WAR 02-06-2016-to-02-12-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
(201) 01-16-2016-to-01-22-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...22-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(202) 01-23-2016-to-01-29-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...29-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(203) 01-30-2016-to-02-05-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...05-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

__

:siren:

North Korea may be ready to launch a rocket by Super Bowl kickoff Sunday
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-launch-a-rocket-by-Super-Bowl-kickoff-Sunday
__

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-satellite-fueling-idUSKCN0VE2C4

Business | Sat Feb 6, 2016 5:39am EST
Related: World, Japan, North Korea, Aerospace & Defense

North Korea brings forward rocket launch time frame to Feb. 7-14

TOKYO

North Korea has brought forward a time frame for the launch of a rocket that it says will carry an earth observation satellite, to begin on Sunday, the Japanese and South Korean governments said on Saturday.

North Korea had earlier told the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) it would launch the rocket some time between Feb. 8 and Feb. 25. The announcement triggered international opposition from governments that see it as a long-range missile test.

Japan and South Korea said North Korea was now saying the launch would take place some time between Sunday and the following Sunday, Feb. 14.

The IMO did not immediately respond to a Reuters query for confirmation. The International Telecommunication Union, another U.N. agency, said it was not aware of an amended time frame for the launch from North Korea.


(Reporting by Nobuhiro Kubo in Tokyo, and Ju-min Park and Jack Kim in Seoul; Editing by Robert Birsel)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35511647

North Korea advances 'satellite' launch

27 minutes ago
From the section Asia

North Korea has brought forward the possible date of a controversial "satellite" launch to as early as Sunday, regional governments say.


The secretive state will launch the satellite-bearing rocket between 7-14 February, the Japanese government has said, according to reports.

Pyongyang previously said the launch would take place between 8-25 February.

The announcement was condemned by world powers, which say it is a cover for testing ballistic missile technology.

South Korea has warned the North that it will "pay a harsh price" if it goes ahead with its plan to launch the satellite.

Japan's defence minister said he had issued an order to shoot down any missile that threatened to fall on Japanese territory.

North Korea has already provoked international criticism this year with a fourth nuclear bomb test on 6 January.

A launch in the coming weeks would constitute another major violation of UN Security Council resolutions banning the state from carrying out any nuclear or ballistic missile tests.

The North insists its space programme is purely scientific in nature, but the US, South Korea and even ally China say the rocket launches are aimed at developing an inter-continental ballistic missile capable of striking the US.

Grey line
North Korea's rocket launches

A North Korean military paradeImage copyright AFP/Getty ◾May 2015: North Korea announces it has successfully tested a submarine-launched missile for the first time, but scepticism is then poured on the claim
◾Dec 2012: North Korea launches three-stage rocket, says it successfully put a satellite into orbit; US defence officials confirm object in orbit
◾Apr 2012: Three-stage rocket explodes just after take-off, falls into sea
◾Apr 2009: Three-stage rocket launched; North Korea says it was a success, US says it failed and fell into the sea
◾Jul 2006: North Korea test-fires a long-range Taepodong-2 missile; US said it failed shortly after take-off

North Korea's missile programme

How potent are the threats?

Isolated country's nuclear tests

A world leader in dramatic rhetoric
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
:dot5:

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iran-saudi-idUSKCN0VF08C

World | Sat Feb 6, 2016 4:44am EST
Related: World, Saudi Arabia

Iran mocks Saudi offer to send ground troops to Syria

DUBAI

The head of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard said on Saturday Saudi Arabia lacked the courage to go through with a plan to send ground troops to Syria, and warned they would be wiped out if they went in.

Mohammad Ali Jafari's blunt words on the Fars news agency were Iran's first official reaction to a statement from its regional rival Saudi Arabia this week that it was ready to join ground operations in Syria if a U.S.-led military alliance decided to start them.

"(The Saudis) have made such a claim but I don't think they are brave enough to do so ... Even if they send troops, they would be definitely defeated ... it would be suicide,” Jafari was quoted as saying.

Iran has already sent forces to Syria to back its ally President Bashar al-Assad in his country's five-year-old civil war. Washington and its allies have backed rebels fighting Assad and say he must eventually step down.


(Reporting by Bozorgmehr Sharafedin; Editing by Andrew Heavens)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
:dot5:

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.yahoo.com/syria-rebels-face-rout-allies-saudi-turkey-may-071955719.html

As Syria rebels face rout, allies Saudi, Turkey may send troops

AFP
By Ian Timberlake
3 hours ago

Riyadh (AFP) - With rebel forces facing the prospect of a crushing defeat by Syria's Russian-backed regime, their allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey may send in limited numbers of ground troops, analysts say.

Riyadh on Thursday left open the possibility of deploying soldiers, saying it would "contribute positively" if the US-led coalition against the Islamic State (IS) jihadist group in Syria decides on ground action.

The fate of Saudi-backed Syrian armed opposition groups fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad is also a major concern for the kingdom.

"I think Saudi Arabia is desperate to do something in Syria," said Andreas Krieg, of the Department of Defence Studies at King's College London.

Krieg said the "moderate" opposition is in danger of being routed if Aleppo falls to the regime, whose forces have closed in on Syria's second city, backed by intense Russian air strikes.

"This is a problem for Saudi and Qatar as they have massively invested into Syria via the moderate opposition as their surrogate on the ground," said Krieg, who also serves as a consultant to the Qatari armed forces.

Russia, which along with Saudi Arabia's regional rival Iran is a major ally of Assad, meanwhile has accused Turkey of "preparations for an armed invasion" of Syria.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called the claims "laughable".

But Krieg said Erdogan's policy in Syria has achieved nothing so far.

- Peace efforts stalled -

"Turkey and Saudi need to turn this war around. So any Saudi engagement would be in cooperation with Doha and Ankara," he added.

Aleppo province is among the main strongholds of Syria's armed opposition, which is facing possibly its worst moment since the beginning of the nearly five-year war, at a time when peace efforts have stalled.

The Saudi-backed opposition umbrella group, the High Negotiations Committee, says it will not return to peace talks which recently collapsed in Geneva unless its humanitarian demands are met.

"The Saudis believe that the chance of a peaceful solution for the Syrian crisis is very limited," said Mustafa Alani, of the independent Gulf Research Centre.

"They don't see that there is a real pressure on the regime to give major concessions... They think eventually it will have to end in the battlefield," Alani said.

"Turkey is enthusiastic about this option (of sending ground troops) since the Russians started their air operation and tried to push Turkey outside the equation," he added.

Alani said the Saudis are serious about committing troops "as part of a coalition, especially if the Turkish forces are going to be involved".

But he and other analysts said Saudi involvement would be limited, given its leadership of a separate Arab coalition fighting in Yemen for almost a year and guarding the kingdom's southern border from attacks by Iran-backed Yemeni rebels.

- Saudi special forces -

"They are overstretched. But in principle I think they will not hesitate to send a certain number of their fighters to fight in Syria," Alani said, adding that this would probably include Saudi special forces.

Turkey and Syria already belong to a US-led coalition which officially has 65 members. It has been bombing IS targets in Syria and Iraq, as well as training local forces to fight the extremists.

Krieg said that with Saudi and other Gulf kingdoms "bogged down" in Yemen, he could only foresee a possible expansion of "train and equip" missions involving Gulf special forces to help rebels in Syria.

"Saudi and Qatar have already networks on the ground," he said, viewing Doha as a link between Riyadh and Ankara as relations improve.

On Friday, US Central Command spokesman Pat Ryder welcomed Saudi Arabia's willingness to send soldiers against IS.

The United States has been calling on coalition members to do more.

In November, the United Arab Emirates said it was also ready to commit ground troops against jihadists in Syria.

Jane Kinninmont, senior research fellow at London's Chatham House, said Saudi Arabia is more interested in the war in Yemen than the struggle against IS.

"But what you might see is small numbers of ground troops and perhaps also special forces which would be there partly to make a symbolic point that Saudi Arabia is supporting the fight against ISIS," she said, using another acronym for the Sunni extremists.

She declared herself "a bit sceptical" about potential Turkish army involvement in Syria, "but we might see them having some kind of interest in containing Kurdish influence".

View Comments (203)


Related Stories

Saudi ready to join anti-IS ground op in Syria: general AFP
How Saudi Arabia’s Troops Could Swing the Fight Against ISIS The Fiscal Times
Saudi official says kingdom ready to send troops to Syria Associated Press
Saudi Arabia willing to send ground troops to Syria to fight ISIS: AP Reuters
Iran mocks Saudi offer to send ground troops to Syria Reuters
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
01.05 BREAKING NEWS: NORTH KOREA Claims Successful Hydrogen Bomb Test
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...TH-KOREA-Claims-Successful-Hydrogen-Bomb-Test

Hummm.......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/06/behind-the-north-korean-nuke-crisis/

Behind the North Korean Nuke Crisis

February 6, 2016

Exclusive: One fallout from the Hillary Clinton-led “regime change” in Libya – after Muammar Gaddafi gave up his WMD deterrence – is that North Korea keeps building up its nuclear-weapon program. Its leaders don’t want to suffer Gaddafi’s grisly fate, another case of how war can exacerbate other tensions, notes Jonathan Marshall.

By Jonathan Marshall

In response to North Korea’s recent announcement that it plans to launch a satellite within a few days, Washington and its partners are speaking loudly to condemn the regime but carrying very small sticks to stop it. If Teddy Roosevelt were still alive, he would not be impressed.

A White House spokesman called North Korea’s plans “another irresponsible provocation” and a senior State Department official demanded “tough additional sanctions,” as if those had ever deterred the Pyongyang regime. South Korea blustered that its northern counterpart will pay a “grave price” if it follows through with the launch, without offering anything more than rhetoric.

The satellite launch — which critics view as a cover for a ballistic missile test — comes only a month after the North held its first claimed hydrogen bomb test. By most accounts, that test was a failure. No one doubts, however, that North Korea will someday get an effective bomb, and a delivery vehicle, unless it experiences a dramatic change of heart.

The Obama administration’s current policy of economic sanctions, appealing to China for help, and denouncing the Kim Jong-un regime, isn’t working. As with its other failed policies, such as its military interventions in Afghanistan Iraq, and Syria, the U.S. government insists on continuing to do more of the same, apparently hoping for a miraculous change of outcomes.

That successive Kims who have run North Korea for decades have always thrived on Western denunciations. They have tightened the country’s belts — starving their own population if necessary — to resist Western sanctions. And they have persuaded China that the consequences of regime collapse — anarchy and mass refugee migrations — would be far worse than the status quo.

Although the Obama administration continues to appeal to China to turn the screws on the Kim regime, Beijing insists that Washington resume the six-party talks (including the Koreas, United States, China, Russia, and Japan), which expired when Obama took office. North Korea wants a peace treaty — 63 years after the end of the Korean War — as the price of stopping its nuclear program. A resumption of talks, a peace treaty, and diplomatic recognition might be prices well worth paying in return for a freeze on North Korea’s nuclear capabilities.

The chances of actually getting North Korea to abandon nukes altogether are likely nil. For that, thank NATO’s staggeringly counterproductive intervention to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi, who unilaterally gave up his weapons of mass destruction, only to become a victim of regime change.

North Korea’s Foreign Ministry concluded, “Libya’s nuclear dismantlement much touted by the U.S. in the past turned out to be a mode of aggression whereby the latter coaxed the former with such sweet words as ‘guarantee of security’ and ‘improvement of relations’ to disarm and then swallow it up by force.”

North Korea has not always been completely unreasonable on nuclear issues. In 1994, the Clinton administration managed to persuade the regime to halt its plutonium production. Pyongyang closed down its one reactor, stopped construction of two much larger reactors, and placed 8,000 spent fuel rods under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. But Washington failed to follow through on promises of making reliable fuel oil deliveries or helping build light-water reactors. North Korea, in turn, engaging in a missile test in 1998 and started a centrifuge program that could, in time, produce nuclear fuel.

Instead of trying to negotiating solutions, however, Clinton’s successor chose to reject engagement with this charter member of the Axis of Evil. In the words of President George W. Bush’s arms control czar, John Bolton, “this was the hammer I had been looking for to shatter the [1994] Agreement.”

The results were predictable: North Korea, released from its obligations by Washington’s effective withdrawal from the agreement, began harvesting plutonium from its old fuel rods, restarted its reactor to produce more, and set off a nuclear device in 2006. Scrambling to cut its losses, the Bush administration eventually renegotiated a new plutonium freeze with North Korea, but it lost a valuable opportunity to pursue more a more sweeping deal in return for diplomatic recognition and promises of non-aggression.

The Obama administration’s policy of “strategic patience” hasn’t been any more productive. Its idea is to make no concessions and wait for North Korea to recognize that bluster and threats won’t work. A year ago, the State Department flatly rejected a proposal from Pyongyang to put a temporary moratorium on nuclear tests in return for a suspension of U.S. military exercises with Seoul.

Instead, the United States imposed tougher sanctions on North Korea in response to its alleged — but disputed — hacking of Sony’s e-mail accounts. Even the New York Times editorial page lamented Obama’s refusal to offer a “serious response,” adding “It’s hard to understand what America would lose by testing the North’s intentions once again, especially as China may be ready to be a more responsible partner in finding a solution.”

North Korea is a mean, tough and often unpredictable adversary, but it doesn’t deserve sole blame for regional tensions. The United States has long threatened North Korea with the use of nuclear weapons in case of a conflict on the Korean Peninsula.

Many people who now condemn North Korea’s plan for a satellite launch ignore Japan’s much more advanced military rocket program, or the fact that in 2012 the Obama administration gave a green light to South Korea developing ballistic missiles capable of hitting any target in North Korea. South Korea tested a new long-range missile in 2014.

At the start of 2016, Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund and a leading expert on arms control, observed, “[It] is clear that the Obama Administration strategy of ‘strategic patience’ has failed to contain North Korea’s program. It is also clear that the Bush Administration policy of killing negotiations in favor of regime change failed to stop the program. North Korea went nuclear in 2006 under Bush and expanded under seven years of Obama. It is time to try a new approach.”

A new approach should start with diplomatic engagement rather than isolation and ever tighter sanctions. Many arms control experts agree that means resuming the six-party talks without preconditions, instead of insisting that North Korea first accept denuclearization as the goal. North Korea, in turn, must drop its insistence that the talks start with a peace treaty.

But there’s every reason for Washington to signal genuine interest in ending our conflictual relations by negotiating such a long-overdue treaty and recognizing the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. If nothing else, such steps would earn China’s plaudits. And perhaps, just perhaps, showing a poor, weak and isolated DPRK the respect it wants — whether or not that respect is fully deserved — might advance the vital cause of peace on the troubled Korean peninsula.

Jonathan Marshall is an independent researcher living in San Anselmo, California. Some of his previous articles for Consortiumnews were “Risky Blowback from Russian Sanctions”; “Neocons Want Regime Change in Iran”; “Saudi Cash Wins France’s Favor”; “The Saudis’ Hurt Feelings”; “Saudi Arabia’s Nuclear Bluster”; “The US Hand in the Syrian Mess”; and “Hidden Origins of Syria’s Civil War.” ]
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/ar...s--a-fearful-future-for-israel-367905721.html

Journalist predicts a fearful future for IsraeL

By: John Longhurst
Posted: 02/6/2016 3:00 AM | Comments: 0

Can you imagine a world without the state of Israel? I can't, but Ron Rosenbaum can -- even if the American Jewish journalist and author hates to even think about the possibility.

In his Dec. 14 essay in Tablet magazine, titled Thinking the Unthinkable: A Lamentation for the State Of Israel, Rosenbaum writes, "I believe the state of Israel may not survive. That its days are numbered."

This is an idea, he says, that "nobody wants to say it aloud. Not even whisper it."

Yet, he fears it is a real possibility. "The entire world has essentially turned on the Jewish state," he says.

For proof, he cites "the sewer of anti-Semitism that runs beneath the surface of social media," the rise of Islamic State (also known by the acronym ISIS), increasing anti-Semitism in Europe, calls from North America for a boycott of Israeli-produced products and those who accuse Israel of genocide in Gaza "while ignoring the explicit call for genocide in the Hamas charter."

For many, this is "no big deal," he says -- it's been this way for 2,000 years. But things feel different for Rosenbaum now, for two main reasons.

The first one is last September's declaration by Iran's Ayatollah Khameini that Israel will not exist in 25 years.

"I'd say (to Israel) that they will not see (the end) of these 25 years," Khameini said in a report carried by CNN and other media, referencing the length of some of the restrictions on his country in its new nuclear deal with western nations.

"God willing, there will be no such thing as a Zionist regime in 25 years," he added. "Until then, struggling, heroic and jihadi morale will leave no moment of serenity for Zionists."

That was bad enough, but the other reason Rosenbaum is alarmed is the so-called "stabbing intifada," where Israelis are being wounded and killed by knife-wielding Palestinian attackers.

What makes the stabbing intifada so particularly horrific, he says, is that it not warfare or insurgency, but the "ritual murder of Jews, which is an entirely new form of anti-Semitic horror show."

He went on to cite a news story that reported that 80 per cent of Israeli children are afraid for their lives, and 64 per cent are afraid to leave their homes.

"Talk about feeling precarious... the possibility will haunt every walk in the street, every trip to the market, every stroll in a public place," he wrote.

"All of Israel's nuclear weapons cannot "deter these attacks, cannot wipe out the memories, restore the losses. There is no Iron Dome for internal defence of the soul."

Does this all portend the end of the state of Israel? "I don't know," he says. "I do think it portends the end of optimism."

After reading Rosenbaum's essay, I asked Alan Green, rabbi at Shaarey Zedek Synagogue in Winnipeg, for his opinion. What did he think of what Rosenbaum had written?

"This is an article I could have written myself," said Green, a passionate supporter of Israel. "The dark picture he paints is completely accurate. And I would agree that the demise of Israel is a distinct possibility, but not necessarily a probability."

Where he differs with the author is that Green is a person of faith, while Rosenbaum describes himself as non-religious.

Green believes the founding of the state of Israel in 1948 "is the fulfilment of divine promises dating back to the prophecies of Isaiah, Ezekiel and Jeremiah, and intimately tied up with the redemption of all humanity."

He hopes the worst doesn't come true, "but the fact that Israel is facing off against the mullahs of Iran, Hezbollah, ISIS, Hamas, the Al Aksa Martyr's Brigade, al-Qaida, Boko Haram and a whole host of other evil-doers makes for an apocalyptic situation."

While Green fears for the future of Israel, he isn't worried about being a Jew in Winnipeg. "I think it's highly unlikely that anyone is going to attack a Jew simply for being Jewish in Winnipeg, or anywhere else in Canada," he says.

While he thinks Jews in Canada will continue to be safe into foreseeable future, "Israel and Europe are an entirely different story."

jdl562000@yahoo.com
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...d-In-A-Golden-Age-Of-Proliferation-–-Analysis

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.eurasiareview.com/060220...ed-in-a-golden-age-of-proliferation-analysis/

Refocus On Deterrence Needed In A Golden Age Of Proliferation – Analysis

By Geopolitical Monitor
February 6, 2016

In light of the recent North Korean nuclear detonation and the recent nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration and Iran, questions regarding proliferation are as urgent as ever. As we clearly are entering a “Golden Age of Proliferation,” the right response may prove politically unsatisfying and unpopular. It is time to get serious about nuclear deterrence strategy again while jettisoning an obsessive focus on non-proliferation.

By Greg Lawson

North Korea, and to a lesser extent Iran, give tremendous evidence that we are entering a new, uncharted time; a dawning of a true “Golden Age of Proliferation.” This concept is clearly not lost in the security field. Paul Bracken has been describing how to confront the “Second Nuclear Age” for some time. Other works have raised this alarm in recent years too, including the well received RAND monograph from the late French thinker Therese Delpech. Despite this legitimate interest, there is far too little attention being devoted to deterrence. Rather, there is an obsessive focus on non-proliferation and even pie in the sky notions such as “Global Zero.” It’s as if with the end of the Cold War, deterrence theory has gone into a near hibernation and what policy does exist runs too often on autopilot.

However, before embarking too far down the path on deterrence, it is imperative to understand why this “Golden Age of Proliferation” is emerging.

In one sense, it is remarkable that proliferation has been as limited over the past decades as it has been. President Kennedy’s Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara once anticipated eight nuclear power states within a decade. Clearly that did not happen. In fact, the pace of proliferation has consistently been slower than most pessimistic analysts forecasted. However, with nine clear nuclear weapon states today (US, Russia, Great Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea) and one that could move in that direction quickly (Iran), proliferation, despite its slow pace, has nonetheless been real. It has also shifted from super and major powers like the U.S. and the Soviet Union to include much weaker states, with Pakistan and North Korea being prime examples.

As the world continues to confront fears of global warming, nuclear power will continue to be important. Though it is clearly possible to limit proliferation of material required for weaponization, it is not clear that sufficient precautions will be universally followed. Thus, the concerns of “breakout” as a nation may, under the guise of a purely civilian nuclear program, step to the threshold of possible weaponization are valid.

Second, one must consider the status that nuclear arms convey on the world stage. While most experts would no doubt argue that the key to nonproliferation is the need to delegitimize the acquisition of nuclear weapons, this is evidently not happening in the case of North Korea. It is also debatable how this will impact Iran over the medium to longer term.

Third, we know there has been a willing market in trafficking for nuclear materials. The notorious Pakistan-based Khan network is unlikely to be the last to operate.

Finally, as U.S. power declines in a relative sense on the global stage, one of the keys to limiting proliferation, namely U.S. security guarantees, is also eroding. This could easily prompt actors facing security dilemmas in their region to re-evaluate the need for a nuclear deterrence. Though both India and Pakistan are already nuclear weapons states, there is a robust debate about increasing tactical nuclear weapons in Pakistan. Given this is where the Khan network originated, no one can be sanguine about the implications.

The tipping point has already been reached.

With respect to the most recent North Korean provocation, what sane policymaker really expects regime change to work? While the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal may call for this, prudent leaders know there are no good solutions. Backing Kim Jong-un into a corner is more, not less likely, to lead the regime into making radical decisions. Similar “regime change” rhetoric may well have led to some of Bashar al-Assad’s greater brutalities is Syria. It is probably not wise to tempt a regime like that in the Hermit Kingdom with which we have even less insight.

The Iran nuclear deal also looms large. Despite the deal and the recent turnover of uranium to Russia, covert breakout remains a legitimate option for Iran. Once sanctions are relieved, the difficulties of them being “snapped” back are significant. Additionally, Iran’s recent ballistic missile tests show they are not giving up on the development of delivery mechanisms.

A military response by either the U.S., or more likely Israel, will do little more than “mow the grass” and delay, rather than eliminate, the fundamental problem. Iran now has the knowledge base it needs to step up to the nuclear threshold. It should also be recalled that that Iran was seeking nuclear technology long before the 1979 revolution as the Shah of Iran had a desire for them. Further, as with the North Korean example, a policy of actual regime change is likely to further drive Iran along the path at even more rapid pace. With both Russian-Western tensions as well as those between the Sunni Arab world and Iran, the amount of damage that could be wreaked is serious.

In two key regions, East Asia and the Middle East, we are entering a time of shifting stability. If the U.S. weakens its position in East Asia in the face of these challenges, the potential for at least Japan, despite being the only nation ever to thus far suffer a nuclear attack, to reverse its present courts and embrace a deterrent capability cannot be discounted. Further, cascading proliferation in the Middle East is a distinct possibility. The chances that especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt will sit back in the new strategic environment is hard to fathom, especially as the U.S. shifts its regional security role to more of an offshore balancer.

Nuclear weapons are here to stay. The genie is out and will not go back into the bottle.

Thomas Schelling wrote something that should startle anyone calling for a world of so-called Global Zero:

In summary, a ‘world without nuclear weapons’ would be a world in which the United States, Russia, Israel, China, and half a dozen or a dozen other countries would have hair-trigger mobilization plans to rebuild nuclear weapons and mobilize or commandeer delivery systems, and would have prepared targets to preempt other nations’ nuclear facilities, all in a high-alert status, with practice drills and secure emergency communications. Every crisis would be a nuclear crisis, any war could become a nuclear war. The urge to preempt would dominate; whoever gets the first few weapons will coerce or preempt. It would be a nervous world.

Limiting the flow of nuclear technology to dangerous international actors should continue. But this is not enough.

As alluded to earlier, Global Zero is a fantasy, despite having high profile Cold Warriors like Kissinger, Shultz, and Sam Nunn supporting it. Pre-emptive warfare of the kind embraced in 2003 with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq is ludicrous. It is expensive and unrealistic. Consequently, we are stuck with deterrence; however, imperfect such a solution might seem for both hawks and doves.

So while deterrence must be wholeheartedly re-embraced at the highest strategic levels, it will not look like the Cold War version. Then, the calculus, though difficult, was at least more understandable inasmuch as it was a bipolar game wherein the players were largely rational. Of course, even then, deterrence was far from simple. Imagine how much more difficult it will be to now be forced to embrace a new, flexible model that recognizes the new multipolarity of the nuclear order. First and foremost, American strategists need to get serious about deterrence and think through answers to this question.

Next, the U.S. will need a significant upgrading of its arsenal. Part of this will be to determine the relative weight of each leg of the strategic triad. Additionally, it will entail going through and making clear determinations as to what real red lines should be drawn and under what circumstances and in which strategic theaters of operation.

Few will be excited to consider these steps. They are not politically attractive. They will call forth more defense spending at a time when many Americans want to stop spending so much on guns and start focusing more on butter. They are too hot for doves that live in a world where no nuclear weapons seems to be an attainable goal. They are probably too cold for hawks that support constant intervention anywhere a rogue element might obtain these weapons.

Unfortunately, good policy is frequently not good politics. Yet that does not mean that the U.S. can afford to be caught flatfooted. As North Korea’s actions this week show, there time for creating a 21st century deterrence model to confront the new, “Golden Age of Proliferation” is now, irrespective of the politics.

This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.eurasiareview.com/06022016-russias-interest-in-middle-east-iran-foe-or-friend-oped/

Russia’s Interest In Middle East: Iran Foe Or Friend – OpEd

By Sidra Khan
February 6, 2016

There exist a number of speculations regarding the lifting of sanctions and re-engagement of many western corporations investing in Iran that is creating a significant impacting Iran’s relations with Russia.

Different perspectives suggest that a resurgent Iran would contend with Russia as a significant exporter of oil and gas, which compels Moscow to thwart Iran building up its oil and gas potential. Be that as it may be, any projection of Tehran-Moscow relations should be considered in a larger canvas, particularly the role Iran is playing in Moscow’s foreign strategy to concentrate all the more strongly on Asia. Moreover, taking into account that Russia has been one of the dynamic actors from the six other world powers’ debating the nuclear terms with Tehran, it is therefore logical to accept that Moscow has been ensuring its interests in Iran and the Middle Eastern region.

It is a fact that Moscow has been occupied with a multifaceted strategic approach toward Iran’s nuclear deal. Proceeding to the rise of President Hassan Rohani’s arrangement of engagement, Moscow utilized the Iranian card to secure special considerations from the US and its allies. Subsequently, Tehran’s more appeasing approach on many events has remarkably altered the strategic statement. The ensuing changes can likewise also clarify the remarkable state-to-state meetings between Tehran and Moscow during the past decade.

Russia’s military presence in Syria has surprised many experts asit denotes another breakthrough in Russia’s geopolitical aspirations. Interestingly, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Moscow for many years chose to participate militarily outside of its alleged Near Abroad.

In any case, Russia;s air strikes were conceived since the time that Qassem Soleimani, head of Iran’s Quds Force — and who is in direct contact with Ayatollah Khamenei — visited Moscow in July 2015. According to some reports, Soleimani’s visits to Moscow and his meeting with President Vladimir Putin was the initial step that prompted the vast Russian military presence in Syria

It has been argued by some that Russia purposely ignored UN sanctions by organizing such a questionable visit. It may be a case that Tehran demanded that only Soleimani visit and meet Putin in person to talk about the Russian outlay in the Syria battle, but what constrained the Russian president from acknowledging these dangerous terms from Iran?

Russia unmistakably has a great deal to lose if Iran recovers its political and financial clout in Eurasia. The Russian-Iranian marriage of comfort is liable to end once the two begin to oppose each other in European and Asian energy markets. Iran is prepared to invest a huge number of extra barrels of oil into the business sector, which is likely to apply a much more prominent descending pressure on the cost of oil.

Many Russian corporations that have signed various arrangements with Iranian firms from aviation to farming over the previous year are liable to be sidelined by European and American organizations with more modern technology.

During various gatherings between Russian and Iranian authorities, including the ones happening along the sidelines of the nuclear debate, Tehran was noticeably negotiating from a relatively higher position. Iranians likely understood the apprehension of losing a geopolitical accomplice that was inching over that of the Russian authorities and exploited it.

According to some sources in Russia, Soleimani’s visit to Moscow was the final nail in the progression of a number of previous meetings where Tehran proposed an arrangement that Moscow could not risk to refuse. The Iranian administration may have requested Moscow to participate in Syria in return for the progression of the Russia-Iran union in the event that the sanctions were to be removed. As it was, Putin who required assurances from Iran at a critical time for the Russian economy, essentially couldn’t refuse such a proposition. While authorities present Russia’s airstrikes in Syria as a cautious computation, it could be only an exchange to secure the nation’s political and financial interest in the Middle East. Tehran’s impact over Moscow, whether to deliver its presence in the Syria crusade likewise clarifies why Iran rushed to give flyover rights to Russian Syria-bound payload planes when European nations closed their air space to the Russians.

But the questions still remains as to why Russia took more than two months to dispatch its air campaign in Syria. The answer is the domestic political element in the United States. Russia was keeping its existence in Syria on a low level as the Iran nuclear deal was under rigorous scrutiny from the Republicans in the US Senate.

Russia and Iran have an intense history loaded with clashes that are established in both nations’ aspirations of being a regional force. Once both states are not entwined by a common adversary, Iran without a doubt will begin its inclination toward the West, which could include collaborating with the United States against Russia. The belief in Moscow is that, if this happens, Russia could begin to lose its impact not only in the Middle East, but also in the world.

*Sidra Khan is currently employed in SVI and completed her MPhil in International Relations
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Main Islamic State (IS, aka ISIS, daesh, ISIL, etc) thread for 2016
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-(IS-aka-ISIS-daesh-ISIL-etc)-thread-for-2016


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...lamic-state-terror-threat-to-europe-1.2523735

Cargo ships pose Islamic State terror threat to Europe

Data shows smuggling, bogus logs, unusual coastal stop-offs and inexplicable voyages

Fri, Feb 5, 2016, 07:25 Updated: about 23 hours ago

As Europe’s politicians struggle to control a deepening migrant crisis and staunch the rising threat of Islamist terrorism on their borders, little attention is being paid to the continent’s biggest frontier: the sea.

New data highlight the extent to which smuggling, bogus shipping logs, unusual coastal stop-offs and inexplicable voyages are increasing across the Mediterranean and Atlantic for ships passing through Europe’s ports - with little or nothing being done to combat the trend, according to a detailed report in The Financial Times.

There is currently no comprehensive system to track shipments and cargos through EU ports and along its approximately 70,000km of coastline - a deficiency that has long been exploited by organised criminals and which could increasingly prove irresistible to terrorists too, say European security officials.

“So far, the thing about maritime security, and particularly terrorists exploiting weaknesses there, is that it’s the dog that’s not barked,” says former Royal Navy captain Gerry Northwood, chief operating officer of Mast, a maritime security company, and commander of the counter-piracy task force in the Indian Ocean.

“But the potential is there. The world outside Europe - North Africa for example - is awash with weapons. If you can get a bunch of AK47s into a container, embark that container from Aden then you could get them into Hamburg pretty easily. A whole armoury’s worth.”

In January, 540 cargo ships entered European ports after passing through the territorial waters of terrorist hotspots Syria and Libya, as well as Lebanon, for unclear or uneconomic reasons during the course of their voyages.

The number of vessels using flags of convenience - using the ensign of a state different to that in which a ship’s owners reside to mask identity or reduce tax bills - is also rising. Of the 9,000 ships that passed through European waters last month, 5,500 used flags of convenience.

The data were compiled for the FT by Windward, an Israeli maritime intelligence company which collates shipping data from public and proprietary sources and uses algorithms to identify unusual or suspicious activities.

Some specific cases identified in the Windward data are particularly worrisome. In the middle of last month, for example, one 76-metre cargo ship left Golcuk in Turkey, sailed to Misurata in Libya and then switched off its location and transmitting devices for three hours as it sailed close to shore along the coast of Tunisia before reassuming its stated course and going to Pozzallo in Italy.

Another ship left Genoa bound for Lisbon on November 8th, but rather than take a direct route, the vessel took a 500 nautical mile detour to a point mid-sea off the coast of Africa, where it stopped, lingered, and then performed a u-turn towards Portugal. It raises the possibility that the ship performed a mid-sea rendezvous with another vessel to transfer an illicit cargo.

Scale of problem

A senior European counter terrorism official said there was mounting concern about port and maritime security in Brussels and in Europe’s capitals, but that the scale of the problem was so large that no one was thinking of ways to meaningfully tackle it.

“Some countries have pretty good customs operations, but we’re talking about having to monitor hundreds of ports and co-ordinate across them. The reality is that most of the time we are relying on what the ship’s captain is telling us,” he said.

Even a single container ship was impossible to fully search, he added.

In the wake of the September 11th terror attacks in New York and Washington, and the bombing of the Limburg oil tanker in the Gulf of Aden in 2002, maritime security standards were strengthened significantly with the International Ship and Port Security Code, an amendment to the safety of life at sea convention.

The code requires port authorities to have detailed security plans and measures in place, but it stops short of mandating specific standards. Many European states resisted stronger measures on cost grounds and enforcement is patchy, say experts.

“In principle it is stringent but in practice, it’s only as good as the people who are applying it,” says Mr Northwood. “There is very little or no oversight.”

Part of the problem in Europe is a lack of co-ordination or information sharing in identifying suspicious activity at sea that would allow authorities to target their investigative resources more effectively.

“What’s needed is better upstream intelligence,” says Calum Jeffray, research fellow at the defence think-tank RUSI. “There is thematic analysis across Europe, but a lot of that is specifically around narcotics . . . . there’s a tendency to overlook maritime and port security when it comes to terrorism. When you think about how much effort goes into airport screening - there’s a huge difference. And what is happening in north Africa at the moment is going to make that much more noticeable.”

Mr Jeffray suggested that oversight could be improved by expanding the remit of the maritime analysis and operations centre (MOAC), a Portugal-based multilateral naval intelligence service staffed by military officials from seven EU states and the US. The centre currently only has a remit to interdict narcotics smuggling.

“Something more is needed,” says Ami Daniel, chief executive of Windward. “At the moment, the sea is a backdoor into Europe and unless there is clear intelligence or a tip off, most of these vessels are never inspected or intercepted. We are getting to a point where this is going to cause problems . . .arms, drugs and people are all coming over unchecked.”

The Financial Times
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://defensesystems.com/articles/2016/02/04/dod-navy-uuv-investments.aspx

Unmanned Systems

DOD plans to invest $600M in unmanned underwater vehicles

By Mark Pomerleau
Feb 04, 2016

Aerial drones get most of the attention, but the Defense Department also has its eyes on the sea, seeking to invest a great deal in unmanned underwater capabilities.

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter told sailors aboard the USS Princeton aircraft carrier in San Diego on Feb. 3 that “we’re also investing $600 million over the next five years in variable size and variable payload unmanned undersea vehicles – a new capability you’ll be seeing a lot more of.”

This new capability was described in terms of “distributed lethality,” defined by Carter as “making our ships and aircraft work together in ways that they haven’t before but technology makes possible.”

Undersea unmanned vehicles have been used in the past for a wide variety of mission sets that include mine inspection, hull inspection, gathering data on tides, current and weather conditions for the development of future tasks, and collecting ISR.

The Navy released the “The Navy Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV) Master Plan” in 2004, updating a similar document from 2000 listing 11 mission categories for operations, including:
•Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
•Mine countermeasures
•Anti-submarine warfare
•Inspection / identification
•Oceanography
•Communications / navigation network node
•Payload delivery
•Information operations
•Time critical strike
•Barrier patrol for homeland defense and force protection
•Sea base support .

An updated document was released in 2011, but according to Seapower Magazine it remains classified.

In last year’s budget proposal, the Navy sought to spend $4.8 million in UUV sensors for meteorological purposes. Additionally, funds went toward underwater mine countermeasures, explosive ordnance disposal and UUV incremental capability improvement program retrofit kits.

One of the largest UUV projects for the Navy currently is the Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle, which will provide ISR, acoustic surveillance, anti-submarine warfare, mine counter-measures and offensive operations. Testing for the program is still ongoing.

The Director of Unmanned Warfare Systems within the new N99 directorate, Rear Adm. Robert Girrier, told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that there are incredible opportunities in the undersea domain. “I can think of so many missions that unmanned systems can help out,” he said, noting that there are times when a small unmanned vehicle could do a job that otherwise would require a large, expensive and manned submarine.

Top Navy officials have described a robust plan for undersea operations. “Undersea dominance – that is an inherently Department of Navy domain. And we are just scratching the surface in some of the capabilities to be able to give…forward fleet commanders the emerging capabilities and technologies to build the Eisenhower highway network undersea across the entire sea,” the Chief of Naval Research, Rear Adm. Mathias Winter, said in an August appearance at CSIS, comparing the Navy’s plans for an underwater equivalent of the Interstate Highway system. “Thousands of miles of logistical networks to allow large scale deployment of UUVs, allowing them to communicate, engage, resupply…those technologies are focused around the same technologies that support our directed energy, our unmanned systems and our electric weapons.”

During his remarks in San Diego, Carter said that continued investment in technology is critical to maintaining dominance among other nation’s military capabilities. “The third thing that makes us great is having the greatest technology and the most powerful capabilities of any other military in the world,” he said. “That’s something that we have today and that it’s important that we continue to have 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 30 years from now. So when I and Adm. Richardson, our fantastic chief of naval operations, and all the rest of our leadership and all of you – even as we fight today’s fights, which we have to do – defeating [ISIS], deterring North Korea – we can’t take our eyes off the things of today. We also have to cast our eyes ahead 10, 20, 30 years from now.”

He also, in response to a question about future conflicts, talked about integrating the domains of warfare, including cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum. “A second that you’ll see around here is the influence of these new domains that are not surface warfare or subsurface warfare or air warfare; they’re cyber warfare, they’re space warfare, they’re electronic warfare – of course which has been around for a long time – but where there’s tremendous pace of change, [there is] tremendous opportunity. So you’re going to see a fleet that is much more powerful, much more lethal, much more connected,” Carter said.


About the Author

Mark Pomerleau is an editorial fellow with GCN and Defense Systems, covering defense IT, unmanned aerial systems and emerging technologies.

Prior to joining 1105 Media, Pomerleau worked for a member of the Virginia House of Delegates. He is a graduate of Westfield State University.

Click here for previous articles by Pomerleau, or connect with him on Twitter: @MpoM24.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Just got back from running some errands; and having a flyover by the Blue Angles in prep for the Super Bowl up here in Si Valley....


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.dw.com/en/dresden-tolera...a-marches-take-place-across-europe/a-19031248

Germany

Dresden tolerance rally goes ahead as PEGIDA marches take place across Europe

Around 2,000 people turned out to call for tolerance, while up to 8,000 far-right PEGIDA supporters took to the streets of Dresden. Several anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim groups have staged demos across Europe.

Date 06.02.2016

The German state of Saxony's deputy premier was among those who marched through the eastern German city calling for tolerance on Saturday, in defiance of the anti-immigration movement that held a larger demonstration on the other side of the Elbe River.

"We will not let it be known that Dresden believes in incitement; we are here because we want to show Dresden's true heart," Martin Dulig told the "Solidarity without limits" group.

Appealing for their protest to send out a clear anti-xenophobic message, Dulig added, "We are the majority, and we must always say and show that."

Police ready to handle violence

Witnesses described a heavy police presence as around 2,000 people - mainly members of faith groups, political activists and trade union members - marched from Dresden's train station to the city center.

Earlier, a Protestant service at the Dresden Synagogue also sought to counter the events of the so-called European Action Day by PEGIDA, which had hoped to hold protests in 14 countries.

It was the first time a Protestant service was permitted in the Jewish place of worship.

"It is our duty to be open towards refugees and foreigners," Nora Goldenbogen, the chair of the local Jewish community group, told the EPD news agency after the service.

Followers of the group Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West (PEGIDA) began their, much larger rally shortly afterwards.

Their supporters held placards calling for German Chancellor Angela Merkel to step down, while the Anti-PEGIDA group waved banners with the words "No place for Nazis" during their rally.

"Independent of the EU and the usual elitist circles, we will develop the network of patriots in Europe - to Fortress Europe," PEGIDA leader Tatjana Festerling said in Dresden, which she described as the "capital of German resistance." The right-wing, anti-Islam, anti-immigration PEGIDA group started in the eastern German city October 2014.

Police said they were prepared in case violence broke out between the two groups, after similar protests turned ugly recently. Ahead of the march, PEGIDA organizers had said they hoped some 20,000 people would attend their march. Estimates of the actual number of demonstrators put the number at between 6,000 and 8,000.

The anti-immigration movement has been buoyed by rising fears as hundreds of thousands of migrants have entered Europe over the past year.

In particular, many Germans are skeptical about whether the country can integrate so many newcomers at once.

Events like the sexual assaults that took place in Cologne on New Year's Eve have helped fuel concerns. The perpetrators of those attacks were described as North African.

But amid rising hate speech by leaders of the far-right movement, there is a growing chorus of voices calling for those encouraging violence against foreigners or politicians to be prosecuted.

Skirmishes at other protests

Meanwhile in The Netherlands on Saturday, riot police clashed with protesters as PEGIDA supporters attempted to hold their first protest in Amsterdam.

Around 200 PEGIDA supporters were outnumbered by police and left-wing demonstrators. Several people were arrested.

Similar scenes took place in the French port city of Calais, close to where thousands of migrants lived in makeshift camps in an attempt to reach the UK.

The AFP news agency reported that around 150 protesters gathered in the center of the town, carrying signs such as "This is our home," waving the French flag and singing the French national anthem.

Police issued warnings for the demonstration to disperse and then fired tear gas to break it up, arresting around 10 people, an AFP correspondent said.

In the Czech capital, Prague, some 1,500 PEGIDA supporters waved banners with the words "No immigration - Stop the Merkelization."

After two counter-demonstrations of about 400 people arrived, police reportedly fired into the air to separate the two groups.

Similar, smaller PEGIDA-style protests were planned in Britain and Poland on Saturday as support for the movement spreads across Europe.

mm/sms (AFP, dpa, EPD, Reuters)


DW recommends

Cars blaze in Dresden as PEGIDA demonstrates nearby

Thousands of PEGIDA demonstrators have once again protested in the eastern German city of Dresden. Local media have reported that 10 cars, thought to belong to PEGIDA supporters, were set alight. (25.01.2016)


Most anti-refugee demos in Germany 'controlled by far-right'

The German Interior Ministry believes that PEGIDA-related demos around the country were "controlled and influenced" by far-right organizations. This undermines claims they represent a mainstream people's movement. (03.12.2015)


Pegida meets with European allies in the Czech Republic

Germany's anti-immigration movement Pegida has signed a declaration with like-minded groups from 14 European countries, agreeing on joint protests in February. The associations warn of "Islam conquering Europe." (23.01.2016)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...m-pegida-protests-across-europe-a6857911.html

Thousands take part in anti-Islam Pegida protests across Europe

In Birmingham, protesters held signs saying 'Trump is right'

Will Worley |@willrworley |3 hours ago| Comments

Protesters from the anti-Islam PEGIDA movement marched in cities across Europe today.

With around 2000 attendees, the largest was in Dresden, the home town of the group, the Daily Mail reported.

There were also far right demonstrations in the Netherlands, Austria, Ireland, Poland, France, Czech Republic, Slovakia and even Australia.

In Birmingham, 100 - 300 protesters joined the first PEGIDA demonstration in Britain. A silent march walked through a Birmingham industrial estate, a Guardian journalist reported:

Josh Halliday
✔ ‎@JoshHalliday

Pegida rally of about 2-300 supporters marching silently in the rain through a Birmingham industrial estate

6:25 AM - 6 Feb 2016 · Solihull, England, United Kingdom

The march was led by Stephen Yaxley Lennon, also known as Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the far-right English Defence League.

In Dublin, there were scuffles as hundreds of counter-protesters came out against PEGIDA demonstrators.

Ciarán Cuffe ‎@CiaranCuffe


Strong security presence, and some great signs at #NoPegida rally at GPO

6:17 AM - 6 Feb 2016

Sinn Fein MEP for Dublin Lynn Boylan told said to a counter-rally on O'Connell Street: " We are standing shoulder to shoulder in solidarity to show that there is no place in Ireland for racism and Islamophobia."

"There is no place in Ireland for hate. We are a welcoming nation because we are no strangers to migration."

Known by its German acronym Pegida (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident), the group emerged two years ago and has become a magnet for far-right and anti-immigrant sentiment.

Nationalist groups in Europe have been galvanized by the unprecedented influx of refugees from Africa, Asia and the Middle East last year.

Last month, water cannons and pepper spray were used to push back more than a thousand anti-immigration protesters in Cologne following attacks on New Year's Eve.

Associated Press contributed to this report.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/north-koreas-missile-launch-threat-raises-the-stakes/

North Korea's Missile Launch Threat Raises the Stakes

Pyongyang’s allegedly impending missile launch emphasizes the need for stronger action by Washington and its allies.

By Bruce Klingner
February 06, 2016

0 Likes
4 Comments

North Korea announced it will launch a long-range missile sometime this month, perhaps as soon as February 8. The regime claims the payload will be merely a civilian “earth observation satellite.” Even if true, United Nations (UN) Security Council resolutions specifically preclude Pyongyang from “any further launches that use ballistic missile technology.” Both Pyongyang’s promised missile launch and its January 6th nuclear test are unambiguous violations of UN resolutions.

In recent years, North Korea has extended the height of the gantry at the Sohae launch facility. This suggests they might test a larger missile with greater range. However, the intended splashdown locations announced for the first and second stages are nearly identical to North Korea’s December 2012 missile launch, indicating that this month’s missile will likely be another Unha-3. The 2012 launch successfully put a satellite into orbit, demonstrating the same technology needed to launch an ICBM.

South Korea recovered and analyzed the stages of the 2012 missile. The South Korean Minister of Defense subsequently testified that it had an estimated range of 10,000 km and could have reached the continental United States. In 2015, the U.S. commanders of U.S. Forces Korea, Pacific Command, and NORAD publicly assessed that Pyongyang now has the ability to hit the United States with a nuclear weapon.

In response to last month’s nuclear test, the United States is pushing for stronger UN sanctions on North Korea—something China again stiffly opposes. Though some experts have speculated that Beijing would adopt a tougher stance toward North Korea under President Xi Jinping, China continues to prevent a meaningful U.N. response. Indeed, Beijing has repeatedly criticized allied reactions to North Korean threats, attacks, and violations rather that the precipitating actions by Pyongyang. For example, China is currently pressuring Seoul not to deploy the THAAD missile defense system rather than confronting Pyongyang to abandon its prohibited offensive nuclear and missile programs.

In parallel with UN Security Council debate, the U.S. Congress is finalizing legislation to impose tougher unilateral measures. This is spurred in part by lawmakers’ frustration over the Obama administration’s timid incrementalism of repeatedly hitting the snooze bar on more North Korean sanctions. Contrary to President Obama’s assertion that North Korea is the “the most isolated, the most sanctioned, the most cut-off nation on Earth,” there is much more the United States can do to pressure Pyongyang. In recent Congressional testimony, I highlighted the punitive measures the United States has applied to other nations for far less egregious violations, but not yet applied to North Korea. Those measures should be applied.

South Korea has pledged “searing consequences” against North Korea if it launches a missile, but still hesitates to implement appropriate responses. Legitimate responses would include: requesting U.S. deployment of the THAAD missile defense system to the Korean Peninsula; severing its involvement in the Kaesong industrial zone, and passing a North Korea Human Rights Act—something that’s been debated legislatively for a decade now.

Despite escalating North Korean nuclear and missile threats, South Korea has resisted implementing a more effective missile defense due to Chinese pressure and economic threats. The U.S. THAAD is more capable than anything South Korea has or will have available for decades.

The Kaesong joint economic venture with North Korea has utterly failed to achieve any of its political objectives. The goal was to induce North Korean economic and political reform and moderate the regime’s aggressive behavior. Successive South Korean administrations vowed repeatedly to restrict North Korea’s financial lifelines following U.N. violations and armed attacks, but all continued to funnel large amounts of cash to the regime through Kaesong. This has severely undermined the impact of international sanctions.

During the 12 years of Kaesong’s existence, North Korea has: conducted four nuclear and numerous missile tests; killed 50 South Koreans and maimed two others, and repeatedly threatened South Korea in vile and intimidating terms. Despite this, Seoul continues its self-flagellating behavior. It refuses to pull the plug on Kaesong out of a misplaced sense of nostalgia and fear of cutting “the last economic ties with the North.” Seoul should wean itself from the North’s extortion-based endeavor.

North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests are serious, irreparable violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Pyongyang remains openly defiant of the international community despite countless attempts to reach a diplomatic resolution. It is time for the United States and its allies to impose stronger sanctions and to beef up security against the growing North Korean military threat.

Bruce Klingner is a senior research fellow for Northeast Asia in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation. He previously served as the CIA’s deputy division chief for Korea.
 

Night Breeze

Veteran Member
In my opinion the Saudis will not have much impact with ground troops in Syria. But their strength in the region is their Air Force probably only second to Israel with their training, combat experience and superior equipment. Even the Russian Air Force I don't think could defeat the Saudis in air combat. As a second prong combined with a Turkish ground force and close air support of the US the allied coalition would be formidable. I think Putin would cuss and have a tantrum but the Saudis have AWACs almost as good as US and would probably even get an assist from Israel for intel and targeting. Still would be a hairy war but the first conventional war in that area in a while.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
North Korea Launches Ballistic Missile Confirmed
Started by eXeý, Today 04:39 PM

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-satellite-idUSKCN0VG00H

Business | Sat Feb 6, 2016 8:20pm EST
Related: World, United Nations, South Korea, North Korea

North Korea launches rocket it says carrying satellite

SEOUL/TOKYO


North Korea launched a long-range rocket on Sunday carrying what it has said is a satellite, South Korea's defense ministry said, in defiance of United Nations sanctions barring it from using ballistic missile technology.

North Korea had notified U.N. agencies that it planned to launch a rocket carrying an Earth observation satellite, triggering opposition from governments that see it as a long-range missile test. It initially gave a Feb. 8-25 time frame for the launch but changed that to Feb. 7-14 on Saturday.

The rocket was launched on a southward trajectory, as planned, passing over Japan's southern Okinawa islands, Japan's NHK reported, and appeared to have successfully separated its first stage booster, South Korea's Yonhap reported.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called the launch "absolutely unacceptable."


Related Coverage
› U.S. tracks North Korean rocket, sees no threat to U.S. or allies

Last month, North Korea tested a nuclear device for the fourth time, although the United States and other governments have expressed doubt over the North's claim that it exploded a hydrogen bomb.

North Korea is believed to be working on miniaturizing a nuclear warhead to mount on a missile, but many experts say it is some time away from perfecting such technology.

It has shown off two versions of a ballistic missile resembling a type that could reach the U.S. West Coast, but there is no evidence the missiles have been tested.

Isolated North Korea says it has a sovereign right to pursue a space program. But it is barred under U.N. Security Council resolutions from using ballistic missile technology.


Related Coverage
› U.S., Japan, South Korea ask for emergency U.N. meeting on North Korea
› Japan did not try to shoot down North Korean rocket: NHK

It last launched a long-range rocket in December 2012, sending into orbit an object it described as a communications satellite.

(Reporting by Jack Kim and Ju-min Park in Seoul and Shinichi Saoshiro and Leika Kihara in Tokyo; Editing by Tom Brown and James Dalgleish)

______

North Korea may be ready to launch a rocket by Super Bowl kickoff Sunday
Started by eXe‎, Yesterday 03:28 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-launch-a-rocket-by-Super-Bowl-kickoff-Sunday

Satellite images show arrival of fuel trucks at North Korea launch site -think tank
Started by medic38572‎, Yesterday 03:20 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-trucks-at-North-Korea-launch-site-think-tank

01.05 BREAKING NEWS: NORTH KOREA Claims Successful Hydrogen Bomb Test
Started by JohnGaltfla‎, 01-05-2016 06:01 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...TH-KOREA-Claims-Successful-Hydrogen-Bomb-Test

Has Iran Duped Obama
Started by imminence‎, 02-04-2016 06:03 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?483802-Has-Iran-Duped-Obama
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-islamic-state-isis-libya-20160206-story.html

Islamic State on rise in Libya: 'Syria all over again'

By Brian Bennett, W.J. Hennigan
Chicago Tribune
February 6, 2016, 12:32 PM |WASHINGTON

As Islamic State forces lose ground in Iraq and Syria, fighters loyal to the group have seized territory in oil-rich Libya, levying taxes at gunpoint and creating sanctuaries to launch possible attacks in North Africa and Europe, U.S. officials say.

The Pentagon has sent special operations teams to gather intelligence and launched at least one airstrike. But the White House so far has resisted calls from some senior aides to escalate the U.S. military role in another Muslim country to counter the potential threat.

Spy satellites and reconnaissance drones have shown the militants building fortifications around Sirte, on the central Mediterranean coast, and training bases for foreign fighters farther inland, the officials said.

A U.S. intelligence estimate last week concluded Islamic State has attracted more than 5,000 fighters in Libya, double the official estimate last fall, making it the extremist group's largest and most potent affiliate outside Syria and Iraq.

Islamic State threatens to gain a "stranglehold" in Libya and "access to billions of dollars of oil revenue," Secretary of State John Kerry said, one of several alarms the administration has raised in recent days.

He spoke at a conference last week in Rome where the U.S. and 22 other nations agreed to support the formation of a unity government in Tripoli, the capital, in an effort to restore stability and take on the militants.

Libya has had no functioning central government since the NATO bombing campaign helped a popular uprising oust ruler Moammar Gadhafi in 2011.

It has faced political chaos and a civil war ever since, with two rival governments battling for power and squabbling militias exploiting the power vacuum.

"In the absence of a true government, (militant groups) have grown unchecked," said a U.S. defense official, not authorized to speak publicly. "It's like Syria all over again."

Islamic State "has a bad habit of growing in places that are ungoverned," Tina Kaidanow, the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator said last week at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

She cited an urgency at the White House and its allies to move quickly before the group expands beyond its current foothold, which extends about 100 miles east and west of Sirte.

"We don't want to see the growth of (Islamic State) outpace what will be a long-term effort to build out a successful Libyan government," she said.

The group's rise comes as foreign fighters from Tunisia and elsewhere in Africa have moved to Sirte and other strongholds in Libya, rather than to the war zones in Syria and Iraq, where the militants have suffered several military setbacks in recent months from the U.S.-led coalition.

The Pentagon wants to ensure "Libya not get on a glide slope" where it "gathers a piece of territory from which it's able to tyrannize people and plot operations elsewhere," Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said last week at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada.

Any military intervention probably would be led by France and Italy, the former colonial powers. Options include sending troops from Italy to help protect the new government, using U.S. and French advisers to train Libyan counterterror forces and launching airstrikes.

British and U.S. special operations teams and intelligence services have focused on identifying Islamic State leaders, assessing their networks and strongholds, and reaching out to local militias willing to fight against them, officials said.

But intelligence officials said the militias are unreliable, poorly organized and divided by region and tribe, as well as by outside support, the same complex problem that has crippled U.S. attempts to unify opposition groups in Syria.

Islamist and Berber militias in the west, assisted by Qatar, have engaged in brutal clashes with more secular forces in the east apparently led by former Gadhafi loyalists and supported by Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.

Islamic State fighters have attacked oil fields and installations in some cases, hobbling a major source of income for the fledgling government. Oil production has fallen in half from a year ago, according to the state-run National Oil Corp.

The only known U.S. airstrike was in November, when F-15 fighter jets killed a senior Islamic State commander known as Abu Nabil near the eastern city of Derna. Officials said the Iraqi national narrated a video released last year that showed militants beheading 21 Egyptian workers, all Coptic Christians, in Libya.

Some national security experts warn that Islamic State is quietly taking root in Libya much as it did in Syria prior to the militants' blitz across Iraq in early 2014, seizing cities, oil fields, military bases and banks.

"I think its increasingly a national security priority for us to limit the spread of (Islamic State) in Libya given the expansion that's been seen recently," said Ben Fishman, former top National Security Council official on North Africa affairs.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, urged the White House to launch airstrikes against the militants' leaders. He warned that Islamic State could use Libya "as a gateway into southern Europe."

bbennett@tribpub.com

whennigan@tribpub.com
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://in.reuters.com/article/pakistan-attack-idINKCN0VF0GT

Sat Feb 6, 2016 8:10pm IST
Related: Top News, World, South Asia

Suicide bomber kills nine, injures dozens, in Pakistan city of Quetta

QUETTA, Pakistan


At least nine people were killed and 35 wounded when a suicide bomber blew himself up near a military convoy in Pakistan's western city of Quetta on Saturday, police and hospital officials said.

Pakistani Taliban spokesman Muhammad Khurasani told Reuters that the group, also known as the TTP, was responsible for the attack in the capital of the province of Baluchistan.

The bombing was the latest in a region which is home to the planned route of a $46 billion China-Pakistan economic corridor.

"The suicide bomber was riding a bicycle close to a Frontier Corps vehicle," said senior police official Imtiaz Shah, referring to the branch of Pakistan's paramilitary forces targeted in the attack.

At least three Frontier Corps personnel were killed and 15 were injured in the attack that occurred in the city centre in the late afternoon, Frontier Corps spokesman Khan Wasey said.

A 12-year-old girl was also among the dead, said Ajab Khan, a doctor at the city's Civil Hospital, where the casualties were taken.

Rich in resources, Baluchistan is at the heart of the multi-billion-dollar energy and infrastructure projects which China and Pakistan are planning along a corridor stretching from the Arabian Sea to China's Xinjiang region.

The province, the poorest and least developed in Pakistan, has seen nearly a decade of separatist violence against the government and non-Baluch ethnic groups.

Baluch activists and human rights groups claim the military has carried out a campaign of kidnapping, torture and extrajudicial killing of suspected separatists, and a security crackdown has severely limited freedom of movement.

In January, five Pakistani soldiers and two coast guard members were killed in separate attacks in the province, and a suicide bomber killed at least 15 people outside a polio eradication centre in Quetta.


(Reporting by Gul Yousufzai; Additional reporting by Asad Hashim in Islamabad and Saud Mehsud in Dera Ismail Khan; Writing by Krista Mahr; Editing by Andrew Bolton)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-burkina-niger-kidnapping-australia-idUSKCN0VF0UT

World | Sat Feb 6, 2016 11:20pm EST
Related: World, Australia

Australian woman freed after kidnap by al Qaeda in Burkina Faso

NIAMEY

An elderly Australian woman kidnapped with her husband in Burkina Faso by a group affiliated to al Qaeda has been freed, neighboring Niger's President Mahamadou Issoufou said on Saturday.

Issoufou presented the woman, Jocelyn Elliott, at a news conference in Dosso, southwestern Niger, and said authorities were intensifying efforts to secure the release of her husband.

The pair were seized on Jan. 15.

Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb said on Friday it had kidnapped the couple and would release the woman unconditionally due to public pressure and guidance from al Qaeda leaders not to involve women in war.

The circumstances of her release and how she arrived in Niger were not immediately clear.

For over 40 years, Dr. Ken Elliott and his wife, who are in their 80s, have operated a 120-bed clinic in the town of Djibo near Burkina Faso's border with Mali.

Their children in Australia said they were "deeply grateful for the safe release of our mother Jocelyn".

"We are trusting that the moral and guiding principles of those who have released our mother will also be applied to our elderly father who has served the community of Djibo and the Sahel for more than half his lifetime,” they said a statement.

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull thanked the governments of Niger and Burkina Faso for their assistance and confirmed that his government had spoken to Jocelyn Elliott following her release.

The Elliotts were abducted from the town the same day al Qaeda fighters raided a restaurant and hotel in Burkina Faso's capital, Ouagadougou, and killed 30 people, many of whom were foreigners.


(Reporting by Souleymane Ag Anara and Abdoulaye Massalaki, Additional reporting by Morag MacKinnon in PERTH,; Writing by Matthew Mpoke Bigg; Editing by Toby Chopra, Robert Birsel)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/content/airp...yees-detained-somali-plane-blast/3179920.html

Somali Officials: Man Killed in Plane Bombing Given Laptop Before Flight

Mohamed Olad Hassan
Last updated on: February 07, 2016 4:40 AM

Somali government officials said Saturday airport security cameras caught two people dressed in military uniforms passing a laptop to the passenger who died after Tuesday's mid-flight bomb blast aboard a passenger plane.

"The National Intelligence Agency has security recordings showing two men giving a laptop, in a hidden way, to a passenger man. The man was identified as the dead body ejected out of the hole created by the explosion," Cabinet spokesman Abdisalan Ahmed Ato told VOA's Somali service.

An official of the Somali Intelligence Agency told VOA earlier that Mogadishu airport staff and employees of Daallo Airlines were among those who have been detained for questioning, including two people suspected of assisting the suspected bomber.

Ato said investigators have detained more than 20 people so far, and that government officers and business people with suspected links to the incident are among them.

At a news conference in Mogadishu Saturday, Somali Aviation Minister Ali Ahmed Jangali identified the man who died as Abdullahi Abdisalam Boorle, saying he was sucked out of the plane through the hole left by the explosion.

The minister would not say whether Boorle was linked to the attack, citing the ongoing nature of the investigation.

A senior Somali security official told VOA that the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation is helping Somalia with the probe.

The blast forced the pilot of Flight 159, bound for Djibouti with 74 passengers on board, to make an emergency landing about 15 minutes after take-off from Mogadishu.

Somalia’s former director of national intelligence, Ahmed Moallim Fiqi, told VOA earlier that the nature of the attack and evidence pointed to “a planned bomb attack" against the airliner.

Chris Hannas and Sahra Abdi Ahmed contributed to this report.


Related Articles

Al-Shabab Suspected in Mid-Flight Somali Plane Blast
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://warontherocks.com/2016/02/the-long-road-to-mosul/

The Long Road to Mosul

Denise Natali
February 4, 2016

As the campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) gains momentum in Iraq, the focus has returned to Mosul, a key ISIL stronghold. Iraqi Defense Minister Khaled al-Obeidi has affirmed that security preparations are being made, to include training thousands of different paramilitary fighters as part of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF). The United States has offered to increase its battlefield support to the ISF — at Baghdad’s request — to include deploying Apache attack helicopters and advisors, in addition to training and equipping Iraqi troops at the division level and coalition airstrikes.

Still, half of the battle for Mosul will be a political one that takes place before the fighting commences. Key local and regional stakeholders continue to disagree over who should take the lead and be involved in the Mosul offensive. Liberating Mosul is also tied to determining “who gets what” in a post-ISIL settlement; the nature of boundaries, resources, security, and local governance. A successful U.S. military strategy cannot resolve these issues; however, it should account for the underlying political nature of the campaign and the necessary Iraqi deal-making that will drive the timeline, participants, and its potential outcome.

Liberating Mosul is more difficult than the recent Ramadi offensive largely due to demographics, geography, and politics. Known by Iraqis as the “city of a million officers,” Mosul retains the large presence of Saddam Hussein’s former Ba’athist generals and officers. These influences are Sunni Arab, Iraqi nationalist, anti-Iranian, and divided between secularist and Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups. Mosul also has mixed urban and tribal groups, as well as minorities (especially Yezidis, Assyrians, and Kurds) in the city and outlying areas. It is over three times the size of Ramadi and has nearly 700,000 civilians still living inside the city, making the use of coalition airstrikes (which were critical to Ramadi’s success) a less likely option. Further, Mosul’s proximity to Syria means that local populations need to be assured that ISIL will not return. If the Syrian border and outlying areas are not secured, then people will not volunteer to fight or support anti-ISIL efforts, even discreetly.

Given these conditions, Sunni Arabs must play a critical role in the Mosul offensive, alongside and part of the ISF and its elite counter-terrorism forces. Sunni Arab personalities are leading this effort, to include Gen. Najim al-Jibouri, head of the Iraqi Government’s Operational Command for the Liberation of Mosul. The command includes Sunni Arab battalions within the ISF and distinct Sunni Arab mobilization forces, some of which participated in the liberation of Ramadi.

The problem, however, is that the pool of Sunni Arab fighters in Mosul is much smaller than the well-trained and large Ramadi tribal forces. Securing vital Sunni Arab support also has steep political hurdles. Sunni Arabs may despise ISIL but they have ongoing fears of retaliation from various groups, concerns about their future in Iraq, and internal divisions. This is why one high-level Iraqi security official affirmed to me that they want to make sure to “win the [political] battle before recruiting and engaging against Mosul.” Over the past year, Baghdad has been reaching out and negotiating deals with small groups and Sunni Arab notables inside Mosul. It also cooperates with the Mosul provincial council, which is temporarily based in Erbil and prepared to resume governance after ISIL is expelled from the city.

Even then, intra-command squabbles and Sunni Arab power struggles are hindering effective action. For instance, although Gen. al-Jibouri is a former mayor of Tal Afar and has local support in Mosul, he is not fully backed by the Iraqi minister of defense. Rather, Minister Obeidi has close ties to Osama al-Nujaifi, a high-ranking Sunni Arab politician and brother of the former governor of Ninewah, Atheel al-Nujaifi, who was removed from his post because of his supposed ties to ISIL. Al-Nujaifi has been shuttling to different Sunni Arab communities in Iraq and the region to gain support, challenging Baghdad’s efforts and those of other Sunni Arab groups.

The competition to liberate and control Mosul is also being fueled by Turkey. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has sent Turkish military forces to Mosul to train Sunni Arab units (Hashd Watan) under Atheel al-Nujaifi — whose salaries it pays — as well as Kurdish leader Ma’sud Barzani’s peshmerga forces. The Erdogan–Nujaifi–Barzani nexus reflects Turkey’s interests in securing Mosul’s oil and gas resources, creating a buffer against the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK), and consolidating a Sunni Muslim sphere of influence in northern Iraq to challenge the Iraqi government and Iran. While this plan may resonate with some groups linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and Nujaifi supporters, most Sunni Arab Iraqis, minorities, and Baghdad flatly reject it. They argue that Turkey has violated Iraqi sovereignty and Nujaifi’s discredited reputation has left him without crucial public support to expel ISIL and assure that it does not return.

The politics behind the campaign also challenge claims that “liberating Mosul is impossible without the Kurdish peshmerga” and that the Kurds are “waiting on Baghdad to liberate Mosul.” Barzani may closely collaborate with U.S. and coalition forces and have Erdogan and Nujaifi’s support, but he will have a more difficult time communicating with key Sunni Arab tribal leaders (i.e., Jibouri, Jabani, and Shammar) and non-Kurdish communities in Mosul city. Local populations are unlikely to accept the Kurdish peshmerga alone inside Mosul city because they fear that the Kurds will expel them and occupy their territories. These suspicions are fueled by statements from some Kurdish leaders that Mosul is part of the Kurdistan Region, as well as expulsions of Arabs in other former ISIL territories.

In fact, the Kurds’ willingness to engage in Mosul has political strings attached that in some cases have obstructed ISF planning. In one situation, Barzani’s peshmerga forces prevented the ISF from passing through the important Rabia border area to train Sunni Arab forces, insisting that only Nujaifi’s fighters could be trained. The “waiting on Baghdad” discourse also ignores Barzani’s own obstacles to fully engaging in Mosul; the need to negotiate Kurdish land claims with Turkey, Nujaifi and Sunni Arab groups in surrounding areas; and the Kurds’ disinterest in training a Sunni Arab force that could challenge their authority and borders in the future. The Kurdistan Regional Government also faces serious economic and political crises, including unpaid peshmerga salaries that further challenge its capabilities and appetite for direct engagement.

These local dynamics indicate who can likely do what in Mosul. Taking the lead will be the ISF’s counter-terrorism forces and affiliated Sunni Arab forces, working in tandem with the United States and the coalition. The Kurds can be expected to provide a supporting and logistical role. This effort includes maintaining training camps, securing outlying villages, and cutting off supply routes and trade to ISIL. Nujaifi’s Turkish-backed, Sunni Arab forces cannot militarily engage apart from the ISF, and could play a supporting role alongside Kurdish peshmerga forces. The politics behind the Mosul campaign also means that the Shi’a popular mobilization units (Hashd Shab) should not be directly engaged.

U.S. Policy Options

The Mosul offensive will be a lengthy and potentially costly battle. Even if the ISF can liberate Mosul it must also prevent the return of ISIL, which controls the Syrian border and can continue a war of attrition. A sound Mosul strategy should be based on an integrated Iraq-Syria strategy. It should include plans not only to liberate the city, but to secure outlying areas, prevent ISIL penetrations from Syria, and hold and stabilize ISIL-free territories. Liberating Mosul therefore will need time — not because of a disinterested Iraqi army or Mosulawis’ support for ISIL — but because the necessary security and political arrangements need to be put in place beforehand to assure a successful operation. The United States can assist the Iraqi government in this effort through the following measures:

Support and Strengthen Iraqi Security Forces. The United States should continue to support the ISF with military support, training and equipment, and targeted airstrikes, to include enhancing the capabilities of Iraq’s overstretched counter-terrorism forces. An important part of this effort should include training Sunni Arab forces in coordination with the Iraqi government. It also requires continued support to Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi so that he can make the necessary deals with critical Sunni Arab groups to secure local backing.

Clarify Mosul End-State. The United States should develop and clarify a stabilization plan for post-ISIL Mosul that can garner Sunni Arab confidence and support. This effort should include reconstruction and humanitarian assistance, training programs for local police, security measures that will prevent retaliations against Sunni Arabs, and re-asserting the role of the Mosul provincial council into local administration and governance. The United States should also act as a neutral broker in Sunni Arab power struggles while helping to negotiate individual political pacts with the Iraqi government.

Encourage Ankara-Baghdad Relations. The United States should continue to affirm its support for Iraq’s territorial integrity and press Turkey to remove all of its troops from Mosul governorate. It should broker meetings between Turkish and Iraqi officials, to include the Kurdish Regional Government, and encourage cooperative agreements that enhance border security and economic exchange while respecting Iraqi sovereignty.

Encourage Erbil-Baghdad Negotiations. While continuing to provide military support and training to the Kurdish Regional Government in coordination with Baghdad, the United States should leverage its Kurdish partners to more closely cooperate with the Iraqi government. This effort should include permitting the ISF to enter territories essential for the Mosul operation, allowing access to vital assets and populations, and assuring that the Kurdish peshmerga have sufficient military support and equipment to secure outlying areas of Mosul.

As the United States seeks to accelerate its efforts to counter ISIL in Iraq and Syria it should focus on the political roots of ISIL’s emergence and persistence. Liberating Mosul will not only demand sufficiently trained and equipped Iraqi forces and increased coalition engagement, but negotiating the necessary deals with key stakeholders in Iraq and the region. Without doing so, a Mosul campaign could lead to a tactical victory but without strategic success to ultimately defeat ISIL.



Dr. Denise Natali is a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Strategic Research at National Defense University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies. She may be contacted at (202) 685-2249 or denise.natali@ndu.edu. The views expressed are her own and do not reflect the official policy or position of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. government. Follow her on Twitter: @DnataliDC.

Commentary
Known Unknowns: Iraqi WMD, 13 Years Later

Commentary
10,000 Won't Do It: The Mathematics of an American Deployment to Fight ISIL

Commentary
The Islamic State's Plans for Turkey.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/nuclear-instability-in-the-asia-pacific-region/

Nuclear Instability in the Asia-Pacific Region?

A new study reaches sobering conclusions on the potential for nuclear proliferation.

By Francis P. Sempa
February 07, 2016

0 Likes
1 Comment

Henry D. Sokolski, the executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center and former Pentagon official and consultant to the Office of Net Assessment, has written a thoughtful and sobering study on the potential for nuclear proliferation and competition in the Asia-Pacific region. Published in January 2016 by the U.S. Army War College Press, Underestimated: Our Not So Peaceful Nuclear Future, presents a bleak but not altogether hopeless view of current trends in the development of strategic, intermediate and battlefield nuclear weapons, the spread of ballistic missile technology, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons-grade material throughout the region.

This vision is not shared by most of the world’s policymakers and academic theorists who instead see the world becoming a safer place as the United States and Russia continue to reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons, nuclear deterrence becomes virtually “automatic,” and non-nuclear powers obtain “peaceful” nuclear facilities and materials. Sokolski argues that the more sanguine views of the nuclear future in the Asia-Pacific fail to “fully explore the regional insecurities that arise with threatened nuclear weapons breakouts or ramp-ups,” ignore the “significant overlaps between civilian and military nuclear activities or the risk that ‘peaceful’ nuclear facilities or materials might be diverted to make bombs,” and downplay the potential strategic instability that may result from U.S.-Russian nuclear disarmament in the face of nuclear weapons build-ups by China, India, Pakistan, and possibly other regional states, and the proliferation of nuclear facilities and materials.

If current trends continue, Sokolski explains, “[t]he strategic military competitions of the next . . . decades will be unlike any the world has yet seen.” At the height of the Cold War, the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Soviet Union dwarfed those of the world’s other nuclear powers. Today, while the U.S. and Russia freeze or continue to reduce their nuclear arsenals, China, India, and Pakistan are increasing and modernizing their strategic nuclear forces; which means that “the next arms race will be run by a much larger number of contestants with highly destructive strategic capabilities far more closely matched and capable of being quickly enlarged than in any other previous period in history.”

According to Sokolski, Russia currently fields 3600 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, the U.S. has 2130, China has somewhere between 190 and 900, while India, Pakistan, England, France and Israel each field between 100 and 400. “[T]he difference in the numbers of nuclear deployments between the top and bottom nuclear powers. . .,” he writes, “has fallen at least two full orders of magnitude and is projected to decline even further.” Moreover, because of the spread of weapons-grade material and nuclear facilities, at least six other countries – Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan and Algeria – are considered “possible near-or mid-term nuclear weapons-ready states.” This means, writes Sokolski, that “the stool of nuclear deterrence will have many more legs that could give way in many more surprising ways than were possible a half-century ago.”

Other developments in this area provide additional reasons for concern. Russia and Pakistan have doctrinally indicated that they will use nuclear weapons first against opponents’ conventional forces. China is reconsidering its declared “no first use” policy. Russia, China, and North Korea have constructed or expanded underground nuclear complexes to both hide and protect nuclear forces. Twenty-four nations have acquired ballistic missile systems capable of delivering nuclear warheads.

Although much has been written about China’s rise as a global power and potential peer competitor to the United States, less attention has been paid to China’s growing nuclear arsenal and capabilities. Sokolski notes China’s efforts to modernize its nuclear-capable missiles; its production of sufficient weapons-grade plutonium and uranium to make as many as 1200 nuclear weapons; its development and deployment of ballistic missile submarines; its construction and deployment of the DF-41 ICBM; its deployment of multiple independently targetable warheads (MIRVs) on the DF-5 missiles; and its increased uranium enrichment capacity, which will enable China to build more than five hundred nuclear weapons per year by the year 2020. These trends threaten to undermine the effectiveness of the U.S. extended nuclear umbrella to Japan and South Korea, and cast doubts on America’s ability to protect Taiwan, the Philippines, Australia, and other allies in the region. That, in turn, could lead Japan and South Korea, and perhaps other vulnerable countries, to seek their own nuclear deterrent. “These trends,” Sokolski writes, “invite disorder. How much depends on how well the United States, Russia, China, and other key states deal with them.”

Sokolski recommends three broad approaches to reverse these trends:

1. Reassess and clarify China’s nuclear capabilities and shift nonproliferation and arms control efforts to the Asia-Pacific region.

2. Nuclear supplier states must adopt tougher nonproliferation standards and insist on better international safeguards related to the transfer of “peaceful” nuclear technology.

3. Be more proactive in anticipating and preventing nuclear proliferation developments.

Above all, those countries that seek to improve nuclear stability must avoid the pitfalls of diplomacy by inattention and repeated downplaying of nuclear risks that undermined lengthy but unsuccessful nonproliferation efforts with North Korea and Iran. Adding nuclear instability to a region already beset by geopolitical rivalries and flashpoints is a recipe for catastrophe.

Francis P. Sempa is the author of Geopolitics: From the Cold War to the 21st Century (Transaction Books) and America’s Global Role: Essays and Reviews on National Security, Geopolitics and War (University Press of America). He is also a contributor to Population Decline and the Remaking of Great Power Politics (Potomac Books). He has written on historical and foreign policy topics for Joint Force Quarterly, American Diplomacy, the University Bookman, The Claremont Review of Books, The Diplomat, Strategic Review, the Washington Times and other publications. He is an attorney, an adjunct professor of political science at Wilkes University, and a contributing editor to American Diplomacy.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...s-Belt-and-Road-Compares-to-the-Marshall-Plan

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/how-chinas-belt-and-road-compares-to-the-marshall-plan/

How China's 'Belt and Road' Compares to the Marshall Plan

Should we think of “One Belt, One Road” as China’s Marshall Plan?

By Simon Shen
February 06, 2016

0 Likes
3 Comments

The concept of “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR) continues to be at the center of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s travels abroad whether to the 2015 G20 and APEC conferences or to the Middle East. Despite the enthusiasm demonstrated by China for this grand strategy, however, the strategic goals of OBOR are interpreted diversely by individuals. Recently, international relations scholars have compared OBOR with the U.S.-led Marshall Plan in the post-World War II era, but scholars from China argue that the OBOR and Marshall Plan are not comparable.

OBOR is still a conception which lacks tangible strategy. However, predicting the hidden strategic goals of OBOR is not complicated – they can be inferred by combining Chinese official discourse and strategic arrangements in response to the U.S. rebalancing strategy in the Asia-Pacific region. Those goals can be summarized in the following five points – which are actually quite similar to the strategic aims of the Marshall Plan, as outlined by Melvyn P. Leffler in his 1988 article “The United States and the Strategic Dimensions of the Marshall Plan” (published in the journal Diplomatic History).

Boosting exports

In the ending phase of World War II, the United States was a strong manufacturing country equipped with high industrial capacity. However, the saturation of the domestic market and a failure to export excess capacity caused economic growth to stagnate. In order to cope with the post-war economic transformation and the problem of overcapacity, the United States was forced to seek oversea markets for their products. The terms of the Marshall Plan stated that European countries being aided should accept U.S. investment and import U.S. goods. By providing aids toward various countries, the United States simultaneously underwent an economic transformation.

Similar to the post-war United States, China needs to export excess capacity, resources, and labor through foreign investment in order to achieve an economic transformation. As fate would have it, the strength of China’s manufacturing industry is infrastructure building, and Central and Southeast Asia lack investment in the field of infrastructure. Therefore, China oversaw the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in accordance with the OBOR initiative in order to promote “Made in China” in Central and Southeast Asia.

Exporting currency

The Marshall Plan allowed the United States to export its currency. The total amount of aid provided was $13 billion, which is now equivalent to roughly $100 billion. The U.S. dollar was used for the subsidies, while European countries purchased U.S. goods with their own currencies. Over time, the U.S. dollar has become a tool for stability; the “Money Credit” provided by the plan created a basis for future frequent quantitative easing.

China is also seeking to increase the international use of its currency. The International Monetary Fund recently included China’s renminbi (RMB) in its Special Drawing Rights basket of currencies. However, the most effective way to promote cross-border circulation of the RMB is still regional economic cooperation. The RMB is regarded as the strongest currency among the major regions of the OBOR initiative. Though the details of the policy have not been decided, a significant number of Chinese specialists state that the RMB should be used as the settlement currency of large-scale commodity trade in the region. At the same time, the engagement of Chinese capital investment in infrastructure building should be increased and promote cross-border payments by RMB.

This sort of “currency war” theory believes that the internationalization of the RMB through OBOR can allow China to challenge the United States’ leading role in the international arena, just as the status of the U.S. currency was consolidated through Marshall Plan.

Countering a rival

The United States hoped to use the Marshall Plan to revive war-torn Western Europe in order to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism over communism and undermine the influence of the Soviet Union. The instability of the European community favored the growth of communism; the Communist Party in countries such as Italy received strong support. Marshall believed that Europe was the key for an effective balance of power between the Soviet Union and the United States. If the European economy declined, the traditional capitalist world economic structure of the United States, Europe, and Southeast Asia would not be sustained. Therefore, providing long term and short term subsidies as well as lowering trade barriers in Western Europe was essential to defend against communism and the Soviet Union.

The Marshall Plan provided a blueprint for undermining the influence of the Soviet Union. Similarly, China’s OBOR targets the United States as a potential competitor. The emphasis on interconnection stresses the construction of onshore energy pipelines as well as harbors. By importing energy through dispersed channels, China can lower the strategic risk of energy imports and enhance control over Indian Ocean shipping routes. At the same time, the consolidation of trade relationships among China (with its exports of manufactured goods), the Middle East and Central Asia (energy exports) and Southeast Asia (exports of raw material) can counterbalance the rebalancing strategy of United States and reduce the economic dependence of China on the U.S.

Fostering strategic divisions

In the post-World War II era, the United States wanted to incorporate all of Germany (not only West Germany) into the capitalist camp. If this could not be accomplished in the short-term, the United States had to ensure a prolonged division in Germany in order to prevent the whole country from entering the Soviet Union’s camp. The U.S. emphasis on Germany was rooted in the high geopolitical strategic significance of Germany. Germany is home to the Ruhr, a large industrial area that provided the essential natural resources (such as coal) and industrial capacity for the revival of the European economy. Also, Germany is located at the intersection point between Eastern and Western Europe; allowing the Soviet Union to control Germany would obstruct the balance of power in Europe. In order to prevent the geopolitical risk of a possible Soviet Union-Germany coalition, the Marshall Plan strengthened political and economic ties between West Germany and Western Europe. The unification of Germany has been viewed as the key to ending the Cold War and bringing down the Iron Curtain.

As stated above, the Marshall Plan can be viewed as a factor that contributed to the division of West and East Germany. Similarly, the OBOR may lower the solidarity of Asia-Pacific integration organizations headed by the United States and Japan, such as APEC. By searching out APEC member states which desperately need infrastructure, OBOR allows China to foster bilateral integration with those member states. That, in turn, will undermine the significance of APEC and delay these states’ entry in the U.S.-led Trans-Pacific Partnership. Though those countries will still keep diplomatic ties with the United States, OBOR limits the chance of forming of coalitions against China, such as the U.S.-India and U.S.-South Korea coalitions in the past.

Siphon away diplomatic support

Another purpose of the Marshall Plan was targeting countries in Eastern Europe with the aim of getting their support. Though Eastern European satellite states were not the primary targets of the Marshall Plan, the United States still provided aid for those countries if they abandoned the communist model. Tito’s Yugoslavia was an example of an Eastern European state that benefitted by accepting Marshall Plan aid. In other words, the United States hoped to use the economic development of Western Europe as an incentive that could increase U.S. influence in Eastern Europe.

Today, the endpoint of OBOR is located in Europe. It shows that China wishes to intensify relations with traditional U.S. allies in Western Europe, which in turn undermines U.S. influence in the region. Recent frequent interactions between leaders of China and major Western European countries as well as decisions by the U.K., France, and Germany to join AIIB despite the objections of Washington seems to indicate the decline of U.S. influence. If economic and strategic integration are achieved between Asia and Europe, China may become the center of the world, leaving the United State marginalized.

Undoubtedly, the OBOR does not emphasize ideological factors as heavily as the Marshall Plan did. On the contrary, economic and financial considerations have been major concerns for China’s initiative. Therefore, officials in China state that the two strategies are not comparable. However, the highly globalized modern world does not view ideology as a major battlefield. Instead, major powers stress the importance of leading institutions and setting discourse within the international economic structure – and here, the U.S.-led TPP and China’s OBOR are clearly competing.

Simon Shen is an Associate Professor & Director of Global Studies Program, Faculty of Social Science and Co-Director of International Affairs Research Center, Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/0...ies-detain-7-on-suspicion-terrorist-plot.html

Russian authorities detain 7 on suspicion of terrorist plot

Published February 08, 2016 · Associated Press

MOSCOW – Russia's state security service says it has detained seven people in the country's Ural mountain region on suspicion of terrorist activities.

The country's Federal Security Service announced on Monday that the suspects, detained in the regional capital Yekaterinburg, were believed to be plotting to carry out terrorist attacks in Moscow, St. Petersburg and the Ural region.

Law enforcement officials said they uncovered a laboratory for manufacturing explosives and that members of the group were planning to journey to Syria to fight with the Islamic State group.

According to the press release published on the security service's website, the suspects included Russian citizens and citizens of Central Asia states.

Russian authorities estimate that around 3,000 Russian citizens have joined the Islamic State group in Syria.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/07/world/spain-terror-arrests/

Spain arrests 7 suspected of sending guns, bomb materials to ISIS

By Vasco Cotovio and Chandrika Narayan, CNN
Updated 12:58 PM ET, Sun February 7, 2016

CNN)—Spanish police on Sunday arrested seven people suspected of sending guns and bombmaking materials disguised as humanitarian aid to terrorists in Syria and Iraq, according to the country's Interior Ministry.

The anti-terror operation was carried out in the Spanish cities of Alicante and Valencia and in the Spanish autonomous city of Ceuta in North Africa, the ministry said in a statement.

The seven detained were part of a cell which was providing logistical support to ISIS and the al Nusra Front in Syria, according to the statement.

That logistical support included shipping military supplies, money, and electronic and communications equipment, the statement said. The cell also shipped firearms and precursor materials used in manufacturing explosives, it said.

Spanish authorities said the supplies were packaged to look like humanitarian aid and then shipped from Spanish ports to Syria and Iraq.

"These continuous shipments directly favored the continuity and the reinforcement of terrorist structures in Syria and Iraq," the ministry said.

Spanish authorities said besides providing logistical support, the leader of the cell was in constant contact with an ISIS member, "who asked him on numerous occasions to recruit women to travel to Syria" for marriage to ISIS fighters.

"ISIS wants them to be mothers to the next generation of fighters," said Paul Cruickshank, CNN terrorism analyst. A significant number of women have also traveled with their husbands, he said. An estimated 500 women have traveled from the West to join jihadi groups, he said.

Five of the arrested men have Spanish nationality but are of Syrian, Jordanian and Moroccan origin, according to the ministry's statement. Two others are Syrian and Moroccan nationals living in Spain.

Authorities began investigating the group's activities in 2014, according to the Interior Ministry.

"In total, twelve searches were conducted at the homes of those arrested, as well as in the places and warehouses where they conducted their illegal businesses," the statement said.

Video from the region shows heavily armed police conducting raids in buildings and emerging with suspects and boxes of evidence. One video from Ceuta shows a car stopping outside a shuttered kebab shop. Police wearing balaclavas pull out a person in handcuffs, open the shutters and take him inside.

This is the second anti-terror operation on Spanish soil this year, according to data from the Spanish Interior Ministry.

Since the beginning of 2015, 83 people have been arrested in Spain for suspected links to terrorist organizations.

Between 2011 and late 2015, about 125 Spanish nationals and residents are believed to have gone to Syria and Iraq as foreign fighters, according to Fernando Reinares, director of the Global Terrorism Program at Elcano Royal Institute in Madrid.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://post.jagran.com/south-korean-navy-fires-warning-shots-at-north-vessel-1454915281

South Korean Navy fires warning shots at North vessel

08 Feb 2016, 12:38
Jagran Post News Desk Jagran Post Editorial | Last Updated: 08 Feb 2016, 12:41

The Defence Ministry in Seoul said the North Korean vessel crossed the Yellow Sea border just before 7 am (local time Yesterday).

The de-facto maritime boundary between the two Koreas - the Northern Limit Line - is not recognised by Pyongyang, which argues it was unilaterally drawn by US-led United Nations forces after the 1950-53 Korean War.

Both sides complain of frequent incursions by the other and there were limited naval clashes in 1999, 2002 and 2009.

Incidents like today's intrusion are quite common and rarely escalate into anything more serious.

However, South Korea is on a high state of alert following yesterday's rocket launch, which Seoul insists amounted to a disguised ballistic missile test.

South Korean President Park Geun-hye has called for heightened vigilance against any further provocation following the launch and North Korea's fourth nuclear test last month.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
:dot5:

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ense-system-could-reshape-north-asia-security

Gamechanging U.S. Missiles May Transform North Asian Geopolitics

by Sam Kim t samkimasia, Ranjeetha Pakiam

February 7, 2016 — 4:32 PM PST
Updated on February 7, 2016 — 9:44 PM PST

- U.S seeks to deploy Thaad in South Korea after North's rocket
- North Korea may respond by bolstering missile systems

The U.S. has opened the door to parking a ballistic missile defense system on North Korea’s doorstep, a move that could reshape North Asia’s security landscape.

Kim Jong Un’s weekend launch of a long-range rocket prompted a reaction that his nuclear test last month did not: South Korea now says it will consider allowing the deployment on its soilof a U.S. army system known as Thaad.

For years South Korea has danced around the idea of Thaad, which targets missiles at high altitudes and could complement lower-altitude defenses already in the country. That’s mainly because it risks annoying neighbor China, which has warned against Thaad being deployed on the Korean peninsula. It could also spur Japan to look at using it.

While Thaad could be a deterrent against Kim’s regime, it would also raise the stakes for security in a region where suspicions already run high over Japan’s military aggression during World War II and a later conflict that split the Korean peninsula between an isolated, unpredictable regime in the north and what is now a democracy in the south.

“The Chinese are doing anything possible to head off what they think might be a potential weapon that could be used against them,” said Richard Bitzinger, a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore. “You can say everything you want, that this is not directed against the Chinese, but the fact of the matter is, it potentially could be.”

‘Draw Ridicule’

South Korea has long assured China, its biggest trading partner, it was not in talks with the U.S. about the deployment of Thaad, which is short for Terminal High Altitude Area Defense. North Korea’s recent actions have changed that, with defense officials saying in Seoul they can not afford to ignore calls for a stronger shield against weapons of mass destruction.

“It would draw ridicule for a sovereign nation like South Korea not to beef up its defense in the face of an increasing threat like North Korean nuclear missiles,” said Park Chang Kwon, a senior research fellow at the state-run Korea Institute for Defense Analyses in Seoul. “Thaad helps deter North Korea from seeking nuclear arms because it sends a strong message South Korea is and will keep responding with tough actions.”

South Korea opening to Thaad may increase calls in Japan to follow suit. Defense Minister Gen Nakatani said in November that Japan was considering the deployment of Thaad to counter any potential strike from North Korea, although Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said Monday that the country had no plan at the moment to introduce the system. Japan and South Korea already both have Patriot missiles and the countries, alongside China and India, are among the biggest spenders on defense in Asia.

"From North Korea’s perspective, Thaad is a big problem, because it reduces the probability of a successful attack," said Jack Midgley, defense industry consultant with Deloitte Tohmatsu Consulting in Tokyo. "For a DPRK planner, this means that to have an assured successful attack, he needs to fire a lot of missiles -not just one or two. And the DPRK doesn’t have that capability. So THAAD reduces the value of nuclear threats by DPRK."

China Message

The system would only be deployed on U.S. bases in South Korea -- there are nearly 29,000 U.S. soldiers stationed there -- and talks on the terms for that have no clear timetable. The discussions could face resistance from a South Korean public wary of hurting ties with China.

But it would also send a message to Beijing that it should do more to rein in North Korea by using its influence. China supplies most of North Korea’s energy and food imports and the U.S. called on Beijing to curb that trade.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry failed last month during a visit to Beijing to secure China’s support for tougher sanctions, with the countries agreeing only to pursue a new United Nations Security Council resolution. The U.S. has sought measures such as bans on oil exports to Pyongyang.

National Security

While South Korea has sought to deepen ties with China since President Park Geun Hye took office in 2013, it has been frustrated by China’s failure to stop Kim testing nuclear devices. China warned last year that the use of Thaad would risk undermining ties, saying the Park government should reject the system in the interest of peace and stability of the whole region.

Days after what North Korea claimed was the detonation of its first hydrogen bomb, Park said publicly she would consider Thaad deployment based on national security interests. And the latest South Korean announcement deepens her change of stance. Just in September she went to Beijing to congratulate President Xi Jinping on China’s World War II victory, while U.S. President Barack Obama and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stayed away.

“Park expended a lot of political capital in going to Beijing for the 70th anniversary military parade and has received nothing, or a slap in the face, in return,” said Ralph Cossa, president of the Pacific Forum CSIS in Honolulu. “It was naive to ever expect China to ‘tilt’ toward the South, but there were hopes it would respond objectively to future North Korean provocations.”

Offensive Systems

The U.S. has played down China’s concerns about Thaad, saying the system is defensive and focused on North Korea. Still, its closer deployment to the Chinese border has the potential to exacerbate strains stemming from territorial disputes involving China in the East China Sea and South China Sea.

“It might very likely propel China to go along with its offensive missile system and put in more effort into its rather nascent missile defense program,” said Collin Koh Swee Lean, an associate research fellow at RSIS. “In the case of North Korea, in the case of China, they’ll be keen to come out with new ballistic missiles that have the ability to decoy incoming projectiles trying to intercept it and to mislead missile defenses so as to have a higher chance of hitting the target.”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://atimes.com/2016/02/n-korean-patrol-boat-crosses-to-south-retreats-after-firing-shots/

N Korean patrol boat crosses to South, retreats after firing shots

By AT Editor on February 8, 2016 in China, Koreas, Top News
(From Reuters|AFP)

A North Korean patrol boat crossed into South Korean waters early on Monday and retreated after the South Korean navy fired warning shots, a South Korean military official said.

The incursion came amid heightened tensions on the Korean peninsula, a day after North Korea fired a long-range rocket carrying a satellite into space, a launch that South Korea and other countries consider to be a missile test in disguise.

The patrol boat crossed the Northern Limit Line, which North Korea does not recognize, in the Yellow Sea to the west of the peninsula, at 6:55 a.m. (21:55 GMT) near Socheongdo island, the official said.

Yonhap news agency said the patrol boat crossed despite warning communications from the South Korean navy, and retreated after five warning shots were fired by a naval gun, returning across the Northern Limit Line around 7:15 a.m.

“The South Korean military is on high alert, beefing up surveillance near the NLL and monitoring any abnormal activities by North Korean soldiers,”a military official said.

The boat incident comes hours after South Korean and US military officials announced they would begin formal discussions on placing the Terminal High Altitude Area Defence System (THAAD) on the North’s doorstep.

THAAD move a message to China

The rationale was a clear necessity to upgrade the defense posture of the South Korea-US military alliance “against North Korea’s advancing threats,” said Yoo Jeh-Seung, Seoul’s deputy defence minister for policy.

But beyond the strategic logic lies a diplomatic imperative, which suggests an eventual THAAD deployment may be less motivated by what North Korea is doing and more by what China is not doing.

China is North Korea’s main diplomatic protector, and both Washington and Seoul have been pressing Beijing to take a tougher line with Pyongyang over its nuclear weapons programme.

But China, wary of the consequences of a collapsing North Korea on its border, has resisted punitive sanctions before, and looks set to do so again as the UN Security Council mulls tougher sanctions against Pyongyang for its latest provocations.

According to Joel Wit, a senior fellow at the US-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins University and the founder of its North Korea website, 38North, frustration with China’s stance has driven forward the possibility of deploying THAAD in South Korea.

“This is a way of sending a signal to China that what North Korea does has real consequences, including consequences for Beijing’s own security interests,” Wit said.

China’s response to that signal was swift and unequivocally negative.

While it only managed a rather muted expression of “regret” over the North’s rocket launch, it was quick to voice its “deep concern” at the prospect of South Korea introducing the US missile system.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said such a move would escalate tensions on the Korean peninsula, undermine regional peace and stability, and set back efforts to address the North Korean nuclear situation.

“We demand the countries concerned be prudent,” Hua said.

China sees THAAD as a threat to the effectiveness of its own nuclear deterrent, arguing that it could be used to monitor Chinese missile launches as far inland as Xian in the northwest.

“It (plan for THAAD deployment) is a message to China that if you won’t deal with North Korea, we will go our way,” said Paul Carrol, program director for the nuclear disarmament and global security organisation Ploughshares Fund.

“And clearly there’s a danger there, because unless China and the US can get on the same page with a common approach to North Korea, there won’t be any progress and the situation will only get worse,” Carroll said.

“THAAD is partly about the US reassuring South Korea that it has its back, but at the same time there must be a broader picture discussion with China about how to handle North Korea,” he added.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
:dot5:

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...cket-launch-to-promote-constitutional-change/

Abe to use North Korea rocket launch to promote constitutional change

by Ko Hirano
Kyodo
Feb 8, 2016

North Korea’s launch Sunday of what it says was a satellite may increase public support for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s more robust security policy and promote public debate about his calls for amending the Constitution, according to some experts.

Abe is expected to use what Japan and other countries see as a banned ballistic missile test, as well as Pyongyang’s fourth nuclear test last month, to promote his diplomatic and domestic agenda in the run-up to the Upper House election this summer, they say.

“Prime Minister Abe can show his firm stance against North Korea and act as a strong leader, especially when he hosts a Group of Seven summit and leads his ruling coalition into the election,” said Park Jung Jin, an associate professor of international relations at Tsuda College in Tokyo.

Park was referring to the G-7 summit in May in Mie Prefecture, which will bring together the leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States.

Military experts say ballistic missiles and the rockets used in satellite launches share similar technology, which critics suspect North Korea may use to develop nuclear-armed missiles capable striking as far away as the United States.

It is, however, unknown whether Pyongyang is yet able to build a nuclear warhead small enough to be fitted on a long-range ballistic missile.

The provocation came as Abe is stepping up calls to revise the Constitution, including war-renouncing Article 9. Last week, he called for changing the provision, citing a contradiction between the existence of the Self-Defense Forces and the document’s ban on Japan maintaining armed forces.

“The North Korean nuclear and missile issues could become a tailwind for Mr. Abe’s calls for amending the Constitution,” Park said.

Senior Japanese officials quickly condemned North Korea’s action, saying the launch was in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2094, which obliges North Korea not to conduct any launches using ballistic missile technology.

“This series of provocations in a short span of time gravely undermines the peace and stability of the region and the international community including Japan,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said.

While vowing to take measures to boost deterrence against North Korea’s provocation, Suga underlined the importance of a controversial security law that enables Japan to defend the United States and other friendly nations under armed attack in what is known as collective self-defense.

In an effort to deepen the national debate about amending the Constitution, Abe has said he will make this a major campaign issue for the Upper House election, which is likely to take place in July.

The Constitution, drafted under the U.S.-led Allied Occupation after World War II, has never been altered since its promulgation in November 1946. The second paragraph of Article 9, which Abe has targeted for change, states that “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.”

A revision requires approval by at least two-thirds of the members in each house of the Diet, as well as a majority in a national referendum.

At present, Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party and its coalition partner Komeito have a two-thirds majority in the Lower House but only a simple majority in the Upper House.

A Kyodo News poll conducted Jan. 30 and 31 found that 37.5 percent of respondents were in favor of amending the Constitution after the Upper House election and 50.3 percent were against, suggesting voters are cautious about giving too much power to Abe.

Meanwhile, Japan, as a nonpermanent member of the U.N. Security Council, is lobbying with the United States and South Korea, among other like-minded states, for the council to impose tough sanctions on North Korea over the Jan. 6 nuclear test and Sunday’s missile launch.

But they are likely to face Beijing’s opposition in imposing potentially damaging penalties on Pyongyang, such as halting oil exports, experts say, citing China’s strategic interest in ensuring stability in North Korea.

“China’s position will not be swayed by a specific North Korean event or the temporary mood of the moment,” said Lee Seong-hyon, a research fellow at the Sejong Institute, a South Korean think tank. “China feels insecure about a unified Korea that is allied with the United States with troops on its borders.”

Lee argued the biggest variable now is not China, but the United States.

“Washington has been avoiding negotiations with Pyongyang, outsourcing the task to Beijing. China sees it as unfair,” he said. “It’s time for Washington to show leadership in addressing Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile issues.”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Turkish military launches LARGE air campaign on PKK targets in northern Iraq - 40 jets
Started by Possible Impact‎, Yesterday 11:36 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...paign-on-PKK-targets-in-northern-Iraq-40-jets

AFP: Syria regime warns against any foreign ground 'aggression' (Saudi & Turkish troops)
Started by Possible Impact‎, 02-06-2016 07:48 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...n-ground-aggression-(Saudi-amp-Turkish-troops)

ISIS Plans To Take Over Europe By 2020, Behead Pope On Live Television
Started by imaginative‎, Yesterday 06:48 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...Europe-By-2020-Behead-Pope-On-Live-Television


:dot5::dot5::dot5:

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...ose_between_turkey_kurdish_forces_108992.html

February 8, 2016

Erdogan: U.S. Should Choose Between Turkey, Kurdish Forces

By AP

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — Turkey's president lashed out at the United States a week after President Barack Obama's envoy visited a northern Syrian town that is under the control of Syrian Kurdish forces, which Ankara considers terrorists.

In comments published Sunday, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Washington should choose between Turkey and the Kurdish Democratic Union Party, or PYD, as its partner.

That came after envoy Brett McGurk's visit to Kobani, where the PYD's military wing, aided by U.S.-led airstrikes, drove back Islamic State militants a year ago. Turkey considers the PYD a terrorist group because of its affiliation with Turkey's outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK.

Erdogan said: "How can we trust you? Is it me that is your partner or is it the terrorists in Kobani?"

In Washington, a State Department spokesman reiterated the longstanding U.S. policy that considers the PKK "to be a terrorist organization."

"We continue to call on the PKK to immediately cease its campaign of violence. A resumed political process offers the best hope for greater civil rights, security, and prosperity for all the citizens of Turkey," said Noel Clay of the State Department.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/08/north-korea-s-missile-could-hit-u-s.html

Existential Threat
02.08.16 12:56 AM ET
Gordon G. Chang

North Korean Nuke-Capable Missile Could Hit U.S. and Be Sold to Iran

The launch on Sunday is another sign of Pyongyang’s growing threat, and the impotence of U.S. and global efforts to stop it.

On Sunday, North Korea completed its second-in-a-row successful test of a three-stage launcher, showing the regime’s mastery of an especially complex technology.

Pyongyang claims it put an earth observation satellite — the Kwangmyongsong-4 — in a polar orbit. More likely, the object now circling the earth is a decoy. In 2012, after the North’s last long-range test, it announced it had put a communications satellite in space. No signal, however, has ever been detected from the device.

That “satellite,” and the one launched this week, are about the same weight as a nuclear warhead, and that was the point of these elaborate exercises. North Korea has been putting dead objects in orbit so that it can test, in violation of four sets of UN Security Council resolutions, its ballistic missile technology under the guise of a civilian rocket program.

The rocket the North Koreans call the Unha-3 was probably the most advanced version of their Taepodong missile. It appears, from the location of Sunday’s splashdown zones, that the launcher has a range of 10,000 kilometers, the same as that of the 2012 version.

Some have taken comfort that the North Koreans have not improved the reach of their missile, but that would be a mistake. “This test launch took less time to set up and was conducted more covertly than any other launch in North Korean history,” notes North Korea analyst Bruce Bechtol, in comments circulated to The Daily Beast and others on Sunday.

Up to now, the North’s longest-range missile was never much of a weapon. It required weeks to transport, assemble, fuel, and test before launch. The calculus was that the U.S., in a wartime setting, would have plenty of time to destroy the launcher on the ground.

The North Koreans since 2012 have obviously been able to compress the cycle. This time, Pyongyang moved up the launch window and sent the Unha-3 into space on the window’s first day, surprising just about every observer.

That means, of course, the North Koreans are perfecting their launch skills, thereby decreasing on-the-ground vulnerability.

The Taepodong is still an easy target before launch, but once it reaches the edge of space it becomes fearsome. It has the range to make a dent in more than half of the continental United States. If its warhead is nuclear and explodes high above the American homeland, an electromagnetic pulse could disable electronics across vast swatches of the country.

The American intelligence community does not think the North Koreans have built a miniaturized nuclear warhead to go along with the Taepodong yet, but it’s clear they are on their way to developing such a device. The launch this week was one month and one day after their fourth nuclear detonation. Pyongyang, for all the snickering and derision it attracts, is capable of sneaking up on us and becoming an existential threat.

Why has the United States, the most powerful nation in history, not been able to stop destitute North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs? As Stapleton Roy, the former American diplomat told me in 2004, “No one has found a way to persuade North Korea to move in sensible directions.”

Certainly not the Obama administration. A multi-faceted bargain in 2012, the so-called Leap Day deal, fell apart weeks after it was put in place, when Kim Jong-un, the ruler of the despotic state, launched what his regime called a rocket.

Then a new approach, backed by existing sanctions, also failed to produce results. The White House during this phase essentially left North Korea alone, ignoring Kim with a policy now known as “strategic patience.” It has been more like “strategic paralysis,” as David Maxwell of Georgetown University’s Center for Security Studies aptly termed it after the Sunday launch.

The evident failure of the current administration follows failures of different kinds by its two immediate predecessors. These days, like in past ones, American officials tell us how the North’s actions are “unacceptable,” the words of Secretary of State John Kerry, or “flagrant,” the term used by National Security Advisor Susan Rice, but the U.S. never seems to do anything effective.

Similarly, an emergency session of the Security Council on Sunday “strongly condemned” the launch but did nothing else. The UN still has not imposed any sanctions for the Jan. 6 detonation of what North Korea claims is a “hydrogen” device. Veto-wielding Beijing has made it clear it will not support a fifth set of UN sanctions.

Ultimately, the problem, as Maxwell notes, is that no country wants to pressure Kim so much that either he decides he has nothing to lose and go to war or his decrepit state falls apart, causing tragedy of a different sort. Yet as long as the Kim family regime stays in power, it will continue to build horrific weapons.

“What North Korea wants most,” said Ashton Carter before he became secretary of defense “is oddly to be left alone, to run this rather odd country, a throwback to Stalinism.” If that were indeed true, President Obama’s strategic patience would have worked by now. Yet the North’s leaders are not content to misrule their 25 million subjects. They have institutionalized crisis.

When we examine evidence of the most recent crisis — scraps of the missile that fell into the sea Sunday and flight data — we will probably learn the North Koreans in fact tested their new 80-ton booster, which they have been developing for at least two years. It is almost certain Iran has paid for its development.

That’s why Bechtol, author of North Korea and Regional Security in the Kim Jong-un Era, thinks America in the months ahead should be looking for evidence of sales of the new missile to Iran. Larry Niksch of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told the House Committee on Foreign Affairs in July that North Korea earns “upwards of two to three billion dollars annually from Iran for the various forms of collaboration between them.”

Even if one thinks Washington should not sanction North Korea to the brink of war or collapse, the U.S. at a minimum needs to stop sales of the launcher North Korea fired off this week. The Bush administration’s Proliferation Security Initiative, a comprehensive program to stop such transfers, has languished in Washington in recent years.

At this point, American policymakers are not trying very hard to stop North Korea’s trade in dangerous weapons. That, to borrow a phrase, is unacceptable.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/north-korea-has-pushed-seoul-too-far-20160208-gmoq4k.html

North Korea has pushed Seoul too far

Date February 8, 2016 - 9:00PM 17 reading now

North Korea's latest missile test has driven South Korea to seek US protection, writes Peter Hartcher.

After North Korea tested a ballistic missile on the weekend, worried nations searched for new ways to respond to an old fear – the fear that the rogue nation will one day have a nuclear bomb and a missile capable of delivering it.

And the most worried country found one. The front-line target state, South Korea, whose president is denounced by Pyongyang as a "rabid dog" and an "old prostitute", announced that it has decided to formally start talks with its great ally, the US, to install a missile defence shield.

This may sound like a basic precaution and a bit obvious for a country that lives at close quarters with perhaps the most dangerously erratic nation on earth. But while South Korea has been attracted to this idea for years, it kept dithering for fear that it would upset its big neighbour and trading partner, China. Which it will. Big time.

For comparative purposes, recall what happened when the US did something similar in Eastern Europe. When the US said in 2007 that it would deploy a missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic, it created a fundamental rupture with Russia.

Russia's Vladimir Putin threatened a nuclear strike on Poland. He suspended all co-operation with the US alliance bloc in Europe, NATO. And he set in train the events which culminated in the annexation of Crimea, the invasion of Ukraine and the shooting down of MH17 by Russian-backed Ukrainian rebels.

Why is it so momentous to install a missile defence system? Because it will defang the Russian bear. It will make Russian missiles a less potent threat and upset the balance of mutually assured destruction in the event of a nuclear war.

It will embolden the East Europeans to take a harder line in dealings with Russia. And it will diminish Russia as a danger. Which is why Putin resorted to other measures to make Russia more dangerous again.

In the case of South Korea, Beijing has warned it publicly, repeatedly, against doing any such thing. But now North Korea has pushed Seoul too far.

The UN Security Council has explicitly forbidden Pyongyang from testing ballistic missiles, so the North Koreans claimed their weekend launch was the harmless deployment of a satellite. Absolutely no one buys this. Provoked one time too many, Washington and Seoul announced they would seek to deploy a Terminal High-Altitude Air Defence system "at the earliest possible date". The system is to be operated by US forces.

China will be upset "because it believes that the system is not designed to stop North Korean weapons but Chinese weapons", says a professor of international security at the University of NSW, Alan Dupont​.

"There's some substance to the Chinese concern," says Dupont, "because THAAD could be used to partially nullify Chinese ballistic missiles."

It was, nonetheless, the right decision for South Korea's President Park Geun-Hye "South Korea has no alternative given the domestic political pressure. The North Korean capability is steadily improving and THAAD is the only game in town" for countering it, says Dupont. "The Chinese will be pissed off at the North Koreans."

Indeed. Their supposed friend and ally in Pyongyang, the baby-faced Kim Jong-un, has, in effect, invited the US to bring a missile defence shield onto the Asian mainland for the first time. The US has already deployed a missile defence system in Japan at Tokyo's request. And it has installed another on the American Pacific island of Guam, a major US base.

Now that the US has been invited to deploy the system in Seoul as well, it will not only diminish the potency of any Chinese missile threat to South Korea. It will also provoke other countries in the region to consider doing the same, Australia among them.

Four lessons stand out. First, it's an object lesson for China in why it should restrain its rogue ally. Out of its own self-interest, China should have done more to check North Korea. By allowing Pyongyang to enlarge itself as a danger to its neighbours, China has given the US a strategic opportunity to improve its relations with Seoul. South Korea is a major power of North-East Asia and a country that has been showing signs of moving out of the US sphere of influence and into the Chinese. This helps cement it into the US sphere.

Second, it is an object lesson to China about why it should be more restrained itself. The Korean episode is an example of what happens to regional nations who feel their security to be under threat – they turn to the US for protection. The more the Chinese push other countries around with their aggressive island-building and territory-grabbing tactics in the South China Sea, the more incentive those countries will have to seek American protection.

Third, it's a reminder to other countries in the Asia-Pacific region that the US may be a diminished superpower, but it's still a superpower. It can still be a uniquely valuable partner to countries in fear of their neighbours.

Fourth, as countries weigh their future security choices between China and America, a defining difference is that China is a country with some pretty unpalatable allies, whereas the US is at the centre of an entire system of alliances. It's a system much bigger than the sum of its parts.

And, as Australia takes delivery of its air warfare destroyer ships in the next few years, Canberra will have the option of doing what the South Koreans are now doing.

The Aegis missile systems on the Australian ships will allow Canberra to put Australia into a US missile defence system too. As North Korea's missiles, already capable of reaching Singapore, extend their range, it's an idea that will be increasingly attractive to any Australian government.

Peter Hartcher is the international editor.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/nort...-satellite-launch-what-we-know-and-dont-know/

North Korea's Kwangmyongsong Satellite Launch: What We Know and Don't Know

North Korea’s successful test of the Kwangmyongsong satellite launch vehicle raises questions about its ICBM progress.

By Ankit Panda
February 08, 2016

430 Shares
6 Comments

North Korea’s latest so-called earth observation satellite launch raises a lot of questions about just how far its ballistic missile technology has come. With each test of its Unha, Taepodong, and Nodong ballistic missiles, North Korea acquires important scientific knowledge that could potentially hasten its path to developing a successful inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM). Sunday’s test, which successfully resulted in the Kwangmyongsong-4 satellite entering polar orbit, probably iterated on the December 2012 Kwangmyongsong-3 Unit 2 test, which used an Unha-3 launch device.

While there’s a lot we don’t know yet about just how evolutionary Sunday’s launch was over its predecessor in 2012, Melissa Hanham of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies has a useful round up of just what we do know. In particular, I’d highlight the preliminary image assessment of the outside appearance of the rocket, which is confusingly called the Kwangmyongsong (not to be confused with its satellite payload, which is the Kwangmyongsong-4 satellite). Hanham notes a “perfect fit” between the chassis of the 2012 launch device and the Kwangmyongsong rocket.

Similarly, the first and second stages of the Kwangmyongsong launch device have very similar splash zones to the 2012 Unha-3 rocket. Hanham notes that this suggests that the internals of the rockets might not have been too different. The payload and third stage of the rocket remain in orbit. As of this writing, it’s not known if North Korea has been able to successfully transmit information to or establish communications with the Kwangmyongsong-4 satellite. In 2012, the Kwangmyongsong-3 was able to transmit data at a downlink frequency of 470 MHz.

In 2012, we learned a lot more about the Unha-3 after experts were able to analyze the components recovered from the wreckages of the first and second stages of the rocket. A 2014 United Nations Security Council report summarized these findings, noting that while most of the components were domestically made and assembled in North Korea, several foreign-sourced components were found in the debris, including parts manufactured in the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, China, the United States, and South Korea.

We’ll no doubt learn more about Sunday’s launch going forward. North Korea appears to be intensifying the rate of its missile and nuclear weapons technology testing. Between December’s the KN-11 submarine-launched ballistic missile ejection test, January’s test of what was likely a boosted fission bomb, and Sunday’s Kwangmyongsong launch, Pyongyang appears determined to push ahead with its goal of attaining a reliable nuclear device and delivery vehicle.

It’s unclear if the Unha series of rockets are ideally suited for use as an ICBM in the future. John Schilling, writing at 38 North ahead of the latest test, notes some of the limitations:

But if the Unha-3 is intended for use as an ICBM, it’s not a very good one. The second- and third-stage engines don’t have enough thrust to efficiently deliver heavy warheads; a militarized Unha might deliver 800 kilograms of payload to Washington, DC. The North Koreans can probably make a nuclear warhead that small, but it would be a tight fit. With bigger upper-stage engines, which we know the North Koreans have, they could deliver substantially larger payloads. This would allow bigger and more powerful warheads, more decoys to counter US missile defenses, and a generally tougher and more robust system.

The Unha is also too heavy and cumbersome to be survivable in wartime. Too big for any mobile transporter, it can only be launched from fixed sites. Its highly corrosive liquid propellants require hours of pre-launch preparations. That’s a bad combination for North Korea; their fixed launch sites are going to be watched very closely, and particularly in a crisis, any indication that an ICBM is being prepared for launch could trigger a pre-emptive strike.


Despite North Korea’s two successful tests of multi-stage satellite launch vehicles in 2012 and now 2016, Pyongyang hasn’t shown that it will be able to use its existing technology to deliver a nuclear device. Miniaturization of its existing nuclear weapons is one area of concern. Intelligence assessments from the United States and South Korea differ in their confidence that North Korea has successfully miniaturized a nuclear device. North Korea claimed to have done so in May 2015.

Additionally, we haven’t seen North Korea test a survivable reentry vehicle yet–a must for an ICBM warhead, which would need to undertake atmospheric reentry to strike any target. Finally, even if Pyongyang solves the reentry and miniaturization problems, it’ll have to work to ensure accuracy at long distances. (The Taepodong-2, for example, is related to the Unha series of launch vehicles and has an estimated operational range of up to 6,000 kilometers.)

Meanwhile, after all we’ve seen from North Korea in the past few months, a fifth nuclear test may be in the offing soon, according to South Korean intelligence.

_


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/diplomats-scramble-to-react-to-north-korean-satellite-launch/

Diplomats Scramble to React to North Korean Satellite Launch

The United States and China remain divided on how to respond to North Korean provocations.

By Ankit Panda
February 08, 2016

304 Shares
3 Comments

Early Sunday morning, North Korea successfully launched its Kwangmyongsong-4 “earth observing satellite from the Sohae satellite launch center, using an Unha launch vehicle. The launch came 31 days after North Korea’s fourth nuclear test, which took place on January 6 and it claimed involved a hydrogen bomb. Though Pyongyang describes its long-range Unha tests as ostensibly for the purpose of delivering earth observation satellites into orbit, a warhead modification could enable these missiles to serve as long-range delivery vehicles for a nuclear device. The Diplomat‘s Shannon Tiezzi has more details on the circumstances surrounding the launch.

Unsurprisingly, the United Nations Security Council convened on Sunday to discuss a response to North Korea’s test, which violates multiple UN Security Council resolutions. South Korean President Park Geun-hye called on the Security Council to “quickly come up with strong sanctions” after the launch. U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice called on “the international community to stand together and demonstrate to North Korea that its reckless actions must have serious consequences.“ Despite the calls from the United States and South Korea, and widespread condemnation from other regional states, including Japan and Russia, the Security Council’s ability to effectively stage a strong and coordinated response to the test is under question.

The Security Council’s response will ultimately come down to the possibility of a common understanding between the United States and China on the appropriate response to the missile launch. Following North Korea’s nuclear test in early January, neither side was able to agree on the right way forward. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to China recently and met with his counterpart Wang Yi to discuss the issue, but even that meeting proved unsuccessful in finding common ground. For now, the Council has said that it will adopt a new sanctions resolution in response to the rocket launch.

Beyond the Security Council, the United States, Japan, and South Korea are also coordinating their diplomatic response to the launch. Kerry spoke with his South Korean and Japanese counterparts, Yun Byung-se and Fumio Kishida. According to a readout of their conversation, Kerry “emphasized the importance of a united international response to North Korea’s provocations, including through a strong UN Security Council Resolution.”

As the Security Council works toward a resolution in the wake of a satellite launch, it remains unlikely that the United States and China will be able to find any common ground on pressuring North Korea. China continues to encourage restraint after North Korean provocations, urging a return to the long-defunct Six-Party Talks. Absent common ground with China at the Security Council, it’s perhaps unsurprising that the United States and South Korea announced formal talks for the deployment of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in South Korea.

_


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/south-korea-notes-significant-north-korean-nuclear-advances/

South Korea Notes 'Significant' North Korean Nuclear Advances

South Korea’s January 2015 defense white paper notes that North Korea has likely miniaturized a nuclear device.

By Ankit Panda
January 07, 2015

196 Shares
0 Comments

According to reports based on the most recent biennial South Korean defense white paper released on Tuesday, North Korea has achieved to a “significant” degree the ability to miniaturize a nuclear device. Such a device could be placed on the tip of an inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) for long-range delivery. Developing a reliable deliverable nuclear warhead for mounting on its Taepodong series of long-range ballistic missiles has been one of the major goals of the North Korean nuclear program. According to an anonymous South Korean defense ministry official cited by Yonhap News, Pyongyang’s Taepodong-2 long-range missile is also believed to have been improved in 2014 to now support a range of up to 10,000 kilometers.

North Korea conducted its most recent nuclear test in 2013, leading to widespread international condemnation. It also conducted two underground detonation tests in 2006 and 2009. All tested devices so far have been plutonium-based. According to the South Korean defense white paper, ”North Korea’s capabilities of miniaturizing nuclear weapons appear to have reached a significant level.” “North Korea is presumed to have secured some 40 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel roads multiple times, and it is evaluated to have been working on the highly enriched uranium program,” it adds.

Crucially, Yonhap cites another defense ministry source who notes that the South Korea defense ministry does not “have any intelligence that North Korea completed the miniaturization.” The white paper’s assertion that the North has likely acquired this capability is based on the period of time that has elapsed since North Korea conducted its first nuclear test. Based on South Korean knowledge of North Korea’s nuclear know-how (which is limited to begin with), the eight years that have since elapsed should have allowed the North to miniaturize a plutonium-based nuclear device.

The South Korean white paper also put forth the assertion that North Korea is “presumed to have (missiles) capabilities that could threaten the U.S. mainland, having fired off long-range missiles five times.” Range estimates of North Korean ballistic missiles are notoriously varying. The North successfully launched a satellite on its Unha-3 long-range rocket back in 2012, and it has regularly tested other long- and medium-range rockets to varying degrees of success.

The South Korean white paper referred to North Korea as the South’s “enemy,” and as a ”serious [threat] to [South Korea's] national security.”

Interestingly, the South Korean defense white paper also lambasted Japan’s claims to the Dokdo/Takeshima islets — a disputed set of uninhabited islands in the Sea of Japan. ”The regressive historical conception by some Japanese political leaders and its unjustified territorial claims to Dokdo have served as a stumbling block for the future-oriented development of bilateral relations,” the paper noted. ”The defense ministry will continue to sternly deal with Japan’s unjustified claims to Dokdo, while cooperating further on major security issues such as North Korea’s nuclear threats for peace and stability in Northeast Asia,” it added.
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
:siren::siren::siren:

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ction-at-iran-s-top-secret-military-site.html

Kimberly Dozier
Eye Spy
02.07.16 9:00 PM ET

Satellites Show Mystery Construction at Iran’s Top-Secret Military Site

A series of images, taken from space, show furious construction at a key Iranian facility. Was it to hide nuclear weapons work?

Newly released satellite images of Iran’s top-secret Parchin military complex reveal that even as Iran was working to negotiate a nuclear deal, it was apparently working to hide its atomic work of the past and hedge its bets for the future.

Forecasting site Stratfor.com says the images published Monday show Iran building a tunnel into a heavily guarded mountain complex inside the Parchin facility, some 20 miles southeast of Tehran, while also working to erase signs of alleged high-explosive testing at another area on the site.

“We’re not saying they’re cheating on the nuclear deal,” Stratfor analyst Sim Tack told The Daily Beast. “The images show Iran was going through the motions to hide what it’s done before, and it is still…developing facilities that the IAEA may or may not have access to,” Tack said, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The progression of satellite images tracking construction at Parchin from 2012 to 2015 show how Iran’s leaders apparently worked to keep regime hardliners happy by moving forward with weapons programs, even as the leadership worked to erase signs of an illegal nuclear weapons program, Tack said.

The satellite images appear to show new paving around the building that was alleged to be a test site for high-energy explosive charges used to detonate a nuclear weapon. Comparing satellite images from 2010 to one taken this year, Tack points out that the area has been paved, and plants and trees surrounding it removed and the soil scraped—all steps one would take to hide the radioactive fallout of nuclear weapons testing.

The IAEA sent a team to inspect the site last fall, one of the final steps up to the adoption of a deal that will give the country tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief.

"In September, IAEA Director General [Yukiya] Amano visited the inside of the suspected explosives test chamber building, and found it had been emptied,” said Andy Weber, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs. He added that in his opinion, Stratfor’s analysis “tracked well with the photos.”

While the destruction of that controversial building has been reported before, Tack said the publication of images of the near-simultaneous construction of the tunnel entrance to another part of the complex is new.

“The imagery showed they were working on a tunnel entrance within the Parchin complex…and it looks like it’s complete,” Tack said. A 2014 image Stratfor did not release showed construction equipment outside tunnel entrance.

“They were still going forward with that construction during the talks,” he said.

The mysterious subterranean complex could be part of Iran’s ballistic missile program that triggered new U.S. sanctions in January, even as the nuclear sanctions were being lifted. The U.S. first detected that Iran was testing missile engines at the site in 1997.

Parchin was also the site of a large explosion in 2014 that the Iranian government never explained.

“It could have come from a test of rocket fuel or conventional warheads,” Tack said.

Whatever’s hidden beneath that mountain, the IAEA didn’t get a look at it last September, he said.

“There are places where nobody knows what’s going on,” he said.

The IAEA declined to comment on the new satellite photos.

The Iran’s U.N. Mission did not respond to requests for comment.

Iran has dismissed questions about suspicious construction at Parchin before. The Iranian official news agency IRNA reported that when IAEA chief Amano inspected the facility, he “visited construction works at Parchin, about which there are some irrelevant claims.”

Obama administration officials would not comment on what the photos show, but insisted that IAEA inspectors can check it out if they see fit.

A senior Obama administration official said the nuclear deal, known by the cumbersome acronym JCPOA, for Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, “means the IAEA will have the access it needs to any suspicious location going forward. Such transparency will ensure that these past activities will not occur again, and if they do, that they will be quickly detected.”

The official spoke on condition of anonymity to defend a deal that is described as the cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy legacy.

..........
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm..........

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-08/note-to-baltic-states-israel-is-tiny-too

Europe

Note to Baltic States: Israel Is Tiny, Too

Feb 8, 2016 12:01 AM EST
By Marc Champion
Comments 207

The Baltic States need to start thinking a little more like Israel.

A new report from the Rand Corporation, funded by the U.S. Army, has published evidence for a truth long known: A Russian invasion of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania would quickly succeed -- within 60 hours, to be precise. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization would be powerless to do anything about it, unless it was willing to go to war with Russia to retake the lost territory, with all the attendant potential for escalation.

Rand's report describes the problems that faced the NATO team in its war games. The Baltic countries could be easily surrounded. They have no serious air defenses, no tanks and no air force. Even man-for-man, their combat units are so lightly armed compared to those of the superpower next door that they would be crushed. It would all be over by the time NATO could bring a meaningful force to the battlefield.

There are more differences than similarities between the Baltic states and Israel, which is neither a NATO member nor threatened by a superpower. But they have enough in common for the Balts to draw useful lessons.

Like Israel, the threat the three Baltic states face is of an attack from a larger enemy, with little territory upon which to fight a lengthy defense. From the Syrian border to the Israeli coast at Haifa is about 60 miles. From the Russian border to the Estonian capital, Tallinn, is about 120 miles.

Their populations also include minorities whose loyalties might prove divided in the event of conflict -- ethnic Palestinians and Russians respectively. Russian-speakers make up a third of Latvia's population, for example, and many lack citizenship because naturalization requires a Latvian language test.

Yet the responses to what both the Baltic nations and Israel consider a potentially existential threat could hardly be more different. Estonia has increased its defense spending since Russia's 2008 war with Georgia, to meet NATO's target of 2 percent of gross domestic product. But it is unlikely to go much further. Latvia and Lithuania are still struggling to spend 1 percent of GDP on their militaries.

Israel, by contrast, spends about 6.5 percent of GDP on defense. It has 440 combat-capable aircraft and multiple mid-range anti-aircraft systems, not to mention a covert nuclear deterrent.

-1x-1.png

http://assets.bwbx.io/images/iM8ZxfRWBOFs/v2/-1x-1.png

Nobody thinks the Balts can bulk up that much. "The question is how much you can achieve on your own, considering an imbalance of forces much greater than Israel faces," says Henrik Praks, a research fellow at Estonia's International Center for Defense and Security. And financially, he said, buying an air force, or air defenses capable of excluding Russian jets, is "out of the question."

This is all true. Yet the Balts should do more. The resources available to them would be material to delaying a Russian onslaught long enough for specially pre-positioned NATO brigades to arrive from Poland and Germany.

The U.S., too, should consider mixing the NATO model for assuring the defense of America's allies with a little of the one it uses for Israel. The U.S. spends about $3 billion a year on aid to Israel, nearly all of it military. Nothing remotely on that scale is required for the Balts, but there's a value to having Estonians and Latvians, rather than NATO, deploy and operate some of the high-end equipment that an effective deterrent against Russia would entail.

The U.S. made a start in late 2014 with a $55 million deal to sell Javelin anti-tank weapons to Estonia on favorable terms. The same might be done for heavy tanks, which as potentially offensive weapons would be more provocative to Russia if they were manned by Americans.

The Balts can't possibly keep a Russian invasion at bay without NATO's aid. They're right, too, that Western analysts spend too much time imagining Russia taking a Ukraine-style approach to destabilizing the Balts, when a quick, outright invasion is more likely. But appearing to sit back and rely on allies for their defense is dangerous. This is one lesson Israelis have always understood: Ultimately, they can rely on only on themselves.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Marc Champion at mchampion7@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Jonathan Landman at jlandman4@bloomberg.net
 

mzkitty

I give up.
5m
Wife of senior Islamic State leader charged in US in death of American hostage Kayla Mueller - AP
End of alert


12m
Federal judge in Dallas denies Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's request for injunction barring Syrian refugees - Austin Statesman
End of alert
 

mzkitty

I give up.
Updated 1 hr 10 mins ago

The U.S. Department of Justice today charged the wife of a top ISIS leader for her role in a "conspiracy" that led to the death of American aid worker Kayla Mueller, who was reported killed by the terror group in Syria a year ago.

It was unclear Monday night whether the U.S. was expecting to take custody of Nasrin As'ad Ibrahim, known as "Umm Sayyaf." American forces had originally captured Sayyaf, who is accused of being the "sole" individual "responsible" for Mueller, in a May 2015 but was handed her over to the Kurdish government in August.

Sayyaf was the wife of ISIS's oil and gas "emir," or chief, Abu Sayyaf, a Tunisian who U.S. officials say oversaw the terror group's sales of illicit fossil fuels to fund the ISIS war machine.

Kayla Mueller, 26, of Prescott, Arizona, was a committed humanitarian aid worker captured in Aleppo, Syria, and held for 17 months as a hostage with other Westerners. In the fall of 2014, she was personally selected by ISIS "Caliph" Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to be his personal hostage against her will, family and counter-terrorism sources have said.

For several months, Mueller was believed held by the Sayyafs in their homes in Syria and visited by Baghdadi, who repeatedly raped her, her anguished parents Carl and Marsha Mueller said.

"We were told Kayla was tortured, that she was the property of al-Baghdadi. We were told that in June by the government," Marsha Mueller told ABC News in August.

The Justice Department today alleged that Umm Sayyaf has admitted to the FBI that al-Baghdadi "owned" Mueller during her captivity at the Sayyaf compound and "admitted that 'owning' is equivalent to slavery."

Mueller was captured in a vehicle on a road in Aleppo, which the humanitarian medical group Medicines San Frontiers (Doctors Without Borders) has said happened while she was traveling with several of their staff, one of whom was an MSF contractor who had asked her to assist him in a trip to an MSF hospital.

The MSF contractor later tried to rescue her by telling ISIS she was his wife -- but Mueller had already told the terrorists holding her that she was not married and feared the consequences of lying to them, another close confidante of Kayla's told ABC News.

Mueller was held captive with, but at times segregated from, a group of American, British and European hostages held at an old oil refinery site south of ISIS's de facto capital of Raqqa, Syria.

The U.S. Army's elite unit Delta Force attempted a rescue mission in the area in July 2014 but the hostages had been moved just days before the counter-terror squad moved in, U.S. officials said.

One by one, the western hostages were beheaded beginning in August on video by ISIS "executioner" Mohammed Emwazi, dubbed "Jihad John." But Kayla Mueller was never shown on video or publicly threatened.

But in February 2015, ISIS claimed she had been accidentally killed by a Jordanian airstrike. U.S. officials denied that there had even been any Jordanian airstrikes that day, and some vowed to find Abu Sayyaf and bring him to justice in a lower Manhattan federal court where many terrorists have been tried and convicted.

That opportunity came for Delta on May 15 in a ground force operation against a house in Syria, the White House said in an announcement afterward. As Sayyaf's guards tried to hide from the American commandos, they all were killed. The Delta operators then killed Abu Sayyaf "when he engaged U.S. forces," Defense Secretary Ash Carter said,

Umm Sayyaf, his wife, was captured alive and one Yazidi girl was rescued. The wife of the Tunisian senior ISIS leader was grilled for weeks by the FBI-led High Value Interrogation Group and she quickly confirmed that Mueller had been held prisoner in their household for Baghdadi, who had raped her, counter-terrorism sources told ABC News. Some intelligence prior to Umm Sayyaf's interrogation had assessed that Abu Sayyaf held her and had taken the American hostage as his own forced "wife," but it became apparent that he had actually kept her as a captive for his leader.

Last August, the U.S. turned Umm Sayyaf over to the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government's Ministry of Interior, the Defense Department announced. "The decision to transfer Umm Sayyaf to the Iraqi government was based on the U.S. government determination that the detainee's transfer would be appropriate with respect to legal, diplomatic, intelligence, security, and law enforcement considerations," the DOD statement said.

"The charges filed today allege that Umm Sayyaf and others conspired to provide material support to ISIL and that this conspiracy resulted in the death of Kayla Jean Mueller," said Assistant Attorney General Carlin said in a statement today. "Sayyaf is currently in Iraqi custody for her terrorism-related activities. We fully support the Iraqi prosecution of Sayyaf and will continue to work with the authorities there to pursue our shared goal of holding Sayyaf accountable for her crimes. At the same time, these charges reflect that the U.S. justice system remains a powerful tool to bring to bear against those who harm our citizens abroad. We will continue to pursue justice for Kayla and for all American victims of terrorism."

http://abc7news.com/news/wife-of-isis-figure-charged-in-american-womans-death/1192553/
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/india-jihadi-groups-splinter-as-rivalries-intensify/

India Jihadi Groups Splinter as Rivalries Intensify

February 8, 2016
Balasubramaniyan Viswanathan

The rivalry between Islamic State and Al Qaeda is a well-known fact. Several times in the recent past, Islamic State has openly criticised Al Qaeda and its chief Ayman Al Zawahiri. However, for the first time Islamic State has been openly critical of Pakistan-sponsored terrorist groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba which operate against the Indian state. The head of the Khorasan unit of the Islamic State, Hafiz Sayed Khan based in Afghanistan has stated in an interview published in the latest issue of the Dabiq:

The apostate factions and agents of the tawâghît of “Pakistan” such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, do not have control over any territory in the regions of Kashmir, because they proceed in accordance with the orders of the Pakistani intelligence, as they are the ones who direct their work, pushing them forward when they wish and pulling them back when they wish.

Interestingly, this is not the first time terrorists groups focused in India and Afghanistan have found themselves to be pitted against each other. During mid-2000s, Al Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba were intentionally kept detached, courtesy of the Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Pakistan’s ISI has always been apprehensive about the relationship between jihadi groups focused on Kashmir and Afghanistan. This is possibly due to fear that groups focused on Kashmir could lose focus and veer towards Afghanistan. This is a nightmarish scenario for the ISI as they would be left without a terrorist group to leverage against India. Incidentally, this mindset has driven the ISI to thwart any attempts to integrate the operations of jihadi groups operating in the region as a whole. This theory has been validated time and again by various operatives of terrorist groups which operate against Indian interests at Pakistan’s behest.

David Coleman Headley, one of the key accused in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, has highlighted the rift between Al Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba in his interrogation report. According to him, during the mid-2000s, a debate had begun among various jihadi outfits in Pakistan over whether to focus on Afghanistan or Kashmir. Among the jihadi groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba is seen more inclined towards jihad in India, ignoring other regions like Afghanistan, Europe, etc. This led to a clash of ideologies between Pakistan-backed Lashkar-e-Taiba and groups like Taliban and Al Qaeda. For instance, Headley was tasked to conduct the reconnaissance of Jyllands-Posten in Denmark in 2009. This attack was to be engineered by a special unit of Al Qaeda led by a person named Abdul Rehman. However, when Headley briefed his handlers in Lashkar-e-Taiba about this, they showed little interest, with some handlers in Lashkar-e-Taiba even warning Headley to stay away from Al Qaeda.

Similarly, interrogation of Indian Mujahideen operatives have revealed interesting facts about this rivalry. Some of the senior Indian Mujahideen operatives have been warned by Pakistan’s ISI. One notable case is the founder Riyaz Bhatkal, when he had attempted to travel to Pakistan’s Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa tribal belts along the Afghan-Pakistan border to establish contact with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, an incident that was highlighted by Geopoliticalmonitor.com in 2014.

These extreme positions created a war of ideologies between various jihadi groups, with some groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba taking a pro-Pakistan tilt and others against it. This also resulted in vertical splits among various jihadi groups operating in Pakistan, each with their own agendas. For instance, Indian Mujahideen split into two factions recently, one faction aligned with Al Qaeda and another aligned with the Islamic State led by Shafi Armar. This division has deprived the Pakistanis of an asset, which they had often used against Indian interests, thus, leaving Pakistan with Lashkar-e-Taiba alone to focus on India at present.

On the other hand, Islamic State has been highly critical of Pakistan’s duplicity with respect to Kashmir, stating that Pakistan has used the Kashmir struggle for its own interests and has left the Kashmiri people in the lurch. As a result, Islamic State has claimed that Kashmiris and members of other groups have joined the Khorasan unit of the Islamic State. There are already ominous signs of Islamic State patronage in Kashmir as Islamic State flags are waved during protests routinely after Friday prayers. Islamic State has even indicated its plans for expansion into Kashmir in India in the abovementioned Dabiq article, which stated:

“There are specific arrangements in those regions and the Muslims will soon hear pleasant news about the Khilâfah’s expansion to those lands, inshâ’allâh.”

However, this grand expansion plan of the Islamic State has not been received well by Pakistan-backed separatist leaders within Kashmir. Mr.Geelani, the Chairman of the All Party Hurriyat Conference backed by Pakistan, which has been fighting for the separate state of Kashmir, has dismissed these claims stating that the Islamic State has no presence or role to play in Kashmir.

These simmering rivalries will understandably lead to more defections and splinters among the groups in question. These divisions are going to shape groups with a small coterie who would not only attempt to match its parent unit in the violence levels but also outdo other groups in order to appeal to its patrons. All of these are bound to result in incremental violence in Kashmir.

Islamic State’s Dabiq statement has not only brought out its discontent against Lashkar-e-Taiba but also against Pakistan and Pakistan’s ISI. As a result, Pakistan has become the latest target of an Islamic State attack in Afghanistan. A Pakistani consulate was attacked by three attackers in Jalalabad, the capital of the volatile Nangarhar province, bordering Pakistan in Afghanistan, resulting in the death of seven security personnel. Khorasan Province of the Islamic State claimed responsibility for this attack in the latest issue of Dabiq. If confirmed, this would be the first ever instance of an attack on a Pakistani target conducted by the Islamic State.

To vitiate the atmosphere further, Al Qaeda has also joined the bandwagon by establishing Al Qaeda on the India Subcontinent (AQIS), leading to a three way fight among the groups in India which espouse extremist Islamist ideology. Indian security planners are in an unenviable position, given the concomitant threat of the Islamic State, AQIS, and Lashkar-e-Taiba, all vying for their place in India, threating India’s security. On one end of the spectrum, we have Pakistan backed Lashkar-e-Taiba pitted against others such as AQIS and the Islamic State, which have surprisingly found conflation in criticizing Pakistan, yet opposing each other fiercely.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-...it-for-a-government-there-egypt-says-1.393026

Fight against Islamic State in Libya must wait for a government there, Egypt says

By Karen DeYoung
The Washington Post
Published: February 8, 2016

Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, in Washington for bilateral talks with the Obama administration, said in an interview that "the Libyan people should undertake the decisions related to the fight against terrorism and how it should be conducted and what form of assistance should be provided to it. This should be a Libyan-led process defined by the Libyan people."

Pressure has been growing for Western military intervention to stem the growth of the Islamic State in Libya, where the militants control the port city of Sirte and have attacked the oil infrastructure. U.S. intelligence has said that the Islamic State's headquarters in Syria has increasingly directed new recruits to Libya, where it sees enhanced prospects of expanding territory it controls amid political chaos there.

Pentagon options presented to the White House include airstrikes, Special Forces operations and assistance to Libyan ground forces. Officials said no decisions were made at a National Security Council meeting late last month.

During a meeting last week in Rome on the Libya situation, Secretary of State John F. Kerry said that the world must prevent the Islamic State from gaining a "stranglehold" over Libya and urged Libyan political factions to agree on a unity government.

Efforts by the United Nations to get competing groups in Tripoli and Tobruk to forge such a government have missed repeated deadlines amid ongoing disagreement about how to parcel out power and ministries.

The latest controversy revolves around the defense ministry. Egypt has pressed for a powerful role for renegade Gen. Khalifa Haftar, who controls a group of fighting forces in the northeastern part of the country.

"We have to recognize that (Haftar's forces) are an important component . . . in the battle against expansion of the terrorists," Shoukry said.

After the Islamic State executed 21 Egyptian workers in Libya last year, Egypt called for immediate military attacks against the militants. In recent weeks, however, it has tempered those calls and is instead trying to press for what it considers the most favorable composition of the new government.

Egypt occupies a unique position in the fight against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. A U.S. ally, it also has close military and economic ties with Russia. Saudi Arabia has also been instrumental in helping to boost the Egyptian economy.

As a member of the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State, as well as of the 17-member group of governments trying to forge a political solution to Syria's civil war, the Egyptians have tried to straddle competing U.S. and Russian visions of Syria's future.

"We counsel all our friends to do the right thing," Shoukry said of divergent views among Washington, Moscow and Riyadh over the immediate future of President Bashar al-Assad in a Syrian political transition. "We have tried to insulate ourselves from this discussion," he said.

A concentration on Assad, he said, "has not led us to any positive position over the past four years."

Asked about Russia's insistence that its Syrian airstrikes are targeting "terrorists" and U.S. insistence that the vast majority of Russian strikes are against the coalition-backed opposition to Assad, Shoukry straddled a middle ground. "We operate on the presumption that all parties do what they say. . . . When we present our opinions to the Untied States, we present the same position to the Russian Federation and our other partners and allies . . . a message that we have to work in unison" to promote a political settlement of the war.


Related:

Islamic State-linked fighters seizing oil-rich land in Libya
US struggling to build anti-Islamic State strategy in Libya
Libya may become the next front in war against the Islamic State
Islamic State attacks fuel storage tanks in Libya's major oil terminal


_


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/obama-says-the-us-and-italy-are-working-together-in-libya-1.393006

Obama says the US and Italy are working together in Libya

Associated Press
Published: February 8, 2016

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama and Italian President Sergio Mattarella met Monday to discuss efforts to fight the spread of the Islamic State in Libya, where the extremist group is capitalizing on political instability to increase its influence.

Obama and Mattarella reviewed plans to support a Libyan unity government, Obama told reporters after the meeting in the Oval Office. With a stable government in place "that will allow us then to help them build up their security capacity and to push back against effort by ISIL to gain a foothold," Obama said, using an alternative acronym for the group.

Obama has been deliberating whether to take more aggressive and sustained military action against the Islamic State group in Libya. Last week, he directed his national security team to bolster counterterrorism efforts there.

Meanwhile, U.S. and European diplomats are pushing to solve Libya's political crisis.

The country has been divided between two rival factions since 2014, part of the fallout from the 2011 uprising that toppled and killed longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

Italy has said it would take the international lead in providing security support, along with help from the U.S., should talks to form a single government succeed.


In his remarks, Obama said Italy already has played a key role in the U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State militants in Syria and Iraq, particularly in the fight for the Mosul Dam in Iraq.

He said the leaders also discussed efforts to manage the flow of refugees fleeing the violence in Syria.

Mattarella said he and Obama agreed on a "very balanced" and "humane" approach.

"We have to consider issues of security and the rights of the people that are affected," he said, speaking through a translator.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...ice_for_north_koreas_belligerence_109001.html

February 9, 2016

China Pays the Price for North Korea's Belligerence

By Robert A. Manning

North Korea’s fourth nuclear test followed by a ballistic missile launch have ominous implications—a North Korea in possession of miniaturized warheads and a delivery system.

These developments have rattled nerves and escalated tensions in Northeast Asia. The outrage over North Korea’s flagrant violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions has reverberated worldwide, yet China, North Korea’s sole ally, has refused to back tough measures that would raise the cost to Pyongyang of its behavior.

North Korea’s refusal to abide by Chinese entreaties not to launch a rocket is a remarkable display of disrespect toward Beijing. It also raises a key question: Is there a limit to China’s willingness to tolerate North Korea’s behavior?

North Korea became the only country to test a nuclear weapon in the 21st century when it conducted its fourth such test on January 6. On February 7, Pyongyang said it had put a satellite into space—in other words, it had conducted an intercontinental ballistic missile test.

These events unfolded even as Beijing was trying to repair frayed ties with Pyongyang. Last October, in an attempt to revive strained party-to-party ties, Chinese President Xi Jinping dispatched the fifth-ranking member of the Politburo,Liu Yunshan, to Pyongyang to participate in a celebration of the Korean Workers’ Party’s 70th anniversary. For four days, Liu publicly schmoozed with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

As recently as last December, many in Beijing were gushing about their warming ties to Pyongyang amid rumors that Kim would meet with Xi in the Chinese capital. Then came the slap in the face on January 6. Unlike with previous North Korean tests, this was the first time Beijing received no advance warning from Pyongyang.

Worried about an impending missile test, Xi dispatched his top Six-Party Talks negotiator, Wu Dawei, to Pyongyang on a mission to prevent a North Korean missile launch. In yet another slap in the face, Wu was greeted on his arrival in North Korea with the official announcement that Pyongyang would launch a satellite in early February.

Given that China is North Korea’s principal supporter, accounting for 90 percent of its foreign trade and providing most of its fuel and food, this was a remarkable display of contempt toward Beijing.

What this behavior shows is that North Korea has correctly concluded that it has carte blanche; China’s fear of instability on the Korean Peninsula is so great that Beijing is not prepared to take any steps to punish Pyongyang that could destabilize Kim’s regime. However, as much as China opposes a nuclear North Korea, in practice, it is willing to live with a few North Korean nukes if that is the price of maintaining the status quo.

Beyond a nuclear North, China faces outcomes in East Asia that resulting from Pyongyang’s actions that it dreads most: a strengthening of the US “rebalance” in the region, enhanced missile defense in Northeast Asia, and new levels of US-South Korea-Japan defense cooperation.

Beijing put heavy pressure on Seoul not to deploy the US THAAD missile defense system. It was viewed as an insult by South Koreans when China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson argued that China’s position on missile defense is that “countries when pursuing their own security, should take into account others’ security interests.” To South Korea, China appeared more concerned with Seoul’s effort to defend itself against a North Korean threat than with Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile threat itself!

South Korean officials have stepped up talks with the United States about THAAD and the other layers of Korean missile defense. But it doesn’t stop there. Even more worrying for Beijing is the specter of a nuclear arms race in Northeast Asia as South Korean politicians call for Seoul to acquire its own nuclear weapons.

Of still greater concern to Beijing is the likely impact of its North Korea-first policy on the US-China relationship. At a time when US-China relations are already strained over Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea, cybersecurity, currency issues, and human rights, North Korea has become another source of tension. This is ironic as cooperation on efforts to denuclearize North Korea have often been cited as an important example of US-China cooperation.

Beijing has opposed efforts in the UN Security Council to impose biting sanctions on Pyongyang. The result will be diluted UN sanctions and likely US imposition of unilateral sanctions on North Korea. There is already legislation pending in Congress that calls for sanctions against banks doing business with North Korea. This will hit Chinese banks and cause more rancor in US-China relations.

In the end, it may well be that China’s stubborn protection of North Korea produces exactly the instability on the Korean Peninsula that Beijing seeks to avoid.

Robert A. Manning is a Resident Senior Fellow in the Atlantic Council’s Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security.


This article originally appeared at Atlantic Council.
 
Top