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

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/25/recep-erdogan-vision-for-turkey-undermined-by-dome/

Erdogan’s vision for Turkey undermined by domestic strife

By Jacob Resneck — Special to The Washington Times - - Wednesday, February 25, 2015

ISTANBUL — Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has a vision for a “new Turkey” where he would preside over the country and build a regional military, political and cultural powerhouse from his sprawling new $600 million presidential palace in the capital of Ankara.

But brawls in parliament over Mr. Erdogan’s proposal to give more power to the security services, growing charges of his authoritarianism and blowback over his perceived reluctance to confront the Islamic State militants have become hurdles in the way of Turkish leader’s lofty strongman ambitions.

At a time when the Obama administration could desperately use Ankara’s aid in its struggles across the Turkish border in Iran and the Syrian-based Islamic State, Turkey and its Islamist president seem far more consumed by domestic strife and internal political struggles than by the broader violence and rising chaos in the region it once dreamed of dominating.

“When you put all things together, the place of the president seems not particularly secure,” Bilgi University political scientist Ilter Turan told The Washington Times. “The president seems to be in a paranoid mood where he sees a conspiracy against him and his government often backed by foreign powers.”

Mr. Erdogan, who has dominated the Turkish political scene for more than a decade as prime minister and now as president, is pushing a security bill that would allow for arbitrary searches, detentions without charges and liberal rules of engagement that would allow police to use live ammunition at demonstrations if protesters hurl Molotov cocktails and provoke other violence.

Turkey’s opposition parties and international human rights groups have condemned the proposal. In a country once seen as a model for Islamic democracy in the region, heated exchanges among lawmakers debating the bill devolved into fisticuffs and thrown chairs in parliament twice last week.

“Widening the scope of when police may use firearms against protesters is dangerous and out of step with U.N. guidelines on the use of force by law enforcement,” Freedom House activist Susan Corke said in a recent statement. “It is no exaggeration to say that the future of Turkish democracy hangs in the balance with this law.”

Despite the embarrassing violence in parliament, Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party, known as the AKP, which advocates for a greater role for Islam in Turkish society, remains committed to expanding the power of the security services in the run-up to June parliamentary elections. Critics say the move is Mr. Erdogan’s attempt to consolidate power.

Mr. Erdogan was a member of the Justice and Development Party when he was prime minister, but he resigned from the party because the Turkish presidency is technically a nonpartisan office. Now Mr. Erdogan is seeking an absolute majority of Justice and Development Party lawmakers to amend the Turkish Constitution to create a strong executive-style presidency that his supporters claim would strengthen Turkey’s regional clout.

“A presidential system introduces a stable and effective form of government that allows the executive to design long-term projects, realizing them without facing bureaucratic hindrances, and respond quickly to emerging crises,” columnist Ali Aslan wrote recently in the pro-government Sabah newspaper.

But support for a strong presidency is shaky even among Mr. Erdogan’s electoral allies.

Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who served as foreign minister when Mr. Erdogan was prime minister, has not endorsed the idea. Turkey’s former president, who co-founded the Justice and Development Party with Mr. Erdogan, has counseled against it.

Their silence could reflect cracks in the ruling party. As the first directly elected president of Turkey, Mr. Erdogan has transformed the position. He continues to use the bully pulpit to advocate for policies, and he reportedly tries to wield influence over Mr. Davutoglu.

“In Ankara’s political backstage, it has been whispered for some time that Erdogan wants Davutoglu to consult with him before important government decisions, which usually means getting his approval,” veteran journalist Murat Cetkin said in the Hurriyet Daily News on Tuesday.

Geopolitical woes

In addition to increasing domestic opposition, Mr. Erdogan is facing geopolitical problems. He has come under for fire for his reluctance to sanction military action against the Islamic State, whose fighters have taken over Iraqi and Syrian territory bordering Turkey. Turkish forces also are maintaining a precarious cease-fire with the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a group calling for political autonomy, language rights and other protections for Turkey’s ethnic Kurd minority.

Mr. Erdogan’s dovish stance toward the Islamic State came under fire after Turkey sent tanks and troops into Syria on Sunday to evacuate 38 Turkish soldiers guarding an Ottoman-era tomb that Turkey considers its sovereign territory under a 1921 agreement. The Turkish guards had been cut off for months by Islamic State militants. After the overnight operation, Mr. Erdogan made pains to defend the decision to withdraw the encircled troops and not to fight to hold the ground.

“The Suleyman Sah tomb operation is not a retreat; it is a temporary move in order not to risk soldiers’ lives,” Mr. Erdogan said Monday. “The game of those who tried to use the tomb and our soldiers to blackmail Turkey has been disrupted.”

The Turkish government was also quick to deny reports that the operation was coordinated with Syrian Kurdish militants allied to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, but the political damage was apparent.

“There is bound to be some doubts even among Justice and Development Party supporters given what is surfacing about the operation and the degree to which Ankara cooperated with Syrian Kurdish forces that are allied with the Kurdistan Workers,” columnist Semih Idiz wrote Tuesday in the Hurriyet Daily News.

Human rights concerns and differing perspectives on the crisis in Syria — Turkey is far more concerned with ousting Syrian President Bashar Assad than in taking on the Islamic State — also have strained tied with the United States. Mr. Erdogan has been bitingly critical of the U.S.-led campaign in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State and the prominent role the Kurds have played in the war.

President Obama and Mr. Erdogan, “once amicable partners who held regular phone chats, now differ so starkly on the Syrian war that they avoid regular contact,” Soner Cagaptay, a Turkish analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, wrote in an analysis this month asking whether the U.S.-Turkish alliance was crumbling.

Compounding Mr. Erdogan’s problems is that Hakan Fidan, his chief of intelligence, resigned this month, presumably to enter politics as a Justice and Development parliamentarian, a position that would give him immunity from prosecution.

“Everyone has immunity except him and he’s doing the dirty jobs,” Koray Caliskan, a professor of political science at Bosphorus University, said in an interview.

Mr. Fidan, whom Mr. Erdogan has called his closest confidant and keeper of secrets, reportedly resigned over the president’s objections. The move suggests that the Turkish president’s inner circle could be shrinking and rivals may be vying for influence in the party he founded, which has ruled the country for 13 years.

Still, the Justice and Development Party remains the most popular political group in the country. A string of corruption scandals that targeted members of Mr. Erdogan’s Cabinet in December 2013 did not substantially hurt the party in last year’s municipal elections or deny Mr. Erdogan’s victory as president.

But it’s doubtful that voters in the June elections will deliver the support the party needs to alter the constitution and cement Mr. Erdogan’s rule.

“The current trends would point to a victory by the Justice and Development Party,” Mr. Turan told The Washington Times. “The question is what kind of victory that will be. The president desires a very overwhelming victory, and that seems not to be possible at the moment.”

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/25/mission-to-retake-mosul-from-islamic-state-doomed-/

Mission to retake Mosul from Islamic State doomed, general

By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Comments 9

The Army general who oversaw training of Iraqi troops says the rushed mission to retake Mosul from the Islamic State this spring is doomed.

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Barbero said Mosul is booby-trapped with explosives and controlled by thousands of suicidal fighters. Evicting them will take a coordinated ground and air campaign with precise intelligence on enemy locations. It is a combat mix that Iraqis simply lack the ability to execute in accordance with an announced U.S. Central Command timeline to attack Mosul in April or May.

“They could be ready to attack. I doubt they’d be successful,” Mr. Barbero told The Washington Times. “Two months is clearly inadequate to think that they could start offensive operations of any effect in Mosul.”

A U.S. Central Command briefer last week laid out an exact schedule for invading Iraq’s second-largest city. The plan is so ambitious and so out in the open that observers are scratching their heads.

The Islamic State has had eight months to hunker down in Mosul, which was hostile to the Shiite-run government in Baghdad even before the takeover by the extremist group, also known by the acronyms ISIS and ISIL.

“Urban fighting is the most sophisticated, complex fight there is,” Mr. Barbero said. “Multidimensional. It’s direct fire. Indirect fire. Precision fires. If you want to gain support from the occupants, the Sunnis, you can’t go in there and just run with it. So it has to be a very, very precise application of firepower against an enemy that has no regard for the population and will indiscriminately use violence to hold on. There’s no way the Iraqi Security Forces will be ready for this kind of fighting.”

Meanwhile, President Obama’s top adviser overseeing the coalition fighting the Islamic State sought to cast a positive light Wednesday over “significant gains” against the terrorist group.

Retired Marine Gen. John Allen did not specifically address the question of whether Iraqi troops will be prepared for the Mosul offensive, but he asserted during testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the Islamic State is “defeatable and is being defeated by Iraqi forces, defending and taking back their towns, villages and cities.”

Gen. Allen told lawmakers that the “aura of invincibility” that surrounded the Islamic State after its fighters swiftly seized Mosul and declared an Islamic caliphate in June has been “shattered” by Iraqi troops’ increasing ground gains.

Such claims run counter to skepticism in Washington, where a growing number of lawmakers and analysts say the impending Mosul offensive likely will be decisive test of the Obama administration’s commitment to crush the extremist movement.

The plan: Finish training 3,200 Iraqi soldiers, then send them into the field to replace five Iraqi brigades. Those five units then will be trained by U.S. troops to form the core of an invasion force of 25,000 that will include police, special operations and logisticians — all Iraqis.

The U.S. military will be restricted to its current roles: airstrikes, aerial surveillance and intelligence-gathering. U.S. officers will be stationed at brigade headquarters or above and not take part in combat.

In essence, the U.S. will be supporting the same Iraqi army that retreated en masse when Islamic State fighters invaded from Syria last summer. Fighters gobbled up ground in western and northern Iraq including its crown jewel, the sprawling city of Mosul.

With no U.S. troops in the field, precise intelligence on terrorists’ actions and locations in Mosul is missing.

“I don’t think we have the means on the ground to generate adequate intelligence on where to go in Mosul, what to hit, where not to go,” said the retired three-star general. “I would think the first thing is you’ve got to develop a network of intelligence to be able to hit the right targets to set the conditions.”

Mr. Barbero said the large majority of allied airstrikes have been against tactical targets: the Islamic State’s vehicles, boats and fighter emplacements. To take down the group, the U.S. must go after its leadership, for which intelligence is spotty.

“Mosul is 1.4 to 1.8 million people,” he said. “It’s always been a hostile place. ISIS has had nine months to control the situation and prepare for this,” he said.

The former general, who is now in the oil and gas business, knows the combat challenges in Iraq firsthand. He toured northern Iraq in December and talked with Kurdish peshmerga fighters.

He completed three combat tours in Iraq, the last from 2009 to 2011 as the American commander in charge of all training and equipping of Iraqi Security Forces before U.S. troops pulled out in December 2011.

His final military job was as director of the Pentagon organization that counters improvised explosive devices, the most deadly weapon in Afghanistan and one used by the Islamic State.

Invaders will find Mosul roads and buildings booby-trapped.

“The peshmerga tell me that most of their casualties are from IEDs,” Mr. Barbero said. “When they go into an area, they encounter ‘belts’ of IEDs. ISIS is very proficient in the use of IEDs.”

Of the planned invasion, he said: “Twenty-five thousand troops would be absorbed into that environment rapidly. I don’t think it’s enough. And I don’t think it’s enough time to get them ready from what I know about the status of Iraqi Security Forces.”

Gen. Allen sought to sound an optimistic tune Wednesday about the prospects of the Iraqi forces. Although he stuck mostly to broad-stroke assessments during his testimony on Capitol Hill, he noted that Kurdish peshmerga forces already have “taken control of Mosul Dam, the Rabiya border crossing, Sinjar Mountain, Zumar and the Kisik road junction, which eliminated a supply route for ISIL from Syria to Mosul.”

“Iraqi security forces with popular volunteers have secured the routes to Baghdad, and the capital is now seeing the lowest levels of violence it’s seen in years,” said the general, who also served in Iraq, heading multinational forces in the nation’s Anbar province from 2006 to 2008 before taking over as deputy commander of U.S. Central Command through mid-2011.

“ISIL’s advance has been largely blunted, and has been driven back away from the regional capitals of Baghdad and Irbil,” Gen. Allen said. “It has also lost half of its Iraq-based leadership and thousands of hardened fighters, and is no longer able to mass, maneuver and communicate as an effective force.”

• Guy Taylor contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/content/un-north-korea-renamed-ships-to-evade-sanctions/2659775.html

UN: North Korea Renamed Ships to Evade Sanctions

VOA News
February 26, 2015 12:17 AM

A United Nations report says a North Korea shipping company, which has in the past been caught trying to transfer illicit weapons, has evaded sanctions against it by renaming and transferring ownership of most of its vessels.

The report, written by a group of experts that monitors sanctions against North Korea, also says Pyongyang "continued to defy Security Council resolutions by persisting with its nuclear and ballistic missile programs."

North Korea is subject to a wide array of restrictions on the import and export of weapons, nuclear and missile technology, and luxury goods. But it has continued to find creative ways to work around those sanctions.

The North's state-owned Ocean Maritime Management Company (OMM) has been under U.N. Security Council sanctions after one of its ships was stopped in Panama in 2013 while trying to transfer undeclared weapons from Cuba.

The weapons, which included Soviet era fighter jets, missiles and ammunition, were hidden under a cargo of sugar aboard the Chong Chon Gang, which was trying to pass through the Panama Canal.

In the months after OMM was blacklisted, the company continued to operate by disguising the ships in its fleet, according to the report.

"Thus far, 13 of the 14 vessels controlled by OMM have been renamed, their ownership transferred to other single ship owner companies [with names derived from the ship's new names] and vessel management transferred to two main companies," it added.

The report said the company is still doing business with individuals and entities in at least 10 countries: Brazil, China, Egypt, Greece, Japan, Malaysia, Peru, Russia, Singapore, and Thailand.

The panel of experts recommends imposing new sanctions on the 34 OMM shell companies, as well as on the company's ships.

The report also warned that North Korean diplomats and officials continue to play key roles in arranging illicit arms transfers. It particularly focused on the role of North Korean intelligence agents, which it said were using their positions at international organizations as a cover to procure the weapons.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-cash-for-prisoners-exchange-with-North.html

South Korea plans cash-for-prisoners exchange with North
More than 1,000 South Koreans - including soldiers from the 1950-53 war - still being held in North Korea

By Julian Ryall, Tokyo
5:22AM GMT 26 Feb 2015

South Korea's new prime minister has announced that he will look into starting a cash-for-prisoner exchange programme with North Korea.

Lee Wan-koo told the South Korean parliament on Wednesday that he wants to finally bring home prisoners of war from the Korean War - which ended in 1953 - who are still being held in the North, as well as hundreds of South Koreans who have been abducted by Pyongyang.

The mechanism Mr Lee is considering to win their freedom will be based on the "freikauf" scheme used by West Germany to free thousands of political prisoners held in East Germany between 1963 and 1989.

"I think a Korean-style 'freikauf' model is worth considering", The Korea Herald quoted Mr Lee as saying. "The government will conduct an in-depth study of the issue".

The South Korean government believes that around 500 former soldiers are still being held in North Korea, more than 60 years after an armistice brought a halt to the war that has divided the peninsula.

Related Articles

Kim Jong-un splurges on luxury in bid to strengthen rule
14 Oct 2013

N Korea rejects US non-aggression offer
13 Oct 2013

Mother of American detained in North Korea arrives for visit
11 Oct 2013

Kim Jong-un 'torn between two women before he married'
23 Oct 2013

Kim Jong-un and the women who surround him
23 Oct 2013

Human rights activists say they are still considered to be enemies of the state and are required to work in coal mines or other dangerous jobs.

A further 517 South Koreans are believed to have been kidnapped by the North's agents or were fishermen whose vessels were forced into North Korean harbours and have not been permitted to return to the South.

Relatives of the missing have in previous years conducted "forget-me-not" campaigns in an effort to force the government to take steps to win their freedom.

There is concern in political circles, however, that paying North Korea to secure the freedom of South Korean citizens will set a dangerous precedent and encourage Pyongyang to set astronomical figures. Another fear is that the ransom money will go directly into North Korea's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile development programmes.

Bonn's secret "freikauf" programme is believed to have led to the release of 33,000 political prisoners in the East, with West Germany paying around GBP33,000 per prisoner, either in cash or as an equivalent in fuel oil.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/02/whats-the-status-of-north-koreas-icbm/

What’s the Status of North Korea’s ICBM?

The truth is we know very little, but North Korea’s ICBM is still not operational.

By Franz-Stefan Gady
February 26, 2015

0 Shares
5 Comments

Back in April 2012, North Korea paraded six KN-08 intercontinental ballistic missiles on top of a 16-wheeled transporter-erector-launcher (TEL). Some analysts immediately questioned whether the six Hwasong-13 (the North Korea name for the missile) were mockups (which turned out to be true). Various experts have also questioned whether the road-mobile KN-08 should in fact be classified as an ICBM at all, considering that there is no evidence that it is capable of breaching the 5,500-km threshold necessary to be labelled as such.

So what do we know about North Korea’s alleged new ICBM? The truth is very little except the following: The KN-08 is not an operational weapon, but a missile under development. Also, as the IHS Jane’s Intelligence Review underlines: “The existence of the KN-08 should not be conflated with a nuclear strike capability.”

According to satellite imagery, North Koreans tested the missile’s first stage engine in August 2014 at the Sohae launch site in North Korea’s northwestern Tongchang-ri region. This was preceded by a number of engine tests in 2013 and early 2014. Engine tests are stepping stones toward full-scale tests, but there is little hard intelligence on how well these tests went.

The next step is experimental flights tests, of which none so far seem to have occurred. An analyst written for IHS Jane’s Intelligence Review notes that, “it remains unlikely that it [North Korea] has successfully developed the three components required for a strike capability. These are a reliable long-range missile, a nuclear weapon small enough to be mounted on the missile, and a workable exoatmospheric re-entry vehicle.”

Back in October 2014, the Commanding General of U.S. Forces in South Korea, General Curtis Scaparrotti, emphasized that North Korea has not yet combined these three elements into a weapon system, which would pose a threat to the North American continent. Yet, he also noted: “They claim they have an intercontinental ballistic missile that’s capable [to do that]. I believe have the capability to have miniaturized a device at this point. I don’t believe that they have [done it so far]. They have the technology to potentially actually deliver what they say they have.”

According to GlobalSecurity.org, the KN-8 incorporates technology from various other missiles such as the Soviet SS-N-6, the DPRK’s No-dong-B, and the Soviet RSM-40 tankage and structures SLBM modified design, the RSM-50 and RSM-54 SLBM’s engines. A RAND Corporation report on North Korea’s missile program notes: “From an engineer’s perspective, the presented design is puzzling (H5). A KN-08 with SS-N-6 technology could off er intercontinental range, while the use of Nodong technology limits range to around 5,000 km.”

An additional factor for the KN-8’s final operational readiness will be, “Pyongyang’s ability to couple nuclear-tipped intermediate- or long-range missiles with road-mobile transporter-erector-launchers (TEL),” according to a previous analysis in The Diplomat. When deployed these TEL vehicles exit concealed bunkers to a cleared area, launch the missile, and then quickly retreat again to a secure location.

“We’re constantly aware of the threat’s evolution, including the KN-O8. And we constantly monitor other technologies that may feed the KN-O8 … And suffice it to say that we have effort underway to pace and stay ahead of the threat,” the director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency Vice Adm. James Syring said at the beginning of this month.

____

Then there's the Unha series (Unha 2, 3 and 9)....
http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Rest_World/Unha-2/Description/Frame.htm
http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Rest_World/Unha-3/Description/Frame.htm
http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Rest_World/Unha-3/Description/Frame.htm

and the Unha-X
http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Rest_World/Unha-X/Description/Frame.htm

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?biid=2015022642138

How Seoul will countervail Pyongyang`s nuclear ambition?
FEBRUARY 26, 2015 07:11

North Korea may have 100 nuclear bombs at maximum in five years, a U.S. researcher said. Former State Department official Joel Wit estimated the communist regime has a stockpile of some 10 to 16 nuclear weapons currently and made a projection that the isolated country may get 20 to 100 atomic arms by 2020. If the worst scenario of North Korea having "100 nuclear arms" becomes reality, the North would be able to deploy the strategic nuclear arms in any places that are deemed necessary. In the “2015 Index of U.S. Military Strength,” American research think tank Heritage Foundation said that the Kim Jong Un regime is not interested in relinquishing its nuclear ambitions or returning to the six-party talks. The North will continue developing nuclear weapons, the foundation forecasted.

However, the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff has overlooked the projection, saying, “It would be hard for North Korea to make such achievement.” Downplaying the North’s nuclear ambition does not resolve all the nuclear threats. In the U.S.-China summit held in November last year, U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping shared the view that “North Korea’s nuclear program development is not likely to succeed,” but no solution has been in sight yet. Rather, North Korean nuclear issue seems to be put on the back burner in the priority list of President Obama, who is busy handling other international issues, such as the terrorist attacks by IS or Ukraine crisis.

If the North Korean nuclear issue is left unchecked, the international community will be put under serious threat. South African confidential document revealed that the British Secret Intelligence Service known as MI6 launched a secret operation to win over a North Korean official who knew the top secret information about the nuclear program in North Korea. What would be the reason for secret intelligence agencies of two nations, which are not direct stakeholders of the North’s nuclear program, to be engaged in secret intelligence operation like 007 films? The six party talks have been put to a hold for six years after the chief delegate meeting in December 2008. The South Korean government says it is having discussions with other participants on the so-called "Korean Formula," which contains conditions for resumption of the talks, in an effort to search for a solution different from previous ones. However, as the "Korean Formula" has never been made public, it still remains questionable whether it is a truly new solution.

No matter how hard it is to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue, the South Korean government must exert every possible effort including the resumption of the six party talks. South Korea must be on alert not to waste time and end up with a disaster where North Korea builds up its nuclear stockpile. The former U.S. official Wit said, “Why does anyone think that a North Korea with 50 to 100 nuclear weapons is going to be interested in reunification with South Korea on any terms but its own? So we need to purge our policies of fantasies and focus on reality." The South Korean government must ruminate over this view.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.yahoo.com/u-military-trains-african-armies-ahead-boko-haram-131528609.html

U.S. military trains African armies ahead of Boko Haram campaign
Reuters
By Daniel Flynn
19 hours ago

MAO, Chad (Reuters) - Under the glare of the Saharan sun, a U.S. special forces trainer corrects the aim of a Chadian soldier as he takes cover behind a Toyota pick-up and fires at a target with his AK47 -- a drill that could soon save his life.

Chad is sending hundreds of troops to fight Boko Haram in neighboring Nigeria as part of a regional offensive against the Islamist group, which killed an estimated 10,000 people last year in a campaign to carve an Islamic emirate from the north of Africa's largest oil producer.

At the end of the exercise, a U.S. trainer shows the 85 Chadians the paper target peppered with bullet holes - many of them outside the drawing of a gunman. "Not so great," he says and orders them to do a round of push-ups -- in which American, Italian and Belgian trainers all take part, laughing.

The annual 'Flintlock' counter-terrorism exercises are a decade-old U.S.-sponsored initiative to bolster African nations' ability to fight militant groups operating in the vast ungoverned spaces of the Sahara with training.

"Even before the conflict with Boko Haram, we were preparing to face a group like them," said the commander of the Chadian troops, Captain Zakaria Magada, whose Special Anti-Terrorist Group (SATG) is equipped and trained by the United States.

"Boko Haram is just a militia of civilians. We are an organized army. They cannot face up to us."

Chad's armed forces are among the most respected in the region - a reputation forged during decades of war and rebellions, and honed in a 2013 fight against al Qaeda-linked Islamists in the deserts of northern Mali.

But many of its troops are still raw. In the first days of Flintlock, trainers from the U.S. army's 10th Special Forces Group walked them through basics like adjusting the sights of their weapons and properly cleaning them.

The trainers say there is a limit to what can be taught in 3 weeks of Flintlock but the objective of the exercise - which this year groups 1,300 troops from 28 countries - is building relationships among African nations and Western partners.

Efforts to construct a regional African taskforce to tackle Boko Haram have been hampered by lack of cooperation between neighboring countries. With that in mind, planners built into this year's Flintlock a cross-border scenario about tackling a militant group modeled on the Nigerian militants.

"It is all about African nations finding African solutions to their problems," said Major General James Linder, head of U.S. Special Operations Command Africa. "We cannot do that for them."

While France has deployed some 3,000 troops in Africa to combat Islamic militants, the U.S. military has retained a lighter footprint: providing equipment and training to allies while participating in a few targeted missions, such as the hunt for Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) leader Joseph Kony.

Amid calls for the U.S. army to become more directly involved, Linder says its focus on capacity building is part of a long-term vision. By 2050, Africa is forecast to have 2.7 billion people - a third of the world's population, he says.

"The global community needs stable countries in Africa and that can only happen through African nations themselves," he said.

'NIGERIAN ARMY JUST NEEDS WEAPONS'

The United States stepped up military cooperation with Nigeria following the abduction of nearly 300 schoolgirls by Boko Haram in the village of Chibok in April. However, Washington's refusal to sell Cobra attack helicopters, amid concerns over human rights abuses by the Nigerian military, angered some in Africa's most populous nation.

"If we had enough guns and ammunition, the Nigerian army could finish Boko Haram in a week," said a member of Nigeria's elite Special Boat Services (SBS) attending Flintlock. He said his unit, which has fought against the Islamist group, had received previous training from the U.S. navy SEALs.

As Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Cameroon and Benin prepare to launch their 8,700-strong taskforce next month, the United States is providing intelligence and equipment. A major shipment of helmets and bullet proof vests arrived in Cameroon this week.

U.S. special forces trainers, however, stress that equipment is not the most important factor in fighting insurgents.

"It's not about the weapons you're carrying, it's about the individual," said the U.S. major in charge of coordinating Flintlock, emphasizing the need to build relationships with the local population to isolate militant groups.

In the nearby town of Mao military doctors provide free medical treatment to locals and vets treat their animals. After Boko Haram attacked a village just 100 km away on the shores of Lake Chad this month, locals say they welcome the military presence.

Yet a decade after Flintlock's launch, some question the effectiveness of Washington's focus on training. Critics point to the presence of U.S.-trained Captain Amadou Sanogo at the head of the 2012 coup that plunged Mali into chaos, or allegations of rights abuses by some African partner armies.

But General Abdraman Youssouf Mery, commander of Chad's Special Anti-terrorist Group, said his troops had made good use of the Flintlock training during the 2013 war in Mali.

"The population in Mali were terrified of giving us information but we used what we had learnt from Flintlock: we helped them and gave them medical assistance," he said. "Slowly but surely, we won them over."

(Editing by Anna Willard)

View Comments (30)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150226/as--pakistan-india-17071416a9.html

Pakistan army warns India against any provocations

Feb 26, 11:28 AM (ET)

ISLAMABAD (AP) — Pakistan's army chief has warned neighboring India that any provocations on its part would exact a "befitting response" from Islamabad.

Gen. Raheel Sharif spoke Thursday to troops near the Indian border, a scene of frequent exchanges of fire in recent months.

According to a military statement, Sharif accused India of repeated cease-fire violations along the disputed boundary between the two countries, saying such violations are a "distraction for Pakistan from its campaign against terrorism."

Pakistan launched a major offensive last June against militant hideouts in the northwest, along the border with Afghanistan, and stepped up the operations after December's deadly Taliban attack on a Peshawar school.

India's Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar is visiting Pakistan next week, in an effort to resume talks between the two sides following a six-month break.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150226/af--boko_haram-2012aec226.html

Explosions in Nigerian towns in north kill at least 34

Feb 26, 3:51 PM (ET)
By AHMED SAKA and HARUNA UMAR

(AP) In this photo taken on Thursday, Feb. 19, 2015, a house allegedly destroyed by the...
Full Image

JOS, Nigeria (AP) — Explosions in Nigeria's north central city of Jos and the northeastern town of Biu over the past two days have killed at least 34 people, witnesses said Thursday.

Residents say at least 15 people were killed in two bomb explosions at a bus station and motor park in the city of Jos. Iliyasu Aliyu, a resident there, told the Associated Press he heard a "loud sound" after finishing evening prayer and heard another blast moments later. He said he counted at least 15 bodies.

Another resident Mark Lipdo told AP the first explosion went off at a bus stop near a university. The second bomb detonated near a motor park, he said.

On Wednesday, a suicide bombing in the northeast Nigerian town of Biu killed about 19 people and injured 17. The bodies and remains of about 20 people were brought to the hospital in the town in Borno state after the attack, said Nasiru Buhari, a member of the Civilian Joint Task Force, formed by residents to fight against Boko Haram.

(AP) In this photo taken on Thursday, Feb. 19, 2015, Cameroon soldiers stand guard at a...
Full Image

The suicide bomber may have been heading toward Biu market, but could not get past security points set up by the Civilian JTF, witnesses said.

A security official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not permitted to speak to the press, confirmed the bombing.

On Thursday, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan made an unannounced visit to Mubi in the northeastern Nigerian state of Adamawa, and met with soldiers and the traditional ruler there. The Nigerian military reclaimed Mubi in November after Boko Haram fighters had seized it in October.

The President's visit to the former Boko Haram stronghold comes a day after the Nigerian army chief visited Baga, another town that was previously overtaken by Boko Haram.

Lt. Gen. Kenneth Minima later told journalists that residents displaced by Boko Haram should be able to return to vote in the March 28 presidential election.

President Jonathan is in the midst of a close re-election bid, running against ex-military ruler Muhammadu Buhari.

Nigerian defense officials have announced recent victories in the fight against the insurgents, claiming to have recaptured towns across the embattled northeast, where Boko Haram's insurgency has displaced an estimated 1.6 million.

The United States Senate this week voted unanimously to condemn attacks perpetrated by Boko Haram against innocent civilians, according to a statement. It also called on Nigeria's government to ensure that upcoming national elections are safe, credible, and transparent.

---

Umar reported from Maiduguri, Nigeria. Ibrahim Abdulaziz in Yola, Nigeria contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150226/lt--mexico-disenchanted_business-da48b6d474.html

Mexico president in crisis is losing support of big business

Feb 26, 3:59 PM (ET)
By KATHERINE CORCORAN and E. EDUARDO CASTILLO

(AP) In this Dec. 1, 2014 file photo, masked people attack a bank, breaking...
Full Image

MEXICO CITY (AP) — The full-page ad in Mexico's national newspapers was unusual, if not unprecedented: 20 powerful business groups and think tanks publicly scolding the government for not doing its job.

They demanded "conditions necessary to do their work ... in total security, in all of the country." The ad, published last month, urged government officials to "honor your oath to observe and enforce the constitution."

The public criticism by Mexico's business community underlines the eroding support for President Enrique Pena Nieto's administration as he enters the third year of a six-year term. Business leaders are angry over reforms that have increased the tax burden without sparking economic growth, scandals over apparent favoritism and acts of lawlessness that are hurting commerce.

Last weekend, Coca-Cola halted its operations in the capital of Guerrero state due to attacks and abductions of its workers. In Guerrero and elsewhere, businesses complain they are losing merchandise to highway hijackings. Anti-government protesters have commandeered toll-booths, sacked government offices, blocked shipments and shut down airports. Drug cartels rule large swaths of land, extorting business owners, buying off authorities and disrupting important industries such as agriculture and tourism.

(AP) In this Feb. 11, 2015 photo, community police set up a roadblock controlling who...
Full Image

The public rebuke "reflects for the most part the fatigue, the exhaustion from many searches for solutions on a regional level, many promises on the regional and federal level that they would fix things. And, they haven't fixed things," said Luis Foncerrada, director general of the Center for Economic Studies for the Private Sector, the think tank for one of Mexico's most powerful business chambers, the Coordinated Business Council.

Foncerrada said the impact of crime and impunity on businesses has become "absolutely intolerable." Business leaders also are hammering at rule of law and codes of ethics in response to recent cases of public corruption and conflict of interest.

Complaints have reached those closest to Pena Nieto, including his wife and finance minister. Both were found to have bought luxury properties, including the first lady's white-walled "Casa Blanca" mansion, from a government contractor that was part of a group awarded a lucrative high-speed train project. Both defended the purchases as legal.

Pena Nieto also took heat for the government's handling of the September disappearance of 43 college students, allegedly at the hands of police in Guerrero state who handed them over to be killed by a drug cartel. The case highlighted ties between local authorities and organized criminals as well as the administration's inability to defuse public anger over the crime.

"What you are hearing in conversations among business people, and no longer in the whispered tones ... is that the president needs to seek input from a wider circle of people, grab hold of an ethical compass and get serious about rule-of-law initiatives and security," said Antonio Garza, former U.S. ambassador to Mexico and now counsel in the Mexico City office of White & Case, a U.S. law firm that represents banks and businesses.

(AP) In this Feb. 13, 2015 photo a community police walks through the village of...
Full Image

Pena Nieto's office responded to The Associated Press' request for comment by saying the government maintains an "open relationship" with the business community and has taken several anti-corruption and security measures, including requiring public servants to declare potential conflicts of interest and creating a new, independent attorney general's office. It also noted the government has launched operations to stop the blockading of highways and airports "with total respect for the right to protest."

Since the early 1980s and the presidency of Miguel de la Madrid, Mexico's business sector has more or less worked closely with the government in power, which has been Pena Nieto's Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, for all but 12 of the last 86 years. The late head of the nation's giant Televisa network, Emilio Azcarraga, once said, "I am a soldier of the PRI," in part because the government tolerated his near-monopoly of broadcast television.

The criticism from the business community for the most part has been muted. Business leaders know that confronting the ruling party carries great risk since government agencies wield a lot power, and government contracts, permits and concessions are so discretionary, so lucrative and such a big part of the economy.

The business sector helped restore the PRI to power by backing Pena Nieto in 2012, following two presidents from the National Action Party. They cheered the commerce-friendly reforms he pushed through: opening the state-controlled energy sector to private investment; breaking up communications monopolies; and weakening the power of the national teachers union.

But the discontent started with Pena Nieto's fiscal reform, because he failed to generalize taxes, extending them to food, medicine and other goods as they had hoped, and instead raised income taxes, a move businesses say is counter to investment. In addition, "there's no transparency in the way the money is spent," said Dwight Dyer, senior analyst for Control Risks, a global risk and strategic consulting firm.

(AP) In this Feb. 10, 2015 photo, parents and relatives of the missing students from...
Full Image

To top it off, Mexico's economic growth was a sluggish 2.1 percent in 2014, and just 1.1 percent in 2013. The economy could suffer more in 2015 if global prices remain low for oil, which provides about a third of the Mexican government's budget. The value of Mexican crude has plummeted since topping $100 a barrel last year and is now trading under $50.

Last month, the government was forced to cut its 2015 budget, canceling the high-speed train project that Pena Nieto had promised would link the capital to the industrial city of Queretaro.

The bidding process for the train already had frustrated the private sector because it seemed designed to benefit one bidder, said Rep. Ricardo Anaya of the National Action Party.

Anaya is pushing his party's proposal to create a national anti-corruption system that would give real teeth to prosecution and sanctions, and would be independent of the president who now appoints the anti-corruption czar.

"There's enormous uncertainty," Anaya said. "The private sector shares the feeling that corruption has hit Mexico to the core, and without an anti-corruption system, they're not going to see any investment."

------------

Follow Katherine Corcoran and E. Eduardo Castillo on Twitter: https://twitter.com/kathycorcoran and

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150226/lt--argentina-prosecutors_death-9412e543a7.html

Victory for Argentine leader: Judge rejects cover-up case

Feb 26, 3:24 PM (ET)
Eds: Adds details, analysis, byline; updates photos.

(AP) In this Feb. 10, 2015 file photo, a poster of late prosecutor Alberto Nisman...
Full Image

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday firmly dismissed allegations that Argentine President Cristina Fernandez tried to cover-up the involvement of Iranian officials in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center, easing a crisis for her government fed by the death of the prosecutor who brought the case.

Judge Daniel Rafecas said the documents originally filed by the late prosecutor Alberto Nisman failed to meet "the minimal conditions needed to launch a formal court investigation."

"There is not a single element of evidence, even circumstantial, that points to the actual head of state," the judge said.

Nisman had filed the complaint just days before he died on Jan. 18 under mysterious circumstances. Polls show many Argentines suspect officials had some hand in the death, though Fernandez and aides have suggested the death was actually aimed at destabilizing her government.

(AP) This Feb. 23, 2015 photo shows, through tree branches, Federal Judge Daniel Rafecas,...
Full Image

While the decision can be appealed, the judge's scathing wording appears to substantiate government insistence that Nisman's case was baseless, though his death still casts a shadow across the administration.

"Rafecas' decision gives the government some breathing room," said Roberto Bacman, director of the Center for Public Opinion Studies, a South American research firm. Before Thursday's decision, "the government had only been receiving bad news."

Tens of thousands of Argentines marched through the capital last week demanding answers a month after he was found in his bathroom with a bullet in his head.

Nisman had asked judges to authorize a formal criminal investigation of the president, Foreign Minister Hector Timerman and other figures on allegations that they agreed to grant impunity for eight Iranians accused in the attack on the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association in which 85 people died. In return, he said, Iran would increase trade with Argentina.

The prosecutor who took over the case after Nisman's death, Gerardo Pollicita, renewed his request.

(AP) In this Feb. 11, 2015 file photo, Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez...
Full Image

Rafecas also rejected Nisman's theory that the deal was linked to an agreement for the two countries to jointly investigate the bombing. He noted that the 2013 agreement, scuttled by Congress, never took effect.

Investigators say they are trying to determine if Nisman was killed or committed suicide.

The president initially suggested the 51-year-old prosecutor had killed himself, then did an about-face a few days later, saying she suspected he had been slain.

She suggested that he might have been manipulated by disgruntled rouge intelligence agents, and pushed through a law to reform the spy service immediately after Nisman's death. Congress gave final approval to the measure earlier Thursday.

"Even with the dismissal of the charges against her, there are still questions about who killed Nisman," said Shannon O'Neal, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations a U.S.-based foreign-policy think tank.

While the decision will no doubt be scrutinized in very polarized Argentina, many constitutional lawyers had argued in recent months that Nisman's case was weak.

Rafecas, 46, is a recognized expert on the Holocaust with a reputation as a champion of civil rights for many cases he has overseen involving crimes during the country's military dictatorship that ended in 1983.

While he was appointed to the federal bench in 2004 by Fernandez's predecessor and husband, the late President Nestor Kirchner, Rafecas has also overseen cases against the current government, making enemies along the way.

The respect he has in the Jewish community, one of the largest outside of Israel, will also go a long way toward getting people to accept the decision.

Rafecas' ruling "deserves the the utmost respect," said Julio Schlosser, president of the Delegation of Argentine Jewish Associations.

Fernandez also shuffled her Cabinet on Thursday, replacing three ministers with close aides.

Anibal Fernandez, who had been the presidency's general secretary, will replace Jorge Capitanich as Cabinet chief. Fernandez's post will now be taken by Eduardo De Pedro, a lawmaker and leader of La Campora, a political group that is ultra-loyal to the president and that is led by her son, Maximo Kirchner.

The center-left government also named Daniel Gollan as new health minister. He replaces Juan Manzur, who is expected to run for governor in his home state of Tucuman during the October elections.

"It's quite possible that the Cabinet reshuffle is connected to Nisman scandal but it's also her last administration," O'Neal said. "Argentina is heading into a series of gubernatorial elections and presidential elections in the fall so this is also a time of lots of political maneuvering."

---

Associated Press writer Luis Andres Henao contributed to this report from Santiago, Chile.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150226/ml--islamic_state-1dc266d688.html

Militants abduct more Christians, smash ancient artifacts

Feb 26, 3:04 PM (ET)
By ZEINA KARAM and SINAN SALAHEDDIN

(AP) In this image made from video posted on a social media account affiliated with the...
Full Image

BEIRUT (AP) — Islamic State militants seized more Christians from their homes in northeastern Syria in the past three days, bringing the total number abducted by the extremist group to over 220, activists said Thursday.

At the same time, the extremists also released a video showing the continued destruction of the heritage of the lands under their control. It depicted men using sledgehammers to smash ancient Mesopotamian statues and other artifacts in Iraq's northern city of Mosul.

The video, coinciding with mounting fears over the fate of the captive Christian Assyrians in Syria, sent a fresh wave of dread across the region, particularly among minorities who feel targeted by the group.

"Daesh is wiping Assyrian heritage in Mosul, and at the same time wiping them geographically from the face of the Earth," said Osama Edward, director of the Assyrian Network for Human Rights in Syria. He referred to the Islamic State by its Arabic acronym.

(AP) In this image made from video posted on a social media account affiliated with the...
Full Image

About 200 Assyrians and other Christians gathered in a church east of Beirut in solidarity with the victims in Syria and Iraq. Some cried openly.

One man held a banner that read: "We will not surrender, we will not be broken." A few young men said they were preparing to go to Syria to fight and help their brethren defend their homes against the Islamic State group.

The destruction of artifacts in the Mosul museum is part of a campaign by IS extremists who have destroyed a number of shrines — including Muslim holy sites — to eliminate what they view as heresy. They also are believed to have sold ancient artifacts on the black market in order to finance their bloody campaign in the region.

In the video released Thursday, militants used sledgehammers and drills to smash and destroy several large statues, which are then shown chipped and in pieces. The five-minute video also shows a black-clad man at an archaeological site in Mosul, drilling through and destroying a winged-bull — an Assyrian protective deity — that dates to the 7th century B.C.

The video was posted on social media accounts affiliated with the Islamic State group. Although it could not be independently verified by The Associated Press, it appeared to be authentic, based on knowledge of the Mosul Museum.

(AP) An Assyrian boy holds a poster during a sit-in for abducted Christians in Syria and...
Full Image

A professor at the Archaeology College in Mosul confirmed to the AP that the two sites depicted in the video are the city museum and a location known as Nirgal Gate, one of several gates to the capital of the Assyrian Empire, Ninevah.

"I'm totally shocked," Amir al-Jumaili said by phone from outside of Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city. "It's a catastrophe. With the destruction of these artifacts, we can no longer be proud of Mosul's civilization."

Very few of the museum pieces are not genuine, he said.

Irina Bokova, director general of the U.N.'s culture agency UNESCO, said in a statement that she was "deeply shocked" at the video. She said she asked for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council be convened "on the protection of Iraq's cultural heritage as an integral element for the country's security."

"I condemn this as a deliberate attack against Iraq's millennial history and culture, and as an inflammatory incitement to violence and hatred," Bokova said.

(AP) An Iraqi Assyrian woman who fled from Mosul to Lebanon weeps during a sit-in for...
Full Image

Mosul and surrounding Nineveh province fell to the militants in June 2014 after Iraqi security forces melted away.

In their push, the extremists captured large parts of both Iraq and neighboring Syria. They declared a self-styled caliphate on territories that are under their control, killing members of religious minorities, driving others from their homes, enslaving women and destroying houses of worship.

The Iraqi region under the control of the extremists has nearly 1,800 of the country's 12,000 registered archaeological sites, and the militants appear to be out to cleanse it of ideas they consider un-Islamic, including library books, relics and even Islamic sites considered idolatrous.

"The so-called Assyrians and Akkadians and others looked to gods for war, agriculture and rain to whom they offered sacrifices," said a man in the video, referring to groups that that left their mark on Mesopotamia for more than 5,000 years in what is now Iraq, eastern Syria and southern Turkey.

Islamic State militants ransacked the Central Library of Mosul in January, smashing the locks and taking about 2,000 books, while leaving only Islamic texts. Days later, militants broke into University of Mosul's library and built a bonfire out of hundreds of books on science and culture, destroying them in front of students.

(AP) In this image made from video posted on a social media account affiliated with the...
Full Image

"Is this how Assyrians who gave civilization are rewarded?" asked Edward from his base in Stockholm. "What is all this hate?"

Among the most important sites under the militants' control are four ancient cities: Ninevah, Kalhu, Dur Sharrukin and Ashur, which at different times were capitals of the mighty Assyrian Empire. The Assyrians first arose around 2,500 B.C. and once ruled from the Mediterranean coast to what is now Iran.

In Syria, fears mounted over the fate of the abducted Christians, with at least 220 now being held captive, according to activists.

An Assyrian in Beirut whose parents and sister were among a dozen relatives abducted said he called his father's mobile phone Monday and got a man who said: "This is the Islamic State." The man then briefly put the Assyrian's father on the line, and he said in a terrified voice not to worry, that they were being treated well. His relatives' mobiles have since been shut off. The Beirut resident spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared for his relatives' lives.

The abductions began Monday, when militants attacked a cluster of villages along the Khabur River, sending thousands of people fleeing to safer areas. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the militants picked up dozens more Assyrians from 11 communities near the town of Tal Tamr in the next few days.

(AP) Assyrians citizens hold placards during a sit-in for abducted Christians in Syria...
Full Image

The province, which borders Turkey and Iraq, has become the latest battleground in the fight against the Islamic State group in Syria. It is predominantly Kurdish but also has populations of Arabs and predominantly Christian Assyrians and Armenians.

Younan Talia, a senior official with the Assyrian Democratic Organization, said IS had raided 33 Assyrian villages, seizing as many as 300 people. Edward said his group had documented the names of 255 missing people.

It was not possible to reconcile the numbers, and the fate of the hostages remained unclear.

"We are praying for them and we are fasting," said the Assyrian in Beirut. "I don't care if they burn the villages down, but please let them return safe."

---

Salaheddin reported from Baghdad. Associated Press writer Cara Anna at the United Nations contributed to this report.

---

Follow Karam at http://twitter.com/zkaram and Salaheddin at

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150226/ml--islamic_state-news_guide-5739e8c990.html

News Guide: Latest developments on Islamic State group

Feb 26, 12:56 PM (ET)

(AP) In this image made from video posted on a social media account affiliated with the...
Full Image

From Iraq and Syria, where Islamic State militants abducted Christians and destroyed Mesopotamian relics, to arrests of suspects in New York and a Muslim group in Britain shedding light on the possible identity of a British-accented militant from IS beheading videos, the extremist group dominated the headlines on Thursday around the globe.

Here are the latest developments.

SYRIAN CHRISTIANS ABDUCTED

The number of Christian Assyrians abducted by the Islamic State group in northeastern Syria has risen to 220 in the past three days, as militants round up more hostages from a chain of villages along a strategic river, activists said Thursday. The wave of abductions, which started on Monday, is one of the largest hostage-takings by the Islamic State since the militant group captured large swaths of Syria and Iraq last year.

(AP) This undated image shows a frame from a video released Friday, Oct. 3, 2014,...
Full Image

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the militants picked up dozens more Christian Assyrians from 11 communities in Hassakeh province. The province, which borders Turkey and Iraq, has become the latest battleground in the anti-IS fight in Syria.

The mass abduction added to fears among religious minorities in both Syria and Iraq, who have been repeatedly targeted by the Islamic State group.

DESTROYING IRAQ'S ANTIQUITIES

The IS released a video on Thursday showing militants using sledgehammers to smash ancient artifacts in Iraq's northern city of Mosul, describing the relics as idols that must be removed.

The five-minute video shows a group of bearded men inside the Mosul Museum using hammers and drills to destroy several large statues, which are then shown chipped and in pieces. The video then shows a black-clad man at a nearby archaeological site — known as Nirgal Gate, one of several gates to the capital of the Assyrian Empire, Ninevah — drilling through and destroying a winged-bull Assyrian protective deity that dates back to the 7th century B.C.

(AP) New York Police Commissioner William Bratton, second from left, and Diego Rodriguez,...
Full Image

A bearded man is seen in the video, standing in front of the partially demolished winged-bull, telling Muslims that "these artifacts that are behind me were idols and gods worshipped by people who lived centuries ago instead of Allah."

Although the video could not be independently verified it appeared authentic, based on AP's knowledge of the Mosul Museum.

Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city and the surrounding Nineveh province fell to the militants last June.

JIHADI JOHN, HOODED MAN IN BEHEADING VIDEOS

A Muslim lobbying group said it may have identified the British-accented militant who has appeared in beheading videos released by the Islamic State group.

(AP) In this courtroom drawing, defendant Akhror Saidakmetov, left; an interpreter,...
Full Image

CAGE, a London group that works with Muslims in conflict with British intelligence services, said the man commonly known as "Jihadi John" bears strong similarities to Mohammed Emwazi, a former university student who reportedly grew up in London.

However, Asim Qureshi of CAGE said that because of the hood worn by the militant, he "can't be 100 percent certain."

The Center for the Study of Radicalization and Political Violence at King's College London, which closely tracks fighters in Syria, also said it believed the identification was correct.

Masked, knife-wielding "Jihadi John" appeared in a video released in August showing the slaying of American journalist James Foley, denouncing the West before the killing. A man with similar stature and voice featured in other beheading videos.

---

ISLAMIC STATE ARRESTS IN NEW YORK, FLORIDA

Three men were arrested Wednesday on charges of plotting to help the Islamic State group wage war against the United States, and federal officials said one of them spoke of shooting President Barack Obama or planting a bomb on Coney Island.

Two of them — Akhror Saidakhmetov and Abdurasul Hasanovich Juraboev, both arrested in New York — were vocal both online and in personal conversations about their commitment and desire to join the extremists.

Saidakhmetov, 19, was arrested at Kennedy Airport, where he was attempting to board a flight to Istanbul, with plans to head to Syria. The 24-year-old Juraboev had a ticket to travel to Istanbul next month and was arrested in Brooklyn. The two were held without bail after a brief court appearance.

A third defendant, Abror Habibov, 30, is accused of helping fund Saidakhmetov's efforts. He was ordered held without bail in Florida. If convicted, each faces a maximum of 15 years in prison.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...uch-worse-no-deal-robert-joseph-william-tobey

Iran: A Bad Deal Is (Much) Worse than No Deal

The Obama administration’s negotiations over nuclear matters are a disaster.

By Robert Joseph & William Tobey — February 26, 2015

The administration’s defenders are vigorously rebutting allegations that President Obama has made too many concessions in the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. Their defense is a simple statement of fact: There is no agreement yet, so how can the critics be right? They assert that we must wait until the outcome is agreed upon before we can assess it. The concern, however, is both bipartisan and international — with many Democrats voicing alarm and with Israel and the Arab states alike frustrated that a seemingly desperate administration has placed Iran’s interests above those of its allies.

While Obama’s defenders are technically accurate in that Iran has not yet agreed to what has been placed on the negotiating table, press reports citing U.S. officials have provided information on the status of all key issues under consideration and the likely provisions of an agreement, if Tehran is ultimately able to take yes for an answer. Of course, if current negotiating trends continue, the terms could get even worse than described below. They certainly won’t get better.

The concessions already acknowledged by U.S. officials include:

• There will be no limits on Iran’s ballistic-missile force, the presumed delivery means for its nuclear weapons. The U.S. position of seeking limits on the missile force was abandoned when the Supreme Leader objected.

• There will be no resolution of Iran’s weaponization activities — described as “very alarming” by the Obama White House in November 2011 — before an agreement is reached. Iran is likely to promise once again to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency in its investigation, but no serious observer would expect anything other than continued obstructionism by Iran. At one point, a resolution of weaponization activities was a precondition for an agreement. Now it is being treated as an implementation issue.

• Verification will likely be based primarily on Iran’s current safeguards agreement and a promise to implement the Additional Protocol — a promise Iran first made over a decade ago. Even if the Additional Protocol is observed, inspections will be by “managed access” based on Iran’s cooperation and good will. At one point, the U.S. insisted that effective verification required full access to facilities and people. Now, the U.S. and its P5+1 negotiating partners have settled for far less. There will be no unfettered inspections of suspected covert facilities such as the Lavizan-3 site revealed by the National Council of Resistance of Iran on Tuesday.

• The Arak heavy-water reactor will likely be modified in some fashion but not in any fundamental way that would prevent Iran from using it to produce plutonium for weapons. The initial U.S. position was that the reactor must be dismantled.

• The economic sanctions that were disrupting the Iranian economy will be lifted in a shorter period than the restrictions on the country’s nuclear program. In fact, Tehran has already received billions of dollars of sanctions relief for continuing the negotiations and observing several easily reversible constraints.

• The restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will reportedly be phased out after ten years, a period shorter than the time it has taken to negotiate the agreement. The original U.S. position was that restrictions would be permanent.

• And most important, Iran will be allowed to operate thousands of centrifuges to enrich uranium and to pursue research and development of more advanced models that are many times more efficient. The original U.S. position — backed by multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding complete suspension of all enrichment activities — was “zero enrichment” and “zero centrifuges.” Under President Obama, zero was abandoned as “unrealistic,” and the number of permitted centrifuges moved up in successive proposals from 1,000 to 4,500 to 6,000, and perhaps more. Iran has rejected each offer as insufficient, only to be rewarded with a better one.

The greatest concession in the negotiations has been the abandonment of the original U.S. goal of preventing Iran from having a nuclear-weapons capability. This was a consistent and firm position of the Bush administration. It was also the position of the Obama administration until November 2013, when it was given up to secure Iran’s consent to the Joint Plan of Action. Soon after that, Secretary of State Kerry described the new U.S. goal as taking Iran’s “breakout time” from two months to six to twelve months — as if we would know when the clock began, and as if we could do something effective to stop the breakout within that timeframe. The reality is that we have traded permanent concessions for temporary restrictions that will leave Iran as a threshold nuclear state able to build a nuclear weapon whenever it decides to do so. When the deal ends, Iran can openly go to the brink of nuclear weapons with the blessing of the international community.

The Obama administration will almost certainly try to portray its nuclear deal with Iran as better than no deal, and will accuse those who oppose the agreement as choosing war over peace. Nothing could be further from the truth. A bad deal is far worse than no deal. A bad deal leaves Iran with a nuclear-weapons capability, which would be far more destabilizing than a return to tough sanctions. A bad deal undermines the IAEA’s attempts to get to the bottom of Iran’s covert weapons work. A bad deal undermines the Nonproliferation Treaty, leading to additional dangers around the world. A bad deal is a step toward conflict and more nuclear proliferation in a region of vital U.S. interest.

Preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear-weapons capability is the surest way to prevent war and preserve peace. To that end, the negotiators should return to the table insisting upon limits that will permanently block Iran’s paths to nuclear weapons and resolve the IAEA’s concerns about Tehran’s nuclear-weapons work as a condition of an agreement. The real choice is not between the administration’s deal and war, but between preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and capitulation.

— Robert Joseph is senior scholar at the National Institute for Public Policy and a former undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. William Tobey is a senior fellow at the Belfer Center at Harvard University and a former deputy administrator for nuclear nonproliferation at the National Nuclear Security Administration.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.businessinsider.com/north-koreas-nuclear-weapons-program-is-booming-2015-2

North Korea's nuclear weapons program is booming

Armin Rosen
15 minutes ago

A US-led group of countries is reportedly close to reaching an agreement with Iran to regulate its uranium and plutonium stockpiles.

Iran has rightly dominated global nonproliferation efforts in recent years. But at the same time, North Korea vastly expanded its own nuclear program, improving its plutonium reactors and building up its uranium enrichment infrastructure.

A new report from the Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins University and the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) analyzes how the recent growth of North Korea's nuclear program could impact the country's future stockpiles.

The conclusion is sobering. One of the world's poorest and most isolated countries is in a position to double the size of its nuclear arsenal over the next five years and has expanded its program despite its intense diplomatic and economic isolation.

North Korea has conducted three fairly low-yield tests since 2006 and expert estimates put its stockpile size at 10-15 warheads. (Low-yield is relative here: the fireball form North Korea's last test in 2013 was the width of five Manhattan blocks.) Those bombs are widely considered too large to be practically deliverable using the North's currently available technology.

But the ISIS report determined that based on projected North Korean uranium and plutonium production, Pyongyang will have a minimum of 29 bomb's worth of weapons-grade materials and 20 actual nuclear weapons by 2020. ISIS's medium projection is 69 weapons' worth of material and 50 actual weapons. (For various reasons, a country always wants to have a certain amount of weapons-grade materials on hand that hasn't been used for nuclear weapons construction.)

screen%20shot%202015-02-26%20at%204.05.13%20pm.png

As the headings of each chart demonstrate, the end-of-decade projections represent somewhere between a 82% and 194% increase in the amount of weapons and weapons-grade materials compared to 2014. And North Korea has only built about 11 or fewer bombs since declaring a weapons capability in 2006, nearly a decade ago, according to ISIS's low-end scenario.

So why the leap in production capacity? The study notes a "dramatic build-up in North Korea's nuclear weapons capability" in recent years. Since the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program collapsed in 2009, Pyongyang has restarted and renovated a five-megawatt nuclear reactor, built an additional experimental light-water reactor for plutonium production, doubled the size of a known uranium enrichment centrifuge plant, and possibly constructed a second enrichment plant. It has also definitely constructed several additional buildings at the Yongbyon nuclear facility.

North Korea now has two viable paths to additional nuclear weapons.

Even if Pyongyang doesn't weaponize its experimental light water reactor, it's still got a nuclear reactor that can produce a minimum of two bomb's worth of plutonium a year — and centrifuges to produce material for a uranium-based bomb. It can produce no plutonium and still amass substantial weapons-grade material, and visa versa.

The medium-end threat scenario was based on evidence that North Korea in fact has two uranium enrichment facilities, a possibility backed by some US intelligence assessments. In the low-end estimate, North Korea doesn't weaponize its experimental light water reactor and only has one enrichment facility; in a third and less likely high-end estimate, North Korea has two enrichment facilities and two plutonium-producing reactors that could leave the country with material equivalent to 125 bombs by the end of the decade.

As study author David Albright, an accomplished nuclear physicist and founder of ISIS explained to Business Insider, North Korea has built enough physical infrastructure to greatly ramp up its bomb materials production.

"There's been a lot of construction of buildings, renovations, and some new structures at the [Yongbyon] site itself," Albright told Business Insider. "Certainly the light water reactor has materialized since the six party talks broke down. What we have trouble with is figuring out what's going on inside those buildings."

Researchers think North Korea has upgraded facilities to produce nuclear reactor fuel, but Albright says that it isn't known where the fabrication plant for the light-water reactor is located. And it isn't known how North Korea's uranium centrifuges are configured or how efficiently they're operating.

It also isn't known if North Korea has succeeded in miniaturizing a nuclear weapon to the point where it would be practically deliverable. Still, Albright thinks this last scenario is likely and that miniaturization is "not that big of a step to accomplish that when you've got two decades and three tests."

This report a reminder of the high stakes of preventing countries form going nuclear. North Korea proves that governments that are committed enough can build a substantial nuclear weapons program against seemingly impossible odds. And with only a single exception, once a country goes nuclear, it doesn't go back.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.businessinsider.com/chin...problem-and-no-one-is-talking-about-it-2015-2

China has a growing terrorism problem and no one is talking about it

Natasha Bertrand
Feb. 26, 2015, 2:33 PM

Deadly terrorist attacks are increasingly occurring in China's Xinjiang province, but you would never know it watching the country's major news outlets.

On Feb. 13, as many as eight people were killed when a man strapped with explosives attacked a police officer.

Later that week, a father and son were shot and killed in another clash with the police. The next day was even deadlier: nine suspects accused of fatally stabbing four police officers were shot dead. Another four bystanders were killed in the crossfire.

"Had these incidents taken place in the United States or Europe, they would have dominated the news for days, if not weeks, and prompted extensive nationwide discussions about how, and why, they happened," The New York Times reports.

Nevertheless, none of these incidents were mentioned by China's state-run news media.

"You’ve got three significant incidents and no account of it in the official media," Nicholas Bequelin, a senior researcher in the Asia division for Human Rights Watch, told the Times. "When someone blows himself up and attacks the police, usually that demands an official account.”

Shohret Hoshur, a reporter at Radio Free Asia’s Uighur service in Washington, told the Times that only around 5% of the violence that occurs in Xinjiang is ever reported by China's state media.

Adding to the difficulty of exposing the violence is the fact that Uighurs in the region are extremely reluctant to speak to foreign reporters because talking about the violence puts them at risk of being thrown in jail indefinitely. Media correspondents trying to get information off the ground are quickly hung up on by business owners and hospital workers who have witnessed the chaos firsthand.

Beijing's crackdown on the Uighur ethnic minority in western China began in earnest back in 2013, when a surge in violence in the region caught the government's attention.

Since then, President Xi Jinping has made it one of his goals to tame Uighur rebels in Xinjiang — a region rich in valuable resources such as oil and coal that could be jeopardized by any unrest.

But Jinping's strategy has been harsh, and arguably excessive: Violent raids of Uighur households are commonplace, and arrests in the region have doubled since 2013.

"The presidency of Xi Jinping risks sinking into a quagmire of ethnic strife," The Economist wrote in August. "This could be China's Chechnya."

The Uighurs are a mostly Muslim, Turkic-speaking group who have long been persecuted by the Chinese government in the name of anti-separatism and counter-terrorism. This oppression has left many of them wishing they could break away and set up an independent East Turkestan.

Jinping's initial intention of quelling violence in the region has backfired, to say the least. His supposed anti-terror campaign has been so severe that it has led many Uighurs to fight back forcefully, attacking police officers in the area with knives, guns, and suicide bombs. Others are looking towards the Middle East and the prospects of jihadism.

“The upsurge in violence really started back in 2013, and it’s been pretty much nonstop since then,” Bequelin of Human Rights Watch said.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/26/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSKBN0LU1EH20150226

Ukraine begins artillery withdrawal, recognizing truce is holding

By Alexander Shpigunov and Maria Tsvetkova
PARASKOVIYVKA/DONETSK, Ukraine Thu Feb 26, 2015 2:19pm EST

(Reuters) - Ukrainian troops towed artillery away from the front line in the east on Thursday, a move that amounted to recognizing that a ceasefire meant to take effect on Feb. 15 was holding at last.

The military showed reporters seven or eight guns being towed away from the front at the village of Paraskoviyvka north of the government stronghold of Artemivsk. Earlier, Reuters journalists saw a larger convoy of 30-40 vehicles also towing guns away from the front on a highway.

The move was Kiev's most direct step to acknowledge that the ceasefire was finally holding, a week after suffering one of the worst defeats of the war at the hands of rebels who initially ignored the ceasefire to launch a major advance.

The pro-Russian rebels, who committed to the truce after their successful offensive, have been pulling back heavy weapons for two days, but Kiev had until now held back from implementing the withdrawal, arguing that fighting had not yet ceased.

However, the army reported no combat fatalities at the front for a second straight day on Thursday, the first time no troops have been killed since long before the French- and German-brokered truce was meant to take effect.

The withdrawal of artillery is "point two" of the peace agreement reached in the Belarus capital Minsk, so beginning it amounts to an acknowledgement that "point one" - the ceasefire itself - is being observed.


"Today Ukraine has begun the withdrawal of 100 millimeter guns from the line of confrontation," the military said in a statement, saying the step would be monitored by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

It said it reserved the right to alter the schedule of withdrawal "in the event of any attempted offensive".

Reuters journalists in rebel-held Donetsk said they had heard no artillery in the night although the occasional distant blast or gunshot could be heard during the day.


"WE DON'T RECOVER DEAD BODIES. WE MAKE THEM"

Rebels brought Ukrainian war prisoners on Thursday to the ruins of the airport on the north of the town to recover the dead bodies of their fellow Ukrainian troops, left buried in the wreckage since it the terminal was captured in January.

Rebels carried out controlled explosions to blast holes through walls inside the ruined terminal and sent the prisoners down a ladder where the floor had collapsed.

Three dead bodies still lay at the site out of five that had been recovered from the debris the previous day. Prisoners said they were searching for three more they believed were still buried.

The commander of the separatist "Sparta" battalion, going by the nom de guerre "Motorola", said the prisoners had been assigned the task because "it's not our job to recover dead bodies, it's our job to make them."

"They take their comrades out to return them to their mums and dads. Did they think we would feed them for free?"

The airport is a totemic battlefield for both sides. Ukrainian troops had held out there for months until the rebels assaulted it after abandoning a previous ceasefire agreed in September.

The separatist rebels initially ignored the new truce last week to launch an advance that led to one of the biggest battles of a war that has killed more than 5,600 people.

But since capturing the strategic town of Debaltseve, where the rebels said the truce did not apply, they have taken pains to emphasize that they now intend to abide by it.

Western countries denounced the rebels and their presumed sponsor, Russian President Vladimir Putin, for advancing on Debaltseve after the truce was meant to take effect. But they have since held out hope that the ceasefire will now hold, with the rebels having achieved that objective.

In the days after its troops were driven from Debaltseve, Kiev maintained that it believed the rebels were reinforcing for another advance, particularly expressing fear for the city of Mariupol, a port of 500,000 people.

Western countries have threatened to impose new economic sanctions on Moscow if the rebels advance further into territory the Kremlin calls "New Russia".

Moscow, which denies aiding its sympathizers in Ukraine, said on Thursday the threats of more sanctions were cover for Western efforts to undermine the truce.

"It's an attempt to ... distract attention from the necessity to fulfill the conditions of the Minsk agreements," Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.


(Additional reporting by Natalia Zinets and Pavel Polityuk in Kiev and Maria Tsvetkova in Donetsk, Ukraine; additional reporting and writing by Peter Graff; editing by Mark Trevelyan)


FILED UNDER:

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/26/us-ukraine-crisis-germany-defence-idUSKBN0LU1IQ20150226

Ukraine crisis prompts German debate on restocking military

By Sabine Siebold
BERLIN Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:49am EST

(Reuters) - Germany is considering buying more tanks in the light of the Ukraine crisis and Europe's deteriorating relations with Russia, after years of drastic cuts left the military operating with just 75 percent of the heavy equipment it needs.

At the height of the Cold War in the 1980s, the then West Germany had more than 3,500 tanks. Today it has 225. Senior Western officials accused Russia last week of redrawing the map of Europe by force, and posing a threat to the Baltic states.

"Land defense and defense of our alliance has always been an important duty for the German military and over the last year this has only gained in importance," said Jens Flossdorf, a spokesman for German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen.

"NATO has set new goals on flexibility and rapid reaction time. That is why we are examining what appropriate modernizations and revisions we can make to boost existing structures," he added.

Internally there is deep scorn for the German military's so-called "dynamic availability management" - which in practice means soldiers having to share tanks and heavy equipment across different units. The military has also been hit by procurement gaffes and equipment faults.

Lawmakers on both sides of Germany's right-left coalition have called for Germany to properly restock its military.

"We cannot allow ourselves any hollow structures given the actual security situation," said Social Democrat Peter Bartels.

Germany should increase its number of Leopard 2 tanks to 300 and reverse the cancellation of an order for 50 Puma tanks, he said. The Leopard is made by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) and the Puma by Rheinmetall (RHMG.DE) and KMW.

Any restocking would be particularly welcomed by Germany's arms industry, which has seen sales squeezed by European defense budget cuts and tighter restrictions on arms exports.

Western security officials are considering a potential crisis scenario where the Baltic states' large Russian minority stage a Moscow-backed uprising, as in eastern Ukraine. This would oblige NATO to secure its 2,000 kilometer eastern border through the Baltic states and Poland.

Germany would need to play a key role, for which its 225 tanks would not suffice, a high-ranking German officer said.

Britain's Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has described Russian President Vladimir Putin as a "real and present danger" to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and said NATO is getting ready to repel any aggression.


(Writing by Alexandra Hudson; Editing by Stephen Brown and Susan Fenton)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/27/us-libya-security-un-idUSKBN0LV05D20150227

Libya needs international maritime force to help stop illicit oil, weapons: U.N. experts

By Michelle Nichols and Louis Charbonneau
UNITED NATIONS Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:04pm EST

(Reuters) - Libyan authorities are unable to halt the illicit trade in oil or the flow of weapons in and out of the country, and they need an international maritime force to help, United Nations sanctions monitors said in a new report.

The confidential report by the U.N. Security Council's Panel of Experts on Libya, first seen by Reuters on Thursday, will likely increase pressure on major world powers to consider intervention to stop the North African state from spinning further out of control.

"The capacity of Libya to physically prevent (arms) transfers is almost nonexistent and there is no authorization to enforce the arms embargo on the high seas or in the air as there were during the 2011 revolution," the panel wrote in the report.

The 15-nation Security Council imposed an arms embargo on Libya in 2011 to stop delivery of weapons to the government of former leader Muammar Gaddafi during his crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrations. Under the embargo, the government can import munitions with approval of a council committee.

"The absence of universal enforcement of the embargo, the very high demand for (arms) materiel and the resources and support available to fighting parties to procure materiel indicate that continuing large scale illicit trafficking is inevitable," the report said.

The panel urged the Security Council to form an international maritime force "to assist the Libyan government in securing its territorial waters to prevent the entry into and exit from Libya of arms ... the illicit export of crude oil and its derivatives and other natural resources."

The Libyan Mission to the United Nations was not immediately available to comment on the report. Reuters could not independently verify the allegations in the report.

Earlier this month, Libya and Egypt asked the United Nations Security Council to lift the arms embargo on Libya, impose a naval blockade on areas not under government control and help build Libya's army to tackle Islamic State and other militants.

Libya has descended into factional fighting, leaving it almost lawless nearly four years after the fall and death of Gaddafi. Two competing governments backed by militia brigades are vying for control of the oil-producing OPEC member, and U.N.-brokered talks between them have been unsuccessful.

The panel said that U.N. exemptions aimed at enabling Libyan authorities to buy munitions to establish law and order have helped militias develop considerable arsenals.

One example cited in the report involved the council's 2013 approval for Belarus to export 3,000 tons of ammunition to Libya.

The panel wrote that in February 2014 much of the first shipment from Belarus was not only "diverted upon arrival at Tripoli airport by brigades controlling it, but some of the deliveries appear to have been made directly to autonomous armed groups."

There were 15 other flights from Belarus. "This raises the possibility that further shipments may have been diverted by the Zintani brigades and the panel is still investigating," it said.

Between the revolution and August 2014, Tripoli airport was controlled by fighters from the town of Zintan, who are loosely allied with the official prime minister and the elected parliament of Libya.

The panel wrote that in March 2014 a shipment of 23 assault rifles, 70 handguns and tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition for the European Union Border Assistance Mission in Libya went missing at Tripoli airport.

The panel said arms proliferation from Libya to Egypt and the Sahel remained "significant," though transfers of weapons to Syria appeared to have declined.

"Libya is a preeminent source of arms used in criminal and terrorist activities in Egypt," the panel said in the report. "Transfers of the arms to Gaza through Egypt are also continuing."

Egypt conducted air strikes on militant targets in Libya last week after Islamic State released a video purportedly showing the beheading of 21 Egyptian Christians.

The panel also said the illicit export of crude oil and oil products was providing "funding to the ongoing conflict."

A year ago the Security Council authorized states to board ships suspected of carrying oil from Libyan rebel-held ports and allowed the Libyan government to request that vessels carrying the oil be blacklisted by the council's sanctions committee.

"No vessels were designated despite the export of crude oil from ports that are not under the control of the Libyan government," the report said.


(Reporting by Louis Charbonneau and Michelle Nichols; Editing by Toni Reinhold)

 

[Housecarl]

32 pages and a very fast read......Housecarl

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://38north.org/2015/02/nukefuture022615/

North Korea’s Nuclear Futures Project: Technology and Strategy

By 38 North
26 February 2015

Since the end of the Korean War, the United States has grappled with the security challenge posed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. An increasingly important component of that challenge has been North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Pyongyang’s quest has stretched out over decades, representing an enormous investment of manpower, resources and money totaling billions of dollars.

While the international community is generally aware of Pyongyang’s programs, largely through the North’s sporadic conduct of nuclear weapons and long-range rocket tests, little recent attention has been focused on the very significant dangers posed by this effort. The international community and media are focused on heading off Iran’s small nuclear weapons program rather than on the disturbing developments on the Korean peninsula. Another reason for the lack of serious attention is the still prevailing view of North Korea as a starving, backwards and isolated country led by a young inexperienced and somewhat comical dictator. That perception was, to some degree, offset by the recent North Korean cyber-attack on Sony Pictures.

The North Korea Nuclear Futures Project,[1] conducted by the US-Korea Institute at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in cooperation with the Center for the Study of WMD at the National Defense University, was established in mid-2014 to examine Pyongyang’s emergence as a small nuclear power. The project, through a series of three workshops in 2014-2015, will analyze how North Korea’s nuclear deterrent and strategy may develop over the next five years, the implications for the United States, the region and the international community and possible policy responses.

The first of three workshops, held in October 2014 was attended by a distinguished group of American experts on weapons technology, North Korea, US nuclear weapons and strategy as well as on the experiences of other small nuclear powers such as Israel, Pakistan, India and China. The meeting analyzed North Korea’s WMD technology and its emerging nuclear strategy looking at where it might be headed by 2020. Given the uncertainties involved in forecasting the future, the workshop developed a range of possible scenarios over the next five years.

This first report of the North Korea’s Nuclear Futures Project provides a summary of findings from the first meeting.[2] It lays out the baseline knowledge of North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs and provides low-end, medium and high-end projections for the DPRK’s nuclear arsenal and missile capabilities by 2020 and begins to explore the political and security challenges these capabilities could pose both to the region and to the United States.

Download the report “North Korea’s Nuclear Futures Project: Technology and Strategy,” by Joel S. Wit and Sun Young Ahn.
http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/NKNF-NK-Nuclear-Futures-Wit-0215.pdf

Find other papers in the North Korea’s Nuclear Futures Series.

————————————————-

[1] This publication results from research supported by the Naval Postgraduate School’s Project on Advanced Systems and Concepts for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (PASCC) via Assistance Grant/Agreement No. N00244-14-1-0024 awarded by the NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center San Diego (NAVSUP FLC San Diego). The views expressed in written materials or publications, and/or made by speakers, moderators, and presenters, do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the Naval Postgraduate School nor does mention of trade names, commercial practices, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government. This North Korea’s Nuclear Futures Series was also made possible by support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

[2] This summary is based on workshop papers authored by David Albright, John Schilling, Joseph Bermudez and Shane Smith that formed the basis for discussion and comment by other experts at the meeting. The project would also like to thank Olli Heinonen, Michael Elleman and Robert Carlin for their contributions to its work.


Found in section: NK Nuclear Futures

Feedback

One Response to “North Korea’s Nuclear Futures Project: Technology and Strategy”


1. Mark says:

February 26, 2015 at 9:57 pm

The report will be compelling. It’s true Iran’s nuclear program has taken front seat with the ongoing negotiations. The failure of the Agreed Framework negotiated in 1994 between former President Jimmy Carter and North Korea’s founder Kim Il Song can be attributed to several factors. The untimely death of Kim Il Song of that year prevented proper implementation of the mechanisms required to avert development of a nuclear weapons program. His death and political circumstances in the US did not allow for the construction of a soft water nuclear power plant promised under the terms of the deal. The axis of evil policy embraced under the Bush Administration may have pushed Kim Jong Il to go forward with a weaponization program. It may have happened anyway we may never know. The current situation necessitates a test moratorium or outright ban, but the terms set out by N Korea make this unacceptable at this time. Engagement is possible but will require patience and cooperation among both Koreas and the immediate neighbors, as well as the US and our trading partners in the Pacific. The stakes are high but the benefits of engagement and increased economic and political contacts make the effort worthwhile.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.france24.com/en/20150227-march-mexico-city-over-slain-students/

27 February 2015 - 09H25

March in Mexico City over slain students

MEXICO CITY (AFP) -
Some 2,500 people marched in Mexico City marking the fifth month since the disappearance of 43 students whom the government says were killed by a police-linked drug gang.

The march ended with a skirmish between police and students, five of whom were arrested for wielding objects that could be deemed as weapons, like sticks and pipes, the secretariat of state for security in the Mexican capital said.

The students were from a teacher's college in Ayotzinapa in the southern state of Guerrero. They died in a night of protests on September 26 after being arrested by police in the nearby town of Iguala and handed over to a drug trafficking gang that killed them, burned their remains and threw them into a river, according to the official government account.

Thursday's march departed from a central plaza in Mexico City and ended up outside the residence of President Enrique Pena, which was surrounded by riot police.

The killings triggered a political crisis for Pena in a country where drug related violence is tragically common, and also prompted unprecedented protest marches.

More than 80,000 people have died in drug related violence in Mexico since 2006 and another 20,000 have gone missing.

Relatives of the students and activist groups reject the government account of the events, noting that only one set of remains from the missing students has been positively identified.

Hundreds of teachers also protested Thursday in the resort city of Acapulco, blocking a major thoroughfare.

Teachers also protested in the neighboring state of Michoacan.

by Leticia Pineda

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150227/as--philippines-communist_rebels-880c767ac9.html

5 Philippine soldiers killed in communist rebel ambush

Feb 27, 6:49 AM (ET)

MANILA, Philippines (AP) — Communist rebels have killed five Philippine army soldiers and wounded six others in an ambush in a northern province, the military said Friday.

The soldiers were traveling in a convoy with police late Thursday when they were fired on by New People's Army guerrillas in Quirino township in Ilocos Sur province, said Capt. Mark Anthony Ruelos of the 7th Infantry Division.

He said government forces were pursuing the guerrillas.

Armed forces spokesman Col. Restituto Padilla said the rebels used civilians as human shields, preventing the ambushed troops from making an effective counterattack.

He said the rebels also fired at medical personnel trying to retrieve the bodies of the slain soldiers, but none was hurt. Padilla said both actions were violations of international humanitarian law.

The military estimates there are about 4,000 communist guerrillas operating mostly in small bands around the country, often conducting hit-and-run attacks against government forces or private security personnel to collect weapons.

Talks to end the 45-year-old insurgency, one of the longest-running in Asia, have been stalled since 2011 because of disagreements on the release of captured rebel leaders.

Rebels in the southern Philippines released two captured soldiers in December in a sign of goodwill to resume the talks, but there has been no word on when negotiations might be held.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150227/as-china-us-south-china-sea-f9bbe6ad8c.html

China defends its South China Sea activities as restrained

Feb 27, 5:36 AM (ET)

BEIJING (AP) — China defended its activities in the South China Sea as restrained and responsible Friday after the U.S. intelligence chief called its expansion of outposts in the region an "aggressive" effort to assert sovereignty.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said the country's activities on shoals and in surrounding waters it claims are "reasonable, legitimate and legal" and that its attitude has been one of "restraint and responsibility."

China says it has historical claims to a huge swath of the South Sea China that overlaps the claims of several neighbors including Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and the Philippines, and it objects to what it considers U.S. meddling. The U.S. says it has a national interest in the peaceful resolution of the disputes in the region.

U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper cited China's expansion of its outposts, including for the stationing of ships and potential airfields, at a U.S. Senate hearing in Washington on Thursday. His comments underscored U.S. concerns about land reclamation activities that could fuel tensions between China and its neighbors.

Clapper described China's claim to more than 80 percent of the South China Sea as "exorbitant."

Hong said China hopes the U.S. can be more "circumspect" regarding the issue. "No other country has a right to make unfounded accusations," he said at a daily ministry briefing.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies said last week that Vietnam, Malaysia and Taiwan have over the years modified existing land masses in the South China Sea, and the Philippines is planning to upgrade an airport and pier on an island it occupies. But the think tank said China is unusual in how it has been "dramatically changing the size and structure of physical land features."

China has had a troop and supply garrison at Gaven Reef since 2003, and began significant construction there last year, building a new artificial island of more than 18 acres (7 hectares). The main building on the new island appears to have an anti-aircraft tower, the center said.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150227/as-pakistan-063e154875.html

2 inmates accused in killing of 10 tourists flee from jail

Feb 27, 7:12 AM (ET)
By AQEEL AHMED

MANSEHRA, Pakistan (AP) — Two prisoners believed to be involved in the 2013 slaying of 10 foreign climbers at the base of one of the world's tallest mountains escaped from jail in northern Pakistan before dawn Friday, police said.

The Pakistanis held at a jail in the northern city of Gilgit tried to escape after scaling a wall, senior police officer Ishaq Hussain said. He said the guards chased the men, killing one and re-arresting another. But two of their associates escaped.

Hussain said security forces were searching for the prisoners.

He said authorities arrested the four men about six months ago and that they had not yet faced trial. The deaths of the climbers and one of their Pakistani guides at the base of Nanga Parbat shocked the country and the climbing community.

Pakistani Taliban at the time claimed responsibility, saying they killed the climbers to avenge the death of a senior militant leader in a U.S. drone strike in a tribal region bordering Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, a moderate earthquake jolted northwestern Pakistan before dawn Friday, causing panic in several major cities and leaving at least nine people injured, officials said.

Mohammad Arif, an official at the Pakistan Meteorological Department, said the 5.8-magnitude quake caused tremors in the cities of Peshawar, Abbottabad and Mansehra in the Khyber Paktunkhwa province. He said the quake was also felt in the capital, Islamabad.

Javed Khan, a police officer in Peshawar, said people were sleeping when the quake struck and that many people came out of their homes in a panic.

A senior government official, Zarif Mani, said at least nine people were hurt when the quake damaged three mud-brick homes in the district of Battagram. He said the people were hospitalized and in a stable condition but had no further details on their injuries.

Mani said authorities had sent officers to remote areas to assess the situation, but apparently the quake did not cause any major damage.

A magnitude 7.6 quake killed thousands of people in Pakistan and its part of Kashmir, a disputed Himalayan region also claimed by India, in 2005.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/02/26/the-coming-coup-in-china/

Appeared in: Volume 10, Number 4
Published on: February 26, 2015

China's Game of Thrones

The Coming Coup in China
Sulmaan Khan

Whether Xi Jinping is confronting corruption, engaging in just another CCP purge, or some of both, the PLA is stuck dangerously in the middle.

On January 11, 2011, the People’s Liberation Army tested a new J-20 stealth fighter jet. The move surprised the visiting American Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who had been given no warning of the test. But far more troubling than the jet itself was the fact that Chinese President Hu Jintao was as surprised as Gates. The head of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had been blindsided by his own military.

It was a telling moment that belied the conventional story of civil-military relations in China. That story begins in 1929, when the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) convened a meeting in Gutian, in Fujian province, that established as an inviolable principle the Party’s authority over the military. The Red Army, the CCP declared, was to implement the revolution under the command of the Party. Power grew from the barrel of the gun, as Mao Zedong put it, but the Party held the gun. In the official history, that was that: The military was subservient to the Party, and from then on the ideological work of enforcing that subservience fell to all Chinese citizens.

That is how the story is told, but the reality is less tidy. There were no guarantees in 1929 that the CCP would ever come to power. When it did, its establishment benefitted from individuals and groups who were often not directly answerable to anybody. Their ties to the CCP were frequently a matter of shared interest or passion more than any codified doctrine of civil-military relations.

None of this, however, stopped Xi Jinping from invoking the spirit of 1929 when he convened a new Gutian conference in September 2014. The traditions established at the 1929 gathering, Xi explained, needed to be carried forward. Guojiahua, the idea that the People’s Liberation Army should serve the country, not the Party, was erroneous and unacceptable. The military could not have an agenda independent of the Party.

Xi delivered another warning at the 2014 Gutian conference: on the perils of corruption. Corruption had to be rooted out, he announced, and the armed forces would do well to reflect on the Xu Caihou case. Xu, a former Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission, had been jailed for bribery in June. There was much work to be done to keep the military pure, and Xi, so he declared to the assembled officials, was not going to slacken in that work.

In Xi’s decision to emphasize Party authority alongside the scourge of corruption, there is evidence of how precariously Chinese governance operates today. Had Party authority indeed been unquestioned, there would have been no need to assert it so insistently. If there were no resentment of the civilian government within the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), and perhaps even examples of insubordination, there would have been no reason to invoke the 1929 meeting in the first place. Many observers see Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign as a pretext for just another Party purge by a power-hungry would-be dictator. That a purge is going on there can be no doubt, but Xi is also driven by genuine concern about both the insidious damage being done to China by corruption and the involvement of the military in that corruption.

Xi’s dilemma is unenviable. He has to continue the drive, and the purge that is part of it, because he has staked his credibility on cleaning up the mess. More important, he needs to alleviate growing popular discontent and recover lost assets at a time when the economy is slowing somewhat and people are increasingly angry about entrenched inequality and anxious about the future.1 But he has to know that his anti-corruption drive threatens PLA members’ interests in unpredictable ways. To incur the wrath of men with guns is not something to be undertaken lightly. A military coup, once unthinkable in the PRC, is now conceivable.

To understand why, it is worth remembering that civil and military spheres have never been as neatly separated in China as in the West. “The sky is high and the emperor is far away” goes an ancient Chinese proverb: Central authorities were distant from the day-to-day lives of their subjects in such a vast state, so civilians had to assume functions that in the West would be considered best left to the military. When steppe nomads raided settlements, there was no time to wait for the emperor to send troops; people had to organize their own defense. Hence the stories of heroes fighting in China’s wilderness: men who with mighty staffs and sharpened spears, righteous fists and brave hearts, could defy and defeat anyone from marauding robbers to corrupt officials.

Myth and history came together to weave such romances deep into Chinese culture. The story is still told of the village of Sanyuanli, where, during the Opium War, local farmers surrounded and drove away British troops while the cowardly Qing court did nothing effective. The villagers prevailed principally because rain had soaked British muskets and because the British themselves were keen on a negotiated settlement, but that did not prevent the incident from being remembered as an example of Chinese martial valor.2 The Taiping Rebellion, which claimed some twenty million lives, was started off by Hong Xiuquan, a civilian who thought he was God’s younger son and who gathered civilians to the ranks of his heavenly army. The militias that sprung up to deal with the Rebellion were led mainly by civil servants independent of the Qing state’s armies; that these militias chose to offer their loyalty to the state was a matter of serendipity, not doctrine. The warlords who carved China up in the aftermath of the Qing’s fall were people to whom civil-military distinctions mattered little. They were armed men who governed bits of territory through shifting combinations of fear and the provision of social services. Mao Zedong’s concept of a people’s war, too, rested on the notion that hungry and dispossessed civilians could wage war. The Communists’ rise to power in fact owed much to its capacity to erase lines separating the civilian world from the military one.

After the Party took control, civilians continued to undertake jobs that in the West would have been left to a professional army. The PLA saw action in the Korean War, but so did young peasants from across the country, who dropped their ploughs and headed for the front to “resist America and help Korea.” In the late 1960s China launched a military intervention to support the Communist Party of Burma, and it too relied heavily on civilians from the southern provinces streaming down to do battle. The Red Guards as well, whether fighting each other, their elders, or foreign missions, saw themselves as troops. Theirs was the language of siege, command, battle, and conquest. Even today, the conflict with other Asian states over the Spratlys and Paracels involves civilian fishermen willing to fight for land they see as theirs. They are encouraged by the state, certainly, but the encouragement works because it builds on a tradition in which military action is dispersed, something anyone can conduct if the circumstances are right. Video games that allow Chinese to kill Japanese war criminals, or nationalist protests running well ahead of where the government wants them to go and spilling into anti-Japanese violence, show how deep this tradition still runs.
Militias that are not terribly well regulated have become a hallmark of Chinese life.
Militias that are not terribly well regulated have become a hallmark of Chinese life. To call China a militarized culture implies discipline. A “militia-rized culture”, where anyone can play at being a hero of the marsh, is closer to the mark.

There are, to be sure, other places where such cultures exist. Afghanistan and the Kurdish areas of the Middle East come to mind, as do lands inhabited by the Tuareg and Chechens. And as in other places, a militia-rized culture, while it has its uses, can be dangerous to a sitting government. If armed force is divorced from state authority, there is no reason it cannot turn against said authority. When the Mandate of Heaven passes from a government, it becomes a fair target. Whether it is the Sanyuanli villagers defying the British, Hong Xiuquan fighting the Qing, or Mao defeating the Kuomintang and the imperialists, stories abound of the Chinese people taking on authorities they disliked. And in Xi’s China there is plenty for a disgruntled marsh hero to fight.

Moreover, angry, unmarried, and underemployed young men—always a potential source of civil strife—loom everywhere in China, a legacy of the one-child policy and rampant female infanticide. Some who are wealthy and well connected can simply leave instead of voicing discontent, parking their assets in Boston or Manhattan real estate. But for the vast numbers of the discontent who remain, sustained uprisings directed against a disengaged, oppressive regime are a real and growing possibility. So the issue is not just civil-military relations; it is societal-civil-military relations, a triad rather than a dyad of potential trouble.

Xi Jinping knows all this. He is painfully aware that addressing the sources of discontent requires showing that the state actually cares about the well-being of its citizens. This is where the anti-corruption drive and the emphasis on rule of law come in. Corrupt functionaries, Xi wants his subjects to know, will no longer be able to get rich at the expense of the people. That this campaign has to apply to tigers as well as flies shows how deep Xi must believe the discontent runs. Taking on officials like Zhou Yongkang, Bo Xilai, and, most recently, the spymaster Ma Jian was not something to be done lightly, even if they were political foes. The risk of damaging Party unity by attacking them was considerable, and presumably would not have been taken had Xi not considered the risk of inaction even greater. For the Chinese people to truly believe that their Chairman was bent on ridding the country of corruption, high functionaries, not just petty ones, had to fall. And the campaign had to go beyond the civilian sphere, for the military, too, is seen as being in need of subjugation to the law.

It remains hard to get concrete information on China’s military-industrial complex, but PLA personnel are clearly perceived to have profited from the system in ways that ordinary Chinese cannot. With the PLA’s involvement in a range of companies—from defense to petroleum, aerospace to infrastructure—the opportunities for skimming money abound. The evidence, as prosecutors frequently point out, can be found in the cars driven, in the favors done and received, in the red envelopes passed silently as gifts. Gu Junshan, connected to Xu Caihou, stands accused of siphoning off 30 billion yuan, bribing people by offering them the keys to a Mercedes filled with gold. Xu himself allegedly had received sufficient ill-gotten gains to fill ten trucks. Gao Xiaoyan, one of the few women to have reached the rank of PLA Major General, is now under investigation on bribery charges stemming from her work for a PLA hospital. The very opacity of the system makes it harder to pass off military dealings as legitimate. There is always room to imagine corrupt activity. If corruption is to be truly rooted out in China, the PLA will have to be subject to relentless investigation, too.

Evidence of wrongdoing has not been presented in ways likely to satisfy an American or British court, but corruption is nonetheless a real problem in China. All else equal, it is easier to be corrupt in a murky economy, with a legal system far from explicit, consistent, and impartial. The opportunities for truly damaging corruption abound, which is why there is little reason to doubt Xi’s sincerity and determination. The current chairman was a youth doing hard labor during the Cultural Revolution. Just what lessons he drew from this experience are unclear, but he might well have perceived Mao as rejuvenating China’s national strength by tearing into the cadres at the very top of the political apparatus. Officials were a threat to national security then; they are a threat to national security now, and it is Xi’s turn to deal with them. Xi, one suspects, is that most unpredictable and misunderstood of leaders: a true believer with a mission.

There are two main problems bedeviling Xi’s approach toward the PLA: its lack of credibility and its impact on troop morale. As to the former, in the absence of an independent ombudsman that could investigate Xi as ruthlessly as it does his political enemies, the anti-corruption campaign can never seem wholly honest and just. As already noted, it is widely perceived as an old-fashioned settling of political scores, and this simply comes with the political real estate. After all, Xi’s predecessors used similar campaigns and similarly high-sounding rhetoric to eliminate political opponents. Again, the weakness of Chinese rule of law comes into play. While optimists have made much of Xi’s emphasis on the “rule of law” and the “constitution”, the fact is that Article 51 of the constitution specifies that citizens may not infringe upon the interests of the state—a clause vague enough to mean that Xi, as the paramount representative of the state, will decide when citizens start infringing. The credibility problem is exacerbated by the fact that none of Xi’s political cronies has been prosecuted.

The second problem is that Xi’s campaign damages China’s national security planning. Even the non-corrupt in the PLA have little way of knowing when they have crossed the line, for the line can shift at the whims of their chairman. The virtues of unpredictability have been famously espoused by Sun Tzu (which may be part of Xi’s rationale as he takes on vested military interests), but under current circumstances it hurts more than it helps. The reason is simple: The national security calculus in China right now demands massive military modernization, and that costs money. It is risky—indeed, potentially fatal—to ask for money for weapons, if the chairman suspects that the money will be stolen. The PRC’s military budget has already grown to $132 billion (it is probably much higher). As military planners attempt to counter American and others’ capabilities, it will only swell further. But if Xi’s anticorruption drive makes senior PLA officers wary of proposing budget hikes, it may anger patriotic and nationalistic professional soldiers who might feel that they are betraying the national trust.

In an unpredictable situation, where an attempt to do their jobs by asking for investment in better military systems might lead to an investigation, PLA members have, broadly speaking, three options. The first is to keep a low profile and cooperate with Xi; the odds are reasonable that cooperation will ensure safety. Most seem to be following this particular course. But if one is already under investigation or if one is connected, however loosely, with someone Xi happens not to like, keeping a low profile might not work. A second option is therefore suicide. Two admirals, Ma Faxiang and Jiang Zhonghua, leapt from tall buildings; a general under investigation for corruption, Song Yuwen, is said to have committed suicide by hanging himself.

The third option is resistance.
Men with guns always have the option of using them.
Men with guns always have the option of using them. One or more groups of officers who feel their well-deserved economic gains are being threatened might well opt to take Xi on militarily. As far as we know, such things have not happened under the reign of the CCP (not least because under Mao and Deng, the line between civilians and the military was blurred indeed), but China has historically been prone to the military taking a hand in political affairs. It was a Ming general, Wu Sangui, who first opened China to the invading Manchus. It was Yuan Shikai, a Qing general, who usurped the leadership of the Republic of China at its birth. It was a benevolent general, Zhang Xueliang, who kidnapped Chiang Kai-shek, his civilian leader, and forced him to come to terms with the CCP. There is no guarantee that such military interference will never happen again. A combination of motives—an eagerness to protect a privileged economic place, the fear that if one does not strike, one will be struck down, the idea that one must protect one’s country from a dictator bent on tearing it apart—could impel soldiers to try to seize political power. These are the circumstances in which military coups happen elsewhere; there is no reason to suppose that China is exceptional in this regard. There, as anywhere else, it is impossible to know what will happen when one threatens heavily armed men.

A successful military seizure of the Chinese state could take several forms. The simplest would involve a senior officer or group of officers cooperating silently, gathering enough power, and then suddenly placing Xi under house arrest. Martial law would be declared—for the purest of patriotic motives, of course—and life would go on as normally as possible under such circumstances. Bloodshed would be minimal; our imaginary cabal would have gathered enough support to make resistance futile. They might then be either a transition back to Party rule, or the declaration of a new government that might or might not keep the policies of its predecessor largely unchanged. As military coups go, this would be the cleanest, neatest option.

It is an unlikely outcome, however, because the PLA is divided. Many within it have a stake in Xi’s survival. Far more probable is a scenario in which officers in charge of one of China’s military districts—in Sichuan, say, or perhaps in Jilin—decide that they have tolerated more than enough interference from the central government and declare war. There might be considerable local support for such a move; regional identities remain strong within China and resentment of a rapacious central government is easy to foster. Bo Xilai fell in part because of his popularity in Chongqing. Affordable housing and the idea that he would not let his Chongqingers down made Bo a hero to many locals. Beijing’s arresting him was for many just another example of the central government interfering with Chongqing’s well-being. Capitalizing on local discontent and China’s militia-rized culture, an enterprising military commander could well gather enough strength to challenge Beijing.

Were such a thing to happen, China’s fate could go in one of several different directions. If our imaginary commander were strong enough, an outright seizure of the capital after long, bloody warfare would be one outcome. Mao Zedong, after all, managed to seize power and unify the country after battling a series of foes. But given Xi’s strength, outright victory would be unlikely. Instead, one can expect a bloody stalemate, with the country dividing along north-south lines as old as China itself. “Two Chinas”, to use that dreaded phrase, could emerge. Balkanization might not stop there either. Once other military commands see the possibility of successful defiance, they too might act.
Xi might find that quashing secessionists costs more blood and money than he can get his hands on.
Xi might find that quashing secessionists costs more blood and money than he can get his hands on. China might fall back into a new Warring States or warlord era, in which little fiefdoms spar, subside into coexistence, and then start sparring again.

All of this is purely speculative, of course. Fear of chaos and the patriotic education system provide a strong deterrent to such action. But unlikely things happen all the time. The survival of the CCP in the years following Gutian is one of them: The odds were stacked against the small band of peasants and dreamers who survived purges, a very long march, and Muslim warlords. It is worth remembering, too, that a unified China is far less of a norm in the five millennia of its history than what the official record claims. The country has fallen apart suddenly and violently many times in its past, often precisely because of the sorts of conflicts one sees unfolding today.

The rupture between civil and military spheres has often been heralded by academics as propitious for democratization. Transitions to democracy in Taiwan and Southeast Asia are cited as hopeful exemplars.3 However true the argument might be for Taiwan (though it fails to take account of the particular nature of civil society there, as well as of American pressure for democratization), there is little reason to hope for a peaceful, let alone democratic, outcome from civil-military conflict in China. Xi’s replacement would probably be another strong authoritarian leader, perhaps one more nationalistic and belligerent in his conduct of foreign affairs. In China, revolutions from below have tended toward violence, ending with the displacement of one despotism by another.

Even that might be better than a China falling to pieces. Disunity in China has meant immense violence in the past, with the effects often spilling over into neighboring countries. Given China’s integration into the global economy, internal chaos could spell trouble the world over.

The possibilities of military interference and subsequent trouble are not lost on Xi. He is too steeped in China’s past, and too savvy a political operator, not to realize that enemies can strike suddenly and without warning. Preventing military dissent was part of the rationale for forming his new national security council at the Third Plenum in 2013. Modeled in part on its American counterpart, the new body is tasked with both domestic and international security affairs; its mandate includes addressing terrorist threats from restive minorities as well as planning to neutralize American military power. It is also meant to be a “unified” structure for dealing with national security, with Xi himself at its head.

This means that the PLA’s perspectives on national security must now pass through a body that Xi chairs. The council is thus a way of reinforcing Party control over the military. It is a way of asserting authority, of making sure that marsh heroes do not go too far. (Xi might also have studied how Mao dealt with recalcitrant generals; Mao purged Peng Dehuai for an alleged anti-Party conspiracy. The new security council could allow Xi to keep an eye out for such conspirators). At one level, this is comforting: One does not want situations in which the Party Chairman is caught wrong-footed, as Hu Jintao was, before visiting senior American officials. But from the perspective of disgruntled PLA members, it constitutes another check on their capacity to do what they deem necessary.

To address resistance from within the military, Xi has also tried to reform the culture within the PLA. One initiative is to improve the auditing of military expenditures. The absence of external supervision has been cited as a reason for graft. Tighter regulations will keep power controlled and directed toward the goals of national security. Military modernization is hurt, after all, when funds that should go to purchase long-range missiles are purloined to buy bars of gold.

But much more important is the attempt to reorient troop loyalties. The risk of military dissent arises from the fact that soldiers might feel more loyal to their commanders than to Xi. A move is underway to educate them on the egregiousness of such thinking. Instead of answering to the “rule of man”, senior commanders and military academy leaders are making clear, troops must answer to the “rule of law”, which means obedience to the Party. Commanders, Major General Pan Liangshi recently declared, should have a “legal mind.” More than any Chinese leader since Mao, Xi seems bent on forging a cult of personality. The public appearances, the charismatic speeches, and the trinkets bearing his image help to portray him as the Great Helmsman, the embodiment, as with emperors of old, of the “rule of law” to whom the PLA’s soldiers owe ultimate allegiance as Commander-in-Chief. All this is being touted as the discipline crucial to combat readiness. It is also the discipline crucial to preventing the military from spiraling out of Party control.

It is difficult to take issue with Xi’s drive to control the military. Any civilian government wants to know that troops are responsive to the government, not to whoever happens to be in charge of their regiment. Anyone familiar with what revolutionary upheavals have looked like in China’s past can understand and even empathize with Xi’s concern.

Just how successful he will be, though, remains to be seen. That he must do something about corruption is undeniable, but can he subdue it without creating a new legal order that threatens Party rule too? True transparency is dangerous; it ultimately means setting up an authority not answerable to Xi or the Party. To have such an authority would be to place Xi and his allies at considerable risk. But absent such an authority, the anti-corruption drive will never be complete, never beyond cynical reproach; it will remain little more than a source of uncertainty and fear. And uncertain, fearful people can do shocking things.


1See Lant Pritchett and Lawrence H. Summers, “Asiaphoria Meets Regression to the Mean”, NBER Working Paper No. 20573.

2See James Polachek, The Inner Opium War (Harvard University Press, 1992).

3See the otherwise brilliant article by Andrew Scobell, “China’s Evolving Civil-Military Relations: Creeping Guojiahua”, Armed Forces and Society (Winter 2005).

Sulmaan Khan is assistant professor of international history and Chinese foreign relations at the Fletcher School, Tufts University, where he also directs the Water and Oceans program at the Center for International Environment and Resource Policy. He is the author of Muslim, Trader, Nomad, Spy: China’s Cold War and the People of the Tibetan Borderlands (University of North Carolina Press, 2015).

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://blogs.rollcall.com/beltway-insiders/the-iran-end-game-commentary/?dcz=

The Iran End Game | Commentary

By Special to Roll Call
Posted at 5 a.m. Feb. 27

0 Comments

©Reprints
By Richard Klass

It is clear we’re approaching an end game in nuclear negotiations between six world powers — the P5+1 — and Iran. Final negotiating maneuvers have commenced. Secretary of State John Kerry has said there will not be another extension beyond March 31 unless a political framework is in place. Reports from Iran hold that President Hassan Rouhani’s position will be precarious if there is no agreement. And the word from Israel is that the country will use its full strength to prevent any agreement that does not meet its unreasonable demands — including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s controversial address to the Congress on May 3.

If there is a negotiated agreement that is rejected, either in Congress or in Iran, it will be clear who bears the responsibility. But if no agreement is reached, it will matter greatly who is seen to be responsible. There is a good argument to be made that it is in the U.S. interest for any breakdown in negotiations to appear to be caused by Iranian intransigence.

How so?

If Iran walks away from the talks, Rouhani can claim to have stood up to “The Great Satan” and protected Iran’s civil nuclear energy program. That may be enough for him Iran’s new president to keep his job, and hold the IRGC and other hardliners at bay, and live to negotiate another day.

If the U.S. is seen as the cause of the negotiations failure, say, because Congress passes a bill requiring a contentious up-or-down vote on the agreement, the results are likely to be very different. Russia and China would surely move to increase commercial, and perhaps military, ties with Tehran. And our European partners, already planning trade ties, might soon follow suit. In short, the carefully constructed international sanctions regime would almost certainly weaken and possibly collapse. Severe strains might well develop within NATO at the same time unity on Ukraine is needed.

This would be even more true if Israeli objections were seen as the root cause, or if Congress was seen as acting on Israel’s behalf. Make no mistake — this issue goes beyond any perceived slight on the part of the Obama administration.Netanyahu’s proposed speech is dangerous.

And then what? In the aftermath of a failed deal, both sides will take a period of reassessment. Iran is unlikely to continue to accede to the current enhanced International Atomic Energy Agency inspections regime, so transparency will suffer immediately. Iran already retains the capability to develop nuclear weapons. In the event of a breakdown in negotiations, Iran’s nuclear program could shift from its current restrained state, to unfettered advancement. Limits on enrichment, centrifuges, and additional research and development would disappear. And without the support of our international partners, Iran would be free to move forward, to build a bomb if it so chooses, without the heavy burden of sanctions on its shoulders.

The path after a rejection of an Iranian nuclear agreement or of a failure to reach one is likely to be difficult, but just how difficult may depend largely on who is seen to have been responsible. The U.S. must hold strong with its negotiating partners, and should, under no circumstances, put itself in a position to have to argue against its own intransigence.

Retired Col. Richard Klass, is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy, the National War College and Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar. He flew more than 200 combat missions in Vietnam and served in the executive office of the president as a White House fellow. His awards include the Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross and Purple Heart. He is a member of the Board of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/02/27/iran-test-fires-new-weapon-in-naval-drill

In defiant message to US, Iranian forces test fire 'strategic' weapon during naval drill

Associated Press
Feb. 27, 2015 | 6:59 a.m. EST
By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — With an eye on U.S.-led nuclear talks, Iran's Revolutionary Guard on Friday announced it had test fired a "new strategic weapon" in the final day of a large-scale naval and air defense drill, saying the system would play a key role in any future battle against the "Great Satan."

The claim was a new show of force by Iran just weeks ahead of a deadline for reaching a deal over its nuclear program with the U.S. and other global powers.

Iran announced the test on the final day of military drills it is calling "Great Prophet 9." The exercises are being held near the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which about a fifth of the world's oil passes.

Iran often holds live-fire war games and frequently boasts of advances in its weaponry that cannot be independently verified. The latest drill, which included a simulated attack on an American aircraft carrier, appeared to be aimed at sending a message that Iran has no intention of backing down to the U.S. in the nuclear talks.

Adm. Ali Fadavi, the Revolutionary Guard's naval chief, said the new weapon would be critical in any future naval war against the U.S.

"The new weapon will have a very decisive role in adding our naval power in confronting threats, particular by the Great Satan, the United States," he told the guard's website, sepahanews.com.

Fadavi told state TV that details of weapon will possibly be made public in coming years. "We have restrictions to expressing specifications and applications of the weapon," he said in a short interview recorded at night.

He did not elaborate, though state TV showed a brief video of missiles being launched into the sky from under the water during the daytime. Iran is known to have an advanced arsenal of missiles capable of striking as far away as Israel and U.S. military bases in the region.

Also on Friday, Iran's official IRNA news agency reported that the country has begun a regular two-day exercise on radiation emergency preparedness and response in the country's only nuclear power plant. The plant went online in 2011 with the help of Russia in southern port of Bushehr.

Gen. Gholam Reza Jalali, who heads a unit in charge of civil defense, was quoted as saying the exercise has aimed at "controlling supposed pollution" in the plant.

It said the drill was limited to preparations at the plant's headquarters, and a second stage would be held Saturday. The Iranian Foreign Ministry informed neighboring countries about the exercise, it added.

The U.S. and world powers are in the final stages of talks that they hope will reach an agreement over Iran's nuclear program. The international community suspect Iran is trying to develop a nuclear-weapons capability. Iran denies the charges, saying its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes. The two sides hope to reach a framework agreement in the coming weeks and a final deal in June.

Since 1992, Iran has sought to become self-sufficient in its military needs, producing mortars, tanks, torpedoes, jet fighters and light submarines.

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/n...reball-the-width-of-4-manhattan-blocks-2015-2

Briefing

North Korea's last nuclear test had a fireball the width of 4 Manhattan blocks

Armin Rosen Tomorrow at 7:44 AM ƒ| Bookmark ƒå …x

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Pyongyang December 8, 2014.

North Korea¡¦s nuclear weapons program is flourishing.

The Kim regime has built a host of new facilities in the recent years and a new report from the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) and Johns Hopkins University¡¦s School for Advanced International Studies found that North Korea will have enough weapons-grade nuclear material for dozens or even scores of nuclear warheads by the end of this decade.

Just what this means for international security largely depends on two factors that aren¡¦t necessarily connected to the quantity of bombs Pyongyang has on hand: miniaturization and explosive yield. North Korea needs bombs small enough to attach to long-range projectiles, and they need to pack a large explosive punch.

North Korea has conducted three nuclear tests, in 2006, 2009, and 2013. As David Albright, a nuclear physicist and founder of ISIS told Business Insider, the fact that the tests were of relatively small yield suggests that North Korea has developed its nuclear weapons with miniaturization in mind.

¡§The first test was a dud but it was only intended to be a low-yield test,¡¨ Albright told Business Insider. ¡§The second test wasn¡¦t that high, which is another indicator that they¡¦re working with miniaturized designs.¡¨

But the explosions were still plenty big.

Alex Wellerstein, a historian of nuclear technology at the Stevens Institute of Technology, created the Nuke Map to visualise the size of various nuclear detonations through history. It gives users the option of detonating a bomb with the yield of any of the three North Korean nuclear tests over any spot on earth using either an airburst or surface detonation. It even calculates injuries and fatalities.

The Nuke Map shows that the effects of North Korea¡¦s ¡§small¡¨ nuclear detonation would be horrifying to behold.

For reference¡¦s sake we used Business Insider¡¦s offices at 20th st and 5th Ave in Manhattan as nuclear ground zero for nuclear detonations with the same explosive yeild as North Korea¡¦s three tests. The gaudy casualty numbers owe partly to the fact that Manhattan is one of the most densely populated places in the world ¡X although Seoul, the South Korean capital and a prime North Korean nuclear strike candidate, is even denser than New York City.

Here¡¦s the Nuke Map for North Korea¡¦s 2006 test, which had a yield equal to 500 tons of TNT ¡X roughly 1/30th the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima:

North Korea nukes BI

The fireball of North Korea¡¦s first nuclear test was the width of a single Manhattan block while the area in which there was a 100% probability of third-degree burns (the second yellow circle) would stretch from the middle of Union Square to the mid-20s. The blast would create enough air pressure to collapse ¡§most residential buildings¡¨ over an even larger radius than that (the blue circle).

If detonated over BI¡¦s offices North Korea¡¦s ¡§dud¡¨ nuke would kill an estimated 56,860 people, according to the Nuke Map.

The next test in 2009 had a yield equivalent to 6,000 tons of TNT, meaning it was 30 times more powerful than the device Pyongyang detonated just three years earlier:

North Korea nukes BI

The fireball was 240 meters in width, or just a shade under 3 Manhattan blocks. If detonated over our offices there¡¦d be deadly radiation all the way from Penn Station to the edge of Washington Square. An estimated 219,530 people would die.

The weapon North Korea detonated in 2013 had a 10 kiloton yield, a 4,000-tons-of-TNT improvement over the test 4 years earlier:

North Korea nukes BI

The entire width of Manhattan would be subject to deadly radiation with buildings collapsed from the mid-30s to the East Village.

Screen Shot 2015 02 27 at 11.46.42 AM

The fireball alone would have the width of nearly four Manhattan blocks (see left) and 244,990 people would die in the blast.

North Korea isn¡¦t about to nuke New York, or anywhere else for that matter. There¡¦s no smoking gun proving nuclear miniaturization. North Korea¡¦s intercontinental missile test in 2009 was a failure, and there¡¦s no evidence that Pyongyang has managed to attach anything resembling a nuclear warhead to its more reliable No Dong (basically scud-type) missiles.

And while North Korea hardly behaves like a constructive member of the international community it¡¦s a huge leap to think that it would consider tossing around nuclear missiles even if it did definitely have them.

But Pyongyang possess nuclear weapons nevertheless. And as these maps show, the fact that North Korea¡¦s nukes are small or cut-rate compared to the rest of the nuclear nations¡¦ arsenals is beside the point.

Even a tiny nuke emits a blast that the mind can¡¦t grasp even with the aid of a Nuke Map-style graphic abstraction. And even a very poor, isolated, and widely scorned country like North Korea can build a lot of them if it¡¦s dedicated enough ¡X and if the rest of the world isn¡¦t vigilant enough in stopping it.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/27/charles-krauthammer-obamas-gift-to-the-mullahs/

Charles Krauthammer: Obama’s gift to the mullahs

Charles Krauthammer | February 27, 2015 12:36 PM ET
Comments 42

A sunset clause?

The news from the nuclear talks with Iran was already troubling. Iran was being granted the “right to enrich.” It would be allowed to retain and spin thousands of centrifuges. It could continue construction of the Arak plutonium reactor. Yet so thoroughly was Iran stonewalling International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors that just last Thursday the IAEA reported its concern “about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed … development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

Bad enough. Then it got worse: News leaked Monday of the “sunset clause.” President Barack Obama had accepted the Iranian demand that any restrictions on its program be time-limited. After which, the mullahs can crank up their nuclear program at will and produce as much enriched uranium as they want.

Sanctions lifted. Restrictions gone. Nuclear development legitimized. Iran would re-enter the international community, as Obama suggested in an interview last December, as “a very successful regional power.” A few years — probably around 10 — of good behaviour and Iran would be home free.

The agreement thus would provide a predictable path to an Iranian bomb. Indeed, a flourishing path, with trade resumed, oil pumping and foreign investment pouring into a restored economy.

Meanwhile, Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program is subject to no restrictions at all. It’s not even part of these negotiations.

Why is Iran building them? You don’t build ICBMs in order to deliver sticks of dynamite. Their only purpose is to carry nuclear warheads. Nor does Iran need an ICBM to hit Riyadh or Tel Aviv. Intercontinental missiles are for reaching, well, other continents. North America, for example.

Such an agreement also means the end of nonproliferation. When a rogue state defies the world, continues illegal enrichment and then gets the world to bless an eventual unrestricted industrial-level enrichment program, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is dead. And regional hyperproliferation becomes inevitable as Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others seek shelter in going nuclear themselves.

Wasn’t Obama’s great international cause a nuclear-free world? Within months of his swearing-in, he went to Prague to so declare. He then led a 50-party Nuclear Security Summit, one of whose proclaimed achievements was having Canada give up some enriched uranium.

Having disarmed the Canadian threat, Obama turned to Iran. The deal now on offer to the ayatollah would confer legitimacy on the nuclearization of the most rogue of rogue regimes: radically anti-American, deeply jihadist, purveyor of terrorism from Argentina to Bulgaria, puppeteer of a Syrian regime that specializes in dropping barrel bombs on civilians. In fact, the Iranian regime just this week, at the apex of these nuclear talks, staged a spectacular attack on a replica U.S. carrier near the Strait of Hormuz.

Well, say the administration apologists, what’s your alternative? Do you want war?

It’s Obama’s usual, subtle false-choice manoeuvre: It’s either appeasement or war.

It’s not. True, there are no good choices, but Obama’s prospective deal is the worst possible. Not only does Iran get a clear path to the bomb, but it gets sanctions lifted, all pressure removed and international legitimacy.

There is a third choice. If you are not stopping Iran’s program, don’t give away the store. Keep the pressure, keep the sanctions. Indeed, increase them. After all, previous sanctions brought Iran to its knees and to the negotiating table in the first place. And that was before the collapse of oil prices, which would now vastly magnify the economic effect of heightened sanctions.

Congress is proposing precisely that. Combined with cheap oil, it could so destabilize the Iranian economy as to threaten the clerical regime. That’s the opening. Then offer to renew negotiations for sanctions relief but from a very different starting point — no enrichment. Or, if you like, with a few token centrifuges for face-saving purposes.

And no sunset.

That’s the carrot. As for the stick, make it quietly known that the U.S. will not stand in the way of any threatened nation that takes things into its own hands. We leave the regional threat to the regional powers, say, Israeli bombers overflying Saudi Arabia.

Consider where we began: six UN Security Council resolutions demanding an end to Iranian enrichment. Consider what we are now offering: an interim arrangement ending with a sunset clause that allows the mullahs a robust, industrial-strength, internationally sanctioned nuclear program.

Such a deal makes the Cuba normalization look good and the Ukrainian ceasefires positively brilliant. We are on the cusp of an epic capitulation. History will not be kind.

Washington Post

 

[Housecarl]

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...Dershowitz-Iran-Is-A-Greater-Threat-Than-ISIS

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/20...ershowitz-iran-is-a-greater-threat-than-isis/

Attorney Alan Dershowitz: Iran Is A Greater Threat Than ISIS

February 27, 2015 12:17 PM
Dom Giordano
Monday – Friday: 9 a.m. – 12 noon Which Philadelphia talk show ho... Read More

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) - Dom Giordano talked with Attorney Alan Dershowitz on Talk Radio 1210 WPHT about the upcoming speech before Congress from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his opposition to the White House negotiating a nuclear treaty with Iran.

Democrats were angry that Netanyahu did not inform the President before the announcement of his speech to Congress, but Dershowitz stated they still have a duty to listen to what he has to say.

“I will be appalled at any Democrat who refuses to show up. They are violating their constitutional oath of office. They have an obligation to listen to both sides of issues. They have an obligation under the separation of powers to check and balance the President. The President is about to make a horrible, horrible foreign policy decision. He is opposed, not only by Israel, he is opposed by Saudi Arabia. He is opposed by Egypt. He is opposed by many Democratic Senators and Congressmen.”

He thinks the controversy over the speech is overblown and pales in comparison with the nuclear agreement currently being negotiated.

“The idea that people in Congress should refuse to listen to a Prime Minister; they’re treating him like they treat Ahmedinejad. You walk out on a tyrant who denies the Holocaust, but you don’t walk out on an ally who is America’s strongest ally in the Middle East and who has a different view from the President, and is right? He’s right on this one, and the President is wrong.”

Dershowitz holds that Iran poses a greater threat to the world than even ISIS does at the moment.

“Iran’s leadership is a suicide nation. A suicide nation that was prepared to sent thousands of their young children to certain death at the end of the Iraq War, giving them tokens to go to paradise. ISIS is nothing compared. ISIS is terrorists on trucks with rifles and pistols and knives. Iran is gonna become the first terrorist nation with nuclear weapons if this deal goes through.”

 

[Housecarl]

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...eveal-Osama-bin-Laden-s-Secret-Ties-With-Iran

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-docs-reveal-osama-bin-ladens-secret-ties-iran_868678.html

New Docs Reveal Osama bin Laden's Secret Ties With Iran

Show availability of Iran for al Qaeda training, plotting.

12:27 PM, Feb 27, 2015 • By THOMAS JOSCELYN

This week, prosecutors in New York introduced eight documents recovered in Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan as evidence in the trial of a terrorism suspect. The U.S. government accuses Abid Naseer of taking part in al Qaeda’s scheme to attack targets in Europe and New York City. And prosecutors say the documents are essential for understanding the scope of al Qaeda’s plotting.

More than 1 million documents and files were captured by the Navy Seals who raided bin Laden’s safe house in Abbottabad, Pakistan in May 2011. One year later, in May 2012, the Obama administration released just 17 of them.

While there is some overlap between the files introduced as evidence in Brooklyn and those that were previously made public in 2012, much of what is in the trial exhibits had never been made public before.

The files do not support the view, promoted by some in the Obama administration, that bin Laden was in “comfortable retirement,” “sidelined,” or “a lion in winter” in the months leading up to his death. On the contrary, bin Laden is asked to give his order on a host of issues, ranging from the handling of money to the movement of terrorist operatives.

Some of the key revelations in the newly-released bin Laden files relate to al Qaeda’s dealings with Iran and presence in Afghanistan.

A top al Qaeda operative asked bin Laden for permission to relocate to Iran in June 2010 as he plotted attacks around the world. That operative, Yunis al Mauritani, was a senior member of al Qaeda’s so-called “external operations” team, and plotted to launch Mumbai-style attacks in Europe.

As THE WEEKLY STANDARD first reported, the al Qaeda cell selected to take part in al Mauritani’s plot transited through Iran and some of its members received safe haven there after the planned attacks were thwarted.

In the memo to bin Laden, a top al Qaeda manager wrote, “Sheikh Yunis is ready to move and travel.” The file continues: “The destination, in principle, is Iran, and he has with him 6 to 8 brothers that he chose. I told him we are waiting for final complete confirmation from you to move, and agree on this destination (Iran). His plan is: stay around three months in Iran to train the brothers there then start moving them and distributing them in the world for their missions and specialties. He explained those to you in his report and plan.”

Bin Laden’s reply is apparently not included in the documents.

Other intelligence recovered in the raid on the al Qaeda master’s home show that al Qaeda and Iran were at odds in some ways. Iran detained a number of senior al Qaeda leaders and members of Osama bin Laden’s family. Al Qaeda forced Iran to release some of them by kidnapping an Iranian diplomat in Pakistan. Some of the newly-released files provide hints of these disagreements as well, including a suggestion that one of bin Laden’s sons may complain about the jihadists’ treatment in Iran once he was freed.

The same June 2010 memo to bin Laden that includes Yunis al Mauritani’s request also includes a section on the al Qaeda leaders who had returned to Pakistan from Iran. One of them is Abu Anas al Libi, a bin Laden lieutenant who was captured in Tripoli in 2013. Upon being freed, al Libi was reassigned to al Qaeda’s security committee and asked to move to Libya to take part in the anti-Qaddafi revolution. Al Qaeda granted al Libi’s request.

Although Iran and al Qaeda have had significant differences, there is much intelligence showing that the two continue to collude.

During President Obama’s administration, the Treasury and State Departments have repeatedly exposed the formerly “secret deal” between the Iranian regime and al Qaeda that allows the terrorist organization to shuttle operatives around the globe. Some of those operatives included Yunis al Mauritani’s men.

The June 2010 memo to bin Laden indicates that al Qaeda had a significant presence in Afghanistan at the time.

“Our groups inside Afghanistan are the same as for every season for many years now,” bin Laden’s subordinate wrote. “We have groups in Bactria, Bactica, Khost, Zabul, Ghazni and Warduk in addition to the battalion in Nuristan and Kunz.” (Bactria and Bactica may be transliterated incorrectly and actually reference other provinces.)

“We have very strong military activity in Afghanistan, many special operations, and the Americans and NATO are being hit hard,” the memo continues.

The author, who is likely Atiyyah Abd al Rahman (later killed in a U.S. drone strike), says that al Qaeda had recently cooperated with the Haqqani Network in a major operation in Bagram. “We cooperated with Siraj Haqqani and other commander down there (Kabul/Bagram),” Rahman writes to bin Laden. Siraj’s father, Jalaluddin Haqqani, was one of bin Laden’s closest allies. The Haqqani network and al Qaeda have fought side-by-side for years and the Haqqanis continue to provide shelter for al Qaeda’s men in northern Pakistan.

Al Qaeda’s description of its own presence in Afghanistan is directly at odds with the assessments made by U.S. military and intelligence officials, who have portrayed the group as having only a small number of fighters and being geographically isolated.

Other revelations include the following:

Senior al Qaeda leaders discussed potential negotiations with Al Jazeera over the copyrights for the jihadists’ propaganda films and footage. Al Qaeda also wanted to play a significant role in an upcoming documentary produced by the channel.

Al Qaeda believed the British were ready to cut a deal to get out of Afghanistan. If al Qaeda left the Brits alone, one file contends, the UK was willing to pull out from the country.

Al Qaeda was in direct contact with Al Tayyib Agha, a Taliban leader who has served as Mullah Omar’s emissary. The U.S. government has held direct talks with Agha in an attempt to broker a peace deal in Afghanistan. The Taliban has rejected the goals of those talks, however.

Al Qaeda was monitoring the situation in Libya, and noted that the “brothers” in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) were operating in Benghazi, Derna and elsewhere in eastern Libya. Members of the LIFG went on to help form Ansar al Sharia in Derna and other al Qaeda-linked groups, some of which took part in the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack.

Bin Laden advised his subordinates that they should contact Abu Mohammad al Maqdisi, a well-known jihadist ideologue, to see if Maqdisi would agree to have one of his books shortened before being more widely disseminated. Bin Laden’s words show how much respect he had for Maqdisi. The Jordanians have routinely imprisoned Maqdisi, but recently let him out of detention so that he could denounce the Islamic State, which has emerged as al Qaeda’s rival. This shows how al Qaeda is using the Islamic State to portray itself as being more moderate.

Thomas Joscelyn is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummmm........

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/27/us-libya-security-turkey-idUSKBN0LV1S120150227

Libyan PM says Turkey supplying weapons to rival Tripoli group

By Ahmed Tolba and Ayman al-Warfalli
CAIRO/BENGHAZI Fri Feb 27, 2015 3:01pm EST

(Reuters) - Libya's internationally recognized Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thinni said his government would stop dealing with Turkey because it was sending weapons to a rival group in Tripoli so that "the Libyan people kill each other".

Two administrations, one in the capital and Thinni's in the east, have been battling for power since the armed group Libya Dawn seized Tripoli in July and reinstated lawmakers from a previous assembly, four years after Muammar Gaddafi was ousted.

"Turkey is a state that is not dealing honestly with us. It's exporting weapons to us so the Libyan people kill each other," Thinni told Egyptian TV channel CBC late on Thursday.

A spokesman for Turkey's Foreign Ministry strongly denied Thinni's allegations.

"Instead of repeating the same baseless and untrue allegations, we advise them to support U.N. efforts for political dialogue," ministry spokesman Tanju Bilgic said.

"Our policy vis-a-vis Libya is very clear. We are against any external intervention in Libya and we fully support the ongoing political dialogue process under U.N. mediation."

Turkey is one of a handful of countries which has publicly received officials from the Tripoli government and parliament.

The Turkish government has also invited the speaker of the House of Representatives from the internationally recognized administration to Turkey but he did not accept, Bilgic said.


"NOT HOSTILE TO TURKEY"

Thinni's government earlier this week accused Ankara of backing the Tripoli government.

In the CBC interview, Thinni said Turkish firms would be excluded from contracts in territory controlled by his government, adding that any outstanding bills would be paid.

"We don't say we are hostile to Turkey but we say we don't deal with it," he said.

Critics of Ankara say its Libya policy is an extension of a pro-Islamist agenda which has already seen relations sour with other former allies, notably Egypt.

Thinni also accused Qatar of giving "material" support to the rival side in the Libyan conflict. He did not elaborate.

In the eastern city of Benghazi on Friday, unknown gunmen shot with what appeared to be anti-aircraft guns at a protest supporting the army and Haftar.

Nobody was hurt but three nearby buildings were hit, a Reuters reporter at the scene said.

The protesters had demanded classifying the Muslim Brotherhood as a "terrorist" organization, like in Egypt.

The Brotherhood has a presence in the rival parliament in Tripoli and western Libya.

Thinni's government accuses the Brotherhood of having ties to militant groups such as Ansar al-Sharia, blamed by Washington for an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in which the U.S. ambassador died.

The Brotherhood in Libya says it is a peaceful organization. No more details were immediately available.


(Additional reporting by Tulay Karadeniz in Ankara; Writing by Ulf Laessing; Editing by Alison Williams and Gareth Jones)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/tu...rabia.aspx?pageID=449&nID=78983&NewsCatID=429

Friday, February 27 2015, Your time is ‎4‎:‎31‎:‎11‎ ‎PM
SERKAN DEMİRTAŞ
serkan.demirtas@hurriyet.com.tr

Turkey seeks to realign policies with Saudi Arabia

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is set to embark on a one-day trip to Saudi Arabia on Feb. 28 to meet new Saudi King Salman, who assumed his post last month. Erdoğan had attended the former king’s funeral, along with other world leaders, and is now paying an official visit to Riyadh.

The timing of the visit is very significant, with the whole of North Africa and the Middle East on fire. Libya and Yemen have been brought to the brink of division because of civil war. Both countries are home to jihadist terrorist organizations that are causing troubles for their immediate neighboring countries, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well as exporting terrorism to the European continent.

Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) are apparently seizing more control in the region, with no prospect that the ongoing international military campaign can deal meaningful damage to them.

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries were successful in stopping the Arab Spring wave in Syria before it reached the Arabian Peninsula. By lending enormous political and financial support to Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who toppled Mohamed Morsi, the Arabian alliance was able to get rid of the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood.

With hopes fading for a more democratic region in which people have a say in their future, control of the Middle East has now passed to the hands of ISIL and similar terror organizations. Saudi Arabia and Turkey are both partly responsible for the current unpromising picture - on different levels and from different perspectives.

Turkey, for its part, ignored the growing threat of jihadists in 2012 and failed to take necessary measures against the threat. For example, it could have toughened border security to stop the infiltration of foreign fighters before the mid-2014 kidnapping of its consul-general in Mosul and 48 consulate personnel. There is no need to give details here, it is clear that Turkey’s overall Syria policy has collapsed and is also causing the deterioration of its relationships with other regional countries.

Erdoğan’s visit to Saudi Arabia could well turn into an opportunity for Turkey and Saudi Arabia to review their differing policies in the region and seek a new realignment. However, the two countries’ most important disagreement is over Egypt, and therefore the Muslim Brotherhood.

For Saudi Arabia, Egypt stands as one of the assurances of the continuity of the kingdom and the status quo in the peninsula and therefore the Muslim Brotherhood will not be a part of negotiations with Erdoğan. On the contrary, Saudi Arabia can strongly press on Turkey to recognize the current leadership in Egypt for the sake of regional balances.

It’s premature to talk about an effort for mediation from Saudi Arabia to mend Turkey’s ties with Egypt, but this will obviously be on Riyadh’s agenda. We will see whether Erdoğan’s meeting with King Salman will launch a process of Turkey shifting its policies.

February/28/2015

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/27/us-yemen-security-emirates-idUSKBN0LV1RH20150227

UAE and Kuwait to reopen embassies in Yemen's south, backing Hadi

DUBAI Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:50pm EST

(Reuters) - The United Arab Emirates and Kuwait will reopen their Yemeni embassies in the southern city of Aden instead of the capital Sanaa, the two countries' state news agencies said on Friday.

Sanaa was captured in September by the Shi'ite Muslim Houthi militia, which placed President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi under house arrest and forced him to announce his resignation. Arab and Western states this month evacuated their Sanaa embassies.

Parliament never approved the resignation, and on Sunday Hadi fled to Aden where he has set up a new seat of power.

An aide to Hadi said on Thursday that Yemen's neighbor Saudi Arabia, the Sunni-ruled main Gulf Arab power, was moving its ambassador to Aden.

UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash said the UAE had made its decision "in order to entrench constitutional legitimacy in Yemen, embodied by President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi and his government", according to WAM news agency.

The ascendancy of the Houthis is viewed with alarm by the Gulf's mostly Sunni Muslim rulers.

The Gulf Cooperation Council has denounced the Houthi takeover as a coup and fears Shi'ite Iran may gain influence on the peninsula by backing the group.

The prospect of rival centers of power competing for control of Yemen has raised fears that the impoverished and heavily-armed country may be heading for civil war.


(Reporting by Ahmed Tolba and Noah Browning; Editing by Andrew Roche)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/27/us-iran-nuclear-usa-deal-idUSKBN0LV2L620150227

Iran nuclear talks advancing, no deal likely next week: U.S. official

WASHINGTON Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:22pm EST

(Reuters) - Negotiations on an agreement to curb Iran's nuclear program have advanced substantially, but difficult issues remain and a senior U.S. official said he did not expect a deal in the coming week.

U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz will join in talks next week between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Montreux, Switzerland, the official told a small group of reporters.

"Obviously, the negotiations have advanced substantially, gaps have narrowed, but we really don't know if we will be able to close a good deal," said the official, who asked not to be named. "There are still difficult issues. There are still gaps."

The United States and five major powers are seeking a deal under which Iran would restrain its nuclear program in exchange for the gradual easing of economic sanctions that have crippled the oil exporter's economy.

Washington and some of its allies believe Iran is seeking to develop an atomic bomb, which they regard as a direct threat to Israel as well as to Arab allies of the United States. Iran says its program is solely for peaceful purposes such as power generation.

The two sides are working toward a deadline of the end of March, by which U.S. officials have said they want a political framework agreement in place. That would be followed up by a full, technical deal that would be spelled out by June 30.

Asked if a political deal was possible in the next week, the U.S. official replied: "I would not expect in the coming week."


(Reporting by Arshad Mohammed; Editing by Emily Stephenson)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/chinas-space-weapons-threaten-us-satellites/

China’s Space Weapons Threaten U.S. Satellites

Stratcom worried by antisatellite missiles, satellite weapons, lasers

BY: Bill Gertz
February 26, 2015 9:12 pm

China is developing significant space warfare capabilities that threaten U.S. strategic satellite systems, the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command told Congress on Thursday.

“We’ve seen very disturbing trends in space, particularly from nation states like China, as well as Russia, who have been public about their counterspace endeavors and ambitions,” Adm. Cecil Haney, Stratcom commander said. Counterspace is the military term for space warfare capabilities and weapons.

China conducted a test of a missile-fired anti-satellite kill vehicle as recently as last summer, Haney told the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee.

“Fortunately this time it didn’t hit anything as it did in 2007, creating just thousands and thousands of pieces of debris which we’re still struggling with,” Haney said, adding that the recent test indicated China’s intention to invest heavily in what he said is a “not very transparent” space arms program.

“Additionally, we see things that … have also been put in orbit that also is of concern, as well as things on land that are also being used to threaten our assets, such as lasers, such as jamming capability and what have you that threatens communications, GPS,” the four-star admiral said.

China’s test of an antisatellite (ASAT) missile in July was disguised by the Chinese government as a ballistic missile defense test. In the past several years, China also conducted space tests using miniature satellites, some with retractable arms capable of grabbing or crushing satellites. Little is known of China’s ground-based laser and jamming ASAT capabilities.

The comments were the most explicit to date by a senior military officer expressing concerns about China’s buildup of space weapons that are designed to inflict damage on the U.S. military in a time of crisis or war.

The congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Committee annual report made public in December also warned about China’s growing space warfare programs.

China “likely calculates its growing space warfare capabilities will enhance its strategic deterrent as well as allow China to coerce the United States and other countries into not interfering with China militarily,” the report said. “Based on the number and diversity of China’s existing and developmental counterspace capabilities, China probably will be able to hold at risk U.S. national security satellites in every orbital regime in the next five to ten years.”

Mike Rogers (R. Ala.), the Strategic Forces subcommittee chairman, said the current world situation is extremely unsettled. “So, I do not believe the world can afford, nor can our own security allow, U.S. power to continue to recede,” Rogers said.

Earlier Thursday, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper also warned about growing space warfare capabilities from China and Russia.

“Chinese and Russian military leaders understand the unique advantages afforded by space systems and services and are developing capabilities to deny access in a conflict,” Clapper said in a prepared statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The Chinese military has written that its goal is to “interfere, damage, and destroy reconnaissance, navigation, and communications satellites,” Clapper said, adding that Russia “has satellite jammers and is pursuing anti-satellite systems.”

In his prepared House testimony, Haney said China’s wealth is being spent on a large-scale nuclear forces buildup that includes enhancing existing silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), as well as flight tests of new mobile missiles and a follow-on mobile missile with multiple warheads.

“Strategic modernization extends to naval capabilities as China continues testing and integration of new ballistic missile submarines, their first sea-based strategic nuclear deterrent,” Haney said. “China is also developing multi-dimensional space capabilities supporting their access-denial campaign.”

The threat posed by China’s space weapons could impact more than 60 nations operating satellites in space. “China needs to be more forthcoming about missile tests that appear to be more focused on the development of destructive space weapons,” Haney said, noting China’s recent cyber attacks on computer networks.

Other troubling signs include China’s aggressiveness toward regional neighbors and developing space arms that indicate Beijing has “global aspirations” for its military forces.

“Low intensity coercion” by China is being used to advance its regional objectives in sovereignty disputes, he said.

“Combined with an overall lack of military transparency, its investment in capabilities such as counterspace technologies raises questions about China’s global aspirations,” Haney said.

Haney also disclosed that Russia is developing space weapons, along with non-nuclear precision strike systems and cyber warfare weapons.

“Russian leaders openly maintain that they possess anti-satellite weapons and conduct anti-satellite research,” he said.

Under questioning from Rogers, Haney revealed that China, Russia and Pakistan are developing new nuclear weapons with advanced capabilities.

Haney said the current budget request for Strategic Command includes funding of new investments in space capabilities, such as command and control and “space situational awareness”–the military term for intelligence gathering on space threats.

“We must be able to get better at space situational awareness,” he said. “And these investments, including our ability to be more resilient in space, is what we aim to get to.”

The budget request for fiscal 2016 includes an additional $5 billion for space defenses over five years.

Brian McKeon, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy who testified with Haney, said based on concerns about attacks in space, the Pentagon conducted an assessment of how to deal with space threats.

“The result was a significant adjustment in our fiscal year 2016 space portfolio,” he said.

The increases will be used for space defenses, but do not appear to include U.S. plans to counter space weapons with U.S. space weaponry, reflecting the Obama administration’s arms control-centered approach to defense.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/north-koreas-surprisingly-deadly-navy-12335

North Korea's Surprisingly Deadly Navy

The Korean People's Navy can cause a lot of trouble for the South.

Koh Swee Lean Collin
February 27, 2015

There has been much buzz in recent months about a new spate of Korean People’s Navy (KPN, North Korea’s navy) activities. For a navy that was thought to have atrophied since the end of the Cold War for lack of funding, a fleet revitalization program was believed to be unthinkable. Or so it would seem.

It is true that North Korea could not afford a major naval modernization program, despite signs of its economy picking up. Nonetheless, one ought not to overlook incremental upgrades undertaken to date. Pyongyang remains fundamentally interested in sustaining regime security. This is especially the case because North Korea’s persistent economic gap with its southern rival mitigates the likelihood of a second Korean War ignited by a North Korean southward offensive. The regime appears more interested (at least for the time being, while it continues with economic recovery) in consolidating its domestic political stability following the leadership change after Kim Jong-il’s death in late 2011. At the same time, Pyongyang is also focused on deflecting foreign criticisms, especially from Seoul and Washington, about its alleged human-rights violations.

A survey of the North Korean policy discourse highlights a consistent theme: that of a country struggling to maintain its preferred pathway of sociopolitical and economic development premised on the “Juche” self-reliance concept and the “Military-First Policy” against external pressures. Much rhetoric has been focused on the nuke and ballistic-missile programs. The consistent theme surrounding their potential use calls for deterring an American–South Korean northward invasion. Failing which, Pyongyang would unleash an all-out offensive down south. The additional threat issued by Pyongyang is to widen the war beyond the Korean Peninsula in the event of such a contingency by targeting U.S. bases in Japan with missile retaliatory strikes to forestall any reinforcements being dispatched across the Sea of Japan. In times of peace, the role of North Korean nukes and ballistic missiles remains that of deterrence. Under this protective umbrella, however, that is where North Korea’s naval modernization becomes interesting to watch.

Barring a full-scale, renewed war on the Korean Peninsula, the strategic deterrent capabilities possessed by Pyongyang provide a “safety net” that allow the North Korean leadership to engage in the threatened or limited use of force to further its political objectives. In other words, North Korea could still resort to conventional military means to express its displeasure with any American, Japanese or South Korean moves perceived to be detrimental to its national interests. For example, the Yeonpyeong Island artillery shelling episode on November 23, 2010 came after repeated North Korean warnings against South Korea’s live-firing exercises near the contested Northern Limit Line (NLL) in the Yellow Sea. Seoul’s response was limited at best, and it was unclear whether the subsequent silence of North Korean guns on that fateful day was attributed to effective South Korean counterbattery fire.

One cannot lightly dismiss the Yeonpyeong shelling or alleged North Korean sinking of the Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN) corvette Cheonan in March of that same year. These provocations were in no small part emboldened by Pyongyang’s possession of what amounts to a rudimentary nuclear deterrent complemented by its reported significant arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. It is difficult to imagine the peacetime use of North Korean nukes. In times of war, it is also questionable whether this capability would be more decisive than, say, the numerous artillery and multiple-launch rocket pieces forward-deployed in camouflaged, hardened shelters near the Demilitarized Zone. These conventional weapons could rain a hellish barrage on Seoul in the opening hours of hostilities, and cause significant destruction before they are put out of action. Therefore, be it those artillery arrayed against Seoul or nukes or both, under present circumstances, Pyongyang enjoys a rather wide berth to pursue a range of policy options— including limited conventional military provocations— without having to fear significant South Korean and American retaliation.

Amongst various options for low-intensity military provocations, gunboat diplomacy in the Yellow Sea appears to be a North Korean favorite. At the least extreme end of this spectrum, massive wargames are conducted simulating repelling an Incheon 1950s-style amphibious invasion, or more ominously, simulating the capture of South Korean islands along the NLL. At the other end of the spectrum are armed seaborne infiltrations similar to the Gangneung submarine incident in September 1996, which involved direct clashes with South Korean security forces within southern territory. On numerous other occasions, especially close to U.S.-ROK military exercises, KPN patrol forces have crossed the NLL. At times these incidents turn fatal, such as back in June 1999, June 2002 and November 2009, when the KPN and ROKN clashed in the Yellow Sea.

The first two clashes warrant closer examination. During these incidents, guns were not the only weapons employed. North Korean anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) were reportedly activated during these two clashes. ROKN combat units involved in the firefights with KPN gunboats detected fire-control radar emissions associated with the Soviet-era P-15 Termit (NATO codenamed SS-N-2 Styx) ASCM mounted on KPN’s fast attack craft, as well as shore-based Silkworm ASCM deployed near the scenes of action. Such escalatory moves compelled the South Koreans to break off from their pursuit of retreating KPN warships and undertake evasive actions against impending ASCM attacks that fortuitously did not come. Worth noting is that the Styx and Silkworm are old designs that are outdated by today’s standards. They can be countered with relative ease by modern “soft” and “hard” kill systems in ROKN service. Yet the South Koreans clearly had no stomach for an escalated naval clash involving heavier armaments, which could potentially spiral out of control.

Therefore, seen in this light, North Korea’s recent naval modernization is a matter of concern. The recent demonstration of its new ASCM, which appears to be a reverse-engineered or original copy of the Russian Kh-35, from a new stealthy-looking Nongo-class fast attack craft portends an incremental revitalization of the KPN’s offensive power. Assuming similar technical specifications as the Kh-35, the new North Korean ASCM at a range of 130 kilometers represents a quantum leap over the Styx’s 80 kilometers. This means that the North Koreans could threaten ROKN warships, especially the smaller craft commonly deployed in the Yellow Sea, from a longer standoff distance located further north and therefore less vulnerable to South Korean retaliatory strikes. While both are subsonic, the new missile is certainly more sophisticated in terms of its electronic counter-countermeasures and flies at a much lower altitude above sea level compared to the Styx, which renders it more difficult to counter. Finally, the Kh-35 has an estimated cost of $500,000 apiece, compared to approximately $1.2 million for the Harpoon Block II and about $2.25 million for the indigenously developed SSM-700K Haeseong—both employed by the ROKN. It can therefore be produced in quantity for equipping the KPN’s new-built vessels and retrofits onto existing ones, as well as major revamping of shore-based coastal batteries. Taken altogether, even considering only surface launch options, the new ASCM poses a greater challenge to the South Koreans. This results in greater escalatory potential for Pyongyang, which would correspondingly compel the ROKN to reconsider its tactical options in future skirmishes.

Under the overarching nuke and ballistic-missile umbrella, followed by an inner layer of more capable ASCMs that can serve in both offensive and defensive roles, North Korea’s success in staging other forms of seaborne provocations correspondingly increase as a result. The assault hovercraft of the Kong Bang class, for instance, are built in significant numbers and designed to traverse those tidal mudflats and shallow waters that characterize the Yellow Sea littorals. Like the new-generation Nongo-class fast attack craft, the Kong Bangs are also characterized by low physical profiles and high speed, which helps reduce the chances of enemy detection and targeting. More are certainly in the pipeline, especially as Pyongyang forward-deployed a sizeable fleet of these craft near the NLL, poised to launch a swift, surprise commando attack on the South Korean frontline islands. When viewed together with the burgeoning KPN fleet of new-built coastal and midget submarines, these hovercraft enhance Pyongyang’s chances of a surprise attack.

Final mention ought to be given to the alleged North Korean sea-based strategic missile deterrent, especially following a reported shore test of an ejection launcher, believed to be designed for submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM), sometime in late January this year. It would be far-fetched to think of a KPN oceangoing SLBM capability, considering the paucity of long-range surface and aerial support for such endeavors. This is the case, even if the North Koreans are to complete their new class of helicopter-capable light frigates, which may be optimized for anti-submarine warfare. A plausible scenario may follow this way: the prospective missile submarine would be hidden in one of the numerous submarine caves dotting the rugged eastern North Korean coast in times of peace. During war, the boat would quietly be put to sea upon activation by the North Korean regime, position itself in one of those pre-designated locations close to home shores well within land-based air defense cover, launch its payload and scoot for shelter. This thus provides another second-strike option alongside mobile land-based systems, which are altogether more secure than the land-based silos. Besides air cover, the KPN would play a pivotal role in securing this undersea deterrent capability. A stronger conventional offensive strike capability mustered by the KPN, in the form of its new fast attack craft and submarines, not only helps enhance North Korea’s asymmetric sea denial capability against a stronger invading naval force and facilitates seaborne provocations against South Korea, but also fortifies the coastal cordon around its prospective sea-based nuclear deterrent.

Certainly, Pyongyang’s nukes and ballistic missiles are a serious matter of concern. If they do exist, as American and South Korean intelligence communities believe, whether the SLBM program comes to fruition or not, the KPN’s modernization efforts also constitute a source of concern. In its current or future form, North Korea’s strategic deterrent remains just a tool of deterrence. Its peacetime utility is to raise the threshold for Pyongyang to undertake low-intensity, conventional military provocations. At the same time, it constrains Seoul’s military options; any retaliatory strike against North Korean provocations might invite a disproportionate counter-response by Pyongyang that may involve weapons of mass destruction.

As such, the silent, creeping KPN modernization drive poses a more immediate threat to Korean Peninsula security in view of Pyongyang’s history of belligerent behavior at sea. The new offensive strike capabilities would potentially enhance KPN’s tactical options when it comes to executing fresh provocations against South Korea. The underlying operational ramifications, in view of the escalatory potential of KPN’s new conventional armaments, cannot simply be dismissed.

Koh Swee Lean Collin is an associate research fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies based in Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ttack-on-isis.html?via=desktop&source=twitter

Uh… Never Mind
02.27.15

Pentagon Scrubs Major Attack on ISIS

Nancy A. Youssef
Comments 48

Just days ago, the generals were trumpeting plans to knock ISIS out of its most important stronghold in Iraq. Now, those plans are on indefinite hold.

The U.S. military’s goal to retake Iraq’s second largest city from the self-proclaimed Islamic State has been pushed back several months at least, defense officials told The Daily Beast. That’s a major shift for the Pentagon, which recently announced that the first major ground offensive in the war against ISIS could come in the next few weeks.

Defense officials once hoped that Iraqi troops could move into Mosul by the Spring and reclaim the city from ISIS. Now, those officials say, Fall is more realistic. And even that date was tenuous.

“It is an Iraqi decision but we don’t want to do anything until they are ready and can win decisively,” a military official explained to the Daily Beast. “They cannot now.”

It’s another sign that the U.S.-led campaign against ISIS isn’t going nearly as smoothly as the American government had hoped. At the Pentagon Friday, Defense Department spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby shied away from any kind of timeline, saying: “I can’t put a date certain…nor say April is out.”

Rather, he suggested that the Iraqi forces were not imminently ready for such an offensive.

“I don’t think we are there yet,” Kirby said. “There are gaps and seams that need to be closed.”

A group within U.S. government pushed for a Spring offensive out of concern that the next opportunity to launch such a campaign would not be until the Fall. But these policymakers appeared to have been trumped by those fearing that Iraqi forces are nowhere near ready.

The shift away from the Spring began in the last few days, in part because officials could not agree publicly about whether the Iraqi forces would be ready for the fight. Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart told the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday that it would be “six to nine months, best estimate,” before Iraqi forces could be able to launch a major counteroffensive against ISIS.

“When we talk about the six to nine months additional training, it is to deal with an urban fight, which is very, very different, very complex, requires a great deal of skill, great deal of precision to be successful,” Stewart said.

The timeline is expected to come up publicly again Tuesday when Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin Dempsey testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Dempsey isn’t expected to address the timeline for such an offensive directly. Rather, he’ll argue against the potential “rush to failure,” as one defense official explained.

Earlier this month, a U.S. Central Command official gave a briefing to reporters saying that Iraqi forces could be ready by April or May to launch an offensive to take back the northern Iraqi city of Mosul from ISIS, where the group is entrenched. ISIS has controlled Mosul since June, when Iraqi troops fled their posts as ISIS forces stormed the city.

The proposed offensive would take as many as 25,000 troops assigned to at least eight Iraqi brigades, the CENTCOM official said on the condition of anonymity. The forces would seek to root out 2,000 ISIS fighters, he added.

U.S. forces would support that campaign by the air, but the CENTCOM official did not offer any specifics.

Even before it was delivered, the CENTCOM briefing set off a flurry of criticism in both Iraq and the United States. In the weeks leading up to the announcement, Iraqi leaders said their troops would not be prepared to striker until the fall, at the earliest. Iraq’s two best divisions now protect the capital and there did not appear to be a sufficient force to move in and replace them there during a potential offensive.

There were sectarian considerations, as well. The Iraqi divisions who would likely lead such a campaign are majority Shiite forces; Mosul is a Sunni-dominated town and such sectarian delineations are important to all involved. Many worried that Sunnis in both Iraq and the broader Arab world would not accept a Shiite-dominated military force leading the campaign.

Still others were angry that the U.S. military decided to telegraph the mission and the details of it. Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham blasted the announcement in a letter to President Obama, calling the disclosure a risk to “the success of our mission, but could also cost the lives of U.S., Iraqi, and coalition forces.”

Since December, when U.S. officials first suggested a spring timeline, the Iraqi government repeatedly pushed back publicly, saying its forces were not ready. And yet U.S. officials kept suggesting such a campaign was possible. The CENTCOM briefing outraged many in Baghdad who felt pressured. In a televised address last week, Iraqi Defense Minister Khaled Obeidi would not confirm the proposed timeline, but rather rejected the U.S. decision to name specific months for an operation.

“This is urban warfare and we have civilian populations. It is very important to take time and accuracy in setting the plan for this battle,” Obeidi said.

All the while, there were inside the Pentagon that launching a plan too soon could have long term adverse affects on their seven-month air campaign against ISIS.

CENTCOM officials appeared eager to launch the campaign in anticipation of the summer and holy month of Ramadan, when troops would be fasting from sunrise and sunset, making such an offensive all but impossible.

But as criticism of that plan mounted, defense officials increasingly began stressing readiness and not timelines. Rather than an American-pushed spring offensive, officials stressed, it was an Iraqi-led operation that would be decided by the government there.

“we’ve said that the Mosul offensive could occur as early as spring, but—and we offered this caveat a number of times during the briefing—the Mosul op will be conducted by the Iraqis with our support and it won’t happen until they’re ready and we’re certain that they will be successful,” said Air Force Col. Patrick Ryder, a CENTCOM spokesman, in response to a Daily Beast query.

U.S. politicians also spoke more about the military force and less about the timeline.

“I’d be very surprised if they would be ready,” California Rep. Adam Schiff (D) told CNN Thursday. “I wouldn’t want to see the Iraqis go before they are ready.”

The battle for Mosul would be the most intense of the fight against ISIS. At its peak, the city was home to 1.5 million people and ISIS has spent months building barriers and digging trenches to protect the city. Indeed, ISIS has said it considers Mosul a key part of its proposed Islamic caliphate, one that it is prepared to defend.

That said should it lose control of the city, it would be all but impossible for the group to retain its grip on nearly a quarter of Iraq as it would lose thousands of fighters and millions of dollars in procured military equipment, as well much needed momentum.

 

[Housecarl]

Wrong thread.