WAR 02-21-2015-to-02-27-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2015/02/23/25/0200000000AEN20150223002500315F.html

S. Korean envoy heads to Russia for talks on N.K. nukes

2015/02/23 14:03

SEOUL, Feb. 23 (Yonhap) -- South Korea's top nuclear envoy departed for Russia on Monday for talks with his Russian counterpart on ways to resume the long-stalled six-party dialogue on North Korea's nuclear weapons program, the foreign ministry here said.

During his three-day trip to Russia, Hwang Joon-kook is scheduled to meet with Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Morgulov Igor on Tuesday to assess recent developments on the Korean Peninsula and explore ways to restart the denuclearization talks, according to the ministry.

His scheduled meeting with the Russian envoy is the latest in a series of diplomatic efforts made by five members of the multilateral forum -- South Korea, the U.S., China, Japan and Russia -- since the beginning of this year to restart the dialogue with North Korea.

"The five counties share the necessity of restarting the denuclearization talks at an early date," a senior government official in Seoul said, requesting anonymity.

The six-party talks have been dormant since late 2008 when Pyongyang abruptly left the negotiation table.

"After wrapping up five-way discussions by gathering ideas and fine-tuning differences on conditions and ways of resuming the talks, they would take a next step forward," he said. "If the five countries, including Russia and China, make certain proposals, North Korea would not be able to simply ignore them."

After his meeting with his Chinese counterpart Wu Dawei earlier this month, Hwang told reporters that the two sides have narrowed differences on conditions about resuming the six-nation talks.

Pyongyang has demanded the resumption of the talks without conditions, while Seoul and Washington have said that the North should first demonstrate its seriousness about denuclearization.

China has been cautious in pressing North Korea as its long-time communist ally, though their ties have been strained following Pyongyang's nuclear test in 2013, which at least partly is attributable to improved relations between Pyongyang and Moscow in recent months.

graceoh@yna.co.kr
(END)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/An...fight-alone-against-Islamist-terrorism-391865

By ZVI MAZEL \ 02/23/2015 03:07
Analysis: Egypt left to fight alone against Islamist terrorism

While Jordan’s attacks on Islamic State after the horrific murder of its pilot were met with understanding from the West, Egypt received no such support.

There is a thinly veiled attack against the US in a lengthy article in the February 12 issue of the Al-Ahram Cairo daily, a state-owned publication. Together with Qatar and Turkey, it is accused of acting in a hostile manner toward Egypt through its support for the Muslim Brotherhood and affiliated terrorist organizations.

European countries such as Britain and Germany are also pointed out for letting the Brothers operate freely.

This can be interpreted as a wake-up call to the West, for stubbornly ignoring the plight of Egypt under attack in Sinai and from Libya by Islamist terrorism.

When Egyptian planes struck in Libya after the massacre of 21 Egyptians belonging to the country’s Coptic Christian minority, it wasn’t only a question of reprisals but also a reminder to the West, also threatened by Islamist terrorism, and particularly to Europe just a few hundred miles from the coast of Libya.

Should nothing be done to block the progress of Islamist militias, Libya will turn into the forward base of Islamic State – leaving Europe facing an unending flood of refugees it cannot absorb and which threatens its economy and stability. The process has already started.

Yet while Jordan’s attacks on Islamic State after the horrific murder of its pilot met with understanding from the West, Egypt received no such support. A White House official declared that there must be a political solution to the Libyan crisis, and that the UN is working on it.

The Pentagon declined to express its views about the attack beyond stating that the United States had not been informed before it was carried out. It did take the opportunity to stress that the partial freeze on military aid to Egypt was still on, mentioning F-16 planes and other weapons, due to the human rights situation in Egypt.

It must be said that the human rights situation in Jordan and other Arab countries is significantly worse than in Egypt.

This was a bitter blow for Cairo. Vainly did Foreign Minister Sameh Shukri travel immediately after the attack to the UN, to stress that Islamist terrorism should be fought wherever it is. He also tried to gather support for the legitimate Libyan government, demanding the lifting of the arms embargo to that country and the extension of coalition air strikes against Islamic State to include targets in Libya. A political solution, he was told, would be the best answer.

Unfortunately, Cairo cannot afford to sit back and wait for a political solution while Islamic State’s advance outposts in Libya and other Islamist militias affiliated with the Brotherhood pursue their relentless attacks to weaken Egypt, hamper its economic recovery, and endanger its stability in their efforts to turn it into yet another failed state after Libya itself, Somalia, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

The problem is that it finds itself very much alone. At a special meeting of the Arab League convened to discuss the raid by the Egyptian air force, Qatar objected to the support initially granted to Egypt.

That country’s representative accused it of abetting terrorism; in retaliation Qatar recalled its ambassador for consultations.

Worse, the Gulf Cooperation Council took Qatar’s side and rebuked Egypt, in order to avoid a new crisis and keep the Gulf countries united against their two main threats – Iran and Islamic State.

Egypt was taken by surprise, since Saudi Arabia and the Emirates are its principal sources of financial and political support in its fight against the Brotherhood.

Qatar had indeed pledged – under heavy pressure from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries – to loosen its close ties to the Brotherhood, stop Al Jazeera’s incitement against Egypt and express some form of support for Sisi, a pledge it did not fulfill. In fact, Qatar let it be understood that it was against the lifting of the weapons embargo on Libya and in favor of a political solution. Ever since the fall of Gaddafi, Qatar has been accused of assisting Islamist militias in Libya, supplying them with weapons and money.

It is an interesting situation. Arab countries are desperately trying to find a solution to the two problems that plague them and threaten their very existence: Islamic State and other Islamic terrorist organizations on the one hand and Shia Iran’s subversive activities in the region – especially in Iraq, Syria and Yemen – with the country’s nuclear program perceived as the greatest threat.

Turkey’s position is also ambiguous. It is refraining from open confrontation with Islamic State and openly courting Iran to boost its standing in the region.

Then there is the curious stand taken by the US administration, displaying a worrisome sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood and not ready to engage fully Islamic State, while apparently ready to conclude with Iran a pact that would not prevent the ayatollahs from building the nuclear bomb they so ardently desire and making the Islamic Republic of Iran dominant in the Middle East.

Where does that leave Egypt? Not only does it need to fight alone against terrorism on two fronts, it is faced by a surrealistic coalition – Qatar, Turkey, the United States and a number of European countries giving the Brotherhood priceless financial, political and media assistance.

Desperately looking for a way out, Cairo is searching for new allies. It has turned to Russia, which was only too happy to establish a new foothold in the Middle East and signed a number of agreements, including building a nuclear plant and taking part in several massive economic projects. A huge weapons deal is also in the cards, though it is yet to be finalized.

Meanwhile, Egypt has also turned to France and last week signed a contract for the purchase of 24 Rafale fighter planes and one frigate, for a whopping 5.5 billion dollars. This is a major boost to France’s ailing economy and a blow to America’s aircraft industries, but more than anything sad testimony to the deterioration of relations between two erstwhile staunch allies.

Yet Egypt is not ready to turn its back on the United States. Ever since the peace treaty with Israel, strategic military cooperation between Cairo and Washington has been a two-way street. Egypt has received massive military assistance, there were joint exercises, and American vessels have transited the Suez Canal.

Moreover, American warplanes were free to enter Egyptian air space on their way to Iraq during the second Iraq War.

More than ever, Cairo needs the US investments and technology which have so far been denied it. And so a bitter Egypt will have to go it alone.

The writer, a fellow of The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is a former ambassador to Romania, Egypt, and Sweden.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/colombi/articles/20150221.aspx

Colombia: Waiting For Venezuela To Explode

February 21, 2015: The FARC peace talks continue to be stalled by the popular opposition to amnesty for FARC leaders. This is becoming a major problem as FARC is adamant about how essential it is for there to be more amnesty for FARC leaders and veteran fighters. Most Colombians, especially the many victims of FARC, insist that FARC members answer for their crimes. If this were done a lot of the FARC participants could be subject to prosecution and are not about to surrender and disarm to face that. The major problem here is that many of the victims (of murder, kidnapping and land theft) have organized and become a major political force nationally. The government cannot ignore the demands of the victims for some form of acceptable justice. The victims of economic crime (stolen land, homes, businesses) want the government to offer some form of restitution. Getting the land and other property back is a struggle with lawyers while demands for government cash face a reluctant electorate. The victims are, after all, a minority. Prosecuting guilty FARC leaders is universally popular and relatively inexpensive to implement. The FARC leaders know that and this has stalled the peace talks.

FARC also wants the government to cease operations against them while the peace talks are going on. That is not happening because in the past such ceasefire agreements enabled FARC to rebuild and then abandon the peace talks. This impasse could cause nearly two years of negotiations to be abandoned and FARC has backed off (but not abandoned) that demand.

Many rebels are willing to end the decades of violence and disarm, but many in the leadership are subject to prosecution for the crimes (murder, rape, kidnapping and sundry acts of violence and theft) they have committed during their years with FARC. This problem is compounded by the fact that many of these criminal acts were committed or ordered by FARC and ELN leaders or veteran rebels who are publically known. There are often still witnesses out there willing to testify. Many Colombians are willing to let the war (which the leftist rebels have been losing for the past decade) go on rather than let so many of the rebels “get away with murder.” FARC is quietly trying to get an agreement that takes advantage of a 2012 amendment to the constitution that allows the government to prosecute and convict FARC and then suspend the sentences. Doing that discreetly would not eliminate the possibility of a public uproar and political crises. There is no easy way out of this mess.

The leftist rebels do not have time on their side. Every month FARC and ELN get weaker from casualties, desertions and the fact that they have lost much of the public support they once had. The government negotiators say they can probably get some amnesty, but not as much as the rebels want and that public opinion against amnesty is widespread and strongly held. The military leaders believe that it the negotiations deadlocked the leftist rebels could be crushed by force, but this would cause thousands of casualties among the security forces and the civilian population. That approach could last another five or ten years before the leftists were reduced to the status of “nuisance” (like some violent European leftists now are). Public opinion might change after a few years of renewed heavy action but no one is sure. The only thing most Colombians can agree on is that they want peace, but on their own terms.

The leftist rebels are being forced out of areas they have long controlled and prospered in by constant police and military action. Many of these guys have sought new hideouts and criminal activities that are not under so much pressure. Illegal gold mining has become a favorite, as is smuggling and extortion. The criminal gangs go where the military and police presence is lightest, like rural areas where illegal mining takes place. With gold selling for $38 a gram (or $38 million a ton) there has been a gold rush in rural northwestern Colombia. The price has fallen from $48 in 2012 but the mining is still big business. Production more than tripled from 15.5 tons in 2007 to 53.6 tons in 2012 and continued to increase more slowly since then. Colombia has been a source of gold for centuries, but the sharp rise in price between 2006 and 2011 made many old mines worth opening again. All turned out to be a lucrative source of income for the leftist rebels who regularly extort money from small miners in return for protection from the police and other gangs. These illegal mines have become a major problem for the rural police. The rebels enforcing the extortion operations do not attract much attention from the army special operations troops used to hunt down rebel leaders and rebel groups that threaten major businesses (oil and legal mining) or infrastructure (roads, electricity and such). The plight of the illegal miners won’t be addressed until FARC signs the peace deal and frees up lots of soldiers and police commandos.

Colombia has yet another security problem it has little control over. This is the growing unrest next door in Venezuela that Colombia fears will escalate into a civil war that will drive many Venezuelans, like more than a million, across the border as refugees. The Venezuelan border is already a danger zone because corrupt Venezuelan officers and officials have allowed Colombian drug gangs and leftist rebels to operate on the Venezuelan side. The United States accuses Venezuela of becoming a major transit point for illegal drugs coming out of Colombia and then onto world markets (especially the U.S. and Europe). Everyone wants Venezuela fixed but no one has a practical plan for how to do it. The basic problems are not getting better. The Venezuelan government recently announced that the official inflation rate at the end of 2014 was 68.5 percent, compared to 56 percent in 2013. The government also admitted that the economy is contracting, at a rate of over 5 percent a year. Many believe that GDP has shrunk even more given the extent of unemployment, businesses closing, the falling price of oil and increasing shortages. Desperate for a solution, the government agreed to legalize the buying and selling of dollars. This was only a band aid applied to a much more serious wound.

The Venezuelan government places the ultimate blame for all its economic problems on foreign conspiracies (usually involving the United States and Colombia) and is responding to that by arresting more and more of its critics and accusing them of belonging to this foreign conspiracy. All this talk is meant to encourage the minority of the population (about 20 percent) that still supports the socialist revolution the government is promoting. The government increasingly sees a need to eventually mobilize its supporters to use force, if necessary, to prevent the majority of Venezuelans from crippling the leader of the revolution (president Maduro) with massive losses in upcoming parliament elections. Currently only 22 percent of voters approve of Maduro and another poll shows over 80 percent of Venezuelans blame Maduro for the economic mess. Some politicians are calling for him to resign, or be forcibly removed.

For the second year in a row an international survey determined that Venezuela was the most miserable nation on the planet. Maduro blames all his problems on foreign interference and economic sabotage. The United States is seen as the main villain here but no one can produce any evidence. Moreover the recently arrested mayor of Caracas is a major embarrassment as he has been elected mayor of the Venezuelan capital twice despite vigorous government efforts to prevent that. The mayor is popular and speaks loudly, frankly and accurately about Venezuela’s real problems.

Venezuela’s experiment in establishing a socialist paradise has been undone by corruption, incompetence and the rapidly declining price of oil. Shrinking GDP and rising inflation has led to high unemployment (or underemployment) and an unprecedented crime wave, with Venezuela now the murder capital of the world. A growing number of poor Venezuelans turned to crime. The murder rate in Venezuela is over 60 per 100,000 people a year; one of the highest on the planet and more than ten times the rate in the United States. Since 1999 the government has implemented at least twenty different plans to deal with the crime and none have had a lasting impact. The fundamental cause of the crime is a lack of economic opportunity, which the Venezuelan government made worse and worse with its enthusiasm for central planning and incompetent implementation of those efforts. The result is growing food shortages, which have gotten so bad that gangs are now concentrating on stealing trucks carrying food. This has led to armed escorts for some food trucks, and even this is sometimes insufficient. President Maduro recently went abroad to beg for more loans or better terms for existing ones. He received neither and now faces default because the loan payments coming due in 2015 cannot be paid without cutting essential imports of food and other necessities. .......
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://sputniknews.com/asia/20150223/1018615269.html

Philippines Government Slams Attempt to Install 'Junta'
Asia & Pacific
10:32 23.02.2015(updated 10:40 23.02.2015)

The justice secretary of the Philippines has released a statement condemning alleged efforts to carry out a 'coup d'etat.'

The Justice Secretary of the Philippines, Leila de Lima, released a statement on Sunday condemning an attempt by political rivals "to instigate or foment a military-backed 'people power' uprising," and named former defense minister Norberto Gonzales as one of those involved in efforts by the National Transformation Council [NTC] to bring about "the installation of a civilian-military junta."

"A junta by any other sanitized name is still illegal and unconstitutional,” de Lima stated, PNA reports, declaring that “the government will not relent in applying the full force of the law against them in order to protect the people and the State from an unconstitutional and illegal power grab."

The National Transformation Council announced itself to the public in August last year when it released "The Lipa declaration: An urgent call for national transformation," which demanded the resignation of current President Benigno Aquino III, and called for the NTC "to assume the urgent and necessary task of restoring our damaged political institutions, and "the Armed Forces of the Philippines, as the constitutional “protector of the people and the state,” to extend its protective shield to the council, and not to allow any armed group to sow violence, disorder or discord into its peaceful ranks."

On Sunday de Lima threatened NTC members with criminal charges including "conspiracy or proposal to commit rebellion and coup d’ etat," conspiracy or incitement to sedition and illegal assemblies, naming Gonzales and, according to the Manila Times, an "aggrupation of disgruntled GMA allies," referring to Aquino's predecessor former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who left office in 2010.

Last week Philstar reported that Gonzales had admitted to pushing for a change of government, but denied accusations of an illegal attempt at overthrowing the government. "I'm mobilizing our people… It's not a coup, it's people power," he said in a TV interview, and also denied being the "very rich man" named by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago as bankrolling the coup.

Santiago made reference to Gonzales earlier this month, citing intelligence reports of a coup being plotted, during the course of a Senate investigation into a police operation targeting Islamic terrorists Zulkifli bin Hir, for whose arrest the FBI had offered $5 million, and Basit Usman. The operation, which was carried out on January 25 in Mamasapano, in the country's predominantly Muslim south, resulted in the deaths of 44 police officers.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-military-says-cannot-withdraw-heavy-weapons-attacks-081709642.html

Kiev says cannot withdraw heavy weapons as attacks persist
Reuters
By Pavel Polityuk and Anton Zverev 15 minutes ago

Related Stories

Ukraine fears spread of war after blast in eastern city Reuters
Heavy shelling hits Ukraine town where rebels reject ceasefire Reuters
Battle rages for town where Ukraine rebels reject ceasefire Reuters
Fighting rages in east Ukraine despite bid to revive truce Reuters
Ukraine rebels disavow ceasefire at encircled town Reuters

KIEV/DONETSK, Ukraine (Reuters) - Ukraine's military said on Monday it could not start withdrawing heavy weapons from the front line in the east as required under a tenuous ceasefire because pro-Russian separatists who advanced last week were still attacking its positions.

A truce to end fighting that has killed more than 5,600 people appeared stillborn last week after rebels ignored it to capture the strategic town of Debaltseve in a punishing defeat for Kiev.

Nevertheless, the peace deal's European sponsors still hold out hope it can be salvaged, now that the Moscow-backed separatists have achieved that objective.

Kiev says it fears the rebels, backed by reinforcements of Russian troops, are planning to advance deeper into territory the Kremlin calls "New Russia". Moscow denies aiding the rebels.

Fighting has diminished since Kiev's forces abandoned Debaltseve in defeat last Wednesday, and there were hopeful signs for the truce over the weekend, with an overnight exchange of around 200 prisoners late on Saturday and an agreement on Sunday to begin pulling back artillery from the front.

View gallery
Fighter with the separatist self-proclaimed Donetsk …
A fighter with the separatist self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic army looks at a burnt ve …

But Kiev said on Monday that it still could not start the artillery withdrawal.

"Given that the positions of Ukrainian servicemen continue to be shelled, there can not yet be any talk of pulling back weapons," spokesman Vladislav Seleznyov said in a televised briefing.

Anatoly Stelmakh, another military spokesman, said rebel forces had attacked the village of Shyrokyne overnight, along the coast on the road to Mariupol, a port of half a million that Kiev fears could be the next big rebel target.

"The fighters have not stopped their attempts to storm our positions in Shyrokyne, in the direction of Mariupol. At midnight the armed groups again attempted unsuccessfully to attack our soldiers. The battle lasted half an hour."

Rebel commander Eduard Basurin denied the fighters had launched any such attack, and said the situation was calm. "At the moment all is quiet, there is no shelling," he told Reuters.

View gallery
Fighter with the separatist self-proclaimed Donetsk …
A fighter with the separatist self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic army looks at a destroye …

In the biggest rebel stronghold Donetsk, occasional artillery fire could be heard through the night and on Monday morning, although it was not clear who was firing and it was far less intense than before the truce.

The separatist press service DAN reported two homes destroyed by shelling on the city's outskirts overnight.

Nearly a million people have been driven from their homes by the war between pro-Moscow separatists in eastern Ukraine and government forces. Last week's ceasefire was reached after the rebels abandoned a previous truce to launch their advance, arguing that previous battle lines had left their civilians vulnerable to government shelling.

"I hope, I just hope, in the truce. No one knows what will happen with the way the sides are behaving," said Donetsk resident Sergei, 52. "Now it's quiet, it's ok on the streets. You want such quiet. It was difficult to sleep before, not knowing whether you would wake up."

Kiev says the rebels are reinforcing near Mariupol for a possible assault on the port, the biggest city in the two rebellious provinces still in government hands. Defence analyst Dmytro Tymchuk, who has close ties to the military, said rebels had brought 350 fighters and 20 armoured vehicles including six tanks to the area.

Kiev also fears unrest could spread from the war zone to other parts of the mainly Russian-speaking east, where its troops are firmly in control and most residents are loyal but violent separatist demonstrations have occasionally flared in the past year.

Two people were killed on Sunday in Kharkiv, 200 km (140 miles) from the war zone, in a blast at a demonstration marking the anniversary of the deaths of 100 protesters a year ago in an uprising that toppled the country's pro-Moscow leader. Kiev said it had arrested four suspects who had received weapons and instructions in Russia.

(Reporting by Pavel Polityuk in Kiev and Anton Zverev in Donetsk; Writing by Alessandra Prentice and Peter Graff; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall)

View Comments (44)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/content/ukraine-rebels-agree-to-begin-withdrawing-weapons/2653786.html

Report to Allege Direct Kremlin Link to Ukraine Invasion

VOA News
Comments 10
Last updated on: February 22, 2015 6:48 PM

The editor of a leading independent Russian newspaper says he plans this week to publish what purports to be an official Kremlin strategy document outlining Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine.

Novaya Gazeta editor Dmitri Muratov said the document appears to have been prepared weeks before Ukraine's pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych was driven from office in February 2014, following weeks of anti-government protests in Kyiv.

Muratov's disclosure came in an interview with Moscow's Ekho Moskvy radio. He did not reveal how the document was obtained, but said he is confident it is authentic.

Muratov quotes the 2014 document as saying Moscow was obliged to intervene in Ukraine to protect against the possible loss of the Ukrainian market for Russia's natural gas. He said the document also noted the risks to the Russian economy and to western European consumers, if Moscow were to lose control of pipelines carrying natural gas through Ukraine to Western markets.

The editor also said evidence shows the strategy document was prepared between February 4 and February 15, 2014. Yanukovych did not abandon the presidency and flee to Russia until February 22.

Novaya Gazeta, founded by former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, is renowned for its aggressive investigations of corruption within the Kremlin, and has been nominated for a 2015 Nobel Peace Prize. Six of its journalists have been killed since 2001, including Kremlin critic Anna Politskovskaya, who was shot dead at point blank range in 2006 after publishing reports critical of the Kremlin for Russian military actions in Chechnya.

Casualties reported Sunday

In other developments, two people were killed Sunday in a bomb explosion in the Ukrainian-held city of Kharkiv, as government supporters there and elsewhere marked the one-year anniversary of the overthrow of former president Yanukovych. Authorities said at least 10 others were wounded.

Police said several suspects were arrested in this latest attack, with a Ukraine security aide saying they had received weapons and training in Russia.

In Kyiv, several thousand people, led by President Petro Poroshenko, held a peaceful ceremony in Independence Square to mark the anniversary and to commemorate the deaths a year ago of 100 anti-Yanukovych protesters.

Prisoner exchange

On Saturday, Ukraine and the rebels carried out a prisoner exchange, the first major sign of progress for an otherwise shaky truce signed more than a week ago. The swap, involving 139 Ukrainian troops and 52 rebels, took place near the eastern village of Zholobok.

Since the ouster of the Yanukovych government, Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean peninsula and separatists launched a rebellion in Ukraine's Russian-speaking east. At least 5,600 people have been killed since fighting erupted 10 months ago.

Moscow has been widely accused of supplying rebels with arms, fighters and other supplies. Moscow has repeatedly denied direct involvement.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/inter...ed-for-joint-arab-force-against-islamic-state

Egypt: Sisi emphasizes need for joint Arab force against Islamic State

Coalition reportedly in talks; top Muslim cleric calls for education reform to counter extremism

Published February 23rd 2015
09:46am

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi emphasized Sunday the need for a joint Arab task force to fight Islamist militancy in the Middle East, chiefly the jihadist organization Islamic State.

Sisi, a former commander of Egypt's armed forces, said the military is not interested in invading or attacking other nations, but will defend Egypt and believes in "coordination with our Arab brothers." Last week, Egypt made a first armed strike against Islamic State positions in Libya, in retaliation for the jihadists' beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians who were staying in the country.

The Associated Press reported that such a joint military force was being discussed in cover talks between Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, with Jordan being viewed as a possible partner. All those countries, sans Egypt, are also members of a US-led coalition bombing Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria.

France and Italy were mentioned as possible partners in such an expanded coalition as well. On Monday morning the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle was deployed off the coast of Iraq to assist the fight against Islamic State.

Sisi also called a political settlement in Lybia, torn apart between rival, contending governments, a regional priority.

Sisi also raised domestic issues, promising to release young people who may have been wrongly jailed during Egypt's crackdown on the opposition since he overthrew his Islamist predecessor in 2013.

Sisi has come under increasing criticism for a deadly crackdown on Islamists that has also ensnared secular dissidents, but he remains popular among Egyptians who say the country needs a firm hand.

Unlike in recent speeches, Sisi appeared relaxed in the taped address, and gently addressed some of the criticisms of his presidency.
He said journalists had complained that there were innocent people in jail, so he told them to draw up a list.

"I told them I don't deny there might be innocent youths" in prison, Sisi said.

"Over the next few days the first group of our youths in detention will be released," he added.

Rights groups say that more than 20,000 people, mostly Islamists, have been jailed in the crackdown since the then army chief toppled Islamist president Mohamed Morsi in July 2013.

Top Muslim cleric calls for education reform to counter extremism

Meanwhile, the head of Al-Azhar, Sunni Islam's most prestigious seat of learning, called on Sunday for education reform in Muslim countries in an effort to contain the spread of religious extremism.

Speaking at counter-terrorism forum in the Saudi holy city of Makka, Al-Azhar grand imam Ahmed al-Tayib linked extremism to "bad interpretations of the Quran and the sunna," the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.

"There has been a historical accumulation of excessive trends" that have led some people to embrace a misguided form of Islam, he told the gathering.

"The only hope for the Muslim nation to recover unity is to tackle in our schools and universities this tendency to accuse Muslims of being unbelievers," he said.

Tayib's comments come days after he expressed outrage at the Islamic State group for burning to death a captured Jordanian pilot who took part in US-led air strikes against the jihadists in Syria.

(with AFP)
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Gorbachev Says War With Russia Is Imminent

Ex Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev has said that he believes the United States is attempting to drag Russia into a war and is pulling the European Union into the situation too.

Pravda.ru reports:
“Now you can hear America and the European Union speaking about only sanctions against Russia. Have they lost their heads indeed? America got lost in the jungle and pulls us in there too,” Gorbachev told Interfax Thursday.
Advertisement

“If we call a spade a spade, America has pulled us into a new cold war, trying to openly implement its general idea of triumphalism. Where will it take us all? The Cold War is already on. What’s next? Unfortunately, I can not say firmly that the cold war will not lead to the hot one. I’m afraid that they might take the risk,” Mikhail Gorbachev said.
Advertisement

At the same time, Gorbachev noted that the state of affairs in the United States and the European Union is “not simple” at all. “Some countries in Europe live well, but other countries do not live well at all. They are too much dependent on the United States and Germany,” the former president of the USSR said.
“The situation is acute, one doesn’t need to simplify it – the split between politicians is too big. Unfortunately, it does not decrease, but only increases,” Mikhail Gorbachev said.

Previously, Gorbachev praised Russia’s move to reunite with the Crimea, noting that the referendum in March “successfully met expectations of the Crimeans.” Having returned the Crimea to Russia, Gorbachev added, Putin corrected a mistake of the Soviet Union. The former president of the Soviet Union also condemned Western sanctions against Russia.

In early 2014, Gorbachev urged presidents of Russia and the United States, Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama, to initiate talks on the situation in Ukraine and promote peaceful resolution of the conflict in the country.

“We can not allow the Ukrainians fight against the Ukrainians. This is terrible nonsense. But the situation has apparently taken the character that requires assistance from authoritative representatives of our two countries, otherwise it can lead to a disaster,” said Gorbachev in the beginning of 2014.

Mikhail Gorbachev earlier said that Europe may eventually face “terrifying massacre,” should the conflict in Ukraine spread to Europe. Gorbachev supports the policy of the Russian administration as far as the Ukrainian crisis is concerned. “One should do everything to stop the killings. This is one nation. If other countries get involved, and the scale of it grows, we can come to the worst massacre in Europe. This must not be allowed,” said the ex-president.

Mikhail Gorbachev believes the West should listen to what Putin says
At the same time, he noted that Russia must not interfere in the events in the south-eastern Ukraine. “If our country intervenes, a huge fire may spark, and the whole world won’t be able to put it out,” the former president of the USSR said.
The first Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev called on the West to lift sanctions and listen to the words that Russian President Vladimir Putin said during his speech at the meeting of the Valdai discussion club in 2014.

“Despite the severity of critical formulations against the West and especially the United States, I heard in his [Putin's] speech the desire to find ways to reduce tensions and create new grounds for partner relations in the long term,” Gorbachev said.
According to Mikhail Gorbachev, one must leave controversy and recrimination behind as soon as possible and take efforts to find common ground. “One should work towards the gradual dismantling of the sanctions that cause damage to both sides. First of all, one should lift so-called personal sanctions from politicians, so that they could join the search for solutions,” said Gorbachev. In his opinion, providing assistance to Ukraine in overcoming consequences of the war could be a way of cooperation.

Speaking at the meeting of the Valdai discussion club in Sochi on October 24, 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin urged the West to conduct equal dialogue and respect the positions of Russia. Putin compared the policy of the United States in the international arena with the behavior of the nouveaux riches (the new rich), “on whom enormous wealth – global leadership – has suddenly fallen.” Putin also said that the Americans, having “declared themselves victors in the Cold War,” sharply exacerbated imbalance in the world.

- See more at: http://yournewswire.com/gorbachev-sa....VR2QJv3y.dpuf
 

mzkitty

I give up.
1m
Russia offers Iran its latest Antey-2500 missiles after deal to supply less powerful S-300 missiles was dropped - @Reuters

Mon Feb 23, 2015 4:41am EST

(Reuters) - Russia has offered Iran its latest Antey-2500 missiles, the head of Russian state defense conglomerate Rostec said on Monday according to media reports, after a deal to supply less powerful S-300 missiles was dropped under Western pressure.

Sergei Chemezov said Tehran was now considering the offer, TASS news agency reported.

Russia scrapped a contract to supply Iran with S-300 surface-to-air missiles under Western pressure in 2010, and Iran later filed a $4-billion international arbitration suit against Russia in Geneva, but the two countries remain allies.

The United States and Israel lobbied Russia to block the missile sale, saying it could be used to shield Iran's nuclear facilities from possible future air strikes.

There was no immediate response to Chemezov's comments from Iran, Israel or the United States.

"As far as Iran is concerned, we offered Antey-2500 instead of S-300. They are thinking. No decision has been made yet," Chemezov was quoted as saying.

Rostec includes state-owned arms exporting monopoly Rosoboronexport, which has the sole right to export and import arms in Russia.

The Antey-2500 was developed from the 1980s-generation S-300V system (SA-12A Gladiator and SA-12B Giant). It can engage missiles traveling at 4,500 meters per second, with a range of 2,500 km (1,500 miles), according to the company that makes it, Almaz-Antey.

The S-300 missiles have a 125-mile range and Russia has stoked tensions with the West by trying to sell them to Syria and other Middle Eastern countries.

Chemezov told reporters conflicts in the Middle East had helped boost Russian arm sales, according to TASS.

"I don't conceal it, and everyone understands this, the more conflicts there are, the more they buy off weapon from us. Volumes are continuing to grow despite sanctions. Mainly, it's Latin America and the Middle East," he was quoted as saying.

Last year, Russian foreign arm sales totaled $13 billion, he added.

Chemezov was sanctioned by the U.S. government in April over Russia's role in the Ukraine crisis.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/23/us-iran-nuclear-russia-missiles-idUSKBN0LR0MZ20150223
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-01-230215.html

World
Feb 23, '15
COMMENT
IS and the morning after war
By Emile Nakhleh

If United States policymakers are interested in creating political stability after the Islamic State, they should explore how to re-establish a new political order on the ashes of the century-old Sykes-Picot Levant political architecture. In short, they must focus on the "morning after" before they embark on another potentially disastrous war in the Levant.

WASHINGTON - As the US Congress ponders President Barack Obama's request for an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to fight the Islamic State (ISIS or IS), US policymakers must focus on the "morning after" before they embark on another potentially disastrous war in the Levant.

The president assured the nation at his press conference on February 11 that IS is on the verge of being contained, degraded, and defeated. If true, the United States and the West must address the future of the region in the wake of the collapse of IS to avoid the rise of another extremist threat and another "perfect storm" in the region.

The evidence so far that Washington will be more successful than during the Iraq war is not terribly encouraging.

The Iraq War parallel
George Tenet, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, wrote in his book At the Center of the Storm that in September 2002 CIA analysts presented the Bush administration with an analytic paper titled "The Perfect Storm: Planning for Negative Consequences of Invading Iraq." The paper included "worst-case scenarios" of what could go wrong as a result of a US-led invasion of Iraq.

The paper, according to Tenet, outlined several negative consequences:
anarchy and the territorial breakup of Iraq;
regime-threatening instability in key Arab states;
deepening Islamic antipathy toward the United States that produced a surge of global terrorism against US interests.

The Perfect Storm paper suggested several steps that the United States could take that might mitigate the impact of these potentially negative consequences. These included a serious attempt at solving some of the key regional conflicts and domestic economic and political issues that have plagued the region for decades.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration spent more time worrying about defeating Saddam's army than focusing on what could follow Saddam's demise. Ignoring the Perfect Storm paper, as the past decade has shown, was detrimental to US interests, the security of the region, and the stability of some key Arab allies. The US and the region now have to deal with these consequences - anarchy, destruction, and refugees - of the Bush administration's refusal to act on those warnings.

The past decade also witnessed the resurgence of radical and terrorist groups, which happily filled the vacuum that ensued. US credibility in the region plummeted as well.

When CIA analysts persisted in raising their concerns about a post-Saddam Iraq, the Pentagon's Under Secretary for Policy Doug Feith dismissed the concerns as "persnickety."

If the Obama administration wants to avoid the miscalculations of the previous administration about Iraq, it should make sure the land war against IS in Iraq and Syria does not become "enduring" and that the presence of US troops on the ground does not morph into an "occupation."

Defeating IS might be the easy part. Devising a reasonably stable post-IS Levant will be more challenging because of the complexity of the issues involved. Before embarking on the next phase of combat, US policymakers should have the courage and strategic vision to raise and answer several key questions.

How will Sunni and Shia Muslims react to the re-entry of US troops on the ground and to the likelihood that US military presence could extend beyond three years?

The "liberation" of Iraq that the Bush administration touted in March 2003 quickly turned into "occupation," which precipitously engendered anger among the population. Iraqi Sunnis and Shia rose up against the US military. The insurgency that erupted attracted thousands of foreign jihadists from the Middle East and other parts of the Muslim world. Bloody sectarianism and vigilantism spread across Iraq as an unintended consequence of the invasion, and it still haunts the region today.

During the Iraq war, the Iraqi Sunni minority, which has ruled the country since its creation in the early 1920s, perceived the United States as backing the Shia majority at the expense of the Sunnis. They also saw the United States as supporting the sectarian policies of former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, especially as he excluded Sunnis from senior government positions. This feeling of alienation pushed many Iraqi Sunnis to support the Islamic State.

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld refused to admit that an insurgency and a civil war were spreading across Iraq. By the time he admitted that both were happening, it became impossible to defend the "liberation" thesis to Iraqis and other Arabs and Muslims.

If the US-led ground war against IS extends to Syria, how will Washington reconcile its announced policy favoring Assad's downfall with fighting alongside his forces, and how will the Arab public and leaders react to such perceived hypocrisy?

It's foolish to argue that the US-led war against IS in Syria is not indirectly benefiting the Assad regime. Assad claimed in a recent BBC interview that the coalition provides his regime with "information" about the fighting. Regardless of the veracity of his claim, Assad has enjoyed a breathing room and the freedom to pursue his opponents viciously and mercilessly, thanks to the US-led coalition's laser-like focus on IS.

Sunni Arab regimes, especially Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are already urging the Obama administration to increase substantially its military support of the anti-Assad mainstream opposition. These regimes, which are also fighting IS, argue that the United States could simultaneously fight IS and work toward toppling Assad.

If this situation continues and Assad stays in power while IS is being contained, Sunni Arab populations would soon begin to view the United States as the "enemy." Popular support for radical jihadists would grow, and the region would witness a repeat of the Iraq scenario.

The territorial expansion of IS across Iraq and Syria has for all intents and purposes removed the borders between the two countries and is threatening the boundaries between Syria and Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan, and Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

If US policymakers are interested in creating political stability after IS, they should explore how to re-establish a new political order on the ashes of the century-old Sykes-Picot Levant political architecture. Otherwise, the "Iraq fatigue" that almost crippled US efforts in Iraq in recent years, especially during the Maliki era, will surely be replaced by a "Levant fatigue."

It will take a monumental effort to redesign a new Levant based on reconciling Sunnis, Shia, Christians, Kurds, and Arabs on the principles of inclusion, tolerance, and respect for human rights, economic opportunity, and good governance. If the United States is not prepared to commit time and resources to this goal, the Levant would devolve into failed states and ungovernable territories.

If radical Sunni ideology and autocracy are the root causes of IS, what should the United States do to thwart the rise of another terrorist organization in the wake of this one?

Since the bulk of radical Sunni theology comes out of Saudi Arabia and militant Salafi Wahhabism, the United States should be prepared to urge the new Saudi leadership, especially the Deputy to the Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Nayef, to review the role of Salafi Wahhabi preachers and religious leaders in domestic public life and foreign policy. This also should certainly apply to Saudi education and textbooks.

Whereas in the past, Saudi officials have resisted any perceived foreign interference as an encroachment on their religion, this type of extremist, intolerant ideology has nevertheless given radical jihadists a religious justification for their violence. It now poses an undeniable threat to the national security of the United States and the safety of its citizens in the region.

Autocracy, corruption, repression, and anarchy in several Arab states have left millions of citizens and refugees alienated, unemployed, and angry. Many young men and women in these populations will be tempted to join new terrorist organizations following IS's demise. The governments violate the rights of these young people at whim, imprison them illegally, and convict them in sham trials - all because of their political views or religious affiliation or both - in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere.

In Egypt thousands of political prisoners are languishing in jail. In Bahrain, the regime has been stripping dozens of citizens of their citizenship because of their pro-democracy views. Once their passports are taken away, Bahraini citizens are deprived of most government services and opportunities. When visiting a government office for a particular service, they are required to show the passport, which the government has already taken away, as a proof of identity - a classic case of "Catch 22" leaving these citizens in a state of economic and political limbo.

The Perfect Storm paper warned the Bush administration about what could follow Saddam if critical questions about a post-Saddam Iraq were not addressed. The Bush White House did not heed those warnings. It would be indeed tragic for the United States if the Obama administration made the same mistake.

Emile Nakhlehis a Research Professor at the University of New Mexico, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and author of A Necessary Engagement: Reinventing America's Relations with the Muslim World.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to Inter Press Service.

(Inter Press Service)
 

mzkitty

I give up.
Muzzie.

2m
US Marine Cpl. Wassef Hassoun found guilty of desertion charges related to disappearances in Iraq and Lebanon
- @AP
End of alert
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/putins-objective-ukraine-expert-202237514.html

Mon, Feb 23, 2015, 4:41pm EST - US Markets are closed

This is Putin's objective in Ukraine: Expert
. CNBC 1 hour ago

Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to take control of Ukraine along the border down to Crimea, and it's beginning to look like that may happen, retired Army Col. Jack Jacobs told CNBC on Monday.

"He'll effectively have total control over that area along the Black Sea, which will make Ukraine a land-locked country," the Medal of Honor recipient and MSNBC military analyst said in an interview with " Power Lunch ."

That will give Putin control over the Russian speakers in the area and will give him a warm-water port in the Black Sea, Jacobs pointed out.

Despite a cease-fire agreement last week, new attacks have continued in Ukraine. That led Ukraine to delay a promised pullback of heavy weapons from the front line Monday.

Meanwhile, the United States doesn't seem willing to do what it takes to put a stop to Putin, Jacobs said.

"We don't even have support among the Europeans for economic means to really squeeze Putin," he noted.

Jacobs said that's because Europe does not want to break any economic connection with the country.

"They've thrown in the towel already. They're not on our side and we're not going to do anything to irritate Western Europeans, quite frankly."

The European Union is Russia's biggest trading partner. Russian imports from the EU accounted for 123.2 billion euros ($139.6 billion) in 2012, according to the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the European Union.

Last week, the EU announced a new list of sanctions against pro-Russian separatists, Russian military leaders and politicians but experts have voiced doubt about how the measures will impact Russia's economy.

-CNBC's Dina Gusovsky and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102441753?__source=yahoo|finance|inline|story|story&par=yahoo&doc=102447998#.

Some Russian-European ties are growing closer

Catherine Boyle | @cboylecnbc
4 Hours Ago
CNBC.com

Video Interview: Dr Samuel Greene - King's Russia Institute

Russia's relationship with the European Union establishment is at its lowest ebb for decades. However, its ties with some sections of European politics are getting stronger.

In March last year, when tensions surrounding Ukraine were at their highest, politicians from a mix of minority left-and right-wing European parties landed in Crimea. In their opinion, the Crimea referendum, in which 95.5 percent of those who voted said Yes to rejoining Russia, was free and fair. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which would usually have sent a team of observers, did not attend the Crimea referendum as it deemed it illegal.

As relationships between Russia and the West hit their lowest ebb since the fall of the Iron Curtain, concerns in the West are mounting that Russia may seek to destabilize other countries than Ukraine – and that it is doing this partly through the countries' minority parties.

The U.K. defense secretary Michael Fallon claimed Thursday in remarks to U.K. journalists that there is a "real and present danger" of Russia trying to destabilise the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia – and that he is worried about "pressure" from Russia on these countries, all NATO members.


Russia extends olive branch to Greeks

Among European Union members, Poland and the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia have been the strongest voices in favour of tougher action against Russia – partly for historical reasons, and partly because those leaders are wary of Russian-backed opposition parties in their own countries.

Added to that is the possibility Russia may step in to help Greece if it fails to secure a new agreement on its debt. Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov told CNBC in January that Russia would consider giving financial help to debt-ridden Greece.

How it works

There has been a well-established tradition of powerful countries developing links with parties in smaller countries. There was plenty of Western money given to new parties in eastern Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union, for example. But what form is Russia's support taking?

Anton Shekhovtsov, a Ukrainian-born researcher into the links between Russia and Europe's far right, told CNBC: "This is going on at quite a high level. Individuals can't really establish contact without approval from people who are well-connected to the Kremlin."

Support doesn't have to be financial. Party leaders can also be invited to meetings and give speeches in Russia, which can help give them a sense of importance outside their national borders.

russia-minority-party-relationships-01.jpg

http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnb...23/russia-minority-party-relationships-01.jpg


"There have been suggestions for a number of years that the Kremlin has been funding parties in Central and Eastern Europe – there is an overlap of institutions and personnel. In Western Europe, financial support seems to be less of an issue, apart from the recent example of the National Front," Andrew Foxall, director of the Russia Studies Centre at right-wing London-based think tank the Henry Jackson Society, told CNBC.

National Front, the French far-right party, confirmed in December that it took out a €9 million ($11.2 million) loan from Russian-owned First Czech-Russian Bank (FCRB), which was established in 1996 by the Czech government, but is now owned by Roman Popov, its former chairman and an associate of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In France, one of the key figures is believed to be Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Jean-Luc Schaffhauser, who introduced Le Pen to Alexander Mikhailovich Babakov--one of Putin's main advisors, the former head of arch-conservative party Rodina and on the EU-US sanctions list over Ukraine. Another is Front National MEP Aymeric Chauprade, who was on the Crimea trip.

Schaffhauser did not respond to requests for interview.


Russian links to EU far right exposed by French loan

"Aside from the gradual rapprochement that is accelerated as the Ukraine crisis unfolds, there is also quite clearly through the creation of these branches within FCRB, a strategy for reaching out to ultra conservative parties in European countries," Catherine Fieschi, director at Counterpoint, told CNBC.

In Germany, eyebrows have been raised over a meeting between the Russian ambassador and Alternativ für Deutschland (AfD) – although AfD have denied that these were above the normal course of business. The left-wing Die Linke (The Left) has historically closer ties to Russia, and sent several representatives to the Crimea referendum.

In Italy, connections are being made between the Kremlin and eursceptic Lega Nord (Northern League), whose leader Matteo Salvini made a high-profile appearance at the NF conference late last year that included grooving in a nightclub with Le Pen.

The U.K. Independence Party, the U.K.'s eurosceptic challenger party, appears to be the main focus in that country. A UKIP spokesman said the party would never accept a loan from a Russian bank. Its leader, Nigel Farage, has regularly appeared on Russia Today, the Russian satellite broadcaster, and has said that Putin is the leader he most admires.

Who rules the heartland?

Just after World War 1, English academic Sir Halford Mackinder wrote: "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; Who rules the World-Island commands the World."

Mackinder's ideas helped inform the German Nazi Party's Lebensraum policy. And there are still some in Russia who believe him.

Among them is the influential Russian political scientist and founder of the Eurasia Party, Aleksandr Dugin. He argues that a new "Eurasia" should be established to combat what he calls "Atlanticism" (i.e. US influence). Dugin was one of the first prominent Russian voices to call on Putin to aid pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine. He has lectured across Europe – and in Greece at the University of Piraeus, as part of a course taught by current Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias.


Backfire? How Russia sanctions could hit Europe

Recent Russian actions in Ukraine suggest that those who agree with Dugin are gaining sway in Russia.

There is evidence of Russian support for right-wing parties in Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, and of course Hungary, where Prime Minister Viktor Orban has recently made strongly pro-Russia statements like: "Without co-operation with the Russians we cannot achieve our goals."

What’s in it for Russia?

As for Russia's motivation, destabilizing the European Union at one of the most vulnerable points – and when east-west relationships have soured -- is key. Opinion is divided over whether Russia is motivated by pragmatism or ideology – or a combination of both.

"This is part of a broad spread of measures designed to confuse and demoralize the opposition. This part is opportunistic, taking advantage of disillusionment with the existing political order in Europe. There is no ideological aim to this," Neil Barnett, the founder of risk consultancy and CEE specialist Istok Associates, told CNBC.

Russia rarely continues to back losing horses – as can be seen in the decline in relationships with the British National Party leadership as the party collapsed.

"The Kremlin isn't giving anything away for free. It will support who it sees has good chances on a national level in their country," Shekhovtsov said.


Greece, Ukraine and Russia: History lessons

It goes without saying that Russia has historically strong links with Central and Eastern Europe, although these declined in the latter decades of the twentieth century as Soviet influence waned. This century has seen increased economic and political interest, with the Russian elite expanding its commercial presence in the region via privatizations in countries like Serbia, where Gazprom bought control of state-backed oil and gas company Naftna Industrija Srbije (NIS) in 2008. The now-abandoned South Stream pipeline was a key tenet of Russian influence in the area.

And Russia will go to great lengths to protect its military interests in the Black Sea.

There are also strong religious and cultural ties between Russia and many of these countries.

Key player?

One key individual is young Russian tycoon Konstantin Malofeev, believed to be a key ally of Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's deputy prime minister and its former ambassador to NATO. The devoted Orthodox Church member, who is the subject of sanctions from the Western powers, has allegedly been supportive of Russian separatists in Ukraine – and has established contacts with several key Greek figures, including new Defense Minister Panos Kammenos.

The new premier of the People's Republic of Donetsk, Alexander Borodai, and Colonel Igor Strelkov (also known as Igor Girkin), former leader of the Russian separatists working there, used to work for Malofeev.

Malofeev did not respond to requests for an interview through his fund Marshall Capital Partners. In a rare interview with Western media, he told Slate in October 2014 that sanctions are a "very stupid instrument" and added: "Just as Christians in the West in Ronald Reagan's time helped us against the evil of communism, we now have to return our debt to Christians who are suffering under totalitarianism in the West."

The next milestone in this particular Great Game? The disputed territories of Ukraine are an ongoing flashpoint. To see how well the pro-Russian sentiment machine has done, watch what happens in July, when the next vote on the extension of sanctions is due.

Correction: This article has been updated to reflect that the political party created by Aleksandr Dugin is called the Eurasia Party.


- By CNBC's Catherine Boyle
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...e-a-Place-for-‘Total-War’-in-the-Modern-World

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://ciceromagazine.com/features/total-war-in-the-modern-world/

Is there a Place for ‘Total War’ in the Modern World?

Captain Justin Lynch
Posted on February 23, 2015
Comments 6

The way America has waged war in the post-9/11 era is controversial. Conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere evolved into counterinsurgency missions. These efforts are “population-centric”, focused on winning locals to the coalition side. The Abu Ghraib prison abuses and the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on CIA’s Enhanced Interrogation Program, among other controversies, revealed U.S. actions contrary to such efforts. Despite the focus on COIN and civil affairs operations over the last 15 years of war, there remains disagreement as to how America should be fighting these wars. Critics of the Petraeus-Nagl Doctrine argue that America would be better suited fighting enemies such as al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS much as they fight against America — with “Total War.” Unable to rule out the possibility of fighting future population-centric wars, America must resolve this debate and discard Total War techniques, such as torture, and to respect human rights — both because it is the more effective way to wage modern war and because the military should demonstrate American values abroad.

Total War

Total War is the subordination of political goals to the prosecution of war. Its only options are total victory or total defeat, and it is acceptable to attack enemy states or organizations without moral or legal discrimination between combatants and noncombatants. Total War is “fought heedless of the restraints of morality, custom, or international law…The most crucial determinant of total war is the widespread, indiscriminate, and deliberate inclusion of civilians as legitimate military targets.”

In the current operating environment, total war is the use of violence that does not discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. This can be the punishment of whole populations for the actions of a few, creating free-fire zones in areas with known civilian populations, or the indiscriminate bombardment of urban areas to quell resistance. It includes taking the enemy’s family members prisoner to use as leverage or torturing detainees to gain information.

Rather than outright acceptance or rejection of total war based on philosophy or ethics, leaders should examine its effectiveness at the tactical, operational, strategic, and policy levels.

Limited Success to Total Failure

Rather than outright acceptance or rejection of total war based on philosophy or ethics, leaders should examine its effectiveness at the tactical, operational, strategic, and policy levels.

Tactically, total war techniques have had successes. French paratroopers fighting in the Algerian War of Independence saw tactical success from the use of torture. Their techniques, vividly depicted in The Battle of Algiers, helped identify and destroy the National Liberation Front, temporarily suppressing the insurgency. Similarly, Britain’s bombing of population centers and village burnings during the Iraqi Revolt of 1920 helped temporarily suppress an insurgency.

The United States has had more dubious results. Torture has been of questionable utility. Government spokesmen claimed CIA’s use of waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” led to the killing of Osama Bin Laden among other successes, but the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report has cast doubt on this claim. In wars among populations, harsh interrogation techniques can produce short-term results, but may also result in the occupying force becoming isolated from the population it relies on to provide information about enemy forces.

Total war techniques have some utility at the operational level in wars among populations. The most successful forces in conflicts of this type usually focus on resolving the underlying cause of either the insurgency or the population’s support of the insurgency. But every conflict is different, so the effectiveness of indiscriminate violence and torture varies based on the particulars of the situation.

Total war loses its utility at the strategic level. Modern expeditionary forces are unlikely to experience battlefield defeats that threaten overall military failure. The internal center of gravity for states fighting expeditionary-style warfare is domestic support for the war. Domestic support is less reliable during expeditionary warfare–particularly counterinsurgencies–because these conflicts are usually wars of choice. When the American public learns its military is committing human rights violations, they lose faith in the righteousness of its efforts. The French population’s support for the war in Algeria foundered after the people learned their soldiers frequently tortured Algerians, contributing to the dissolution of the Fourth Republic. The US military experienced a milder version of this after evidence of the massacres at My Lai and Haditha and of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib emerged.

When the population loses faith in its military, the ability of the United States to successfully prosecute a war weakens as surely as if it were losing battles. Broadly speaking, harsh techniques are more effective when a government uses them against domestic actors than when an expeditionary force uses them. Domestic governments are less likely to fight wars of choice, and therefore receive stronger support from at least part of their population.

Total war truly fails at the policy level. Just War theory states that the only valid reason to go to war is to create a better peace. If America wants to create a better peace, it needs to live up to the values and ideals it champions. Deliberately violating America’s espoused values creates a different set of values, changing the national identity for the worse. The desired end-state of any military action is not just defined by what happens to America’s enemies–it is also defined by what America does to itself. If America’s national identity changes from a state that embraces freedom and human rights to that of a state willing to employ any means most convenient to win wars, the United States must question if it is a victory worth winning.

Total War’s Place

There are several arguments made to support total war. Some attempt to use history to demonstrate that it has worked in the past, citing Sherman’s march to the sea, the strategic bombing campaigns of World War II, or the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In each of these cases the United States military did not seek to avoid offending the cultural sensitivities of its enemies and instead got down to the real business of war: Destruction.

This is a deeply flawed argument. The military’s job is to use force or the threat of force to cause others to do what it wants, not just to break things and kill people. Disregarding the significant changes in media since these wars, during WWII and the Civil War the United States chose to achieve victory by destroying its enemies’ armed forces and production capacity, stripping them of the ability to resist.

The most effective methods included strategic bombing campaigns, nuclear weapons, and Sherman’s “scorched earth.” This differs from the now far more common wars among populations, particularly counterinsurgencies. In these fights, victory comes from convincing the population to stop supporting insurgents and start supporting the expeditionary force or its partner government. With victory dependent on the population’s choices, indiscriminate violence that alienates them interferes with progress. In the WWII and Civil War paradigm, America made war against an entire people. In the modern paradigm of war among populations, the United States fights a small segment of the population while trying to turn the rest into allies.

Others argue that Total War is the only way to defeat insurgencies, and America’s military could accomplish its mission if only the American population had the will to do what is necessary. This theory has at least two errors. First, little evidence exists to support the idea that a military unconstrained by rules of engagement or ethics will fight more effectively in today’s environment. Returning to the Civil War and WWII paradigm, destroying the production capacity of an insurgency usually proves insufficient given their limited logistical needs. Destroying an insurgency’s armed forces through attrition does not work. As long as there is a population and an appealing cause, there will be more insurgents.

The second error is that even if Total War works at the tactical and operational level–an uncertain claim–Americans will not support inhumane methods in a war of choice. Those proposing total war seem frustrated by restrictions and the ability of relatively weak states or organizations to defy major powers. Military and political leaders need to plan and work in the real world, not to make plans for methods that could work if only the military receives support it never will.

Total war may have its place in future state-on-state wars if the strategic calculus returns to destroying a state’s capacity to conduct war. Even in wars among populations, war is inherently violent and ugly. If it was not, it would be called diplomacy, not war. But insisting that war must be as violent and ugly as possible is as wrong as insisting that optimism and good intentions can make it nice. Wars among populations are difficult problems that America has not yet figured out how to solve efficiently. The military needs to focus doctrinal innovation towards solving these problems more economically and effectively. But the dialogue required for progress needs to focus on developing new techniques and theories for how to accomplish policy goals. Calls for Total War solutions that fail at the strategic and policy level will not help.



[Photo: Flickr CC: 1st Brigade Combat Team]



Captain Justin Lynch graduated from the United States Military Academy with a B.S. in Military History and commissioned in the Army. He has served as a platoon leader in Afghanistan, a company executive officer in Iraq, an assistant operations officer, a company commander, and is currently the training officer at the Northern Warfare Training Center. He has previously written for Infantry, Small Wars Journal, and War on the Rocks. The views expressed are his alone and do not represent those of the United States Army or Department of Defense.


6 Comments
Post a comment

Joe says:


February 23, 2015 at 7:52 pm

Many would claim that the US approach to war since 9/11 has been controversial, not because it has exemplified Total War, but rather because it has exemplified careful, domestic politics-of-the-day war. Our friend Clausewitz used the term Total War to define the absolute limits of war, where every member of a nation-state society is contributing, and every weapon and tool of war is used, to defeat the enemy utterly in unconditional surrender or (better yet) complete annihilation. Thermonuclear weapons, germ warfare, it’s all on the table.

95% of Americans feel not one feather’s touch of the wars in which we have been engaged since 9/11. Total War? Hardly.

Reply



ADM64 says:


February 23, 2015 at 8:00 pm

The author misrepresents our historical experience with total war, our people’s attitude towards it, and the strategic purpose of warfare. Large portions of our population would, to paint broadly, accept nuking the entire Middle East (except Israel), Pakistan and Iran and walking away. Who cares if the locals like or accept us or “do what we want.”

Reply



GRV01 says:


February 23, 2015 at 8:06 pm

“The military’s job is to use force or the threat of force to cause others to do what it wants, not just to break things and kill people.”

Heinlein wrote it better.

Reply



Flavio says:


February 23, 2015 at 8:44 pm

As far as popular support in the current and future wars being fought by America, we as a nation need a total re-focusing of civic education.

Too many of our future leaders in colleges and universities spend far too much time learning about race, class and gender, as opposed to geopolitics, diplomacy, military history, statecraft and other pertinent topics to name a few. We leave too much of these subjects to be studied at the graduate level; leaving the vast majority of society and its voting block, largely ignorant of anything related to matters of war.

The average American has no understanding of the realistic capabilities or lack thereof of our military, the motivations of our enemies, or of the intricacies required to fight said wars. Unfortunately many are much more knowledgeable about the plights of a myriad of minority categories when studying the social sciences.

The focus of study is not a zero sum game, but in order to have a society capable of making decisions of the voting booth, decisions affecting the outcome of conflicts, we must devote much more effort to educating said society about warfare and statecraft.

Reply



Flavio says:


February 23, 2015 at 8:59 pm

Recent political discussions about the use of bayonets, the size of our navy, or the inafmous “boots on the ground”, only highlight either the ignorance of our leaders or their dumbing down of crucial matters to a public unisterested and ignorant of their own lack of knowledge in issues so crucial to nations.

“Boots on the ground” is the epitomy of this dumbing down, our leaders either do not understand the concept of combat or the role of infantry forces, or worse yet, conciously count on the public’s ignorance of the topic.

We live in times where airpower and “special forces” are seen and used as silver bullets to all problems requiring the application of force.

Reply



James B. says:


February 23, 2015 at 9:06 pm

The clearest example of total war was World War II in the Pacific, where the US strategy could be expressed as “Plan A: kill Japanese until they surrender, Plan B: see Plan A.”

This worked because we had the resources and will to pursue such a blunt plan. We had the military capability to deliberately encircle and annihilate the Taliban’s forces and the Iraqi army, which would have dramatically reduced the recruiting base for resistance movements, but we did not have the political will to conduct total war.

Total war as we understand it is a very European construct, and it produced a very Western way of fighting which is not well suited to limited warfare, because it treats all wars as fundamentally the same contest of populations and industrial bases. Assuming that European-derived strategies of war will be effective against societies who don’t play by Western rules, or even understand those rules, is unwise.

Sun Tzu had it right: we must know both what we want in a war, and what our enemy wants, so that we can best convince them to accept our view of the world. Just killing everyone is inefficient and messy.

Reply
 
Last edited:

mzkitty

I give up.
Muzzie.

2m
US Marine Cpl. Wassef Hassoun found guilty of desertion charges related to disappearances in Iraq and Lebanon
- @AP
End of alert


So he went and hooked up with all the Isis types, and he only gets two years? Watch out when he gets back on the streets.

7m
Update: US Marine gets 2 years in prison for disappearing in Iraq, Lebanon a decade ago - @AP
End of alert
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
So he went and hooked up with all the Isis types, and he only gets two years? Watch out when he gets back on the streets.

7m
Update: US Marine gets 2 years in prison for disappearing in Iraq, Lebanon a decade ago - @AP
End of alert

Hummmm.....Sounds more like a "deep cover" agent's cover perpetuation. (Too much "24" and le Carre'?)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/incidental-superpower-america-will-be-forced-lead-12299

Incidental Superpower: America Will Be Forced to Lead

Even though America will intervene more selectively in the future, it can't escape its fate.

Derek Reveron, Nikolas K. Gvosdev
February 23, 2015
Comments

Since 1945, the United States has employed military force about every four years. Some deployments were high-intensity conflicts like Korea in 1950-3 or Iraq in 1990-1. Other deployments were long-term efforts to counter insurgencies and build functioning states such as Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 and Afghanistan since 2001. As U.S. foreign policy looks beyond 2016, with likely reductions in defense spending, and a general distaste from recent bouts of state-building efforts, the United States will be more selective when it chooses to use force and where to intervene.

This does not mean that the world has become a safer place. As the 2015 National Security Strategy makes clear, “there is no shortage of challenges that demand continued American leadership.” Nevertheless, fiscal austerity is a reality in the United States that will affect the expeditionary capabilities and global American military presence. The failure of grand plans to reshape the Middle East and Central Asia have instilled an appreciation for the risks involved in large, transformational international-security projects. Witness the restraint in postconflict reconstruction in Libya to include closure of the embassy in Tripoli and the reluctance to choose a side in Syria's civil war. Even the return to Iraq to combat the Islamic State focuses on the delivery of pinpoint strikes, rather than on the full-scale rehabilitation of the Iraqi state.

At the same time, technological innovation is striking at the heart of one of the key rationales for America’s global engagement—U.S. dependence on securing international trade routes for energy, other raw materials and manufactured goods. The United States can afford to be more self-selective in determining how much of the burden of keeping the global commons open it wishes to accept. This is glimpsed in the president's latest national strategy, which captures the zeitgeist of foreign policy: the preservation and expansion of domestic prosperity.

America’s own economic recovery, coupled with growing energy self-sufficiency, is benefiting domestic production and redefining the economic landscape. Through a combination of defense cuts and more economic self-reliance, the U.S. global security posture will shift while redefining the national interest. If this trend continues, along with efforts to seek resolutions of existing disputes (such as those between the United States and Iran over its nuclear program), some of the rationale for the extent to which the United States adopts a strategy of forward deployment of its military around the world will be reduced.

When analyzing the extent to which the document is a strategy, we think it should answer three basic questions. First, what do we wish to achieve? That is, what are the desired ends? Next, how do we get there? Finally, what resources are available? Because the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act included provisions requiring the president to publish a National Security Strategy on a regular basis, these debates have found their way into the strategic documents that are supposed to guide national-security policy. The 2015 iteration is very aware of the tension that now exists between a U.S. commitment to maintain the current international system and clear limits on American resources and attention. Thus, President Obama declares, “We embrace our responsibilities for underwriting international security because it serves our interests, upholds our commitments to allies and partners, and addresses threats that are truly global,” but also stresses that “. . . we will focus on building the capacity of others to prevent the causes and consequences of conflict . . .” An emphasis on building partners' capacity is the American attempt to overcome the tragedy of the commons by sharing the defense burden through foreign military sales in Asia, joint training efforts in Europe and multinational military coalitions in the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean.

As a result, the preference will be to reinforce capable partners, such as India, Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom, France and Saudi Arabia, who can take on stabilizing roles in their regions to deter the possible rise of challengers intent upon changing the existing global order, rather than have the United States take the lead in all cases. These partners, who can make definitive contributions to international security, have a shared sense of a world defined by secure lines of communication, free trade and collective security. To be sure, future U.S. grand strategy will be global and multilateral, but it will be much more selective than it is today.

Under this approach, the United States would focus on meeting its treaty commitments (but interpret them in a much stricter and restrictive fashion) and would also require its partners, if the threat emanated from their region of the world, to assume primary responsibility for action, including shouldering the costs. The challenge, moving forward, will be whether the United States makes it clear that it is not prepared to deploy a fiscal or military safety net to make up for a partner’s shortfalls the next time its foreign policy exceeds its military capacity. In both northeast Asia and the Middle East, the United States expects its partners to do more.

In addition to enabling partners to take more action, a second challenge is coping with the rise of new powers that have benefitted from the existing system, but chafe at the imposition of rules and regulations they feel unfairly privilege the powers of the industrialized Global North and West. It is very true that the emerging powers of the Global South and East are resistant to the idea of a single rulebook for the world’s nations that has been drawn up largely in Washington. Yet no other power or group of powers is positioned to create an alternate global system that can produce the same benefits. In particular, China remains suspicious of what it sees as American attempts to get Beijing to do things that lighten Washington’s “hegemonic burden” without fundamentally changing the current distribution of power and influence in the international system. Yet, China's rise is inextricably linked to the Americanized international order. Modifying the status quo, rather than replacing it altogether, will remain the guiding principle.

It is likely, therefore, that rising powers will negotiate with the United States over accommodations rather than turn to outright conflict. (Even Russia, which is struggling to retain its position among the major states of the international order, is attempting by its actions in Ukraine to improve its bargaining position through its efforts to define a distinct sphere for itself.) In turn, the domestic politics of the United States, which are trending in favor of retrenchment, will lead Washington to be more prepared to seek power-sharing compromise arrangements reminiscent of the way it did after World War II when the Soviet Union and China were made permanent members of the UN Security Council. The first tentative efforts to define a new pattern of great-power relations between the United States and China, a hallmark of the recent summit between Obama and Xi Jinping, and the outreach to India, are signs of this transformation. Traditional allies in Europe and Asia who have grown accustomed to a United States that picks up the slack in regional security and offsets the threats posed by a rising China and a resurgent Russia may be troubled, but the United States increasingly will be more inclined to find compromises that preserve the overall structure of the current system.

The United States will become more selective in where and when it chooses to act, both because of budget cuts at home and the rising power of other states. Yet Washington is also eager to maintain the current system, which has depended on U.S. willingness to shoulder the lion’s share of the burdens. This strategy seems to have been an attempt to signal that other partners need to step up more, but it may have the unintended consequence of casting doubts on Washington's reliability—at a time when clear statements, not purposeful ambiguity, are more critical than ever.

Thus, as the first two decades of the twenty-first century fade, the impetus to challenge the U.S.-led order will recede, with emphasis instead placed on gaining more influence within it. As this occurs, the new world order will end up looking a lot like the old one, where the United States incidentally leads.

Derek S. Reveron and Nikolas K. Gvosdev are professors of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. These views are their own and do not represent an official position of the United States government. Their latest book with Mackubin T. Owens is US Foreign Policy and Defense Strategy: The Evolution of an Incidental Superpower.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.yahoo.com/phased-us-iran-nuclear-deal-taking-shape-112339907--politics.html

Historic US-Iran nuclear deal could be taking shape

Associated Press
By GEORGE JAHN and BRADLEY KLAPPER
4 hours ago

GENEVA (AP) — Edging toward a historic compromise, the U.S. and Iran reported progress Monday on a deal that would clamp down on Tehran's nuclear activities for at least 10 years but then slowly ease restrictions on programs that could be used to make atomic arms.

Officials said there were still obstacles to overcome before a March 31 deadline, and any deal will face harsh opposition in both countries. It also would be sure to further strain already-tense U.S. relations with Israel, whose leaders oppose any agreement that doesn't end Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to strongly criticize the deal in an address before Congress next week.

Still, a comprehensive pact could ease 35 years of U.S-Iranian enmity — and seems within reach for the first time in more than a decade of negotiations.

"We made progress," U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said as he bade farewell to members of the American delegation at the table with Iran. More discussions between Iran and the six nations engaging it were set for next Monday, a senior U.S. official said.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the sides found "a better understanding" at the negotiating table.

Western officials familiar with the talks cited movement but also described the discussions as a moving target, meaning changes in any one area would have repercussions for other parts of the negotiation.

The core idea would be to reward Iran for good behavior over the last years of any agreement, gradually lifting constraints on its uranium enrichment and slowly easing economic sanctions.

Iran says it does not want nuclear arms and needs enrichment only for energy, medical and scientific purposes, but the U.S. fears Tehran could re-engineer the program to produce the fissile core of a nuclear weapon.

The U.S. initially sought restrictions lasting up to 20 years; Iran has pushed for less than a decade. The prospective deal appears to be somewhere in the middle.

One variation being discussed would place at least a 10-year regime of strict controls on Iran's uranium enrichment. If Iran complied, the restrictions would be gradually lifted over the final five years.

One issue critics are certain to focus on: Once the deal expired, Iran could theoretically ramp up enrichment to whatever level it wanted.

Experts say Iran already could produce the equivalent of one weapon's worth of enriched uranium with its present operating 10,000 centrifuges. Several officials spoke of 6,500 centrifuges as a potential point of compromise, with the U.S. trying to restrict them to Iran's mainstay IR-1 model instead of more advanced machines.

However, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said last year that his country needed to increase its output equivalent to at least 190,000 of its present-day centrifuges.

Under a possible agreement, Iran also would be forced to ship out most of the enriched uranium it produced or change it to a form that would be difficult to convert for weapons use. It takes about one ton of low-enriched uranium to process into a nuclear weapon, and officials said that Tehran could be restricted to an enriched stockpile of no more than about 700 pounds.

The officials represent different countries among the six world powers negotiating with Iran — the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about the negotiations.

Formal relations between the U.S. and Iran, severed during the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis in 1979, have progressively improved since moderate Iranian President Hassan Rouhani took office in 2013. Further reconciliation would help the West in a region where Iran holds considerable sway and the U.S. is increasingly involved in the struggle against Islamic extremists.

But even if the two sides agree to a preliminary deal in March and a follow-up pact in June, such a two-phase arrangement will face fierce criticism from Congress and Israel, both of which will argue it fails to significantly curb Tehran's nuclear weapons potential.

Israel was already weighing in.

Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon warned that such a deal would represent "a great danger" to the Western world and said it "will allow Iran to become a nuclear threshold state."

In Washington, President Barack Obama has been trying to keep Congress from passing new sanctions against Iran that he says could scuttle further diplomacy and rekindle the threat of a new Mideast war.

Iranian hardliners fearing a sellout of their country's nuclear program may also pressure Rouhani, although he appears secure as long as a deal is supported by Khamenei.

The U.N's International Atomic Energy Agency would have responsibility for monitoring, and any deal would depend on technical safeguards rather than Iranian guarantees.

The IAEA already is monitoring Iranian compliance with an interim agreement that came into force a year ago and has given Tehran good marks. Separately, it also oversees Tehran's nuclear programs to ensure they remain peaceful.

Its attempts to follow up on suspicions that Iran once worked on nuclear arms are deadlocked however, with Iran saying such allegations are based on phony evidence from the U.S. and Israel.

That stalled probe and other issues that the U.S. says must be part of any final deal could remain unresolved by June, opening any agreement to further criticism.

For the United States, the goal is to extend to at least a year the period that Iran would need to surreptitiously "break out" toward nuclear weapons development. Daryl Kimball of the Washington-based Arms Control Association said that with the IAEA's additional monitoring, the deal taking shape leaves "more than enough time to detect and disrupt any effort to pursue nuclear weapons in the future."

In exchange, Iran wants relief from sanctions crippling its economy and the U.S. is talking about phasing in such measures.

____

Associated Press writers Ian Deitch in Jerusalem and Josh Lederman in Washington contributed

Related Video:

View Comments (1505)
.
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/23/asia/new-zealand-troops-iraq/

New Zealand confirms Iraq troop deployment

By Susannah Cullinane
Updated 11:18 PM ET, Mon February 23, 2015

(CNN)New Zealand has become the latest nation to join the international coalition fighting ISIS, with Prime Minister John Key telling lawmakers Monday 143 military personnel were deploying to Iraq in a non-combat role.

In a two-year mission likely to start in May, New Zealand personnel will train Iraq security forces at the Taji Military Complex north of Baghdad, Key said. He said soldiers would provide protection for the training force.

Key said ISIS -- also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) -- posed a threat to stability in regions beyond the Middle East and New Zealand had "an obligation" to help support the rule of law internationally.

"New Zealanders are prolific travelers and we are not immune from the threat ISIL poses," he said in a statement. "ISIL's brutality has only worsened and its outrageous actions have united an international coalition of around 62 countries to fight and degrade the group."

Who's doing what in the coalition battle against ISIS?

Opposition leaders were quick to condemn the decision, which they said should have been debated and voted on in parliament.

Labour leader Andrew Little said his party was opposed to sending troops to Iraq and that it was unlikely they would remain behind the front line.

"The Prime Minister says they will be behind the wire but we know they will not be. They cannot stick there, they cannot stay there, that is not all they will do. They will not just be behind the wire; they will be exposed to the much wider conflict; it will not be just the soldiers we send to the Iraq, it will be Kiwis traveling around the world," Little said.

Green Party Leader Russel Norman said Key was "dragging New Zealand into someone else's war without a mandate" and was making the country and its citizens unnecessary targets for ISIS.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said Key had made a "giant turnaround" since ruling out a troop deployment. "Nothing has changed in Iraq, except 'his club' persuaded Mr Key to commit our troops," Peters said in a statement.

Key said the government had carefully considered New Zealand's contribution to the coalition.

"A training mission like this is not without danger and this is not a decision we have taken lightly," he said. "I have required assurances that our men and women will be as safe as they can practicably be in Taji.

The deployment came at the request of the Iraqi government and was likely to be a joint training mission with neighboring Australia, Key said. New Zealand's cabinet would review the deployment after nine months, he added.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2015/02/23/us-resets-the-afghan-chessboard/

US resets the Afghan chessboard

Two things to emerge out of the visit in the weekend to Kabul by the newly appointed US Defence Secretary Ashley Carter are: first, the strong indication that the US military presence in Afghanistan will be, after all, open-ended; and, second, that the Afghan peace process involving the reconciliation with the Taliban is, finally, taking off. No doubt, the two templates are inter-related but all the same each is a stand-alone development, too.

The establishment of the American military bases in Afghanistan costing hundreds of millions of dollars in construction and renovation work undertaken in the past couple of years and the tenacity with which Washington pushed the US-Afghan security pact that literally provides for diplomatic immunity to the bases and its personnel all along had signaled the Pentagon’s long-term planning to keep a military presence in the region for years to come. Only, expediency demanded that the US drawdown was instead thrust into the limelight.

But now that the Afghan transition has led to the formation of an out-and-out pro-American leadership in Kabul, there is no need to keep up the pretence anymore. Besides, Washington estimates that the regional acceptance of long-term US military presence in the region is at a higher threshold today — primarily because Pakistan, which is the key player among the neighboring countries, is willing to learn to live with the American military presence next-door, given the vastly improved climate of its equations with the new leadership in Kabul and its own new approach to take American help and crack down on the terrorist groups threatening its national security from the tribal areas and from Afghan sanctuaries.

Clearly, the bottom line is that the US-Pakistan relationship has significantly improved and the two countries are able to harmonize their core interests — from the US perspective, kickstarting a peace process involving the Taliban that would lead to a durable settlement, and from the Pakistani perspective, accommodating the Taliban in the power structure in Kabul politically and also rolling back India’s influence.

Equally, China, which is cooperating and contributing to the US strategy for the stabilization of Afghanistan — see my blog US-China partnership in Afghanistan – also has a more responsive partner in the new Afghan president Ashraf Ghani who is a well-known figure in Beijing as a former World Bank official. Indeed, China and the US are actively fostering Afghan-Pakistan amity and that in turn has vastly improved the regional security scenario.

A Xinhua commentary in the weekend noted that “Afghanistan has also for the first time realized Pakistan’s role and President Ashraf Ghani on Friday hailed Pakistan’s move to cooperate in the reconciliation process amid reports that the Taliban have indicated a willingness to begin peace talks.”

In sum, the US military presence in Afghanistan gains regional acceptance as a necessary underpinning in the emergent politico-military scenario, even as the reconciliation of the Taliban has commenced. Conceivably, the spectre of the Islamic State threat that has been projected with exaggerated importance lately in the western media would also help to propagate the need of prolonged US military presence in Afghanistan — both in the American domestic opinion as well as regionally.

Iran, Russia and India are the three regional countries that do not figure in the first circle of states wielding influence in Afghanistan, but at any rate, it is in their self-interests too that the US military presence in Afghanistan (and the overall western commitment to Afghan reconstruction) does not abruptly by end-2016 when the security situation remains precarious.

Of course, the interests of Iran, Russia and India in Afghanistan converge on the key issue of countering and defeating the terrorist groups in the region. But each would have its self-interests, too. Of late, Iran has noticeably toned down its opposition to the US military presence in Afghanistan and instead takes to the broad principled position that the Afghans should handle their problems themselves. The point is, when it comes to fighting terrorist and extremist groups, Tehran and Washington have shown a new willingness to cooperate and if the nuclear issue gets resolved, this nascent trend can be expected to strengthen dramatically. Meanwhile, Iran is also “rebuilding” its equations with Kabul, as necessitated by the transition to the Ghani presidency, and is aspiring to play a role in the negotiation of any Afghan settlement.

Russia, on the other hand, finds itself between the rock and a hard place in Afghanistan. Its influence over the new set-up headed by Ghani is marginal and its capacity to play any sort of role in the peace talks is virtually nil. The US has effectively ensured that Russia is kept out in the cold. Washington forged a working relationship with China directly, which would cater to Beijing’s priorities of regional security and stability and, partly at least aims at precluding the need for Beijing to form any joint platform with Moscow.

Moscow has a vested interest in the continued American military presence in Afghanistan insofar as it impacts the security of the Central Asian region. At least, this is the stated position articulated by the Russian leadership from time to time. But then, there are undercurrents. The point is, long-term Russian interests are also involved here, given the chill in Russian-American relations and Moscow’s perennial worry regarding the American intentions in the regions surrounding Russia. The fact that Washington continues to rebuff Moscow’s projection of the Collective Security Treaty Organization as a provider of security, even in a limited way related to curbing drug trafficking, can only reinforce the Russian suspicions that geopolitics form the bedrock of the US agenda in Afghanistan.

Conceivably, Moscow would coordinate on this front with China and Iran, two regional states which also would have a degree of unease about any hidden American regional agenda behind consolidating its long term military presence in Afghanistan.

From the Indian perspective, things do not look good at all — although it is better placed than Russia today. The continued US military presence in Afghanistan has been Delhi’s demand all along — and there is no sophistry here. Delhi genuinely thinks that the US military presence is in the interests of regional security and stability and would even secretly hope that the American presence acts as a pressure point on Pakistan and deters the latter from sponsoring terrorist groups. So, India has no problem with any ‘rethink’ by President Barack Obama with regard to keeping American troops in the region beyond 2016.

Having said that, India has been reduced to a bystander. Kabul under Ghani’s leadership is, understandably, responsive to the Pakistani sensitivities and no longer encourages a high-profile Indian presence in Afghanistan. There are reports that apart from rolling back mil-to-mil and security cooperation with India, Kabul recently shut down summarily half a dozen or so centres involved in cultural or educational activities related to cooperation with India, which were located in the border regions close to Pakistan’s Baluchistan province.

The fact of the matter is that India’s poor relations with Pakistan prevent it from playing any significant role in shaping the Afghan settlement that is looming large on the horizon. The US has been nudging Delhi to find a way out of this cul-de-sac by resuming dialogue with Pakistan, but only with limited success so far. Simply put, the right wing Hindu nationalists who mentor the present government in Delhi has its own entrenched mindset when it comes to the ‘unfinished business of Partition’ in 1947 that led to Pakistan’s creation.

In the ultimate analysis, Washington also has its own interests to pursue, which are its priority, and that requires Pakistan’s optimal cooperation. What Washington tries to do, therefore, is to keep Delhi in the loop and keep reassuring the Indian security establishment that what is going on today on the Afghan chessboard will turn out to be for the good of India’s interests in the fulness of time. Washington’s priorities will be three-fold: a) encourage Delhi to keep up its big donor profile in Afghan reconstruction since the resuscitation of the Afghan economy is a top priority; b) keep Delhi fastened to its side as a fellow-traveller in its Afghan odyssey, notwithstanding the centrality of Pakistani role in it; and, c) hold India back at all costs from upsetting the US-Pakistani apple cart rolling in the Hindu Kush.

The point is, India failed to take advantage of the shift in Pakistan’s approach to terrorism by its refusal to take note of the shift itself until it became all too late. Suffice it to say, the train has left the station and India has been left behind. Equally, India held on for too long to outdated notions regarding the Taliban and didn’t see the writing on the wall that the Taliban’s return to mainstream Afghan national life was gaining acceptability not only in the international community but also within Afghanistan itself, including among the erstwhile Northern Alliance groups that worked with India in the late 1990s.

Events are moving so fast and a comprehensive review of India’s Afghan policies is urgently called for. The policy challenges are formidable — building bridges with the Taliban; eschewing zero sum mentality vis-a-vis Pakistan; redefining India’s future role in Afghan reconstruction; harmonizing with China’s ‘Belt and Road’ strategy; cultivating the new Afghan power structure; breaking out of the regional isolation and so on.

But the key to all this lies in constructively engaging with Pakistan. Of course, the advantage now lies with Islamabad, being the cynosure of all eyes in the Afghan endgame. (See my blog Pakistan is the nurse, guide, guardian of Afghan peace.) Delhi lost valuable time by not following up the initiative to invite the Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to attend the inaugural of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in last May. Much water has flown under the bridge during these past 10-month period and Delhi can only hope to make the best out of a bad bargain. In the ultimate analysis, Delhi has no one to blame but itself for being so hopelessly out of the touch with the emergent realities and for misreading the tea leaves.

What Iran, Russia and India can do — and should do, even if belatedly — is to come together with Pakistan and China under the umbrella of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization [SCO]. This would need a leap of faith on the part of all protagonists, especially India and Pakistan, but it is doable. The admission of Iran, India and Pakistan as full members of the SCO is a necessary step in this direction. The initiative lies with Russia, which is chairing the SCO summit in July in Ufa.

For the present, Obama has something to celebrate. His forthcoming move to reset the Afghan chessboard by consolidating a long-term US military presence, which can be expected during Ghani’s visit to the Washington in March, signifies the culmination of the US’s diplomatic success in piloting the transition in Kabul to a friendly regime that is heavily beholden to it and in mending fences with Pakistan — while also defining common ground for cooperation with China despite the backdrop of the US’ pivot strategy in Asia.

But the sustainability of this idyllic state of affairs for US diplomacy remains in doubt, as it critically depends on a variety of factors — the quality of Pakistan’s cooperation, the pitch of the US-China rivalry, the future trajectory of US-Russia relations, and, of course, Iran’s own willingness to accept the US as a benign military presence in its Afghan backyard even after a nuclear deal is concluded. Above all, the known unknown is as regards the acceptability of long term western occupation of their country by the Afghans themselves. The Taliban are yet to moderate their longstanding demand that the vacation of American military presence on Afghan soil is a non-negotiable prerequisite of any settlement.

Posted in Diplomacy, Politics, Terrorism.

Tagged with India-Pakistan, Iran nuclear issue, Maritime Silk Road strategy, Taliban's reconciliation.

No comments »

By M K Bhadrakumar – February 23, 2015
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2015/02/24/iran-talks-make-progress-at-geneva/

Iran talks make progress at Geneva

Media “leaks” are an integral part of international diplomacy. India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi learnt this to his discomfiture recently when American diplomats planted a story that he profusely shared with US president Barack Obama his angst over China’s rise in a 45-minute conversation. And this when Modi is preparing for a path-breaking historic visit to China.

Now, it is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s turn to be the victim of a “leak”via the Al Jazeera on Monday. The ‘leak’ highlights that Israel’s spy agency Mossad calmly assesses the Iranian nuclear program and sees no reason to panic. Its timing is very curious – just 7 days before Netanyahu is slated to address a joint session of the US Congress in Washington where he is expected to hoist the petard of a ‘nuclear Iran’ and mock at President Barack Obama’s constructive engagement of Tehran.

The “leak” is based on a cable attributed to Mossad, which casts Mossad as a mature spy agency capable of making highly professional assessments even in emotion-charged environs with a political leadership breathing down its neck demanding doctored intelligence input.

Who could have planted this invidious ‘leak’? It all depends, as Vladimir Lenin once put it, ‘Who stands to gain?’ It is a difficult question really, because there could be so man sources who would be interested in bringing Netanyahu down by a few notches – ranging from an exasperated Obama or Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasarullah to Israeli politician Tzipi Livni who hopes to defeat Netanyahu in the March 17 parliamentary election.

The fact of the matter is that the “leak” coincides with the latest round of US-Iran talks in Geneva, which have since been described by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif as “serious, useful and constructive”.

Zarif seems quietly pleased with his 2-day talks with the US Secretary of State John Kerry, and is quoted as saying, “”We have made progress on some topics to some extent, but there is still a long way to pave before reaching a final deal.”

The fact that Zarif and Kerry have agreed that negotiations will continue next Monday (after a week’s break) suggests cautious optimism on both sides.

The Iranians even made light of Kerry’s remarks en route to Geneva that the US would leave the talks if Tehran did not take a “productive” decision to prove the “peaceful” nature of its nuclear program.The Iranian negotiator Seyed Abbas Araqchi jovially responded that Tehran too would leave the negotiating table if the other side adopted “a bullying approach” in the negotiations.

In sum, the vibes look good — although caveats must be added in any such tough negotiations unless and until the final document is initialed. Iran and the US seem to be “locked in”.

This is where the debunking of Netanyahu becomes timely and has been intended in a constructive spirit of neutralizing his potential to play a spoiler’s role. The spin doctors would call it “preemptive damage control”. It needs to be seen in perspective, alongside other compelling tell-tale signs.

Posted in Uncategorized.

Tagged with Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran nuclear issue, US-Iran talks.

No comments »
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.rfa.org/english/news/myanmar/kokang-02232015155330.html

Around 50 Myanmar Military Troops Killed in Weekend Clashes: Rebel Official
2015-02-23

0a30b4ef-c9f3-4d7d-a4b3-df6cf31e24b4.jpeg

http://www.rfa.org/english/news/mya...ges/0a30b4ef-c9f3-4d7d-a4b3-df6cf31e24b4.jpeg
A map showing Laukkai, the capital of the Kokang special region in northeastern Myanmar's Shan state.

Clashes between ethnic Kokang rebels and Myanmar’s military near the country’s northeastern border with China left around 50 government troops dead over the weekend, a member of the Ta’ang National Liberation Army said Monday, though state media claimed the losses were far fewer.

Lt. Col. Ta Po Kyaw, secretary of the TNLA—which is fighting to reclaim the special region of Kokang in Shan state alongside the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA)—told RFA’s Myanmar Service his group had confronted army troops from four different divisions in Nanhkan and Hseni townships in recent days.

“We assume that a total of 50 soldiers from the government army were killed within these two to three days, although we can’t give an exact number,” he said.

Ta Po Kyaw did not provide a number for casualties suffered by ethnic rebels over the weekend.

The MNDAA under ethnic Chinese commander Peng Jiasheng (also known as Phone Kya Shin) are trying to retake the Kokang self-administered zone, which it had controlled until 2009, forcing a wave of refugees away from the remote and rugged conflict zone and across the border into China.

The MNDAA has been joined by three other ethnic minority armies: the TNLA, the Kachin Independence Army (KIA), and part of the Shan State Army (SSA).

A report by the official Global New Light of Myanmar said government ground troops launched attacks in tandem with air strikes against Kokang rebels on Saturday and Sunday, capturing temporary bases and strategic emplacements that had been used to cut off main access roads to the area.

It said five engagements had broken out in the two days, killing four army members and wounding 21, including officers, who are now receiving medical treatment at military hospitals. The army seized three bodies of rebel fighters, as well as small arms, ammunition and narcotics, the report said.

Additionally, a reporter and three civilians were wounded following an attack by rebels on a Red Cross truck traveling to Kunlong township from the capital of the Kokang special region Laukkai on Saturday evening, the Global New Light reported. Rebels have denied involvement in the attack.

Red Cross attack

A worker named U Tar from the Kunlong township Red Cross told RFA Monday that because of the attack, as well as a similar attack on another convoy last week which left two aid workers injured, the Red Cross was temporarily suspending missions to assist refugees displaced by the clashes.

“Because the Red Cross trucks were attacked, Red Cross members and volunteers are afraid to go to this area to help victims,” he said.

According to the office of the president, since fighting broke out on Feb. 9, 72 ethnic rebels have been killed, while seven officers and 47 lower-ranking soldiers from Myanmar’s military have died. A government police officer and seven other policemen were also killed in the fighting, it said.

MNDAA spokesman Tun Myat Lin told RFA that the government had recently stepped up attacks on the rebel groups as part of a bid to “distract the public” amid growing student and worker strikes in the country.

He said the government was also using tactics to try to control media coverage of the fighting and present a more favorable view of the military.

“A military general said [the MNDAA] is an unlawful association in a press conference held a few days ago and he also said reporters could be charged under the Unlawful Association Act … if they contact us to cover news about the fighting,” Tun Myat Lin said.

“This is like a threat to the media and an assassination [against our character] by manipulating the media.”

Call for peace

Meanwhile, the TNLA on Monday called for peace and urged the government to sit down to talks in a statement sent to the United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC) bloc of 12 ethnic armed groups, the Nationwide Ceasefire Coordination Team (NCCT), which represents more than a dozen rebel groups, and the government-affiliated Myanmar Peace Center (MPC).

Cap. Ta Ike Kyaw of the TNLA told RFA that the government and ethnic rebels must work out their differences through dialogue rather than warfare.

“We have had many clashes these days, but the civil war between the government army and ethnic armed groups is a problem that cannot be solved by fighting—it must be solved through talking and discussions,” he said.

But he reserved the TNLA’s right to act in self-defense, saying that if government troops attack, “we will fight back against them to protect ourselves.”

A response to Monday’s statement from the government was not immediately available.

Myanmar’s government is currently in discussions with 16 ethnic armed groups aimed at signing a nationwide ceasefire, but ongoing clashes between rebels and the military have hampered the process.

The Mizzima news agency quoted MNDAA spokesman Tun Myat Lin calling on the government to “engage in dialogue” as soon as possible, and refuting claims that his group had received any help from China during the recent fighting.

“We always want to engage in dialogue. With this issue, we did not get any help from the Chinese central government or the Chinese provincial government. Our troops cannot enter into China,” Tun Myat Lin said Sunday.

China connection

Some military officials have suggested the Kokang rebels have been receiving assistance from the Chinese government because many members of their ethnic group live in China and Peng Jiasheng has lived in exile across the border for five years.

However Minister Aung Min, who leads the government’s Union Peace Working Committee (UPWC), told RFA last week that it is “impossible that China is involved in this fighting.”

“As China is a big country, it will follow international rules. It doesn’t need to be involved in this fighting,” he said.

“But Kokang people who live in China might be involved in the fighting, as Phone Kya Shin is a Kokang.”

Last week, Defense Minister Lt. Gen. Wai Lwin told RFA that recent fighting in Kokang could “damage Myanmar’s democratic reform and peacemaking process.”

“As the nation has grown increasingly unstable [due to the fighting], the general election [set for later this year] could be thrown into chaos,” he said.

Reported by Tin Aung Khine, Wai Mar Tun, Pyone Moh Moh Zin and Myo Thant Khine for RFA’s Myanmar Service. Translated by Khet Mar. Written in English by Joshua Lipes.


Related Stories

Who Are Myanmar’s Kokang Rebels And What Are They Fighting For?
Chinese Nationals Help Out in Northern Myanmar Conflict Zone
Provincial Authorities in Cambodia Refuse to Help UN Rescue Montagnards
Six New Montagnards Seeking Refugee Status Arrive in Cambodia
Uyghur Man Draws Knife, is Shot Dead by Police
Food, Shelter Running Out For 100,000 Kokang Refugees in China's Yunnan
Myanmar imposes martial law in troubled Kokang region
Hundreds Protest Rohingya Vote on Myanmar Charter Change
Nine More Montagnards From Vietnam Cross Into Cambodia
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/02/china-and-usa-working-on-mach-10.html

February 22, 2015
China and USA working on mach 10+ hypersonic weapons

china, future, future weapons, hypersonic, launch, united states


China's hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV), called WU-14 by the Pentagon, was launched into space by an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) booster, after which it returned to the atmosphere to glide at up to Mach 10. The test was conducted within China, says the defense ministry in Beijing. On Jan. 19, another object was test-launched from the same space base at Taiyuan, says analyst Richard Fisher of the Washington-based International Assessment and Strategy Center. The Jan. 9 test was first detailed by Bill Gertz of the Washington Free Beacon.

China became the third country after the Russian Federation and the United States to have successfully tested a hypersonic delivery vehicle able to carry nuclear warheads at a speed above Mach 10 - or 12,359 kilometers per hour (7,675 mph). China is also believed to be developing a hypersonic scramjet version that can be launched from air or ground.

Prompt Global Strike (PGS) is a United States military effort to develop a system that can deliver a precision conventional weapon strike anywhere in the world within one hour. A PGS system could also be useful during a nuclear conflict, potentially replacing nuclear weapons against 30 percent of targets. The PGS program encompasses numerous technologies, including conventional surface-launched rockets and air-launched hypersonic missiles, although no specific PGS system has yet been finalized.

HTVb.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h9g-4ze3Ff0/VOrR6R0XFJI/AAAAAAAA7NI/xdhsoCo2xgM/s1600/HTVb.jpg

Hypersonic missiles would be better at avoiding conventional anti-ballistic missiles. Normal rockets descend through the atmosphere on a predictable ballistic trajectory - their high speeds makes intercepting them extremely difficult. By the late 1980s, however, several countries began to develop interceptor missiles designed to destroy ballistic RVs. A hypersonic glider like the HGV could pull-up after reentering the atmosphere and approach its target in a relatively flat glide, lessening the time it can be detected, fired at, or (if the initial attack failed) reengaged. Gliding makes it more maneuverable and extends its range.

A vehicle like the WU-14 could be fitted to various Chinese ballistic missiles, such as the DF-21 medium-range missile (rumored to be called DF-26 with the HGV payload), and the DF-31 and DF-41 intercontinental ballistic missiles, extending their ranges from 2,000 km (1,200 mi) to 3,000 km (1,900 mi) and 8,000 km (5,000 mi) to 12,000 km (7,500 mi) respectively. Analysts suspect that the WU-14 will first be used in shorter-range roles as an anti-ship missile and for other tactical purposes to address the problem of hitting a moving target with a ballistic missile. Long-term goals may include deterrence of U.S. missile capabilities with the prospect of strategic bombardment against America, or other countries. With conventional interceptor missiles having difficulty against targets with late detection and maneuvering while traveling faster than Mach 5 (the WU-14 reenters the atmosphere at Mach 10), the U.S. may place more importance on developing directed-energy weapons as a countermeasure.

Chinese research papers have begun to synthesize discussions strategy and foreign weapons systems into what used to be purely technology-based studies. Second, interactions with People’s Liberation Army researchers confirm that such shifts are occurring. Third, these trends also emerge in scientific papers that explore China’s own pursuit of boostglide systems (rocket-launched gliders that travel in the upper atmosphere at hypersonic speeds) and scramjet engine designs (variants of ramjet air breathing jet engine in which combustion takes place in supersonic airflow), when discussing prompt global strike advances These studies demonstrate Chinese efforts to master both supersonic and hypersonic propulsion. In doing so, they combine hypersonic and boost-glide technologies, when modeling trajectories with hypersonic and scramjet systems.11 In essence, Chinese experts are seeking to recombine technologies to create new systems. Also on view is the cross-domain nature of Chinese interest, with a marked focus on development of space, maritime, and nuclear domains, as well as cyber, among other means, to undermine similar U.S. systems. Overall, these studies provide insights into how and why China is not only seeking to pursue similar systems and advances, but also to develop them beyond the scope of existing U.S. capabilities.

SOURCES - DARPA, Wikipedia, Aviation Week, Defining the Spear: Chinese Interpretations of PGS
Author: brian wang on 2/22/2015
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.ibtimes.com/yemens-depos...nation-gulf-countries-express-support-1825898

Yemen's Deposed President Hadi Withdraws Resignation, Gulf Countries Express Support
By Aditya Tejas @Artejas a.tejas@ibtimes.com on February 24 2015 12:55 AM EST

Former Yemeni president Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi officially withdrew his resignation from the presidency on Monday, local officials said, according to media reports. The move comes after Hadi gained the support of Arab Gulf states opposed to the ruling Shia Houthis.

A member of the parliamentary assembly said that Hadi submitted a letter to them withdrawing the resignation he had tendered in January, after the Houthis took control of government, Al Jazeera reported. He has also been meeting with security advisors and loyalist governors in the city of Aden.

Hadi had earlier said in a statement on Saturday that he was still the rightful president, Reuters reported.

On Monday, the Gulf Cooperation Council, a regional alliance of six Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, expressed their support for Hadi, CNN reported. The council had earlier urged the United Nations to consider adopting a resolution authorizing military force against the Houthis. The resolution, adopted by the Security Council last week, demands that the Houthis step down from power, but does not authorize the use of military force.

Tens of thousands of protesters also took to the streets in cities across Yemen to demand the removal of Houthis.

"The Houthis thought they could not be stopped, and it only took hours for them to fall in the eyes of the people. Yemen has a president and the people will stand with him to uproot the Houthi militants from Sanaa," Ali Al-Saedi, a protester, told CNN.

Yemen’s cabinet rejected a call from the Houthis to return as a caretaker government, spokesman Rajeh Badi told The Yemen Times on Monday. “The government does not care about decisions made by the Revolutionary Committee,” he said, referring to the interim government installed by the Houthis.

Hadi had left the capital city of Sanaa on Saturday, after the Houthis released him following weeks of house arrest. He fled to the coastal city of Aden, where he is reportedly consolidating support from loyalist forces and preparing to leave the country to get medical aid.

Tobias Ellwood, the U.K.’s Minister for the Middle East, issued a statement on Monday calling for the Houthis to release other government officials. “I welcome the news that President Hadi is no longer under house arrest,” he said. I now call for the immediate and safe release of Prime Minister Bahah, Cabinet Ministers and all individuals arbitrarily detained or under house arrest.”

The Houthis have found themselves increasingly isolated by the international community after their takeover of the Yemeni government was widely denounced as a coup. Several governments, including the U.S., Britain, and Saudi Arabia, have withdrawn embassy staff from the country.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical-diary/pan-arab-military-remains-elusive

A Pan-Arab Military Remains Elusive
Geopolitical Diary
February 24, 2015 | 00:50 GMT

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the former head of Egypt's armed forces, has proposed a familiar (but flawed) solution to the region's emerging security problems. In a recorded address released by state media on Sunday, the president appealed for a coordinated regional military response to the rising threat posed by armed groups. Security has deteriorated across the Sinai Peninsula as a domestic insurgency waged by militant group Ansar Beit al-Maqdis has led to attacks against tourists and Egyptian security forces. The violence has spread from the peninsula to the Nile Delta and other population centers. But it was the beheading of 21 Egyptian Copts on Feb. 16, reportedly by Islamic State-affiliated militants in Libya, that spurred al-Sisi's call for not only joint military operations but also a unified Arab military to take on regional pressures.

Al-Sisi's suggestion is not new; the concept of a Pan-Arab military has been a hallmark of Egypt's post-colonial history since Gamal Abdel Nasser overthrew the Egyptian monarchy in 1952. Pan-Arabism's roots reach deeper than that — to Hussein ibn Ali, the penultimate Sharif of Mecca, who led the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans in 1916 and who was the first and last claimant to the title of Sultan of the Arabs. The revolt led by ibn Ali (and encouraged by the United Kingdom and France) famously sought to create a unified Arab state from Aleppo to Aden. Ironically, these two poles of Arab culture are now home to some of the most worrisome instability and violence in the region, spurring calls for more coordinated military action by the various militaries of the Arab world's monarchial states, as well as Egypt. Another irony is that an increasingly nationalistic and powerful Turkish state is again pushing the various competing centers of Arab authority to coalesce into a more capable military union, nearly a century after ibn Ali's initial revolt allowed the United Kingdom and France to redraw the boundaries of the Mashriq — the Arab lands to the east of Egypt — and create the fractious and unstable states we see today.

Nasser saw Egypt as the lynchpin of the Middle East — caught between the Maghreb and Mashriq — and used Egypt's strong military and control of the Suez Canal after 1957 to position the country as nearly a regional hegemon. Nasser's model of pan-Arabism, a secular state backed by a strong nationalist military, was emulated across the region. Algeria, Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen followed a similar blueprint for much of period between colonialism and the 2011 Arab Spring. Syria and Yemen even entered unions with Egypt for brief periods. No doubt this is the model al-Sisi would seek for Egypt as he campaigns for action against the Islamic State and in defending Arab interests.

Support Among the Gulf States

Al-Sisi is not alone. Arab media has reported on leaks from Gulf military leaders hinting at establishing an Arab military alliance involving Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Variations on this theme have included Morocco and Jordan as well. For the Gulf states, the reasoning is clear. For all their wealth, they are still vulnerable. Continuing to depend on the United States to guarantee their security no longer appears tenable, given the possibility of a broader U.S.-Iranian rapprochement. Saudi Arabia, using its heft as leader of the Islamic community, has recently suggested the formation of a Sunni military alliance that would include regional competitor Turkey. In a reversal of its historical attitude, Saudi Arabia wants to co-opt Turkey under a banner of coordinated Sunni opposition to Iran and to the Islamic State. This proposal carries the potential for the Saudis to rely on a minority Turkish military, rather than a competing Arab force from Egypt or an unreliable and distant backer in the United States, to help safeguard their regional interests. Whatever the proposed scenario, Cairo and Riyadh clearly are anxious about extremist groups and the potential of a more powerful Iran.

Gulf Arabs have looked to teamwork to combat an Iranian threat before. In 1981, the monarchies of the Persian Gulf enacted a broad strategic alliance structure, the Gulf Cooperation Council, following the Iranian Revolution and the start of the Iran-Iraq war. The rising economic heft of Saudi Arabia and neighboring oil exporters, coupled with Saudi Arabia's religious credentials as the birthplace of Islam and defender of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, helped the Gulf Arabs increase their regional clout. The Saudis and Egyptians have competed for leadership in the Arab world ever since, until the instability created by the 2011 uprisings left Egypt and its generals in need of financial backers. Saudi Arabia and its primary regional partners, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, financed Cairo after relations between Egypt and Qatar soured following Egypt's 2013 coup. An uneasy relationship has resulted, with Saudi Arabia keeping its former rival economically dependent but resentful.

The Islamic State as a Common Enemy

Al-Sisi's message on Sunday sought in part to leverage one of Egypt's remaining strategic advantages — the Arab world's largest military force — in order to bring Arab states together on its terms. He also tried to dismiss a recent scandal surrounding recordings of him insulting Gulf Arab leaders as a fabrication made by his enemies, and he called for brotherly states to work together to defeat the Islamic State.

The awkwardness of al-Sisi's denial does not change the concerns about the perceived rise of the Islamic State and Iran, a development that Riyadh is attempting to control. Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi came to Egypt's financial rescue as part of a larger strategy to limit the influence of mainstream Islamists, especially the Muslim Brotherhood. But the emergence of the Islamic State as a radical threat beyond Saudi control and a danger to Saudi and regional interests has necessitated a change in course. While Saudi Arabia does not want to see the Muslim Brotherhood return to power, it considers the rifts within the Gulf Cooperation Council and the radicalization of youth following the losses suffered by mainstream Islamist groups in recent years as one of the biggest threats to regional stability. In another about-face following tensions between Riyadh and Doha that existed for much of 2014, Saudi Arabia also backed Qatar's recent criticism of Egypt's hardline position against the Muslim Brotherhood.

Unfortunately, a supranational Arab or Sunni military will not be the solution to such threats. In many ways, Egypt's military superiority relative to the Gulf states has been eroded by decades of U.S. training and supplies for Arab monarchies. Capable regional militaries such as those in the Emirates and Jordan (both states that recently offered aid to Egypt to combat militants) are unlikely to be swayed by arguments predicated on their assumed frailty. Nor is the idea of Pan-Arabism any more advanced now that it was in 1916. The various dialects, religious differences, national imperatives and geographies of the Arab World defy a large military grouping of unclear leadership and resolve, no matter the technical challenges of coordinating military logistics.

The current model of power in the Middle East is changing, and Egypt and Saudi Arabia are both struggling to control the new emerging order. As all sides work to find a solution, unrealistic suggestions will continue to reflect the very real fears — and limited options — of the current centers of Arab power.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://lapostexaminer.com/sun-tzu-answers-isis/2015/02/23

Sun Tzu has answers for ISIS
By Martin Sieff · February 23, 2015 · No comments

The great Chinese master strategist Sun Tzu needs to be America’s guide in dealing — or not dealing, when it is appropriate — with ISIS, al-Qaeda and other jihadi movements around the Middle East, not German strategist Carl von Clausewitz, the advocate of a direct knock-out approach to war.

British historian Andrew Roberts’ magnificent work on President Franklin Roosevelt, Gen George Marshall, Winston Churchill and British Gen. Sir Alan Brooke during World War II, Masters and Commanders is extremely relevant here. Marshall and the American military, who had read Clausewitz, were Clausewitzians all the way, they were clearly profoundly influenced by the straightforward “hit’em on the head” style of Jack Dempsey, the great all-American heavyweight champion of the world, in the 1920s.

But the British were Sun Tzu-type, stay on the periphery strategists. They practiced “dance like a butterfly, sting like a bee” fighting, 20 years before Mohammed Ali came on the scene. Indeed, until the great Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery came along in fall 1942 and gave them true and integrated artillery and air power punch, the British Army only punched like a butterfly too.

As Roberts makes clear, the US straightforward hit ‘em with overwhelming power in the central axis of advance was exactly the right thing to do from 1944 onwards, when, as Churchill himself acknowledged, the Soviet Red Army had already knocked the stuffing out of the Wehrmacht.

However, in 1942 and 1943, Roberts confirms, the US and Britain simply did not have remotely enough men and materials, and no command of the air, to invade Normandy or anywhere else. The true believers in a 1943 landing — Marshal, influential US staff war planner then-Lt. Col. (later four-star. General) Albert Wedemeyer and others (General Dwight D, Eisenhower was originally in agreement with them, but he learned from experience to change his original opinion) would have presided over a catastrophe.

Why dwell on this in dealing with ISIS/ISL, the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, or Islamic State in the Levant?

Because dealing with ISIS/ISL crucially requires Americans to think like Sun Tzu, not like Clausewitz. To focus on the broader, non-military aspects of war and the strategic framework far more than the tactical nuts and bolts that Americans have always been so good at.

The US also has to abandon former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Colin Powell’s famous slogan, “We broke it, so we must fix it.” That can apply in some cases but not all.

The more we try to fix our messes in the Middle East, the more we make them worse.

Where ever we destroy existing state structures in the Middle East in the name of “supporting; human rights and democracy, we simply open the way for ISIS and al-Qaeda (and for the far worse Shiite forces who will follow them) to take over. This pattern happened in Gaza, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Syria. Where ever we forced previously effective Arab governments to “democratize,” American-style, it was never secular moderate, middle class democrats who took over. It’s been ISIS, al-Qaeda, or the Egyptian Ikhwan, the Muslim Brotherhood every time.

51vpzoRRtJL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_I explained why this happened and predicted how it would happen repeatedly again, in my 2008 book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Middle East.

Where ever strong state structures still exist, like the Saudis under the late King Abdullah bin Abdelaziz, and Egypt under former President Hosni Mubarak and possibly again now under current President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, the Islamists couldn’t find a crack in the wall. Pressure from President George W. Bush and his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to “democratize” gave the Islamists their opening to eventually seize power in Egypt and in Gaza, through Hamas. As Big Brother George’s kid brother, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush memorably said in his speech to the Chicago Council of World Affairs. “Mistakes were made.”

America doesn’t need another cycle of hyper-activity and direct military action in the Middle East (the punch-‘em-on-the-nose Clausewitzian solution). It needs to learn from Sun Tzu and the legendary hero of the Roman Republic Fabius Maximus Cunctator (Fabius the Delayer). Fabius knew the Roman legions could never defeat the invincible Carthaginian military genius Hannibal in battle, so he simply outwaited Hannibal and strategically isolated him.

Some 2,200 years later, America needs a Fabius Cunctator strategy in the Middle East today. It needs to end the witless surge of energy Bush II, Rumsfeld, Cheney and their neocons injected into the region.

Instead we are dialing up a new injection of all those manic military amphetamines for our next melodramatic injection of kinetic energy disastrously misapplied.

There is only one way that can end. And it won’t be well.

Follow Martin Sieff @MartinSieff
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.yahoo.com/fears-truce-attacking-rebels-mass-near-ukraine-port-031318837.html

Fears for truce as attacking rebels mass near Ukraine port city
AFP
By Marc Burleigh
1 hour ago

Kiev (AFP) - Pro-Russian forces massing near Ukraine's port city of Mariupol are continuing to attack government troop positions, Kiev said, fuelling concerns for the fate of a UN-backed ceasefire.

Continued hostilities meant a pull-back of heavy weapons could not go ahead as agreed, Ukrainian officials said.

"As Ukrainian positions are still being fired upon there can be no talk yet of a withdrawal of arms," military spokesman Vladyslav Seleznyov wrote in a statement on Facebook on Monday.

Tensions were also high following a bomb blast Sunday in the normally peaceful eastern city of Kharkiv. In their latest toll, authorities said that three people had died in the "terrorist" attack.

Ukraine's currency, the hryvnia, plummeted some 10 percent on Monday because of the instability.

The West has warned of additional sanctions on Russia should the shaky truce deteriorate further, especially after rebels captured the strategic town of Debaltseve last week in defiance of the ceasefire slated to start February 15.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, tasked with monitoring the truce, "concludes that the ceasefire is not holding in critical, strategic points," including near Mariupol and in Debaltseve, the deputy head of the OSCE mission, Alexander Hug, told France 24 television.

A meeting of the foreign ministers of Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France was scheduled to take place in Paris on Tuesday to discuss the truce's implementation.

However a source in the Ukrainian foreign ministry raised doubt, saying Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin "intends to go to the meeting tomorrow (Tuesday) but the situation might change."

- Rebels attacking -

The latest fighting came as Russian President Vladimir Putin said he thought the prospect of all-out war between Russia and Ukraine was unlikely.

Asked in an interview with Russian state television if he thought the current situation could lead to war, Putin said: "I think that such an apocalyptic scenario is unlikely and I hope that it will never happen."

"If the Minsk accords (agreeing a ceasefire) are complied with, then I am sure that the situation will gradually get back to normal."

He added: "No one needs a conflict, moreover an armed one, on the periphery of Europe."

A Ukrainian military commander, Colonel Valentyn Fedichev, said that, while the number of attacks had generally decreased across the conflict zone, troop positions were still fired upon 27 times since Sunday. Two Ukrainian soldiers were killed and 10 wounded, he said.

Insurgent fighters "have not halted attempts to assault our positions in the town of Shyrokine and the Mariupol area," Fedichev said.

Other defence officials said the rebels fired mortars into Shyrokine, which neighbours Mariupol, in an apparent attempt to provoke troops into firing back in violation of the ceasefire.

Kiev has alleged Russia sent 20 tanks towards Mariupol, a port city of half a million residents on the Azov Sea coast, and that two tank attacks occurred there on Sunday.

Moscow denies giving military support to the rebels. However it made the same denials over Crimea -- the Ukrainian Black Sea peninsula that it annexed last year -- before finally admitting that it had deployed troops.

If Mariupol were to fall to the pro-Russian rebels, it would remove a key obstacle to creating a separatist land corridor stretching from Russia's border with Ukraine to Crimea.

The United States and the European Union, however, have strongly warned against further breaches of the ceasefire, with Washington saying extra sanctions could be imposed on Russia within days.

"An advance on Mariupol would clearly be in breach of the agreements" underpinning the truce brokered by Berlin and Paris, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said in an interview with his country's Bild newspaper.

German government spokesman Steffen Seibert said: "It fills us with concern that there is still no comprehensive truce."

Germany and France brokered the truce this month in the Belarus capital Minsk, and it was subsequently endorsed by the UN Security Council.

Up to now, the main compliance with the Minsk agreement has been a prisoner swap conducted on Saturday in which nearly 200 captured fighters from both sides were traded.

British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said during a visit to Estonia that, "from the experience of the last 10 to 12 days, the Russian engagement in the Minsk (truce) process is rather cynical."

He expressed a "high degree of scepticism about a Russian commitment to achieving genuine peace in Ukraine on anything but terms unilaterally dictated from the Kremlin".

Russia has already been hit by successive rounds of Western sanctions that are savaging its economy, which is headed for recession because of a collapse in oil prices.

View Comments (156)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/23/america-s-freelance-isis-killers.html

PALLADINS
02.23.15
Jesse Rosenfeld

America’s Freelance ISIS Killers
The Kurds fighting the so-called Islamic State are attracting combatants from all over the world. Some head into battle out of conviction. Others want to make a buck.

Comments 100

DAQUQ, Iraq — The so-called Islamic State has recruited copious cannon fodder from around the world, along with quite a few ferocious fighters. But its toughest opponents on the ground, the Kurds of Iraq and Syria, are attracting Western ex-soldiers for their ranks who are determined to see the self-proclaimed “caliphate” not only “degraded,” as Washington puts it, but destroyed.

At a Kurdish Peshmerga base on the fluid battle lines outside the ethnically and religiously mixed Iraqi city of Kirkuk, three American fighters sat down with The Daily Beast. We were less than half a mile from the black flags of ISIS, as the would-be Islamic State is widely known, and the soldiers asked that I not give too many details about their identities. They worry that their families could become special targets for a fanatical fighting force whose battlefields, like its targets, seem limitless.

Dressed in a Peshmerga uniform, Jeremy is a compact, affable 28-year-old-guy from Mississippi who fought with U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. He’s been fighting alongside the Pesh for the last six months.

Leo is a tall and direct 38-year-old Texan who worked security for private military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mel’s background also is in military security contracting and he says he served for a while with an army from a European country, but he won’t specify which. Mel’s a little eccentric. At 41, the Colorado native sports a pair of carefully pointed canine teeth—fangs, in fact— and a goatee that gives off a strong goth-metal vibe.

For two months Leo and Mel have been with the Peshmerga, the erstwhile guerrilla army that now makes up the autonomous armed forces of Iraq’s Kurdish Regional Government, and both are dressed in the gray flannel shirts and cargo pants often associated with private security contractors, but they and Jeremy all claim to be volunteers who are not receiving any kind of salary.

As we sit in the comfortable field office of Peshmerga Maj. Gen. Karwan Asaad, with Kurdish TV playing on a flat screen in the background, the hazy battle lines feel bizarrely distant despite a network of frontline dugouts only a few hundred yards away. But the Americans are anything but complacent.
150222-rosenfeld-americans-isis-embedBrett, a 28-year-old U.S. national who fights jihadists of the Islamic State (IS) group alongside Dwekh Nawsha, a Christian militia whose name is an Assyrian-language phrase conveying self-sacrifice, poses for a photograph on February 5, 2015, in the northern Iraqi town of Al-Qosh, located 35 km north of Mosul. (Safin Hamed/Getty)

“ISIS are tough, real tough,” Jeremy says with his Mississippi twang. With fog settling in, he says it’s prime conditions for ISIS to make a move. It’s a different kind of warfare from what he saw when he was with the U.S. occupation forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. He sees ISIS not so much as an insurgency as an invasion force. “It’s very different fighting a group that’s trying to take over,” he says.

The three men say their main assignments are guarding high-ranking Kurdish military officials and transporting jihadist prisoners in Peshmerga custody. It’s work Mel and Leo became well accustomed to when hired as contractors in earlier American wars. Here, Mel says he’s transported ISIS prisoners that come from Chechnya, Ireland, France, Germany, the UK, The U.S. and Canada, but maintains he is barred from speaking with them and has no idea what happens once they are handed over to Kurdish guards.

The three say, without specifics, they have received U.S. assurances they won’t be prosecuted when returning home, but that to be sure requires dealing with a lot of government clearances and maintaining a low profile. According to Jeremy, a lot of his ex-Army buddies are itching to get to Iraq and join the anti-ISIS fight, but he says many have been blocked because they make those plans public on social media.

The three say they have no interest in internal Kurdish politics and that even their sympathies for the Kurdish national struggle are secondary to their goal of contributing to the defeat of ISIS. They doubt the capabilities or commitment of the Iraqi Army and see the Kurds as the first defense against the spread of an American enemy.

Leo believes that if ISIS isn’t defeated, he could end up fighting its militants on battlefields around the world, and he is seriously disappointed in the way the Obama administration has handled the rise of the would-be caliphate. He says the failure of U.S. policy is a central reason he felt the need to join the Pesh.

Jeremy says he was uncomfortable sitting at home and watching the news of ISIS beheadings, mass killings and enslavements and felt obligated to use his military training and skills to support those fighting the jihadists.

For Mel, it was a matter of feeling disheartened by the large numbers of foreigners joining ISIS. He became convinced he had to join the Kurds.

None of these soldiers is interested in delving farther back in history to ponder the role the George W. Bush administration’s invasion and occupation of Iraq played creating the environment that allowed ISIS to emerge. When I ask Jeremy if guilt about the legacy of U.S. forces in Iraq was part of his decision to come back, he turned beet red. His eyes welled up with water. He didn’t want to answer. But Leo chimed in, saying that a longer American troop presence could have somehow left things different. Jeremy regained composure and repeated Leo’s claim word for word, but it sounded more like he was trying to reassure himself.

Mel insists the American fighters’ motivations are driven by the values of the American Constitution and they’re not going to interfere with coalition interests. “We are Americans, 100 percent,” he says emphatically.

Although these three see their fight as closely aligned with the aims of U.S. interests and values in the Middle East, foreigners taking up arms alongside the Kurds seem to span a very wide political spectrum, from leftists following in the tradition of the international brigades that went to fight fascism in the Spanish Civil War to Christians bent on their own version of a holy crusade.

Ageed Kalary, a frontline commander of a unit of guerilla forces in the leftist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), stationed in the village of Matara, told The Daily Beast that until recently his fighters had the assistance of a former soldier with Canada’s military. The PKK has been central in repelling ISIS but is labeled a terrorist organization in most Western countries for the tactics it employed in its 29-year war for Kurdish self-determination in Turkey, a NATO member.

In January there were reports that an Australian union leader and Labor Party president in the country’s Northern Territory had disappeared to join Syrian Kurdish YPG fighters defending the long-besieged town of Kobani. The group is a sister organization to the PKK.

On the other end of the political spectrum is the head of an NGO that’s essentially a militia for hire, Matthew Vandyke. The creator of "Point and Shoot," a documentary about his motorcycle journey across the Middle East during the Arab revolution and his participation in the Libyan uprising of 2011, he now appears to have veered toward Christian holy war. Heading a group called The Sons of Liberty International, which claims to provide, globally, military support for “oppressed populations to liberate themselves,” he recently tweeted that he is trying to raise a “Christian army” to fight the Islamic State.

Vast political differences aren’t the only major distinctions among Western fighters joining the forces arrayed against ISIS.

Jeremy, Leo and Mel portray themselves—and really do seem to see themselves—as volunteers motivated by a need to support a historically victimized people leading a fight against a ruthless entity that uses Islamic scripture to justify biblical slaughter. But there are more than a few foreign gunmen, these three tell me, who treat this war like a business.

“There are people who have come over here to form clandestine military groupings,” says Leo, who found one of the first hurdles he faced was avoiding recruitment by mercenaries. Mel says he met far more foreigners trying to make a buck out of the war than those that came to fight ISIS out of conviction. “It’s mostly mercenaries or people coming over here to build a security company,” he says, describing the emerging market for start-up militias.

What real impact do any of these people have on the fighting? That remains to be seen. But as these three Americans view things, ISIS has created an international obligation for those with military skills to join the battle. And, like the jihadists, they see their involvement as just the beginning in a long struggle with no borders and no clear end in sight.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ey-cut-a-deal-with-isis-to-save-soldiers.html

Rescue?
02.23.15
Jamie Dettmer

Did Turkey Cut a Deal With ISIS to Save Soldiers?

The Turks’ mission to rescue an ancient Ottoman corpse and its guardians near Aleppo was not a step toward war with ISIS, but a step away.

Comments 5

Turkish leaders have presented their weekend mission to rescue dozens of troops guarding an ancient Ottoman tomb inside Syria as a military triumph. But critics see Saturday night’s hit and split operation involving 600 Turkish soldiers, tanks and warplanes as more evidence of Ankara’s readiness to coordinate with the militants of the so-called Islamic State to avoid taking a major role in the fight against the jihadists.

Facing sharp criticism from opposition politicians and accusations from Damascus of “flagrant aggression” for the nighttime incursion, Turkey’s Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu congratulated the country’s military intelligence service and the army for the mission 23 miles inside Syria. He called the operation to relieve the garrison surrounded by ISIS “extremely successful,” even though one soldiers was killed, he said, by accident.

Davutoğlu, speaking at a news conference in Ankara, said the operational force had to confront “an environment of conflict bearing every kind of risk” in order to repatriate the tomb’s honor guards, as well as the remains of Süleyman Şah, the grandfather of Osman I, the founder of the Ottoman empire.

“I want to stress that a nation can build a future only by laying a claim to its past,” the Turkish prime minister added.

The neo-Ottoman government of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, which has bemoaned the unraveling of the Ottoman legacy and empire, considered the tomb both hallowed ground and sovereign Turkish territory, based on a treaty dating back to 1921, and had cautioned in the past that it would defend the mausoleum if ISIS or the Syrian regimedared attack the enclave.

“The tomb of Süleyman Şah and the land surrounding it is our territory,” Erdoğan warned with ferocious determination back in August 2012. “We cannot ignore any unfavorable act against that monument, as it would be an attack on our territory.”

Domestic critics say the weekend relocation operation may have been a well-planned and executed operation in technical terms, but it amounts to a retreat, if not indeed a defeat. Süleyman Şah’s remains have now been repatriated to Turkey with a plan to move them to a few acres of land Turkish forces seized just 180 meters inside Syria near the town of Kobani (which the Turks refused to defend with their troops when its people were under siege).

Further alarming is what critics argue is President Erdoğan’s willingness to kowtow to ISIS to avoid a confrontation with the jihadists. Ankara has refused to join the air war and has denied the use of a NATO airbase in southern Turkey for airstrikes against the terror army.

Writing in the daily Hürriyet newspaper, influential commentator Murat Yetkin said the army operation on Saturday night should be seen as “the Turkish government’s second retreat” in the face of ISIS in the last six months.

Last fall to secure the release of 49 Turks seized in the Turkish consulate in Mosul when it fell to ISIS, Ankara cut another murky deal. U.S. and European officials say the price paid for the freedom of the Turkish hostages was the release of imprisoned ISIS militants. Turkish officials deny there was any trade, and both Erdoğan and his prime minister bristle at the accusation, but the distinctions appear to be semantic rather than substantive.

Part of the deal reportedly involved Turkey persuading another group of hardcore Islamist Syrian rebels to release ISIS militants they were holding while the Turks surreptitiously freed a handful of European jihadists in Turkish jails.

“Our grandfathers would be turning over in their graves.”

The most prominent of those is believed to be a would-be assassin sought by authorities in Copenhagen. The suspected gunman, a 26-year-old Danish jihadist called Basil Hassan, wounded Danish cartoonist Lars Hedegaard, an outspoken critic of Islam in an attack in February 2013. Hassan then fled to Turkey and was arrested in 2014 by Turkish police. But when the Danish government sought his extradition last fall it was informed he was no longer in jail, prompting complaints from Denmark’s Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, who called the Turkish silence on the “disappearance” of Hassan as “unacceptable.”

For a domestic audience, Erdoğan subsequently hinted to Turkish reporters there might have been a prisoner trade, saying enigmatically, “You might have an exchange but it takes some effort to prepare for such a thing.”

Last weekend’s ostensible rescue operation came a few days after Turkish press reports suggested that ISIS jihadists were tightening the circle around the tomb and that the Turkish guards were at risk.

Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu denied the claims there was any immediate threat — as well he might. The tomb has been surrounded by militants for many months, but relations between the guards and the jihadists appeared to be calm, with ISIS actually supplying the guards with food and essentials. Turkish media reports last week suggested Ankara was in negotiations with ISIS for safe passage for the honor guard in exchange for arrested jihadist militants.

So, the operation — 39 tanks and 57 armored vehicles crossed the border along with support teams from Turkey’s Special Forces — may not have been as risky as the Turkish prime minister made out on Sunday. Talks with armed groups inside Syria preceded the launch of the mission, Davutoğlu admitted, and the jihadists have little incentive to incur the wrath of Ankara. They are using Turkey as their main logistical base for the flow of foreign fighters.

One Turkish official in Ankara told The Daily Beast that the Erdoğan government’s biggest fear was being drawn into a conflict in Syria if someone later attacked the tomb. That would have required the Turkish army to strike back. “They didn’t want to leave anything to chance,” he said. “They had to dress this up as some kind of martial achievement in order not to appear weak.”

But cloaking the rescue mission as a national success isn't placating nationalist and moderate opposition politicians, who have seized on the operation as an opportunity to strip Erdoğan of his grandiose neo-Ottoman rhetoric.

Hakan Şükür, a retired international football player and independent member of parliament, accuses Erdoğan of being responsible for the first loss of Turkish territory in the history of the Turkish Republic. And Erdoğan foes inside the president’s ruling Islamist party are not wasting the chance to lash out either. “In a nutshell, our grandfathers would be turning over in their graves,” says former culture minister Ertuğrul Günay.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?464334-Is-this-the-Century-of-the-Dragon

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2015/02/23/is_this_the_century_of_the_dragon_110992.html

February 23, 2015
Is this the Century of the Dragon?
By Pepe Escobar

BEIJING -- Seen from the Chinese capital as the Year of the Sheep starts, the malaise affecting the West seems like a mirage in a galaxy far, far away. On the other hand, the China that surrounds you looks all too solid and nothing like the embattled nation you hear about in the Western media, with its falling industrial figures, its real estate bubble, and its looming environmental disasters. Prophecies of doom notwithstanding, as the dogs of austerity and war bark madly in the distance, the Chinese caravan passes by in what President Xi Jinping calls "new normal" mode.

"Slower" economic activity still means a staggeringly impressive annual growth rate of 7% in what is now the globe's leading economy. Internally, an immensely complex economic restructuring is underway as consumption overtakes investment as the main driver of economic development. At 46.7% of the gross domestic product (GDP), the service economy has pulled ahead of manufacturing, which stands at 44%.

Geopolitically, Russia, India, and China have just sent a powerful message westward: they are busy fine-tuning a complex trilateral strategy for setting up a network of economic corridors the Chinese call "new silk roads" across Eurasia. Beijing is also organizing a maritime version of the same, modeled on the feats of Admiral Zheng He who, in the Ming dynasty, sailed the "western seas" seven times, commanding fleets of more than 200 vessels.

Meanwhile, Moscow and Beijing are at work planning a new high-speed rail remix of the fabled Trans-Siberian Railroad. And Beijing is committed to translating its growing strategic partnership with Russia into crucial financial and economic help, if a sanctions-besieged Moscow, facing a disastrous oil price war, asks for it.

To China's south, Afghanistan, despite the 13-year American war still being fought there, is fast moving into its economic orbit, while a planned China-Myanmar oil pipeline is seen as a game-changing reconfiguration of the flow of Eurasian energy across what I've long called Pipelineistan.

And this is just part of the frenetic action shaping what the Beijing leadership defines as the New Silk Road Economic Belt and the Maritime Silk Road of the twenty-first century. We're talking about a vision of creating a potentially mind-boggling infrastructure, much of it from scratch, that will connect China to Central Asia, the Middle East, and Western Europe. Such a development will include projects that range from upgrading the ancient silk road via Central Asia to developing a Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar economic corridor; a China-Pakistan corridor through Kashmir; and a new maritime silk road that will extend from southern China all the way, in reverse Marco Polo fashion, to Venice.

Don't think of this as the twenty-first-century Chinese equivalent of America's post-World War II Marshall Plan for Europe, but as something far more ambitious and potentially with a far vaster reach.

China as a Mega-City

If you are following this frenzy of economic planning from Beijing, you end up with a perspective not available in Europe or the U.S. Here, red-and-gold billboards promote President Xi Jinping's much ballyhooed new tagline for the country and the century, "the Chinese Dream" (which brings to mind "the American Dream" of another era). No subway station is without them. They are a reminder of why 40,000 miles of brand new high-speed rail is considered so essential to the country's future. After all, no less than 300 million Chinese have, in the last three decades, made a paradigm-breaking migration from the countryside to exploding urban areas in search of that dream.

Another 350 million are expected to be on the way, according to a McKinsey Global Institute study. From 1980 to 2010, China's urban population grew by 400 million, leaving the country with at least 700 million urban dwellers. This figure is expected to hit one billion by 2030, which means tremendous stress on cities, infrastructure, resources, and the economy as a whole, as well as near-apocalyptic air pollution levels in some major cities.

Already 160 Chinese cities boast populations of more than one million. (Europe has only 35.) No less than 250 Chinese cities have tripled their GDP per capita since 1990, while disposable income per capita is up by 300%.

These days, China should be thought of not in terms of individual cities but urban clusters -- groupings of cities with more than 60 million people. The Beijing-Tianjin area, for example, is actually a cluster of 28 cities. Shenzhen, the ultimate migrant megacity in the southern province of Guangdong, is now a key hub in a cluster as well. China, in fact, has more than 20 such clusters, each the size of a European country. Pretty soon, the main clusters will account for 80% of China's GDP and 60% of its population. So the country's high-speed rail frenzy and its head-spinning infrastructure projects -- part of a $1.1 trillion investment in 300 public works -- are all about managing those clusters.

Not surprisingly, this process is intimately linked to what in the West is considered a notorious "housing bubble," which in 1998 couldn't have even existed. Until then all housing was still owned by the state. Once liberalized, that housing market sent a surging Chinese middle class into paroxysms of investment. Yet with rare exceptions, middle-class Chinese can still afford their mortgages because both rural and urban incomes have also surged.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is, in fact, paying careful attention to this process, allowing farmers to lease or mortgage their land, among other things, and so finance their urban migration and new housing. Since we're talking about hundreds of millions of people, however, there are bound to be distortions in the housing market, even the creation of whole disastrous ghost towns with associated eerie, empty malls.

The Chinese infrastructure frenzy is being financed by a pool of investments from central and local government sources, state-owned enterprises, and the private sector. The construction business, one of the country's biggest employers, involves more than 100 million people, directly or indirectly. Real estate accounts for as much as 22% of total national investment in fixed assets and all of this is tied to the sale of consumer appliances, furnishings, and an annual turnover of 25% of China's steel production, 70% of its cement, 70% of its plate glass, and 25% of its plastics.

So no wonder, on my recent stay in Beijing, businessmen kept assuring me that the ever-impending "popping" of the "housing bubble" is, in fact, a myth in a country where, for the average citizen, the ultimate investment is property. In addition, the vast urbanization drive ensures, as Premier Li Keqiang stressed at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, a "long-term demand for housing."

Markets, Markets, Markets

China is also modifying its manufacturing base, which increased by a multiple of 18 in the last three decades. The country still produces 80% of the world's air conditioners, 90% of its personal computers, 75% of its solar panels, 70% of its cell phones, and 63% of its shoes. Manufacturing accounts for 44% of Chinese GDP, directly employing more than 130 million people. In addition, the country already accounts for 12.8% of global research and development, well ahead of England and most of Western Europe.

Yet the emphasis is now switching to a fast-growing domestic market, which will mean yet more major infrastructural investment, the need for an influx of further engineering talent, and a fast-developing supplier base. Globally, as China starts to face new challenges -- rising labor costs, an increasingly complicated global supply chain, and market volatility -- it is also making an aggressive push to move low-tech assembly to high-tech manufacturing. Already, the majority of Chinese exports are smartphones, engine systems, and cars (with planes on their way). In the process, a geographic shift in manufacturing is underway from the southern seaboard to Central and Western China. The city of Chengdu in the southwestern province of Sichuan, for instance, is now becoming a high-tech urban cluster as it expands around firms like Intel and HP.

So China is boldly attempting to upgrade in manufacturing terms, both internally and globally at the same time. In the past, Chinese companies have excelled in delivering the basics of life at cheap prices and acceptable quality levels. Now, many companies are fast upgrading their technology and moving up into second- and first-tier cities, while foreign firms, trying to lessen costs, are moving down to second- and third-tier cities. Meanwhile, globally, Chinese CEOs want their companies to become true multinationals in the next decade. The country already has 73 companies in the Fortune Global 500, leaving it in the number two spot behind the U.S.

In terms of Chinese advantages, keep in mind that the future of the global economy clearly lies in Asia with its record rise in middle-class incomes. In 2009, the Asia-Pacific region had just 18% of the world's middle class; by 2030, according to the Development Center of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, that figure will rise to an astounding 66%. North America and Europe had 54% of the global middle class in 2009; in 2030, it will only be 21%.

Follow the money, and the value you get for that money, too. For instance, no less than 200,000 Chinese workers were involved in the production of the first iPhone, overseen by 8,700 Chinese industrial engineers. They were recruited in only two weeks. In the U.S., that process might have taken more than nine months. The Chinese manufacturing ecosystem is indeed fast, flexible, and smart -- and it's backed by an ever more impressive education system. Since 1998, the percentage of GDP dedicated to education has almost tripled; the number of colleges has doubled; and in only a decade, China has built the largest higher education system in the world.

Strengths and Weaknesses

China holds more than $15 trillion in bank deposits, which are growing by a whopping $2 trillion a year. Foreign exchange reserves are nearing $4 trillion. A definitive study of how this torrent of funds circulates within China among projects, companies, financial institutions, and the state still does not exist. No one really knows, for instance, how many loans the Agricultural Bank of China actually makes. High finance, state capitalism, and one-party rule all mix and meld in the realm of Chinese financial services where realpolitik meets real big money.

The big four state-owned banks -- the Bank of China, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, the China Construction Bank, and the Agricultural Bank of China -- have all evolved from government organizations into semi-corporate state-owned entities. They benefit handsomely both from legacy assets and government connections, or guanxi, and operate with a mix of commercial and government objectives in mind. They are the drivers to watch when it comes to the formidable process of reshaping the Chinese economic model.

As for China's debt-to-GDP ratio, it's not yet a big deal. In a list of 17 countries, it lies well below those of Japan and the U.S., according to Standard Chartered Bank, and unlike in the West, consumer credit is only a small fraction of total debt. True, the West exhibits a particular fascination with China's shadow banking industry: wealth management products, underground finance, off-the-balance-sheet lending. But such operations only add up to around 28% of GDP, whereas, according to the International Monetary Fund, it's a much higher percentage in the U.S.

China's problems may turn out to come from non-economic areas where the Beijing leadership has proven far more prone to false moves. It is, for instance, on the offensive on three fronts, each of which may prove to have its own form of blowback: tightening ideological control over the country under the rubric of sidelining "Western values"; tightening control over online information and social media networks, including reinforcing "the Great Firewall of China" to police the Internet; and tightening further its control over restive ethnic minorities, especially over the Uighurs in the key western province of Xinjiang.

On two of these fronts -- the "Western values" controversy and Internet control -- the leadership in Beijing might reap far more benefits, especially among the vast numbers of younger, well educated, globally connected citizens, by promoting debate, but that's not how the hyper-centralized Chinese Communist Party machinery works.

When it comes to those minorities in Xinjiang, the essential problem may not be with the new guiding principles of President Xi's ethnic policy. According to Beijing-based analyst Gabriele Battaglia, Xi wants to manage ethnic conflict there by applying the "three Js": jiaowang, jiaoliu, jiaorong ("inter-ethnic contact," "exchange," and "mixage"). Yet what adds up to a push from Beijing for Han/Uighur assimilation may mean little in practice when day-to-day policy in Xinjiang is conducted by unprepared Han cadres who tend to view most Uighurs as "terrorists."

If Beijing botches the handling of its Far West, Xinjiang won't, as expected, become the peaceful, stable, new hub of a crucial part of the silk-road strategy. Yet it is already considered an essential communication link in Xi's vision of Eurasian integration, as well as a crucial conduit for the massive flow of energy supplies from Central Asia and Russia. The Central Asia-China pipeline, for instance, which brings natural gas from the Turkmen-Uzbek border through Uzbekistan and southern Kazakhstan, is already adding a fourth line to Xinjiang. And one of the two newly agreed upon Russia-China pipelines will also arrive in Xinjiang.

The Book of Xi

The extent and complexity of China's myriad transformations barely filter into the American media. Stories in the U.S. tend to emphasize the country's "shrinking" economy and nervousness about its future global role, the way it has "duped" the U.S. about its designs, and its nature as a military "threat" to Washington and the world.

The U.S. media has a China fever, which results in typically feverish reports that don't take the pulse of the country or its leader. In the process, so much is missed. One prescription might be for them to read The Governance of China, a compilation of President Xi's major speeches, talks, interviews, and correspondence. It's already a three-million-copy bestseller in its Mandarin edition and offers a remarkably digestible vision of what Xi's highly proclaimed "China Dream" will mean in the new Chinese century.

Xi Dada ("Xi Big Bang" as he's nicknamed here) is no post-Mao deity. He's more like a pop phenomenon and that's hardly surprising. In this "to get rich is glorious" remix, you couldn't launch the superhuman task of reshaping the Chinese model by being a cold-as-a-cucumber bureaucrat. Xi has instead struck a collective nerve by stressing that the country's governance must be based on competence, not insider trading and Party corruption, and he's cleverly packaged the transformation he has in mind as an American-style "dream."

Behind the pop star clearly lies a man of substance that the Western media should come to grips with. You don't, after all, manage such an economic success story by accident. It may be particularly important to take his measure since he's taken the measure of Washington and the West and decided that China's fate and fortune lie elsewhere.

As a result, last November he made official an earthshaking geopolitical shift. From now on, Beijing would stop treating the U.S. or the European Union as its main strategic priority and refocus instead on China's Asian neighbors and fellow BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa, with a special focus on Russia), also known here as the "major developing powers" (kuoda fazhanzhong de guojia). And just for the record, China does not consider itself a "developing country" anymore.

No wonder there's been such a blitz of Chinese mega-deals and mega-dealings across Pipelineistan recently. Under Xi, Beijing is fast closing the gap on Washington in terms of intellectual and economic firepower and yet its global investment offensive has barely begun, new silk roads included.

Singapore's former foreign minister George Yeo sees the newly emerging world order as a solar system with two suns, the United States and China. The Obama administration's new National Security Strategy affirms that "the United States has been and will remain a Pacific power" and states that "while there will be competition, we reject the inevitability of confrontation" with Beijing. The "major developing powers," intrigued as they are by China's extraordinary infrastructural push, both internally and across those New Silk Roads, wonder whether a solar system with two suns might not be a non-starter. The question then is: Which "sun" will shine on Planet Earth? Might this, in fact, be the century of the dragon?

Reprinted with permission from TomDispatch. Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times, an analyst for RT and Sputnik, and a TomDispatch regular. His latest book is Empire of Chaos.
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
Russia is just full of surprises...possible Sharia banking in the future and now CNN.



News_Executive @News_Executive · 4m 4 minutes ago

Breaking: According to Russian state media watchdog, Russia will issue CNN a license to broadcast in Russia. #Russia #CNN #Media
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/02/jihadist-divisions-grow-in-nigeria.php

Jihadist divisions grow in Nigeria
By Thomas Joscelyn | February 23rd, 2015 | tjoscelyn@gmail.com | @thomasjoscelyn

On Feb. 9, a video attributed to Ansaru, an insurgency and terrorist organization based in Nigeria, was posted on YouTube. Much of the 18 minute production focuses on the destruction allegedly wrought by government forces as they hunt down the jihadists. One grisly scene shows what appears to be a soldier sawing at the neck of a Muslim citizen before dumping his victim’s body in an unmarked grave. Other scenes purportedly show Christians burning Muslims alive and the charred remnants of villages ransacked by the Nigerian army.

Against this backdrop, the video’s director argues, the Muslims of Nigeria have no choice but to join or support Ansaru. “Jihad has become inevitable,” an Ansaru narrator says in Hausa, according to a translation obtained by The Long War Journal. “Inactiveness can no longer help. God has brought a solution to your problem, and that solution is Ansaru. Its role is to enlighten and wage jihad in the cause of God. It is also to protect Muslims’ lives and property.”

The Ansaru speaker then shifts his attention from the Nigerian army, the main villain of the production, to another foe: the jihadist group commonly referred to as Boko Haram. Ansaru’s jihad “is different from Boko Haram[‘s],” which “launches physical and bomb attacks at Muslims and public places such as mosques, markets, and motor parks,” the speaker says. “These acts are contrary to the teachings of Islam. In fact, jihad is prescribed to assist the wounded.”

To underscore Ansaru’s denunciation, the video shows Abu Bakr Shekau, Boko Haram’s emir, grabbing his crotch in an undignified manner. Not that Shekau has ever been accused ofAbubakar Shekau adjusting his crotch being dignified.

(A screen shot of the scene can be seen on the right.)

And with that, Ansaru once again seeks to distance itself from Shekau and Boko Haram. Ansaru has long been critical of Shekau and his fighters, even as the two sides have conspired to terrorize northern Nigeria. But in recent weeks Ansaru’s messages have become more frequent, and so have its verbal attacks on Boko Haram.

There are multiple indications that Ansaru is aligned with al Qaeda and is adopting the guidelines for waging jihad issued by al Qaeda’s senior leadership. The group is attempting to portray itself as the true defender of local Muslims against various conspiracies, just as al Qaeda groups have elsewhere around the globe.

Meanwhile, it is likely that Shekau’s Boko Haram has been cooperating with the Islamic State, al Qaeda’s rival, at least when it comes to its propaganda operations. And, according to some reports, Boko Haram is even considering swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the Islamic State’s self-proclaimed “Caliph.” However, according to the most recent information, no decision in that regard has yet been made.

Islamic State media team assisting Boko Haram

Unlike many other jihadist groups, Boko Haram has not maintained an active presence on social media. That changed earlier this year when a Twitter account claiming to represent the organization first appeared online. Suspiciously, the account was promoted by Twitter users known to disseminate the Islamic State’s propaganda.

One of the Islamic State feeds that advertised Boko Haram’s new Twitter account was maintained by a jihadist known as Shaybah al Hamad, whose account (@shaiba_ha) has since been suspended. In his own tweets, Hamad claimed to be in contact with Boko Haram’s leadership.

Boko Haram’s propaganda has never been top-notch, but jihadists who closely followed Hamad’s account noticed an improvement in its releases, which seemed to borrow some of the Islamic State’s characteristics. Videos and images released this year have focused on Boko Haram’s acquisition of territory, used multiple languages, and are generally branded in a more sophisticated manner.

Shekau, who is known for ridiculous performances, was also more composed in a video released earlier this month. That video, which was far more polished than Boko Haram’s or Ansaru’s typical releases, is entitled, “A message to the Leaders of Disbelievers.” Shekau, who is shown sitting, denounced Western democracy, threatened the coming Nigerian presidential election, and defended Boko Haram in the one-man show.

An image of Shekau from the video can be seen at the beginning of this article.

US counterterrorism and intelligence officials are aware of the contacts between Boko Haram and the Islamic State. As The Daily Beast first reported, National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) Director Nicholas Rasmussen told the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this month that there has been an “increased intercommunication between Boko Haram and other terrorist groups in the northern part of, the northwestern part of Africa, and even with ISIL [the Islamic State].”

Those “other terrorist groups” include those belonging to al Qaeda’s international network. But the relationship between Boko Haram and the Islamic State has raised red flags, especially because Boko Haram is reportedly entertaining a more formal alliance.

According to the SITE Intelligence Group, Afriqiyah Media, which disseminates jihadist propaganda, distributed a “collection” of “old messages” from “Jama’at Ahl al-Sunnah Lil Dawa Wal Jihad” (Boko Haram) to Muslims. The messages were released via Afriqiyah Media’s Twitter account on Feb. 22. One statement in the collection is particularly noteworthy.

“We give you glad tidings that the group’s Shurah Council is at the stage of consulting and studying, and we will let you know soon the group’s decision in respect to pledging allegiance to the Caliph of the Muslims Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, may Allah preserve him,” a Feb. 9 message from Boko Haram reads, according to SITE. The statement continues: “Deliver our greetings to all of our mujahideen brothers, especially the mujahideen of the Islamic State, and deliver our message to all the Muslims, that your brothers in Nigeria are calling you to immigrate to us, to assist us in managing the areas in which we have control and fight the alliance of the disbelievers.”

There is another sign that Boko Haram may be positioning itself for a more firm relationship with its infamous jihadist counterparts in Iraq and Syria. The organization has been using the “Islamic State in West Africa” as its name in some of its releases, making its desire to rule as an emirate explicit.

It is likely that the Islamic State has sent representatives to Nigeria and Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s emissaries are currently negotiating the terms of their proposal for a more formal relationship with Boko Haram, according to US officials contacted by The Long War Journal.

As of this writing, it is not clear if Shekau and Boko Haram’s shura council have decided to accept or reject the deal. It is also not clear if the proposed alliance, should it come to fruition, encompasses all of Boko Haram or factions within the group. The Islamic State has hinted at an oath of allegiance coming from Nigeria, but has not identified the jihadists involved.

Al Qaeda in Nigeria

Al Qaeda has long had Nigeria in its sights and has supported the jihadists there in multiple ways. This support has flowed primarily through al Qaeda’s official branches, especially al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). But Shabaab in Somalia and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) have worked with both Ansaru and Boko Haram as well, according to the US government, the United Nations, and other foreign officials.

Multiple jihadist factions have vied for influence, however, with some being closer to al Qaeda than others. One of Ansaru’s fallen leaders was even in direct contact with al Qaeda head Ayman al Zawahiri, according to one member of the group.

Perhaps the most comprehensive discussion of Ansaru and Boko Haram, which have frequently colluded against their common enemies despite their different approaches to waging jihad, can be found in a report published by the International Crisis Group (ICG) in 2014. According to the ICG, Ansaru was formed by Boko Haram members who “fled to Somalia and Mali, where they joined and trained with [Shabaab] and AQIM respectively,” in 2009.

Two Ansaru leaders, Abubakar Adam Kambar and Khalid Barnawi, were “close” allies of Boko Haram leader Mohammed Yusuf, who died while in the custody of authorities in 2009. The ICG cites reports indicating that Yusuf “received funds” from Osama bin Laden and other “external Salafi contacts” that “he used to fund a micro-credit scheme for his followers and [to] give welfare, food and shelter to refugees and unemployed youth.”

Both Kambar and Barnawi “reportedly trained in an AQIM camp in the Algerian desert and forged a close alliance with the group.” The training “gave them more sophisticated skills and a global jihadi orientation,” though they “disapproved of Boko Haram’s indiscriminate attacks, preferring high-profile killings and targeting Western interests.”

The ICG states that Ansaru became Nigeria’s al Qaeda “franchise,” with Kambar as its leader. One Ansaru member cited in the ICG’s report said that Kambar had “communicated directly with” Ayman al Zawahiri.

Kambar was killed in 2012, however, and Barnawi (also known as Abu Usama al Ansari) then assumed the number one position. Barnawi has cooperated with both AQIM and Boko Haram in orchestrating kidnappings that resulted in lucrative ransoms. How to divide some of this ransom money caused conflicts within Boko Haram. AQIM also refused to help Ansaru with one hostage-taking operation because it wasn’t approved by the al Qaeda branch first.

Still, because of his “close links” to AQIM, Barnawi is its “channel for the supply of funds and weapons to both Ansaru and Boko Haram.” And despite their differences, Shekau and Barnawi reached an accommodation at one point, with Shekau naming “Babagana Assalafi, Barnawi’s closest disciple, his deputy.” Assalafi was subsequently killed in a raid by the Nigerian army.

Shekau’s open praise for al Qaeda’s leaders, including Osama bin Laden, also seems to have signaled closer cooperation between Ansaru and Boko Haram in 2012, according to the ICG.

Multiple other official reports say that al Qaeda’s network has been backing both Ansaru and Boko Haram.

In January 2012, the United Nations Security Council reported that Boko Haram members “from Nigeria and Chad had received training in [AQIM] camps in Mali during the summer of 2011.” Seven Boko Haram fighters “were arrested while transiting through the Niger to Mali, in possession of documentation on manufacturing of explosives, propaganda leaflets and names and contact details of members of [AQIM] they were allegedly planning to meet.” That same month an official from Niger confirmed that Boko Haram fighters had received training from both AQIM and Shabaab. Indeed, Boko Haram’s jihadists have fought alongside AQIM’s members in Mali.

The US government has recognized the ties between Boko Haram, Ansaru and al Qaeda’s network on multiple occasions. In 2012, the State Department designated Shekau, Kambar, and Barnawi as terrorists. The Ansaru leaders, Kambar and Barnawi, “have ties to Boko Haram and have close links to” AQIM, Foggy Bottom noted.

And when the State Department offered a $7 million reward for information leading to Shekau’s capture in 2013, the US government explicitly recognized the ties between Boko Haram and three established al Qaeda branches. There “are reported communications, training, and weapons links between Boko Haram, al Qaida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), al Shabaab, and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which may strengthen Boko Haram’s capacity to conduct terrorist attacks.”

Then, in November 2013, the State Department designated Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The “links” between Shekau’s organization and AQIM were among the reasons offered for the designation.

Ties between al Qaeda’s senior leadership in Pakistan and Boko Haram were found in Osama bin Laden’s documents, which were recovered by Navy Seals during the raid that killed the al Qaeda chieftain in May 2011. The Washington Post’s intelligence sources have said that the al Qaeda CEO “was in touch not only with al Qaeda’s established affiliates but also with upstarts being groomed for new alliances,” including Boko Haram. Likewise, the Guardian (UK) has reported that bin Laden’s files show contacts between the Nigerian group and al Qaeda’s senior leaders.

Finally, in the summer of 2013, US intelligence officials discovered that Boko Haram was represented on a “conference call” between Ayman al Zawahiri and more than 20 of his subordinates around the globe. Zawahiri announced that Nasir al Wuhayshi, who leads AQAP, had been named as al Qaeda’s global general manager. The discovery of the communication led the US to shutter more than 20 diplomatic facilities around the globe, as the jihadists discussed targeting US interests.

Islamic State-al Qaeda rivalry spreads to Nigeria?

Should Boko Haram, or factions within the group, ally with the Islamic State, it will be the next step, and perhaps the most significant, in a long-running dispute between Ansaru and Shekau’s fighters.

Ansaru’s denunciations of Boko Haram have become more frequent in recent weeks, but the group’s leaders haven’t hidden their objections to Boko Haram’s indiscriminate violence in the past either. Ansaru has even accused Shekau of uttering “delusional phrases.”

In May 2013, Ansaru said that it was not responsible for the killings of Nigerian civilians, saying that such slayings were the work of “the soldiers of Satan and those who don’t know the Sharia policies and the goals of the Sharia,” meaning Boko Haram.

In November 2013, according to SITE, Ansaru leader Barnawi released a speech in which he argued that the threats to Nigeria’s Muslims come from three sources: Christians, the Nigerian government, and the “people from their own group making them taste the same thing that they suffer from the cruel enemy.” The last “group” is a reference to Boko Haram.

Ansaru returns to this theme in its most recent videos. In addition to the production released on Feb. 9, an Ansaru fighter denounced Boko Haram in a video released via Twitter on Jan. 29. The Ansaru speaker said that his organization does not “kill any Muslim nor attack the Muslims in the places of their day to day affairs” like Boko Haram does, according to SITE’s translation. “We only wage jihad to help the weak Muslims that are being oppressed.”

This same disagreement over how to employ violence first led to divisions between the jihadists in Syria, where the Islamic State’s quest to build a “caliphate” led to vicious infighting between Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s men and the Al Nusrah Front, al Qaeda’s official branch in Syria, as well as other jihadists. The Al Nusrah Front also argues that it is simply defending Muslims.

To date, Ansaru and Boko Haram have avoided all out war against each other. That may change if Boko Haram, which has more fighters than Ansaru, is drawn closer to the Islamic State. Ansaru will almost certainly remain loyal to al Qaeda. Barnawi openly refers to Ayman al Zawahiri as “our emir” and Mullah Omar, the head of the Taliban, as the “Emir of the Believers” — a title Abu Bakr al Baghdadi claims for himself.

Tags: Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, ansaru, Boko Haram, Islamic State, Nigeria
1 Comment

mike merlo says:
February 23, 2015 at 6:43 pm

so how do Sudan & Eritrea fit in to this ‘matrix?’
Reply
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/02/islamic-state-releases-video-from-al-baghdadi.php

Islamic State releases video from al Baghdadi
By Caleb Weiss | February 23rd, 2015 | weiss.caleb2@gmail.com | @Weissenberg7

Islamic State fighters who attacked the Al Asad airbase last week.

The Islamic State has released a video showing its fighters near al Baghdadi in Iraq’s Anbar province.

The video shows fierce firefights outside the city, as well as the use of US-made Humvees against the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and their Sunni tribal allies. The Islamic State also shows its fighters using technicals (armed pickup trucks), as well as rocket propelled grenades (RPG’s) in the assault. Several dead bodies from the ISF are shown before the group switches to showing its “spoils” gained in the fighting. At least two Ford F-350 series trucks are shown, with one Chevrolet truck mounted with a covered heavy machine gun also being showcased. A plethora of weapons and ammunition are then displayed in the video before it ends.

The city, which sits close to the Al Asad airbase, has been under siege for months. According to Reuters, a district manager said that “Ninety percent of al-Baghdadi district has fallen under the control of the insurgents” last week. Reuters goes on to say that the Islamic State attacked from two directions, and then proceeded to advance into the town. The Washington Post reported that an estimated 1,000 fighters took part in the offensive in al Baghdadi.

While some Iraqi officials claimed that Iraqi Security Forces and their Sunni tribal allies in the Awakening were able to drive the Islamic State attackers back, a tribal leader from the Albu Nimr tribe countered these claims by saying that fighting still raged in the city. However, it was reported that Iraqi Security Forces has launched an operation to clear out the western and southern portions of the city. Despite this report, the Islamic State was able to execute 26 members of the Albu Nimr tribe, as well as blow up Anbar’s oldest mosque. Last week, the Islamic State executed more than 150 civilians shortly after its offensive in the city.

It has been reported that ISF have entered the western and southern portions of the city. It has also been reported that reinforcements have arrived at Al Asad airbase to support the operation. Aircraft from the international coalition have reportedly assisted ISF personnel in the fighting in al Baghdadi. Some sources have suggested that al Baghdadi was liberated over the weekend, but this has not been confirmed and fighting was still raging in the city as of today.

Additionally, the Islamic State took credit for attacking Al Asad, in a message released in its daily radio announcements last week.

“In addition, the army of the Caliphate made progress in the area of al Baghdadi, as soldiers of the Islamic State targeted the Safavid [a derogatory term for Shiites referring to the ancient Persian dynasty] al Asad Base in al-Baghdadi, where the American military trains forces of the Safavid army,” the statement, which was translated by SITE Intelligence Group, said. The jihadist group has also released a photo showing the fighters who launched the suicide assault on the base (seen above).

Currently, around 320 US Marines are stationed at Al Asad. The Marines are there to train and reorganize the Iraqi Security Forces and Sunni tribal fighters to fight the Islamic State. For more on the assault on the airbase, as well as the large-scale takeover of al Baghdadi, see LWJ report Islamic State takes over large portions of town near key airbase in Anbar.

Pictures from the Islamic State video can be seen below:

Islamic State using a Humvee against Iraqi positions:

Bagh1

Setting a Humvee on fire:

Bagh2

Talking with a local man:

Bagh3

An Islamic State fighter targeting Iraqi positions:

Bagh4

An Islamic State fighter giving a speech to the camera:

Bagh5

An Islamic State technical and sniper:

Bagh6

An Islamic State technical mounted with an anti-air gun:

Bagh7

An Islamic State fighter with a rocket-propelled grenade:

Bagh8

Islamic State targeting an Iraqi vehicle with what looks like Shia militia markings on it:

Bagh9

Islamic State fighters taking the Iraqi flag off of a Humvee:

Bagh10

Showcasing its spoils in the fighting:

Bagh11



Bagh12



Bagh14



Tags: anbar, Iraq, Islamic State
1 Comment

mike merlo says:
February 23, 2015 at 6:29 pm

sounds like the ISF’s “Rope ah Dope” strategy is working out quite well. Am also pleased to read that US Military hardware is being put to good use & US Truck Manufacturer’s are ‘making’ some headlines besides those Japanese Models.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...-committee-specialrepor-idUSKBN0LS0VD20150224

Special Report: How Iran's military chiefs operate in Iraq

By Ned Parker, Babak Dehghanpisheh and Isabel Coles
BAGHDAD Tue Feb 24, 2015 5:27am EST

(Reuters) - The face stares out from multiple billboards in central Baghdad, a grey-haired general casting a watchful eye across the Iraqi capital. This military commander is not Iraqi, though. He's Iranian.

The posters are a recent arrival, reflecting the influence Iran now wields in Baghdad.

Iraq is a mainly Arab country. Its citizens, Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims alike, have long mistrusted Iran, the Persian nation to the east. But as Baghdad struggles to fight the Sunni extremist group Islamic State, many Shi'ite Iraqis now look to Iran, a Shi'ite theocracy, as their main ally.

In particular, Iraqi Shi'ites have grown to trust the powerful Iranian-backed militias that have taken charge since the Iraqi army deserted en masse last summer. Dozens of paramilitary groups have united under a secretive branch of the Iraqi government called the Popular Mobilisation Committee, or Hashid Shaabi. Created by Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s predecessor Nuri al-Maliki, the official body now takes the lead role in many of Iraq's security operations. From its position at the nexus between Tehran, the Iraqi government, and the militias, it is increasingly influential in determining the country's future.

Until now, little has been known about the body. But in a series of interviews with Reuters, key Iraqi figures inside Hashid Shaabi have detailed the ways the paramilitary groups, Baghdad and Iran collaborate, and the role Iranian advisers play both inside the group and on the frontlines.

Those who spoke to Reuters include two senior figures in the Badr Organisation, perhaps the single most powerful Shi'ite paramilitary group, and the commander of a relatively new militia called Saraya al-Khorasani.

In all, Hashid Shaabi oversees and coordinates several dozen factions. The insiders say most of the groups followed a call to arms by Iraq's leading Shi'ite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. But they also cite the religious guidance of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, as a key factor in their decision to fight and – as they see it – defend Iraq.

Hadi al-Amiri, the leader of the Badr Organisation, told Reuters: "The majority of us believe that ... Khamenei has all the qualifications as an Islamic leader. He is the leader not only for Iranians but the Islamic nation. I believe so and I take pride in it."

He insisted there was no conflict between his role as an Iraqi political and military leader and his fealty to Khamenei.

"Khamenei would place the interests of the Iraqi people above all else," Amiri said.

FROM BATTLEFIELD TO HOSPITAL

Hashid Shaabi is headed by Jamal Jaafar Mohammed, better known by his nom de guerre Abu Mahdi al-Mohandis, a former Badr commander who once plotted against Saddam Hussein and whom American officials have accused of bombing the U.S. embassy in Kuwait in 1983.

Iraqi officials say Mohandis is the right-hand man of Qassem Soleimani, head of the Quds Force, part of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. Mohandis is praised by some militia fighters as "the commander of all troops" whose "word is like a sword above all groups."

The body he heads helps coordinate everything from logistics to military operations against Islamic State. Its members say Mohandis' close friendships with both Soleimani and Amiri helps anchor the collaboration.

The men have known each other for more than 20 years, according to Muen al-Kadhimi, a Badr Organisation leader in western Baghdad. "If we look at this history," Kadhimi said, "it helped significantly in organizing the Hashid Shaabi and creating a force that achieved a victory that 250,000 (Iraqi) soldiers and 600,000 interior ministry police failed to do."

Kadhimi said the main leadership team usually consulted for three to four weeks before major military campaigns. "We look at the battle from all directions, from first determining the field ... how to distribute assignments within the Hashid Shaabi battalions, consult battalion commanders and the logistics," he said.

Soleimani, he said, "participates in the operation command center from the start of the battle to the end, and the last thing (he) does is visit the battle's wounded in the hospital."

Iraqi and Kurdish officials put the number of Iranian advisers in Iraq between 100 and several hundred - fewer than the nearly 3,000 American officers training Iraqi forces. In many ways, though, the Iranians are a far more influential force.

Iraqi officials say Tehran’s involvement is driven by its belief that Islamic State is an immediate danger to Shi'ite religious shrines not just in Iraq but also in Iran. Shrines in both nations, but especially in Iraq, rank among the sect's most sacred.

The Iranians, the Iraqi officials say, helped organize the Shi'ite volunteers and militia forces after Grand Ayatollah Sistani called on Iraqis to defend their country days after Islamic State seized control of the northern city of Mosul last June.

Prime Minister Abadi has said Iran has provided Iraqi forces and militia volunteers with weapons and ammunition from the first days of the war with Islamic State.

They have also provided troops. Several Kurdish officials said that when Islamic State fighters pushed close to the Iraq-Iran border in late summer, Iran dispatched artillery units to Iraq to fight them. Farid Asarsad, a senior official from the semi-autonomous Iraqi region of Kurdistan, said Iranian troops often work with Iraqi forces. In northern Iraq, Kurdish peshmerga soldiers "dealt with the technical issues like identifying targets in battle, but the launching of rockets and artillery – the Iranians were the ones who did that."

Kadhimi, the senior Badr official, said Iranian advisers in Iraq have helped with everything from tactics to providing paramilitary groups with drone and signals capabilities, including electronic surveillance and radio communications.

"The U.S. stayed all these years with the Iraqi army and never taught them to use drones or how to operate a very sophisticated communication network, or how to intercept the enemy's communication," he said. "The Hashid Shaabi, with the help of (Iranian) advisers, now knows how to operate and manufacture drones."

A MAGICAL FIGHTER

One of the Shi'ite militia groups that best shows Iran's influence in Iraq is Saraya al-Khorasani. It was formed in 2013 in response to Khamenei's call to fight Sunni jihadists, initially in Syria and later Iraq.

The group is responsible for the Baghdad billboards that feature Iranian General Hamid Taghavi, a member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Known to militia members as Abu Mariam, Taghavi was killed in northern Iraq in December. He has become a hero for many of Iraq's Shi'ite fighters.

Taghavi "was an expert at guerrilla war," said Ali al-Yasiri, the commander of Saraya al-Khorasani. "People looked at him as magical."

In a video posted online by the Khorasani group soon after Taghavi's death, the Iranian general squats on the battlefield, giving orders as bullets snap overhead. Around him, young Iraqi fighters with AK-47s press themselves tightly against the ground. The general wears rumpled fatigues and has a calm, grandfatherly demeanor. Later in the video, he rallies his fighters, encouraging them to run forward to attack positions.

Within two days of Mosul's fall on June 10 last year, Taghavi, a member of Iran's minority Arab population, traveled to Iraq with members of Iran's regular military and the Revolutionary Guard. Soon, he was helping map out a way to outflank Islamic State outside Balad, 50 miles (80 km) north of Baghdad.

Taghavi's time with Saraya al-Khorasani proved a boon for the group. Its numbers swelled from 1,500 to 3,000. It now boasts artillery, heavy machine guns, and 23 military Humvees, many of them captured from Islamic State.

"Of course, they are good," Yasiri said with a grin. "They are American made."

In November, Taghavi was back in Iraq for a Shi'ite militia offensive near the Iranian border. Yasiri said Taghavi formulated a plan to "encircle and besiege" Islamic State in the towns of Jalawala and Saadiya. After success with that, he began to plot the next battle. Yasiri urged him to be more cautious, but Taghavi was killed by a sniper in December.

At Taghavi's funeral, the head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Ali Shamkhani, eulogized the slain commander. He was, said Shamkhani, one of those Iranians in Iraq "defending Samarra and giving their blood so we don't have to give our blood in Tehran." Both Soleimani and the Badr Organisation's Amiri were among the mourners.

A NEW IRAQI SOUL

Saraya al-Khorasani's headquarters sit in eastern Baghdad, inside an exclusive government complex that houses ministers and members of parliament. Giant pictures of Taghavi and other slain al-Khorasani fighters hang from the exterior walls of the group's villa.

Commander Yasiri walks with a cane after he was wounded in his left leg during a battle in eastern Diyala in November. On his desk sits a small framed drawing of Iran's Khamenei.

He describes Saraya al-Khorasani, along with Badr and several other groups, as "the soul" of Iraq’s Hashid Shaabi committee.

Not everyone agrees. A senior Shi'ite official in the Iraqi government took a more critical view, saying Saraya al-Khorasani and the other militias were tools of Tehran. "They are an Iranian-made group that was established by Taghavi. Because of their close ties with Iranians for weapons and ammunition, they are so effective," the official said.

Asarsad, the senior Kurdish official, predicts Iraq's Shi'ite militias will evolve into a permanent force that resembles the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. That sectarian force, he believes, will one day operate in tandem with Iraq's regular military.

"There will be two armies in Iraq," he said.

That could have big implications for the country’s future. Human rights groups have accused the Shi’ite militias of displacing and killing Sunnis in areas they liberate — a charge the paramilitary commanders vigorously deny. The militias blame any excesses on locals and accuse Sunni politicians of spreading rumors to sully the name of Hashid Shaabi.

The senior Shi'ite official critical of Saraya al-Khorasani said the militia groups, which have the freedom to operate without directly consulting the army or the prime minister, could yet undermine Iraq's stability. The official described Badr as by far the most powerful force in the country, even stronger than Prime Minister Abadi.

Amiri, the Badr leader, rejected such claims. He said he presents his military plans directly to Abadi for approval.

His deputy Kadhimi was in no doubt, though, that the Hashid Shaabi was more powerful than the Iraqi military.

"A Hashid Shaabi (soldier) sees his commander ... or Haji Hadi Amiri or Haji Mohandis or even Haji Qassem Soleimani in the battle, eating with them, sitting with them on the ground, joking with them. This is why they are ready to fight," said Kadhimi. "This is why it is an invincible force."

(Editing By Simon Robinson and Richard Woods)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/24/us-mideast-crisis-christians-idUSKBN0LS0MH20150224

Islamic State in Syria abducts at least 90 from Christian villages: monitor

AMMAN Tue Feb 24, 2015 4:35am EST

(Reuters) - Islamic State militants have abducted at least 90 people from Assyrian Christian villages in northeastern Syria, a monitoring group that tracks violence in Syria said on Tuesday.

The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the militants carried out dawn raids on rural villages inhabited by the ancient Christian minority west of Hasaka, a city mainly held by the Kurds.

Syrian Kurdish militia have renewed their assault on the militants, launching two offensives against them in northeast Syria on Sunday, helped from U.S.-led air strikes and Iraqi peshmerga who have been shelling Islamic State-held territory from their side of the nearby border.

This part of Syria is strategically important in the fight against Islamic State because it borders territory controlled by the group in Iraq, where last year the ultra-hardline group committed atrocities against the Yazidi community.

Tel Tamr, a town near the Assyrian Christian villages where the abductions occurred, has witnessed heavy clashes between Islamic State fighters and the Kurdish YPG militia, the Observatory said.

(Reporting by Suleiman Al-Khalidi; Editing by Raissa Kasolowsky)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/24/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSKBN0LS0RI20150224

Rebels say they start withdrawing weapons in east Ukraine

DONETSK, Ukraine Tue Feb 24, 2015 5:11am EST

(Reuters) - Pro-Russia separatists said on Tuesday they began withdrawing heavy weapons from the frontline in east Ukraine under a ceasefire deal, but the Ukrainian military, which says it won't pull back until fighting stops, reported further shelling.

Fighting has eased in eastern Ukraine in recent days after the rebels initially ignored a ceasefire that was due to start on Feb. 15 and stormed a government-held town.

After taking the town, the Moscow-backed rebels have consistently indicated they want the truce to take effect. Kiev says the rebels are still shooting, which the rebels deny.

Western countries have not given up on the ceasefire deal to end fighting that has killed more than 5,600 people, but have warned of new economic sanctions against Moscow if the rebels advance deeper into territory the Kremlin calls "New Russia".

"Today at 9 in the morning (0600 GMT) the planned withdrawal of heavy equipment started," rebel commander Eduard Basurin told Reuters.

"We're pulling it back 50 km from the boundary line ... Of course we won't say exactly where we're pulling it back to."

Basurin denied Ukrainian military reports of fighting in southeast Ukraine, saying there had been "provocations" from the government side but no serious clashes.

Kiev says the rebels have launched attacks on villages near Mariupol, a port of 500,000 people, which Ukraine fears could be the next separatist target.

"There's been quite intense shelling since the morning. The situation is tense but under control," Dmytro Chaly, spokesman for the Ukrainian military in Mariupol, said on television channel 112.

Among the areas Kiev said had been shelled were the village of Shyrokyne near Mariupol, and the area near Debaltseve, the town the rebels captured last week.

Separatist press service DAN reported ten incidents of government shelling near the rebel-held stronghold of Donetsk.

In a first step towards implementing the truce, the sides exchanged prisoners late on Saturday. On Sunday they said they had agreed to start the withdrawal of heavy weapons. But on Monday Kiev said it would not pull back until shooting stopped.

(Reporting by Anton Zverev; Additional reporting by Pavel Polityuk; Writing by Alessandra Prentice; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/24/us-northkorea-southkorea-drills-idUSKBN0LS0FZ20150224

U.S., South Korea to start military drills amid tension with North

SEOUL Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:36am EST

(Reuters) - South Korea and the United States will begin eight weeks of joint military drills starting March 2, military officials said on Tuesday, an annual exercise that typically provokes heightened rhetoric and military threats from North Korea.

North Korea regularly protests the annual exercises, which it says are a rehearsal for war, and has recently stepped up its own air, sea and ground military exercises, amid a period of increased tensions between the rival Koreas.

"The whole course of Key Resolve and Foal Eagle is aimed to occupy the DPRK through preemptive strikes," said an editorial in the ruling Workers' Party newspaper, the Rodong Sinmun, referring to the names for the exercises.

DPRK is short for Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the North's official title.

Tuesday's statement by the joint U.S.-South Korean Combined Forces Command said the North Korean army had been informed of the dates and "non-provocative nature" of the exercises.

On Monday, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un told his Korean People's Army (KPA) commanders to focus on "combat readiness" this year, according to state media.

In 2013, following its third nuclear test, North Korea declared the armistice agreement which ended the 1950-53 war as "invalid" in response to the exercises.

The U.S. responded with long-range nuclear-capable B-2 bomber flights over the Korean peninsular in a show of force it said was designed to show U.S. ability to "conduct long-range, precision strikes quickly and at will".

Overtures for dialogue by both Koreas in recent months have stalled, with Pyongyang describing inter-Korean relations as "inching close to a catastrophe," in a separate Rodong Sinmun article.

The annual U.S.-South Korean drills are divided into two phases: 'Key Resolve', which runs from March 2 to 13, and 'Foal Eagle', which runs from March 2 to April 24.

'Key Resolve' is a computer simulated command exercise; 'Foal Eagle' includes actual "ground, air, naval, and special operations," field exercises, the statement said.

"A chance for dialogue and (a) diplomatic solution (has) already been scuppered. What remains to be done is to militarily react to the U.S. while bolstering up war deterrence to the maximum," Tuesday's Rodong Sinmun editorial said.

(Reporting by James Pearson; Editing by Tony Munroe and Michael Perry)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/24/us-egypt-security-idUSKBN0LS0RA20150224

Egypt's Sisi issues decree widening scope of security crackdown

By Michael Georgy and Mahmoud Mourad
CAIRO Tue Feb 24, 2015 5:32am EST

(Reuters) - Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has signed off on an anti-terrorism law that gives authorities more sweeping powers to ban groups on charges ranging from harming national unity to disrupting public order.

The move, announced in the official Gazette on Tuesday, is likely to increase concern among rights groups over the government clawing back freedoms gained after the 2011 uprising that ended a three-decade autocracy under Hosni Mubarak.

Authorities have cracked down hard on the Islamist, secular and liberal opposition alike since then army chief Sisi toppled elected Islamist president Mohamed Mursi in 2013 after mass protests against his rule.

According to the Gazette, the law enables authorities to act against any individual or group deemed a threat to national security, including people who disrupt public transportation, an apparent reference to protests.

Loose definitions involving threats to national unity may give the police, widely accused of abuses, a green light to crush dissent, human rights groups say.

The Interior Ministry says it investigates all allegations of wrongdoing and is committed to Egypt's democratic transition.

Under the mechanism of the law, public prosecutors ask a criminal court to list suspects as terrorists and start a trial.

Any group designated as terrorist would be dissolved, the law stipulates. It also allows for the freezing of assets belonging to the group, its members and financiers.

Since taking office in 2014, Sisi has identified Mursi's Muslim Brotherhood as a threat to national security.

He has linked the Brotherhood, the region's oldest Islamist grouping, with far more radical groups, including one based in Sinai that supports Islamic State, allegations it denies.

Hundreds of supporters of the Brotherhood, which says it is a peaceful movement, have been killed and thousands arrested in one of the toughest security crackdowns in Egypt's history.

Since Mursi's fall, Sinai-based militants have killed hundreds of police and soldiers, and the beheading of up to 21 Egyptians in neighboring Libya prompted Sisi to order air****** ‬‬‬‬‬‬strikes against militant targets there.

Some Egyptians have overlooked widespread allegations of human rights abuses and backed Sisi for delivering a degree of stability following years of political turmoil since 2011.

A court on Tuesday acquitted Mubarak-era prime minister Ahmed Nazif and former interior minister Habib el-Adly of graft charges, judicial sources said, a day after prominent activist, Alaa Abdel Fattah, was jailed for five years for violating limits on demonstrations.

"I served Egypt, and history will judge," Nazif told reporters at the court.

(Editing by Yara Bayoumy and Louise Ireland)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/23/us-venezuela-opposition-idUSKBN0LR24W20150223

Venezuela's ruling Socialists target another opposition leader

By Andrew Cawthorne
CARACAS Mon Feb 23, 2015 6:56pm EST

(Reuters) - Socialist Party legislators called on Monday for a probe of another Venezuelan opposition leader accused of conspiring against President Nicolas Maduro, days after the mayor of Caracas was arrested on similar charges.

The opposition fears an investigation against Julio Borges, a parliamentarian and national coordinator of the Primero Justicia (Justice First) party, could signal a wider crackdown.

Maduro's foes accuse him of trying to distract Venezuelans from a severe economic crisis and intimidate the opposition, which is optimistic about winning control of parliament in a vote due later this year.

Pedro Carreno, who heads the Socialists' parliamentary bloc, led a group of legislators to the Public Prosecutor's Office in Caracas to request a formal investigation. "Proof was presented," he said via Twitter, without giving further details.

The move against Borges, 45, follows the high-profile arrest of Caracas mayor Antonio Ledezma, 59.

Government officials and state media have alleged both Ledezma and Borges have a long history of plotting violence against the government and were involved in what it describes as a coup plan spearheaded by air force officers with U.S. backing.

Both politicians call the charges against them false and a smokescreen to hide a severe recession, near-70 percent annual inflation and chronic shortages.

"We have to be ready in case the government illegally detains Julio Borges at any moment," fellow opposition leader Henry Ramos said on Monday, according to local media.

Borges, a veteran politician, lawyer and father of four, has long accused the government of corruption and misusing the country's oil wealth. He made headlines in 2013 when he was punched in the face during a parliamentary brawl.

Borges says he is focused on overturning the government's majority during the coming vote, for which no date has been set.

Government supporters frequently remind voters that Borges backed a short-lived 2002 coup against Maduro's predecessor, Hugo Chavez. National Assembly president Diosdado Cabello recently accused him of planning to murder Leopoldo Lopez - another jailed opposition leader - in 2014 to sow chaos.

In the latest of daily speeches denouncing the United States and his domestic opponents, Maduro told supporters he would not hesitate to jail anyone plotting against him.

"We're going to apply an iron fist to anyone who is conspiring," he thundered to a crowd in Yaracuy state.

The U.S. government, which did endorse the 2002 putsch against Chavez, has dismissed as "ludicrous" Venezuela's latest accusations against it.

(Additional reporting by Alexandra Ulmer; editing by Andre Grenon and Christian Plumb)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://in.rbth.com/news/2015/02/24/...n_may-june_testing_due_in_autumn_s_41567.html

Prototype of IBCM Sarmat to be built in May-June, testing due in autumn — source
24/02/2015 TASS

A prototype of the Sarmat heavy intercontinental ballistic missile will be built in May or June, a source in the defense industry has told TASS, adding that up to 30% of components of the new generation 100-ton missile have already been manufactured at the Krasnoyarsk machine-building plant.

"The manufacturer will finalize a prototype of the Sarmat missile in two or three months’ time. The first pop-up test will follow," the source said. If it is successful, no more pop-up tests (checks of the missile’s individual stages) will be made.

"In 2016 the phase of flight tests will begin," he said. The purpose is to check the operation of the powder pressure accumulator and the missile’s operation during liftoff and immediately after it leaves the silo.

"The prototype will have precisely the same size and mass as the future combat version. Instead of a MIRV warhead the prototype will carry a dummy. The booster will not be turned on. Sarmat will rise several dozen meters above the silo to fall nearby," the source said.

On February 21 Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said Sarmat will have several configurations. The warhead will have a mass of ten tons. Its likely flight paths towards potential targets will lie over the North or South pole.

The new-generation liquid propellant ICBM Sarmat is to replace the world’s largest strategic missile R-36M2 Voyevoda, which is close to the life cycle expiration date. Earlier, strategic missile force commander Sergey Karakayev said the strategic missile Sarmat was being developed by a group of defense industry enterprises under the Makeyev State Missile Center.

First published by TASS.
 
Top