stretching over almost a decade, Charles paid the “ultimate price” on January 30, 1649, when he was decapitated outside the banquet hall of his Whitehall palace.
Unfortunately for poor Charles, who was not actually a bad man, especially when one considers that the men of Parliament also believed themselves to be “on a mission from God,” so on what basis did their certainty trump his certainty? Furthermore, the MPs had previously sworn allegiance to the King, who they were now executing—clearly, they were not oath-keepers—and doesn’t God rather prefer that you stick to your vows, or does even He now think that that is hopelessly old-fashioned? And it gets still worse: Charles’s truly tyrannical successor as head of state, Oliver Cromwell, once he decided to kill the King, cut Parliament down to a sliver—known to history as the “Rump Parliament”—a “killer caucus” which could not pretend that they were the majority, moral or otherwise.
In the denouement of the confrontation between the King (“Chief Executive”) and Parliament (the legislature), Charles had his finest hour, calmly and courageously questioning by what authority the soon-to-be regicides were acting, claiming that as God’s representative sent to rule England in His stead, he could not legitimately be placed on trial, and stating that the purge had removed any plausible claim that the “Rumpers” represented either God or the people.
On the day of his execution, Charles asked for two shirts to avoid trembling from the cold and being suspected of fear. At the very end, whatever his flaws, he exited bravely: one lifts one’s hat, as they lifted his head: Bravo Charles.
If all parties were claiming that God was on their side, perhaps the English Civil War is better understood not as the first modern “Revolution” (as the Whigs would have it) but as one of Europe’s “Wars of Religion”—in which different religious factions, ranging from pale Anglicans to Catholics, to Calvinist Puritans, to apocalyptic millenarians, jockeyed for power at the Palace, at Parliament, and in the various churches. Mirroring our own situation today, each of these fractions and splinters was isolated and self-amplifying within their own “bubbles,” and some of them sought aggressively to “weaponize” whatever levers of power they could grasp.
Now, religious fractions in this country, and in particular the offspring of the Evangelical churches known as “Christian Nationalists,” are working to seize control of both the legislature and the judiciary, in the belief that white, native-born, and mostly Protestant people should maintain the dominant role in our social, cultural, and political institutions. In a period of chaos, these people seek to assert their core identities and traditions, steer the country towards something that is in keeping with their own beliefs and values, and ensure that privileges go to the “rightful” recipients themselves. This requires defining and preserving distinctions between “us” and “them,” the setting of strong boundaries to disenfranchise the “other” and deny them equal rights. Whatever economic, geographic, or ethnic issues may also be involved, “core identities” are in origin closely tied to religion, to the belief that “our God” is the “true God” and that He authorizes us to treat others as badly as we choose.
To make the case that the English Civil War was a War of Religion and to begin sketching some parallels between seventeenth-century England and contemporary America, it is first necessary to give the briefest of histories of the run-up to their Civil War. Roughly one hundred years earlier, Henry VIII, who was as spendthrift as his father had been miserly, decided that by breaking with Rome and seizing the wealth of the Catholic Church, essentially privatizing it, he could launch a vast and hitherto unimaginable asset strip.
Despite careening the Crown into multiple bankruptcies, Henry would undoubtedly have described himself as “highly successful” in business. Henry had scant respect, or at best, idiosyncratic and intermittent respect, for the human, cultural and intellectual capital that the Church had built up over its millennium in England—he was “the only one that mattered”—so he ignored the fact that the Church wasn’t just the religious backbone of the country, but also provided a vast array of services, from education, to “scrivening” (writing contracts and accounts), to keeping records and documenting history, to caring for the poor, the sick, and the elderly. In modern terms, this would be similar to having the majority of banks, law firms, accountancies, colleges, schools, hospitals, and “social services” all rolled into one giant institution, which was then seized and demolished by a self-appointed “administrator” with no clear concept of alternative structures.
There is a parallel to our situation: for decades already, large groups of modern Americans—not just in the Rust Belt—have had a similar sense of being neglected or even abandoned by the state, which seemed mostly to serve the interests of an ever-smaller elite, allowing a chasm to widen between a tiny layer of the extremely rich and the rest of the population. Ironically, the right-wing and “oligarchic” media have successfully portrayed the normal, necessary institutions of the state—the Department of Justice and FBI, the IRS, and the CIA—as organs of a “deep state” that maintains the power and position of an anti-Christian, “Liberal” middle class, and works against the interests of the “common man.” According to this trope, the deep state is intent on “weaponizing” investigative and policing capabilities against the working class. It should, therefore, either be demolished or delivered into the hands of a “ruler” who will know how to rein it in. Somehow, a significant segment of America does not see the possibility of “mere anarchy” being “loosed upon the world.”
With the Reformation now underway on the European continent, Henry entered into shifting alliances with other “Protestant” countries in an effort to forestall intervention into England’s affairs by other Catholic powers. These relationships provided a cross-fertilization regarding the theological concepts and religious practices being debated in these allied churches: “free will” versus “predestination,” of “grace” versus “acts,” and God “choosing His people” versus “loving all mankind,” to name only a few salient themes.
Most of these debates dog us to this day: do we have “free will” so that our personal decisions define the arc of our lives, or are our actions somehow predetermined, and our responsibility diminished or even eliminated? Do we have to earn illumination and redemption by our acts? Will a select few be “raptured” and the majority consigned to Hell? Do we earn our place in heaven by a lifetime of careful accumulation of moral, intellectual, and even financial capital, or is God prepared to be indulgent towards the gentle slacker and even towards the angry misfit, who never really gets much done? What was at stake in the disputes was not just the intellectual substance of belief but how these beliefs should be collectively expressed in day-to-day practice, and these differences coalesced into rival churches and then into increasingly violent antagonisms between them.
The material, visual, and musical practices of the Catholic Church, with its elaborate ceremonies and vestments, its architecture and decoration, the invocation of Saints and use of their relics, as well as its hierarchical organization and structure of authority, were now reviled by the more radical Protestant churches as “Popery,” “idolatry” and “superstition.” In England, bishops, priests, monks, and nuns were either pensioned off, co-opted into the new Anglican structure, or eliminated (often with great cruelty), and churches in the more vigorously Protestant areas were stripped of all ornament—paintings, statues, altarpieces—with extraordinary thoroughness.
Henry, his daughter Elizabeth I, and her successor James I nonetheless had a keen appreciation for the role of “image” and majestic grandeur in securing the acquiescence and support of their subjects. James I, the father of our unhappy Charles I, was from Scotland, which had been at war with England numerous times. Much of its population had migrated into the Protestant denomination known as Presbyterianism—the important organizational aspect of which was that churches (the “kirks”) elected officials (the “Presbyters”) rather than having a Bishop imposed on them by an external higher authority, whether in Rome or London. Although James was an intelligent and politically tactful man and had been educated by Presbyterians, he nonetheless believed, like Elizabeth, in episcopacy (a church hierarchy appointed by the Crown)—and famously remarked, “No bishops, no king.”
James has two conspicuous claims to fame: he assembled a group of scholars to produce the King James Version of the Bible (the favorite of many, to this day, even those who have clearly not read it), and he was the principal target of the “Gunpowder Plot,” when Guy Fawkes & Friends attempted to blow up the entire Parliament at its 1605 state opening.
This brings us to Charles. Influenced by the Catholicism of his French queen and by William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, Charles believed that his own preferred denomination, a bishop-heavy High Church Anglicanism, mediated a sacramental grace that reconciled man to God and that the Church’s rituals and ceremonies brought a sustaining, saving faith. Armed with this belief, at once well-intentioned and self-serving, he set out in 1638 to create greater uniformity in both theology and the practice of religion across his three separate realms—England, Scotland, and Ireland.
Lacking his father’s tact and acute political sense, he was surprised when this initiative was met with angry resistance. The first attempt to have Laud’s new (Anglican) Book of Common Prayer read in the (Presbyterian) St. Giles’s Cathedral in Edinburgh caused a riot when a woman named Jenny Geddes threw a stool at Archbishop Spottiswoode. When neither side backed down, this escalated into a succession of wars collectively known as the “English Civil War.” The King needed money from Parliament, which demanded political concessions in turn, leading to another irreconcilable standoff and civil war. But to get to full-fledged war, each of the sides—each of the factions—had to decide that their rivals were, in fact, enemies, challenging or denying the “foundations of their being” and that their opponents, therefore, deserved death.
Puritans maintained that the Catholic Church (and its pale copy, the Anglican Church) was the “Whore of Babylon,” working her wiles to achieve dominance at whatever price. Citing the Book of Revelation, Puritans branded the Pope and his bishops collectively as “the Antichrist,” who must be destroyed with fire and sword. Anything that resembled “Popery” must be annihilated—and this eventually included Archbishop Laud himself, who the Puritan-dominated Parliament succeeded in executing in January 1645. So much for Common Prayer.
Like our own Congress, which has become more and more dysfunctional with the growth of an initially small but intransigent, extremist minority opposed to all compromise, the rise of the Puritan faction in Parliament to a dominant position took place in stages, beginning with appeals to “constitutionalism” and the need to define the appropriate purviews of monarch and Parliament. The Puritans denied that they were conducting a “holy war” against “Popery,” reluctantly accepting that fighting to assert one’s religious beliefs had never been legitimate, going back to the origins of the faith. Christ Himself acknowledged and accepted Pontius Pilate’s right, even duty, to enforce the laws of the state he governed, that is, to arrest and execute Him.
In the Gospels, Christ was subjected to temptation twice: once in the desert by the Devil, who offered Him all earthly power if He would bow down to him, but also by St. Peter, who was aghast when Christ told him of His imminent crucifixion, and remonstrated with Him to fight fire with divine fire, in order to save Himself. Christ’s response was the same in both instances—“Get thee behind me, Satan!” in order to make plain to both that “My Kingdom is not of this world.” His example was followed for centuries by Christian martyrs, who practiced non-resistance to persecution and even execution by their states. Fighting for one’s religion was, therefore, not only a repudiation of the ancient martyrs but also exactly what Puritans were accusing the Catholic Church of doing: corrupting Christ’s message by forcing its faith on others through violence.
Tim Alberta’s book, The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory, chronicles the transition that many members of the Evangelical churches in this country have made towards a gross, blasphemous distortion of Christ’s message: “my Kingdom” has become “USA! USA!”, very much “of this world.” Evidently, Trump’s careful reading of his “favorite book” did not embrace the Old Testament since he would then have had to consider whether the golden image of himself at the CPAC conference, like the Golden Calf erected while Moses climbed Mt. Sinai, might leave his people wandering in the desert for forty years, unable to enter the Promised Land.
The same failure to distinguish between temporal power and the spiritual, the urge to combine or conflate the two, emerged as the Puritan MPs wrestled with seemingly incompatible imperatives: Parliament should act only upon and for the law. Yet, the Whore of Babylon must be brought low. The answer: first, bring the law into conformity with their religious beliefs, and then enforce the (new) law so that the state would indeed promote or prosecute (the mot juste) their beliefs, but do so “legally.” The concept that Parliament should mirror the balance of power between different factions and that it should provide a forum in which each faction could represent its interests—in other words, the rough prototype of our own American system—began to slip. Within a decade, the Puritan faction achieved control by working with and for a genuine tyrant, Oliver Cromwell, and together, they made a travesty of the whole idea of Parliament.
This parallels once again our own experience: as cited by Heather Cox Richardson, an article in Slate by Mark J. Stern noted that when Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was Senate majority leader, he “realized you don’t need to win elections to enact Republican policy. You don’t need to change hearts and minds. You don’t need to push ballot initiatives or win over the views of the people. All you have to do is stack the courts. You only need 51 votes in the Senate to stack the courts with far-right partisan activists…[a]nd they will enact Republican policies under the guise of judicial review, policies that could never pass through the democratic process. And those policies will be bulletproof, because they will be called ‘law.’”
As Americans, we have enjoyed our liberty, however imperfect and unevenly offered, for the “pursuit of happiness.” In principle, we have a neutral state, separated from any particular church, which is meant to protect the rights of its citizens to conduct their lives as they see fit, in accordance with their own beliefs, tastes, and choices. In practice, however, a significant portion of the electorate is bitterly opposed to giving fully equal rights to ethnic, gender, or religious minorities.
Like the British Isles in the seventeenth century, many conservative Christians in America today are primarily concerned with living out their faith as individuals. Still, we are also paralleling early modern England with the emergence of semi-religious fragments with a powerful urge for self-assertion. The Christian Nationalist movement insists that our Constitution is founded on biblical principles (selectively chosen and painted red, white, and blue) and that America’s future success depends on a return to these beliefs. Christian Nationalism makes few calls for piety, kindness, tolerance, or high moral standards but rather exhorts its members to fight the secularists, “deviants,” and infidels who are “perverting” America. With an irrational fear or antipathy towards immigrants, it claims divine sanction for ethnocentrism and nativism, promoting white supremacy, racial subordination, and narrow “traditional” gender roles. It is symptomatic of their radical evolution away from truly Christian principles that Mike Pence, once considered pious and God-fearing amongst Evangelicals, came close to suffering Archbishop Laud’s fate.
Like the Puritans in their pre-purge Parliament, Christian Nationalists and their less rabid allies have achieved enough electoral success to produce a dysfunctional Congress. However, this assertion of their own interests at the cost of acknowledging the interests of all others runs much deeper.
The packing of the judiciary means that if our would-be “autocrat for a day” returns to power, he will have much-improved chances, compared to his first term in office, of achieving “success” when his Executive Orders are challenged in the courts. Slanted policies that are at odds with the majority opinion will have a far greater chance of standing. More immediately, and a grave threat, is that the Supreme Court has worked to delay cogent, serious indictments of the former President, deliberately facilitating his return to power.
Incontrovertible evidence of egregious wrongdoing, crimes that threaten the foundations of our existing Constitutional order, are grotesquely misrepresented as “weaponization of the justice system.” Truth, always elusive in its pure form, is nonetheless allied in its practical day-to-day approximations with “fact.” How is this country to deal with a growing acceptance that “alternative facts” are somehow “real,” and not simply falsehoods, lies, and nonsense? The ridiculous conspiracy theories of groups like “Q-Anon” in the political sphere are mirrored in the scientific realm by groups of “Anti-Vaxxers,” the “Flat Earth Society,” etc. One sometimes wonders, do these groups have reciprocal memberships?
It is a truism of the intelligence community that you can’t have a good policy—or strategy—or tactics—that are based on false information. Yet, so much of the current discourse is built on the deliberate and knowing acceptance of falsehood.
The parallels between our situation and that of seventeenth-century England abound—and so do the contrasts and ironies. Charles was devoutly religious and believed that he was God’s representative on earth. Still, he came to be reviled by some as an Antichrist and was judicially murdered by an “empowered” Puritan splinter of Parliament.
Trump, on the other hand, has no discernable religious belief or even curiosity. Despite his reliance on the support of Evangelical Christians, he does not appear to have felt it necessary to “learn a bit of their language,” his attempts to appear religious are always comically inept and betray a profound, even bottomless, ignorance. This has not stopped some of his followers from now insisting that he was sent by God to lead them in battle. As vain as he is ignorant, the apotheosis of a Dunning-Kruger “over-reacher,” Trump seems to believe them, even referring to himself as “the Chosen One.”
In the English Civil War, it was Parliament that objected, at first on a constitutionalist basis, to a King who was exceeding his powers and prerogatives. Still, as the conflict evolved, a fanatical faction within Parliament, claiming their own religious superiority, succeeded in seizing control, executing the King, and steering the country into a dictatorship. We are now confronted with the fact that half of our Congress refuses to address unambiguous evidence of wrongdoing, is unable to find any excess as “beyond the pale,” and is unwilling to check the rise to power of a desperate criminal/autocrat—his acolytes and adherents, who in 2016 were perhaps shuffling about half-heartedly, have now become so terrorized that they are actively working to subvert the Constitution, permitting any tactic of prevarication, obstruction, resistance, or denial of simple, obvious facts.
In so doing, they are helping him to achieve dominance over their own institution: in contrast to seventeenth-century England, this time, the autocrat “wins” against the legislature. Worse still, Project 2025 is a blueprint for rejecting a state apparatus built on neutral, objective expertise—a triumph of our educational, scientific, and technological achievements over the last three centuries—in favor of subservience and loyalty to an individual who believes injections of cleaning fluid could cure COVID-19. One wonders, is there any other head of state in the entire world capable of such buffoonery?
The majority of Americans see Christian Nationalists and “ultra-conservatives” who do not endorse a pluralistic democratic system that welcomes people of all religions as a threat. Although we support an elected legislature in principle, how many of us are ready and willing in practice to take action on behalf of beleaguered, divided, gridlocked Congress? In particular, to work to convince our opponents that we are not, in fact, enemies and that the protection of the civil rights of all of us through a functional Congress that is as technocratic, meritocratic, and bipartisan as possible is not only our common salvation but also the precise intention of our Founders?
With or without Mitch McConnell, the willingness of half of our legislature to accept absurdities and non-truths, whether from politicians, extremist media, Q-Anon, random conspiracists, or even the Flat Earth Society, means that increasingly, our epistemic foundations are just “turtles all the way down.” We are right to be worried that, with such hands grasping at the tiller, the ship could eventually fall off the edge of the world.
Adam Dixon has extensive experience in Central Europe and the Former Soviet Union as a consultant, businessman, and entrepreneur, working mostly in aviation and telecommunications. He is currently working on a range of innovative military technologies, including a platform for the removal of landmines. Mr. Dixon studied at Harvard (BA 1983), Oxford (M.Phil 1988), and Leningrad State University (1986).
Image: Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain.
What You Need to Know: During WWII, five bombers stood out for their strategic impact: the American B-29 Superfortress, famed for firebombing Tokyo and delivering atomic bombs that ended the war; Britain’s Avro Lancaster, known for its heavy payload and effectiveness in decimating Nazi Germany’s infrastructure; Japan’s Mitsubishi G4M "Betty," a versatile medium and torpedo bomber with notable strikes on the British Navy; Nazi Germany’s prolific Junkers Ju 88, which saw heavy action in the Battle of Britain; and Italy’s Savoia-Marchetti SM.79, an effective Mediterranean torpedo bomber that proved formidable against Allied ships. Each left an indelible mark on WWII aerial warfare.
Five Best Bombers of World War IIThese admittedly highly subjective five Best Lists are virtually guaranteed to generate controversy, as no matter how much you justify your opinions with solid objective facts, some military history buff out is still going to feel miffed because their favorite warplane/warship/firearm/tank/helicopter/whatever was omitted from the list.
That said, “Once more unto the breach, dear comrades,” as I opine on the five Best Bombers of World War II. To be more specific and help narrow things down further, I’m going to focus specifically on multi-engine bombers, as single-engine bombers such as dive bombers merit their own separate, standalone article shortly.
United States of America: Boeing B-29 SuperfortressMight as well start at the end, i.e. the bomber that brought WWII to an end! The b-29 did so, of course, via the atomic bombs "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by B-29s "Enola Gay" and "Bockscar" on August 6 and August 9, 1945, respectively, thereby goading Imperial Japan into surrendering and thus finally ending the Second World War.
But even before the A-bombs, the “Superfort” was already making history by inflicting sheer destruction upon the heart of industrial Japan by more conventional bombing raids (masterminded by the late great U.S. Air Force (USAF) and U.S. Army Air Force (USAAF) Gen. Curtis E. LeMay). For example, during Operation Meetinghouse on March ninth through the tenth 1945, 324 B-29s firebombed Tokyo in what would become the most destructive air raid in history, yes, that’s right, an even higher death toll than either of the A-bomb raids.
It ended with at least 90,000 persons killed, one million left homeless, and 267,171 buildings destroyed.
Great Britain: Avro LancasterArguably the most revered bomber in the prestigious history of Great Britain’s Royal Air Force (RAF), the BAE Systems info page goes so far as to call the warbird “The most iconic heavy bomber of World War II.” She made her maiden flight on January 9, 1941 and was officially introduced into operational service with the RAF in February 1942.
The Lancaster carried out the lion’s share of the British portion of the Combined Bomber Offensive (CBO) that ended up laying waste to the cities of Nazi Germany. She carried a much heavier bomb load than the B-17 Flying Fortress or the B-24 Liberator while operating at similar speeds and a slightly longer range.
Imperial Japan: Mitsubishi G4M (Allied codename “Betty”)Bearing in mind former U.S. Secretary of Defense, and former U.S. Marine Corps Commandant, Jim Mattis’s sobering reminder that, “The enemy gets a vote,” it must be remembered that although the Axis eventually lost WWII, they still produced their fair share of top-notch bombers.
Accordingly, one can make a reasonable case for the twin-engine “Betty” as Japan’s best of the bunch. Used as both a higher-altitude medium bomber and as a torpedo bomber, it was in the latter role that the so-called Hamaki performed best, sinking the pride of Britain’s Royal Navy, i.e. the battleship HMS Prince of Wales and the battlecruiser HMS Repulse with four torpedo hits apiece, in exchange for the loss of only two Hamakis and one Mitsubishi G3M Type 96.
Sir Winston Churchill said of this event, “In all the war, I never received a more direct shock.”
Nazi Germany: Junkers Ju 88Tough choice between the Ju 88 and the Heinkel He 111 as to which was the Third Reich’s best bomber; however, going by the saying that, “Quantity has a quality all its own,” the nod would have to go to the Junkers warbird.
The twin-engine Ju 88 ended up as the second-most produced bomber of all time, with 15,183 airframes built; these numbers were only exceeded by America’s Consolidated B-24 Liberator four-engine heavy bomber, with 18, 482 specimens made.
This Luftwaffe bomber made her maiden flight on December 21, 1936 and officially entered into operational service with the Vaterland in 1939, which was perfect timing for the commencement of WWII. The Ju 88 did indeed manage to participate in the first official battle of the Second World War, that being the September 1939 blitzkrieg invasion of Poland, though they made a negligible impact on that particular mission.
The ‘88s made a much bigger contribution during the Battle of France (May-June 1940).
Of course, it was during the Battle of Britain that the Ju 88 garnered its biggest claim to fame. That fame, however, came at a terrible price: between July and October 1940, 303 of the ‘88s went down in flames, thus constituting a 15.3 percent chunk of the 1,977 total Luftwaffe aircraft losses for the ill-fated campaign.
Fascist Italy: Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 SparvieroThe quality of Italian fighting machines tends to get overlooked, as Benito Mussolini’s Fascist Italy was the first Axis power to capitulate, which in turn led to the prevailing popular misconception that Italian troops were cowards.
So then, it’s not surprising that the three-engine Sparviero, though arguably the most famous Italian airplane in WWII on the one hand, is the least well-known warbird on this list comparatively speaking, which is a damn shame, as it was an excellent medium bomber and torpedo bomber. Making her maiden flight on September 28, 1934, she was well-liked by its crews, who nicknamed her il gobbo maledetto due to the distinctive dorsal "hump" of the fuselage.
As noted by Aaron Spray of Simple Flying, “Commando Supremo claims it is considered one of the most lethal Italian aircraft of the war and successfully damaged and sunk dozens of Allied ships in the Mediterranean Sea and was one of the finest land-based torpedo bombers of the war…While U-boats inflicted the greater damage to the Royal Navy, SM.79s are credited with sinking the destroyers HMS Fearless, HMS Bedouin, and HMAS Nestor, an Australian destroyer. They also damaged Royal Navy cruisers and the aircraft carrier HMS Indomitable in July 1943, just before Italy exited the war.”
About the AuthorChristian D. Orr is a Senior Defense Editor for National Security Journal (NSJ). He is a former Air Force Security Forces officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU). He has also been published in The Daily Torch , The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security, and Simple Flying. Last but not least, he is a Companion of the Order of the Naval Order of the United States (NOUS).
Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.
What You Need to Know: The top five WWII aircraft carriers—chosen for their strategic impact and bravery—include the iconic USS Enterprise (CV-6) for its extensive combat achievements and resilience, and the British HMS Ark Royal (91), instrumental in key victories like the sinking of the Bismarck.
-Japan’s Hiryu represented the fierce capability of the Imperial Japanese Navy, notably at Midway. “Taffy 3,” an entire task unit of six escort carriers, triumphed against all odds at Leyte Gulf. Lastly, HMS Illustrious stood out for its versatility and long service across both Mediterranean and Pacific theaters.
-Each demonstrated exceptional resolve in one of history’s most intense conflicts.
Five Best Aircraft Carriers of World War IIFive Best Lists are virtually guaranteed to generate controversy, as
(1) they’re admittedly highly subjective, though I always do my damnedest to back my expressed opinions with solid objective facts.
(2) someone’s always guaranteed to get butthurt because their favorite plane/gun/ship/tank/whatever was omitted from the list.
That said, “Once more unto the breach, dear comrades,” as I open on what Yours Truly considers to be the Aircraft Carriers of World War II.
USS Enterprise (CV-6)Might as well start with the most successful warship of the bunch; the “Big E,” AKA “The Grey Ghost,” not to be confused with either the British ocean liner Queen Mary’s WWII troopship alter ego or American Civil War raider John S. Mosby, not to mention the warship that inspired the nickname of a certain starship from a rather popular sci-fi franchise.
How Successful was the Big E?Allow me to quote my colleague, Harrison Kass, “When the Japanese finally capitulated, after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Enterprise’s guns/planes had shot down 911 enemy aircraft, sunk seventy-one ships, and damaged and destroyed 192 more...The Enterprise was even the first American ship to sink a full-sized Japanese warship in the Pacific Theater, the submarine I-70. In total, The Enterprise finished the war with twenty battle stars, more than any other warship during the war.”
As for that “Grey Ghost” nickname, that was inspired by the fact that she was erroneously declared sunk by Hideki Tojo’s propaganda machine on three separate occasions.
Pretty hard to argue with that body of work, eh?
HMS Ark Royal (Pennant No. 91)Arguably the most revered aircraft carrier in the prestigious history of Great Britain’s Royal Navy, because the RN still commemorates her loss every year. As with the USS Enterprise, Ark Royal had a fictitious pop culture icon nexus, as she was the vessel that James Bond served on, long before he embarked on his, rather paradoxical-sounding, career as “The World’s Most Famous Secret Agent.”
Making history right off the bat as Britain’s first purpose-built fleet carrier, she had a short lifespan of just under three years from her December 1938 commissioning to her November 1941 sinking by the Kriegsmarine’s U-81.
Yet in that short time, she accomplished a lot, especially her participation in the sinking of the feared German battleship Bismarck. Ark Royal also played an indirect role in the destruction of the pocket battleship Graf Spee, joined in the first U-boat kill of the war, and proved essential in protecting supply convoys to Malta.
Imperial Japan Navy’s (IJN) Hiryu (“Flying Dragon”)Lest anyone accuse me of being either too America-centric, or too Western-centric, rest assured that I never forget former U.S. Secretary of Defense (and former U.S. Marine Corps Commandant) Jim Mattis’s sobering reminder that, “The enemy gets a vote.”
Although the Axis eventually lost WWII, they still produced their fair share of successful carriers. At least the IJN did, anyway, the Nazi German Kriegsmarine’s lone flattop, the Graf Zeppelin, had a pretty inauspicious career.
Accordingly, one can make a reasonable case for the “Flying Dragon.” Even before Imperial Japan officially entered WWII, Hiryu’s crew was “bloodied” in combat, as her aircraft participated in the September 1940 invasion of French Indochina. Then of course came the vessel’s role in WWII proper as a key participant in the Pearl Harbor raid, followed shortly thereafter by Wake Island, and the conquest of the Dutch East Indies.
Last but not least, there’s the Battle of Midway. Surviving the initial onslaught that annihilated her fellow IJN carriers Akagi, Kaga, and Soryu, coincidentally herself a “Dragon” ship, as in “Blue Dragon”, the Hiryu got in a few final licks before herself being finally sunk by USN Douglas Dauntless dive bombers; her dive bombers and torpedo bombers severely damaged the USS Yorktown, setting the stage for the “Fighting Lady” to be finished off by the IJN submarine I-168.
U.S. Navy Taffy 3I’m going employ some outside-the-box thinking here by giving one of my Top five awards to an entire group of “flattops” instead of an individual carrier; this group merits its place on this list by punching far above its weight and winning against impossible odds: the six itty-bitty escort carriers (CVEs, AKA “baby flattops” or “jeep carriers”) of Task Unit 77.4.3, better known as "Taffy III": USS Fanshaw Bay, St. Lo, White Plains, Kalinin Bay, Kitkun Bay, and Gambier Bay. It was during the Battle of Samar phase of the Battle of Leyte Gulf on October 25, 1944 that Taffy III, under the command of Rear Admiral Clifton “Ziggy” Sprague, cemented its place in history.
These six “jeep carriers,” along with three destroyers (DDs), four tiny destroyers escorts (DEs), and 322 aircraft, miraculously prevailed over seemingly hopeless odds facing Force A of IJN Vice Admiral Takeo Kurita’s 2nd Fleet consisting of four battleships – including the Yamato, THE most powerful battleship ever built: six heavy cruisers, two light cruisers, and eleven destroyers.
In exchange for the loss of St. Lo and Gambier Bay along with two DDs, one DE, and twenty-three planes, the outmanned and outgunned American force sank three heavy cruisers, damaged two battleships, three more heavy cruisers, and one destroyer, and inflicted 2,700 Japanese casualties.
HMS Illustrious (Pennant No. 87)Many thanks to my colleague Peter Suciu for the inspiration here.
For the sheer breadth of her career, Illustrious is the most impressive of the bunch, as she served in the Mediterranean and the Pacific Theatres of WWII. In the former, she participated in the Battle of Taranto in late 1940, wherein her aircraft sank an Italian battleship and badly damaged two others. In the latter, she launched strikes against the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies in 1944 and later participated in the Battle of Okinawa.
About the AuthorChristian D. Orr is a Senior Defense Editor for National Security Journal (NSJ). He is a former Air Force Security Forces officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU). He has also been published in The Daily Torch , The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security, and Simple Flying. Last but not least, he is a Companion of the Order of the Naval Order of the United States (NOUS).
Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock
The decision to have the seventh Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier for the late Senator John C. Stennis of Mississippi continues to be controversial. The same certainly can't be said of the U.S. Navy's Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer named to honor Medal of Honor winner John Basilone.
The sea service accepted delivery of the warship on July 8, and this coming Saturday USS John Basilone (DDG-122) will be officially commissioned at a ceremony in New York City.
"The ship honors United States Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant John Basilone, who received the Medal of Honor for his heroism during the Battle of Guadalcanal in 1942. He was killed in action during the February 1945 invasion of Iwo Jima and was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross. Basilone is the only enlisted Marine to be honored with both the Navy Cross and the Medal of Honor," the U.S. Navy explained.
The Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class destroyer will serve in a multi-mission surface combatant capacity – able to conduct Anti-Air Warfare (AAW), Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), and Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW). In March, the future USS John Basilone transited the Kennebec River from the Bath Iron Works facility to the Atlantic Ocean and completed four days of at-sea trails.
DDG-122 will be the second warship named to honor Basilone, following the Gearing-class destroyer USS Basilone (DD-824), which was commissioned in 1949 and served with the U.S. Navy until it was decommissioned in 1977earning three battle stars for service during the Vietnam War.
Already Flying a Battle FlagAlthough the future USS John Basilone hasn't officially been commissioned, photos shared by General Dynamics Bath Iron Works and posted on X last week showed the warship flying a battle flag as the warship departed Maine.
The flag features the official unit crest, which is noted for including crossed Browning M1917 water-cooled machine guns over a blue diamond – to denote that Basilone served as a machine gunner with the 1st Marine Division. During the Battle of Guadalcanal, he led two machine gun sections of the 1st Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division, and employed the M1917 against a charge of Japanese forces.
His actions, which were depicted in the hit HBO series The Pacific, earned him the Medal of Honor. As noted in the mini-series, Basilone had returned home to a hero's welcome. Instead of receiving the award from President Franklin D. Roosevelt at the White House – he opted instead to receive it at a small ceremony with his men, stating that only part of this media belongs to me… pieces of it belong to the boys who are still on Guadalcanal."
As Military.com reported, Basilone was offered a commission, but declined, and then requested to return to combat. He was killed in action on February 19, 1945, leading an assault on Iwo Jima. In addition to the Medal of Honor, Gunnery Sergeant John Basilone was posthumously awarded the Navy Crossbecoming the only enlisted Marine to earn both medals.
Author Experience and Expertise: Peter SuciuPeter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.
Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.
What You Need to Know: The Rockwell B-1B Lancer, nearing retirement by 2036 as the B-21 Raider enters service, has now made its virtual debut in Microsoft Flight Simulator. Indie developer KwikFlight’s new B-1B add-on offers a high-fidelity simulation, bringing detailed liveries and functional systems to virtual pilots.
-Unlike the 1980 game B-1 Nuclear Bomber, which centered around bomb-dropping missions, this add-on emphasizes the flying experience alone.
-Following their recent B-2 Spirit add-ons, developers continue to interpret classified details with impressive realism, and early user feedback indicates KwikFlight’s B-1B may be one of the most authentic experiences for aviation enthusiasts.
Fly the B-1B Lancer Virtually with Microsoft Flight Simulator’s New Add-OnThere are currently just 45 Rockwell B-1B Lancers now in service, and while the Cold War-era strategic bomber is scheduled to be retired as the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider enters service, with the U.S. Air Force starting to begin replacing the aging Lancers beginning in 2026. However, the last of the old BONEs won't be retired until at least 2036, meaning there will still be quite a few pilots trained to fly the aircraft.
In addition, even those who haven't gone through actual flight training will get a chance to take the controls of the B-1 – at least virtually. Indie game development studio KwikFlight, which creates add-on content for the popular Microsoft Flight Simulator, announced this week that its B-1B download is now available.
According to MSFS Addons, "KwikFlight has paid close attention to detail with the Bone, equipping it with high-resolution real and fictional liveries and a design that prioritizes realism. The aircraft comes with an interesting selection of functional systems, which aim to give simmers the closest experience to piloting this supersonic bomber."
A Past B-1 Video Game Failed to deliverIt should also be noted that the very first video game to depict the Rockwell B-1 was released even before the aircraft officially entered service. B-1 Nuclear Bomber, which was developed by board game maker Avalon Hill and Microcomputer Games, was released in 1980 originally for the Apple II before later appearing on the Atari 8-bit, PET, Vic-20, Commodore 64, MS-DOS, TRS-80 and even the T-99.
The single-player game wasn't a particularly graphic-heavy experience, and instead just saw players attempt to "fly" to a Soviet city and drop a nuclear bomb. Even in an era of text-heavy simulations, the fun wore off fast, as this writer can attest to as having played it back in the day.
By contrast, the new B-1B add-on is all about the flying experience, and there is no option to drop a bomb on a Russia city or any other urban center. Nuclear war isn't part of Microsoft Flight Simulator, instead, this franchise has always been about the joy of flying.
The game publisher had previously released a Northrop B-2 Spirit add-on in August 2023. Interestingly, another game developer, Top Mach Studio, also released a virtual B-2 expansion for Microsoft Flight Simulator this past summer. Based on comments from the MSFS community, both versions have their merits – and each has managed to use a fair amount of guesswork on details that remain classified.
The B-1B add-on from KwikFlight is the first and reported only virtual Lancer now available for the popular video game – which has been flying high for decades.
"The aircraft comes with an interesting selection of functional systems, which aim to give simmers the closest experience to piloting this supersonic bomber," added MSFS Addons. The developers also attempted to mimic the performance of the B-1, including its swept-wing design.
Whether they nailed every detail is something only a real BONE pilot can confirm, but based on the early response from the gaming community KwikFlight went above and beyond – so much so that we shouldn't be surprised if this add-on for the flight simulator has already been downloaded in Moscow and Beijing.
Author Experience and Expertise: Peter SuciuPeter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.
Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.
L'abbé Modeste Kafando, le nouveau vicaire de la paroisse Sacré Cœur de Donsin (dans le Plateau central), ordonné prêtre en 2011, est de retour avec la 4e édition de son « Livret de méthodologie d'études : Clés de réussite pour élèves ». La dédicace a été présidée ce mardi 5 novembre 2024 à Ouagadougou par le directeur général du Centre national des arts du spectacle et de l'audiovisuel (CENASA), Abraham Abassagué, et la directrice générale du livre et de la lecture publique, Laurence Zoungrana.
Le prêtre-écrivain semble être bien motivé dans l'écriture comme dans la pastorale. Après une première, une deuxième et une troisième édition qui ont rencontré l'assentiment du public national et international, il vient d'éditer la quatrième.
La dédicace du livret s'est tenue ce mardi 5 novembre 2024 au Centre national des arts du spectacle et de l'audiovisuel (CENASA) à Ouagadougou, en présence de paroissiens, d'acteurs du monde de l'éducation, de la famille et de passionnés de la lecture.
C'était en présence de Abraham Abassagué, directeur général du CENASA, représentant du ministre d'Etat, en charge de la culture, et de la directrice générale du livre et de la lecture publique, Laurence Zoungrana.
S'agissant du livret, objet de la présence dédicace, il faut dire qu'il est composé de deux sections comptant 65 pages. Le livret a été présenté par Maxime Bako, enseignant en communication. Selon lui, c'est un guide méthodologique, bien écrit très facile à lire. Cette quatrième édition, parue aux éditions Ettore, a été revue et enrichie, dit-il. Sur les pages 11 et 12, l'auteur donne à ses lecteurs un avant-goût du contenu du livret, et insiste sur l'importance et la place de l'apprentissage et de la discipline dans la réussite scolaire.
Dédié aux élèves, étudiants, ainsi qu'à tout apprenant, « Livret de méthodologie d'études : Clés de réussite pour élèves » est né de la volonté de son auteur de les aider à mieux étudier pour réussir leurs études scolaires et académiques. Poursuivant la présentation de l'œuvre, Maxime Bako souligne que l'auteur propose une voie à suivre si l'on veut être excellent dans ses études.
L'abbé Modeste Kafando, auteur de « Mon livret de méthodologie d'études : Clés de réussite pour élèves »« Et en la matière, il parle des clés variées anciennes et nouvelles, présentant les différents processus ouvrant davantage aux apprenants à qui le sacre est un élément caractéristique. C'est-à-dire prendre des notes pendant les cours et de les assimiler avec la plus grande aisance. La gestion de son horaire, de son planning en dehors des classes, toute chose qui pourrait éviter des pertes de temps », détaille l'enseignant en communication. Il ajoute à cela un autre aspect, celui de la bonne disposition mentale de l'apprenant, de son bon état physique et son hygiène alimentaire. La liste n'est pas exhaustive.
Abraham Abassagué, directeur général du CENASA et président de la cérémonie de dédicaceLa sortie de ce livret est à féliciter, selon la directrice générale du livre et de la lecture publique, Laurence Zoungrana, et le directeur général du CENASA, Abraham Abassagué. Pour le représentant du ministre, M. Abassagué, la production de l'abbé Kafando est un plus pour notre patrimoine et permettra de s'assurer que les enfants vont lire quelque chose de sain, qui porte nos valeurs. Et à la directrice générale du livre et de la lecture publique, Laurence Zoungrana, d'ajouter que le livret vient renforcer également la bibliothèque nationale. Tout en saluant la solidarité de l'abbé Modeste Kafando pour le fait qu'il a offert gracieusement 108 exemplaires pour les centres publics de lecture, elle a souhaité qu'il puisse trouver toujours du temps pour ces genres d'ouvrage d'utilité publique. C'est d'ailleurs pour cela que l'auteur a lancé un appel à contribution afin de pouvoir imprimer au moins un milliers d'exemplaires pour les enfants PDI ou vulnérables. Le livret est disponible dans toutes les surfaces de vente des livres au prix unitaire de 3 000 FCFA.
Remise symbolique d'un exemplaireYvette Zongo
Lefaso.net
Crédit photo : Bonaventure Paré
« Acquis et défis de l'agriculture de conservation dans la commune rurale de Guibaré (province du Bam, Burkina Faso). » C'est sur ce thème que Souleymane Sankara a soutenu sa thèse de doctorat en géographie, ce mardi 5 novembre 2024, à l'université Joseph Ki-Zerbo. La présidence du jury était assurée par Pr François de Charles Ouédraogo. Sur la même table que lui, Pr Ousmane Nébié et Pr André Marie Soubeiga, respectivement directeur et co-directeur de thèse. Pr Sokemawou Koudzo et Pr Mariam Myriam Zongo étaient les rapprteurs. Pr Nadège Compaoré elle, officiait en tant qu'examinateur. Après présentation de son document de plus de 350 pages, l'impétrant a été élevé au grade de docteur avec la mention Très honorable.
La thèse de Souleymane Sankara s'inscrit dans un contexte où l'Etat burkinabè a lancé l'offensive agro-sylvo-pastorale. « C'est une thèse à cheval sur plusieurs programmes. Le programme de conservation des eaux et des sols, l'agriculture de conservation. La nouvelle méthodologie ici vient compenser la première. Il y a des recoupements par rapport aux principes. Et en faisant le point, certains d'entre eux peuvent être pris en compte pour nourrir le programme de conservation des eaux et des sols. Et si on s'appuie sur la notion d'avantage comparatif, on peut retenir certains principes de l'agriculture de conservation, qui viendront en soutien aux programmes déjà existants au programme de conservation des eaux et des sols », a laissé entendre Pr Ousmane Nébié.
« Souleymane Sankara est un étudiant que j'ai encadré il y a plus de trente ans », Pr Ousmane NébiéParlant d'agriculture de conservation, il s'agit d'un système qui met simultanément en œuvre trois principes. « Le premier, c'est le travail minimal du sol en ne le labourant plus. Le deuxième consiste à faire une couverture permanente du sol. Le troisième, consiste à l'association de cultures variées de sorte à ce que la diversité culturale puisse se faire correctement », a résumé l'impétrant. Au terme de ces recherches, ce dernier est parvenu à la conclusion selon laquelle l'agriculture de conservation améliore les revenus des producteurs de la commune de Guibaré, et contribue à assurer une sécurité alimentaire des producteurs qui l'ont adoptée. Il est aussi ressorti que l'agriculture de conservation contribue à la protection de l'environnement, à travers l'accroissement de la biodiversité, la récupération des terres dégradées, etc.
« En 1993, j'ai soutenu une maîtrise sur les enjeux fonciers dans deux villages du Passoré. En 2015, j'ai fait un master en géographie », Souleymane SankaraEn termes de perspectives, deux thèmes de recherche : les facteurs incitatifs et les facteurs de blocage. Dans un second temps, le doctorant a proposé la mise en place d'une plateforme de concertation. « Elle devra réunir les producteurs et les structures d'appuis. L'objectif est de mettre en place des stratégies pour vulgariser l'agriculture de conservation dans la zone cible, en fonction des limites identifiées » a-t-il dégagé. A la question de savoir quelle stratégie mettrait-il en place pour ce faire si toutefois il était ministre de l'agriculture, Souleymane Sankara soutient qu'il aurait mis l'accent sur la mobilisation des ressources. « Il se trouve que nos travaux s'inscrivent déjà dans le cadre de la stratégie de formation et de l'agroforesterie, opérationnelle depuis 2023 au Burkina. Si j'étais un responsable du ministère, j'aurai misé sur la mobilisation des ressources, pour mettre en œuvre cette stratégie, en cohérence aux résultats auxquels je suis parvenu » a-t-il proposé.
Le désormais Dr en géographie, son épouse et les jurés de sa thèse, ensemble sur la photo de familleEn l'élevant au grade de docteur en géographie, le jury a estimé que le fruit de ses recherches était satisfaisant. « Son travail prouve qu'il a fait le terrain pendant de longs séjours. Les résultats sont originaux et doivent être vulgarisés au bénéfice des paysans et producteurs. Le jury a jugé bon de lui attribuer la mention Très honorable, ce qui signifie que le travail était de la taille d'une thèse de bonne qualité », a justifié Pr François de Charles Ouédraogo, tout en l'invitant à prendre en compte les observations faites par les jurés.
« Il y a une reprise dans l'introduction de la partie 1 et l'introduction du chapitre 1. Il faut revoir cette partie », Pr François de Charles OuédraogoErwan Compaoré
Lefaso.net
What You Need to Know: The USS Texas (BB-35), a storied battleship that served in both World Wars, faces an uncertain future. Despite a recent $60 million overhaul, it has no permanent home.
-The battleship’s former berth at the San Jacinto battleground is no longer viable, while options like Seawolf Park and Corpus Christi have been ruled out due to logistical and financial constraints.
-Galveston, where Texas was repaired, also wants the ship gone, citing concerns over obstructed waterfront views. As a unique piece of naval history, the USS Texas deserves a permanent location that respects its role in American heritage.
USS Texas Battles to Find a Permanent Home After Major RestorationAn Orphan In Its Land: The Sad Fate of the USS Texas - The Second World War may be long over, but one of its most iconic battleships, the USS Texas (BB-35) is fighting its most important campaign in its long, storied life. That is the fight for this legendary steel beast to find a permanent home.
After $60 million, 300,000 man-hour, stem-to-stern refurbishment of the great ship, the USS Texas is ready to return to duty, the service of showcasing itself for throngs of curious onlookers seeking a greater understanding of the role this warship played in our national history, and it is being prevented from returning to the San Jacinto battleground where she was once housed.
Peter Suciu explained in these pages that, “bureaucratic and financial challenges prevent its return,” to San Jacinto. Suciu further states that, “Proposals to move the ship to Seawolf Park or Corpus Christi have been scuttled over logistical and funding issues.”
Its present temporary home in Galveston, where the extensive repairs took place, wants the storied warship gone.
So, one of the greatest embodiments of twentieth-century U.S. naval power is made to float aimlessly in the friendly, albeit uncertain, waters of an increasingly ambivalent Texas, the state not the ship.
The HistoryThe USS Texas is a unique boat. Sure, there are a few other battleships still around, such as the USS North Carolina. But Texas is a rarity.
You see, the USS Texas has the virtue of being the only battleship in existence to have seen action in both world wars that defined the twentieth century and shaped the tumultuous century we live in today.
Texas was launched in 1912, the same year that the Titanic sank and just two years before the outbreak of the Great War.
A Victim of Yuppie Culture & NIMBYThe yuppies who live in the seaside parts of Galveston, Tex., want the battleship gone. Should the original plans to house the Texas in the port at Galveston be realized, then, multiple local businesses will have their waterfront views obstructed. Restaurants do not want to have their water views impeded by the masts and gray barrels of the Texas.
It’s quite embarrassing.
This battleship played a role in securing the very freedoms that these business owners wanted to use to deprive Texas of a home.
Having a battleship museum in Galveston, by the way, might take away from some of the waterfront views but it’d more than make up for it in terms of revenue generated for the locality. The fact that Texas was able to receive the lifesaving repairs it did at the cost of $60 million is proof that there’s a demand for this great ship to live on and be available to the world. But that’s not how the business owners of Galveston see things.
Some Other OptionsSimilarly, Seawolf Park and Corpus Christi are out, even though both cities are home to impressive naval museums. For the former, it’s too cost-prohibitive to move Texas there because the association in charge of the Texas museum would have to pay gobs of money that it doesn’t have to dredge the channel for the Texas to even be moved into place.
In the case of the latter city, Corpus Christi, state officials oppose moving the battleship there even though it’d be moored next to another WWII icon, the Essex-class aircraft carrier, USS Lexington (CV-16).
It is a mortal sin that a great piece of American history, like the USS Texas, would struggle to find a home. But this is the case. The Corpus Christi option, frankly, makes the most sense. Let’s just hope that they see this as an opportunity and move the warship there forever.
About the AuthorBrandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is available for purchase wherever books are sold. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.
Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.
What You Need to Know: The USS Parche earned the title of the most decorated vessel in U.S. history for its critical Cold War espionage missions. Originally a Sturgeon-class attack submarine, the Parche was repurposed in 1974 to conduct clandestine reconnaissance on Soviet undersea communication cables, primarily in the Sea of Okhotsk.
-Extensively modified with advanced surveillance equipment, the Parche excelled in wiretapping Soviet cables and retrieving missile fragments from the seabed.
-In 2004, it was decommissioned with an unprecedented array of honors, including ten Presidential Unit Citations. The Seawolf-class USS Jimmy Carter now carries on the espionage role that Parche pioneered.
Inside the USS Parche's Secret Cold War MissionsThe USS Parche is said to be “the most highly decorated vessel in U.S. history.” Considering all the vessels that have served throughout U.S. history, from wooden schooners to stealthy littoral combat ships, in all the conflicts, from the War of 1812 to the War on Terror — to be the most highly decorated vessel in U.S. history is a pretty remarkable designation.
First commissioned in 1974, the Parche initially served as a Sturgeon-class nuclear-powered fast attack submarine. But after several years in the fast attack role, the Parche was chosen for an alternative function: clandestine reconnaissance. The target of course would be the Soviet Union – specifically, the Soviet’s underwater communications cables.
USS Parche Modified for its Deep Water MissionTo accommodate the USS Parche’s new role, the boat was modified extensively. The modifications allowed for superior maneuverability. Further modifications made space onboard for new gear including cameras, communications equipment, thrusters, new sonar arrays, and landing skids. To make room for all of the new gear the majority of the Parche’s torpedo tubes were removed, leaving the sub with just four torpedoes – which made the Parche extremely under-gunned.
Serving on the USS Parche was especially dangerous. Protocol dictated that rather than submit to Soviet capture, the Parche would scuttle itself, killing the entire 112-man crew, using the 150 pounds of HBX explosives on board. Fortunately, the Soviets were never able to force the Parche's hand.
The full breadth of the Parche’s mission profile is unknown. What we do know is that the Parche worked to tap Soviet undersea communications cables in the Sea of Okhotsk. The cable was important; situated along the ocean floor, the cable connected the Soviet Pacific Fleet’s Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky base on the Kamchatka Peninsula to the Fleet’s headquarters in Vladivostok.
History Awards the BraveThe U.S. Navy did succeed in tapping the Okhotsk cable. In 1971, the USS Halibut, another espionage submarine, placed a large wiretap recording device on the cable. And when the Halibut was decommissioned, the Parche inherited the wiretapping role. In addition to operations in the Sea of Okhotsk, the Parche conducted wiretapping up near the North Pole and also in the Barents Sea.
In addition to wiretapping, the Parche was also tasked with recovering Soviet missile fragments from the seabed after test launches.
The USS Parche was decommissioned in 2004, after three decades of service. The submarine was scrapped in 2006 – but its flag was preserved and is now on display at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Washington.
In all, “Parche would win a staggering amount of honors, including ten Presidential Unit Citations, nine Navy Unit Citations, and thirteen Expeditionary Awards,” Caleb Larson of the National Interest explained a few years ago. Indeed, the Parche was “the most highly decorated vessel in US history.”
The USS Jimmy Carter would fill the espionage role that the Parche left vacant. The Jimmy Carter is the third and final Seawolf-class submarine, which has been modified to become America’s “premier spy submarine.” The Jimmy Carter has been so heavily modified to fit the espionage role that the Parche left vacant, that the Jimmy Carter is sometimes considered its own subclass of submarine.
About the Author: Harrison KassHarrison Kass is a seasoned defense writer with over 1,000 articles published. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. He lives in Oregon and listens to Dokken. Follow him on Twitter @harrison_kass. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org
All images are Creative Commons.
Same Peninsula but Worlds Apart: North Korean Soldiers in Ukraine is the Nail in the Coffin for Peaceful Korean Reunification - Are the battle-hardened Ukrainian soldiers shivering in their boots, anxiously anticipating the arrival of the North Koreans side-by-side with their Russian compatriots? Is the next Admiral Yi Sun-sin among the ranks of the Hermit Kingdom’s horde? Is this the latchkey moment the Kim Dynasty was long anticipating, accumulating power to push their armies into a foreign land to show up their adversary: the conniving American Empire?
Likely not. The North Korean presence on the battlefields of Ukraine will serve to bolster numbers on the front and otherwise to keep the Russian war machine running as efficiently as possible, or at least, as it possibly can.
No, the North Koreans on the ground will probably not drastically change much, however, geopolitically, this changes everything.
New Pieces on the Chess BoardWhile nearly every country has taken a side in the Russo-Ukrainian war, either through government commitment or silently conforming towards their preferred hegemon's bloc, both of the countries comprising the Korean peninsula have entered the fray and destroyed the idea that this war is strictly “European.” As the average Russian soldier struggles with Korean vocab awaiting their new allies to arrive, South Korea threatens to up the ante and send weapons directly to Ukraine.
This tit-for-tat behavior with North Korea is typical of the current South Korean President Yoon’s administration, one that is currently in hot water with record levels of low approval ratings of his domestic and foreign policy being at under forty percent. Yoon’s party clings to a tried-and-true Conservative method of responding to North Korean aggression with an equal or greater amount of escalation, as detailed by Voice of America Seoul Bureau Chief William Gallo, “During periods of military tensions, South Korea has often embraced a policy of retaliating with at least three times as much force as North Korea. The “three-to-one” policy stretches back at least to 2010, when South Korea responded to North Korea’s deadly shelling of the frontline island of Yeonpyeong.”
The Trash Balloon incident, Kim Jong-un declaring South Korea to be an enemy nation and abandoning the goal of peaceful reunification, sending North Korean troops to aid Russia in Ukraine, and most recently conducting an ICBM test days before the U.S. election have led to both states to pull apart from one another.
This Rift Shows No Sign of StoppingNorth and South Korea now act as aides towards opposing sides of a proxy war between the Russian Federation very, very loosely backed by the BRICS bloc, and the sovereign Ukraine backed by NATO and their allies, the same forces that fought against each other on the Korean Peninsula in what was also a proxy war over seventy years ago.
Korean Reunification looked to be just on the horizon after German reunification and the fall of the USSR, but ultimately, the window of opportunity slammed shut on the fingers of the hopeful.
The Sunshine Policy of the Kim Dae-jung and Rho Moo-hyun presidencies, seeking cooperation with North Korea without the direct goal of absorption, looked to be just the forward-thinking route to take to lead inter-Korean relations to a more agreeable position, but North Korea only dangled a carrot-on-a-stick in front of South Korea, in turn, making an ass of themselves.
The 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyongyang was shaped up to be just as influential as the 1988 Seoul Olympics, which showed the nations of the world that South Korea was not some forgettable backwater country, but a serious, burgeoning Asian power. In the end, the Olympic fire was extinguished, and the ambition for substantial change died along with it.
Indeed, as the generation that remembers one unified Korea after liberation from Japanese colonialism fades away with age, so too does the interest and/or incentive to pursue that goal.
About the Author: Lake DobsonLake Dodson is an Assistant Editor for the National Interest. His interests are Korean-American relations, cybersecurity policy, and nuclear energy/weapons policy. He currently studies the Korean language and has completed courses on North-South Korean Relations and conducted various experiments on an AGN-201K Nuclear Reactor at the prestigious Kyung-hee University in Suwon, South Korea. His specific interests are effective nuclear energy policy, cyber-security, and the economy and politics of East Asia. He holds a BA from the University of Mississippi.
Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.
What You Need to Know: HMS Vanguard, Britain’s last battleship, was laid down in 1941 amid shifting naval tactics favoring aircraft carriers over traditional battleships. Despite being completed in 1946, post-WWII, Vanguard combined classic design with modern anti-aircraft features and boasted eight 15-inch guns and a top speed of 30 knots.
-Primarily serving as a flagship and royal yacht, Vanguard missed its intended conflict and never saw combat.
-Decommissioned in 1960, this “ship out of time” symbolizes the twilight of battleships—a powerful vessel rendered obsolete by the swift evolution of naval warfare.
The HMS Vanguard Battleship was a Ship Out of TimeWhen the British Royal Navy battleship HMS Vanguard was laid down in 1941, battleships were already on the wane. Aircraft carriers had proven their worth in repeated engagements. Battleships, of course, still had their uses but nothing like what carriers could do. Despite the belief among all combatants’ navies that carriers, not battleships, were the future of naval surface warfare, London opted to continue investing in the Vanguard’s construction because the Royal Navy desperately needed reinforcements on the High Seas.
So, the Vanguard combined traditional battleship design with some truly unique, modern features. Yet, the Vanguard was nevertheless a scaled-down version of what the British naval planners had originally envisaged when they first drew up plans for the steel beast. Because of the rapid changes that the realities of naval warfare had foisted upon the Royal Navy’s ship designers, many had taken to calling the Vanguard “the dinosaur,” because she was an outmoded concept meant to fight a bygone conflict.
The SpecsPossessing eight, fifteen-inch guns in four twin turrets, the Vanguard sported improved fire control systems. Her secondary armaments were sixteen 5.25-inch dual-purpose guns, capable of anti-aircraft fire as well as firing at surface targets, in other words, naval planners incorporated the new threat of aircraft to battleships that before the war began few had considered.
This battleship was capable of achieving a speed of up to thirty knots, making it one of the fastest battleships of her era.
Ultimately, HMS Vanguard was commissioned in 1946, a year after WWII had ended. What makes the Vanguard so memorable for the British is the fact that she was the last official battleship the Royal Navy ever produced. Indeed, she is considered one of the last battleships ever built by any navy in history.
A Peace Ship Rather Than a Battleship?Because she missed her intended conflict, having already been pared down as a result of the rise of aircraft carriers, Vanguard’s operational career was relatively brief and peaceful, not how her designers planned for her to be used.
Her primary roles were as a flagship, a training ship, and even a royal yacht. The HMS Vanguard served as King George VI’s yacht during his 1947 tour to South Africa. Relatedly, a year thereafter, Vanguard represented Great Britain in the Spithead Review for the Royal Family’s coronation ceremony.
At the Spithead Review, HMS Vanguard was presented as one of the ninety-nine ships present that was the last of her kind.
A Ship Out of TimeJust fourteen years after she was commissioned, in 1960, Vanguard was decommissioned, ending her time as one of the last battleships ever. Some observers have described this boat as a “ship out of time.” Built after the age of battleships had come and gone, to fight a war that was no longer being fought, unable to fully live up to her expectations in the post-WWII era, the Vanguard’s existence was sad.
Finally put out of her misery, it’s hard not to ruminate about what might have been.
About the Author:Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is available for purchase wherever books are sold. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.
Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.
Dans un communiqué publié ce mardi 5 novembre 2024 sur sa page Facebook, la Gendarmerie nationale annonce le démantèlement de réseaux de présumés auteurs de braquages à mains armées.
En effet, selon le même communiqué, la Brigade Ville de Gendarmerie de Yagma a au cours du mois d'octobre 2024 reçu de nombreuses plaintes de braquages à mains armées et de vols. Une enquête a alors été ouverte et, après investigations, treize (13) personnes ont été interpelées pour des faits de braquage dans la ville de Ouagadougou.
Ces malfrats âgés de 18 à 26 ans opéraient dans les quartiers Bassinko, Gambre-yaaré, Marcoussis et Yagma et particulièrement dans les boutiques, les voies non éclairées et les abords des auberges.
Le mode opératoire consistait à menacer leurs victimes au moyen d'armes à feu, d'armes factices et d'armes blanches pour les déposséder de leurs motos, téléphones portables, argent et autres objets de valeur. Les motos volées sont ensuite soit vendues en l'état, soit dépiécées avant d'être vendues.
Après perquisition, le matériel suivant a été saisi :
– Cinq (05) pistolets automatiques dont deux (02) factices,
– Des couteaux,
– Quatre (04) motos,
– Des pièces de motos
– Un (01) ordinateur portable
Les treize (13) présumés auteurs seront présentés à Monsieur le Procureur du Faso, près le Tribunal de Grande Instance OUAGA I. Par ailleurs, les investigations se poursuivent pour non seulement retrouver quatre (04) autres délinquants en cavale mais aussi pour démanteler d'autres réseaux.
La Gendarmerie nationale saisit l'occasion pour interpeller ceux qui sont légalement détenteurs d'armes à feu à prendre toutes les précautions afin que ces armes ne se retrouvent entre les mains de leurs progénitures ou de bandits.
La Gendarmerie Nationale, tout en remerciant la population pour sa franche collaboration, l'invite à redoubler de vigilance et à poursuivre les dénonciations aux numéros verts suivants :
16 ou 80 00 11 45 : Gendarmerie Nationale
1010 : Centre National de Veille et d'Alerte
17 : Police Nationale
Lefaso.net
Source : Page Facebook de la Gendarmerie nationale
Growing Disaster: The U.S. Navy’s Columbia-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, set to replace the Ohio-class as a key nuclear deterrent, face significant delays. The future USS District of Columbia (SSBN-826) is 16 months behind schedule, due to contractor issues in delivering critical components like the bow and turbine generators.
-These delays risk extending the aging Ohio-class submarines' service life to maintain fleet numbers.
-At an estimated $130 billion for construction and nearly $348 billion for lifecycle costs, the Columbia-class remains one of the Pentagon's priciest programs. Lawmakers are concerned about the impact on U.S. nuclear deterrence and naval readiness.
Columbia-Class Submarines Delayed: A New Nuclear Deterrent Faces SetbacksThe United States Navy's future Columbia-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines – which are set to replace the aging Ohio-class boats – will eventually become a major component of the nation's nuclear triad.
Each of the planned dozen boats will be equipped with sixteen SLBM tubes, as opposed to twenty-four SLBM tubes on the Ohio-class SSBNs. That was meant to reduce construction, operations, and maintenance costs. In addition, the new ballistic missile submarines will utilize the joint American-British developed Common Missile Compartment (CMC), which will also be installed on the Royal Navy's new Dreadnought-class submarines. It was designed to launch the Trident II D5 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). The joint effort has been reported to save each nation hundreds of millions of dollars.
On paper, the Columbia-class is just what the U.S. Navy needs to accomplish its nuclear deterrence mission. Back in reality, the situation is quite dire.
At issue is the fact that there is now a delay of as much as 16 months in delivering the lead boat, the future USS District of Columbia (SSBN-826). It was previously reported that the submarine could be delivered in Fiscal year 2028 (FY28) instead of the previously planned FY27 delivery.
A few months back, according to Bloomberg, the future SSBN-826's delay could be as much as 16 months, and it stems from contractor delays in delivering the vessel’s bow section and power generators, according to an internal assessment by the service.
Lawmakers Are Taking NoticeThe delays impacting the Columbia-class has been a seen as very serious, as it could force the U.S. Navy to keep the Ohio-class in service longer than expected. The original plan called for the first of the SSBNs to be retired beginning in 2027, with an additional boat leaving the service every year until 2040. Navy officials have said it could be possible to extend the service life of at least five of its Ohio-class subs by two to three years each so that the force would remain at 12 vessels or more for all but three years between 2024 and 2053.
That might not be good enough for lawmakers on Capitol Hill, as the House Armed Service's seapower subcommittee held a hearing Wednesday to review the sea service's fiscal 2025 shipbuilding request as well as this month’s review by the service of its ship programs.
Contractor Issues – Delays and More DelaysAccording to the report from Bloomberg, General Dynamics Corp. and Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) were charged with designing and constructing the 12-boat class, a roughly $130 billion program, with each sub assembled from six large hull segments.
During construction, the so-called "super modules" are each outfitted with systems and connections before final assembly by General Dynamics. Ideally, this would speed the production.
However, HII was to ship the bow in May 2025 from its Newport News, Virginia, yard to the General Dynamics facility in Groton, Connecticut. It is now estimated for June 2026, or 13 months late, according to internal service figures. The reason for the delays hasn't been made public.
HII said in a statement that it "experienced first-in-class challenges on a complex welding sequence," which required revising the plan for "the largest submarines ever built in the US." It further stated that the revised plan "was successfully executed and is now incorporated on follow-on ships."
In addition, Northrop Grumman Corp., which the U.S. Navy contracted to deliver the first ship's turbine generators by November 2021, had planned to provide months of margin before those components would be needed. Instead, the turbine generators are projected to be delivered in early 2025, further impacting the schedule. Each of the submarines has two generators that provide the vessel's propulsion and electrical power requirements.
Worth it in the End?While the submarines may be running late, they'll be worth it in the end – that is if they actually deliver. Maya Carlin, writing for The National Interest, also warned that the Columbia-class is on track to become one of the costliest Pentagon programs to ever be developed.
Though the total lifecycle price for the entire class is estimated at nearly $348 billion, including the projected costs to develop and purchase the 12 submarines and maintain them through the early 2040s, if they don't live up to the task, the U.S. Navy will be out more than just time and money.
Author Experience and Expertise: Peter SuciuPeter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu.
You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.
All images are Creative Commons.
Navy Drone Ship Orca is a Mac Truck for Mine Warfare: The Navy’s new Orca undersea drone is the size of a Mac truck and could be a rapid capability for deterring China.
The Extra Large Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (XLUUV,) fittingly known as Orca, is a fifty-one-foot autonomous submarine that can carry out clandestine missions like minelaying. The first Orca began testing in 2023 and late last month, the second Orca hit the water for sea acceptance testing off the coast of Southern California.
Seen side by side, the first two Orcas radiate mystery and menace. The Navy is evaluating several unmanned underwater vehicles for various missions, including large vehicles such as the sleek Manta.
But none match Orca for size and military capability.
And just in time, as the Navy is rushing to be at high readiness by 2027 when China’s Xi Jinping has ordered his forces to be ready to attack Taiwan.
The focus on 2027 has taken hold across the military budgets since it was first described as the Davidson window. “President Xi has instructed the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the Chinese military leadership to be ready by 2027 to invade Taiwan,” CIA Director William Burns stated in 2023.
“They are on a wartime footing,” Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Lisa Franchetti said of China during a talk at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in September.
If the CNO is serious about adding capability, Orca is an option. Accelerating the production of large ships is almost impossible in a tight timeframe. Only a few Navy programs can speed up to deliver in quantity by 2027. One of these is Orca.
The program, which is the Navy’s largest unmanned vehicle, started as a joint emergent urgent need requested by U.S. Indo-Pacific Command for an underwater mine-laying vessel. Boeing went on contract in 2019 and launched the first Orca prototype in 2023. Four more Orcas are under construction in Huntington Beach, California. The Orca hot production line would enable the Navy to add Orcas quickly before 2027.
The diesel-powered Orca is almost the size of an eighteen-wheeler, with thirty-four feet of space dedicated to payload. Think of Orca as a giant, undersea truck with limitless missions and a reported range of 6500 nautical miles. It’s by far the biggest undersea drone ship in the U.S. Navy. Recent tests demonstrated forty-eight hours of autonomous operations covering over 120 nautical miles.
Orca has numerous uses in deterring China. Each Orca will be equipped for clandestine placing of sea mines if a crisis escalates. Taiwan’s shallow waters and treacherous coastline are prime territory for mine warfare and, “a low-cost way to interfere with China’s military plans, increasing the risk of operational failure,” noted a trio of analysts.
Just as important, the U.S. Navy says Orca can perform complicated undersea mining operations that would otherwise be tasked to a manned submarine. Orca has a long-endurance capability, allowing it to operate autonomously for extended periods in challenging undersea environments. Its cost is much less than a manned platform and the risk to sailors is lower.
As CNO Franchetti said at CSIS, “We know we need to adopt robotic, cheaper autonomous technologies to help us complement and extend the reach and lethality of our manned fleet.”
Orca also has other potential uses, such as hunting Chinese submarines. The American strategy is counting on an undersea advantage to neutralize both Chinese conventional and nuclear submarine capabilities. China’s nuclear ballistic missile submarines are a growing problem. China deployed its new JL-3 (CH-SS-N-20) submarine-launched ballistic missile aboard the Type-094 submarines in 2022.
The extended range of that missile could allow Chinese submarines to lurk in forward locations and put targets in the continental United States within reach. An autonomous system like Orca lying in wait could make that much harder for China to accomplish.
All these capabilities enable Orca to assist the submarine force, freeing up manned submarines for other tasks. Orcas could be in use from the High North of the Arctic to the South China Seas, in which case the U.S. Navy is going to need more than five or six of them.
“China wants its navy to be capable of acting as part of an anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) force, a force that can deter U.S. intervention in a conflict in China’s near-seas region over Taiwan or some other issue or failing that, delay the arrival or reduce the effectiveness of intervening U.S. forces,” concluded Ron O’Rourke of the Congressional Research Service. The U.S. needs to prioritize its undersea advantage to nix Xi Jinping’s timeline.
For Franchetti, it’s personal. “I’m going to be CNO in 2027,” Franchetti said. “So, I am compelled to do more, and do more faster,” she concluded.
Adding more Orcas to the fleet would accomplish both tasks. “What we are doing now in support of unmanned vehicles is key to the future success of our great Navy,” Commander Timothy Rochholz, the commanding officer, of Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV) Flotilla Three at Naval Base Ventura County Port Hueneme, pointed out. “We must accomplish the mission our commanders ask of us, deliver Orca to the fleet, ready to fight, as soon as possible – that is our charge.”
About the Author:Dr. Rebecca Grant is a national security analyst and vice president, of defense programs for the Lexington Institute, a nonprofit public-policy research organization in Arlington, Virginia. She has held positions at the Pentagon, in the private sector and has led an aerospace and defense consultancy. Follow her on Twitter at @rebeccagrantdc.
Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.
Whom Shall I Vote For? That is the question American Arabs are asking and answering today.
No American candidate for the presidency should ever take the vote of any demographic group for granted, especially when the families and friends of that group overseas are under the threat of being killed by U.S.-supplied weapons. However, it’s not easy to determine who the majority of Arab Americans will support on November 5.
The Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump (78), is rolling the dice in hopes of reclaiming the White House. On the Democratic side, Vice President Kamala Harris (60) is making her case that she can connect with the aspirations of most Americans, Arab Americans in particular. Both sides have a fight on their hands.
Arab Americans Feel Betrayed by the Democratic PartyTrump’s recent rally in Michigan was an attempt to win over the majority of Arab American voters. Billboards lining Michigan highways and campaign visits highlight Trump’s promise to “stand for peace” in the Middle East while casting Harris as one-sided and unsympathetic to Arab American interests.
However, Trump has not publicly announced a strategy for ending the war through a ceasefire if elected. In fact, he reportedly told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “Do what you have to do,” signaling support for Israel’s military actions in Gaza and Lebanon. On the other hand, many Arab Americans are frustrated by what they see as insincerity from Vice President Kamala Harris on issues that matter to them.
Views from Arab American VotersA young Lebanese American voter from Tampa, Florida, Pierre Mokhtar, 26, shared his views on the election and who he’s voting for.
Mokhtar said, “The first time I ever voted was in 2016. I voted for Donald Trump. My intention is to vote for him again this time. He appeals to me the most, but I’m coming from a nuanced point of view. Many Arab Americans see Trump’s faults. One of them is his communication style.”
Mokhtar continued to explain his admiration for Trump: “He comes from outside the political class. There are pros and cons. The downside is that he doesn’t know how to work the political process properly. But the positive is he hasn’t been corrupted by the influence and time it takes to climb the political ladder.”
Many younger voters are pulling back from traditional politics and media, seeing them as relics that don’t serve their interests today. Trump’s recent appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience” podcast earned him the host’s endorsement, resonating with some younger voters.
Other Motivations for Why Trump Appeals to Young VotersData reveals that some of Trump’s highest approval ratings come from young men, who, in part, perceive him as stronger on protecting businesses and entrepreneurship. Mokhtar, from a family business background, touched on this issue: “As an Arab American, business appeals to most of us. Becoming a billionaire, regardless of where you started, is a significant accomplishment. No fool could do it. He’s clearly not a fool.”
Another Lebanese American, Robert Khoury, 52, shared his reasons for supporting Trump: “You have to vote for the lesser of two evils. I like Trump. He’s against wars. Yes, he says a lot of garbage, but at the end of the day, he means well. The man cares for everyone. The poor, the weak, and we want to avoid war. Watching his recent Michigan rally changed my mind about him. I wouldn’t vote for Harris for any reason. Michigan has the largest number of Arabs and Muslims in the United States. Trump is counting on their votes to win the state.”
Khoury went on to criticize the Biden administration’s handling of the Gaza-Israel-Lebanon conflict: “The Biden administration is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians—men, women, and children. And now, Lebanese. Why do they keep providing weapons to Israel?”
Arab Americans Want an Ally in the White HouseMany Arab Americans are eager to see a friend or ally in the White House who understands their aspirations, both economically and in foreign policy. Trump recently addressed a letter to the Lebanese American community, which said, “During my administration, we had peace in the Middle East, and we will have peace again very soon! I will fix the problems caused by Kamala Harris and Joe Biden and stop the suffering and destruction in Lebanon.”
Foreign policy is especially critical to Arab Americans in this violent time. Many have family members in Lebanon and Palestine who risk being killed every day. Yet, some Arab Americans who support Trump may want to pause and think twice.
The Case for Kamala HarrisOther Arab Americans support Vice President Kamala Harris. Mona Ali, a Miami resident, explained her endorsement: “I grew up in Dearborn, Michigan, and the values I was raised with have guided me to vote for Kamala Harris. I don’t believe that Donald Trump represents U.S. principles. As a woman, I’m concerned that women’s rights could be jeopardized if he is elected. If it starts with women’s health rights, where will it end?”
Former U.S. Ambassador to Morocco Edward Gabriel (1997–2001) spoke highly of Harris and is rallying support for her. Gabriel shared his thoughts on the election and detailed his reasons for backing Harris: “As a retired U.S. Ambassador, I’ve spent decades helping Lebanese Americans prosper here and advocating for peace in Lebanon. I met Harris in Flint, Michigan, and she assured me she was working toward a diplomatic solution for Lebanon.”
Gabriel said Harris and he discussed the need for Lebanon to elect a respected president, strengthen the Lebanese Armed Forces, and work toward sustainable peace along Lebanon’s borders. He believes this understanding will help Harris win over Lebanese Americans.
What’s Driving Arab Americans to the Voting Booth?When asked whether foreign policy or domestic issues drive Arab American voters, Gabriel commented: “It’s a combination of factors. Foreign policy is one, but Muslim and Arab Americans also believe Kamala will protect the rights of Muslims to practice their religion freely.”
During his first presidential run, Trump proposed a “Muslim ban” affecting several Muslim-majority countries, though it didn’t take effect. Nonetheless, he has promised to reinstate it and ban refugees from Gaza from entering the United States.
This election will be close. Arab American voters, like all Americans, are weighing their options carefully, caught between two candidates who each claim to champion their interests in different ways. As U.S. policies in the Middle East directly impact families and communities, they seek more than rhetoric; they demand genuine, consistent support for peace abroad and fair representation at home. This election is a pivotal moment for Arab Americans to assert their voices. With both parties courting their votes, neither should take this growing demographic for granted. Today, November 5, Arab Americans will make their voices heard, reminding candidates that their trust, like their vote, must be earned, not assumed.
Adnan Nasser is an independent foreign policy analyst and journalist with a focus on Middle East affairs. Follow him on Twitter @Adnansoutlook29.
Image: Shutterstock.com.
L'International fertilizer development Center (IFDC), en collaboration avec le programme « Soil Values » et les acteurs nationaux du Hub organise deux jours d'atelier à Ouagadougou du 5 au 6 novembre 2024. Le premier jour sera consacré à la compréhension du Hub régional et de ses rôles, à la collecte d'informations sur les initiatives liées aux engrais et à la santé des sols et à la priorisation de l'engagement du Hub au Burkina Faso. Le deuxième jour se penchera sur l'élaboration du plan d'action et les activités futures à conduire.
Le consortium Institut international d'agriculture tropicale (IITA), International fertilizer development center (IFDC), Africa plant nutrition institute (APNI), Office chérifien de phosphate Afrique (OCP-Africa), l'Université polytechnique Mohamed 6 (UM6P), a officiellement lancé le 26 juin 2024, le Hub régional pour les engrais et la santé des sols pour l'Afrique de l'Ouest et le Sahel.
Le Hub vise à améliorer la santé des sols et la productivité agricole à travers la région. Il est hébergé sur le campus de l'Institut international d'agriculture tropicale (IITA) à Ibadan, au Nigéria, avec un financement initial de la Banque mondiale et d'OCP-Africa.
Dr Poulma Louis Yaméogo représentant du secrétaire général du ministère en charge de l'AgricultureLe rôle principal du Hub est de fournir une assistance technique au développement et à la mise en œuvre d'investissements dans les engrais et la santé des sols dans les pays de l'Afrique de l'Ouest y compris la Mauritanie et le Tchad. Il est destiné aux pays de l'Afrique de l'Ouest et du Sahel afin d'améliorer la santé des sols à long terme et la gestion de la fertilité pour un rendement et une rentabilité accrue, une utilisation efficace des ressources (nutriments, eau, main-d'œuvre, semences) et la résilience au climat.
Après son lancement, le Hub régional passe maintenant à la phase de mise en œuvre qui est l'organisation des ateliers nationaux dans les pays.
Pour Dr Poulma Louis Yaméogo, représentant du secrétaire général du ministère en charge de l'agriculture, le Hub est une occasion pour l'ensemble des acteurs du secteur de l'agriculture de se réunir et de réfléchir sur les actions à mener pour faire face à la forte dégradation de la terre. Il pense que cet atelier est le bienvenu. Car, il est nécessaire que des réflexions soient menées en vue de trouver des solutions pour la préservation de la santé des sols.
Selon Dr Boubacar Diagana, directeur du département impact de l'IFDC global et représentant de l'IFDC au Sénégal, en 2050, il va falloir nourrir 10 milliards de personnes dans le monde.
Dr Boubacar Diagana directeur du département impact de l'IFDC global et représentant de l'IFDC au Sénégal« La population croît et les besoins alimentaires également. Donc, il faudrait produire pour nourrir toutes ces personnes. Nous constatons que la terre connaît un problème de dégradation. La terre se dégrade à un rythme rapide. La santé des sols est primordiale. Elle doit passer par l'utilisation raisonnée et équilibrée des engrais et une bonne pratique paysanne. Donc, au niveau ouest-africain, il y a cette initiative qui vise à coordonner tous nos efforts pour pouvoir protéger les sols », a-t-il indiqué
Rama Diallo
LeFaso.net