WAR 02-20-2016-to-02-26-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/22/c...-is-no-different-than-your-defense-of-hawaii/

Daily Caller News Foundation

China To US: Loading South China Sea Island With Missiles Is No Different Than Your Defense Of Hawaii

Jonah Bennett
Reporter
12:34 PM 02/22/2016

China deploying military capabilities in the South China Sea is no different than the U.S. military operating near Hawaii, said the Chinese Foreign Ministry Monday.

Except that Washington didn’t artificially build the Hawaiian islands.

Apparently, the implication is that Chinese Foreign Ministry is making an aggressive case that it has legitimate jurisdiction over artificial islands in the South China Sea in the same way that Hawaii is firmly within the United States’ purview, Reuters reports.

China has continuously claimed from the beginning that its operations in the South China Sea are restricted to civilian efforts. But recently, the U.S. said that China has moved surface-to-air missiles over to one of the islands, though China has declined to state whether or not this assessment is accurate.

Ahead of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit to the U.S. this week, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said that because the U.S. is not involved in the dispute over the South China Sea, the topic should not even come up in conversation with Secretary of State John Kerry.

“China’s deploying necessary, limited defensive facilities on its own territory is not substantively different from the United States defending Hawaii,” Hua said, effectively admitting that the islands are being militarized. Hua blamed the militarization on U.S. freedom of navigation patrols in the region.

“It’s this that is the biggest cause of the militarization of the South China Sea,” Hua added. We hope that the United States does not confuse right and wrong on this issue or practice double standards.”

In response to Chinese militarization, U.S Navy Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin stated Monday that surface-to-air missiles won’t stop U.S. patrols or surveillance of the area. In January, the Navy sent a warship by islands in the Paracel chain. China called the incident a breach of the peace and said that the People’s Liberation Army chased the ship out of Chinese territorial waters using an assortment of naval ships and aircraft.

A U.S. official, however, said there was not a single PLA ship in the region.

Aucoin also called for other countries like Australia to follow the lead and conduct freedom of navigation excursions, though he emphasized that this shouldn’t be viewed as a U.S.-China dispute.

“I wish it wasn’t portrayed as U.S. versus China,” Aucoin said. “This shouldn’t seem provocative. What we’re trying to ensure is that all countries, no matter size or strength, can pursue their interests based on the law of the sea and not have that endangered by some of these actions.”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.stripes.com/report-us-carriers-unchallenged-primacy-may-be-coming-to-a-close-1.395485

Report: US carriers' 'unchallenged primacy may be coming to a close'

By Thomas Gibbons-Neff
The Washington Post
Published: February 22, 2016

WASHINGTON — The United States' aircraft carriers have always been an almost untouchable deterrent, steel behemoths capable of projecting the full weight of the U.S. military wherever they deploy. Yet while many militaries could never hope to match the U.S. carrier fleet in size and strength, countries such as China, Iran and Russia have spent recent years adjusting their forces and fielding equipment designed to counter one of the United States' greatest military strengths.

A report published Monday by the Center for a New American Security, a D.C.-based think tank that focuses on national security, claims that the Navy's carrier operations are at an inflection point. Faced with growing threats abroad, the United States can either "operate its carriers at ever-increasing ranges . . . or assume high levels of risk in both blood and treasure."

The report, titled "Red Alert: The Growing Threat to to U.S. Aircraft Carriers," centers around China's burgeoning military posture in the Pacific and on a term that is starting to appear with an ever-increasing urgency in defense circles: anti-access/area denial, or A2/AD. The term A2/AD centers around a concept that has long existed in warfare: denying the enemy an ability to move around the battlefield. Currently A2/AD strategy is as similar as it was when moats were dug around castles, except today's moats are an integrated system of surface-to-air missiles, anti-ship cruise missiles, submarines, surface ships and aircraft all designed to push enemy forces as far away as possible from strategically important areas.

The report focuses on China's capabilities because of its "emphasis on long-range anti-ship missile procurement." This, coupled with its growing tech base, qualifies China as the "pacing threat" to the U.S. military. China, however, is not the sole architect of an A2/AD strategy designed to deter U.S. operations. In the Baltics, Russia's naval base in Kaliningrad is known to house a sophisticated air defense network and anti-ship missiles. NATO commanders also have warned of Russian A2/AD buildup around Syria, as Russia has moved advanced surface-to-air missiles into its airbase there as well as a flotilla of ships with robust anti-air capabilities.

As other countries focus on creating sophisticated A2/AD bubbles by using new technology such as drones, advanced missiles and newer aircraft, the United States - by operating as it always has - is putting itself more at risk. According to the report, this is particularly relevant as carrier groups have reduced their long-range strike ability in lieu of being able to fly more air missions but at shorter ranges.

"Operating the carrier in the face of increasingly lethal and precise munitions will thus require the United States to expose a multi-billion dollar asset to high levels of risk in the event of a conflict," the report says. "An adversary with A2/AD capabilities would likely launch a saturation attack against the carrier from a variety of platforms and directions. Such an attack would be difficult - if not impossible - to defend against."

Last week, China's A2/AD strategy made international news after satellite imagery showed the deployment of HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island, a disputed atoll in the South China Sea. Though small, the island is claimed by both Taiwan and Vietnam. The CNAS report classifies the HQ-9 as a short-range A2/AD threat but indicates that the movement of such systems into disputed territory in the South China Sea, if properly reinforced, is a potentially long-term problem for U.S. naval operations. Medium and long-range threats discussed in the report include land-based Chinese bombers and anti-ship ballistic missiles such as the DF-21D and DF-26. The two missiles "represent a significant threat to the carrier," with an estimated range of 810 and 1,620 nautical miles, respectively. According to the report, if the DF-26 is as operational and as accurate as the Chinese say it is, the missile would be able to hit the U.S. territory of Guam.

While the report discusses possible countermeasures for a sophisticated A2/AD network, including the Navy's future railgun project, the United States probably would employ a variety of systems and strategies, including hacking, to defeat the enemy threat. However, long-term strategies suggested in the report include putting U.S. combat power into systems such as submarines and long-range carrier-based drones. Submarines could evade A2/AD by remaining undetected, while carrier based drones - with their increased range - would give carriers much-needed standoff from potential A2/AD threats.

The United States "must re-examine the relevance of the carrier and its air wing and explore innovative options for future operations and force structure," the report concludes. "If the United States is to maintain its military superiority well into the future, it cannot afford to do otherwise."


Related:

Navy commander: South China Sea not a US-versus-China battle

The commander of the U.S. Navy's 7th Fleet said Monday that he is wary of the situation in the South China Sea being painted as a battle between the United States and China, but added the presence of a Chinese missile system on a disputed island will not stop the U.S. military from flying over the region.


US dropped North Korea peace talks after missile test

The U.S. called off talks with North Korea aimed at formally ending the Korean War when it became clear that the reclusive nation’s recent ballistic missile test showed that it wasn’t interested in stopping its nuclear program.


Marine Corps Base Hawaii seeks new use for old seaplane ramps

Marine Corps Base Hawaii is looking at repurposing at least one of its pre-World War II seaplane ramps — which figured in the Dec. 7, 1941, attack — for a 21st-century need: big hovercraft that ferry equipment from ship to shore.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-islamicstate-hostage-idUSKCN0VW18J

World | Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:58am EST
Related: World

Kurdish special forces rescue teenage Swedish girl from Islamic State

ERBIL, Iraq


A teenage Swedish girl being held by Islamic State militants in Iraq was rescued in a raid by Kurdish special forces last week, the autonomous region's security council said in a statement on Tuesday.

The 16-year-old travelled from Sweden to Syria last year and then crossed the border into Iraq, where she was rescued near the Islamic State stronghold of Mosul on Feb. 17 by forces from the Kurdish counterterrorism department, the statement added.

The Kurdish security council identified the rescued teenager as coming from the town of Boras and said she had been misled into making the journey to Syria by an Islamic State member in Sweden.

"The Kurdistan Region Security Council was called upon by Swedish authorities and members of her family to assist in locating and rescuing her from ISIL," the statement read.

The teenager is currently in the Kurdistan region and will be handed over to Swedish authorities so she can return home once necessary arrangements are put place, it added.


(Reporting by Isabel Coles; Editing by Dominic Evans)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://abcnews.go.com/International...an-government-accepts-proposed-truce-37128959

The Latest: IS Advance Cuts Government Supply Line to Aleppo

By The Associated Press ·BEIRUT — Feb 23, 2016, 8:19 AM ET

The Latest on the conflict in Syria and the provisional cease-fire proposed by the U.S. and Russia (all times local):

3.15 p.m

The Islamic State group has captured an important town in northern Syria, cutting supply lines for government forces between the northern city of Aleppo and central and western Syria.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says IS fighters captured Khanaser on Tuesday along with 12 hills around it.

The Aamaq news agency, which is affiliated with the extremist group, also reported that IS fighters are now in "full control" of Khanaser, southeast of the city of Aleppo.

The capture of Khanaser comes a day after Islamic militias assaulted government-held positions around the town, setting off intense clashes.

Khanaser lies along the government's only access route to Aleppo, Syria's largest city and once commercial center.

———

3 p.m.

A U.N. spokesman says new humanitarian aid deliveries are planned for two suburbs of Syria's capital, Damascus, in the "coming days."

Ahmad Fawzi says the deliveries to Moadamiyeh and Kfar Batna will follow other deliveries of aid to besieged areas of Syria in recent weeks.

His comments Tuesday to reporters in Geneva came a day after the U.S. and Russia announced a "cessation of hostilities" agreement set to begin Saturday.

The truce would include Syrian government and opposition forces but not the Islamic State group or the al-Qaida-affiliated Nusra Front.

Fawzi said U.N. special envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura will brief the Security Council "very soon," and that separate task forces on the cessation of hostilities and humanitarian aid for Syria are to meet this week.

———

2:10 p.m.

Turkey's prime minister is accusing Russia and Syria, along with Islamic State militants and U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish militia, of attempting to form a "terror belt" along its border with Syria and says his country won't let it happen.

In the weekly address to legislators from his ruling party Tuesday, Ahmet Davutoglu says the aim is to establish a terror "structure" — made up of the Islamic State group and the U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish militia group YPG — in Syria's north. Turkey considers the YPG a terrorist organization because of its links to Turkey's outlawed Kurdish rebels.

"Turkey is aware of these games aiming to make Turkey a neighbor with a terror structure and will not allow it," Davutoglu said.

———

1:20 p.m.

Turkey's deputy prime minister says his country supports the cease-fire agreement for Syria but suggests that its military could continue firing on Syrian Kurdish groups in Syria if their militia "attack" Turkey.

Turkey has been shelling U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish militia positions in Syria, maintaining that it is responding to attacks or provocations.

Numan Kurtulmus told journalists on Tuesday: "We hope that the PYD will not attack Turkey after Saturday. Of course, Turkey has the right to defend its territory." He was referring to the Syrian Kurdish group, the Democratic Union Party.

Turkey views the U.S.-backed PYD and its armed wing, the YPG, as terrorists because of their affiliation with Turkey's own outlawed Kurdish rebels.

Kurtulmus also said that while Turkey welcomes the provisional truce agreed for Syria, it has "reservations and fears" about possible continued Russian airstrikes on civilians.

———

12 p.m.

The Syrian government says that it accepts a proposed truce in the country, adding that operations will continue against the Islamic State group and al-Qaida's branch in Syria.

A Foreign Ministry statement on Tuesday says government forces will have the right to respond to any violation carried out by insurgents.

The official Syrian announcement comes a day after the United States and Russia agreed on a new cease-fire for Syria that will take effect Saturday.

The main umbrella for Syrian opposition and rebel groups said late Monday that it "agrees to a temporary truce" as long as the main opposition's demands are met.

Indirect peace talks between the Syrian government and HNC collapsed on Feb. 3, because of a large-scale government offensive.

———

10:30 a.m.

The main umbrella for Syrian opposition and rebel groups says it "agrees to a temporary truce" as long as the main opposition's demands are met.

The High Negotiations Committee says in a statement issued after its meeting in Saudi Arabia late Monday that it "has given its acceptance of international efforts for a cessation of hostilities in Syria."

The announcement came hours after the United States and Russia agreed on a new cease-fire for Syria that will take effect Saturday.

The HNC says "acceptance of the truce is conditional" to the Syrian government ending its siege of 18 rebel-held areas, releasing detainees and the cessation of aerial and artillery bombardment.

Indirect peace talks between the Syrian government and HNC collapsed on Feb. 3, because of a large-scale government offensive.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...t-sent-troops-for-saudi-arabia-s-war-in-yemen

Eritrea Denies It Sent Troops for Saudi Arabia's War in Yemen

by Samuel Gebre
February 23, 2016 — 5:13 AM PST

- African nation accuses UN of reporting `flawed' allegations
- Country doesn't mention other claims of logistical support


Eritrea denied it sent soldiers to fight with a Saudi Arabia-led coalition in Yemen, accusing the United Nations of reporting flawed and “unsubstantiated” allegations against the Horn of Africa country.

The UN Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea said in an October report it had “credible information” that Eritrean soldiers were embedded with a United Arab Emirates contingent in Yemen. It also said the African nation was allowing the Arab coalition to use its land, airspace and territorial waters, receiving fuel and financial compensation for its support in the campaign against Houthi militants.

Eritrea described the allegation of sending troops as “patently false,” in a statement on a government website. It accused the monitoring group of a “longstanding tendency to dwell on malicious hearsay so as to maintain the harassment of Eritrea.” It didn’t mention the other allegations of support. Neither Saudi Arabia nor the U.A.E. have commented on the UN’s claims.

Eritrea, situated along one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes on the Red Sea, is less than 100 kilometers (62 miles) across the waterway from Yemen at its closest point.

The UN group also said it found “no evidence” of Eritrea assisting Islamist militants al-Shabaab in Somalia, although it found the country was “continuing to support and harbor some regional armed groups” including a newly formed Ethiopian opposition coalition. The global body imposed sanctions on Eritrea in 2009, accusing it of sending 2,000 troops to back the al-Qaeda-linked group that’s been waging an insurgency against Somalia’s administration since 2006.

The government in Asmara welcomed the group’s “acknowledgment of the fact, even if belated, that the principal, purported reason for imposing the unwarranted sanctions against Eritrea is untenable.”

The chair of the UN’s Somalia-Eritrea Sanctions Committee, Rafael Dario Ramirez Carreno, said last week he’d received an invitation from President Isaias Afwerki to visit the country.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Interesting......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://allafrica.com/stories/201602230923.html

22 February 2016

Ethiopia: When Saudi Unravels Ethiopia Cannot Be a Bystander

column
By Abdul Mohammed

Since 2002, the global war on terror has mutated into a polarized confrontation. Thirteen years ago, we were largely spectators when President George W. Bush declared a global war on terror. The reason for that was that we had effectively contained the threat posed by Al Qaida in the 1990s: they were militarily and politically defeated.

But in the last seven years or so, violent extremism has made a comeback. At first it came back insidiously, in familiar forms, such as Al Shabaab in Somalia, which is a threat, but one that we are accustomed to handling.

Much more serious is the set of threats that emerge from the vortices of instability in the Middle East. The Arabian Peninsula possesses a very dangerous combination of militant extremism, militarism and very large amounts of political money. The implications for Ethiopia's security strategy are grave indeed.

The 2002 Foreign Affairs National Security Policy Strategy is an official governmental document; of course there are things that it could say only indirectly or in a muted manner. One of them was that Ethiopia needed to find a way of neutralizing or overcoming the historic tendency of Egypt to undermine Ethiopia.

Although Ethiopia and Egypt have many core interests in common, there is such a long history of mutual suspicion, that Egypts foreign policy reflex in the Horn is to support any forces opposed to a strong and independent Ethiopia. This has much to do with Egypts obsession with maintaining the share of Nile Water awarded to it under the 1959 agreement - a treaty to which Ethiopia is not a signatory.

If the Gulf countries, notably Saudi Arabia, were to start aggressively sponsoring militant Islamism in the Horn, Ethiopia would be directly imperiled.

The sheer amount of money that Saudi Arabia can dispense - no questions asked - to further its political and ideological agendas - and to export its domestic contradictions to the neighbouring countries - make it potentially the most severely destabilizing force in the wider region.

A third fear was that the partition of Sudan would lead to an embittered northern Sudan, drawn into the Arab axis for both political-cultural and financial reasons. And, an ungovernable South Sudan that would become a morass of destabilization into which neighbouring countries, including Ethiopia, poured their energies, to no effect.

All three of these scenarios have come to pass. Not only have they all occurred, but they are linked. There is a strategic alliance between Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which has swept up Sudan, and is about to sweep up Eritrea too, and possibly Somalia as well.

This is happening in the context of the revival of the status of the Red Sea as one of the world's strategic choke points. More than 10pc of the world's maritime trade passes through it; and China is opening a naval base. Russia is likely to do so. With the civil war in Yemen, the Gulf countries are pouring funds into anyone who can provide them with troops or bases.

Under President Abdel Fattah El Sisi, Egypt has replaced its reactive inertia with an activist foreign policy. Under King Salman, Saudi policy has become not only activist but reckless. Sudans President Omar al Bashir is a known quantity who maneouvres for survival.

These developments are of immediate benefit to Eritrea. Over the last decade, Ethiopia has effectively contained the real and perceived threat posed by Eritrea, and minimized its voice in regional and international forums. Ethiopia's policy on Eritrea succeeded in its immediate goals, but it did not resolve the crisis between the two sisterly countries. The civil war in Yemen and the sudden rediscovery of geo-strategic interest in the Red Sea provide Eritrea with an option that need to be reflected upon.

It is important that Eritrea should be peeled away from it being sucked into the wider Middle East quagmire, especially the Yemeni crisis. The best mechanism for Ethiopia to accomplish this goal is by using multilateral forums such as the African Union (AU), and placing Eritrea within a broader strategic framework. If there is any part of the world that cries out for an overlapping multilateral approach, it is the Red Sea, with Eritrea at its centre.

In Somalia, while we deploy our troops to stabilize the situation, the political outcome of this year's election is likely to be determined by political funds from the Arab world. Those funds mean that the entire Somali political class is leaning, for tactical reasons, towards Salafiism.

This holds out several intriguing prospects.

Thus, there is a possibility that the country will be radicalised through democratic political processes - which may resolve the armed conflict but end up by legitimizing a fundamentalist political order.

We should not be distracted by the war against Al Shabaab and mistake the goal of that war with the wider political objective of stabilizing Somalia. Ethiopia needs to reflect carefully on its strategic interests and goals in Somalia, in the context of deepening Middle East countries' engagement in the country.

The single biggest issue is Saudi Arabia itself. Today, Saudi Arabia is a source of destabilization. It is funding, primarily privately, extremism across the region, and in doing so it is sponsoring the most puritanical and intolerant interpretations of Islam, which can do great damage to the social fabric of countries like Ethiopia. It is funding extremist groups, to keep them away from Saudi Arabia itself. It is provoking confrontation with Iran and pursuing an unwinnable war in Yemen. It has dragged Egypt and Sudan into cooperation with its reckless policies, for tactical alliances and for money.

And most serious of all, the likelihood of grave turmoil within Saudi Arabia is growing by the day. Arguably, Saudi Arabia can become a failed state. The kingdom with its centralized patronage authority can degenerate into an era of the princes. In this scenario, many different princely and religious authorities - each one possessed with a political budget of a medium-sized state, and possibly with the armaments to match - fight out their differences, at home and in the region.

This whirlwind would overshadow the obvious comparison, Libya, and it would be on our doorstep.

While attending to the regional implications of the crisis in the Arab world, we must also attend to the domestic implications of the spread of extremism. This form of religious interpretation is anathema to the traditions of tolerance that exist in Ethiopia and the neighbouring countries. These date back to the time of the Prophet Mohammed himself, and cannot in any way be regarded as less authentic than the exclusivist creed practiced by the followers of extremism.

The protection of our religious tradition, which is tolerant and embedded in social mores that are comfortable with overlapping and multiple identities, is extremely important. We cannot afford to let it grow roots in Ethiopia.

Ethiopia's foreign policy and security strategy White Paper of 2002 was formidable and innovative. It insisted that Ethiopia should get its own house in order, as the basis for establishing a robust security strategy and building political and economic relations with neighbouring countries and the wider international community. It linked Ethiopia's national goals of democracy, development and the governance of diversity in an organic way with the demands of regional economic integration and development, and with positioning Ethiopia as a force for stability, with links to all.

The specific elements of Ethiopia's national security policies, as developed in the wake of the 2002 strategy, were well-suited to that era. As circumstances have changed, new opportunities have been realised, and new threats have arisen. The same analytical tools need to be applied to the changed situation. That we can do.

Time-honoured principles of astute analysis of the global context, linking Ethiopias external policies with its internal ones, promoting multilateralism, avoiding dependence on external actors, and constant open review of the goals and methods of pursuing security, will stand us in good stead.

Abdul Mohammed Is a Regional Political Analyst. This Commentary Is the Final Part of a Three-Part Series On National Security.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
:dot5::dot5::dot5:

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.theworldweekly.com/reade...s-saudi-led-coalition-in-battle-for-taiz/6828

23 February 2016

Al-Qaeda in Yemen reportedly joins Saudi-led coalition in battle for Taiz

A documentary filmmaker working for the BBC has found evidence that al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and its allies are joining the Saudi Arabia-led coalition in the fight against Houthi rebels in the southern city of Taiz.

Safa al-Ahmad, reporting from the frontlines of Taiz, which has been embattled for months, was told not to film a certain group participating in the battle as it was angered by the presence of a woman. The group, she was told, was al-Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia. The BBC report said pro-government militiamen and jihadis were supported by soldiers from the United Arab Emirates, a leading force on the ground in Yemen. The 10-country-strong coalition led by Saudi Arabia has denied any cooperation with Sunni extremists. The coalition¡¯s members see AQAP as a terrorist organisation.

þm There have been previously been reports that pro-government fighters, Gulf Arab soldiers and al-Qaeda militants tactically cooperated during the battle to retake the southern port city of Aden from the Houthis and their allies last year.

þm As Saudi-led military operations have been mainly focused on the Houthi rebels and forces loyal to former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, al-Qaeda elements have been able to increase their territorial reach.

þm AQAP on Saturday captured another town in southern Yemen, but several days later withdrew following tribal mediation. The militant group has especially expanded its control in southern Yemen, but its leaders have continued to be targeted by US-led drone strikes. Several assassination attempts in Aden, Yemen¡¯s temporary capital, have been linked to AQAP.

þm Yemeni President Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi has appointed a veteran general as deputy commander of the armed forces in a bid to rally troops in the Sanaa area, the government¡¯s official website said on Monday. General Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar turned on former President Saleh during the 2011 uprising and is said to have strong ties to Sunni Islamists in Yemen. While the Houthis have lost ground in various areas, they still control the capital Sanaa.

þm At least 6,000 people have been killed in Yemen since March 2015, when the Saudi-led coalition intervened. Aid agencies have labeled the situation a ¡°humanitarian catastrophe¡±.

Reporting for the BBC, documentary filmmaker Safa al-Ahmad has found evidence that AQAP is supporting the Saudi-led coalition in the battle for Taiz.

The lead analyst on al-Qaeda for the American Enterprise Institute¡¯s Critical Threats Project, Katherine Zimmerman writes that al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has come close to rebuilding the quasi-state it ruled in 2011-12.

Saudi-owned Al Arabiya News reports the Yemeni army and popular resistance forces have made progress in the battle over Taiz.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nst.com.my/news/2016/02/129012/challenge-bridging-sunni-shia-sectarian-divide

Challenge of bridging Sunni-Shia sectarian divide

By SHAHID JAVED BURKI - 23 February 2016 @ 11:01 AM

Turmoil has seized much of the Muslim world. In Syria, a brutal war has already taken 250,000 lives, displaced half of the country’s 21 million people, and sent a million refugees to Europe seeking asylum.

In Yemen, the Houthi tribe has risen up against the government, and are now facing Saudi-led airstrikes. Conflicts like these reflect a number of factors, the most prominent of which are the conflicts between Islam’s two sects, Sunni and Shia, and between fundamentalists and reformists.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s Alawite regime enjoys the support of Shia powers, especially Iran, whose regional influence depends on a Shia regime remaining in power. And that is precisely why Sunni powers — most prominently Saudi Arabia — are committed to toppling that regime. Yemen’s government, by contrast, is Sunni-led, and thus has Saudi Arabia’s support, hence the bombings of the Iran-backed Shia Houthis.

Unsurprisingly, tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia have intensified lately, a trend that culminated in the severing of diplomatic relations over Saudi Arabia’s execution of a popular Shia ulama.

The chaos fuelled by these conflicts — and by instability in other countries in the region, such as Afghanistan and Iraq — has enabled the rise of some truly contemptible forces, beginning with the Islamic State (IS). That group has gained so much influence that US generals have asked President Barack Obama to authorise additional troops to join the fight against it. Moreover, there are reports that the US may postpone the withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan, where an increasingly brutal war against the government has enabled the Taliban to gain territory and created an opening for IS to become active. IS has also penetrated Pakistan.

The religious element of the conflicts raging in the Middle East today is a major reason why they have been so difficult to defuse. The Sunni-Shia schism goes back to the year 632, when the Prophet Muhammad died without indicating how the fast-growing Islamic community should pick his successor.

Those who became the Shia believed that the position should remain in the prophet’s immediate family and supported the selection of Ali ibn Abi Talib, the prophet’s cousin and son-in-law. Those who became the Sunni supported the choice of the community’s senior members: Abu Bakr, who had served as a close adviser to Muhammad.

Today, most of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims are Sunnis. They are widely dispersed, spread over a vast swath stretching from Morocco to Indonesia. After decades of migration to Europe and North America, there are also strong Sunni communities in several Western countries.

The Shia number 225 million and are geographically much more concentrated. Iran, with 83 million, is the world’s largest Shia-majority country, followed by Pakistan with 30 million and India with 25 million. The “Shia crescent” — including Iran and its immediate neighbours Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Pakistan and Turkey — accounts for 70 per cent of the sect’s total population.

This geographic distribution is the result of a series of historical accidents, a combination of conquests and (often forced) conversions. Though Islam arrived in Iran by way of conquest in 637-651, the country did not officially adopt Shi’ism for nearly another millennium, with Shah Ismail I of the Safavid dynasty undertaking in 1501 the forcible conversion of the country’s Sunni population. Shi’ism spread through South Asia as a result of repeated military incursions by Persia’s rulers into Afghanistan and India.

Today, that region’s Shia population is concentrated in urban areas, and largely comprises the descendants of the soldiers and other state functionaries who stayed behind in the conquered territories.

Sunni Islam, for its part, was first spread through South Asia by the Sufi saints, most of who came from Central Asia and preached a more tolerant and inclusive form of Islam than that of the Arabian Peninsula. But the rising influence of Saudi Arabia after the 1970s, when skyrocketing oil prices boosted the country’s wealth considerably, helped to spur the spread of the kingdom’s dominant and austere Wahhabi sect.

Beyond attracting millions of Muslim workers from South Asia, Saudi Arabia financed the establishment of Wahabbi madrasas along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

The Taliban (which, in Arabic, means “students”) in both Afghanistan and Pakistan are the products of these seminaries, as are militias like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, which have mounted attacks on religious sites in India.

Today’s turmoil reflects a clash of world views that is both theological and political. Conservative Sunnis, such as those who adhere to fundamentalist Wahhabism, favour theocratic authoritarian rule, whereas more moderate Sufi Sunnis would prefer liberal and inclusive political systems.

The same is true of the Shia. Iran has long stuck to theocratic rule, but now seems to be looking toward reform. Whether the sectarian divide can ever be bridged most likely depends on whether reformists can gain sufficient influence in both camps. If not, the conflict will continue to rage, accelerating the breakdown of regional order we now see.

Shahid Javed Burki is former finance minister of Pakistan and vice-president of the World Bank and currently chairman of the Institute of Public Policy in Lahore
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
:dot5:

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://en.abna24.com/cultural/archive/2016/02/23/736577/story.html

Saudi Arabia’s Manipulation Strategy against Countries

February 23, 2016 - 1:25 PM.
Source : Al Waqt News

Now, Saudi authorities have cut the strings. Retracting the military aid can be seen as part of Riyadh’s reward and punishment strategy. Using its petrodollars to dictate its policies over other countries, the Saudi regime miscalculated when it announced its gift to Lebanon.

AhlulBayt News Agency - When Saudi Arabia offered $3 billion in military aid to Lebanon’s security forces, it claimed there were no pre-conditions to its grant but nonetheless threw its net to contest Iran’s own proposal, when the Lebanese army was in much need of high-tech military equipment to battle Takfiri groups in the border town of Arsal. Chief of the Lebanese Armed Forces Jean Kahwaji had described the deal, which limited the equipment to French ammunition and weapons, as mere ink on paper.

Now, Saudi authorities have cut the strings. Retracting the military aid can be seen as part of Riyadh’s reward and punishment strategy. Using its petrodollars to dictate its policies over other countries, the Saudi regime miscalculated when it announced its gift to Lebanon. It had been counting on the Lebanese government’s submissiveness to reap the political benefits of the dollars it sowed.

However, it has become clear that the government in Beirut will not be a slave to the Saudis despite the military aid it provided, a decision that pushed the kingdom to slash the promised assistance.

In the Saudi mental construct, money is exclusively equivalent to power. But logically, power gained easily would also be lost easily. Therefore, supporting Lebanon meant that the politically unstable country would have to side with Riyadh against any other party in any situation. In other words, it had expected to manipulate the Lebanese government with the grant as it would operate a puppet by pulling its strings.

The suspension of the aid package was dubbed a response to Beirut’s abstention from condemning the Iranian protesters’ response to the execution of prominent Shiite Cleric Sheikh Nimr Nimr by storming the Saudi mission in Tehran.

SPA quoted an official who attributed the reason behind the sudden suspension to “Lebanon’s stances that are not in harmony with the brotherly relations between the two countries.”

He added: “The kingdom conducted a full review of its relationship with the Republic of Lebanon in a manner that correlates to its stances and safeguards its interests.”

This was a crime in the Saudis’ eyes because it had been hoping for relations between its regional rival Iran and Lebanon to deteriorate. It had initially made the offer in a bid to outmaneuver Tehran, which had voiced willingness to grant equipment to the Lebanese army to reinforce its military prowess in the face of the terrorist threat at its doorstep.

Last April, the Islamic Republic said the offer was still on the table and just recently Lebanese Prime Minister Tammam Salam said that the government welcomes any unconditional military and security aid, including from Iran.

Observers hinted at a possible discord with Riyadh that drove Salam to reconsider Iran’s generous offer, conspicuously, no strings attached. But now any doubt over whether the Saudi move amounted to political blackmail can be dispelled.

However, this alone remains implausible to many unless it is also linked to the costly aggression against Yemen as well as the misjudged wager that the Lebanese army may alter its non-interference policy toward Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian crisis.

Saudi Arabia does not take to funding foreign armies pro bono. Unless there is something in for Riyadh, the kingdom does not go about offering billions of dollars to countries situated in the cradle of the most politically-charged and terror-stricken regions, particularly since it spent much more on stirring the sources of these predicaments. So when the strings of manipulation snapped, the Saudis knew they had to withdraw their bait.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.mintpressnews.com/214138-2/214138/

Is a Coup Brewing In Riyadh? Powerful Saudi Princes ‘Irritated’ By Kingdom’s Military Operations

The internal power struggle in Saudi Arabia has increased over the past several months with several high-profile individuals furious about the Kingdom’s military involvement in Yemen and a potential ground operation in Syria, French political analyst Alain Rodier wrote for Atlantico.

By Sputnik News | February 22, 2016

The Saudi Kingdom isn’t doing very well — in addition to low oil prices that are ruining the nation’s economy, its ongoing military operation in Yemen against Houthi rebels is largely unsuccessful with Saudis beginning to lose their soldiers and planes.

At the same time, Riyadh seems to be planning a military operation in Syria together with Turkey, Rodier said. On February 13, the Saudi government sent 30 bombers to a military base in Turkey. Meanwhile, Turkish forces have already begun shelling Kurds in Northern Syria.

If the Saudis do decide to get involved in a ground operation in Syria, they’d have to use their special forces, as Riyadh is already using its heavy infantry in Yemen and near the Iraqi border.

In this case Saudi forces would come face-to-face with the members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards operating in Syria. If Saudi and Iranian forces would openly clash in Syria, nobody can predict what might happen next in the Middle East, Rodier explained.

“The bullying of Mohammad bin Salman [the deputy crown prince of Saudi Arabia and the Saudi minister of defense] are beginning to irritate many other members of Saudi royal family,” Rodier said, as cited by Atlantico.

Some in the Saudi government believe that Mohammad bin Salman’s reckless actions might bring the Kingdom to chaos.

If something happens to King Salman bin Abdulaziz [he is said to be struggling with his poor health], there will be many princes ready to claim the throne.

In particular, Mutaib bin Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, the current minister of the Saudi National Guard, which doesn’t take orders from the Ministry of Defense, might be willing to “calm down” Prince Salman’s ambitions.

According to Rodier, the chief of the National Guard could make an alliance with Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, First Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Interior, and together organize a coup, easily subduing the regular Saudi Armed Forces, if they decide to oppose the coup.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.eurasiareview.com/23022016-saudi-arabias-brinkmanship-in-the-syrian-war-analysis/

Saudi Arabia’s Brinkmanship In The Syrian War – Analysis

By Published by the Foreign Policy Research Institute
February 23, 2016
By Brandon Friedman*

Prince Khaled bin Sultan Al Saud, the co-commander of coalition forces during the 1990-1991 Gulf War, argues in his 1995 biography Desert Warrior that Israel took its “bomb out of the basement” during the war to convince the U.S. that it had to do more to stop Saddam’s “Scud” missile attacks on Israel, which were launched from mobile launchers. Prince Khaled believed Israel was using its military capabilities as much to pressure its ally, the U.S., as it was to frighten its enemies.[1] Whether this version of events tracks closely with the truth is perhaps less important than how the Saudis perceived it. Indeed it may be fair to say, based on recent events, that Saudi Arabia is now making this gambit, fact or fiction, part of its own tactical playbook.

On late Thursday night, February 11, Russia and the U.S., as leaders of the International Syrian Support Group (ISSG), signed a temporary ceasefire in Munich that is to be implemented in Syria within one week, and which is to allow humanitarian relief and a resumption of diplomatic negotiations in Geneva. Yet within a day of its announcement, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov assessed the chances of its implementation at 49 percent.[2] Fyodor Lukyanov, Chairman of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, claimed that the “The deal’s dead, but it will live after two or three tries,” adding that perhaps it will be implemented after Aleppo is finished being retaken.[3]

Despite the agreed ceasefire, Russia continued bombing the opposition north of Aleppo on Friday and dispatched the Zelyony Dol, a patrol ship armed with Kalibr cruise missiles, from its Black Sea fleet to patrol the Mediterranean off of the Syrian coast.[4] Turkey announced it was preparing to send ground forces to support the U.S. led anti-Islamic State (IS) coalition in Syria,[5] and in the meantime initiated an aerial bombing campaign against the Kurds of the PYD/YPG in Syria that drew censure from U.S. officials.[6] The Saudis for their part were busy surveying Turkey’s Incirlik air base, to which they will be sending fighter jets in a renewed effort to support of the U.S. led anti-IS coalition in Syria.[7] The Saudis (along with the Emiratis, Qataris, and Bahrainis)[8] have also pledged to send their own ground forces to support the U.S. led anti-Islamic State coalition.[9] In response, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev told a German newspaper that “The Americans and our Arab partners must think hard about this – do they want a permanent war? All sides must be forced to the negotiating table instead of sparking a new world war.”[10]

The Saudi announcement may represent an ironic success for the Obama administration, which since last summer has been trying to convince or goad its Saudi (and GCC) ally to “get in the game,” meaning join the fight on the ground, if it wants to shape the outcome in Syria.[11] However, the Saudi decision to finally “get in the game” may have been shaped less by direct American pressure and more by the failure of the U.S. to influence the negotiations at Geneva III several weeks earlier, and the increasing Saudi frustration with American policy in Syria.[12] Saudi Arabia declared its readiness to send troops into Syria in the immediate aftermath of the dismal failure of the Geneva III negotiations.[13] Ironically, the Saudis appear to have come around to the Obama position, and would like to get in the game because they believe it may be the only way left to spur the U.S. into exercising greater leadership on Syria.[14] With Russia in the driver’s seat, the Saudis recognize there is no longer any alternative to U.S. leadership in order to push back against the Russian-backed Assad regime. Therefore, the Saudis and Turks appear to believe that their behavior will lead the U.S. to be more assertive, in part, to control its allies, and to prevent any further unmanageable escalation. To put it another way, the Saudi/Turkish announcement is brinkmanship, which may be directed as much at their American ally as it is at their Russian-backed adversaries. In the words of Muhammad bin Salman, Saudi Defense Minister and Deputy Crown Prince, “the United States must realize that they are the number one in the world and they have to act like it.”[15]

Russia Changes the Equation

Russia’s September 2015 military intervention changed the balance of forces in Syria and arguably saved the Assad regime.[16] At a relatively low cost, Russia has benefited greatly from this intervention. First, the intervention established Russia’s current role as the principal arbiter of Syria’s future, after having been marginalized in the Eastern Mediterranean region by U.S. diplomacy since the mid-1970s.[17] Second, Russia is showing itself to be an unwavering ally. Third, it is protecting its core strategic interests in Syria, such as its access to the port of Tartus and its new Khmeimim air base near Latakia. Fourth, the intervention has signaled Putin’s ruthlessness to his domestic political opponents. Fifth, it has provided a low-risk opportunity for Russia to showcase its saleable military hardware. Sixth, and perhaps most important to Russia, it has transformed Syria into a global issue through which Russia can undermine Western (U.S. and European) leadership of the international community. In short, the benefits to Russia have been manifold and the costs relatively low.

After the most recent failed attempt at a diplomatic negotiation in Geneva, Assad’s regional rivals, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, believe that Russia and its partners will only change their inflexible posture on Assad if they need to pay rising costs on the ground.[18] Saudi Arabia and Turkey hope the specter of their joining the fight will put pressure on Assad’s backers to enforce the recently announced ceasefire by the end of the week. Put simply, the announcements were also intended to signal to Assad’s backers that the battlefield costs may rise if the offensive on Aleppo continues. Russia’s response was to respond with its own brinkmanship and threaten a descent into another World War. If this brinkmanship turned into escalation, it would likely produce new waves of refugees fleeing Syria; potential nuclear brinkmanship from Russia; and the specter of NATO forced to intervene because Turkey finds itself at war with Russia.[19]

The repeated announcements from Saudi Arabia that it is ready to contribute ground forces to the U.S. led anti-Islamic State coalition should not be viewed exclusively as either disingenuous brinkmanship or reckless escalation.[20] In other words, it is not just brinkmanship or a feint designed to encourage the U.S. to lead – the Saudis are trying to signal to the U.S. that they are very serious about Syria, and they are willing to take unprecedented risks to advance their interests.

Full Circle

In some respects, the Saudi policy on Syria has now come full circle. In January 2013, Turki al-Faisal, the former Saudi intelligence chief, said that the Arab world did not have the military capabilities to intervene in the Syrian war. “It doesn’t have the air force, the navy, the army, the intelligence-gathering machinery to go and surgically stop this fighting.”[21] Then, as now, Saudi Arabia was attempting to convince the U.S. and Europe that they needed to take a more active and forceful military role in Syria. But things are also different now.[22]

The Saudis are deploying fighter jets to Turkey, and declaring to the world that they stand ready to send their special forces into Syria. Have Saudi military capabilities improved so dramatically in the two short years since Turki’s remarks? Perhaps, but there have been two important changes that are influencing the new Saudi approach to Syria. First, since 2013, five important developments changed the context of the Syrian War:
1.In June 2014, the Islamic State defeated the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and seized control of Mosul, shattering the desert border between Syria and Iraq, and expanding its territorial control and battlefield effectiveness, in part, by capturing advanced military hardware from regime forces. On November 13, 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed caliph of the Islamic State, issued an audio recording explicitly targeting the Saudi regime (and repeated it again in subsequent recordings, like May 2015).
2.In March 2015, the Saudis began a sustained intervention in the Yemeni civil war to forestall an Iranian-backed Houthi takeover that started in September 2014.
3.Iran signed a nuclear agreement with the EU3+3 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) that would lift international economic sanctions on Iran and provide it with a case infusion in exchange for limits on its nuclear development for 15 to 25 years.
4.The price of oil has declined sharply since June 2014, forcing the Saudis to issue $5 billion in bonds and run a fiscal deficit in 2015.
5.The Russian military intervention in Syria in September 2015, which rescued the Assad regime during a period in which it looked as if the Saudi backed opposition forces were making significant gains.

The second change that has altered the Saudi approach to Syria was Salman’s succeeding King Abdullah in January 2015. King Salman, with the help of his energetic son, the Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Muhammad bin Salman, are trying to transform Saudi Arabia’s regional role by injecting a spirit of self-reliance into Saudi security doctrine. Salman’s “doctrine,” as outlined by Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the aftermath of the Saudi decision to intervene in Yemen, was intended to contain and even roll back Iran’s regional influence. However, what defined Salman’s new doctrine according to Khashoggi was not its ends but its means:

“If Saudi Arabia has to act alone, then it will. Of course, it would have preferred this old tested scenario of alliance to be with its old ally [the U.S.]; however it could not link the fate of the country to this alliance – although it first resorted to forming an alliance with its brothers and friends from the Arab and Muslim world.”[23]

U.S. officials were no doubt happy to see Saudi Arabia adopt a more self-reliant security posture. However, while the Salman doctrine represents a more aggressive Saudi plan to contain Iran, it appears, for now, to be a more limited guiding principle for action against Russia’s escalation in Syria.

Riyadh attempted to persuade Moscow on the Syrian issue using dollar diplomacy. Muhammad bin Salman attended the St. Petersburg Economic Forum in June 2015, during which he met with Putin. The visit led to Saudi commitments to purchase Russia’s new short range ballistic missile system and Russian combat helicopters.[24] The Saudis also committed to investing $10 billion in Russia over the next 5 years,[25] and may have discussed providing Russia with advanced technology for oil and gas recovery, which would allow Russia to skirt Western sanctions.[26] It is not clear whether the Saudi efforts have resulted in greater influence with Putin, but they did not dissuade Russia from intervening in Syria in September 2015 and reinforcing Assad’s position in power.

The new Saudi approach to military affairs is also on display this week during the Raʿd al-Shamal (Northern Thunder) military exercise in Hafr al-Batin, Saudi Arabia, which includes 350,000 soldiers from more than twenty Middle Eastern and African countries.[27] While it may be fair to dismiss rumors that the exercise is a dress rehearsal for a massive anti-IS operation into Syria through Jordan,[28] the Saudi media is in fact discussing the operation as preparation for confronting “the forces of extremism.”[29] Most importantly, the scale and seriousness of the exercise demonstrates the new Saudi emphasis on enhancing its military capabilities.[30] In terms of the Syrian War, however, the Saudis are ostensibly back to where they were in early 2013, searching for ways to prod their allies to play a larger role in the Syrian War.

On the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference this past weekend, Saudi Foreign Minister’s Adel al-Jubeir’s remarks to Christiane Amanpour seem to have been intended for U.S. ears. “We are saying we will participate within the U.S.-led coalition, should this coalition decide to send ground troops into Syria, that we are prepared to send special forces with those troops.”[31] U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter has repeatedly emphasized that the U.S. was looking for “the rest of the world to step up,” and for the “Gulf countries to do more,” and what al-Jubeir was saying over the weekend was that the Saudis were ready to “step-up” and “do more.”

In a sense, the Saudi announcement is an attempt to test the Obama administration, which has long defended its limited engagement in Syria by arguing that its coalition has lacked effective Sunni Arabs partners on the ground.[32] The Saudis are trying to undercut that argument and convince the U.S. to help them level the playing field that Russia has tilted in Assad’s favor. Underlying this gamesmanship is the Saudi understanding that only higher costs, or the serious prospect of them, will induce the Russians to support a negotiation process that can begin to wind down the Syrian War.

The stakes are indeed high. The prospect of greater costs on the ground may lead Russia to implement the February 11 ceasefire. But what happens if, instead, as Lukyanov suggested, Russia prefers to finish off the rebel opposition in Aleppo first? The U.S. will have to weigh the risks of the Saudi/Turkish offers against the cost of its existing policy of limited engagement. The risk of unmanageable escalation is real, but so is the cost of inaction. As one observer at the Munich Security Conference noted, “much of the United States’ credibility as the leader of the free world depends on whether U.S. diplomacy can make a difference. Countries and players around the world are closely observing how America decides to bring its powers to bear.”[33]

About the author:
*Brandon Friedman is a Senior Fellow in the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Program on the Middle East, and a Research Fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University. His research focuses on the political history of the Arabian Peninsula and Persian Gulf States. Brandon is also the Managing Editor of Bustan: The Middle East Book Review, and teaches modern Middle Eastern history in Tel Aviv University’s International programs.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

Notes:
[1] Khaled bin Sultan (with Patrick Seale), Desert Warrior (Harper Collins, 1995), p. 349.


[2] Alec Luhn, Martin Chulov, Emma Graham-Harrison, “Russia’s grip on Syria tightens as brittle ceasefire deal leaves US out in the cold,” The Observer, February 14, 2016; Aron Lund, “Syria in Crisis: A Ceasefire for Syria?,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, February 13, 2016.


[3] Marc Champion, “Syrian Truce is Dead, and Russia’s in Charge,” Bloomberg View, February 15, 2016.


[4] Agence France Presse (AFP) via al-Arabiya, “Russia sends brand new cruise missile ship to Syria,” February 12, 2016.


[5] Karen DeYoung, “Turkey pledges to send ground forces to fight the Islamic State in Syria,” Washington Post, February 13, 2016.


[6] Agence France Presse (AFP) via al-Arabiya, “Turkey urged to stop shelling Syria targets,” February 14, 2016; Ishmael Jamal and Ahmed al-Misri, “Saudi Arabia vows to overthrow Assad…,” al-Quds al-Arabi [Arabic], February 14, 2016.


[7] Vivian Nereim, “ Saudi Arabia Moves Jets to Turkey, Offers Troops to Fight IS,” Bloomberg News, February 14, 2016.


[8] Fahd Theyabi, “Qatar Will Join Ground Forces if Requested by Riyadh,” aSharq al-Awsat [Arabic], February 15, 2016; “Bahrain says ready to commit ground forces to Syria,” Reuters, February 6, 2016.


[9] Glen Carey, “Saudis Ready to Send Special Forces Against IS in Syria,” Bloomberg News, February 9, 2016; Mehul Srivastava, Erika Solomon, Simeon Kerr, “Saudis make plans to deploy ground troops in Syria,” Financial Times, February 9, 2016.


[10] Ian Black and Kareem Shaheen, “Partial Syrian ceasefire agreed at talks in Munich,” The Guardian, February 12, 2016.


[11] Jeffrey Goldberg, “Ashton Carter: Gulf Arabs Need to Get in the Fight,” The Atlantic, November 6, 2015. Michael R. Gordon, “U.S. Defense Chief Ashton Carter Prods Gulf States to Take Larger Role in ISIS fight,” December 15, 2015.


[12] Aron Lund, “Syria in Crisis: A Ceasefire for Syria?,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, February 13, 2016; Kenneth Pollack, “Fear and Loathing in Saudi Arabia,” ForeignPolicy.com, January 7, 2016.


[13] Ian Black, “Saudi Arabia offers to send ground troops to Syria to fight Isis,” The Guardian, February 4, 2016; Sam Jones, “Ban blames Russia for collapse of Syria talks,” Financial Times, February 5, 2016; “Asiri: Saudi Arabia is ready to send ground forces to Syria,” BBC Arabic, February 4, 2016.


[14] Jamal Khashoggi, “Saudi Arabia’s Plan B in Syria,” al-Arabiya [English], February 16, 2016; Jamal Khashoggi, “A long, long night…” al-Hayat [Arabic], February 13, 2016.


[15] “Transcript: Interview with Muhammad bin Salman,”The Economist, January 6, 2016.


[16] Ibrahim Darwish, “In Damascus today, Putin is the one issuing orders…” al-Quds al-Arabi [Arabic], February 14, 2016; Alec Luhn, Martin Chulov, Emma Graham-Harrison, “Russia’s grip on Syria tightens as brittle ceasefire deal leaves US out in the cold,” The Observer, February 14, 2016.


[17] Ehud Yaari, “Russia pursues a new Baghdad Pact,” Times of Israel, October 8, 2015.


[18] Jamal Khashoggi, “Saudi Arabia’s Plan B in Syria,” al-Arabiya [English], February 16, 2016; Jamal Khashoggi, “A long, long night…” al-Hayat [Arabic], February 13, 2016.


[19] Adam Garfinkle, “Follyanna?,” E-Note, Foreign Policy Research Institute, February 11, 2016.


[20] Loveday Morris, “Saudi Arabia and Turkey rolling back on rhetoric to send troops into Syria,” Washington Post, February 15, 2016.


[21] “Turkey: Syrian regime’s actions equal war crimes,” The Associated Press, Januyary 23, 2013.


[22] Issa al-Halyan, “Kingdom of Strategic Changes,” Okaz [Arabic], February 16, 2016.


[23] Jamal Khashoggi, “The Salman doctrine,” al-Arabiya [English], April 1, 2015.


[24] Zachary Keck, “Saudi Arabia Wants to Buy Advanced Russian Missiles: Should America Worry?” The National Interest, August 12, 2015.


[25] Holly Ellyat, “Saudi Arabia to invest $10b in Russia,” CNBC, July 7, 2015.


[26] Gaurav Agnihotri, “What would a Saudi-Russian Partnership Mean for World Energy?” OilPrice.com, June 24, 2015.


[27] Fatah al-Rahman Yusuf, “Forces from 20 countries arrive in Saudi Arabia to participate in the ‘Northern Thunder’ exercise,” aSharq al-Awsat [Arabic], February 15, 2016.


[28]@mujtahidd, Twitter posts [Arabic], February 7, 2016, posted between, 4:24-5:12am: https://twitter.com/mujtahidd/status/696309082811146242; https://twitter.com/mujtahidd/status/696309472466235392;

https://twitter.com/mujtahidd/status/696312884851306496; https://twitter.com/mujtahidd/status/696314267549757440;

https://twitter.com/mujtahidd/status/696316434482405378;


[29] Mongi al-Saʿidani, “Forces continue to arrive for the largest military exercise in the region,”aSharq al-Awsat [Arabic], February 16, 2016.


[30] Khaled Sulaiman, “Thunder and Lightning in the North!” Okaz [Arabic], February 16, 2016.


[31] Mick Krever, “Saudi Official: If all else fails, Remove Assad by force,” CNN, February 13, 2016.


[32] Anthony Capaccio, “Carter Chides Gulf Allies for ‘Strange’ Islamic State Inaction,” BloombergBusiness, January 22, 2016.


[33] Jan Techau, “A Struggle for World Order and a Russian Tragedy,” Carnegie Europe, February 13, 2016.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/20/h...iance-is-the-middle-easts-number-one-problem/

How The Iran-Russia-Syria Alliance Is The Middle East’s ‘Number One Problem’

Russ Read
National Security/Foreign Policy Reporter
12:39 PM 02/20/2016

James Jeffrey, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, made a provocative assertion Tuesday when he said the burgeoning alliance between Iran, Russia and Syria is the primary problem facing the Middle East today.

Speaking during a panel discussion for the launch of the Atlantic Council’s new Task Force on the Future of Iraq, Jeffrey, who served as ambassador from 2010 – 2012, said that Iraq has actually been relatively successful compared to the rest of the region, but warned of a worrisome trend he had seen recently.

“We have an Iran, Syria, Russia problem right now in the Middle East, that is the number one problem in the whole region,” said Jeffrey, “considering we also have ISIS, that’s saying a lot.”

Bold a conclusion as it may be, ISIS has been at least slightly rolled back in Iraq by the U.S.-led coalition in Operation Inherent Resolve. The town of Ramadi, less than 100 miles from the capital of Baghdad, was retaken in early January. Significant damage has also been done to ISIS oil market, a prime financial source for the terrorist group. Coalition air strikes against ISIS cash reserves have cut hundreds of millions of dollars out of the ISIS treasury.

Russia, Syria and Iran, however, have made a significant strides in Syria, and the regional as a whole. This time last year, it appeared that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s ouster was all but inevitable. Now, he has secured his southern front and may be poised to move on the key city of Aleppo. With his Russian and Iranian allies in tow, al-Assad is making a charge toward the de facto ISIS capital of Raqqa.

The Iran-Russia-Syria alliance has grown remarkably close over the last year. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been an ally of both Russia and Iran for some time. Though Russian-Iranian relations have at times been strained, the formulation of the Iran nuclear deal in July has allowed the two countries to pursue several economic and military agreements, all the while continuing to support their mutual ally in Syria.

Russia has expanded its influence in Syria to include more than just aiding al-Assad. It has recently established connections with Hezbollah, a Lebanese terrorist group backed by Iran. Reports in late January claimed that Hezbollah and Russia have been working in concert backing their mutual ally al-Assad as he continues to fight rebels in Syria.

Though Iran and Iraq were once mortal enemies, Iran has cemented its influence with the new(ish) Shia-dominated government. Securing de facto control over Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs) has been one of Iran’s primary methods in cementing its new influence. Though the Shia Muslim PMUs are technically under the umbrella of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), which report to Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, it is Iran’s paramilitary Qods force that ultimately control and supply them, experts say.

In regard to Iran’s strategy in particular, Jeffrey noted that “most, but not all, observers believe [Iran] is trying to establish a regional power position.” The Iranian goal is to “unite all of the Shia with a combination of … diplomatic relations as a state and a political ideological movement as a party.”

The alliance between Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah became formalized in September 2015. Writing for Al-Akhbar, an Arabic daily newspaper, editor-in-chief Ibrahim al-Amin said that the five groups engaged in secret discussions and created a military alliance referred to as the ‘4+1.’

“The agreement to form the alliance includes administrative mechanisms for cooperation on [the issues of] politics and intelligence and [for] military [cooperation] on the battlefield in several parts of the Middle East, primarily in Syria and Iraq,” wrote al-Amin.

He claimed that the agreement is “the most important in the region and the world for many years.” While the alliance was ostensibly created to counter ISIS, it is both unclear and unlikely that is their only goal, especially given the evidence of Russia, Syria and Hezbollah directly engaging with Syrian opposition forces.

“Things have been shifting not in our direction,” said Jeffrey, in regard to the changing political climate.

In an op-ed for Israel’s Haaretz, Ely Karmon of the Institute for Counter-Terrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center at Herzilya, hinted that the possibility of Iraq becoming more intimately involved in the alliance could occur over time. “The longer the Russian military campaign in the region, the stronger the alliance with Iran and Hezbollah will become, and possibly with the Baghdad Shia regime,” he claimed.

Sergey Aleksashenko of the Brookings Institution has described the ongoing conflict of interests in Syria, and the Middle East as a whole, as a “three-sided disaster,” shared between the U.S., Russia and Iran.

“It may sound surprising, but the weakest partner in the triangle is the United States,” wrote Aleksashenko. He explained that the U.S. has faltered in its ability to secure political alliances, while the common interests shared by Russia, Syria and Iran has allowed them to gain a growing foothold that may be difficult for the U.S. to counter.

“If you do not have boots on the ground, if you do not have an American military presence in a potentially dangerous and difficult place, Washington’s ability to do hard things, to focus on a very important but … ever more peripheral issue that is in the green or quasi-green category, drops and drops and drops,” said Jeffrey, noting the increasingly difficult position of the U.S. in the region.

In the short term, the 4+1 alliance is a roadblock to a successful ceasefire, or ‘cessation of hostilities,’ as it is being termed by the negotiating parties. Last week, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and several other nations called for the cessation in a joint statement. Though Russia was party to the talks, it did not make a commitment to cease its bombing activities against rebel forces. In fact, Russia actually increased the campaign while the talks occurred, according to a U.S. Army spokesperson.

“Until Assad’s regime is once more at risk, neither he nor Iran has any reason to make concessions or help resolve the deeper geostrategic struggle in the region,” wrote U.S. Army Gen. (ret.) Wesley Clark in an op-ed for USA today in early January, “Russia have little need to reach a long term settlement to the Syrian War that returns control of Syria to the Syrian people.”

Clark, a former commander of NATO, believes countering Russia in Syria could start with NATO “strengthening frontiers” in the Baltics and Ukraine, in addition to new European sanctions against Russia.

In Iraq, Jeffrey believes it is important to renew U.S. influence by finding ways to support things that are “inherently Iraqi,” while keeping a realistic mentality as to U.S. limitations.

For his part, Aleksashenko believes before a strategy to fix the problem is created, U.S. policymakers first must have a goal. “The U.S. ‘wait and see’ policy won’t help it formulate clear strategic interests and objectives in Syria. It’s not possible, after all, to formulate a strategy to achieve a goal you don’t even have.”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/...a-administrations-secret-overture-north-korea

Around Asia
Gordon G. Chang

Obama Administration's Secret Overture to North Korea

22 February 2016
Comments 3

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that at the turn of the year the Obama administration discussed the initiation of talks with North Korea with the goal of formally ending the Korean War, which was only suspended by a truce, not ended with a treaty, in 1953.

According to the Journal report, the White House dropped the US’s long-standing precondition that the North would have to end its nuclear program before talks could begin. Instead, the administration said that denuclearization would simply be an agenda item in the peace negotiations. The North reportedly rejected Obama’s overture, refusing to permit its nuclear program to even be placed on the agenda. Pyongyang then detonated a nuclear device on January 6, ending the White House’s “diplomatic gambit.”

The paper’s report, if true, indicates the Obama administration was willing to execute another stunning reversal of American policy by essentially accepting the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as a nuclear state and condoning its violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

It’s difficult to assess the White House’s diplomatic goals and strategies. On the one hand, the about-face would likely further weaken US credibility on non-proliferation as it was prepared to overlook North Korea’s secret and illegal nuclear program, essentially recognize it as a nuclear state, and reward it with peace talks.

On the other hand, the White House’s diplomacy hints of brilliance. As David Maxwell of Georgetown University points out, President Obama called Kim Jong Un’s bluff – and by doing so exposed the Kim family as needing war to justify its claims, its militarism, its abuse of its citizens, and for that matter, its existence. For decades, Kim leaders have demanded a peace treaty. When offered one, the current Kim refused to even talk about it.

Peace, in reality, is actually inimical to the Kim regime. It cannot agree to a treaty formally ending the war because such an agreement would immediately undermine its core legitimacy and its mission to unify the peninsula under its rule.

A treaty, by necessity, would mean the North accepted the existence of the South Korean state, and that is not something Kim could explain to his people. For decades, North Koreans have been asked to accept hardship to allow Kim rulers to defeat the “puppets” in Seoul.

Furthermore, Maxwell notes Pyongyang’s rebuff of the Obama administration undermines the notion that the international community can engage North Korea. The rejection of talks, as a practical matter, further isolates the North, gives the White House a freer hand to mobilize other countries, opens the door to a substantially more coercive policy, and effectively makes Beijing’s call this month for more talks with Kim seem cynical.

None of this is to say that, in the end, President Obama will deal effectively with the North Koreans, but whether by accident or design, the US now appears better positioned to counter, deter, and disarm North Korea.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.yahoo.com/n-korea-warns-preemptive-strikes-against-us-korea-152412675.html

N. Korea warns of preemptive strikes against US, S. Korea

AFP
8 hours ago

North Korea on Tuesday lashed out at an upcoming joint US-South Korean military exercise, warning it would attack the South and the US mainland in case of any armed provocation.

The South and its close US ally will next month hold their largest-ever annual exercise in response to the North's recent nuclear test and long-range rocket launch, Seoul's defence ministry has announced.

The North's military supreme command said the allies planned to practise a "beheading operation" aimed at the North's leadership, and other moves to neutralise its nuclear weapons and missiles.

If there were even a "slight sign" of special forces moving to carry out such operations, the military said, "strategic and tactical" preemptive attacks would be launched.

The primary target would be the South's presidential Blue House, it said in a statement on the official news agency, condemning it as "the centre for hatching plots for confrontation with the fellow countrymen in the north, and reactionary ruling machines".

The North also threatened attacks on US bases in the Asia-Pacific and the mainland.

It said it has "the most powerful and ultra-modern strike means" in the world capable of "dealing fatal blows at the US mainland any moment and in any place".

Such blows would "reduce the cesspool of all evils to ashes, never to rise again on our planet", it added in a reference to the United States.

The North habitually claims that the annual Key Resolve/Foal Eagle exercise is a rehearsal for invasion while Seoul and Washington say it is purely defensive.

Tensions are high as the United Nations considers tougher sanctions against the North to punish it for January's nuclear test and this month's rocket launch.

The South, in an unprecedentedly tough move, has shut down a Seoul-financed and jointly-run industrial estate in the North, saying it was helping finance its neighbour's military programmes.

View Comments (1553)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/north-korea-wmd/index.html

Top U.S. general: North Korea 'would use WMD' to save regime

By Ryan Browne
Updated 5:10 PM ET, Tue February 23, 2016

Washington (CNN)—The top U.S. military commander in South Korea said Tuesday that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un would use a weapon of mass destruction if he thought the fate of his rule was at stake.

If he "thought his regime were challenged he states that he would use WMD," Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, commander of U.S. Forces Korea, told the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday.

Scaparrotti said that tensions on the Korean Peninsula were at their highest level in more than 20 years.

Adm. Harry Harris, commander of U.S. Pacific Command, said at the same hearing that if North Korea continues to develop ballistic missiles, a U.S. military option is possible.

The North Korean military warned the U.S. and South Korea Tuesday to expect retaliations for their annual joint military drill in March. The warning came in a statement released Tuesday via state media agency KCNA.

The U.S. maintains nearly 30,000 troops in South Korea.

North Korea's recent nuclear and long-range missile tests have prompted formal discussions on the deployment of the THAAD missile defense system, which can target short, medium and intermediate ballistic missiles in flight.

China has been outspoken in opposing deployment of the system, which it is worried could be used against its own launch systems.

Harris called China's opposition to missile defense aimed at North Korea "preposterous."

Harris also accused China of aggressive behavior in the South China Sea, noting its building of artificial islands and deployment of anti-aircraft missiles and radar to islands in the region.

"China seeks hegemony in East Asia," he said.

He added, "China is clearly militarizing the South China Sea, and you'd have to believe in the flat Earth to think otherwise."

CNN's KJ Kwon contributed to this report.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Ah....Back to the Bad Old Days......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/02/china-cruising-bruising/126119/

China is Cruising for a Bruising

February 22, 2016 By Jerry Hendrix

The U.S. Navy must get ready for big new Chinese ships that will try to ram Americans who approach their fake islands.
Commentary / China / Navy

China is attempting to create a situation wherein the United States, to uphold international law, will either have to accede to their territorial claims in the South China Sea or openly resort to the use of hostile force, allowing China to publicly portray the U.S. as an imperialist aggressor state. Beijing is betting that the United States will not take this action and that power over the South China Sea and all the resources that lie beneath will pass to China, breaking American influence in the region.

The United States must anticipate Beijing’s next move, get inside its decision loop, and reveal China as the aggressive, would-be hegemon that it is.

We’ve been here before. In 1996, the U.S. sailed two aircraft carriers near Taiwan, which led China to develop the DF-21 carrier-killer anti-ship ballistic missile. Now President Barack Obama’s decision to sail American warships near China’s artificially created and disputed islands in the South China Sea has triggered another sophisticated response. China has announced its intention to build a massive new coast guard ship ostensibly to patrol its territorial waters, protect its fisheries, and uphold its laws. This is a huge ship and its physical characteristics fall far outside the norms associated with the coast guard mission. For instance, the U.S. Coast Guard’s Legend-class national security cutter is 418 feet long and displaces 4,500 tons of water. The Chinese cutter will be over 500 feet long and displace more than 10,000 tons. The ship will be lightly armed, with two 76mm guns and other small arms, but these are not important to its true mission. This ship and its follow-on sister ships are built for one purpose: to move other ships out of the way.

Ramming or “shouldering” ships at sea has been a common practice throughout the modern era. During the Cold War, Russian and American ships went “skin-to-skin” more than once, often denting or damaging each other as they contested territorial claims or protested close surveillance during critical exercises. When the Soviet Union made excessive territorial sea claims in the 1980s the U.S. Navy conducted “innocent passage” exercises by sailing ships within the claimed standoffs to assert the right to operate in international waters. The Soviet Navy responded by attempting to shoulder American ships out of their claimed waters. The Americans, possessing larger ships, maintained their course and departed the waters at the time and place of their own choosing, much to the Soviets’ embarrassment.

Related: Defense One‘s complete coverage of the South China Sea


China has gone head-to-head with other Asian powers over its claims in the South China and East China Seas. Chinese Coast Guard and Marine Surveillance vessels have threatened or shouldered other nations’ vessels throughout the region in attempt to uphold their broader territorial claims. The use of Marine Surveillance and Coast Guard vessels, painted white as distinctive “civilian law enforcement” ships, is part of a strategic communications plan to portray Chinese actions as non-aggressive law enforcement operation even as they threaten to sink and destroy vessels from other countries. Thus far China has been largely successful in their intimidation techniques, with two exceptions.

In October, the guided missile destroyer USS Lassen conducted an innocent passage exercise inside of 12 nautical miles of an artificial island constructed by China in the South China Sea to demonstrate that the United States did not recognize its illegal claims. In January, the destroyer Curtis Wilbur conducted a similar innocent passage maneuver within 12 nautical miles of Triton Island in response to China’s attempts to curtail free navigation in that area of the South China Sea. In the first instance the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy sortied two ships to trail, but not interfere with, the American ship. The second event seemingly took the Chinese by surprise and no vessel came out to meet the Americans, and it would not have mattered if they had. At 9,500 tons, the Lassen and the Wilbur were just too big for the Chinese navy to move, but that will not be true for much longer.

There are a set of well-established rules of the road for ships at sea, rules that delineate who is to “give way” to the other when two vessels meet in order to avoid going bump in the night. But there is also an unwritten “law of gross tonnage” that recognizes that larger ships are less maneuverable and that smaller ships should maneuver to avoid them. Physics, it seems, has a place on the world’s oceans, and China intends to take advantage of some very hard science.

It is clear that China intends to use its monster white-hulled Coast Guard ships to respond to future US freedom of navigation operations by shouldering smaller U.S. Navy vessels out of illegitimately claimed waters. Such operations would force the U.S. to either accede to Chinese demands or climb the ladder of escalation by forcibly defending themselves with arms, allowing China to play the victim of U.S. aggression. The United States should give some thought to modifying the design of the 60,000 ton afloat forward staging base ships being built in San Diego to allow them to serve as “blockers” for U.S. combatants upholding innocent passage missions. Anticipating China’s next move and providing an option that doesn’t include force will help maintain U.S. leadership and is the surest guarantee of peace in the region.

____

ETA......

In "Dramatic Escalation," China Sends Fighter Jets To Disputed Islands
Started by Possible Impactý, Today 03:51 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-China-Sends-Fighter-Jets-To-Disputed-Islands
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2...s/126095/?oref=site-defenseone-flyin-sailthru

Back to Iraq: US Military Contractors Return In Droves

8:53 AM ET By Marcus Weisgerber

Behind the president’s directive to ‘accelerate’ the counter-ISIS campaign came a surge in the number of contractors assisting in the campaign against ISIS.
Contractors / Iraq

The number of private contractors working for the U.S. Defense Department in Iraq grew eight-fold over the past year, a rate that far outpaces the growing number of American troops training and advising Iraqi soldiers battling Islamic State militants.

The sharp increase, disclosed in a recent Pentagon report to Congress, underscores the military’s reliance on civilians even for missions with relatively small troop presence.

“If you look at the size and the composition of the forces that have been deployed in support of Operation Inherent Resolve, that’s changed markedly in the past year,” said Rick Brennan, a senior political scientist at the RAND Corp. and a retired Army officer.

As of January, 2,028 contractors were in Iraq, up from just 250 one year earlier, according to the Pentagon’s data. There are roughly 3,700 American troops there now, compared to 2,300 in January 2015.

That number of military contractors represents just a fraction of the contractors employed by the U.S. in Iraq. In addition to the 2,028 Pentagon contractors, another 5,800 are employed by other agencies, including the State Department.

In the 1980s, the U.S. military decided to hire contractors to work in support roles that had historically been done by troops. That includes jobs like food services, maintaining housing units, water purification and “all those those other things that go with maintaining troops in the field for a long time,” Brennan said. The plus-up in Iraq is likely for contractors in those types of roles.

“What’s occurred then is as you deploy more forces to theater, you have to provide increased total number of contractors,” Brennan said.

US%20contractors%20in%20Iraq.png

http://www.defenseone.com/media/ckeditor-uploads/2016/02/23/US contractors in Iraq.png

During the Iraq War, there was a little bit more than one-to-one ratio of contractors to soldiers, he said. Now in Iraq, more than 30 percent (618) of the contractors are working in maintenance and logistics jobs. Nearly 20 percent (381) are translators and 13 percent (263) are in base support positions, according to the data. Contractors are also working in security, transportation, construction, communication support, training, management and administrative roles.

Nearly 70 percent of the contractors are American citizens, 20 percent are third-country nationals and the remaining are local Iraqis. The number of contractors the Pentagon can employ in Iraq is not capped, according to Col. Steve Warren, spokesman for Operation Inherent Resolve.

Many of the contractors in Iraq and neighboring countries are from well known warzone companies like KBR, DynCorp, and Fluor Corporation, the three firms hired by the Army’s Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, or LogCap. The Pentagon awards individual “task order” deals to these each time it needs to support troops overseas.

“It makes tailoring a unit much more responsive to the needs of the commander because you don’t have to try to rip people [with a trade specialty] from other installations,” Brennan said.

KBR, in a November presentation to investors, said its LogCap services work in Iraq “grew in the period with further growth possible.”

Besides the LogCap contractors, the Pentagon can award independent contracts, according to Andrew Hunter, a former Pentagon official who now director of the Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington. In some instances, the Pentagon hires contractors already working for the government in order to speed up the process.

Even though U.S. troops withdrew fully from Iraq in 2011, many contractors stayed behind working at the American embassy or in logistical roles maintaining Iraq’s military equipment.

Congress ordered the Pentagon to provide detailed information about battlefield contractors following an incident in which private military contractors working for Blackwater USA killed 17 Iraqi civilians in Nisour Square in Baghdad in September 2007.

Not all contractors in the warzone are base guards, laundry workers or chefs. The CIA and other intelligence agencies still use contractors like the former Blackwater or $2.2 billion firm DynCorp and other for paramilitary services. The number of those contractors, some who are closer to the battlefield than the military advisors, is classified and unknown to the public.

U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, has sent Congress regular updates about the number of contractors being employed in Iraq and Afghanistan since August 2008. In July 2008, just following the 2007 troop surge, there were 162,428 Pentagon-funded contractors in Iraq, according to the data.
 

Housecarl

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

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/201...g/126121/?oref=site-defenseone-flyin-sailthru

Central Americans May Be Ready for Their Own Arab Spring

11:00 AM ET By Danielle Renwick Council on Foreign Relations

The spread of gangs, the U.S. narcotics trade, and rampant corruption are major factors contributing to mass migration and alarmingly high levels of violence.
Americas / Corruption / Commentary

Tens of thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans, many of them unaccompanied minors, have arrived in the United States in recent years, seeking asylum from the region’s skyrocketing violence. Their countries, which form a region known as the Northern Triangle, were rocked by civil wars in the 1980s, leaving a legacy of violence and fragile institutions. However, recent developments in Guatemala and Honduras have spurred talk of a “Central American spring” as protesters in both countries have come out in unprecedented numbers to denounce corruption and demand greater accountability from their leaders.

How many people have left the Northern Triangle in recent years?

Nearly 10 percent of the Northern Triangle countries’ thirty million residents have left, mostly for the United States. In 2013, as many as 2.7 million people born in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras were living in the United States, up from an estimated 1.5 million people in 2000. Nearly one hundred thousand unaccompanied minors arrived to the United States from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras between October 2013 and July 2015, drawing attention to the region’s broader emigration trend. At the United States’ urging, Mexico stepped up enforcement along its southern border, apprehending 70 percent more Central Americans in 2015 than it did in the year before.

Many seek asylum from violence at home: Between 2009 and 2013, the United States registered a sevenfold increase (PDF) in asylum seekers at its southern border, 70 percent of whom came from the Northern Triangle. Neighboring Belize, Costa Rica, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Panama all registered a similar rise. Migrants from all three Northern Triangle countries cite violence, forced gang recruitment, extortion, as well as poverty and lack of opportunity, as their reasons for leaving.

centralamerica2014_rtp_map.jpg

http://www.govexec.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/centralamerica2014_rtp_map.jpg

Why are so many people fleeing the Northern Triangle?


El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras consistently rank among the most violent countries in the world. Gang-related violence in El Salvador brought its homicide rate to ninety per hundred thousand in 2015, making it the most world’s most violent countrynot at war. All three countries have significantly higher homicide rates than neighboring Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Panama.

Extortion is also rampant. A July 2015 investigation by Honduran newspaper La Prensafound that Salvadorans and Hondurans pay an estimated $390 million and $200 million, respectively, in annual extortion fees to organized crime groups; meanwhile, Guatemalan authorities said in 2014 that citizens pay an estimated $61 million a year in extortion fees. Extortionists primarily target public transportation operators, small businesses, and residents of poor neighborhoods, according to the report, and attacks on people who do not pay contributes to the violence. Guatemala’s transportation sector has been hit especially hard: In 2014, more than four hundred transportation workers were killed, and authorities linked most of those cases to extortion.

centralamericacrime_rtp.jpg

http://www.govexec.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/centralamericacrime_rtp.jpg

What is causing the violence?


The nature of the violence is distinct in each country, but there are common threads: the proliferation of gangs, the region’s use as a transshipment point for U.S.-bound narcotics, and high rates of impunity are major factors contributing to insecurity in the region.

A CFR special report in 2012 said organized crime is a clear legacy of the region’s decades of war. In El Salvador, fighting between the military-led government and leftist guerrilla groups (1979–92) left as many as seventy-five thousand dead, and Guatemala’s civil war (1960–96) killed as many as two-hundred thousand civilians. Honduras did not have a civil war of its own, but nonetheless felt the effects of its neighbors’ conflicts; it served as a staging ground for U.S.-backed Contras, a right-wing rebel group fighting Nicaragua’s Sandinista government during the 1980s. Organized crime grew following these civil wars, particularly in El Salvador, where war produced a “large pool of demobilized and unemployed men with easy access to weapons,” according to the CFR report. In Guatemala, groups known as illegal armed groups and clandestine security apparatuses, grew out of state intelligence and military forces.

Organized crime in the Northern Triangle includes transnational criminal organizations, many of which are associated with Mexican drug-trafficking organizations (DTOs); domestic organized-crime groups; transnational gangs, or maras, such as Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and the Eighteenth Street Gang (M-18); and pandillas, or street gangs.


El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras consistently rank among the most violent countries in the world.


MS-13 and M-18, the region’s largest gangs, may have as many as eighty-five thousand members combined (PDF). Both were formed in Los Angeles: M-18 in the 1960s by Mexican youth, and MS-13 in the 1980s by Salvadorans who had fled the civil war. Their presence in Central America grew in the mid-1990s following large-scale deportations from the United States of undocumented immigrants with criminal records.

DTOs, maras, and pandillas “should be understood as different phenomena,” says Michael Shifter, author of the CFR report and president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based think tank. Lack of state capacity and governments’ inability to protect citizens, he says, “are conditions that lend themselves to the emergence and strengthening of violent actors. Some of them involved in the drug trade, some are not.” In addition to the drug trade and extortion, criminal groups in the region also engage in kidnapping for ransom and human trafficking and smuggling.

Location along drug-trafficking routes adds to the violence. U.S.-led interdiction efforts in Colombia, Mexico, and the Caribbean have pushed trafficking routes into the region, and U.S. officials report that 80 percent of documented drug flows (PDF) into the United States now pass through Central America. DTOs sometimes partner with maras to transport and distribute narcotics, sparking turf wars (PDF), according a Congressional Research Service report.


Why has violence lasted so long?


Weak, underfunded institutions, combined with corruption, have undermined efforts to address gang violence and extortion. Tax revenues as percentage of GDP in the Northern Triangle are among the lowest in Latin America, exacerbating inequality and straining public services. Transparency International, a global anticorruption NGO, ranks all three countries low on its corruption perceptions index. Honduran institutions remain particularly shaky following a 2009 coup—Latin America’s first in nearly two decades—that ousted President Manuel Zelaya.

As many as 95 percent of crimes go unpunished (PDF) in some areas, and the public has little trust in the police and security forces. (The police and military were accused of widespread human rights abuses during El Salvador and Guatemala’s civil wars.) Cynthia Arnson and Eric Olson of the Wilson Center’s Latin America program write that efforts to reform and professionalize police forces during the two countries’ peace processes were “incomplete (PDF).”

“There has been so much penetration of the state and so much criminal involvement in security forces, it makes it difficult to think about how they would [reform] without some outside intervention,” Olson says.


How have Northern Triangle countries tried to stop the violence?


In the early 2000s, Northern Triangle governments enacted a series of “mano dura,” or “heavy hand,” policies that expanded police powers and enacted harsher punishments for gang members. Around the same time, military personnel were deployed (PDF) to carry out police functions.

Though popular (PDF), these tougher policies in most cases failed to reduce crime and may have indirectly led to a growth in gang membership. Mass incarcerations increased the burden on already overcrowded prisons, where gangs, which effectively run many of them, recruited thousands of new members. The U.S. State Department, human rights groups, and journalists have raised concerns about the policies, denouncing prison conditions and police violence against civilians. Overcrowding in prisons drew international attention in 2012, when a prison fire in Comayagua, Honduras, killed more than three hundred inmates.

In 2012, in a departure from traditional hard-line policies, officials in Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes’ administration helped to broker a truce between the MS-13 and M-18 gangs. Homicides fell by more than 40 percent that year. Despite the reduction in violence between the gangs, critics charged that crime against civilians such as extortion continued unabated. When the peace deal unraveled two years later, killings surged.


Weak, underfunded institutions, combined with corruption, have undermined efforts to address gang violence and extortion.


Under pressure from the United States following the 2014 surge in migration, the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, together with the Inter-American Development Bank, created the Alliance for Prosperity (PDF), a five-year, $20 billion plan to boost economic growth, promote job creation and training, improve public safety, and strengthen institutions. The Northern Triangle leaders pledged to fund 80 percent of it, yet it is uncertain whether their legislatures will approve the funding.

Guatemala has seen important gains thanks in part to an independent body created by the UN in 2007 to investigate and prosecute criminal groups “believed to have infiltrated state institutions.” The International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) grew out of the country’s 1994 Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights. Between 2009 and 2012, impunity levels fell (PDF) from 95 percent to 72 percent, according to CICIG, and in 2015 the tribunal worked with Guatemala’s attorney general on an investigation into a customs corruption scheme that led to the ouster and arrest of President Otto Pérez Molina. In a sign of disillusionment with Guatemala’s political class, voters in fall 2015 elected Jimmy Morales, a comedian with no political experience, over more established candidates.

In Honduras, allegations that members of the ruling National Party embezzled social-security funds, has led protesters to call for the ouster of President Juan Orlando Hernández. Anticorruption activists and U.S. State Department Counselor Thomas Shannon have called for institutions similar to CICIG to be created in El Salvador and Honduras, a proposal top officials in both countries have rejected. The Organization of American States announced plans in September to create an anticorruption body in Honduras, but critics say it will only have a limited advisory role, making it “toothless.”


What has been the regional impact of the violence?


The regional impact is mostly felt in continued ouflows of people. The United States and Mexico have apprehended more than one million Salvadoran, Guatemalan, and Honduran migrants since 2010, according to Migration Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank. Belize, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama have also reported a sharp increase in inflows from the Northern Triangle since 2008.

Gang violence has mostly been contained within the region, although MS-13 and M-18 have a presence in the United States and Mexico. The U.S. Treasury Department, which in 2015 sanctioned three MS-13 leaders, estimates there are eight thousand MS-13 members in the United States, and in 2013, Mexico’s justice department reported on growing ties between Mexican criminal groups and Central American gangs, with as many as seventy Central American organized crime cells operating in Mexico.


How has the United States responded?


The United States has traditionally addressed violence in Central America by sending aid to the region’s law-enforcement agencies, supporting rule-of-law programs, and assisting in counternarcotics and anti-gang operations. Increasingly, U.S. initiatives also look to address the region’s challenges more broadly, including poverty and a lack of competitiveness.

Between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2015, the United States gave just over $1 billion through the Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI), a security and rule-of-law focused aid package. CARSI grew out of the Mérida Initiative, a U.S. program to fight DTOs and organized crime in Mexico and, to a lesser extent, Central America.

Following the 2014 influx of unaccompanied minors, President Obama met with the leaders of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, and acknowledged the United States’ “shared responsibility” in addressing drug trafficking and U.S. demand for narcotics. (The United States is the world’s largest market for illicit narcotics.)

Experts say U.S. gun laws and the practice of deporting criminals—between 2010 and 2012, the United States deported an estimated hundred thousand immigrants with criminal records to Northern Triangle countries—also contribute to the violence.

The Obama administration has requested $1 billion from Congress for FY2016 to support its U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America (PDF). The plan, which would represent a significant increase in annual spending in the region, focuses on security, governance, and economic development. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $296.5 million in CARSI funds; its Senate counterpart offered up to $675 million for the new strategy (PDF), according to the CRS.

“The move from CARSI to [the new strategy] reflects an evolution in thinking and an increasing appreciation for the importance of rule of law and institutions for making these aid packages successful,” says Shifter. “How it will end up is a different question.”

In January 2016, amid a new rush of arrivals from the region, U.S. authorities began to round up and deport recently arrived immigrants whose asylum claims had been denied. The Obama administration said that its aim was to deter would-be migrants. Meanwhile, the administration announced it would expand its refugee program to admit as many as nine thousand people each year from the Northern Triangle and enlist the United Nations to help screen refugee claims in Latin America.

This post appears courtesy of CFR.org.
 

Housecarl

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

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/a-formula-for-beijing-taipei-coexistence/

A Formula for Beijing-Taipei Coexistence

Would a passive non-denial of the one-China principle work for cross-strait relations?

By Emily S. Chen
February 24, 2016

190 Shares
10 Comments

In an annual meeting of officials in charge of Taiwan affairs, Yu Zhengsheng, chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, delivered some remarks on Beijing’s Taiwan policy agenda for 2016. To push forward the peaceful development of cross-strait relations, Beijing will continue to adhere to the one-China principle, firmly opposes any form of secessionist activities seeking Taiwan independence, and resolutely safeguards national sovereignty and territorial integrity. As Taiwan President-elect Tsai Ing-wen and her traditionally pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) still decline to accept the one-China principle, the future of cross-strait relations is fraught with uncertainties. If an active acceptance of the one-China principle is not in Tsai’s makeup, will a passive “non-denial” of the principle work in a new Beijing-Taipei relationship?

Beijing’s Concerns

It is worth noting that this is the first time in the past three years that Yu included the one-China principle in his annual speech. Before this year, instead of directly citing the principle, Yu emphasized the importance of adhering to the “1992 Consensus,” a verbal agreement between Taiwan’s Kuomintang (KMT) and the Communist Party of China (CPC) to keep the concept of “one China” but allow strategic uncertainty surrounding its precise definition to maintain cross-strait ties. The particular inclusion of the one-China principle this year signals that Beijing is worried about Tsai’s recent attempts to reinterpret the Consensus, and intends to clarify that the one-China principle is the essence of the Consensus. To assure the Taiwan public that she can manage the relations with Beijing, Tsai has recently begun to express her views on the Consensus rather than eschew the whole concept entirely. She argued that she does not deny the “historical fact” of the cross-strait dialogues in 1992 and that she hopes to return to the “original spirit of setting aside differences to seek common grounds that formed the basis of the 1992 cross-strait meetings.” Yu’s speech, however, sends a message to Tsai: What matters is not the phraseology of the 1992 Consensus, but the core of the Consensus, the one-China principle.

Surprisingly, while Beijing is not satisfied with Tsai’s interpretation of the Consensus, it is not intensely pressuring Tsai to accept the one-China principle as a condition of continued cross-strait exchanges. One explanation is that Beijing is still waiting to see what changes occur in Tsai’s cross-strait policy before Tsai assumes office on May 20. A strong reaction would be premature.

Another explanation is that Beijing might have noticed that with the current domestic atmosphere unfriendly toward Beijing, Tsai is unlikely to accept the one-China principle. To agree to the principle, Tsai will be facing pressure both from the Taiwan public and her political party. A polling result has shown that since 2007 identity as “Taiwanese” has ranked first among all options –including choices of “Chinese” and “both Taiwanese and Chinese.” This growing Taiwanese consciousness makes it less likely that people in Taiwan, particularly the younger generation, will uphold a concept that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one China. Within Tsai’s party, DPP’s 1999 Resolution on Taiwan’s Future, which Tsai has confirmed as the party guidelines today, indicated that Taiwan should “renounce the ‘one China’ position.” This wording fundamentally contradicts Beijing’s one-China principle. The other explanation is that it is in Beijing’s interests to continue adopting policy approaches to engage with people in Taiwan to win the hearts and minds of the Taiwanese people. In his speech this year, Yu stressed that Beijing will seek to facilitate exchanges in culture, education, tourism and religion and promote economic integration to “benefit as many small businesses, farmers and fishermen as possible.” Beijing believes that a deepening relationship with people in Taiwan would improve the understanding between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, and will further reverse any negative impression of Mainland Chinese in Taiwan society. In its most recent effort, Beijing has announced to donate five million yuan to Taiwan’s Red Cross Society through its Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) for earthquake recovery and relief efforts in Taiwan.

A Non-Denial Formula

If an active acceptance of the one-China principle is nigh on impossible for Tsai Ing-wen, would a passive non-denial of the one-China principle work for Beijing and Tsai? In fact, Tsai has gradually taken small steps to show that her cross-strait policy is compatible with what Beijing wants. Although she does not advocate the one-China concept, Tsai has signaled that her administration will promote the peaceful and stable development of cross-strait relations based on an “existing political foundation,” which contains “the existing Republic of China (ROC) constitutional order.”

In its latest response to Tsai’s cross-strait policy, Beijing said nothing new but simply reiterated the one-China principle, “the fact that the Mainland and Taiwan belong to one China has never changed, and will not change.” Indeed, Beijing’s repeatedly mentioning the one-China principle has made it clear that the new Taiwan government has little choice but to address the principle. After all, cross-strait relations have been developed based on the one-China principle for the past seven years, and it is hardly likely that Beijing will accept a step backwards from its hope to achieve the national reunification with Taiwan. While Beijing may show some flexibility in accommodating a temporary policy of non-denial of the one-China principle temporarily, it is unclear when Beijing’s patience will run out.

Emily S. Chen is a Silas Palmer Fellow with the Hoover Institution, a Young Leader with the Pacific Forum CSIS, and a Non-Resident Fellow with the Center for the National Interest. She holds a Master’s degree in East Asian Studies and a focus on international relations at Stanford University. Emily tweets @emilyshchen.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...678042-d868-4a18-af08-dda302561062_story.html

Putin goes on diplomatic blitz seeking to bolster Syrian cease-fire deal

By Michael Birnbaum and Hugh Naylor
February 24 at 8:10 AM

MOSCOW —Russian President Vladimir Putin worked Wednesday to place himself in the center of efforts to bring a Syrian cease-fire, speaking by phone to the leaders of Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran and drawing promises of cooperation, according to the Kremlin.

In a rapid-fire series of conversations, Putin bridged both sides of the conflict — Iran and Russia back Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Saudi Arabia sides with rebel factions — and portrayed himself as bolstering the chances of a cessation of hostilities agreed to by Washington and Moscow earlier this week.

Assad called the proposals in the deal “an important step towards political settlement,” the Kremlin said in a statement. He also “confirmed the Syrian government’s readiness to facilitate the cease-fire’s implementation.”

But significant doubts remained about the viability of the plan, scheduled to go into effect midnight Friday.

[Amid bids to quiet Syrian conflict, an overriding question: Can it stick?]

Leading Syrian opposition groups have not yet committed to the deal. And both Russia and the United States say they will continue independent efforts to fight the Islamic State and an al-Qaeda-linked faction, Jabhat al-Nusra.

For months, Moscow has said it was battling the Islamic State, but Russian airstrikes also have targeted rebel groups, including some backed by the United States. Both Russia and Assad have labelled a broad swath of opponents of the Syrian government as terrorists.

Putin has seized on the cease-fire deal as a diplomatic victory for Russia and one that places Russia on the same superpower bargaining level as the United States, long a Kremlin goal. Wednesday’s phone calls appeared to be a continuation of that effort.

The joint discussions between the United States and Russia on Syria are leading “to a higher level of mutual confidence,” Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Wednesday, the Interfax new agency reported. “At the same time, I'll repeat, once again, that the main goal in this case is to stop bloodshed in Syria, and so lay the groundwork for approaching a political settlement.”

SANA, the Syrian state-run news agency, reported that the Kremlin had initiated the call with Assad.

Putin also spoke to Saudi Arabia’s King Salman, giving “a detailed explanation of the proposals” of the U.S.-Russian plan. On Wednesday, at least according to the Kremlin, Russia and Saudi Arabia put aside their differences over Syria and were in accord on the cease-fire plan.

“The king of Saudi Arabia welcomed the agreement and expressed his readiness to work together with Russia to implement them,” the Kremlin said.


[Battered Aleppo becomes stage for Syria’s wider proxy showdown]

Putin also spoke to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, the Kremlin said.

Despite the Kremlin assurances that U.S. and Russian relations are improving as a result of the discussions, there have been mixed feelings in Washington about the accord.

Syrian forces backed by Russian airstrikes have pressed forward in a major offensive in the key western city of Aleppo and elsewhere in the country, according to groups that monitor the fighting.

Russia and Syrian government forces, meanwhile, carried heavy attacks against Islamic State positions near the northern city of Aleppo on Wednesday amid a wave of bombings by the militant group, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based group.

The Britain based monitoring group reported heavy fighting in a strategic village southeast of Aleppo that Islamic State militants seized Tuesday from forces loyal to Assad. The capture of Khanaser and the road leading to it has cut the government’s sole route that links the areas of Aleppo and other parts of the country under Assad’s control, according to the Observatory.

[A mini world war rages in the fields of Aleppo]

The fall of that road, if confirmed, would be a setback to Assad's Russian-backed offensive in Aleppo that has made startling gains against rebel groups.

Those who are skeptical of the plan are pushing for war, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Wednesday.

“Literally on the day when Russia and the United States approved the initiative on the cease-fire in Syria, voices could be heard from the capitals of the U.S. allies and from Washington which questioned the viability of this agreement," Lavrov said, according to the TASS news agency. "We want to say frankly that these voices are a call for war rather than for peace."

Naylor reported from Beirut.


Related:
- The current chaos in Syria may help the Islamic State
- United States and Russia agree to a partial cease-fire in Syria
- Kremlin: Obama called Putin to talk about Syrian cease-fire
- Haunting images from Aleppo: ‘Syrian children are at the heart of this catastrophe’


Michael Birnbaum is The Post’s Moscow bureau chief. He previously served as the Berlin correspondent and an education reporter.
 

Housecarl

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

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/migration/#story/30

The Migration Machine

Where the dead don’t count

By Selam Gebrekidan and Allison Martell
Filed Feb. 24, 2016, 11 a.m. GMT

For thousands of migrants from Africa, the Sahara is the first step. For many, it is also the last.

CATANIA, Italy – Lucky Iz had just turned 15 when he and his friend Godfrey set off to cross the Sahara on a hot August afternoon in 2012. Lucky has still not told Godfrey’s family what happened on the journey towards Europe. This is his account.

The Nigerian boys arrived at the edge of the Sahara with water, biscuits, milk and energy drinks, just as the people-smuggler had instructed them, Lucky recalled. They climbed with 36 others onto the back of a Toyota pickup truck that sped away from Agadez, a city in northern Niger.

Lucky sat atop a pile of supplies, hanging onto a post with his feet dangling over the side. He knew the driver would not stop if anyone fell off. He was parched and hungry. The sand that sprayed up from under the truck’s tyres stung his eyes. For three days they drove, stopping occasionally to refuel and drink their water.

On the fourth day, the driver lost his way. His compass had stopped working. Some in the group would never make it out of the desert.

International groups track numbers of migrants who drown crossing the Mediterranean to Europe. Last year an estimated 3,800 people died that way.


Timeline

Deaths in the Sahara


But no one counts the dead of the Sahara. This makes it easier for politicians to ignore the lives lost there, humanitarian workers say.

The United Nations refugee agency has no data on how many people die in the desert, according to its North Africa unit. The International Committee of the Red Cross reconnects families, but does not collect information about their dead. A handful of unofficial databases maintained by volunteers, academics and non-governmental organisations have tried to keep count, but they depend largely on media reports, and their funding is sporadic.

“We don’t have any data,” said Julien Brachet, a fellow at Oxford’s International Migration Institute who has been doing field work in the Sahara, including northern Niger, for more than a decade.

“It’s a problem, because there may be as many people dying in the desert as there are in the Mediterranean,” he said. “We can’t prove it, so we can’t say it, so nobody is going to intervene.”

LOST

Agadez has long been a gateway to the desert. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimates that 120,000 migrants passed through the city on their way to North Africa or Europe in 2015, more than twice as many as the previous year. In the past, people would leave the city openly. Weekly military convoys offered some protection.

But since a tragedy in 2013, when 92 desert travellers died of thirst, the government has moved to shut down the routes, and the traffic has become more secretive and hidden.


ALONE: Lucky Iz watched his friend die in the Sahara while crossing from Niger to Libya. REUTERS/Antonio Parrinello


“We had to dig out the sand with our hands and we buried him.”

Lucky Iz, Nigerian migrant

Lost in the sands, the driver of Lucky’s truck kept going for five more days, hoping to reach a landmark and reorient himself. By then, Lucky said, all the food and water was gone. Exhausted passengers began to fall off the truck at night. The driver did not stop for them.

“The next day, we see ourselves, and we count ourselves and some people are not there anymore,” said Lucky, now 18, who after arriving in Europe lived for a year in a young people’s refuge in Catania, Italy.

A day later, the vehicle ran out of fuel. Helpless, the travellers milled about. That afternoon, a sandstorm barrelled towards them.

“We were just standing, looking. We don’t even know where to go,” said Lucky. “We don’t even know how we can go out from the desert. So many people died on that spot.

“My friend fell down and died,” Lucky said. Everyone was crying.

“We didn’t know who was going to die next. We don’t know who is going to give up next. So what do you do? The whole place was sand, so we had to dig out the sand with our hands and we buried him.

“Then we started walking.”

UNDER COVER

The Sahara in northern Niger and neighbouring Mali is home to drugs and arms traffickers, people-smugglers, kidnappers and armed Islamist militant groups, some of them linked to al Qaeda.

The European Union has put Niger and other countries under pressure to crack down on smuggling. In 2014, the EU opened a mission in Niger to train the security forces to “help prevent irregular migration.” Last year, Niger passed a law banning people-smuggling that could see smugglers jailed for up to 30 years.

But Brachet says that may have been counter-productive because it pushed much of the trade underground.

“It used to be, not impossible, but very difficult for somebody to abandon migrants in the middle of the desert,” said Brachet. “Now, as it’s clandestine, nobody knows if you really reach the point where you were supposed to drop your passengers off or not, or if you left them in the desert.”

An EU official said it is a priority to tackle people-smugglers and others who put the lives of vulnerable migrants at risk: The bloc does not control borders or patrol in the desert, but supports the authorities with training and advice.

The IOM, which has staff in northern Niger, is trying to gather better information about how many people move through the region, and what happens to them. It estimates that some 2,300 people pass through Agadez each week. But it recorded only 37 deaths in the Sahara in 2015.

Last March, IOM staff visited Seguidine, a small village in Niger close to the Libyan border. In one day they found 85 migrants stranded, waiting under trees, abandoned by smugglers, said Giuseppe Loprete, head of the group’s mission in Niger.

“The journey is very difficult,” said Loprete. “From what they tell us, the stories, a lot of people die on the route.”

The government of Niger did not respond to requests for comment.

Lucky said he and the other survivors walked for about 10 hours before they ran into a pickup truck on its way back to Agadez. They pleaded with the driver to take them the rest of the way.

He drove them to Sabha in Libya and sold them to militants who forced Lucky to work for free. It would be months before he could escape and make his way to Italy.

They left behind four men and two women in the sand - six more deaths that were never recorded.


Gebrekidan reported from Catania, Martell from New York; Additional reporting by Masako Melissa Hirsch in New York, Gabriela Baczynska in Brussels and Abdoulaye Massalaki in Niamey; Edited by Sara Ledwith
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://johnbatchelorshow.com/schedules/tuesday-23-february-2016

Tuesday 23 February 2016
Air Date: February 23, 2016.


Photo, left: Chinese People’s Liberation Army staff chase brave CNN reporters who’ve figured out that the PLA is hacking into everything not permanently sealed inside the US. Under the unelected tyrants of Beijing, the notion of an actually free press is as alien as a social philosophy from Mars. Thank your lucky stars that you’re reading this in a constitutionally-protected zone. See: http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/20/world/asia/china-unit-61398/
PLA Unit 61398 (Chinese: 61398 部队, Pinyin: 61398 bùduì) is the Military Unit Cover Designator (MUCD) of a People's Liberation Army advanced persistent threat unit that has been alleged to be a source of Chinese computer hacking attacks. "UglyGorilla," "KandyGoo," and "WinXYHappy" are some of the aliases used by the Chinese accused of hacking U.S. companies on Monday. The men behind these handles are officers of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) under a unit known simply by the code 61398. Little is confirmed about the mysterious unit 61398, a section that the Chinese authorities have not officially acknowledged. The Chinese defense ministry said the country's military "has never supported any hacker activities."

But the U.S. indictment notice pinpoints a non-descript building on Datong Road in Shanghai's Pudong District as one of the locations for unit 61398's alleged cyber espionage activities. When CNN tried to visit the building last year, our correspondents were chased away by security guards, as seen in the video above. http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/20/world/asia/china-unit-61398/

Hour Two
Tuesday 23 February 2016 / Hour 2, Block A: Stephen F. Cohen is Prof. Emeritus of Russian Studies/History/Politics at NYU and Princeton. He is also a member of the Board of the recently-formed American Committee for East-West Accord (eastwestaccord.com); in re: . . . the so-called Syrian ceasefire. John Kerry: proof in actions. Groups don't acknowledge, no one complying, and Turkey routinely shoots artillery into Syria. While Ukraine is he new cold war epicenter, Syria may be the locus of the new hot war. . .. note that Ash Carter, not Kerry, called “Russia our enemy number one.”

Tuesday 23 February 2016 / Hour 2, Block B: Stephen F. Cohen, eastwestaccord.com; in re:

Tuesday 23 February 2016 / Hour 2, Block C: Stephen F. Cohen, eastwestaccord.com; in re:

Tuesday 23 February 2016 / Hour 2, Block D: Stephen F. Cohen, eastwestaccord.com; in re:

Tuesday 23 February 2016 / Hour 3, Block C: Steve Krasner, Hoover, in re: The Hoover Institution released today findings from our bipartisan foreign policy working group, made up of scholars from Stanford University and the Hoover Institution. (Hoover Institution Bipartisan Working Group Releases, National Security Strategy for the Future) http://www.hoover.org/research/pragmatic-engagement-amidst-global-uncertainty-three-major-challenges (1 of 2)
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
STANFORD, CA – The Hoover Institution today released Pragmatic Engagement Amidst Global Uncertainty: Three Major Challenges, a national security strategy written by the Hoover Institution’s Working Group on Foreign Policy and Grand Strategy. While the United States continues to face unprecedented foreign policy challenges, there has been no consensus on a strategy to address specific problems. Thus, this bipartisan group of Hoover Institution and Stanford University scholars was convened to assess current threats and outline guiding principles for a smart national security strategy.

“We are living in a world of uncertainty and anxiety when it comes to foreign policy,” said co-author Amy Zegart, Hoover Institution senior fellow and Center for International Security and Cooperation co-director. “While presidential campaigns may be polarized when it comes to issues of national security, Americans are unified in their desire to make our country strong and secure. This strategy serves as a foreign policy road map in hopes that the United States will become the leader in a more peaceful world.”

The working group’s findings focus on three orienting principles: The first is that the United States should be unapologetic about its pursuit of our economic and security interests and more tempered in the pursuit of ideals. Second, the United States should leverage existing strengths by nurturing alliances and adapting institutions that have formed the cornerstone of the international order for seven decades. This includes standing by NATO against Russia, bolstering networks in the Asia Pacific, and modernizing governance structures such as the International Monetary Fund and the United Nations. Third, the United States must develop flexible unilateral capabilities that can be deployed against varied threats. This begins with establishing a strategic energy policy and drawing more attention to counter-messaging.

“Our leaders appear to be distracted by the day-to-day headlines, allowing for more pressing foreign policy challenges to fester and grow,” said co-author Stephen D. Krasner, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. “In this complex threat environment, reactive and ad hoc measures are not adequate. We need a strategy that makes clear what we stand for, what our goals are, and what capabilities we need to achieve them.”

The Hoover Institution's Working Group on Foreign Policy and Grand Strategy is a bipartisan group of Hoover Institution and Stanford University scholars who for the past two years have sought to better understand the challenges facing our nation and develop orienting principles to better serve America's interests.

Edited by: Stephen D. Krasner, the Graham H. Stuart Professor of International Relations at Stanford and senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Hoover Institution and Amy Zegart, the Davies Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and co-director of the Center for International Security at Cooperation.

With the Assistance of: Karl W. Eikenberry, the William J. Perry Fellow in International Security at the Center for International Security and Cooperation and distinguished fellow with the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University; James D. Fearon, the Theodore and Frances Geballe Professor in the School of Humanities and Sciences, professor of political science, and senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies; Francis Fukuyama, the Oliver Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies; David M. Kennedy, the Donald J. McLachlan Professor of History, Emeritus, at Stanford; Abraham D. Sofaer, the George P. Shultz Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Hoover Institution.
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Tuesday 23 February 2016 / Hour 3, Block D: Steve Krasner, Hoover, in re: The Hoover Institution released today findings from our bipartisan foreign policy working group, made up of scholars from Stanford University and the Hoover Institution. (Hoover Institution Bipartisan Working Group Releases, National Security Strategy for the Future) http://www.hoover.org/research/pragmatic-engagement-amidst-global-uncertainty-three-major-challenges (2 of 2)

Hour Four
Tuesday 23 February 2016 / Hour 4, Block A: Eli Lake, Bloomberg, in re: Obama Administration Argues over Support for Syrian Kurds Syrian Kurds are now attacking U.S.-supported rebels, but U.S. officials disagree about whether the Kurds have switched sides -- and about whether the U.S. should continue increasing its arms support for them, as opposed to focusing support on Sunni Arab rebels.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...ation-fights-itself-over-role-of-syrian-kurds
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-23/obama-s-irrelevant-outmoded-case-against-guantanamo Obama's Irrelevant, Outmoded Case Against Guantanamo Watching President Barack Obama make his end-of-term push Tuesday morning to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, my thoughts turned to terrorists. I tried to imagine what two hardened jihadis must think about the president's plan. "Are we still on for the car bombing at the embassy?" "I don't know. The infidel leader says he wants to close the prison in Cuba. Let's wait to see what Congress does." It sounds absurd. It is absurd. And yet, it gets to one of the main arguments Obama has made for closing Guantanamo since taking office in 2009. He said Tuesday that the prison's existence is "counterproductive to our fight against terrorists, because they use it as propaganda in their efforts to recruit." The president is not alone in this view. In 2008, when Obama was running for the White House, no less an authority than General David Petraeus said he favored closing Guantanamo because it was a recruitment tool. George W. Bush and John McCain have said as much themselves. This is true in the narrowest sense. For years, the Taliban, al Qaeda and other jihadis have featured Guantanamo in propaganda. When James Foley was beheaded in 2014, he was wearing an orange jumpsuit, the same color as the jumpsuits worn by early Guantanamo detainees. But in a more important sense, Guantanamo doesn't really matter in the battle for the hearts and minds of would-be terrorists. Charlie Winter, a senior research associate at Georgia State University's initiative on transcultural conflict and violence, and an expert in jihadi propaganda, told me Tuesday that Guantanamo is a part of the general message about the abuse and unlawful detention of Muslim prisoners. But Winter stressed that Guantanamo is "one of many things held up by radical Islamists as evidence of the anti-Muslim conspiracy." For the Islamic State in particular, a bigger propaganda tool has been portraying the U.S. and Iran as allies in tormenting Syria's Sunni Muslims. Other jihadis have featured U.S. drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan in recruitment propaganda. There is also the U.S. support for Israel and Saudi Arabia. None of which means that Obama should cancel the Iran nuclear deal, suspend aid to Saudi Arabia and Israel, and end the drone war. The enemy gets a vote on whether there is war or peace, but it doesn't get a vote on strategy. So why then does Obama insist on closing Guantanamo? It's not that the prison is counterproductive. Rather, the president has said it "is viewed as a stain on our broader record of upholding the highest standards of rule of law." This is not really a strategic argument. It's a moral one. Obama wants to close Guantanamo because he thinks it's an example of how his predecessor exceeded the rule of law in prosecuting the war against jihadis. But this argument too is disingenuous. It's true that Obama has winnowed the pool of Guantanamo detainees to 91 and he plans to transfer 35 of these prisoners to third countries. But for those remaining, Obama does not propose an end to their indefinite detention -- which, let's face it, is what troubles their supporters in the Muslim world. Rather he plans to indefinitely detain these prisoners at a new facility inside the United States, where they will face a modified military tribunal. To do this, Obama would have to persuade Congress to change the law that would prohibit such transfers. All of this is too much for the American Civil Liberties Union. In a statement Tuesday, the group's executive director, Anthony Romero, praised Obama's efforts to close Guantanamo. But, he said, "his decision to preserve the Bush-created military commissions is a mistake." He added, "the president’s continuing embrace of indefinite detention without charge or trial will tarnish his legacy.” Romero should criticize Obama. He has a fundamental disagreement with the president on whether America should treat global jihadis as enemy fighters or as suspects for law enforcement. Back in 2008, . . .

Tuesday 23 February 2016 / Hour 4, Block B: Marcus Weisgerber, in re: "Back to Iraq: US Military Contractors Return in Droves": Marcus Weisgerber reports that behind the president's directive to 'accelerate' the counter-ISIS campaign came a surge in the number of contractors assisting in the campaign against ISIS. Weisgerber writes that, "The sharp increase..underscores the military's reliance on civilians even for missions with relatively small troop presence."

http://johnbatchelorshow.com/schedules/monday-22-february-2016

Hour One

Monday 22 February 2016 / Hour 1, Block A: Bill Roggio, Long War Journal and FDD, in re: Afghan Army abandons another district in Helmand In addition to Musa Qala, the Afghan National Army withdraw from its base in Now Zad. Afghan officials said both districts are now fully under the control of the Taliban.

Islamic State claims killing Algerian soldiers Despite facing a large crackdown from the Algerian military, the Islamic State's branch still claims sporadic attacks in the country.

Afghan military abandons district in Helmand The Afghan Army commander in charge of the fighting in Helmand characterized the Army's withdrawal from Musa Qala as a redeployment of forces.

Another town in southern Yemen reportedly falls to AQAP AQAP reportedly seized the southern Yemeni town of Ahwar earlier today. Press reports indicated that Ahwar was under the jihadists' control earlier this month, but it appears operations were still ongoing at the time. The fog of war often makes it difficult to determined which towns and villages are truly in al Qaeda's possession, but AQAP has begun to advertise its implementation of sharia law and provision of social services throughout southern Yemen. (1 of 2)

Monday 22 February 2016 / Hour 1, Block B: Bill Roggio, Long War Journal and FDD, in re: Afghan Army abandons another district in Helmand In addition to Musa Qala, the Afghan National Army withdraw from its base in Now Zad. Afghan officials said both districts are now fully under the control of the Taliban.

Islamic State claims killing Algerian soldiers Despite facing a large crackdown from the Algerian military, the Islamic State's branch still claims sporadic attacks in the country.

Afghan military abandons district in Helmand The Afghan Army commander in charge of the fighting in Helmand characterized the Army's withdrawal from Musa Qala as a redeployment of forces.

Another town in southern Yemen reportedly falls to AQAP AQAP reportedly seized the southern Yemeni town of Ahwar earlier today. Press reports indicated that Ahwar was under the jihadists' control earlier this month, but it appears operations were still ongoing at the time. The fog of war often makes it difficult to determined which towns and villages are truly in al Qaeda's possession, but AQAP has begun to advertise its implementation of sharia law and provision of social services throughout southern Yemen. (2 of 2)

Monday 22 February 2016 / Hour 1, Block C: Gordon Chang, Forbes.com and The daily beast, in re: New Possible Chinese Radar Installation on South China Sea Artificial Island Could Put U.S., Allied Stealth Aircraft at .. A Jan. 24, 2016, image of Cuarteron Reef in the South China Sea with what is likely a high ...
Satellite images show China may be building powerful radar on disputed islands
Paracels build-up a pointer to China's broader South China Sea ambitions
China signals no South China Sea backdown as foreign minister goes to US China's South China Sea military deployments are no different from U.S. deployments on ...
Navy's 7th Fleet commander: South China Sea isn't a battle against China
China Foreign Minister to Talk South China Sea on US Visit
China's aggressive posture in South China Sea The South China Sea disputes are rapidly descending into a quagmire, with potentially ...
Paracels build-up a pointer to China's broader South China Sea ambitions
South China Sea: Julie Bishop says missile launchers shouldn't deter flights
China's top leaders are too proud--and perhaps too unaware--to seek to seek what they need most, help from the G-20 this month. http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonc...ast-chance-the-g-20-in-shanghai/#1a257bbc618d

Hour Three

Monday 22 February 2016 / Hour 3, Block A: Gregory Copley, Defense & Foreign Affairs, in re: Kurdish Sources Outline Some of the Strategic Terrain in the Turkey-Kurdish War From GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs sources in Turkey, Iraq, and Syria. Turkish Govern-ment attempts to write a narrative around the major car-bomb attack in Ankara on February 17, 2016, in order to rationalize its domestic and regional strategic policies may have not have gained traction, but the reporting around the incident raised questions about the overall Kurdish movement, its war against the Turkish Government, and its ability to act in a unified manner to pursue its goal of an independent Kurdish state.

The February 17, 2016, incident involved a car bomb which killed 28 people and injured a further 61. Responsibility was claimed by the Kurdish movement TAK [(Kurdish: Teyrênbazê Azadiya Kurdistan) Kurdistan Freedom Falcons), which may (or may not) retain links with the Turkish Kurdish group the Kurdish Workers’ Party (Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan: PKK). Turkish Prime Minister Dr Ahmet Davutoğlu claimed that the attack had originated with the Syrian Kurdish group, the YPG [People's Protection Units (Kurdish: Yekîneyên Parastina Gel)], but that the Turkish government held the Russian government equally responsible. TAK claimed on its website that the bomber was Abdulbaki Sönmez, 26, a Turkish national born in Van in eastern Turkey. The government had earlier claimed that it had identified the bomber as Saleh Necar, 24, a Syrian national with ties to the TPG. Significantly, the Turkish government has been anxious to link the YPG with Russian support, and to force a confrontation with Russia to enable a Turkish closure of the Bosphorous to Russian naval traffic under terms of the 1936 Montreux Convention. See “US Prepares to Back Turkish Military Confrontation in Syria as Ankara Stares Strategic Defeat in the Face”, in Defense & Foreign Affairs. The relations among the various Kurdish militant and political groups, as well as between the various Kurdish tribes, however, remains complex. (1 of 3)

Monday 22 February 2016 / Hour 3, Block B: Gregory Copley, Defense & Foreign Affairs ; in re: secret plan by Qatar, Saudis and Turks to invade Mosul – for oil. Note that Turkey’s support for ISIS backfires. If a Sunni group can control oilfields in Iraq, that’ll countervail Iran. Kurdish insurrection has moved into the heartland of Turkey, so Erdogan probably wants to move swiftly against PKK and YPG. Turkey claims it’s been fighting ISIS (Daish) but in fact has been ISIS’s strongest friend, supplying weapons, food, and oil transport and purchase. Qataris, Saudis, Turks and US have helped form and maintain ISIS. There may be 20,000 PKK fighters in Turkey, and many more in Syria. . . . Ankara will fight a tactical war in Turkey, and drive Kurds to Syria, then fight, and dismantle Assad’s regime. Probably have a war plan that intends to take Mosul, but that’s a long shot. Iran might help in that. Putative ceasefire next week; in practice, will only help Turkey and US to consolidate before rushing forth again. (2 of 3)

Monday 22 February 2016 / Hour 3, Block C: Monday 22 February 2016 / Hour 3, Block C: Gregory Copley, Defense & Foreign Affairs in re: Nowruz coming soon – New Year’s, the great spring holiday; Kurds inside Turkey will get up their strength and hit esp govt and tourist spots. Have 12,000 fighter; use terrorist tactics against Turkish cities, initially, incl Istanbul and Ankara; then the Turkish armed forces will battle wherever they can; each side working to keep the other on the defensive. Turkish economy is exceptionally vulnerable: a massive outflow of capital for the last five years offset only by heavy borrowing. Now it's harder to get loans and foreign direct investment is drying up. After Turkey shot down the Russian SU-34 the Russian embargo has pulled out billions from Turkey; and Russia is also stopping the flow of O&G from the Black Sea to Turkey, expect shortages in Turkey. Obama pressured Israel to supply, but that’s not blossoming. What Turkey visited on Syria is blowing back into Turkish mainland. Turkey may be dismembered. Does Ergdogan have an exit strategy? Nope; he has an astounding ego, never backs down, merely redoubles his efforts to collapse Assad’s govt – good luck, with Russia there. Meanwhile, the Kurds are starting to get wide support — Israel and Iran, inter al. PJAK – Iranian Kurds – want to join a pan-Kurdish state but Teheran doesn't care for that at all, so Iran may support outside Kurds to scotch domestic break-up. (3 of 3)

Monday 22 February 2016 / Hour 3, Block D: Malcolm Hoenlein, Conference of Presidents, in re: Saudi Arabia puts Shia on trial for spying for Iran ; Veteran nuclear expert: Iran deal could make things worse; Iranians want the US to know that they're e mocking Americans as they burn US flags on social media in connection with the naval kidnapping, Also, Hasan Rouhani and Iranians dressed in mock-US mil uniforms with their hands tied as they knelt; all posted on twitter to humiliate American. Also displayed their new missile (1,700 km range, can reach Israel and Europe). Poll: 79 % have an unfavorable view of Iran and two-thirds oppose the Obama deal. Khamenei gave awards to Iranian sailors for capturing Americans: need to humiliate your enemy and show that you're dominant. Also relates to a domestic beef between hard-liners and less-hard-liners. Recall 2009 Green Movement that brought the strong state crackdown. / See a split between Assad and his Russian backers: several mil victories led Assad to demand that they take back the whole country. Russians declined – too awful; they try to rein him in, but it’s not smooth. Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s amb to UN, spoke of peaceful settlement for Syria; “taking back the entire country would be a futile exercise,” while Assad refuses to meet any opposition. Huge toll for Russia. / ISIS has cut salaries in half; oil price now too low to maintain all operations. ISIS charging $500 for families to redeem their relatives. Also kidnapping farmers; no longer paying double what the Free Syrian Army pays. Juniper Cobra: 1700 US mil in a bi-annual joint drill with Israel. / Important change in Egyptian textbooks: new texts that actually recognize the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, say that the agreement ended their state of war. In the Arab world, this is a revolutionary development.

For podcasts please see site.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Related to Monday's interview on John Bachelor's Monday show with Gregory Copley.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/How-Far-Will-The-US-Go-If-Turkey-Invades-Syria.html

How Far Will The U.S. Go If Turkey Invades Syria?

By Gregory R. Copley
Posted on Tue, 16 February 2016 22:48 | 7 Comments

The Government of Turkey has now put itself in a position whereby it must act rapidly and precipitously to avoid moving to an ultimately losing strategic position in the war against Syria, which could result in being forced back to fight a full-scale civil war to prevent the break-up of the State into at least two compo-nents, one being a new Kurdish state.

Turkey’s leadership, in insisting — in 2011-12 — on sponsoring a proxy war to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, has already led to a refugee crisis of irreversible strategic damage to Europe, but Turkish Presisdent Reçep Tayyip Erdogan, the Saudi Arabian military-political leadership, the U.S. Barack Obama administration, and the Qatari Emir now find themselves with nowhere to go except to escalate further in the hope that the Syrian revival, backed by Russia and Iran, will collapse.

Clear indications are emerging in Washington, DC, that the Pentagon is preparing to support a direct mili-tary invasion of Syria by Turkish Armed Forces, despite the Munich accord in the week ending February 13, 2016, which was meant to bring about a ceasefire in Syrian fighting. US officials have been actively en-gaged with those of Turkey and possibly Saudi Arabia in the preparations for ground force attacks on Kurd-ish military formations inside northern Syria, and U.S. Air Force Fairchild A-10 strike aircraft have deployed over northern Syrian territory in early February.

The planned intervention by Turkey (and possibly other powers, such as Saudi Arabia) is specifically not aimed at countering the activities of ISIS (asad-Dawlah al-Islamiyah f? al-‘Iraq wash-Sham/Islamic State), but solely about countering the growing capability of Syrian- and Iraqi-based Kurdish fighters, and to offset the gains which Syrian Government forces, supported by Russian and Iranian/HizbAllah forces, made in and around Aleppo.

The prospect of yet another abandonment of the Kurds is causing considerable division within some U.S. military and intelligence circles, but the fiction is that the Turkish battle is with ISIS.

It is understood that the Turkish Government wishes to establish a cordon sanitaire inside Syria, along the Turkish border, to prevent the flow of Kurdish fighters from Syria into Turkey, where they are reportedly supporting the civil war which is now underway in the Kurdish areas of Turkey. General Adem Huduti, commander of the Second Turkish Army, based in Malatya, has primary ground force responsibility for the areas contiguous with Syria and Iraq, and was believed to be key to the operation, which could engage, initially, some 20,000 or so of the Second Army’s 100,000-man strength, supported by Turkish Army Avia-tion AH-64W helicopter gunships, and other airborne systems, and possibly Turkish Air Force fixed-wing ground attack support and fighter cover, to protect against Syrian and Russian Air Force fighters. At least two armored brigades, with modern main battle tanks, and two mechanized infantry brigades, would be deployed, based on current observations of forward deployments by the Second Army. They would be sup-ported by self-propelled 15mm artillery.

The Obama Administration and the Government of Turkish President Erdo?an and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu appear to have calculated — probably correctly — that the Russian Government would not di-rectly interfere with the assault on Kurdish forces, the YPG [People's Protection Units (Kurdish: Yekîneyên Parastina Gel)] in a move designed to split those forces, driving to a depth of some 25 miles inside Syria.

Related: Oil Markets Disappointed By Production Freeze

Meanwhile, it should be expected that a number of false-flag attacks would be mounted by U.S. and Turk-ish operators to give the impression that the Turkish incursion would be responding to humanitarian con-cerns. Questions, then, should be raised by reports of attacks on February 14-15, 2016, by aircraft against civilian hospital targets in Aleppo. False-flag attacks (ie: purporting to be from one side, but in reality by another) have been used consistently by Islamist forces since the Sarajevo attacks (blamed on the Serbs) in the 1990s, and through later conflicts.

The proposed major military assault into Syria holds considerable risk for Turkey, not the least of that being a possible accidental escalation of hostilities with Russia, but it now seems unavoidable if Ankara is not to see a major disaster, not only wasting more than five years of intense effort to overthrow the Syrian Gov-ernment of President Bashar al-Assad, but also to avert the unfettered escalation of the Kurdish war to wrench a large part of Turkey away from Ankara to create a new Kurdish state which would link with Iraqi and Syrian Kurds. Already, Turkey has paid an enormous price in unanticipated consequences from its ef-fort to lead a coalition (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the U.S.) into overthrowing Assad.

The war has taken far longer than anticipated, and has cost Turkey all of its regional allies; it has also unit-ed the Kurds of Turkey, Iraq, and Syria into a desire to finally create their Kurdish state; it has generated a refugee flow from Syria and Iraq which is now beyond Ankara’s capacity to manage; and it has created a major rift between Turkey and the European Union, while costing Turkey most of its political support in Washington (except from the Obama White House and the State Dept.). Moreover, the escalation has led to the Russo-Turkish rift, in which Russian sanctions against Turkey are now starting to bite into an already fragile Turkish economy.

At the same time, the Iranian Government feels that Iranian vital strategic interests have been directly challenged by Ankara, and that while Iran had few options but to trade through Turkey during the period of international sanctions, it now — with sanctions being lifted — no longer has to hold back so much in de-fending its interests against Turkish depredation.

Senior levels of the U.S. Defense Dept., albeit impacted by consistent browbeating from the White House, have said repeatedly that there were no vital U.S. interests at stake which would warrant a major U.S. mili-tary intervention inside Syria, but no Defense official would countermand a direct order from the White House to undertake covert or support operations assisting the Turkish position. The White House and An-kara have been seeking triggers which would force the U.S. into a position where it would have to inter-vene directly.

Russia is unlikely to provide that casus belli, largely because of the 1936 Montreux Convention could give Turkey the right to close the Bosphorous transit link between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean to Rus-sian naval shipping in the event of a formal state of war between Turkey and Russia. Moscow has consist-ently refused to rise directly to Turkish military provocations. Rather, it has preferred to respond politically and economically.

Related: Oil Markets Unimpressed By Crude Output Freeze

See: “The Russia-Turkey Stand-Off: Russia and Turkey: Not War in the Offing, But Some-thing Far More Important”, in Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis, December 11, 2015; “Russia Weighs in to Support Kurds (and ‘Alawites), But Kurds Remain Wary”, in De-fense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis, October 9, 2015; and “Break-up: The Medium-Term Prospect for Turkey, Saudi Arabia”, in Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis, Oc-tober 8, 2015.


$80 Oil By June – Do NOT Be Fooled By The Mainstream Media

The current market turmoil has created a once in a generation opportunity for savvy energy investors.
Whilst the mainstream media prints scare stories of oil prices falling through the floor smart investors are setting up their next winning oil plays.

Click here for more info on successful oil investing


It has been obvious for some time to Russian, Kurdish, Iranian, and Syrian officials that Turkey would have to lash out to defend its position.

As a result, all of those states in confrontation with Turkey have had time to begin bolstering their defens-es in the area which Turkey intends to invade in Syria.

Moreover, the reality is that Turkey now places itself in the position, de facto, of declaring war on Syria. This has a significant new element and catalyst:

Turkey and its allies have been operating through a range of proxies, including ISIS, the al-Nusra Front, and so on to wage war on Syria. Thus, at least, Syrian forces would, in facing a conventional Turkish military invasion, legitimately be able to respond militarily, if they could gain the territorial foothold to do so. Thus the determination by Damascus and Moscow to regain as much territory in and around Aleppo as quickly as possible. This raises the question, however, of whether Turkey would use this as a pretext to attempt to engage NATO forces, or at least the forces of the US.

NATO as a whole has been resisting Turkish overtures to join the conflict, or to allow Turkey to cite “Article Five” of the North Atlantic Treaty, stating that an attack on a NATO member is an attack on all of the alli-ance.

But the Obama Administration, with less than a year to run on its term, is also throwing caution to the winds, and is empowered in this by the diversion of U.S. political attention on the November 2016 Presi-dential elections. President Obama hopes to move the U.S. into an irrevocable military action in Syria be-fore the Washington political establishment can warn him off it. And he might succeed. But to what end? This has become an ideological commitment for the White House. The engagement by U.S. President Wil-liam Clinton in fabricating a casus belli for intervention in Serbia in the 1990s provides a precedent, and there has for some time been a strong psychological campaign underway to sway Western public/political opinion on the necessity for armed intervention in Syria.

What, then, are the options open to the governments and forces seeking to oppose the Turkish military intervention, knowing that, at the very least, Turkish forces would be able — with their strong combined arms operations and advanced systems, supported by U.S. and Turkish command and control operations — to make swift and significant gains inside Syrian territory?

There are several factors. Firstly, Turkish forces should be expected to attempt more than one cross-border operation, in an attempt to divide Kurdish forces. Secondly, Kurdish forces themselves should be expected to respond with their own “diversionary” attacks behind Turkish lines, well inside Turkey, alt-hough Turkey has ample forces to deal with that in the initial stages.

Related: UAE Offers India Free Oil To Ease Storage Woes

It must be assumed that the Kurdish forces would have already been reinforced with significant anti-tank capabilities. As the Turkish Army discovered when it moved into Iraqi Kurdistan on several occasions, it cannot expect to emerge unscathed from the operation. Moreover, Russian and Syrian forces will have utilized the available time to determine how best, for example, to cut or minimize Turkish abilities to re-supply its forces inside and around Aleppo, and Ankara may have to accept that to gain its cordon sanitaire it may also lose Aleppo back to the Syrian Government.

Moreover, while the cordon sanitaire may push Kurdish forces back from the Turkish border, this does not necessarily guarantee that Turkey can maintain its logistical lines with ISIS. The Russian destruction of the ISIS oil trade routes to Turkey may continue to erode the economic viability of the Islamic Caliphate, and cut into the revenues being earned from that trade by the Erdo?an family.

Whatever happens, the Russian economic sanctions against Turkey, coupled with the prospective loss of Iranian trade, the ongoing decline in energy transit revenues, and the now-determined and organized Kurd-ish bid for a new state to be carved out of Turkey mean that Ankara is grasping at straws to reverse its for-tunes. Little wonder that Washington has been increasing its pressures on Israel to restore relations with Turkey to supply gas from Israeli Mediterranean fields in the future, to compensate for the losses from Russian-controlled sources.

It is even possible that the U.S. may even seek a viable solution to the Turkish military occupation of the northern 37 percent of Cyprus since 1974 (unlike the Turkish-biased 2004 Annan Plan), in order to get Cy-prus — a strategic partner with Israel, Greece, and Egypt on the gas fields — to go along with the U.S. plan to get Mediterranean gas to Turkey to save it from the Russian sanctions.

By Gregory Copley via Defense and Foreign Affairs Special Analysis
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/02/24/sanctions-against-north-korea-a-hammer-with-no-nails/

Sanctions against North Korea: a hammer with no nails
24 February 2016

Author: Joseph M. DeThomas, Pennsylvania State University

North Korea’s recent nuclear and long-range rocket tests appear to have created a policy tipping point. Opinion in the United States, South Korea and Japan has shifted away from a policy of ‘strategic patience’ towards one that employs additional sanctions to compel North Korea to reverse its nuclear weapons and missile programs. But we shouldn’t expect too much in terms of concrete results.

In the United States, Congress passed almost unanimously (with 96–0 in the Senate and 418–2 in the House of Representatives) a bill mandating new economic and financial sanctions on North Korea as well as on third-country entities that support Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programs. US Secretary of State John Kerry initiated a high profile campaign to convince China to support muscular sanctions against the North Korea in a UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR).

Japan has tightened its policies, banning DPRK ships from its ports and further constraining remittances to North Korea. And South Korea has closed the Kaesong Industrial Complex, the last high profile symbol of the Sunshine Policy era. Despite Chinese complaints and foot-dragging, it appears that the UNSC will pass its first new sanctions resolution against North Korea in several years.

There are, of course, good reasons to impose additional costs on Pyongyang for its nuclear and missile programs. Its recent tests are in direct violation of existing UNSCRs and such violations of international law cannot be treated with impunity. It is important for other proliferators to see that the costs for violating key non-proliferation agreements are high. And sanctions should be used to prevent Pyongyang from obtaining outside technology or material for its nuclear weapons.

Inaction appears more dangerous than it did before. Experts now believe that North Korea is within reach of a viable nuclear arsenal. A recent study by the US–Korea Institute predicts that by 2020 the DPRK’s nuclear arsenal will grow from its current 10 warheads to somewhere between 20 and 100 warheads. A small number of those warheads mounted on delivery vehicles would be capable of reaching distant targets, including the United States mainland. This will create strategic strains on US allies in Asia.

While something needs to be done, acceptable actions are hard to come by in Washington. Negotiations with Pyongyang are anathema to the right and politically damaging to the sitting administration, which would face attacks for ‘appeasing’ North Korea during a presidential election year. South Korean President Park’s recent speech to the ROK Congress forcefully closed the door on dialogue on that front as well. Military measures to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear program look both infeasible and risky to all parties. Sanctions alone enjoy bipartisan support in Washington.

But is it realistic to expect sanctions to compel North Korea to give up its nuclear and missile programs, or are we in a position equivalent to a carpenter with a hammer but no nails? If so sanctions would be able to make a lot of noise and do a bit of damage, but produce no useful outcome.

There are a number of factors that make it very difficult to rely primarily on sanctions in the North Korean case. The Kim regime can shift the pain of broad-based sanctions away from the elite; already vulnerable ordinary North Koreans are most hurt. And, unlike Iran, North Korea already has a nuclear arsenal and a nuclear strategy. Sanctions at this stage cannot prevent a nuclear North Korea.

China is the only country with real sanctions leverage on the North Korea as 75 per cent of all its foreign trade is with China. But China is hesitant to use this leverage. Even if China did agree to use its leverage, the response of the Kim regime (or its collapse) could precipitate a severe international crisis. Coercing China to pressure North Korea through US unilateral sanctions poses serious risks to the global economy and stability in Asia.

Until Beijing can be persuaded to use its leverage against Pyongyang, it seems very unlikely that sanctions can be sufficiently strong to force the Kim regime to halt its build-up of nuclear weapons. It may be necessary to respond to North Korea’s tests with sanctions, but we should not expect a fundamental change of course in Pyongyang. Instead the current round of sanctions, and the new allied military deployments in the region, should be used as a basis for the broader international community to persuade China to use its leverage with North Korea in the future. That future might appear after the US elections, when a new administration might be willing to revive negotiations.

Ambassador Joseph DeThomas is a Professor of International Affairs at the Pennsylvania State University. He previously served as US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Non-Proliferation from 1999–2001 and as an advisor for sanctions in the US Department of State from 2010–2013.

RELATED POSTS

Shifting emphasis: Beijing’s reactions to North Korea nuclear testShifting emphasis: Beijing’s reactions to North Korea… by Jia Qingguo

What to do about North KoreaWhat to do about North Korea by Peter Drysdale

Russia shows little concern over North Korean nukes (for now)Russia shows little concern over North Korean nukes (for… by Artyom Lukin

Why the Iran deal could work for North KoreaWhy the Iran deal could work for North Korea by Chung-in Moon
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/02/23/japans-vision-for-the-east-asian-security-order/


Japan’s vision for the East Asian security order
23 February 2016

Author: Ryo Sahashi, Kanagawa University

The regional order in East Asia is in flux. The relative decline of US power in Asia has led to new challenges. The principles, rules, norms and methods for managing the international agenda are being questioned. The willingness of the United States to maintain an active role in East Asia, alongside the behaviour of China and key groupings such as ASEAN will define the future of the region. How these key actors respond to the changing security environment will be crucial in determining the future of the security order in East Asia.

So, what does this mean for Japan?

Japan today seems to be the strongest supporter in the region for maintaining a US-led order in both the security and economic realms. After the short tenure of former prime minister Yukio Hatoyama, who served from September 2009 to June 2010, Japan lost its desire to be an architect of the regional order. Instead, Japan has focused on integrating its Asian policy with its bilateral relationship with the United States.

Japan has not always relied on US primacy in Asia. In the past Japan has emphasised the role of regional groups, including the ASEAN+3 and ASEAN+6 mechanisms. Japan also actively pursued its own bilateral diplomacy with Southeast Asian nations as part of the Fukuda doctrine, first established in 1977, which focused on building peaceful and cooperative relations with ASEAN members.

But during the last decade, Japanese foreign policymakers have increasingly viewed Japan’s relations with Southeast Asia through the prism of the US alliance. Regardless of the ruling party, Japanese foreign policy has clearly aimed to strengthen US leadership in the region.

To bolster the US alliance framework, Japan enhanced its security cooperation with most of the ASEAN countries, upgrading the substance of bilateral relations with ASEAN countries to include more robust defence exchange. Japan’s stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations — which it has prioritised above other economic partnerships in the region — also signifies its strong commitment to ensuring continued US engagement in the region. Tokyo policymakers have calculated that it is in their strategic interests to enhance the US position in the region. This view is perhaps more entrenched in Japan than in any other country, including Australia and the United States itself.

In April 2015, Japan and the United States published a new joint statement and updated guidelines on US–Japan defence cooperation, which emphasised bilateral and trilateral collaboration in security capacity-building efforts for Southeast Asian nations. Also, the Abe administration succeeded in a substantial deepening of Japan–India security cooperation, particularly in relation to defence and civil nuclear cooperation. This is indicative of how Japan has ‘securitised’ its Asian diplomacy.

Japan’s behaviour is aimed at complementing the so-called American ‘pivot’ or ‘rebalance’ to Asia. But this shift in Japanese foreign policy actually predates the US pivot strategy — the first signals of this new foreign policy orientation started under the first Abe administration in 2006–7.

And tensions still remain between the US and Japanese approaches to security in East Asia. Japan is more assertive than its partners in its desire to guard against increasing Chinese influence and to address maritime challenges by implementing rules-based mechanisms. This stance is rooted in Japan’s perception of China, which has shifted in response to China’s growing political influence and the crises over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.

While some elements of Japan’s traditional Asian diplomacy persist in its bilateral engagement, the increasingly prominent role given to security in Japan’s Asian diplomacy is the defining development of the last decade. The weight given to security concerns in Japan’s foreign policy has led Japanese diplomats to push for a common Japan–ASEAN stance on maritime disputes with China.

The expected role of ASEAN in Japan’s foreign policy vision is largely unchanged. Japan wants to encourage a strong ASEAN and promote the ASEAN community building process. In this sense, the legacy of the Fukuda doctrine continues. Even outside government circles, many Japanese specialists value the role of ASEAN in the regional architecture. Comparatively, Chinese policymakers and academics are, at times, more vocal in expressing their doubts over the importance and normative power of ASEAN.

As long as the majority of ASEAN members resist external pressure from any third party, promoting ASEAN will benefit Japan. This is because ASEAN can allow Japan to promote regionalism, while concurrently pursuing economic and security mechanisms that include the United States.

Japanese behaviour suggests that, in its own strategic re-calculation, maintaining American influence is the key to preserving the regional order. Tokyo recognises that Japanese power alone is insufficient to shape the regional order. It is therefore crucial for Japan to build coalitions with regional partners that have similar political objectives, such as Australia.

Japanese diplomacy towards East Asia has experienced a fundamental transformation. As part of this transformation, the strategic vision that underpins the US–Japan alliance has been stretched to underpin Japan’s diplomacy for the entire East Asian region. This extension of the logic of the US–Japan alliance undermines the ability of Japan to pursue a truly inclusive regional order. It is high time that Japanese foreign policy embraced the advantages of inclusive multilateralism.

Ryo Sahashi is an associate professor of International Politics, Kanagawa University and a research fellow at the Japan Center for International Exchange.

RELATED POSTS

Why a strong Japan–Australia relationship mattersWhy a strong Japan–Australia relationship matters by Tomohiko Satake

Will Abe champion democracy and human rights in Asia?Will Abe champion democracy and human rights in Asia? by Andre Asplund

Japan aid to the Philippines a warning to ChinaJapan aid to the Philippines a warning to China by Yoichiro Sato

Middle-power multilateralism bringing China into the foldMiddle-power multilateralism bringing China into the fold by Yoshihide Soeya
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/23/jed-babbin-irans-8-billion-shopping-spree-in-the-w/

Iran’s $8 billion shopping spree in the weapons market

Russia is eager to arm the ayatollahs

By Jed Babbin - - Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Comments 5

Implementing President Obama’s nuclear weapons deal with Iran has provided about $150 billion for the ayatollahs’ coffers since international sanctions were lifted. By January, even Secretary of State John Kerry had to concede that some of the money would be used to sponsor terrorists.

That shouldn’t have come as a shock even to Mr. Kerry. Iran is the world’s principal state sponsor of terrorism. It also shouldn’t have shocked him that Iran is spending at least $8 billion on arms purchases designed to prevent any nation from successfully attacking its nuclear weapons facilities as well as to strengthen its conventional forces.

About two weeks ago, Gen. Hossein Dehqan, Iran’s defense minister, met with Russian President Vladimir Putin to arrange delivery of Russian S-300 missiles Iran purchased previously. Gen. Dehqan also sought to buy new Su-30 “Flanker” fighter jets and T-90 tanks, Russia’s most advanced tanks. (Mr. Putin had no qualms about dealing with Gen. Dehqan, believed to have been the architect of the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon that killed 220 Marines and 21 other servicemen.)

There’s no reason for Mr. Putin to deny these purchases, especially now that Iran has so much money to spend and because Iran has been a key Russian ally for decades. (There’s a U.N. Security Council resolution that supposedly bars Iran from purchasing weapons, such as military aircraft without U.N. approval. Good luck enforcing that.)

Russia has been building Iran’s nuclear power plants for about two decades. Concomitantly, Mr. Putin has been working to reduce Western sanctions on Iran and lessen pressures on its nuclear weapons program for at least a decade.

In my book, “In the Words of Our Enemies,” I quote a long passage from an interview Mr. Putin gave to al Jazeera in February 2007. He said, “We know the position of our Iranian partners . All of our action seeks to settle the confrontation over the Iranian nuclear issue. We think that would not take much. Iran must address the concerns of [the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency] but we do not think that this need in any way infringe on Iran’s plans and right to develop peaceful nuclear technology.”

Russia’s “partnership” with Iran continues in their allied military intervention in Syria to preserve the Bashar Assad regime (which our State Department has labeled a state sponsor of terrorism since 1979.)

Gen. Dehqan’s meeting with Mr. Putin is part of a process by which Russia is strengthening Iran both strategically and tactically.

The S-300 anti-aircraft and anti-missile system, once deployed, will safeguard Iran’s nuclear sites against an attack by any aircraft except stealth aircraft such as our B-2. Israel has no such aircraft, and other Israeli weapons, such as their cruise missiles, lack the punch to do anything that would seriously damage Iran’s nuclear sites. Only nuclear weapons would be effective against those targets.

Tactically, the Su-30s would restore credibility to Iran’s air force, which is still flying Vietnam-era F-4s and a smattering of other aircraft. Those aircraft, whether or not coupled with the advanced Russian tanks, could be very effective in Syria.

The West has known for several years that Iran was buying the S-300 missile systems and has done nothing to stop it. The Su-30s and T-90 tanks are things Iran can use effectively in local wars. But there’s a much bigger question than the fighters and tanks: What is Iran buying from Russia that we don’t know about?

Our military’s technological advantages are built around a variety of satellites. They are used for secure communications, navigation and other purposes, including tracking nations’ forces and terrorists’ movements. Our intelligence community relies on them for all sorts of espionage. While our constellations of satellites are a huge advantage for us, they are also highly vulnerable.

That’s why so many nations, including Russia, China and Iran, are trying to penetrate our satellites’ defenses against cyber-attacks to disable them or skew their programming. Several nations, again including Russia and China, are also testing kinetic-kill anti-satellite weapons, which destroy satellites by colliding with them or exploding near them.

In February of last year, Iran launched its fourth satellite into orbit, purportedly a GPS communications bird. On Oct. 10, it launched a nuclear-capable ballistic missile in violation of U.N. resolutions. There are no limitations on Iran’s continued development of nuclear-capable ICBMs in the deal President Obama made.

In November, Russia successfully tested its “Nudol” kinetic-kill anti-satellite missile. (China also tested one a month earlier). Which brings us back to the most important question: What else is Russia selling Iran?

If Russia wished to do so, it could sell Iran the Nudol missile, or the technology behind it. It could be helping Iran develop its cyberwar capabilities with our satellites in mind. And that’s only a couple of the many weapon systems and technologies that Russia could, and likely will, sell to Iran in secret.

Neither Mr. Putin’s Russia nor the ayatollahs’ Iran will be dissuaded from secret arms deals by any U.N. resolution. Mr. Obama must know this, yet he has remained silent at the news of Gen. Dehqan’s visit and the deals Iran has made with Russia. Other Western heads of state are equally silent.

Mr. Obama’s silence is unsurprising because his terribly dangerous nuclear weapons deal will be a key part of his legacy and define his place in history. Some Republican candidates pledge to revoke that deal if they are elected. That pledge is existentially important. A candidate who added strong criticism of the Russian arms sales to that pledge would be exhibiting the characteristic of leadership that now is only claimed.

• Jed Babbin served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration. He is a senior fellow of the London Center for Policy Research and the author of five books including “In the Words of Our Enemies.”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://csis.org/publication/pacnet-11a-australias-submarine-decision-matter-grand-strategy

PacNet #11A - Australia’s submarine decision: a matter of grand strategy

By Sam Bateman
Feb 23, 2016

Australia’s future submarine program is the largest and most complex defense procurement in the nation’s history. The decision as to which submarine to choose has become one of grand strategy with far-reaching economic, political, and strategic consequences. While technical issues to establish the “best” submarine remain important, strategic, political and economic factors are also key determinants of the decision. It could have significant impact on Australia’s regional relations and the ability of Australia to act independently within the region.

The three contenders in the current evaluation process are: France’s state-controlled naval contractor DCNS offering a conventional-powered version of the nuclear-powered Barracuda-class submarine; ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) of Germany with a Type 216 Class submarine, an up-sized version of the popular Type 214 submarine; and the government of Japan with a proposal based on the existing Soryu class. None of these options is ideal for Australia’s requirements.

Bitter contest between Japan, Germany, and France

The Australian government has frequently used A$50 billion as the projected cost of the future submarine project, but this includes sustainment cost through the 30-year life of the fleet. These usually equate to about two-thirds of the cost of construction. Recent reports suggest that competition among the bidders has led to the acquisition cost being at least A$5 billion less than expected. The winning bidder should be announced by mid-2016.

The contest between Japan, Germany, and France has become increasingly bitter with sniping between the rivals. Canberra is under huge lobbying pressure from the parties concerned. Japan has been accused of putting out false media reports that the Germans had been ruled out due to concerns about their ability to build larger submarines. These reports were subsequently denied by the Australian government and the Australian representatives of TKMS.

The Japanese ambassador to Australia recently entered the argument by publicly claiming that the technical risks of the European options were higher than those of the Japanese one. The Japanese claim it is difficult to convert a nuclear submarine to conventional power as the French are planning to do, or double the size of a smaller submarine as the Germans are proposing. On the other hand, the Europeans are quick to point out that the Japanese have no experience in building submarines overseas in conjunction with foreign builders.

Economic factors

An Australian government could not afford to choose any proposal that did not offer significant economic benefits for Australia. Each bidder has been asked to provide three estimates: one for construction overseas, one for partial assembly in Australia, and one for full build in an Australian shipyard. After some hesitancy by the Japanese interests, all three bidders now say they will undertake most construction work in Australia. So far the European firms have been more successful than the Japanese in promoting the economic benefits of their proposals.

However, Japan has boosted its credibility in this regard through negotiations with the British companies, Babcock and BAE Systems, which are well established in Australia. Babcock does maintenance work on Australia’s Collins-class submarines, including torpedo tubes and other parts of the weapons system, while BAE Systems, which builds the UK’s nuclear submarines, employs 4,500 people in Australia, including on current naval shipbuilding projects.

Political factors

Political factors are central to the submarine decision – both domestically and internationally. Domestically, the decision is the subject of much political interest due to the perceived economic and employment benefits of the project, particularly for South Australia, the state most likely to build the submarines. The South Australian economy is stagnating and support for the coalition government in Canberra has dropped with several coalition members of Parliament under threat of losing their seats.

Internationally, selection of the Japanese option would not be well received in China. It would be seen in Beijing as Australian participation in the US-Japan effort to contain China. There is no doubting China’s importance to Australia. China is by far Australia’s biggest trading partner accounting for about 26 percent of total foreign trade in 2014-5 as compared with Japan’s 12 percent. Australia’s trade with China has also continued to grow strongly over recent years while trade with Japan has stagnated with relatively little growth.

Strategic factors

Grand strategy really comes into play with the strategic implications of the submarine decision. Effectively the decision is a choice between Australia locking itself into an alliance with Japan for the next four decades or having some strategic independence within the region.

International submarine experts point out that a country operating a small fleet of submarines (12 boats or less) becomes locked into technical and logistic support from the country of origin of the submarines. A decision in favor of Japan would also be a solid affirmation of defense cooperation between Australia, Japan, and the US. This cooperation is actively promoted by both Tokyo and Washington as part of balancing a rising China.

The US is also a powerful player in the decision because the US systems preferred for the new submarines may be releasable to Japan but may not be available with the European options. European builders build for the global submarine market and the Americans could assess that selection of a European option could involve unacceptable risk of leakage of highly classified data. This could ultimately prove the deciding factor.

Although the European options would provide longer-term strategic flexibility, it seems likely that the final decision will go the way of the Japanese. This will mean Australia’s submarines, as the most powerful component of its naval forces, will be difficult to sustain if Australia is not acting in concert with Japan. It is a matter of grand strategy to determine whether that is acceptable.

Sam Bateman is an adviser to the Maritime Security Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He is a former Australian naval commodore who has worked in force development areas of the Department of Defence in Canberra. This originally appeared as RSIS Commentary 38/2016 on Feb. 19, 2016.

PacNet commentaries and responses represent the views of the respective authors. Alternative viewpoints are always welcomed and encouraged.

Programs
Pacific Forum CSIS, PacNet Newsletter

Topics
Defense and Security, Geopolitics and International Security, Defense Strategy and Capabilities

Regions
Asia, Australia, NZ & Pacific, China, Japan

application/pdf icon
Download PDF File of "PacNet #11A - Australia’s submarine decision: a matter of grand strategy".
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-russia-arms-idUSKCN0VX1BJ

World | Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:42am EST
Related: World, Russia, Afghanistan

Russia gives a gift of 10,000 automatic rifles to Afghanistan

KABUL

Afghan officials took delivery of 10,000 automatic rifles and millions of rounds of ammunition as a gift from Russia on Wednesday, another sign of deepening involvement by Moscow in the war-torn country.

Dependent almost entirely on foreign aid, Afghan security forces are struggling to secure the country amid a rising insurgency.

As the NATO-led coalition's military presence dwindled last year, Afghan leaders reached out to Moscow, which fought a war of its own in Afghanistan during the 1980s, for more Russian-made weapons, including small arms, artillery and attack helicopters.

"This donation represents a deep friendship between two nations," Afghan national security adviser Hanif Atmar said at an event marking delivery of the arms shipment. "This important donation is from an important friend of Afghanistan in a crucial time for Afghanistan and the region."


Related Coverage
› Russia urges Taliban to hold direct talks with Afghan govt: Ifx

The guns and ammunition were provided under an existing security agreement between the two countries, he added.

Russia's ambassador, Alexander Mantytskiy, told the gathered military and security officers that his country is willing to work with Afghanistan to combat problems like terrorism and drugs.

Wednesday's delivery comes as Russian officials say they have become impatient with the failures of Washington's policies in Afghanistan.

While never a member of the coalition, Russia cooperated with the United States for years by allowing military supplies to travel through its territory, and in other areas such as counter-narcotics and weapons supplies.

That cooperation has disappeared amid political rifts over the wars in Ukraine and Syria. Top Russian officials, openly critical of the lingering American presence, have said they are seeking deeper ties to the Kabul government, as well the Taliban.


(Reporting by Mirwais Harooni and Josh Smith; Editing by Richard Borsuk)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-france-idUSKCN0VX1C3

World | Wed Feb 24, 2016 7:17am EST
Related: World, Libya

French special forces waging 'secret war' in Libya: report

PARIS

French special forces and intelligence commandos are engaged in covert operations against Islamic State militants in Libya in conjunction with the United States and Britain, the French newspaper Le Monde reported on Wednesday.

It said President Francois Hollande had authorized "unofficial military action" by both an elite armed forces unit and the covert action service of the DGSE intelligence agency in the conflict-ridden North African state, which has two rival governments and largely ungoverned desert spaces.

What Le Monde called "France's secret war in Libya" involved occasional targeted strikes against leaders of the ultra-radical Islamist group, prepared by discreet action on the ground, to try to slow its growth in Libya.

The defense ministry declined comment on the substance of Le Monde's story but a source close to Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said he had ordered an investigation into "breaches of national defense secrecy" to identify the sources of the report.

Hollande said that France was at war with Islamic State after it claimed responsibility for a wave of attacks on bars, restaurants, a concert hall and the national soccer stadium in Paris on Nov. 13 last year, killing 130 people.

The ministry has previously confirmed that French aircraft recently conducted reconnaissance flights over Libya, where France took a leading role in a 2011 NATO air campaign that helped rebels overthrow Muammar Gaddafi's autocratic rule.

It has also confirmed that France has set up an advance military base in northern Niger on the border with Libya.

U.S. warplanes struck an Islamic State training camp in Libya last Friday in attacks that killed nearly 50 people including two Serbian embassy employees abducted last November, according to Serbia's prime minister.

U.S. officials said the site in Sabratha, western Libya, was used by up to 60 militants, including Tunisian Noureddine Chouchane, blamed for two attacks on tourists in Tunisia last year in which dozens were killed.

Le Monde said French intelligence had initiated a previous strike last November that killed an Iraqi known by the nom de guerre Abu Nabil who was the senior Islamic State leader in Libya at the time.

Le Monde said specialist bloggers had reported sightings of French special forces in eastern Libya since mid-February.

It quoted a senior French defense official as saying: "The last thing to do would be to intervene in Libya. We must avoid any overt military engagement, but act discreetly."


(Writing by Paul Taylor; Editing by Mark Heinrich)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.yahoo.com/korea-dismisses-china-warning-us-missile-system-062213839.html

S. Korea dismisses China warning on US missile system

AFP
8 hours ago

Seoul (AFP) - South Korea Wednesday dismissed China's warning that the planned deployment of a US missile defence system could damage ties, stressing that it was to counter "growing threats" from North Korea.

"The deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defence system (THAAD) is a measure of self-defence against growing nuclear and missile threats from North Korea," presidential spokesman Jeong Yeon-Guk said.

Jeong said the issue would be "decided in accordance with security and national interests," adding that "China will have to recognise the point."

The remarks came after Chinese ambassador Qiu Guohong warned Tuesday that installation of the THAAD system on the Korean Peninsula could "destroy" relations between Beijing and Seoul.

Qiu, in a meeting with Kim Jong-In, the leader of opposition Minju party, also warned that it would be "hard" to mend the ties once damaged, the party spokesman said Tuesday.

China has repeatedly protested since Washington and Seoul announced plans to deploy the missile defence in the South, in response to North Korea's recent nuclear test and rocket launch.

But Tuesday was the first time that a Chinese diplomat or official has warned of the effect on diplomatic ties with Seoul.

South Korea's foreign ministry summoned Qiu to make him clarify the comment, Yonhap news agency said, citing a ministry official.

"Qiu sincerely clarified the circumstances around the meeting (with Kim)...and what he actually said then," the official quoted by Yonhap said without elaborating further.

The THAAD system fires anti-ballistic missiles to smash into enemy missiles either inside or outside the Earth's atmosphere during their final flight phase.

The interceptor missiles carry no warheads, instead relying on kinetic energy to destroy their targets.

The allies announced their intention to begin talks on its deployment following Pyongyang's long-range rocket launch on February 7, which was seen by the US and its allies as a covert ballistic missile test.

South Korea's defence ministry said it expects official talks on THAAD to begin next week.

View Comments (292)


Related Stories

1. South Korea, US could begin missile shield talks next week: Seoul AFP
2. S. Korea, US to discuss deployment of US missile system AFP
3. US missile shield spotlights divisions on handling North Korea AFP
4. Four times as many US troops to join Korean drills: Seoul AFP
5. US hopes to send anti-missile system to SKorea 'as quickly as possible' AFP
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.yahoo.com/briefly-takes-center-strategic-libyan-city-053924119.html

Libya officials: French special forces on ground fighting IS

Associated Press
By RAMI MUSA
37 minutes ago

BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) — French special forces have been helping Libyan troops fight Islamic State militants in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi for two months, two Libyan military officials said Wednesday.

The French combat squad, consisting of 15 special forces, carried out four military operations against IS and other militant groups in Benghazi, the officials told The Associated Press. They said that French forces work with Libyan troops to pinpoint IS militant locations, plan operations and carry them out. They had also been training Libyan forces, they added.

According to the officials, the French forces were setting up an operations room in Banina air base in Benghazi alongside British and U.S. teams. They said that in addition to the special forces, a French intelligence unit is working with Britain and the U.S. units to collect information on the location of IS militants and their numbers.

Similar teams are also operating out of an air base in the city of Misrata, located to the east of the IS stronghold of Sirte, the officials said.

The Libyan officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press.

The French defense ministry declined to comment, citing a policy against commenting on special forces' activities.

The Libyan officials said the presence of Western forces was not welcomed by ultraconservative Salafist factions, who are allied with Libya's eastern army and perceive the foreign intervention as an "occupation."

Washington is counting on the UK, France and Italy to join the international coalition against IS extremists gaining ground in Libya. Last week, the U.S. carried out airstrikes against the extremist group's position in the western city of Sabratha, killing dozens of fighters as well as two Serbian hostages.

Libya's chaos, five years after the uprising that led to the ouster and killing of longtime autocrat Moammar Gadhafi in 2011, has allowed IS to take control of several cities. The divided country is ruled by two parliaments: an internationally recognized body based in the eastern city of Tobruk and a rival government, backed by Islamist-allied militias, that controls the capital, Tripoli.

The United Nations brokered a deal last year to unite the country's various factions. A new unity government is awaiting endorsement by the eastern parliament. The unity government could pave the way international military intervention against the Islamic State group.

Also on Wednesday, Islamic State affiliates in Libya briefly took over the security headquarters of the western city of Sabratha, beheading 12 security officers before being driven out early in the morning, two city security officials said. The incident highlighted the enduring presence and unpredictable striking power of the local IS militants in the city, which serves as a hub for migrants heading to Europe.

Taher al-Gharabili, head of Sabratha Military Council, told The Associated Press that the gunmen "exploited a security vacuum" by deploying in the city center as the military was occupied conducting raids elsewhere.

A second security official said that the militants used the headless bodies of the officers they killed to block the roads leading to the security headquarters — which they occupied for about three hours. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press, said the total number of officers killed in the occupation and ensuing clashes reached 19.

Sabratha has become the latest Libyan power center for the local IS affiliate.

On Monday, Italy said it has agreed to allow American drones to be armed and take off from an air base in Sicily, but only to defend U.S. forces while they target Islamic State group extremists in Libya.

An Italian defense ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity as the government hasn't announced the deal, said Rome and Washington reached agreement last month. Permission will have to be asked of the Italian government every time, and decided on a case-by-case basis, for the drones to take off from Sigonella air base to protect military personnel deemed at risk during anti-IS operations in Libya and elsewhere in northern Africa. Permission won't be granted for offensive missions under the arrangement.

So far the U.S. drones based in Sigonella have neither been armed nor requested to be used, the official said.

View Comments (15)

Related Stories

1. French special forces waging "secret war" in Libya: report Reuters
2. Pentagon says US bombed IS training camp in Libya Associated Press
3. Libyan troops claim major gains in war-torn Benghazi Associated Press
4. Islamic State militants forced out of Libya's Sabratha after clashes: officials Reuters
5. [$$] U.S. Airstrikes Target Islamic State in Libya The Wall Street Journal
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.yahoo.com/signs-grow-western-urgency-stop-islamic-state-libya-170126146.html

Signs grow of new Western urgency to stop Islamic State in Libya

Reuters
By Aidan Lewis
2 hours ago

WADI BEY, Libya (Reuters) - An hour's drive from the Libyan city of Sirte, a few dozen troops man outposts along a desert road. They are hoping the West will soon be giving them more help to fight a common enemy: Islamic State.

Armed with little more than gun-mounted pick-up trucks, they are a last line of defense against the Sunni Islamist group which controls swathes of Syria and Iraq and which has now taken advantage of chaos in the north African state to seize territory there. Sirte is its stronghold.

"They're getting stronger because no one is fighting them," said Misrata forces commander Mahmoud Gazwan at the Wadi Bey checkpoint, a dusty outpost serving as a mobile base for his brigade of fighters.

There are signs of a growing Western urgency to stop Islamic State (ISIS), and Libyan commanders say Western weapons and air strikes will make a vital difference in the coming battle against their better-armed enemy.

But Western officials say just as important is the need for a united Libya government to request more aid and for the Libyan forces ranged against IS to bridge their own deep divisions.

Five years after Muammar Gaddafi's overthrow and death, Libya is caught in a slow-burn civil war between two rival governments, one in Tripoli and one in the east. Each is backed by competing alliances of former rebel brigades whose loyalties are often more to tribe, region or local commander.

Forces from the port city of Misrata - one of the most powerful military factions - have been on the front line of the battle against Islamic State since it took over Sirte a year ago and drew more foreign fighters to its ranks there.

Islamic State militants are also fighting in Benghazi to the east, shelling the oil ports of Ras Lanuf and Es Sider. On Tuesday they attacked further west in Sabratha city.

U.S. special forces have been holding meetings with potential Libyan allies. U.S. and French drones and British RAF jets are flying reconnaissance missions in preparation for action to help the local forces fighting Islamic State.

An air raid by U.S. special forces on Sabratha killed more than 40 Islamic State fighters last week, but there are no international plans to send combat ground troops into Libya.

Western governments are wary of large-scale military intervention but fear inaction may allow Islamic State to take deeper root.

A U.S. government source said the Obama Administration was pursuing a two-track policy. One is to try to knit competing factions into an effective government. The other track involves air strikes.

"When you see an ISIL training camp and we see them doing push-ups and calisthenics every day, they're not there to lose weight," Brett McGurk, the U.S. envoy to the international coalition fighting Islamic State, also known as ISIL or Daesh, told White House reporters.

"They're there to train for something, and we're not going to let them do that."

CONVERGENCE OF FORCES?

U.S. and European officials say infighting between the rival administrations is blocking U.N. efforts to cajole them into a national government capable of rebuilding Libya's army.

Tripoli is held by a faction of Islamist-leaning brigades and Misrata fighters who took over the city in 2014 and drove out rivals. Misrata now backs the U.N. deal while some of the Tripoli political leadership is against it.

Libya's eastern government is backed by an alliance including the Libyan National Army led by former Gaddafi ally-turned rebel Gen. Khalifa Haftar, and a brigade controlling oil ports. Its ranks are split, including federalists looking for more autonomy for their eastern region.

The United Nations-backed presidential council is waiting for approval of its new government from the elected House of Representatives in the east.

Frustration is growing in Western capitals after repeated failures of the House to vote or reach a quorum to hold a ballot on the new government.

"We have always made clear the intention of providing assistance in fighting Daesh. We need to take action where we can, that requires forces on the ground that we can help and train," said one Western diplomat.

"Patience is very short with the House of Representatives."

Italy said on Monday it would let U.S. armed drones take off from its soil to defend U.S.-led forces against Islamic State.

French special forces and intelligence commandos are engaged in covert operations against IS in Libya in conjunction with the United States and Britain, the French newspaper Le Monde reported on Wednesday. The French defense ministry declined to comment.

During the recent fighting in Sabratha, there were signs of cooperation among forces from Zintan and Sabratha brigades who back opposing sides in the wider national conflict.

Mattia Toaldo, a Libya expert with the European Council on Foreign Relations, sees a convergence of forces who may agree on little but can work together against IS.

Misratan forces backed the new U.N.-supported government and could potentially work with rivals from Haftar's Libyan National Army and the oil guards, who are both aligned with the eastern government, Toaldo said.

"We are confident here we can win," says Mohamed al-Oreifi, one of the outpost commanders near the Sirte front line. "But we need support and new weapons."

(Additional reporting by Steve Scherer in Rome and Mark Hosenball and Roberta Rampton in Washington; writing by Patrick Markey; editing by Andrew Roche)

View Comments (21)
 

Housecarl

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

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-election-khamenei-idUSKCN0VX0RC

World | Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:58pm EST
Related: World, Davos

Ahead of election, Iran's leader warns of Western 'plot'

TEHRAN | By Samia Nakhoul


Iran's top leader warned voters on Wednesday the West was plotting to influence elections pitting centrists close to President Hassan Rouhani against conservative hardliners in a contest that could shape the Islamic Republic for years to come.

In remarks reflecting an abiding mistrust of Rouhani's rapprochement with the West, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said he was confident Iranians would vote in favor of keeping Iran's anti-Western stance on Friday in the first elections since last year's nuclear accord with world powers.

Rouhani's allies, who hope the deal will hasten Iran's opening up to the world after years of sanctions, have come under increasing pressure in the election campaign from hardliners who accuse them of links to Western powers including the United States and Britain.

Those accusations seek to tap into Iranians' wariness of Western motives and memories of a 1953 coup against nationalist prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh that was orchestrated by the United States and Britain and strengthened the Shah's rule.

Rouhani on Wednesday denied accusations from hardliners that the candidates close to him were affiliated with Western powers, calling it an insult to the intelligence of Iranians.

In remarks on his official website, Khamenei was quoted as saying he was certain the United States had concocted a plot after the nuclear deal to "infiltrate" the Islamic Republic.

"When I talked about a U.S. infiltration plot, it made some people in the country frustrated," said the Shi'ite clerical leader, who has final say on all major state policy in Iran.


"INFILTRATION"

"They complain (about) why we talk about infiltration all the time ... But this is a real plot. Sometimes even the infiltrators don't know they are a part of it," he said.

"One of the enemy's ruses is to portray a false dichotomy between a pro-government and anti-government parliament," Khamenei was quoted as saying by state news agency IRNA.

"The nation does not want a pro- or anti-government parliament, but rather a strong and faithful parliament that is aware of its duties and is not intimidated by the United States," he said at a rally in the city of Najafabad.

Supporters of Rouhani, buoyed by Iran's nuclear deal, aim to gain influence in the elections for the 290-seat parliament and the 88-member Assembly of Experts, which will choose the country's next supreme leader.

But potential detente with the West has alarmed hardliners, who have seen a flood of European trade and investment delegations arrive in Tehran to discuss possible deals in the wake of the nuclear agreement.

Since then, hardline security officials have arrested dozens of artists, journalists and businessmen, including Iranians holding joint U.S. or British citizenship, as part of a crackdown on "Western infiltration".

Rouhani had criticized the arrests before, saying some "play with the infiltration word" to pursue their own political goals.

Moves by hardliners to block moderate candidates and portray them as stooges of the West have soured the mood in the final days of campaigning, and Rouhani complained on Wednesday of a public discourse rife with "abuse, accusations and insults".

Addressing political activists, former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of Rouhani's most powerful allies, said Rouhani's election in 2013 "was Iranians’ first step to bring the country back to a path of moderation".

"I hope people take the second step in Friday’s elections," he said.

In an apparent reference to hardliners' accusations that moderates were under Western influence, Rafsanjani said in a statement published on ISNA news agency: "Labeling rivals, in order to turn people’s hopes into despair, has no results."

"The Iranians ... will prove that they are seeking Iran’s political independence and will say no to colonialism, extremism and tyranny."

Rouhani has called for a high turnout, even though half of the candidates, mostly moderates and reformists, were disqualified by a hardline watchdog body, the Guardian Council.

Rouhani's government signed a deal with six powers including the United States last July under which Iran curbed nuclear activities that might have been applied to developing atom bombs, and secured a lifting of economic sanctions in return.

(This version of the story adds a dropped words in paragraph one.)


(Additional reporting by Bozorgmehr Sharafedin and Sam Wilkin; Editing by William Maclean and Louise Ireland)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
That infamous line from the deck of the carrier after the plane crash is coming to mind with all of this ...........

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/southchinasea-usa-idUSL2N16315M

Markets | Wed Feb 24, 2016 10:55am EST
Related: Currencies, Markets, Industrials

U.S. Navy plans more freedom of navigation moves in S.China Sea -admiral

WASHINGTON


Feb 24 The head of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Command told a congressional committee on Wednesday he will carry out more freedom of navigation operations with more complexity in the South China Sea.

Admiral Harry Harris told a House of Representatives Armed Services Committee hearing the United States must continue to operate in the South China Sea with allies, including Japan and South Korea.

The hearing comes after China deployed surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island in the South China Sea's Paracel chain and new radars on Cuarteron Reef in the Spratlys. (Reporting by Idrees Ali; Writing by Clarece Polke; Editing by Eric Walsh)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-colombia-rebels-idUSKCN0VX23N

World | Wed Feb 24, 2016 12:41pm EST
Related: World

Colombian peace talks back on track, say sponsor countries

HAVANA | By Nelson Acosta


The two countries sponsoring Colombian peace talks said negotiations were back on track on Wednesday after they were thrown into disarray last week when rebel negotiators appeared in public escorted by armed and uniformed guerrillas.

"An agreement has been reached to overcome recent difficulties and normalize the conversations between the parties at the table in Havana," said the statement read by representatives of Cuba and Norway, the so-called guarantors of the Colombian talks.

An accord was reached after the foreign ministers of Cuba and Norway intervened with Colombian government and rebel negotiators, the statement said.

The government of Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and leftist rebels of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, have been negotiating a peace deal for more than three years in Havana and have a self-imposed March 23 deadline to reach a comprehensive pact.

Latin America's longest war has killed some 220,000 people and displaced millions of others since 1964. The two sides are attempting to reach a deal that would be placed before Colombian voters for approval, with a U.N. mission supervising rebel disarmament.

Norway provides diplomatic support and Cuba serves as host for the negotiations. The United States, which has poured billions of dollars into Colombia to fight the illicit drugs trade, is also supporting the talks behind the scenes through a special envoy.

Both the government and the rebels had indicated the March 23 deadline will likely be missed.

More discord erupted following last week's display by the rebels, which the Colombian government saw as a provocation.

Three members of the FARC negotiating team had been given permission to travel to northern La Guajira province to explain details of an accord to FARC members, but the government said they violated the terms under which they were allowed to return by participating in public events with armed fighters.

Santos suspended any further visits and asked the International Committee of the Red Cross to help the FARC representatives return to Cuba immediately.


(Reporting by Nelson Acosta; Editing by Daniel Trotta and Jeffrey Benkoe)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Venezuela Starts to phyically crash and burn last night, blog from Feb 24, 2016
Started by Melodi‎, Today 07:51 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ash-and-burn-last-night-blog-from-Feb-24-2016


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...07-11e5-8210-f0bd8de915f6-20160224-story.html

Venezuela's Maduro dooms himself with weak reforms

By Mac Margolis, (c) 2016, Bloomberg View
February 24, 2016, 1:20 PM

With Latin America's most troubled economy heading toward default, there was hope that Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro might discard half-measures and pull his country back from the edge. Instead, last week he announced policy changes that amounted to an optical illusion.

To wit, although he raised the price of the world's cheapest gas by as much as 6,000 percent (for high octane fuel), he kept the price fixed -- and thanks to government subsidies Venezuelans can still fill up for a world-beating four cents to the gallon. He simplified the confounding, multi-tiered exchange rate system and devalued the bloated national currency, but by not nearly enough: On the street a greenback costs 1,000 bolivars, at least five times the official government rate.

So much for Nobel Peace Prize laureate Oscar Arias's warning from the floor of the Venezuelan National Assembly last week that "it's not possible to overcome the crisis by deepening the current model, only by abandoning it."

Yet Maduro's less-than-half measures did succeed in one thing: solidifying the consensus among Venezuela's opposition for his removal.

When exactly management of Venezuela's "Bolivarian" revolution shifted from profligate to incoherent is hard to say, but the latest contortions in Caracas attest to a new level of official distress: an annual rate of inflation that could reach more than 700 percent and gross domestic product set to shrink by 8 percent this year. Plunging oil revenues threaten the government's ability to cover more than $20 billion in bond payments, oil sector imports and loan repayments to China falling due this year. The only way to avoid default is if oil prices rebound to around $70 dollars, the consultancy Oxford Economics wrote in a client note; Venezuela's heavy crude currently fetches less than $30 a barrel.

Even then, the government may be forced to slash imports of food and medicine more deeply, worsening chronic shortages and potentially sparking social revolt.

The prospect of insolvency has moved the government, however, to take measures for its own preservation. Consider its recent creation of a new oil company that will report neither to Maduro nor to the troubled state oil major PDVSA, but solely to the Defense Ministry.

The most cynical reading of this maneuver is that the military wants a direct cut of the spoils from the only reliable source of hard currency. "That would be robbery, pure and simple," said Gustavo Coronel, an oil consultant and former PDVSA director. Another version has it that the government wants to protect oil assets by shifting PDVSA's holdings to a new company theoretically beyond the reach of creditors.

A more troubling theory is that the armed forces are taking an even more controlling role in Venezuela's economy, much like Cuba's "military executives" or Iran's enterprising Revolutionary Guard. "This would confirm that Maduro is a military puppet," said Coronel.

What's clear is that frustration over Maduro's floundering leadership is mounting, along with predictions that he might not finish his term, which ends in 2019. Colombia is reportedly weighing asylum for Maduro should he step down.

In a proper democracy, the legislature would step up and help forge a national consensus. But after 17 years of bitter politics and executive ring-fencing under the late Hugo Chavez and his successor Maduro, that's unlikely. Last month, the opposition-led National Assembly rejected Maduro's bid for exceptional powers to tackle the economic crisis. So Maduro simply turned to a pliant Supreme Court -- which he'd taken care to re-stack in his favor in December -- and overruled the congress, essentially shredding the constitution and declaring an institutional crisis. "The Supreme Court is our Berlin Wall," said former Venezuelan diplomat Diego Arria, a prominent dissident.

As long as Maduro remains in control, breaching that wall looks unlikely. The good news is that the impasse has brought the country's quarrelsome opposition factions, each with their own ambitions, closer together: Even as one generally conciliatory leader has called for a popular referendum to cut short Maduro's term, another has argued that Maduro be charged with "abandoning his post," a move which would require a simple majority of congressional votes.

Removing an elected leader who has put a nation at risk is politically dangerous -- millions of Venezuelans remain loyal to the revolution, if not to Maduro -- but it's also a safeguard written into the national constitution. Venezuela's democrats need to walk that line if they are to enlist the broad support they'll need to rescue the nation from its government, right the failing economy and stop hardship from devolving into social convulsion.

It's a measure of Venezuela's despair that such extreme propositions are now on the table.

_ Mac Margolis is a Bloomberg View contributor based in Rio de Janeiro.
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?485441-The-Fall-of-OPEC

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2016/02/23/the_fall_of_opec.html

February 23, 2016

The Fall of OPEC

By Jay Hakes

Current low prices for oil will likely prove unsustainable and need to rebound somewhat in the next year or two to keep enough drillers in business. But it would not be wise for American producers to expect much help from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other exporting nations in restraining production to boost prices, as seemed to be the hope last week.

Saudi Arabia’s Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi, speaking in Houston this Tuesday, threw cold water on the idea of production cuts, which should not come as surprise, given the predicament that the Saudi and other exporters find themselves in.

Whatever strategy OPEC adopts, it will face a long slough to regain a dominant position in the global pricing of oil. Market forces will likely overwhelm efforts to get the cartel back to its position of preeminence for many years, and perhaps decades.

Though many Americans view OPEC as a perpetual petroleum colossus, it’s actual record as a cartel is mixed. After the founding of the organization in 1960, its international impact for a long time was scarcely detectable. Beginning in 1970, individual OPEC members enjoyed some success wresting major price concessions from major oil companies, but coordination of production levels across the full membership did not occur until after the Arab Oil Embargo launched in October of 1973.

During the Embargo, Arab exporters did not suffer the drop in revenues expected from their cuts in production, because the increased price per barrel more than offset the lower number of barrels sold. In December of 1973, OPEC shocked American officials by voting to take advantage of short supplies to jack up its prices to previously unheard of levels. After the Embargo ended in March of 1974, the cartel restrained production to keep prices from falling.

It’s often forgotten that this period of OPEC dominance lasted for less than a decade. After the Embargo, the United States, Europe and Japan sharply reduced oil consumption, with America adopting mileage efficiency standards, lower speed limits, and market pricing, while other industrial powers imposed hefty gasoline taxes. Less directly related to the Embargo, long-term projects were boosting supplies from outside OPEC in places like Alaska, Mexico, and the North Sea.

OPEC refused to recognize changing market conditions and continued to hold out for higher prices, in effect planting the seeds for its (as it turned out temporary) demise. By the early 1980s, net U.S. imports of oil had been cut in half from 1977 levels, and the price of oil was plummeting.

Steady cuts in the production of Saudi Arabia in the first half of the 1980s were unable to prevent the turn toward increasingly lower prices. Finally, Saudi Arabia in the mid-1980s ramped up its output to punish OPEC members not helping to avoid oil surpluses and to drive out competitors whose alternative fuels created long-term threats to Saudi market share.

Though the Saudi strategy did stymie the development of alternatives to conventional oil, it did not bring a return to the high-price environment of the earlier years or a disciplined cartel that could set and enforce production quotas. With some members ignoring their caps, OPEC impotence and low prices continued into the late 1990s – an era lasting longer than the period when OPEC ruled the roost.

In March of 1999, Iran and Saudi Arabia overcame their grievances to cooperate on lowering production, and new Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez reversed his country’s position into one of fervent support for OPEC quotas, setting the stage for price increases later in the year and eventual strengthening of the cartel.

Less-than-expected demand and surging American production ended the latest period of OPEC ascendency. Though it is hard to pin an exact year on this fourth major reversal of OPEC fortunes, it was certainly no later than 2014, when U.S. oil production saw its largest year-to-year gain ever.

Trends in cartel influence have momentum, which is why OPEC – including its most influential member, Saudi Arabia – has no viable options for returning to the good old days.

If OPEC did overcome internal strife to lower production, it would cede market share to others, especially Americans who have been making continuous improvements in oil technology. This is not a winning strategy, since there is no way to know how low production would have to fall and what the future demand for oil will be if global fears of damage to the atmosphere by fossil fuels intensifies.

If OPEC maintains current production (with the now unembargoed Iran ramping up), prices will stay low for a very long time, and some OPEC governments may fall before hydraulic fracturers throw in the towel.

OPEC has over the years said it would try to keep global prices within a band – not too high, not too low. It has generally, refused to act, however, when prices rose above the (admittedly somewhat arbitrary) band. Having not acted on the high side, it has few cards to play on the low side.

American producers who can cut costs and have patient investors can survive this buyers’ market. But competition for customers has not been this fierce since the mid-1980s.


Jay Hakes has written about reversals in world oil markets in his book A Declaration of Energy Independence.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?485442-The-European-Dream-A-Requiem

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/opinion/the-european-dream-a-requiem.html?_r=1

International Opinion | Op-Ed Contributor

The European Dream: A Requiem

By OLIVIER GUEZ
FEB. 21, 2016

Paris — Jihadist attacks, a migrant flood, Greek debt, surging nationalism: Across the European Union, anxiety and division are brewing in a way not seen since the 1940s.

Confronted with this, Europe is paralyzed. And the element most dangerous to the European dream is barely noted: A rift is widening between France and Germany over how to pursue prosperity and security, their deepest national interests.

If France and Germany can’t work together, the dream of a united Europe will shatter. In the 1950s, that premise drove Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and President Charles de Gaulle to a historic understanding: Franco-German cooperation would be the bedrock on which to build Western Europe’s revival. France would lead Europe’s political reconstruction while West Germany powered its economy.

It seemed logical. On the still-smoldering ruins of World War II, the two nations had comparable power, and for 30 years they worked in concert toward a Common Market, a Europe-wide visa policy and plans for a common currency.

But in the 1990s, German reunification undid the balance. French influence waned as Germany’s economy became a juggernaut. The French struggled with globalization, refusing to exchange their social benefits for competitive efficiency. So Germany became the primary voice within the European market.

The common currency arrived, with German banks in the lead. But by 2005, France’s voters had soured on surrendering more sovereignty: In a trendsetting plebiscite, soon followed by one in the Netherlands, they stopped momentum toward an all-Europe constitution. Then came the 2008 financial crash, laying bare the economic gap and political resentments between Northern Europe, driven by Germany, and the less industrious South.

Even more dangerous politically, but less discussed, the crash exposed a growing gap between French and German attitudes toward each other — their labor forces, welfare policies and diplomacy. Last year, terrorism and the Middle East refugee crisis brought that, too, into focus.

Now when they meet, President François Hollande and Chancellor Angela Merkel speak of solidarity, but in different terms. Mr. Hollande declares France “at war with the Islamic State,” while German leaders talk of “fighting terrorism.” The French take on military operations in Mali, Iraq and Syria, while Germans prefer international humanitarian operations. Germans fret that the French have become warmongers, while many French see appeasement rather than remorse when today’s Germans pronounce: “Never again war, never again Auschwitz.”

In economics, Germany is a powerhouse of free-market liberalism, strong on austerity and scornful of budget profligacy, which Germans associate with “the Euro welfare state,” a very French idea.

The very definition of Euro-power is up for grabs: For the French, as they intervene in Africa and the Middle East, it is military and political. For the Germans, power is as much economic as it is political, with an eastward focus toward Russia and its neighbors.

Looking ahead, the most perilous clash may be over the flood of Muslim refugees and other migrants. Last year, Germany, acting solo, invited more than a million while France took in — reluctantly — a few thousand. France wants to shut the Continent’s borders, while Germany wants Turkey to help bring in more refugees — a clash not over conscience as much as competing economic imperatives. Germany requires more workers, since its native population is aging at a rate second only to Japan’s. France, by contrast, lives with enormous unemployment — and a birthrate among Europe’s highest.

France has also recognized that its greatest social challenge is to integrate millions of Muslim French citizens into its secular society — a crisis of identity for both. That type of tension is something Germans have not worried about nearly as much. As Joschka Fischer, a former foreign minister, wrote last year in Vanity Fair, “Angela Merkel governs a Germany where the sun shines every day, the dream of any politician democratically elected.”

Until a few weeks ago, that is. The horrific culture clash in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, between a mob of Arab immigrant men and groups of young German women whom they assaulted, was a wake-up moment for many Germans — a hint that they can’t remain forever a self-confident island in a sea of increasingly insecure neighbors. Yet Ms. Merkel still clings to Germany’s open door for immigrants, even though that stance now isolates her from her German constituents as well as the rest of Europe. It also prolongs Europe’s inability to find a unified approach to the problem, most recently last week in Brussels at a failed summit meeting on the subject.

Last fall, Ms. Merkel’s signature advice for Germans was “Wir schaffen das” — We’ll make it. But now she is missing an opportunity to listen more closely to her newly traumatized citizens and to the jittery rest of Europe and invite France to narrow the gulf between them. Surely, if they tried, these two partners could find some middle ground between ignoring a threat and refusing to help innocent victims.

But this has not been an auspicious time for such collaboration. Even though radical Islam, mass migrations, Russian revanchism and military interventions are challenges that no European state can meet alone, political sentiments across the Continent are all in the wrong direction. Frightened Europeans retreat into their sovereign little states, propelled by the popular right and xenophobia. In Hungary and Poland, those forces have taken power. By 2017, they may well do so in France, and Britons may have quit Europe altogether. That would leave no nation in a position to take the reins from France or Germany in leading Europe’s imperfect union.

So what comes next? Can we reasonably believe Europe will snap out of it? Will there be a Franco-German turnaround in shamed memory of the slaughter at Verdun 100 years ago? I don’t think so.

It is a matter of leadership. In the 1990s, François Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl, like Adenauer and De Gaulle before them, could work together, in part because they had experienced the ultimate alternative — the horrors of war. But those giants have long left the stage. There exists today neither any guiding program nor true solidarity, and historical memories have grown very short. Ms. Merkel and Mr. Hollande are more than ever focused on their own national conundrums: for France, how to control terrorism; for Germany, how to treat refugees.

What Europe’s heads of state have not done, and simply must begin to do, is prepare their citizens for the one great requirement for progress toward more unity — an enormous leap of faith and optimism, even while in the grip of fear. Instead, they betray their peoples’ fondest dreams by pecking at one another. And even my generation, who were 15 to 20 years old when the Berlin Wall fell, fails to stand up to them and demand that they save the dream we were promised — a Europe finally at permanent peace and working in unison after all the divisions and horrors of the 20th century.


Olivier Guez is a French essayist and a screenwriter for the film “The People vs. Fritz Bauer.” This essay was translated by Edward Gauvin from the French.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/aleppos-syria-moscow-213671

Why Moscow Holds the Cards in Syria

It’s time to drop pretenses of U.S. forces or safe zones and persuade the rebels to accept Russia’s terms. Otherwise a new slaughter will start in Aleppo.

By Julien Barnes-Dacy and Jeremy Shapiro
February 23, 2016
Comments 6

Can the shaky cease-fire announced this week avert a fresh disaster about to happen in Syria? The siege of Aleppo, Syria’s largest city. That will be the key test for the pact, which is to go into effect on Feb. 27. For weeks now, Aleppans have felt a sense of impending doom. Recently, Syrian government forces with the support of Russian air power cut off the last remaining major supply route to rebels in Aleppo, setting the stage for a siege. Fearing the prospect of bombardment and starvation, tens of thousands of Syrians have already fled toward Turkey and the hope of safety. With Ankara refusing to let most of them into the country, a humanitarian crisis is already brewing on the border. Many thousands more are fleeing to other parts of Syria, including to regime-held areas. A not-small percentage of them will end up on the road to Europe this spring and summer.

Ironically, the talks are not even any longer about bringing relief to Aleppo. It was the Assad regime’s advance on the city in early February that pushed international negotiations forward. But the talks are less likely to have any meaningful impact there than in other parts of Syria because fighting has dramatically intensified in and around Aleppo even as negotiations have progressed. And the Russians have made it clear that even if a cessation of hostilities comes into effect, Aleppo and the neighboring province of Idlib will be excluded from the arrangement due to the direct presence of Jabhat al-Nusra, Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria.

The fact that President Vladimir Putin came out so quickly in support of the agreement, making a special address on Russian television yesterday, at least holds out the prospect of a new commitment from Moscow. This is presumably based on the military gains Putin’s forces have helped Assad secure over recent months. And the Russian leader has reason to be confident he can control events on the ground: The presence of al-Nusra, in particular, gives Russia an excuse to keep fighting in Aleppo and even to target rebel fighters that the West would prefer to support. Washington knows it is impossible to craft a cease-fire that would still allow attacks on the Islamic State—which President Barack Obama wants—but rule out efforts against al-Nusra, which is a terrorist organization by any definition.

Many still see the ultimate answer in the use of U.S. military force or a no-fly or safe zone to save the people of Aleppo and to push back the Russian-supported regime advance. Such voices are demanding that Washington find a way to reopen supply routes into the city and increase the flow of high-end weapons to the rebels.

But just as constant in these refrains is the lack of a broader strategy in which to place the use of U.S. force. Beyond the fact that these measures would risk a direct U.S.-Russian clash and the possible outbreak of a wider conflict, it is doubtful whether safe zones would actually improve protection for civilians. Without an accompanying ground force able to secure the zones, fighting will continue. Al-Nusra and ISIL are likely to partly fill any vacuum. Pushing the regime back from northern Aleppo may change the identity of those who suffer, but it will hardly reduce the problem overall. Moreover, the regime and its Russian and Iranian allies will simply counterescalate. In the end, it is hard to understand a strategy that seeks to relieve the suffering of the Syrian people by sending in more weapons and creating more violence. We’ve seen this story of escalation and counterescalation many times before over the course of the Syrian war and it’s always had the same outcome: more misery for the local population.

There has to be a better way—and there is, even if there is no good way. The guiding principle must be to focus on efforts to help the people of Aleppo, not on achieving absolute political ends or a victory in the war, a sentiment that still animates far too many of the actors involved. It’s long past time to set aside the meaningless question of Bashar Assad’s future and to stop trying to micromanage a fictional Syrian transition. This may be succumbing to the strategy of Assad and the Russians, but civilian protection, humanitarian access and freezing the conflict before it reaches new heights of dangerous escalation must now be prioritized, nowhere more so than in Aleppo.

Instead it’s time to push the Syrian opposition to accept Russian cease-fire terms around Aleppo as the better long-term strategy. In the north of the country this means effectively pushing the opposition and its regional backers to accept that we cannot work with groups that cooperate with Nusra and that the presence of those groups in Aleppo will prevent any local cease-fire from taking hold. De-escalation on Russian terms is still better than no de-escalation at all.

It’s worth noting that demobilization is ultimately most threatening to Assad. The Syrian president has long known that he cannot survive longer-term political reform, and winning in Syria today is most likely to emerge as a result of a process of de-escalation that sees the regime exposed to the pressures of its own internal constituents and external backers, whatever the initial terms. So long as the Syrian struggle remains a military fight for regime survival both Russia and Iran will remain locked into Assad’s defense. But, as we saw again last week when Russia’s U.N. ambassador publically censored Assad for rejecting the cease-fire plan, the opening of an alternative space will expose him to pressure from his allies.

Talk of sending more arms or establishing safe zones will only encourage the opposition and prolong the war, initiating a new cycle of escalation. The U.S. government has long since concluded, accurately in our view, that it cannot win this war for the Syrian opposition. But it is the height of cruelty to give them just enough support and encouragement so as to not lose. Hope is the enemy of peace in Syria.

And bear in mind that time is running out. Aleppo is where any agreement is least likely to hold—and where any subsequent escalation of fighting risks collapsing the entire process, given the city’s wider symbolic and strategic prominence. The international community needs to build quickly on the cease-fire to pre-empt a looming humanitarian disaster in Aleppo. Otherwise, we will soon see suffering there beyond anything we have seen thus far in the Syrian civil war, even with its 300,000 dead.

Already the ongoing fight in Aleppo is predictably drawing in all the conflict’s key actors, determined to not leave the fate of the key city to others. On the opposition side, external backers are facilitating new weapon flows and Turkey is reportedly transporting fighters to the frontline via its own territory. Ankara has also begun shelling Kurdish forces seizing rebel-held towns in northern Aleppo under Russian air cover. ISIL is also moving in. The jihadist movement is positioned to the east of the city and as conditions deteriorate is looking to stake a wider claim. Aleppo in short contains all of the seeds for escalation and even a direct Russian-Turkish clash.

If the regime does succeed in laying siege to rebel areas of Aleppo, the result will almost certainly be an uncontrolled humanitarian disaster. Rebel-held eastern Aleppo is still home to an estimated 350,000 people, many times the size of previous sieges in Homs or Madaya. Moreover, the Russian air force is now fully on the scene, bringing with it a counterinsurgency strategy formed on the mean streets of Grozny, the capital of Russia’s rebellious Chechen province. That strategy holds that insurgents cannot hide among the people of a city if there is no city and there are no people. And it will also be worse because rebels are less likely to be willing to surrender in so strategic a location, in part because there are a dwindling number of other rebel-held areas they could head to as part of any surrender package.

All of this means that sustainable progress elsewhere is almost certainly going to need progress around Aleppo. A further deterioration of the situation here would almost certainly suck out all the air of the wider agreement. The urgent priority must now be to think about how to translate gains to this key city.

This approach must simultaneously be accompanied by a greater focus on the deteriorating Kurdish–Turkish relationship. There is no prospect of a freeze in the wider conflict around Aleppo, especially if largely on Russian terms, without Turkish buy-in and the U.S. needs to step up its pressure on Kurds to halt their advances eastward and the seizure of rebel-held villages.

If all of this fails and there is no hope of progress in the north, a bit of deterrence against the Russians is in order—just not through force, which will only be self-defeating. Measures aimed at the Russians should take advantage of more sanctions, an instrument the West would actually use and the Russians actually fear. The United States and Europe should pre-announce further sanctions, particularly financial sanctions, against Russians if humanitarian access is not maintained in Aleppo. Even as we challenge the Russians, we need to recognize that ultimately, and however much we dislike it, the road toward averting a humanitarian disaster in Aleppo runs through Moscow.


Julien Barnes-Dacey and Jeremy Shapiro are scholars at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...points-to-problems-with-the-Iran-nuclear-deal

Under the category of "November Sierra Karnack...."

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...oints-to-problems-with-the-iran-nuclear-deal/

Right Turn|Opinion

GAO points to problems with the Iran nuclear deal

By Jennifer Rubin
February 24 at 10:00 AM
Comments 25

The Government Accountability Office put out a preliminary report on Tuesday on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran:

GAO’s preliminary observations indicate that IAEA may face potential challenges in monitoring and verifying Iran’s implementation of certain nuclear-related commitments in the JCPOA. According to current and former IAEA and U.S. officials and experts, these potential challenges include (1) integrating JCPOA-related funding into its regular budget and managing human resources in the safeguards program, (2) access challenges depending on Iran’s cooperation and the untested JCPOA mechanism to resolve access requests, and (3) the inherent challenge of detecting undeclared nuclear materials and activities—such as potential weapons development activities that may not involve nuclear material. According to knowledgeable current and former U.S. government officials, detection of undeclared material and activities in Iran and worldwide is IAEA’s greatest challenge. According to IAEA documents, Iran has previously failed to declare activity to IAEA. However, according to a former IAEA official as well as current IAEA and U.S. government officials GAO interviewed, IAEA has improved its capabilities in detecting undeclared activity, such as by adapting its inspector training program.

Now, it would have been helpful for the Senate — before voting on the Iran nuclear deal — to have information like this. Nevertheless, it confirms once again how much the administration gave up to get its legacy deal.

At a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with Secretary of State John F. Kerry, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), a staunch critic of the deal, read aloud more of the GAO’s findings. “Let me read some of them: ‘GOA’s preliminary observations point to directly to future problems with monitoring, verifying and meeting requirements of the JCPOA.’” said Menendez. “It talks about its limitation, ‘a limited budget from an irregular funding sources, human resource shortfall, important equipment operating at capacity already not being able to go beyond that, limited analytical capabilities that will all be tested by the new mandates of the JCPOA, a lack of authorities,’ obviously the IAEA activities will depend to a significant degree on the cooperation of the Iranian state.” He continued, “Thirdly, that while they have focused virtually all of their resources to pursue the JCPOA, they’re going to have very little resources. They turn away from other proliferators and potential proliferators. And, finally, among other items, the IAEA’s own estimates has identified the need for approximately $10 million per year for 15 years over and above its present budget. So, it is an agency that is understaffed for its purposes, losing technical assistance, people are leaving, has now a singular focus.”

Menendez wants Iran to pay for the needed upgrades to the IAEA, but the better question — which he has raised before — is how we could have given Iran billions up front with such an obviously deficient monitoring scheme in place. The incentive is on the administration to ignore violations (for fear of losing its deal), not on Iran, “flush with money,” as Menendez put it, to abide by its terms.

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) also observed, “My biggest takeaway is lawmakers must come together in a bipartisan manner now to create an insurance policy for imposing crippling pressure if and when Iran once again cheats on nuclear inspections as it has so many times in the past.” He added, “The report also cites concerns the IAEA’s decision to end investigations into Iran’s past nuclear weapons activities that ‘could reduce the indicators at the IAEA’s disposal to detect undeclared activity.’ Indeed, GAO also warns the nuclear deal’s mechanism for IAEA inspectors to gain access to Iranian sites suspected of having undeclared nuclear activities remains ‘untested’ and cautions ‘it is too soon to tell whether it will improve access.’”

These are all fine ideas, but the Senate should be working on new sanctions now — to respond to Iran’s illegal missile tests, regional aggression and ongoing human rights violations. Just Sunday we learned, Iranian Revolutionary Guards had allegedly mounted a plot against a Saudi Arabian passenger plane in Southeast Asia. Reportedly, the plot “has reached an ‘advanced stage’ of implementation.”

Last week the administration warned that a sale of Russian advanced jets to Iran would violate the United Nations ban on such equipment. Sanctions guru Mark Dubowitz tells me, “Congress should draw up a list of Russian and Iranian entities to be sanctioned, give the administration 30 days to impose sanctions on these entities, and, if there’s no action, move ahead with statutory designations of these entities.”

That thinking needs to be applied across the board, taking into account all aspects of Iran’s behavior. Iran acts with impunity because it is convinced (rightly) the administration will do nothing. If the White House won’t, then Congress must act.


Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective.
 
Top