WAR 02-03-2018-to-02-09-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
(306) 01-13-2017-to-01-19-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...1-19-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(307) 01-20-2018-to-01-26-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...1-26-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(308) 01-27-2018-to-02-02-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...2-02-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

==========

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.france24.com/en/20180203-myanmar-denies-report-mass-graves-rakhine

03 February 2018 - 05H14

Myanmar denies report of mass graves in Rakhine

YANGON (AFP) -
Myanmar officials have denied a report of five mass graves of Rohingya in a village in crisis-hit Rakhine, a border region gutted by a military crackdown on the Muslim minority.

Myanmar troops are accused of waging an ethnic cleansing campaign against the Rohingya, nearly 700,000 of whom have fled to Bangladesh since last August.

Myanmar denies the allegation, saying it launched a proportionate crackdown on Rohingya rebels, but has blocked reporters and UN investigators from independently accessing the conflict zone.

On Saturday government media reported that Rakhine state authorities had refuted a recent Associated Press investigation that said testimony from Rohingya refugees and time-stamped cell phone videos revealed the existence of five previously unreported mass graves in Rakhine's Gu Dar Pyin village.

After an inspection of the village, a team of officials, police and locals "refuted the AP report," said the state-run Global New Light of Myanmar.

"The villagers reiterated they had not heard of any massacres near their village," it added.

However, authorities said there had been deadly clashes between security forces and Rohingya militants in the village on August 28, several days after the sweeping military crackdown was launched.

Nineteen "terrorists" were killed in the violence and buried, according to the report, which did not elaborate on the location or nature of the graves.

Myanmar's government spokesperson could not be reached for comment.

Myanmar has overwhelmingly denied any wrongdoing in the Rakhine crackdown, despite a flood of testimony from refugees describing security forces murdering civilians, committing mass rape and torching Rohingya villages to the ground.

Last month the army made a rare admission that four members of the security forces helped kill 10 Rohingya militant suspects on September 2 and left their bodies in a hastily dug pit.

Rights groups say that incident is the tip of the iceberg of abuses carried out by a military force with a grim history of atrocities across the country, which it ruled for five decades before ceding some power to a civilian government in 2016.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
SYRIAN ARMY FIRES ON ADVANCING TURKISH MILITARY COLUMNS
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...S-ON-ADVANCING-TURKISH-MILITARY-COLUMNS/page3

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.atimes.com/article/turkish-war-americas-making/

TURKEY SYRIA ANALYSIS

A Turkish war of America’s making

The US is offering the country, and the region, only incoherence and more empty promises

By BARAK BARFI
FEBRUARY 3, 2018 12:44 PM (UTC+8)

As Turkey intensifies its military campaign against Syrian Kurdish fighters, it is tempting to blame the violence on President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s strident jingoism and xenophobia.

After all, Erdogan has long warned that Turkey would never tolerate a Kurdish military presence on the country’s southern border; the recent offensive would seem to suggest that his words are being met with action.

And yet, while Erdogan may have ordered “Operation Olive Branch,” the real culprit is the United States’ myopic focus on vanquishing regional jihadism.

ters in the northern Aleppo countryside in Syria. Photo: Reuters / Khalil Ashawi
As Turkey intensifies its military campaign against Syrian Kurdish fighters, it is tempting to blame the violence on President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s strident jingoism and xenophobia.

After all, Erdogan has long warned that Turkey would never tolerate a Kurdish military presence on the country’s southern border; the recent offensive would seem to suggest that his words are being met with action.

And yet, while Erdogan may have ordered “Operation Olive Branch,” the real culprit is the United States’ myopic focus on vanquishing regional jihadism.

Bereft of a coherent Syria policy, successive US administrations have obsessed over targeting Islamic State (ISIS) without considering the full ramifications of their actions. Turkey’s incursion into northwestern Syria is just one consequence.

In July 2012, when the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) took over a string of Syrian border towns, Turkey was alarmed. The PYD is the Syrian branch of the Turkish Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has been waging a guerrilla-style war against Turkey’s government since 1984.

Initially, the US shared Erdogan’s concerns. In August 2012, then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton declared that “Syria must not become a haven for PKK terrorists.” But after ISIS captured large swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq, the US found in the PYD a useful ally. Soon, the US was providing weapons and training to the PYD’s armed wing.

Angered by these moves, Erdogan sought assurances that US support for the Kurds would be temporary and that Kurdish fighters would not cross the Euphrates River. But after the Turks received the guarantees they wanted, the well-armed Kurds crossed the Euphrates anyway.

Then, in August 2016, US vice-president Joe Biden publicly admonished the PYD fighters, warning that they would lose US support if they did not retreat. But the militants never fell back, and the US continued to arm and train them.

In April 2017, an incensed Erdogan declared that the Barack Obama administration had “deceived” Turkey on the PKK. “I don’t believe the Trump administration will do the same,” he predicted.

But Erdogan was misled once again. Despite reportedly promising that US weapons transfers would halt, President Donald Trump has not changed course, and US arms continue to flow to the Kurds.

For these reasons, Turkey’s leaders have lost faith in anything the US government says. The two countries cannot even agree on the contents of a presidential phone call, as their conflicting accounts of a conversation last month illustrates.

How did relations between two NATO allies reach such a low point?

Video

Much of the answer can be traced to Obama’s refusal to deploy combat troops against ISIS, in favor of a light footprint using local forces aided by US air strikes and training.

This approach was first tried in Iraq but backfired when the Iranian-supported Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) seized territory. The consequences of that decision, which the US has largely chosen to ignore, will come to a head in April, when PMF commanders plan to run in Iraq’s parliamentary election.

In Syria, the Kurds have proved to be a more reliable proxy. But their allegiance to the US has come at a cost.

Obama was willing to overlook their fighters’ ties to the PKK, using subtle hairsplitting to differentiate between indistinguishable groups. Never truly appreciating Erdogan’s apprehension, Obama chose to address Turkey’s concerns only superficially.

When Trump came to office, his lack of interest in details and inclination to grandstand exacerbated tensions. A key feature of Trump’s presidency has been his desire to ingratiate himself with guests by offering what he cannot deliver (as he did during a recent meeting with congressional Democrats on immigration).

This penchant to please appears to have resulted in Trump making promises to Erdogan that the Pentagon decision-makers guiding America’s Iraq and Syria policies never intended to keep.

But unlike US lawmakers, Erdogan has an army that marches at his discretion. And Turkey views the PKK as an existential threat and regards the PYD as its Syrian lethal appendage.

The muddled messaging by the US, delivered by a president unskilled in policy nuance or diplomacy, has inflamed a critical relationship, and in turn, jeopardized the fight against ISIS.

Despite Trump’s State of the Union claim that ISIS is nearly defeated, some 3,000 fighters remain in Syria, occasionally even capturing territory.

In short, America’s policy is self-defeating. Not only is it emboldening adversaries such as Iran and its PMF proxies, it is also imperiling some 2,000 US soldiers who are working with the Kurds in Syria.

Obama’s instincts were not wrong. Full-scale invasions rarely succeed in uprooting jihadist threats. But America’s subcontracting of its battles to local fighters in Syria has created new perils.

If Trump is to break with the past and earn the credit he is claiming, the US must find a new way to achieve its security goals without deploying entire divisions. At the moment, however, the US is offering Turkey – and the region – only incoherence and more empty promises.

Barak Barfi is a research fellow at New America, where he specializes in Arab and Islamic affairs.

More on this topic
Turkish forces and Free Syrian Army members hold flags on Mount Barsaya, northeast of Afrin, Syria January 28, 2018. Photo: Reuters/Khalil Ashawi
Turkey, Kurds play king of Syrian hill
ASIA TIMES STAFF

Vladimir Putin fires a sport gun at a sports complex outside Sochi on March 9, 2012. Photo: AFP / Ria Novosti / Alexey Druzhinin
Putin’s Sochi conference on Syria looks to be a talking shop
SAMI MOUBAYED

A Syrian opposition fighter takes a selfie as fighters walk through Syria in front of Turkish troops near the Syrian border at Hassa, Hatay province, on January 22, 2018. Photo: AFP/Bulent Kilic

America’s Syrian humiliation is worse than it looks
DAVID P. GOLDMAN
EVEN MORE
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...r_stance_on_russia_nuclear_threat_113006.html

Trump Taking Tougher Stance on Russia Nuclear Threat

By Robert Burns
February 03, 2018

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration on Friday announced it will continue much of the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons policy, but take a more aggressive stance toward Russia. It said Russia must be convinced it would face “unacceptably dire costs” if it were to threaten even a limited nuclear attack in Europe.

The sweeping review of U.S. nuclear policy does not call for any net increase in strategic nuclear weapons — a position that stands in contrast to President Donald Trump’s statement, in a tweet shortly before he took office, that the U.S. “must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.” In his State of the Union address Tuesday, he made no mention of expansion, though he said the arsenal must deter acts of aggression.

A 74-page report summarizing the review’s findings calls North Korea a “clear and grave threat” to the U.S. and its allies. It asserts that any North Korean nuclear attack against the U.S. or its allies will result in “the end of that regime.”

It also cast China as a potential nuclear adversary, saying the U.S. arsenal is tailored to “prevent Beijing from mistakenly concluding” that it could gain advantage by using its nuclear weapons in Asia, or that “any use of nuclear weapons, however limited, is acceptable.”

The Pentagon-led review of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and the policies that govern it was ordered by Trump a year ago. In a written statement, Trump said U.S. strategy is designed to make use of nuclear weapons less likely. In an apparent reference to the threat of catastrophic cyberattack, he said the U.S. aims to strengthen deterrence of major attacks against the U.S. and its allies, including those that “may not come in the form of nuclear weapons.”

Known officially as a nuclear posture review, and customarily done at the outset of a new administration, the report drew blistering criticism from arms control groups.

“President Trump is embarking on a reckless path — one that will reduce U.S. security both now and in the longer term,” said Lisbeth Gronlund, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. She said the administration is blurring the line between nuclear and conventional war-fighting.

The Trump administration concluded that the U.S. should largely follow its predecessor’s blueprint for modernizing the nuclear arsenal, including new bomber aircraft, submarines and land-based missiles. It also endorsed adhering to existing arms control agreements, including the New START treaty that limits the United States and Russia each to 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads on a maximum of 700 deployed launchers.

The treaty, negotiated under President Barack Obama, entered into force on Feb. 5, 2011, and its weapons limits must be met by Monday. The U.S. says it has been in compliance with the limits since August and it expects the Russians to comply by Monday’s deadline. As of Sept. 1, the last date for which official figures are available, Russia was below the launcher limit but slightly above the warhead limit, at 1,561.

“Moscow has repeatedly stated its intention to meet those limits on time, and we have no reason to believe that that won’t be the case,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Thursday.

The Pentagon’s nuclear review concluded that while arms control can advance American interests, “further progress is difficult to envision,” in light of what the U.S. considers Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and violations of existing arms deals. Administration officials briefed Russian and Chinese officials Friday prior to the review’s public release.

The Trump nuclear doctrine breaks with Obama’s in ending his push to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. defense policy. Like Obama, Trump would consider using nuclear weapons only in “extreme circumstances,” while maintaining a degree of ambiguity about what that means. But Trump sees a fuller deterrent role for these weapons, as reflected in the plan to develop new capabilities to counter Russia in Europe.

The administration’s view is that Russian policies and actions are fraught with potential for miscalculation leading to an uncontrolled escalation of conflict in Europe. It specifically points to a Russian doctrine known as “escalate to de-escalate,” in which Moscow would use or threaten to use smaller-yield nuclear weapons in a limited, conventional conflict in Europe in the belief that doing so would compel the U.S. and NATO to back down.

“Recent Russian statements on this evolving nuclear weapons doctrine appear to lower the threshold for Moscow’s first-use of nuclear weapons,” the review said.

The administration proposes a two-step solution.

First, it would modify “a small number” of existing long-range ballistic missiles carried by Trident strategic submarines to fit them with smaller-yield nuclear warheads. John Rood, the undersecretary of defense for policy, declined to provide an estimate of the cost, saying it would be partially included in the 2019 budget that will be submitted to Congress later this month. He said the missile would be fielded “in the near term,” but he refused to be more specific.

Second, “in the longer term,” the administration would develop a nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile — re-establishing a weapon that existed during the Cold War but was retired in 2011 by the Obama administration.

Robert Soofer, a senior nuclear policy official at the Pentagon who helped direct the policy review, said Moscow is likely to push back on the U.S. plan for fielding those two additional weapons.

“I’m sure they won’t respond well,” Soofer said Thursday.

The press secretary at the Russian Embassy in Washington, Nikolay Lakhonin, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Associated Press writer Josh Lederman contributed to this report.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/02/much-political-warfare-in-our-future/

NTEL & CYBER, LAND, NUCLEAR WAR, STRATEGY & POLICY

Much ‘Political Warfare’ In Our Future

By SETH JONES
on February 02, 2018 at 1:02 PM
8 Comments

Our partnership with the Center for Strategic and International Studies resumes with this piece by Seth Jones, part of a CSIS series on the National Defense Strategy, Nuclear Posture Review and the Missile Defense Review.

As our intrepid readers would know, Deputy Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan, Deputy Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas A. Shannon Jr. unveil the nuclear review today at 2:30, although a nearly final draft has already been leaked.

Jones argues the incredibly high costs of either conventional or nuclear war will mean much lower level conflict, especially political warfare. Read on! The Editor.


The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy outline a shift from counterterrorism to inter-state competition with China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. However, U.S. policymakers need to be prepared for much of this competition to occur at the unconventional level, since the costs of conventional and nuclear war would likely be catastrophic.

DOWNLOAD FULL REPORT

U.S. strategy is evolving from a post-9/11 focus on counterterrorism against groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State to competition between state adversaries. As the National Defense Strategy notes, “Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security.”[1] This shift has significant implications for the U.S. military, since it indicates a need to improve U.S. capabilities to fight—and win—possible wars against China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea if deterrence fails.

Though it is prudent to prepare for conventional—and even nuclear—war, the risks of conflict are likely to be staggering. Numerous war games and analyses of U.S. conflicts with Russia in the Baltics, China in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea, and North Korea on the Korean peninsula suggest the possibility of at least tens of thousands of dead and billions of dollars in economic damages. In addition, these conflicts could escalate to nuclear war, which might raise the number of dead to hundreds of thousands or even millions.

According to one analysis, for example, a U.S. war with China could reduce China’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by between 25 and 35 percent, and the United States’ GDP by between 5 and 10 percent. The study also assessed that both countries could suffer substantial military losses to bases, air forces, surface naval forces, and submarines; significant political upheaval at home and abroad; and huge numbers of civilian deaths.[2]

These costs and risks will likely give Washington, Moscow, Beijing, Tehran — and even Pyongyang — pause, raising several questions. Will these high costs deter the possibility of conventional and nuclear war? If so, what are the implications for the United States as it plans for a rise in inter-state competition?

The Cold War offers a useful historical lens. NATO planners prepared for a possible Soviet and Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. The U.S. military, for example, deployed forces to the Fulda Gap, roughly 60 miles outside of Frankfurt, Germany, as one of several likely invasion routes by Soviet and other Warsaw Pact forces. NATO also planned for nuclear war. The United States built up its nuclear arsenal and adopted strategies like Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The concept of MAD assumed that a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would result in the annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.

The threat of such heavy costs deterred conflict, despite some close calls. During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the two superpowers nearly went to war after a U.S. U-2 aircraft took pictures of Soviet medium-range and intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles (MRBMs and IRBMs) under construction in Cuba. But Washington and Moscow ultimately assessed that direct conflict was too costly. Deterrence held.

Instead, the United States and Soviet Union engaged in intense security competition at the unconventional level across Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Europe. Both countries backed substate groups and states to expand their power and influence. Under the Reagan Doctrine, for example, the United States provided overt and covert assistance to anticommunist governments and resistance movements to roll back communist supporters.

The Soviets did the same and supported states and substate actors across the globe. In addition, the Soviets adopted an aggressive, unconventional approach best captured in the phrase “active measures” or aktivnyye meropriatia. As used by the KGB, active measures included a wide range of activities designed to influence populations across the globe. The KGB established front groups, covertly broadcast radio and other programs, orchestrated disinformation campaigns, and conducted targeted assassinations. The Soviets used active measures as an offensive instrument of Soviet foreign policy to extend Moscow’s influence and power throughout the world, including in Europe.

Unlike the Cold War, the United States confronts multiple state adversaries today—not one. As the National Defense Strategy argues, the United States is situated in “a security environment more complex and volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory” where “the central challenges to U.S. prosperity and security is the reemergence of long-term, strategic competition by what the National Security Strategy classifies as revisionist powers.”

Given the likely costs and risks of conventional and nuclear war with China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, much of the competition will likely be unconventional—and include what former U.S. State Department diplomat George Kennan referred to as “political warfare.” The term political warfare refers to the employment of military, intelligence, diplomatic, financial, and other means — short of conventional war — to achieve national objectives. It can include overt operations like public broadcasting and covert operations like psychological warfare and support to underground resistance groups.[3]

The United States’ adversaries today are already engaged in political warfare. Russia, for instance, utilizes a range of means to pursue its interests, such as technologically sophisticated offensive cyber programs, covert action and psychological operations. Moscow has conducted overt operations like the use of RT and Sputnik, as well as semitransparent and covert efforts.

It has also become increasingly active in supporting state and substate actors in countries like Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan, and Libya to expand its influence in the Middle East, Asia, Europe, and even North Africa. Finally, Russia is attempting to exploit European and transatlantic fissures and support populist movements to undermine European Union and NATO cohesion, thwart economic sanctions, justify or obscure Russian actions, and weaken the attraction of Western institutions for countries on Russia’s periphery.

Iran is using political warfare tools like propaganda, cyber attacks, and aid to sub-state proxies to support its security priorities, influence events and foreign perceptions, and counter threats. Tehran is also assisting state and substate actors in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, and Afghanistan. Iran supports Shia militia groups in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, and Houthi rebels in Yemen.

In the South China Sea, China is pouring millions of tons of sand and concrete onto reefs, creating artificial islands. It is also conducting a sophisticated propaganda campaign, utilizing economic coercion and using fleets of fishing vessels to solidify its assertion of territorial and resource rights throughout the Pacific. Finally, Beijing is targeting the U.S. government, its allies, and U.S. companies as part of a cyber-espionage campaign.

With political warfare already alive and well with the United States’ state adversaries, there are several implications for U.S. defense strategy.

First, U.S. policymakers need to be prepared for significant inter-state competition to occur at the unconventional level, since the costs and risks of conventional and nuclear war may be prohibitively high. This should involve thinking through trade-offs regarding force posture, procurement, acquisition, and modernization. A U.S. military that predominantly focuses on preparing for conventional or nuclear war with state competitors—by modernizing the nuclear triad, building more resilient space capabilities, acquiring more effective counter-space systems, equipping U.S. forces with high-technology weapons, and emphasizing professional military education (PME) to fight conventional wars—may undermine U.S. unconventional readiness and capabilities.

Second, even organizations that already engage in some types of political warfare—such as U.S. Special Operations Command and the U.S. intelligence community—will need to continue shifting some of their focus from counterterrorism to political warfare against state adversaries. This might include, for example, providing more aid to the Baltic States to conduct an effective resistance campaign against unconventional action by Moscow. Or it might involve aiding proxies in countries like Syria and Yemen to counter Iranian-backed organizations. It could also include improving the border security capabilities and effectiveness of Ukrainian military and police units against Russian-backed rebels.

Third, the United States should invest in resources and capabilities that allow the military and other U.S. government agencies to more effectively engage in political warfare—and to provide agencies with sufficient authorities to conduct political warfare. One example is improving capabilities to conduct aggressive, offensive cyber operations. Other examples might include advanced electronic attack capabilities, psychological warfare units, security force assistance brigades, and precision munitions.

Recognizing that other powers routinely conduct political warfare, George Kennan encouraged U.S. leaders to disabuse themselves of the “handicap” of the “concept of a basic difference between peace and war” and to wake up to “the realities of international relations—the perpetual rhythm of struggle, in and out of war.” Kennan’s advice may be even more relevant today in such a competitive world.

DOWNLOAD FULL REPORT

[1] U.S Department of Defense, Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, January 2018), 1, https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf.

[2] David C. Gompert, Astrid Stuth Cevallos, and Cristina L. Garafola, War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2016), xiv, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1100/RR1140/RAND_RR1140.pdf.

[3] George F. Kennan, “Organizing Political Warfare,” April 30, 1948, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/114320.pdf?v=944c40c2ed95dc52d2d6966ce7666f90.

This report is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

37
SHARES
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-libyan-oilfield-local-official-idUSKBN1FN0HJ

#WORLD NEWS FEBRUARY 3, 2018 / 7:50 AM / UPDATED 13 HOURS AGO

At least five killed in clashes near Libyan oilfield: local official

Reuters Staff
2 MIN READ

BENGHAZI, Libya (Reuters) - Libyan forces killed three suspected Islamic State fighters near an oilfield in the southeast of the country, a local official said on Saturday.

Two soldiers were also killed and five wounded during clashes over two days, one of which took place near the Dhahra oilfield on Saturday, said Umar al-Faqeh, head of the Maradah administration to which the area belongs. There had been fighting in another area on Friday, he added.

The Dhahra field is operated by Waha, a joint-venture between Libya’s state National Oil Company and U.S. firms Hess, Marathon and ConocoPhillips.

The oil protection force guarding the Waha operations is allied to Libya’s eastern government. The U.N.-backed administration is in the capital, Tripoli, in western Libya.

Libya has been mired in conflict since the toppling of long-time ruler Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

In December, armed men blew up a Waha pipeline pumping crude to Es Sider port, temporarily cutting Libyan output by around 100,000 barrels per day. Officials blamed “terrorists”, without giving details.

The area has poor security and sources say it has been populated by Islamic State fighters since they lost control of their stronghold in Libya, the central city of Sirte, in 2016.

Reporting by Ayman al-Warfalli; Writing by Ulf Laessing; Editing by Andrew Bolton
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...nd-prepares-for-militant-attack-idUSKBN1FO04L

#World News February 3, 2018 / 11:00 PM / Updated 12 hours ago

It's when, not if: Singapore worries, and prepares, for militant attack

Fathin Ungku, John Geddie
6 Min Read

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Armed officers patrol a train station where television screens and giant posters warn of the threat from militants. Nearby, fake gunmen storm a shopping mall in one of many recent terror attack simulations.

But this is not some war-ravaged country. It is one of the safest in the world, Singapore.

The wealthy island-state has a near-perfect record of keeping its shores free from terror, but as it prepares to host defence ministers from around Southeast Asia this week, it appears to have good reason to have prioritized stopping the spread of militancy in the region.

The cosmopolitan financial hub, which was second only to Tokyo in The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Safe Cities Index in 2017, says it has been the target of militant plots for years, some stemming from its Muslim-majority neighbors, and that it’s a matter of ‘when’ and not ‘if’ militants will strike.

“Singapore continues to face a serious security threat from both homegrown radicalised individuals and foreign terrorists who continue to see Singapore as a prized target,” Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said in response to e-mailed questions from Reuters.

Singapore authorities say they have been a target of Islamic extremism since the 1990s, but efforts to deter terrorism have stepped up markedly in recent years with more frequent attacks on Western countries and after Islamic State (IS) militants briefly took over a town in the southern Philippines last year.

Raising further concerns about the threat to the island, a Singaporean soldier has featured on a number of Islamic State promotional videos, most recently in December where he was filmed executing men alongside other militants.

In its inaugural Terrorism Threat Assessment Report released last year, the MHA said Islamic State has demonstrated that Singapore is “very much on its radar” and that the threat to the country remains “the highest in recent years” - claims that are backed up by security experts.

“Singapore, being known as safe and secure, makes it such a risk target,” said Dan Bould, Asia director of crisis management at professional services firm Aon and a former captain in the British army.

“If there’s an attack in the Philippines, it may get half an hour in a 24-hour news cycle. An attack in Singapore with all the multicultural individuals operating here, will be within the narrative for a few days at least.”

In early 2017, Aon lifted Singapore in the terrorism and political violence category of its annual risk map from negligible to low risk.

MOBILE APP

The reality is that Singapore has so far escaped the attacks seen in other major world cities like New York, London and Berlin in recent years. That’s why it is at the bottom of the 2017 Global Terror Index, with no reported terror-related attacks post 9/11.

But three in four Singaporeans believe that it’s only a matter of time before the country experiences a terror attack, a poll by the local newspaper Sunday Times last year showed.

Singapore authorities certainly do not want their citizens to be complacent. Everyone, including school children, is encouraged to download a mobile app that alerts them to emergency situations and allows them to send in videos and photos of suspicious events.

The MHA said that as of the end of last year, more than 1.3 million devices were equipped with the SGSecure app, a large chunk of the population of around 5.6 million.

Simulations of terror attacks - including one just over a week ago where masked gunman stormed a children’s activity center on the resort island of Sentosa - are regular. Last month, Singapore’s military undertook its biggest mobilization exercise in more than three decades, including an inter-agency response to the simulation of a gunman at its national stadium.

Authorities said last year there was reliable information that IS militants were considering carrying out an attack in Singapore in the first half of 2016, a threat which they said was countered.

In August 2016, neighboring Indonesia, which has the world’s largest Muslim population, arrested six suspects with links to IS who were accused of plotting rocket attacks on Singapore’s iconic Marina Bay Sands hotel.

Malaysia, Singapore’s northern neighbor which also has a Muslim-majority, and Indonesia say thousands of their citizens sympathize with IS and hundreds are believed to have traveled to Syria to join the group. Regional security officials say many are returning home after reverses in the Middle East.

HARDLINE APPROACH

Singapore takes a hardline approach to suspected radicals and Bilveer Singh, an adjunct senior fellow at the Rajaratnam School of International Studies, says it is one of the reasons behind its success so far.

The most controversial measure at its disposal is its colonial-era Internal Security Act which allows for suspects to be held for lengthy periods without trial.

The MHA said it currently has 20 people detained under the Act for “terrorism-related” activities, and since 2002 has held close to 90 for such activities.
“ISA is a fantastic deterrent, and so far it has worked,” Singh said.

Authorities have also deported scores of foreigners for suspected radicalism in recent years, and in October banned two popular Muslim preachers from Zimbabwe and Malaysia from entering the city-state, saying their views bred intolerance and were a risk to its social harmony.

Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan
 

Doomer Doug

TB Fanatic
Turkey threatens to attack US troops, and HAMAS makes war threat

Here are two more links that should ramp up your blood pressure, Housecarl. Yep, when you add in the threat of a terror attack on the Superbowl, things are simmering along nicely. :shkr:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...rthern-syria-may-be-targeted-its-armed-forces


Turkey Warns US Troops In Northern Syria May Be Targeted By Its Armed Forces
Profile picture for user Tyler Durden

by Tyler Durden
Sun, 02/04/2018 - 13:45

The other link is here.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-04/hamas-leader-warns-war-israel-will-erupt-within-days


Hamas Leader Warns War With Israel Will Erupt "Within Days"
Profile picture for user Tyler Durden

by Tyler Durden
Sun, 02/04/2018 - 12:26
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Here are two more links that should ramp up your blood pressure, Housecarl. Yep, when you add in the threat of a terror attack on the Superbowl, things are simmering along nicely. :shkr:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...rthern-syria-may-be-targeted-its-armed-forces


Turkey Warns US Troops In Northern Syria May Be Targeted By Its Armed Forces
Profile picture for user Tyler Durden

by Tyler Durden
Sun, 02/04/2018 - 13:45

The other link is here.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-04/hamas-leader-warns-war-israel-will-erupt-within-days


Hamas Leader Warns War With Israel Will Erupt "Within Days"
Profile picture for user Tyler Durden

by Tyler Durden
Sun, 02/04/2018 - 12:26

Hitting the Super Bowl with our current POTUS would just about guarantee the "reply" that such acts historically have triggered, as opposed to the extreme restraint shown in 2001.

The same goes for Erdogan targeting US troops...
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2...ture-war-chuck-krulak/145665/?oref=d-topstory

Want to Understand the Future of War? Talk to Chuck Krulak

BY TOBIAS NAEGELE
FOUNDING EDITOR OF MARINE CORPS TIMES
READ BIO
FEBRUARY 3, 2018

As Marine commandant, Krulak bucked Pentagon wisdom and rebuilt the Corps for small, messy conflicts. Now his ideas run through the National Defense Strategy, urban-ops doctrine, and Jim Mattis' head.

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — Three days before the Pentagon will publish its new National Defense Strategy, Chuck Krulak opens a 20-year-old PowerPoint deck on a big iMac screen and walks me through its prescient description of the world to come.

“We saw shifting power, to China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam. [Economic power] was going, whether you liked it or not, to the Pacific,” he says, recalling discussions from the late 1990s, when he was the 31st Commandant of the Marine Corps. “Then I said there’s going to be increasing cultural and religious strife…the rise of the non-state.…The change in weapons and information technology, the key there being it was accessible to everyone, because a lot of it was being driven by other countries.”

Just as significant was “the CNN effect, which was really missed by a lot of people: Not only was there a rapid change in technology and everyone could get to it, but our enemy had watched the impact of our capability, they’d seen it on CNN,” Krulak recalls. “And their answer to it was asymmetric warfare: Not the Son of Desert Storm but the Stepchild of Chechnya.”

Even now, as the Pentagon pivots to confront the “revisionist powers” of Russia and China, the asymmetric threat looms large. As commandant, Krulak developed a strategic framework to meet that challenge and reoriented the Marine Corps to face it. Among the rising stars back then was one Col. James Mattis, a warrior-intellectual who earned his first star halfway through Krulak’s tenure. Today, Mattis is defense secretary — and there are traces of Krulak’s ideas embedded in his brand-new National Defense Strategy, released on Jan. 19 and meant to guide the American military for years to come.

Seated in his home office, surrounded by mementos of his 36 years in the Corps, Krulak revisits that vision and tries to offer perspective. There is a Vietnam-era M1 assault rifle over the window, bookshelves to one side, and pictures all around. There are photos with President Reagan and the first President Bush, small statues, a beret from the French Foreign Legion. Swords, shadowboxes and more pictures. It’s our first face-to-face conversation in 19 years.

Back when he was commandant, I was editor of Navy Times (and the Marine Corps Edition that would later become Marine Corps Times). We interviewed him in his office at the old Navy Annex, in the Commandant’s House at the Marine Barracks in Washington, D.C., in our offices in Virginia. He visited for editorial boards, and on a few occasions dropped by without notice. On one of those visits he warned, at rising pitch and volume, about a future that would look more like Chechnya than Desert Storm.

With hindsight, that seems logical; at the time, it seemed overwrought. Chechnya was a debacle for a beleaguered post-Soviet Russian army, an urban quagmire of house-to-house fighting against an embittered, ideologically motivated break-away state. The United States faced no such danger. We had survived, and learned from, the Battle of Mogadishu.

Krulak and his team of thinkers and planners sensed otherwise. They saw that the 1994-95 Battle of Grozny would somehow play out for the United States in the not-so-distant future. And it did, a decade later in Fallujah, and a decade after that in Raqqa.

The CNN effect, meanwhile, only expanded and morphed. Twitter, WhatsApp, and Facebook Live have replaced cable news as the viral media of choice. Smartphones put video cameras and an internet connection in the hands of the masses. The Army and Marine Corps’ new joint publication on Urban Operations, published in December, makes that clear: “The proliferation of cell phones, video cameras, Internet capability, and media outlets ensure close observation of the activities of Army/Marine Corps forces … public information of Army/Marine Corps operations is available faster than the internal military information systems can process it … Under media scrutiny, the action of one Soldier/Marine has significant strategic implications.”

So it is that the Strategic Corporal, a concept Krulak introduced in the 1990s, is now fully ingrained in military doctrine.

The CNN effect went further than defining global sentiment, Krulak says. It taught America’s enemies about its strengths and weaknesses.

“Where were we weak? We were weak in any kind of close terrain. If we got into urban environments, if we got into woods, if we got into any place where our systems, our overhead systems, couldn’t see, if they were able to get us dispersed, if we weren’t able to bring together our combat power, if we were dumb enough to continue to drive down the same roads, to walk like we did in Vietnam or drive like we did in Iraq, they would blow us up,” he says, leaning forward now in his chair and gesticulating to emphasize the point. “This is what I was telling, and the Marine Corps was telling, DoD. And they thought we were crazy.”

Who Would Fight the Three-Block War?
In 1995, Krulak created the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory to explore these and other ideas. His team of writers and thinkers formed a sort of internal think tank, posing questions and challenging assumptions. “I’m saying then, ‘If this is all true, then what’s going to happen?’” Krulak says. “And what’s going to happen is what came to be known as the Three-Block War — really, hybrid warfare.”

The Three-Block War would come to define urban operations in the post-9/11 world. American troops found themselves simultaneously providing humanitarian assistance, conducting peacekeeping and stability operations, and engaging in direct combat, all within blocks of each other. The participants would be young soldiers and Marines, often acting independently, who would have to make snap judgments with potentially long-range consequences.

For Marines to survive those tests, Krulak reasoned, they had to be educated, trained, and prepared to make the right choices under pressure. That meant intensifying and extending training and imbuing it with history, ethics, and tactical decision-making drills. The Corps extended boot camp by 10 days, increased physical training, gave more time to drill instructors to form their charges. They also added The Crucible, a 54-hour test of endurance in which sleep- and food-deprived recruits learned they couldn’t make it through alone; they would rely on their teammates or they would fail. Only those who made it through The Crucible earned the title “Marine.”

“We do two things: Make Marines and win battles,” Krulak says. The Strategic Corporal and The Three-Block War tracked directly to both. Making better decisionmakers and equipping Marines to make the right moral and ethical choices were his foremost objectives, and these tied into the very essence of what the Marine Corps is in the eyes of the American people.

The roots of that idea trace back a generation. In 1957, then-Commandant Gen. Randolph Pate wrote to Krulak’s father, Lt. Gen. Victor “Brute” Krulak:

“Dear Brute,
Why does the U.S. need a Marine Corps?
When convenient, would you jot down some answers to the above question?”

Chuck Krulak fetches a copy of his father’s book, “First to Fight,” and reads to me excerpts from Brute Krulak’s storied reply: “The United States does not need a Marine Corps, mainly because she has a fine modern Army and a vigorous Air Force. Her Army fights on the ground – on any kind of ground – and does it well. Her Air Force fights in the air and does it well too. Marines are designed to fight on the ground and in the air just like the Army and the Air Force and have no corner on skill in either place.

“The Marines claim to have a mystical competence in landing operations, but they really don’t. There are thousands and thousands of soldiers who have been carefully trained…and they can do anything Marines can do.”

This is not what one expects from a Marine, but there is a point. He concludes: “We exist today, we flourish today, not because of what we are or what we know we can do, but because of what the grass roots of our country believes we are and believes we can do.” The American people, Krulak argued, believe “Marines are masters of a form of unfailing alchemy that converts un-oriented youths into proud, self-reliant, stable citizens.… Should the people ever lose that conviction – as the result of our failure to meet their high – almost spiritual – standards, the Marine Corps will then quickly disappear.”

The Strategic Corporal was at once a response to that perpetual existential threat – unlike any other military service, the Marines are institutionally paranoid about their survival – and also a response to the changing strategic realities of modern combat: that any institution operating in the public eye derives its power and influence from the public’s trust and is only so good as its most junior and most visible members.

The Strategic Corporal reflected a clear understanding that the moral failure of a single individual could have devastating impact. The United States had lost its moral standing in Vietnam after the massacre at Mai Lai; it lost it in Iraq after photos emerged of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. In Afghanistan, photos and videos of abuses, such as Marines urinating on the corpses of Taliban fighters, undermined the mission and rallied the enemy, now no longer in just one country but, through the power of social media, around the globe.

Indeed, the roots of The Crucible trace to September 1995, just a couple of months after Krulak became commandant: “When two Marines and a sailor raped a little girl in Okinawa, that had massive strategic importance,” he says. “We’ve never gotten over it.”

The incident launched a protest movement that continues to this day. Its implications will reverberate even after 2024, when the Marines move to Guam and return Futenma Air Station to the Okinawans.

The Future
Though Mattis makes no explicit mention of ethics or morals in his defense strategy, he does highlight professional education, specifically “deepening our knowledge of history” and emphasizing “independence of action.” He argues for expanded international partnerships, increasing interoperability and fortifying alliances, which likewise depend on human interaction and the building of trust. It goes without saying that violations of that trust undermine such relationships.

Most important, he writes, “We must anticipate the implications of new technologies on the battlefield, rigorously define the military problems anticipated in future conflict, and foster a culture of experimentation and calculated risk-taking.”

Similar thoughts had driven Krulak to create the Warfighting Lab. Its early Hunter Warrior and Urban Warrior experiments involved unmanned surveillance aircraft, pocket-sized computers with GPS navigation, unmanned helicopter resupply, and new tactics and procedures developed or adapted to take advantage of those tools. The ideas seemed almost fanciful then, but within a few short years they were commonplace on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The ability to use technology is going to prove even more important when dealing with an enemy like China, Krulak says now, because of advances not only in communications and surveillance, but also in pure destructive power. “They have systems now that fire rockets, artillery, that literally can obliterate an entire grid square. So the ability to mass your forces in the way Clausewitz talked about mass, those days are probably over. The idea of crossing into Kuwait with two divisions in the Tiger Brigade, to be able to do that will be really, really difficult. Technology will become more and more important to the battlefield and to the battle space.”

Maneuvering Navy ships close to shore is increasingly risky, he notes. “But that opens the door for experimentation with deception methods,” Krulak adds, recalling a scene from Master and Commander in which Capt. Jack Aubrey escapes pursuit by using a small decoy float to confuse his enemy. “We need an innertube, whatever, that has the ability to simulate the radar signature of an aircraft carrier.”

Some things don’t change in warfare. “You always want to reach back to your touchstone and think about how to deceive the enemy,” he says. In the future, “we’ll need the ability to simulate a headquarters, because they’re going to want to go after headquarters quickly; the ability to work very dispersed, because of the ability to wipe out an entire grid square. … We’ve got to recognize that if you’re going to have that kind of lethality, then you’re going to have ways to deceive that lethality.

“The asymmetric warrior is always going to have the advantage. Why? Because he isn’t encumbered by bureaucracy,” Krulak says. “If we want to buy something, or invent something, or go after something, it is such a pain in the ass to do it. Whereas that cyber guy, he can just go and buy” what he needs and program it to do what he wants it to do.

That cyber enemy is actively using deception to try to foil American systems and defenses. America will have to respond in kind, just as Lucky Jack Aubrey might have done in his day, when the sea was as vast and unknowable as cyberspace is today. How will the U.S. military prevail? The answer should be familiar, Krulak suggests: “You’re going to have to use deception to beat the cyber guy.”

Tobias Naegele was the founding editor of Marine Corps Times. Now an independent writer and editor, he is working on a book about Gen. Krulak, the Strategic Corporal, winning battles, and making Marines. FULL BIO
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/03/world/middleeast/israel-airstrikes-sinai-egypt.html

MIDDLE EAST

Secret Alliance: Israel Carries Out Airstrikes in Egypt, With Cairo’s O.K.

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
FEB. 3, 2018

The jihadists in Egypt’s Northern Sinai had killed hundreds of soldiers and police officers, pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, briefly seized a major town and begun setting up armed checkpoints to claim territory. In late 2015, they brought down a Russian passenger jet.

Egypt appeared unable to stop them, so Israel, alarmed at the threat just over the border, took action.

For more than two years, unmarked Israeli drones, helicopters and jets have carried out a covert air campaign, conducting more than 100 airstrikes inside Egypt, frequently more than once a week — and all with the approval of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

The remarkable cooperation marks a new stage in the evolution of their singularly fraught relationship. Once enemies in three wars, then antagonists in an uneasy peace, Egypt and Israel are now secret allies in a covert war against a common foe.

For Cairo, the Israeli intervention has helped the Egyptian military regain its footing in its nearly five-year battle against the militants. For Israel, the strikes have bolstered the security of its borders and the stability of its neighbor.

Their collaboration in the North Sinai is the most dramatic evidence yet of a quiet reconfiguration of the politics of the region. Shared enemies like ISIS, Iran and political Islam have quietly brought the leaders of several Arab states into growing alignment with Israel — even as their officials and news media continue to vilify the Jewish state in public.

American officials say Israel’s air campaign has played a decisive role in enabling the Egyptian armed forces to gain an upper hand against the militants. But the Israeli role is having some unexpected consequences for the region, including on Middle East peace negotiations, in part by convincing senior Israeli officials that Egypt is now dependent on them even to control its own territory.

Seven current or former British and American officials involved in Middle East policy described the Israeli attacks inside Egypt, all speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified information.

Spokesmen for the Israeli and Egyptian militaries declined to comment, and so did a spokesman for the Egyptian foreign ministry.

Both neighbors have sought to conceal Israel’s role in the airstrikes for fear of a backlash inside Egypt, where government officials and the state-controlled media continue to discuss Israel as a nemesis and pledge fidelity to the Palestinian cause.

The Israeli drones are unmarked, and the Israeli jets and helicopters cover up their markings. Some fly circuitous routes to create the impression that they are based in the Egyptian mainland, according to American officials briefed on their operations.

In Israel, military censors restrict public reports of the airstrikes. It is unclear if any Israeli troops or special forces have set foot inside Egyptian borders, which would increase the risk of exposure.

Mr. Sisi has taken even more care, American officials say, to hide the origin of the strikes from all but a limited circle of military and intelligence officers. The Egyptian government has declared the North Sinai a closed military zone, barring journalists from gathering information there.

Behind the scenes, Egypt’s top generals have grown steadily closer to their Israeli counterparts since the signing of the Camp David accords 40 years ago, in 1978. Egyptian security forces have helped Israel enforce restrictions on the flow of goods in and out of the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian territory bordering Egypt controlled by the militant group Hamas. And Egyptian and Israeli intelligence agencies have long shared information about militants on both sides of the border.

Israeli officials were concerned in 2012 when Egypt, after its Arab Spring revolt, elected a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood to the presidency. The new president, Mohamed Morsi, pledged to respect the Camp David agreements. But the Israelis worried about the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideological kinship with Hamas and its historic hostility to the Jewish state itself.

A year later, Mr. Sisi, then the defense minister, ousted Mr. Morsi in a military takeover. Israel welcomed the change in government and urged Washington to accept it. That solidified the partnership between the generals on both sides of the border.

The North Sinai, a loosely governed region of mountainous desert between the Suez Canal and the Israeli border, became a refuge for Islamist militants in the decade before Mr. Sisi took power. The main jihadist organization, Ansar Beit al Maqdis — the Partisans of Jerusalem — had concentrated on attacking Israel, but after Mr. Sisi’s takeover it began leading a wave of deadly assaults against Egyptian security forces.

A few weeks after Mr. Sisi took power, in August 2013, two mysterious explosions killed five suspected militants in a district of the North Sinai not far from the Israeli border. The Associated Press reported that unnamed Egyptian officials had said Israeli drones fired missiles that killed the militants, possibly because of Egyptian warnings of a planned cross-border attack on an Israeli airport. (Israel had closed the airport the previous day.)

Mr. Sisi’s spokesman, Col. Ahmed Ali, denied it. “There is no truth in form or in substance to the existence of any Israeli attacks inside Egyptian territory,” he said in a statement at the time, promising an investigation. “The claims of coordination between the Egyptian and Israeli sides in this matter are totally lacking in truth and go against sense and logic.”

Zack Gold, a researcher specializing in the North Sinai who has worked in Israel, compared the airstrikes to Israel’s nuclear weapons program — also an open secret.

“The Israeli strikes inside of Egypt are almost at the same level,” he said. “Every time anyone says anything about the nuclear program, they have to jokingly add ‘according to the foreign press.’ Israel’s main strategic interest in Egypt is stability, and they believe that open disclosure would threaten that stability.”

Inside the American government, the strikes are widely known enough that diplomats and intelligence officials have discussed them in closed briefings with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers in open committee hearings have alluded approvingly to the surprisingly close Egyptian and Israeli cooperation in the North Sinai.

In a telephone interview, Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declined to discuss specifics of Israel’s military actions in Egypt, but said Israel was not acting “out of goodness to a neighbor.”

“Israel does not want the bad stuff that is happening in the Egyptian Sinai to get into Israel,” he said, adding that the Egyptian effort to hide Israel’s role from its citizens “is not a new phenomenon.”

Some American supporters of Israel complain that, given Egypt’s reliance on the Israeli military, Egyptian officials, diplomats and state-controlled news media should stop publicly denouncing the Jewish state, especially in international forums like the United Nations.

“You speak with Sisi and he talks about security cooperation with Israel, and you speak with Israelis and they talk about security cooperation with Egypt, but then this duplicitous game continues,” said Representative Eliot L. Engel of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Relations Committee. “It is confusing to me.”

Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has also pointedly reminded American diplomats of the Israeli military role in Sinai. In February 2016, for example, Secretary of State John Kerry convened a secret summit in Aqaba, Jordan, with Mr. Sisi, King Abdullah of Jordan and Mr. Netanyahu, according to three American officials involved in the talks or briefed about them.

Mr. Kerry proposed a regional agreement in which Egypt and Jordan would guarantee Israel’s security as part of a deal for a Palestinian state.

Mr. Netanyahu scoffed at the idea.

Israeli’s military was already propping up Egypt’s military, he said, according to the Americans. If Egypt was unable to control the ground within its own borders, Mr. Netanyahu argued, it was hardly in a position to guarantee security for Israel.

Some of the reporting in this article was conducted by David D. Kirkpatrick for the book “Into the Hands of the Soldiers,” to be published by Viking in August.

David M. Halbfinger contributed reporting from Jerusalem.

A version of this article appears in print on February 4, 2018, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Egypt and Israel Secretly Allied In Sinai Battle.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.atimes.com/article/can-america-change-pakistani-behavior/

SOUTH ASIA PAKISTAN OPINION

How can America change Pakistani behavior?

Cutting $2 billion in military aid is a good first step. The next move could be to label Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism

By BRAHMA CHELLANEY
FEBRUARY 4, 2018 11:24 AM (UTC+8)

AS President Donald Trump’s recent decision to freeze some $2 billion in security assistance to Pakistan as punishment for the country’s refusal to crack down on transnational terrorist groups is a step in the right direction. But more steps are needed.

The United States has plenty of incentive to put pressure on Pakistan, a country that has long pretended to be an ally, even as it continues to aid the militant groups fighting and killing US soldiers in neighboring Afghanistan. In fact, it is partly because of that aid that Afghanistan is a failing state, leaving the US mired in the longest war in its history.

More than 16 years after the US invaded Afghanistan, its capital Kabul has come under siege, exemplified by the recent terrorist attack on Kabul’s Intercontinental Hotel and the suicide bombing, using an explosives-laden ambulance, in the city center. In recent months, the US has launched a major air offensive to halt the rapid advance of the Afghan Taliban. The US has now carried out more airstrikes since last August than in 2015 and 2016 combined.

Yet neither the air blitz nor the Trump administration’s deployment of 3,000 additional US troops can reverse the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan. To achieve that, Pakistan would have to dismantle the cross-border sanctuaries used by the Taliban and its affiliate, the Haqqani network, as well as their command-and-control operations, which are sited on Pakistani territory. As the US military commander in Afghanistan, General John Nicholson, has acknowledged, “It’s very difficult to succeed on the battlefield when your enemy enjoys external support and safe haven.”

The problem is that Pakistan’s powerful military, whose generals dictate terms to a largely impotent civilian government, seems committed to protecting, and even nurturing, terrorists on Pakistani soil. Only those militants who threaten Pakistan are targeted by the country’s rogue Inter-Services Intelligence agency.

Far from holding Pakistan’s generals accountable for the American blood on their hands, the US has provided them large amounts of funding – so much, in fact, that Pakistan has been one of America’s largest aid recipients. Even when the US found Osama bin Laden, after a 10-year hunt, holed up in a compound next to Pakistan’s main military academy, it did not meaningfully alter its carrot-only strategy. This has enabled the military to tighten its grip on Pakistan further, frustrating domestic efforts to bring about a genuine democratic transition.

Making matters worse, the US has dissuaded its ally India – a major target of Pakistan-supported terrorists – from imposing any sanctions on the country. Instead, successive US administrations have pressured India to engage diplomatically with Pakistan, including through secret meetings between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s national security adviser and his Pakistani counterpart in Bangkok and elsewhere.

This approach has emboldened Pakistan-based terrorists to carry out cross-border attacks on targets from Mumbai to Kashmir. As for the US, the White House’s new National Security Strategy confirms that America “continues to face threats from transnational terrorists and militants operating from within Pakistan.” This conclusion echoes then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s warning in 2009 that Pakistan “poses a mortal threat to the security and safety of our country and the world.”

Against this background, the Trump administration’s acknowledgment of US policy failure in Pakistan is good news. But history suggests that simply suspending security aid – economic assistance and military training are set to continue – will not be enough to bring about meaningful change in Pakistan (which also counts China and Saudi Arabia among its benefactors).

One additional step the US could take would be to label Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism. If the US prefers not to do so, it should at least strip Pakistan of its status, acquired in 2004, as a Major non-NATO Ally, thereby ending its preferential access to American weapons and technologies.

Moreover, the US should impose targeted sanctions, including asset freezes on senior military officers who maintain particularly close ties to terrorists. With the children of many Pakistani military officers living in the US, it would also be worth barring these families from the country.

Finally, the US should take advantage of its enduring position as Pakistan’s largest export market to tighten the economic screws on the cash-strapped country. Since 2013, Pakistan has attempted to offset the sharp decline in its foreign-exchange reserves by raising billions of dollars in dollar-denominated debt with 10-year bonds. Pakistan’s efforts to stave off default create leverage that the US should use.

Likewise, Pakistan agreed to privatize 68 state-run companies, in exchange for $6.7 billion in credit from the International Monetary Fund. If the US extended financial and trade sanctions to multilateral lending, and suspended supplies of military spare parts, it would gain another effective means of bringing Pakistan to heel.

To be sure, Pakistan could respond to such sanctions by blocking America’s overland access to Afghanistan, thereby increasing the cost of resupplying US forces by up to 50%. But, as Pakistan learned in 2011-2012, such a move would hurt its own economy, especially its military-dominated trucking industry. Meanwhile, the added cost to the US would be lower than America’s military reimbursements to Pakistan in the last year, which covered, among other things, resupply routes and the country’s supposed counterterrorism operations.

If Pakistan is going to abandon its double game of claiming to be a US ally while harboring terrorists, the US will need to stop rewarding it for offering, as Trump put it, “nothing but lies and deceit.” More than that, the US will need to punish Pakistan for its duplicity. And US policymakers must act soon, or an increasingly fragile Pakistan could well be transformed from a state sponsor of terrorism into a state sponsored by terrorists.

Brahma Chellaney, Professor of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi-based Center for Policy Research and Fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy in Berlin, is the author of nine books, including Asian Juggernaut, Water: Asia’s New Battleground, and Water, Peace, and War: Confronting the Global Water Crisis.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://apnews.com/33eac00d65ae402f...drawdown-after-declaration-of-victory-over-IS

US starts Iraq drawdown after declaration of victory over IS

By SUSANNAH GEORGE and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
Today

AL-ASAD AIRBASE, Iraq (AP) — American troops have started to draw down from Iraq following Baghdad’s declaration of victory over the Islamic State group last year, according to Western contractors at a U.S.-led coalition base in Iraq.

Dozens of American soldiers have been transported from Iraq to Afghanistan on daily flights over the past week, along with weapons and equipment, the contractors said.

Two Iraqi officials confirmed to The Associated Press that the U.S.-led coalition and the Iraqi government have reached an agreement to draw down troops in Iraq for the first time since the war against IS was launched over three years ago.

The Iraqi officials said the process has not officially begun.

However, an AP reporter at the Al-Asad base in western Iraq saw troop movements reflecting the contractors’ account of a drawdown. The contractors and the Iraqi officials spoke on condition of anonymity in line with regulations and declined to reveal the exact size of the drawdown.

“Continued coalition presence in Iraq will be conditions-based, proportional to the need and in coordination with the government of Iraq,” coalition spokesman Army Col. Ryan Dillon told the AP when asked for comment.

One senior Iraqi official close to Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said 60 percent of all American troops currently in country will be withdrawn, according to the initial agreement reached with the United States. The plan would leave a force of about 4,000 U.S. troops to continue training the Iraqi military.

A Pentagon report released in November said there were 8,892 U.S. troops in Iraq as of late September.

The U.S. first launched airstrikes against the Islamic State group in Iraq in August 2014. At the time the military intervention was described as “limited,” but as Iraq’s military struggled to roll back the extremists, the U.S.-led coalition’s footprint in the country steadily grew.

“We’ve had a recent change of mission and soon we’ll be supporting a different theater of operations in the coming month,” U.S. Army 1st Lt. William John Raymond told the AP at Al-Asad.

He spoke as he and a handful of soldiers from his unit conducted equipment inventory checks required before leaving Iraq. Raymond declined to specify where his unit was being redeployed, in line with regulations as the information has not yet been made public.

The drawdown of U.S. forces comes just three months ahead of national elections in Iraq, where the indefinite presence of American troops continues to be a divisive issue.

Al-Abadi, who is hoping to remain in office for another term, has long struggled to balance the often competing interests of Iraq’s two key allies: Iran and the United States.

While the U.S. has closely backed key Iraqi military victories over IS such as the retaking of the city of Mosul, Iraq’s Shiite-led paramilitary forces with close ties to Iran have called for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. The prime minister has previously stated that Iraq’s military will need American training for years to come.

The Iraq drawdown also follows the release of the Pentagon’s National Defense Strategy that cited China’s rapidly expanding military and an increasingly aggressive Russia as the U.S. military’s top national security priorities.

“Great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of U.S. national security,” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said last month in remarks outlining the strategy.

Iraq declared victory over IS in December after more than three years of grueling combat against the extremists in a war Iraqi forces fought with close U.S. support. In 2014, at the height of the Sunni militant group’s power, IS controlled nearly a third of Iraqi territory.

While IS’ self-styled caliphate stretching across Iraq and Syria has crumbled and the militants no longer hold a contiguous stretch of territory, in Iraq, the group continues to pose a security risk, according to Iraqi and American officials.

IS maintains a “cellular structure” of fighters who carry out attacks in Iraq aimed at disrupting local security, U.S. Marine Corps Brig. Gen. James Glynn told reporters during a Pentagon briefing last month.

Glynn pledged continued support for Iraq’s security forces, but acknowledged U.S.-led coalition “capabilities” in Iraq would likely shift now that conventional combat operations against the group have largely ceased.

There were some 170,000 American troops in Iraq in 2007 at the height of the surge of U.S. forces to combat sectarian violence unleashed by the U.S.-led invasion of the country to oust dictator Saddam Hussein. U.S. troop numbers eventually wound down to 40,000 before the complete withdrawal in 2011.
___

Abdul-Zahra reported from Baghdad.
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Air strikes kill more than 20 in Syria's Ghouta

BEIRUT – Air strikes killed 23 people in Syria's rebel-held eastern Ghouta district, just outside Damascus, a war monitor reported, and a woman was killed by shelling inside the government-held capital on Monday, state media said.



Warplanes struck the towns of Zamalka, Arbaeen, Hazza and Beitu Soua, said the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.



The Syrian army of President Bashar al-Assad, backed by Russian air power and Shi'ite Muslim militias, has besieged eastern Ghouta, the largest remaining rebel bastion near Damascus, for years.



Shelling of the Old City of Damascus, which is held by the government and lies near the rebel enclave that includes eastern Ghouta, killed a woman and injured three other civilians, state news agency SANA reported. https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5090426,00.html
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Iran urges Turkey to stop army offensive in northern Syria

LONDON – Iran urged Turkey on Monday to stop its military offensive in Syria, saying the operation in the northern Afrin region breached Syrian sovereignty and would increase tension in the war-damaged country.



Turkey last month launched an air and ground campaign, dubbed Operation Olive Branch, against the Kurdish YPG militia in Afrin.



"Turkey should stop its operation and respect Syria's sovereignty and territorial integrity," Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi was quoted as saying by state news agency IRNA.



"Turkey's actions can bring back insecurity, instability and terrorism to Syria," he added. https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5090486,00.html
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...r_insurgency_light_in_afghanistan_113012.html

The Case for Counter Insurgency ‘Light’ in Afghanistan

By Charles Barham
February 05, 2018

"One man seemed to speak for everyone when he made a brief, impassioned plea to the visiting officials. “Our homes are being destroyed, our youths are being killed, people are suffering every day and being forgotten,” he said. “If, God forbid, we lose Lashkar Gah, then Helmand will collapse and the whole region and Afghanistan will collapse. Please save us from this chaos.”

Statement made to Gen. John W. Nicholson in October 2016, Lashkar Gah, Helmond Province.i

Situation
The Taliban was and remains an insurgency. It must be dealt with as an insurgency by focusing on the human terrain. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA) must develop and pursue an indigenous Counter Insurgency (COIN) campaign focused on the principles of security, governance, and basic services. This does not need to be the full spectrum, comprehensive COIN led by the U.S. from 2010 to 2012, but a “light” version of that campaign. Regardless, GIRoA will likely require coalition forces to work by, with, and through them, providing training, advising, and assistance (TAA) in order for GIRoA to identify and address the specific elements of security, governance, and basic services which are the most critical for winning over the population and bringing the Taliban insurgency to an end.

By 2016 the situation in Afghanistan had reached a point best described as a stalemate. The Taliban insurgents had been able to launch multiple concurrent offensives intended to seize four provincial capitals. The Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) were successful in defeating these operations, but in doing so demonstrated that they were still very dependent not only on U.S. enabler support such as fires and intelligence, but also support to man, train, equip, sustain, and regenerate units. Additionally, the efforts to defeat the Taliban offenses disrupted ANDSF plans to not only further secure territory already under GIRoA control, but also to expand this territory. ii Neither side possessed the strength to defeat the other.

By the fall of 2017 GIRoA only controlled territory containing less than 60% of the population which was down from over the 70% they held in 2016, and down from the 80% they held in 2014 when the lead for security operations transitioned from NATO to GIRoA. The remaining 40% was either controlled by the Taliban or was considered “contested.” iii The ANDSF were incapable of recapturing the contested portions of the country, or those portions under Taliban control without increased levels of U.S. support.

This situation is amazing when one considers where Afghanistan was in 2011. Until 2009 the U.S. led coalition had prosecuted a fairly traditional combat campaign to defeat the Taliban. As we also saw in Iraq, it did not work. General McChrystal commented in 2009 as part of his initial assessment of the war in Afghanistan that “Although considerable effort and sacrifice have resulted in some progress, many indicators suggest the overall situation is deteriorating.” Further, he stated that “Success is achievable, but it will not be attained simply by trying harder or "doubling down" on the previous strategy.” He stated that what was needed was an “…integrated civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign that earns the support of the Afghan people and provides them with a secure environment." iv We realized we could not “kill” our way to victory.

From 2010 to 2012 the U.S. led coalition conducted a full spectrum, comprehensive COIN campaign aimed at defeating the Taliban. At its zenith in 2011, the surge of military forces was in place, and both governance and socioeconomic development (stability operations) were an integral part of the campaign plan designed to secure the “human terrain” by facilitating GIRoA’s ability to provide Afghans with security, governance, and basic services, while militarily defeating the Taliban.v The coalition, along with the ANDSF, was driving the Taliban, GIRoA had control over approximately 80% of the country, and security, governance, and basic services were largely in place. The ANDSF were maturing, and the transition of responsibility for security operations to Afghan control was underway.vi So what went wrong?

According to General Nicolson, the Commander of United States Forces – Afghanistan (USFOR-A) and the NATO Resolute Support Mission, the previous Administration’s plan to withdraw from Afghanistan was the problem. He states that “we’ve drawn down too far and too fast, we communicated to the enemy that we had lost our will to win…"vii It was just a matter of time, and the Taliban could simply wait us out. The NATO mission had transitioned from combat, to combat advising, to a functionally based security force assistance (SFA) model providing TAA support to the ANDSF on eight essential functions (EF) which were; Programming & Budgeting, Transparency & Oversight, Rule of Law, Force Generation, Sustainment, Planning, Intelligence, and Strategic Communications. However, this support was largely limited to conventional force TAA of the ANDSF at the Regional/Corps level and above. There was no intent for the SFA forces to conduct combat operations or advise below the Corps/Regional level.

USFOR-A did maintain a small Special Operations Forces (SOF) command that focused on Counter Terrorism (CT) operations and providing TAA support the Afghan SOF. CT was the sole U.S. combat mission and focused largely on ISIS-K and AQ. The Taliban were generally not targeted by the U.S.

The shift to functionally based SFA created a gap. There was no transition of the stability operations that had enabled the successful prosecution of the COIN campaign. These stability tasks were not considered one of the EFs.viii At that point, the COIN campaign that the U.S. had led reverted to a simple conventional combat campaign led by the ANDSF. Over the course of about three years, GIRoA proceeded to lose about 20 percent of the population it had under their control at the transition.

Interestingly enough, at the same time, the Taliban also demonstrated an inability to expand their control much beyond their current holdings. There are several reasons for this, and they include; an ideology that has become too extreme and brutal for many Afghans; the Taliban being largely a Pashtun movement which limits its support in Hazara, Tajik, and Uzbek areas; and a heavy reliance on support from neighboring countries such as Pakistan which is unpopular among many Afghans. Given these shortfalls, some would argue that the Taliban’s best option is to pursue a negotiated settlement.ix This may be true, but the Taliban may also need a little convincing to take that step. This is where a new strategy is needed.

A Needed Change in Strategy
In 2017 the U.S. got a new administration and a new strategy. In August 2017 President Trump announced the new strategy for South Asia aimed at bolstering American security. The new strategy encompassed Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, the Central Asian nations and extended into Southeast Asia. He stressed the strategy would not have artificial timelines built into it but would be conditions-based. x The focus would be back on the Taliban. Specifically, "The ultimate goal is a negotiated peace settlement. So we continue to try to encourage peace process between the Afghan government and Taliban. We are not going to negotiate a separate peace with the Taliban. We want to see the Afghan government and the Taliban in negotiations."xi

With a negotiated peace settlement as the objective, we would want to bring the Taliban to the table in a position of weakness. To accomplish this, the U.S. is taking specific actions. There will be a surge of advisors who will operate at the kandak (battalion) level and provide enabling support to the ANDSF as they conduct operations to clear and hold various population centers that are either considered contested or under Taliban control.xii The ANDSF intend to increase the percentage of the population under their control to approximately 80%, the same position they were in when the transition occurred several years ago.xiii

Holding and controlling 80% of the population should place the Taliban in a position of weakness. Their ability to generate revenues through taxation and extortion would be greatly reduced, as will their ability to generate revenues via the drug trade. Finally, without the support of the local populace, the Taliban will not be able to fully reconstitute. But all this assumes GIRoA can “hold” the terrain and more importantly, the population.

The Strategy is at Risk
The enemy has a vote, and in this case, the Taliban has been a very resilient foe. It will likely take significant and prolonged (several years) effort to get them to participate in negotiations. This is still the Taliban that is an insurgency, and the human terrain is as important to them as it is to GIRoA. They rely on the population for financing and general support and sustainment.

If we learned nothing else from COIN in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is that the key terrain is the human terrain. Supporting GIRoA and the ANDSF kinetic efforts to clear population centers is good. Trying to hold those areas is also a good thought. However, to truly hold the population, to keep them from supporting the Taliban, and to get them to support GIRoA, there needs to be a full package of security, governance, and basic services. GIRoA needs to demonstrate that they bring more to the table than the Taliban. They will be able to clear terrain, but it is unlikely that will be able to hold this terrain and positively influence the population without the package of security, governance, and basic services. This potential inability to hold the terrain and influence the population is the risk in the new strategy.

Mitigating the Risk
For GIRoA to hold the terrain and the population contained therein, they must wage a true COIN campaign, albeit perhaps a “COIN Light” campaign and this campaign must contain a plan that provides for a package of security, governance that is responsive and acceptable to the Afghan population, and basic services. This plan should be designed by GIRoA, although parts may actually be delivered initially by members of the international community (IC). This statement implies two things; that GIRoA can develop such a plan, and that they can synchronize this plan with the ANDSF’s clear and hold operations.

Unlike the U.S. led COIN campaign of 2010-2012, this emerging COIN campaign will not be the U.S. or even coalition led. The development of a package of security, governance, and basic services will be a GIRoA product. The good news is that there are still many members of the IC operating in Afghanistan who are very willing to support governance and development projects. The issue is that some agency will need to take the lead and provide GIRoA with the guidance and support to organize these groups, to include their own various ministries, and harness these finite resources to maximum effect. The development of the governance and basic services portions of the COIN Light Plan must be informed by and integrated with the ANDSF and their plan to clear and hold specific areas. The packages can then be tailored to support those areas. IC donors will also be identified to execute portions of those packages, working projects in those designated areas vice in other areas where the impact may not be as great, or worse, in areas where the Taliban may be able to extort funds from them. Finally, the components of those packages should be in place and ready to begin as soon as possible once the clearing operations terminate.

Essentially what is required is an Afghan Interagency Task Force (IATF) that includes IC membership in addition to GIRoA security and non-security ministries. U.S. Departments and Agencies can and should also be members of this IATF. Again, GIRoA will likely need support in operating this IATF, TAA support if you will. The best source of this TAA is the United States Military because we are talking about expeditionary governance and basic service delivery in a combat zone.

Conclusion
Some readers may reject this article out of hand because it has “counterinsurgency” in the title. But those with an open mind should consider that for the new U.S. South Asia strategy to succeed and for the Taliban to be brought to the negotiating table, GIRoA needs to wage a COIN campaign. This does not need to be the full spectrum comprehensive COIN that the U.S. led coalition executed from 2010 to 2012, but it does need to be at least a “light” version of that campaign. The key point is that the United States does not have to do it or even pay for it, but it is very likely that we will have to guide or TAA it. The campaign, specifically the package of security, governance, and basic services does not have to be perfect. It does not need to result in the shinning democracy on a hill. It does not even need to be “Afghan good enough.” It just needs to better than what the Taliban offer. It should be designed by the Afghans in order to help Afghans and persuade the population to support GIRoA, not the Taliban. GIRoA needs to have a functioning COIN Light Campaign. With it, the South Asia Strategy and GIRoA stand a better chance at succeeding. Without it, GIRoA may clear some terrain, but the Taliban will absorb the body blows, eventually return, and will not be inclined to negotiate a peace settlement.

Charles Barham is a retired U.S. Army Colonel with 29 years of service (1981-2010). He also served for four years as a Department of the Army Civilian Management and Program Analyst in the Afghanistan/Pakistan Hands Program (2010-2014). He currently serves as a Department of the Air Force Civilian Management and Program Analyst at USCENTCOM in an Interagency Planner capacity. He served for more than three years in Afghanistan as; Assistant Director of the Police Reform Directorate, Combined Security Transition Command - Afghanistan 2006-2007, Senior Socioeconomic Advisor in HQ ISAF-DCOS/STAB under Generals David Petraeus and John Allen 2011, as Deputy Director of the NATO/Afghan Transformation Task Force, HQ ISAF under General Joseph Dunford 2013, and as a Senior Planning, Programing and Budgeting Advisor to the Afghan National Army Special Operations Command. He has served for over six years in HQCENTCOM in positions including Senior Socioeconomic Advisor and Interagency Planner. He has a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from the University of Richmond, a Master of Business Administration from Oklahoma City University, and a Master of Strategic Studies from the U.S. Army War College.

Notes:
Pamela Constable, “Taliban Enter Capital of Helmand Province After Weeks of Fighting”, The Washington Post, October 10, 2016.
[ii] Caitlin Forrest, “Afghanistan Partial Threat Assessment: November 22, 2016”, Institute for the Study of War, November 23, 2016.
[iii] John McCain and Lindsey Graham, “Why We Need More Forces to End the Stalemate in Afghanistan”, The Washington – Opinions, March 13, 2017.
[iv] GEN Stanley McChrystal, “COMISAF Initial Assessment”, September 21, 2009.
[v] Jeff Goodson, “Strategic Development and Irregular Warfare: Lessons From the High Water Mark of Full-Spectrum COIN”, Small Wars Journal, August 15, 2015.
[vi] Department of Defense, Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan, December 2012.
[vii] Hans Nichols and Jonathan Allen, “Still in a Stalemate”, NBC News, Politics, November 24, 2017.
[viii] Department of Defense, Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan, October 2014.
[ix] Seth G. Jones, “Why the Taliban Isn’t Winning in Afghanistan”, Foreign Affairs, January 3, 2018.
[x] Jim Garamone, “President Unveils New Afghanistan, South Asia Strategy”, DoD News, August 21, 2017.
[xi] NDTV, “Donald Trump’s New South Asia Strategy Making Progress”, NDTV, December 3, 2017.
[xii] Elizabeth McLaughlin, “ANALYSIS: Losing troops and territory, will a new US strategy change the Afghan war?”, ABC News International, December 31, 2017
[xiii] Ibid.
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
#BREAKING | Israel carried out a missile strike on the #Damascus airport. Four surface-to-surface #missiles were launched from the positions on the Golan Heights. There are wounded among Syrian soldiers
#Golan Heights #IsraelAndSyria #JewishAggression
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
#BREAKING | Israel carried out a missile strike on the #Damascus airport. Four surface-to-surface #missiles were launched from the positions on the Golan Heights. There are wounded among Syrian soldiers
#Golan Heights #IsraelAndSyria #JewishAggression

Merde.....
 

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
LONDON – Iran urged Turkey on Monday to stop its military offensive in Syria, saying the operation in the northern Afrin region breached Syrian sovereignty and would increase tension in the war-damaged country.



Turkey last month launched an air and ground campaign, dubbed Operation Olive Branch, against the Kurdish YPG militia in Afrin.



"Turkey should stop its operation and respect Syria's sovereignty and territorial integrity," Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi was quoted as saying by state news agency IRNA.



"Turkey's actions can bring back insecurity, instability and terrorism to Syria," he added. https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5090486,00.html

Whenever this actually kicks off, even WITH Artillery involved, it's just going to be a completely undignified bar brawl.....
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Alexander Clarkson‏@APHClarkson Feb 3Alexander Clarkson Retweeted 9 Dash Line 九段线
Huh, reports that Russian and Canadian naval vessels almost opened fire on each other a few months ago

9 Dash Line 九段线‏@9DashLine Feb 3
Surrounded by Russian vessels, Canadian warship "unlocked missiles so they could be fired" sailor says
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...ampaign=buffer

Quentin Sommerville‏Verified account@sommervilletv 19h19 hours ago
Over 150 airstrikes have been recorded against 15 towns across Idlib this evening. Both Russian and Syrian airforce reportedly participating.
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
and lets not forget india and pakistan

Firstpost‏Verified account@firstpost 23h23 hours agoThree jawans were killed and five persons injured in heavy shelling by #Pakistani troops along #LoC in #Poonch and #Rajouri districts of #JammuAndKashmir forcing Indian troops to retaliate, officials said
http://www.firstpost.com/india/pakis...g-4335357.html

Doordarshan News‏Verified account@DDNewsLive Feb 4
J&K: Army Jawan injured in Pak firing in #Poonch; Ceasefire violation in Rajouri’s Bhimber Gali sector

India TV‏Verified account@indiatvnews 2h2 hours ago
NEWS ALERT: Pakistan violates ceasefire in KG sector of Jammu and Kashmir’s #Poonch
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Russia deploys Iskander nuclear-capable missiles to Kaliningrad

MOSCOW - Russia has deployed advanced nuclear-capable Iskander missiles to its Kaliningrad exclave on the Baltic Sea, the RIA news agency quoted a senior lawmaker as saying on Monday.



Russia has said previous deployments of Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad, a slice of Russia wedged between Poland and Lithuania, were temporary and a response to the United States building up its forces in the Baltic region.


Washington says placing such missile systems near the Baltic states and NATO member Poland is "destabilising," while US officials have expressed concern that the deployments represent a permanent upgrade to Russia's forces in the area.https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5090649,00.html
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Turkey detains nearly 600 for opposing Syrian offensive

ANKARA - Turkey has so far detained 573 people for social media posts and protests criticising its military offensive in Syria, the government said on Monday.


The crackdown, which has extended to the national medical association, has deepened concerns about free speech under President Tayyip Erdogan, who has criticised opponents of the military intervention as "traitors".https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5090725,00.html
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Turkey sets up military post southwest of Syria's Aleppo

ISTANBUL - Turkish forces set up a military post southwest of the Syrian city of Aleppo on Monday, the army said, the deepest position they have established so far inside northwest Syria under a deal with Russia and Iran aimed at reducing violence there.


The announcement came six days after a large Turkish military convoy, heading for the same area, came under attack and had to pull back.


Under the deal reached with Tehran and Moscow to try to reduce fighting between pro-government forces and mainly Islamist insurgents in the northwest Syria, Turkey agreed to set up 12 observation posts in Idlib and neighbouring provinces.https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5090726,00.html
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
ISRAELI NAVY ON HIGH ALERT OVER UPGRADED HAMAS UNDERWATER TERROR THREAT

As the war drums beat on Israel’s southern front, Israel’s navy sees an increased threat from the serious developments by Hamas in the underwater domain.

“Hamas sees potential in the sea like they saw potential in their tunnels,” a senior Naval officer said on Monday. Israel’s Navy has in recent years understood that sea-based terror attacks can also come from under the water, a threat that has grown since the last conflict with Hamas in 2014.

During Operation Protective Edge, five Hamas frogmen (naval commandos) tried to infiltrate Kibbutz Zikim before they were engaged and killed by the IDF. In the last three years since the conflict Hamas has significantly expanded their naval commando unit with a reported 1,500 frogmen.

Since 2014 Israel has foiled multiple attempts to smuggle wetsuits and other gear into the Hamas-controlled enclave but officials are still concerned that the group has gotten their hands on technology such as underwater "scooters" which can bring the commandos further out to sea in order to attack Israeli interests.

In 2015 the Navy began deploying dozens of sensors from a new system named "Aqua Shield" which can detect and alert the Navy to suspicious underwater movement. The sensors were placed on the sea floor near Gaza and Lebanon's water borders with Israel.

The Navy has also placed more emphasis on training for underwater infiltration and in August the Israeli Navy’s Salvage and Underwater Missions Unit held a wide-ranging two-week drill in Haifa dubbed “Noble Melinda” with its counterparts from the US and France.

But even with the increased amount of training and advanced technology deployed by the IDF to counter the threat, the navy does not yet have a clear solution to the problem such as the military's solution to the tunnels: an underground barrier currently under construction around the Gaza Strip.

Israel is highly dependent on the sea, with over 90% of Israel’s imports arriving via sea. While the country’s navy is relatively small compared to other IDF corps, it has a significant amount of territory to protect since the expansion of the country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) from 40 miles to 150 miles from shore years ago.

“The importance of the sea for Israel is very clear. Everything in the country comes via the sea. Israel can never be in the position where its waters are not protected,” the senior naval officer said.

“Eight years ago Israel’s EEZ was not significant, but we have had a game-changer since then,” he said, referring to the natural gas drilling rigs which supply around 60% (and soon 75%) of Israel’s electricity.

“The fact that there are gas storage centers for our energy is both a positive and a negative,” the officer stated, explaining that the rigs are clear targets for enemies on Israel’s northern border. Hezbollah, which is believed to have long-range missiles, including precision ballistic missiles received from Iran, can hit the rigs and ships inside the EEZ that are the responsibility of the navy.

While there is no hermetic protection on the sea, due to the threat posed by Hezbollah’s arsenal of Grad rockets and other longer-range projectiles, the navy has upgraded its weapons and defensive systems on its entire combat fleet.

While existing Sa’ar-5 and Sa’ar 4.5 ships are being upgraded with the integration of new radars and electronic warfare systems, Israel is set to receive new Dolphin-class submarines and new Sa’ar-6 Corvettes in coming years which should be operational by 2021. The Sa’ar 6 will have a crew of 70 sailors, a range of 2500 miles and advanced capabilities able to deal with a wide range of threats including Iron Dome short range defense missile launchers and Barak-8 long-range surface-to-air missile naval defense system.

“The bread and butter of the Sa’ar 6 are its defense and offensive capabilities,” the senior officer stated. “I wish we could have this ship on our waters, right now.”http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-C...increased-Hamas-threat-under-the-water-540727
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
US accuses Russia of balking at UN condemnation of Syria chlorine attacks

Agence France Presse
UNITED NATIONS: The United States accused Russia Monday of delaying the adoption of a U.N. Security Council condemnation of reported chlorine gas attacks in Syria that left many injured in recent days, including children.

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley told the council that there was "obvious evidence from dozens of victims" to corroborate the chlorine attacks in rebel-held Eastern Ghouta.

"Now we have reports that the Assad regime has used chlorine gas against its people multiple times in recent weeks, including just yesterday," Haley said.

The United States has proposed a draft statement condemning the use of chemicals as a weapon but Russia requested that adoption be delayed to provide comments, diplomats said.

"Russia has delayed the adoption of this statement - a simple condemnation of Syrian children being suffocated by chlorine gas," she said.

The draft statement, obtained by AFP, condemns "in the strongest terms" the reported Feb. 1 chlorine attack in the al-Malab neighborhood of the town of Douma that injured over 20 civilians including children.

The council expresses grave concern over three reported chlorine attacks in Eastern Ghouta in recent weeks and asserts that those responsible for using chemical weapons must be held accountable, according to the draft.

The council met to discuss chemical weapons use in Syria after Russia used its veto power twice in November to block the renewal of a U.N. investigative panel tasked with identifying those responsible for the deadly gas attacks.

Russia last month put forward a draft resolution to establish a new investigation but Western diplomats have raised questions about the impartiality of the proposed panel.

"This is not an impartial mechanism. It is a way to whitewash the findings of the latest investigation that Russia desperately wants to bury," Haley told the council.

The previous probe, vetoed by Russia, had found that Syrian forces were responsible for the April 2016 sarin attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun, that killed scores of people.

The panel, known as the Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM), also found that President Bashar Assad's forces used chlorine in two attacks on rebel-held villages in 2014 and 2015.

It also found that Daesh (ISIS) militants had used mustard gas in 2015. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Mi...n-condemnation-of-syria-chlorine-attacks.ashx
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Saudi Arabia says Yemen rebel ballistic missile shot down

RIYADH: Saudi air defenses intercepted a ballistic missile fired at the Kingdom by Yemen’s Houthi rebels on Monday, state media reported.
The attack was launched from Yemen’s northern governorate of Saada, a Houthi stronghold, and “intercepted” at 7:23 local time (0423 GMT), Col. Turki Al-Maliki told state news agency SPA.
Maliki, spokesman for the Saudi-led military coalition supporting the government in Yemen, said the missile was headed toward the city of Khamis Mushait — about 160 kilometers (100 miles) north of the border.Riyadh had warned that “Iranian-manufactured ballistic weapons” threatened the Kingdom’s security following an attack it said was intercepted near Riyadh airport in November.
Maliki on Monday accused the Houthis of “repeatedly targeting densely populated cities” and delivering the weapons to the insurgents.
The United States, which backs the Saudi campaign against the Houthis, has also accused Iran of being at the origin of the ballistic missiles, a charge denied by Tehran.
Russia said last week that evidence presented by the US was inconclusive, signalling it would oppose a bid to slap UN sanctions on Tehran.http://www.arabnews.com/node/1239921/saudi-arabia
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source......
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/US-troops-in-Israel-ahead-of-large-scale-drill-540638

Jerusalem Post Israel News

Amid rising tensions, US troops in Israel for missile defense drill

> Security experts discuss ‘vital bond’ between US Jewry and Israel
> Signs of war


By Anna Ahronheim February 4, 2018 15:25
Five-day exercise will simulate massive missile attack
2 minute read.

IAF fighter jets during the Red Flag joint exercise at Nellis air force base in Nevada . (photo credit: COURTESY IDF SPOKESMAN'S OFFICE)

With tensions high on both the northern and southern fronts, US troops are in Israel and have deployed anti-missile defense systems across the country ahead of the biennial Juniper Cobra military exercise.

The large-scale, five-day drill will simulate a massive missile attack on Israel from both fronts and will be led by the Israel Air Force, the IDF confirmed to The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.

“Such exercises are part of a long-term strategy and part of the ongoing cooperation between the IDF and the US military,” read the statement by the IDF’s Spokesperson’s Unit.

The joint exercise with the US Army European Command (EUCOM) is aimed at strengthening military cooperation against regional threats and promoting longterm security for Israel.

The last Juniper Cobra exercise in June 2016 saw more than 3,000 American troops taking part in what is considered the flagship exercise of the IAF Aerial Defense Division.

While the IDF said the drill, which has occurred every two years since 2001, is part of the annual training to maintain the readiness of troops, it comes amid a war of words with Hezbollah, which is thought to have an arsenal of between 100,000 and 150,000 missiles.

On Wednesday, Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman warned that should war erupt on the northern border with Hezbollah, Beirut would “pay the full price,” as the Lebanese army and Hezbollah “are one in the same.”

“We won’t allow pictures like those in 2006 where citizens in Beirut were on the beach while Israelis in Tel Aviv sat in shelters. If people are in shelters in Tel Aviv, all of Beirut will be in shelters,” Liberman stated at the 11th annual Institute for National Security Studies conference in Tel Aviv.

During a visit to Moscow last week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Russian President Vladimir Putin that Israel would take action to prevent Iran from entrenching itself in Syria and from turning Lebanon into a base for manufacturing precision missiles against Israel.

“I made it clear to him that we will not agree to either one of these developments and will act according to need,” Netanyahu stated.

Washington and Israel have signed an agreement which would see the US come to assist Israel with missile defense in times of war. In September, the first US base in Israel was inaugurated in the South.

The “base within a base” is run by EUCOM and includes barracks, offices and support services. According to Brig.- Gen. Zvika Haimovitch, the head of the Aerial Defense Division, the new base “will improve our abilities significantly.

It won’t get us to 100%, but it will get us much closer to achieving important things during war.”

In March, Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, head of EUCOM and supreme allied commander for Europe, made his second visit to Israel, underscoring the strong and enduring military partnership between Israel and the United States and the US commitment to maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region. Scaparrotti also met with IDF Chief of Staff Lt.- Gen.Gadi Eisenkot several times over the past year, including in October when Eisenkot flew to Washington and met with the head of US Central Command.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
I'm surprised the typo on the number of deployed Minuteman ICBMs got past the editor....

For links see article source......
Posted for fair use.....
http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...lear-warheads-counter-russias-low-yield-arms/

U.S. to Deploy Smaller Nuclear Warheads to Counter Russia’s Low-Yield Arms

Nuclear review warns of new dangers from China, Russia

BY: Bill Gertz
February 3, 2018 5:00 am

The United States will deploy modified smaller nuclear warheads on submarine-launched ballistic missiles and re-deploy sea-launched nuclear cruise missiles to counter Russia's plans for using small nuclear weapons.

The policy shift is outlined in the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that calls for modernizing aging weapons and delivery systems but not building new, more efficient and safer warheads.

Instead, the older warheads and bombs will be maintained and some made smaller.
"We must keep America's deterrent credible by making it modern," Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan told reporters in unveiling the NPR.

Shanahan said the decision to lower the yield of some warheads on a few of the Navy's 14 missile submarines and bring back retired sea-based nuclear cruise missiles will not increase the risk of war.

Responding to anti-nuclear critics opposed to deploying the smaller nuclear weapons over concerns about increased risk of conflict, Shanahan said, "On the contrary, it is the exact opposite."

The United States would only consider using nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances, he said.

The review warns that nuclear dangers are increasing as China and Russia modernize and expand their forces and North Korea is also gaining new nuclear capabilities. Iran, despite the Obama administration's nuclear accord, could build a nuclear weapon within one year of a decision to do so.

"The United States now faces a more diverse and advanced nuclear-threat environment than ever before, with considerable dynamism in potential adversaries’ development and deployment programs for nuclear weapons and delivery systems," the report said.

While the United States reduced the numbers and reliance on nuclear forces, Russia, China and others "moved in the opposite direction," the report said.

"They have added new types of nuclear capabilities to their arsenals, increased the salience of nuclear forces in their strategies and plans, and engaged in increasingly aggressive behavior, including in outer space and cyber space," the report said.

The report says the United States favors arms control with Russia and China.

However, Russia has broken off all arms talks and China continues to refuse to engage in nuclear talks as part of its long-standing policy of not disclosing details of its nuclear forces.

The report declares that the United States, through the Pentagon and Energy Department, will sustain, replace, and modernize the warheads, bombers, and missiles that make up the force, along with the command and control system that directs it.

Current forces consist of 14 aging Ohio-class missile submarines that will be replaced by 12 Columbia-class submarines in the coming decades.

The 4000 single-warhead Minuteman III missiles deployed in silos will also be replaced with a new missile through 2029.

The 46 nuclear-armed B-52 and 20 B-2 bombers also will be replaced by the B-21 beginning in the mid-2020s.

A new air-launched Long-Range Stand-Off nuclear cruise missile will replace aging air-launched cruise missiles.

Currently, the small nuclear force consists of a small number of B-61 gravity bombs carried by aircraft.

Facilities and technicians that are part of the nuclear weapons infrastructure also will be bolstered.

The section of the review on the use of so-called non-strategic weapons said the change is needed because of the "dramatic deterioration of the strategic environment."

A chart included in the report showed that Russia enjoys a huge advantage over the United States in tactical nuclear weapons.

Moscow's up to 2,000 small nuclear weapons are deployed on close-range and short-range ballistic missiles, anti-missile interceptors, anti-aircraft missiles, ground-launched cruise missiles, air-to-surface missiles, anti-ship missiles, depth charges, anti-submarines missiles, torpedoes, and gravity bombs.

The U.S. arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons is limited to gravity bombs.

Russia has altered its doctrine to allow for the more rapid use of nuclear forces in a conflict and has shown off its advantage in these weapons in military exercises and statements.

North Korea also is developing small nuclear weapons in addition to larger devices.
Without matching the Russian small nuclear arsenal the United States will seek to preserve deterrence stability through "a spectrum of capabilities sized and postured to meet U.S. needs."

The goal is "to ensure that no adversary under any circumstances can perceive an advantage through limited nuclear escalation or other strategic attack," the report says.

"Expanding flexible U.S. nuclear options now, to include low-yield options, is important for the preservation of credible deterrence against regional aggression," the report said.

In addition to small warhead submarine-launched ballistic missiles and submarine and surface ship-launched nuclear cruise missiles, the military may expand deployment of nuclear capable aircraft around the world, including on the new F-35.

For the submarine ballistic missiles, a small number of existing submarine missile warheads will be made smaller.

"Low-yield nuclear weapons have been in the U.S. arsenal for decades," said John Rood, undersecretary of defense for policy, in a briefing for reporters.

Rood said the shift to smaller nuclear weapons is designed to counter the actions of adversaries.

"When we look at some of the activities, statements, capabilities that adversaries or potential adversaries have pursued, one of the things that we want to make sure that we maintain is a flexible set of capabilities, so that they not come to the mistaken impression that there would be some ranges of situations where they might employ nuclear weapons—whether they be low-yield or so-called battlefield nuclear weapons, things of that nature—in a way that we would feel that we did not have credible response options in order to preserve deterrence," he said.

North Korea's development of nuclear weapons and missiles has also prompted greater concern about modernizing the U.S. arsenal that includes most weapons built in the 1980s or earlier, Rood said.

President George H.W. Bush in 1991 ordered dismantling of the main nuclear cruise missile, the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile-Nuclear, or TLAM-N.

The removal of the nuclear cruise missiles continued under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

Many of the warheads for the TLAM-N force have been dismantled.

The posture review states that a new sea-launched nuclear cruise missile will be pursued.

The new missile "will provide a needed non-strategic regional presence, an assured response capability, and an INF-Treaty compliant response to Russia’s continuing Treaty violation," the report says.

The report said the restoration of the capability would begin immediately.

By contrast to the limited U.S. modernization, Russia is building new nuclear weapons in addition to modernizing older ones.

"Russia is also developing at least two new intercontinental range systems, a hypersonic glide vehicle, and a new intercontinental, nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered, undersea autonomous torpedo," the report said.

China is building a new road-mobile strategic intercontinental ballistic missile, a new multi-warhead version of its DF-5 silo-based ICBM, and its most advanced ballistic missile submarine armed with new submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

A new strategic bomber is in the works that will provide China with a nuclear triad of missiles, submarines, and bombers.

The U.S. nuclear policy is called "tailored deterrence" that seeks a mixture of forces and weapons, and developing flexibility by mixing nuclear and other forces.

"This review rests on a bedrock truth: nuclear weapons have and will continue to play a critical role in deterring nuclear attack and in preventing large-scale conventional warfare between nuclear-armed states for the foreseeable future," Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said in a preface to the review, adding "we will be relentless in ensuring our nuclear capabilities are effective."

Both China and Russia have responded to a leaked draft of the nuclear posture review by warning that the United States' pursuit of smaller yield nuclear weapons will increase the risk of a nuclear war.

Russia, however, is rapidly developing small and very small nuclear weapons to support its new doctrine of using the arms to "de-escalate" conflicts.

China also is believed to have large numbers of small nuclear warheads for its large force of missiles, both ballistic and cruise missiles.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
First note no mention of MS13, and recall our recent thread....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...s-in-el-salvador-gang-offensive-idUSKBN1FQ0E1

#World News February 5, 2018 / 7:45 PM / Updated 2 hours ago

U.N. finds possible extrajudicial killings in El Salvador gang offensive

Reuters Staff
2 Min Read

SAN SALVADOR (Reuters) - Police and soldiers in El Salvador may have committed extrajudicial killings and used excessive force in their battle against violent street gangs in the Central American country, the United Nations said on Monday.

Agnes Callamard, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said her findings did not indicate a state policy that came from above but rather the actions of a few members of the security forces. Callamard was on a two-week tour of El Salvador.

“I have found a pattern of behavior between security personnel that could be considered as extrajudicial killings,” Callamard told a news conference, without giving further details.

“This is fomented more by weak answers from public institutions,” she said.

The United Nations asked the Salvadoran government to investigate cases of extrajudicial killings by authorities and try those responsible.

Human rights organizations have denounced extrajudicial killings and abuse of force by operatives from the government of President Salvador Sanchez Ceren.

“We understand as an institution that there could be some police officers that don’t do their job well, but the institutional line is that all working police should do things according to the law,” police spokeswoman Evelyn Marroquin said.

El Salvador had a homicide rate of 60 per 100,000 people in 2017, one of the highest in the world.

Reporting by Nelson Renteria; Editing by Paul Tait
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://spacenews.com/nuclear-strate...security-of-critical-communications-networks/

Nuclear strategy raises new questions about the security of critical communications networks

by Sandra Erwin — February 3, 2018

The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review strikes an alarming tone on the state of the technology that makes up the nuclear command, control and communications system, known as NC3.

WASHINGTON — It’s a question that lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been asking the Pentagon for years: Are the command-and-control systems between the president and the nation’s nuclear forces totally secure and defendable from cyber or electronic attacks?

The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review the Pentagon released on Friday says systems today remain “assured and effective” but the report warns of growing risks. The nuclear command and control networks that were on the cutting edge in the 1970s are now “subject to challenges from both aging system components and new, growing 21st century threats,” the NPR says. “Of particular concern are expanding threats in space and cyber space.”

The NPR strikes an alarming tone on the state of the technology that makes up the nuclear command, control and communications system, known as NC3.

The NC3 is a hodgepodge of hardware and software — warning satellites and radars; communications satellites, aircraft, and ground stations; fixed and mobile command posts; and the control centers for nuclear systems. The NPR says many of these systems use antiquated technology that has not been modernized in almost three decades.

Like other parts of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the NC3 networks have not kept up with the times. “The world looks different since the last NPR in 2010,” Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said Friday at a Pentagon news conference. The nation’s nuclear deterrent has to be updated to meet a “challenging and dynamic security environment,” he said.

The commander of U.S. Strategic Command Gen. John Hyten has spoken about the urgency of the situation. “We have to modernize the entire architecture,” he said. “We need a 21st century information architecture.”

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that modernizing the NC3 will cost $58 billion over 10 years.

Any future actions to update the NC3 likely will have major implications for DoD satellite programs such as the Space Based Infrared System used for missile warning and communications systems such as the Military Strategic and Tactical Relay satellites and its replacement, the Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellites.

“Space is no longer a sanctuary and orbital space is increasingly congested, competitive and contested,” the NPR says. “A number of countries, particularly China and Russia, have developed the means to disrupt, disable, and destroy U.S. assets in space.”

In response to cyber threats, the United States will protect NC3 components and “ensure the continuing availability of U.S.-produced information technology necessary for the NC3 system,” the NPR says.

The report also calls for a review of the governance structure of the NC3 program, which is now managed by the U.S. Air Force.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will lead this review and will deliver to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis no later than May 1, 2018, a “plan to reform NC3 governance to ensure its effective functioning and modernization,” the NPR says.

The Air Force Global Strike Command now oversees the NC3 program, and the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center serves as the integrator of NC3 systems and manages acquisition programs.

Congressional auditors have watched this program for years. The Government Accountability Office has produced several reports pointing out a lack of progress in the modernization of NC3.

The commander of Global Strike Command Gen. Robin Rand in a November interview with the National Defense Industrial Association’s National Defense Magazine said NC3 is a “work in progress.” And it is a “very difficult challenge we have as we have allowed this system of systems to atrophy.”

Related Articles

Nuclear command and control problems dominate U.S. Air Force focus, GAO finds

Analysts: U.S. nuclear modernization plan under-invests in cybersecurity

New national defense strategy to shed light on Pentagon’s thinking about war in space

STRATCOM chief Hyten: ‘I will not support buying big satellites that make juicy targets’

Comments 12
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...als-of-china-russia-north-korea-idUSKBN1FQ1A6

#World News February 6, 2018 / 2:01 AM / Updated 38 minutes ago

U.S. warns on growing nuclear arsenals of China, Russia, North Korea

Reuters Staff
1 Min Read

GENEVA (Reuters) - North Korea may be only months away from being able to strike the United States with a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile and its atomic weapons program must be shut down, a senior U.S. disarmament official said on Tuesday.

U.S. disarmament ambassador Robert Wood, addressing the U.N.-sponsored Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, also warned that arsenals in China and Russia were expanding.

“Russia, China and North Korea are growing their stockpiles, increasing the prominence of nuclear weapons in their security strategies, and - in some cases - pursuing the development of new nuclear capabilities to threaten other peaceful nations,” he said.

North Korea “may now be only months away from the capability to strike the U.S. with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles”.

Related Coverage

North Korea says U.S. considering limited pre-emptive strike

Reporting by Stephanie Nebehay; Editing by Alison Williams
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2...s-ready-trumps-reboot/145744/?oref=d-topstory

Meet the Believers: The Afghanistan War’s US Commanders are Ready For a Reboot

By Kevin Baron
Executive Editor
Read bio
February 5, 2018

What's different this time? New rules, new plan, new firepower, new hope.

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan – There’s a new faith among the latest U.S. generals who have come to win the war in Afghanistan, but plenty of old realities. U.S. Central Command’s Gen. Joseph Votel, who is overseeing the Trump administration’s Afghanistan War reboot, came here to see its beginning and its promise of victory, with newly arriving squadrons of attack jets, howitzer cannons, and hundreds of specialized and experienced U.S. troops.

Just hours earlier, the 4-star distinguished visitor had been in Kabul discussing those plans at the Afghan Ministry of Defense when a suicide attacker detonated a massive car bomb disguised in an ambulance. Welcome back to the war.

The blast, which killed at least 100 and injured 235 more, was blocks from Operation Resolute Support headquarters, so close that some the general’s staff heard it. As the compound locked down, troops and civilians from a dozen countries came scrambling out of the dining hall, weapons in tow. Others exchanged concerned glances. But most just told stories, complained about being stuck, and kept on eating lunch. After 16 years, you get used to some things.

In Washington, there are few believers in the Afghanistan War. In Kandahar, there is a veritable church for it. The sermon may sound a little too familiar — another strategy shift, another surge of forces, another insistence that this time the end really is in sight — but the preachers say they are armed with new rules, a new plan, new firepower, and new hope.

“I’m a believer,” said Col. Stephen “Joker” Jones, who bombed this very airfield from a B-1 Lancer at the beginning of the war, and later flew Reaper and Predator drones to protect it. “This country has defined my career. This is what I’ve done with my entire adult life,” Jones told reporters visiting the airfield with Gen. Votel. “I’m here for a year. I fully expect to come back. And that’s totally fine with me.”

Joker’s serious. And eager. He sits at the deployed end of a string of officers with the same faith, a string that runs back through Kabul, Votel’s CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis’s Pentagon suite, and all the way to the Oval Office. All are convinced that President Donald Trump’s new “South Asia strategy” can work.

Here’s why: Up to now, as senior U.S. military leaders in Afghanistan see things, they’ve never really had the chance to win. As they see it, past years have brought only fits and starts on the battlefield and in the Situation Room, troop surges that won hard-fought gains and drawdowns that gave them up again, early overestimations of Afghan capabilities and more recent failures to build on successes. But now, they say, they have the strongest and most capable Afghan force they’ve worked with, led by a combat-seasoned generation of Afghan senior officers and NCOs. And they say that Trump’s plan gives them permission to wage a sustained, offensive air and ground campaign against what’s left of the Taliban. Afghanistan, they believe, finally has a chance to win.

“The greatest part of the South Asia plan is that it created hope,” said Col. Tobin Magsig commander of the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division. “And hope’s a powerful force.” But the Kandahar-based commander has cautious hope. Magsig said Afghanistan’s corruption remains a top problem. Another concern is ensuring that economic progress matches up with security progress. If economic recovery comes too slowly, people get upset and could return to violence and insurgent groups. If it comes too soon, new buildings, roads, organizations will become targets of an active enemy.

Lately, the entire city of Kabul is the target. Saturday’s bombing, which followed an assault on the Intercontinental Hotel, was the city’s second major attack in three weeks. Any time the Taliban resorts to suicide attacks and car bombs, Pentagon officials always explain it away as a sign the enemy is desperate and losing face-to-face battles to gain territory. That may be a true, if unsatisfying answer. At the Pentagon on Friday, Mattis called the ambulance bombing a case in point. This kind of attack was to be expected, he said, as Afghan forces stepped up their defenses and repelled the Taliban’s attempts to invade and overtake cities.

“We anticipated that as they got blunted in trying to seize towns and dominate them that they would increase their efforts to murder innocent people, as a way to stay relevant in their minds, Mattis said. “It’s probably not the way to win the love, affection, or support of the Afghan people, obviously. And so, we anticipated this. There were a lot of steps taken and some were very successful at blocking some of these — we know we’ve stopped some, caught them, killed them, arrested them, whatever. Some have gotten through, tragically. But we anticipated this, as they were rebuffed.”

Related: America’s Longest War—and the Ally That Fuels It

Before he retired, Mattis held Votel’s job as CENTCOM commander. Last year, he and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford, formerly the top Marine Corps commander in the region and later the commanding general in Afghanistan, took Votel’s recommendations and with the White House crafted the new plan for Trump to approve. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly pointed to the Trump administration’s September roll-out of the “South Asia strategy,” like it’s their new bible.

“I think this gives us a different approach and it gives us a better way of focusing on this,” Votel said last week, explaining why Americans should give him, and this iteration of the war plan, a chance.

In a weekend visit to Kabul and Kandahar, senior military leaders who were lined up to meet with reporters traveling with Votel pointed to four key factors:
First, the leash is off. Since 2014, when President Barack Obama declared the end of combat operations, the U.S. military basically has been restricted to defending against Taliban attacks. No more. The coalition has new U.S. attack planes, ground groups, a target list, and the authorities to strike them.

“This is all part of our overarching strategy to continue to put pressure on the Taliban until they realize they’ve basically got a binary choice: they can negotiate and reconcile, or live in irrelevance and die,” said Brig. Gen. Lance Bunch, who directs future operations at Resolute Support headquarters and is the lead for the strategic air campaign. “We’ll continue to go until the Taliban reconcile.”

Related: The US Air War in Afghanistan Is Nearing Surge-Era Intensity

In Kandahar, Votel walked among the tangible evidence of this new aggressive posture: the return of A-10 Warthog attack jets. With their iconic fang-teeth nose art, the jets are a physical manifestation of the American military’s new marching orders. Within hours of arriving on base, the squadron began flying sorties — 40 as of last weekend —to provide close air support to Afghan National Army and U.S. special operations forces in the area. They’ve already been giving everything they’ve got: bombs, rockets, and yes, that famous Gatling gun, said Lt. Col. Todd “Riddler” Riddle, the squadron commander, who has been flying missions here since 2002.

They sit on an air base that looks nearly desolate, a far cry from the bustling hub it was at the war’s peak. Parts of it feel like a ghost town whose lights are coming back on, returning to life like the robots in HBO’s Westworld.

Alongside the A-10s are some of the dozen A-29 Super Tucano light attack airplanes that began arriving here in 2016. They carry 250-lb or 500-lb bombs well past Kandahar into the northern provinces.

“That is a huge capability for the Afghan Air Force that did not exist just a couple years ago,” said one colonel. In all, manufacturers Sierra Nevada Corporation and Brazil’s Embraer are expected to deliver 26 A-29s to the Afghan force. And they are just part of the – finally – growing Afghan air fleet dotting the flight line. AC-208 Combat Caravan light attack planes first arrived in 2010, MD-530F Cayuse Warrior light helicopters in 2013, A-29s in 2016, and UH-60 Black Hawks just last year.

All of it is backed up by increasingly active American B-52s, F-18s, and F-16s. “It is a significant plus-up,” Bunch said. And even more aircraft are arriving from the ISIS war in Iraq and Syria: JSTARS, Rivet Joints, and tankers flying from al-Udeid Air Base, Qatar.

“The fact of the matter is with the liberation of ISIS, the ISIS caliphate in Iraq, and over 90 percent of it, 95 percent of it liberated in Syria, the nature of the fight is different right now,” Votel said. “It’s an opportunity for us to begin to shift resources and make sure General Nicholson has what he needs, has a leg up to do what he needs to do as he implements the strategy, here.”

As the general’s bus rolls past vacant hangars, barracks, and office space once used by British forces, the colonel says, “My vision for this compound is the Afghan Fort Rucker,” a reference to the U.S. Army’s main helicopter training base. “So, we have enough space here for classrooms, simulators, and maintenance training.” There are three phases of UH-60 pilot training; already, two classes of Afghans graduated the first phase. Mission qualification training is phase two: a 10-week course with 16 students coming in February, including 10 pilots who went through courses at the real Fort Rucker. By May, the U.S. will have 16 Afghan Black Hawk pilots and 16 maintainers here.

It doesn’t compare to the F-16s that roar continuously off the runways of Bagram, north of Kabul. But it’s the kind of sustained Afghan air power that the U.S. has sought for years.

Air strikes are already underway targeting the Taliban’s financial and drug networks, just as the anti-ISIS campaign targeted oil production, banks, and cash stores in Iraq and Syria. The U.S. literally bombed warehouses of cash, sending paper flying into the sky. Bunch said the Afghan version may be more akin to operations in Colombia, which targeted the FARC’s mobile and hidden drug labs, revenue, and leadership. In Iraq and Syria, there were few oil facilities. In Afghanistan, there are 400 to 500 suspected drug labs. Bunch said there is a “deep process” to ensure that which locations to strike are “military targets.” Even so, Bunch said, “If it’s an illicit enterprise or an enterprise that’s providing funding to the Taliban and the insurgency, I’m going to target it.”

As well, there is the impending arrival of the Army’s first Security Force Assistance Brigade, or SFAB, a special unit of experienced, top-rated soldiers assembled and deployed to train foreign forces. They are set to arrive this spring, bringing two battalions and enormous expectations to this area. The SFABs have been dogged by critics before they even get off the ground. Some say they’re not elite, they’re just trainers. Some argue that Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley’s plan to establish six SFABs — meant to provide some relief for special operations forces, stability to the personnel system, and stop fielding ad-hoc counterterrorism units 17 years into the 9/11 era — will steal all of the good talent, and “glitter gear,” from the regular army. Some just think it’s tilting at windmills.

“Yeah, I think that’s vastly overstated” by the media, said Mattis, at the Pentagon last week. “I talked to Gen. Votel and Gen. Milley at length about this.” The secretary said he is going to visit the first SFAB troops soon, before they deploy. “I’ve seen the training regimes, first of all — the quality of these troops, in terms of their experience and selection. And second, their training gives me a lot of confidence.”

Commanders at Kandahar here can’t wait for the SFABs. So far, Americans have had to go out from the base to forward locations for about 10 to 14 days, train Afghans, check on them, help with shorter operations, but then come back to base. It’s been two steps forward, one step back. Instead, the SFAB will send U.S. advisor troops to stay in those forward locations, out on point “at the lowest level” of Afghan unit, or kandaks, said Votel.

“They are absolutely paramount,” said Col. Magsig.

A fourth factor is the Afghans, whom senior military leaders have said proved their mettle in 2017, driving back wave after wave of Taliban attempts to seize city centers.

“It’s like the Afghan troops took heart. The government took heart,” Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon. The secretary said as the threat has shifted to the cities, the U.S. now is “working hard to train up people for the kind of urban-protective tactics they need.”

But can they do it? Afghan forces will remain reliant upon the U.S. for intelligence, logistics, and air support for years to come. The history is not good. For years, Afghan soldier recruits were filled with illiterate, poorly nourished, and undereducated men with little loyalty to the national government. Lt. Col. Richard P. Taylor, who leads the 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment in Kandahar, insists that times – and Afghan troops – have changed. “These guys, they get after the enemy now,” he said. “There’s no more cowering.”

Taylor is on his ninth deployment. “It’s a very big difference from when I was a second lieutenant in 2002.” Afghanistan’s senior military leaders have 15 years of experience, he said, and the Afghan NCOs he’s worked with are good.

“Most of the Afghans we talk to, they’re zealots. They’re in it to win it,” Magsig said. “They say, ‘We can win this.’”

Win — that’s a word that U.S. generals in Afghanistan only recently have started to use again. And in the days Votel was in-country and back home, before Trump’s new plan really even gets a chance to begin, the disbelievers already are speaking up.

For Votel, Afghanistan is one country in a region where the U.S. must stay. “This area matters to us, because we have vital interests. Whether those vital interests are protecting the homeland, securing our own prosperity, the prosperity of our partners here, through freedom of navigation, freedom of commerce. This is an area that is troubled, there are weapons of mass destruction here, so we have concerns of — stability in this particular area, I think, is very, very important,” he said, in Jordan last week.

“And the people in this part of the world want to be aligned with us, they want to be in a relationship with the United States. They recognize what we stand for and who we are, and so they want to be our partners. And so, I think this is a vital area, whether it’s threat of terrorism, concerns to our navigation or the role that Iran is playing to this, or weapons of mass destruction in this area, I think these are all concerns – these all fit into vital national interests for our country, and that drives our necessity to be engaged in this part of the world.”

At the Pentagon, four days later, skeptical reporters asked Votel’s boss whether things in Afghanistan will get worse before they get better?

“No, our intention is that it will not get worse,” Mattis replied, “but this is war, they’re murdering innocent people, and criminals, as you know, can do things.”

Kevin Baron is the founding executive editor of Defense One. Baron has lived in Washington for 20 years, covering international affairs, the military, the Pentagon, Congress, and politics for Foreign Policy, National Journal, Stars and Stripes, and the Boston Globe, where he ran investigative ... Full bio
 

Shacknasty Shagrat

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Heating up fast in Syria.
SS

'H.K
����‏Verified account @Ibra_Joudeh

Breaking

Massive explosion sounds heard in Damascus

Israeli airstrikes reported in Jamraya area with air defense missiles launched upon unknown objects in the sky



Intel Crab
‏ @IntelCrab
1h1 hour ago

Intel Crab Retweeted قناة الحدث

The IDF launched multiple airstrikes on a research facility outside the Syrian capital of #Damascus.

ntel Crab Retweeted
Israel Breaking
‏ @IsraelBreaking
1h1 hour ago

BREAKING: Israeli raids reported in vicinity of Syrian capital of Damascus. Explosions heard, surface to air responses reported.

Ivan Sidorenko‏ @IvanSidorenko1

#Syria #Damascus Looks like #Israel #Israel Jets Fired and bombed #جمرايا #Jamraya / #Jemraya and most likely targeted the Research Building which is the same target as last time. The Anti Air Defence Missiles were launched from the 105th Brigade.



Intel Crab
‏ @IntelCrab
17m17 minutes ago

Breaking: Syrian air force has launched a response to IDF airstrikes on #Damascus.

https://twitter.com/intelcrab?lang=en
 
Top