WAR 02-24-2018-to-03-02-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
(309) 02-03-2018-to-02-09-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...2-09-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(310) 02-10-2018-to-02-16-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...2-16-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(311) 02-17-2018-to-02-23-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...2-23-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

==========

Well this should be "interesting"....Let's see how many fail to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.axios.com/trump-arab-leaders-sensitive-talks-33073439-1f4c-4cc9-bdf4-1d8f745a693a.html

Jonathan Swan 6 hours ago

Trump to host Arab leaders for sensitive talks

President Trump has accelerated his diplomatic efforts to broker peace among quarreling Arab monarchies, starting with an upcoming series of White House visits by leaders of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, Axios has learned.

The impact: Sources with knowledge of the negotiations tell us they hope these separate meetings — hugely consequential in their own right — will lead to a peace deal over Qatar in late spring at a summit in Washington or Camp David. That could help end the longstanding dispute over its alleged support for terrorism and ties to Iran.

Between the lines: The proposed Gulf Cooperation Council meeting would not be a peace summit — it's part of an annual series of meetings. But if there's enough progress towards a deal on Qatar, Trump would surely be tempted to brand it that way and claim the leading hand in defusing the tensions.

That's not the only issue on the agenda, though. The meetings will be packed with other disputes, like the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the humanitarian crisis in Syria, the conflict in Yemen, and Iran’s funding of terror throughout the region.

What we're hearing: To ease the way to a potential deal, the current White House plan — which is only tentative and could change — is for Trump to welcome key Arab leaders in sequenced visits to Washington:

  1. First, the Saudi Crown Prince is expected to visit in mid-March.
  2. Next, the Abu Dhabi Crown Prince would visit around March 27.
  3. The Emir of Qatar is expected to visit around a week or 10 days after that.

Why it matters (from the White House's point of view): The White House is keen to unify these gulf countries to preserve the integrity of the Gulf Cooperation Council and to bring the focus back to opposing Iran's bad behavior in the region. Iran benefits from the GCC being divided, so the Trump team is keen to unify the group again.

The UAE and Saudis, however, say the way for Qatar to resume diplomatic ties is to agree to 13 specific demands, which include commitments to cut ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and cool relations with Iran.

Crucial context: These Arab leaders who are opposing Qatar don't consider it the top flashpoint in the region. They’re coming to discuss a range of issues — including the major regional problems in Iran, Yemen and Syria. “Qatar is a piece, but it’s a small piece,” said a source familiar with the negotiations.

In the view of some gulf leaders in the Saudi bloc, the Qatar dispute is a regional disagreement that has persisted for years. They argue the pressure on Qatar has yielded wins for the U.S., including the recent open skies agreement and a memorandum of understanding on combatting terrorism and its financing.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...n-army-post-killing-18-soldiers-idUSKCN1G807U

World News February 23, 2018 / 11:17 PM / Updated an hour ago

Militants attack Afghan army post killing 18 soldiers

Mohammad Stanekzai
3 Min Read

LASHKAR GAH, Afghanistan (Reuters) - Taliban militants have attacked an Afghan army post and killed 18 government soldiers, the defense ministry said on Saturday, while a suicide bomber in the capital killed one person and wounded six.

Violence has intensified in Afghanistan since U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled a more aggressive strategy in August with U.S.-led forces carrying out more air strikes and the Taliban responding with bombs, ambushes and raids.

Militants attacked a government army post overnight on Friday in the western province of Farah, a Ministry of Defence spokesman said.

“A large number of Taliban attacked an army outpost and we lost 18 soldiers and two were wounded,” said the spokesman, Dawlat Waziri.

Waziri said he had no more details of the attack. The Taliban claimed responsibility and said two of their fighters were killed.

The bomb in Kabul on Saturday was the latest in a spate of attacks in the city in which hundreds of people have been killed and wounded.

The capital has been on high alert since a Taliban suicide bomber blew up an explosive-packed ambulance on a busy street on Jan. 27, killing more than 100 people and wounding at least 235.

A week earlier, militants killed more than 20 people, including four Americans, in an attack on one of the city’s top hotels. The Taliban claimed that attack too.

On Saturday, a bomber blew himself up on a road near the headquarters of Afghanistan’s NATO-led mission. The identity of the casualties was not known, said Interior Ministry spokesman Najib Danish.

Islamic State claimed responsibility in a message on their Amaq news agency.

Islamic State’s Afghan affiliate, which first appeared near the border with Pakistan in 2015, has become increasingly active and has claimed several recent attacks.

The Western-backed government is under growing public pressure to set aside rivalries and improve security.

President Ashaf Ghani has approved a new security plan for Kabul but it was not clear what steps could be taken in the city of 5 million people, which already has numerous checkpoints and vehicle restrictions.

Also on Saturday, at least one civilian was killed and eight were wounded when a suicide bomber detonated a car-bomb in Lashkar Gah, the capital of the southern province of Helmand, said Omar Zwak, a spokesman for the provincial governor.

The Taliban, fighting to drive out foreign troops and re-establish their form of strict Islamic law, claimed responsibility.

In another attack in the province, a suicide bomber targeted an Afghan army post killing two soldiers and wounding one, Zwak said.

Additional reporting by Sayed Hasib in Kabul; Writing by Hamid Shalizi; Editing by Robert Birsel
 

Housecarl

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

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...a-pakistan-trade-artillery-fire-idUSKCN1G9045

World News February 24, 2018 / 8:57 PM / Updated 8 hours ago

Villagers flee Kashmir front line as India, Pakistan trade artillery fire

Fayaz Bukhari
2 Min Read

SRINAGAR, India (Reuters) - India and Pakistan have exchanged artillery fire in the disputed Kashmir region forcing hundreds of people to flee, police in Indian Kashmir said, raising fresh doubts about a 15-year-old ceasefire between the nuclear-armed rivals in the area.

It was not clear what triggered the latest fighting on Saturday in the Uri sector on the so-called Line of Control (LoC) that divides the mostly Muslim Himalayan region.

But tension has been running high since an attack on an Indian army camp in Kashmir this month in which six soldiers were killed.

India blamed Pakistan for the attack and said it would make its rival pay for the “misadventure”.

Police superintendent Imtiaz Hussain said artillery shells fired by the Pakistan army fell in the Uri area and hundreds of villagers had fled from their homes.

Indian forces returned artillery fire, an Indian officer said, the first time the heavy guns had been used since a 2003 ceasefire along the disputed frontier.

The two armies have been exchanging intermittent small-arms and mortar fire over the past couple of years as ties deteriorated.

Hussain said Pakistani authorities made announcements from a mosque advising villagers living close to the LoC on the Indian side to flee, saying the situation was bad.

About 700 people were sheltering at school in Uri, he said.

India and Pakistan have twice gone to war over Kashmir since independence from Britain in 1947. The neighbors both claim the region in full but rule it in part.

Pakistan’s foreign ministry condemned the firing and said in a statement 17 Pakistani civilians had been killed by Indian fire along the LoC this year.

India accuses Pakistan of orchestrating a separatist revolt in Indian-controlled Kashmir.

Muslim Pakistan denies giving material support to the fighters and calls for talks to resolve what it regards as the core disagreement between it and India.

Additional reporting by Kay Johnson in ISLAMABAD; Writing by Sanjeev Miglani; Editing by Robert Birsel and Malini Menon
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.longwarjournal.org/arch...ic-state-loyal-militants-in-northern-mali.php

Tuareg militias battle Islamic State-loyal militants in northern Mali

BY CALEB WEISS | February 25th, 2018 | weiss.caleb2@gmail.com | @Weissenberg7

Two Tuareg militias in northern Mali, the Imghad and Allies Self Defense Movement (GATIA) and the Movement for the Salvation of Azawad (MSA), have battled militants loyal to the Islamic State over the past few days. The jihadists are under the leadership of Abu Walid al Sahrawi, the leader of the so-called Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS).

GATIA, which is a largely pro-Mali militia, released a statement on Feb. 23 reporting that its forces, alongside the forces of MSA, conducted a joint operation in the In-Delimane area of the Gao region against militants under the leadership of Abu Walid al Sahrawi. According to the Tuareg militia, six jihadists were killed or captured while one vehicle originally belonging to the Nigerien military was recovered.

The MSA, which is largely pro-Tuareg autonomy but allied to GATIA, released the same statement, promising more joint operations against the jihadists will occur. Clashes between the GATIA-MSA alliance and the jihadists also reportedly happened today. Strikes and operations against the jihadist group will likely continue to occur as long as Sahrawi’s militants operate in the region. Many unconfirmed ISGS attacks on Tuareg militias in the Gao region have been reported for months.

While not mentioned in the statements, French special forces have been taking part in the operations alongside the Tuareg groups. RFI reports that the operations, which began on Feb. 22, were aimed at killing or captured Sahrawi, but he reportedly fled the area.

The In-Delimane region of Gao, the site of the clashes between the Tuaregs and jihadists, was also the location of a deadly improvised explosive device (IED) ambush on French troops last week. Two French soldiers were killed and a third was wounded by an IED while on a patrol near the locale. While the ISGS is known to operate there, al Qaeda’s Group for Support of Islam and Muslims (JNIM) claimed the attack.

The Islamic State-loyal forces led by Abu Walid al Sahrawi, referred to as “Islamic State in the Greater Sahara” (ISGS), has been linked to several attacks in the Tillabery region of Niger, the Sahel region of Burkina Faso, and in the Gao region of Mali. This includes last October’s ambush in Niger which killed four US Special Forces soldiers and a suicide bombing on French troops in the Gao region earlier this year.

ISGS formed out of the former Movement for Oneness and Jihad (MUJAO), which merged with forces loyal to Mokhtar Belmokhtar to form Al Murabitoon in 2013. Two years later, Abu Walid al Sahrawi, a former MUJAO spokesman, left with several fighters from the former MUJAO, and pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi of the Islamic State.

ISGS gained little publicity from Islamic State central, with its pledge of allegiance only being acknowledged in an Amaq video a year later. Nevertheless, the group continues to operate in the Sahel with loyalty to the Islamic State. Defections from al Qaeda’s JNIM, as well as from the jihadist faction Katibat Salahadin led by Sultan Ould Bady, to ISGS have been reported.

Caleb Weiss is an intern at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a contributor to The Long War Journal.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2018/02/analysis-isis-hasnt-been-defeated.php

Analysis: ISIS hasn’t been defeated

BY THOMAS JOSCELYN | February 22, 2018 | tjoscelyn@gmail.com | @thomasjoscelyn

Screen-Shot-2018-02-13-at-4.41.17-PM.png

https://www.longwarjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Screen-Shot-2018-02-13-at-4.41.17-PM.png

The ODNI’s map of the areas where ISIS and al Qaeda operate.

Editor’s note: This article was first published by The Weekly Standard.

On January 19, the Pentagon released its new National Defense Strategy. The second paragraph of the 14-page declassified summary painted a dire picture. “Today, we are emerging from a period of strategic atrophy, aware that our competitive military advantage has been eroding,” the Defense Department warned. “We are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing rules-based international order—creating a security environment more complex and volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory. Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security.”

That last line garnered widespread attention. It signaled that defense planners no longer want the jihadist wars unleashed by the 9/11 attacks to be their primary focus. The rest of the overview explained why. China is now a “strategic competitor,” while Russia seeks to “shatter the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and change European and Middle East security and economic structures to its favor.” Both China and Russia “want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model—gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions.” Meanwhile, rogue states such as North Korea and Iran increasingly pose threats to American interests. While the Defense Department recognizes that ISIS and other “terrorist groups” will continue “to murder the innocent and threaten peace more broadly,” Washington must shift its focus to “long-term strategic competition.”

In many ways, the Pentagon’s planning document makes sense. China and Russia command resources that far outstrip the jihadists’ capabilities. They have nuclear-tipped missiles; the jihadists do not. The gap between their conventional military prowess and America’s has closed somewhat. Russia and China also use other means, ranging from economic pressure to cyberattacks to espionage and disinformation, to challenge American supremacy. Meanwhile, the 9/11 wars have been costly. But as threatening as they’ve been, the jihadists lack the industrial capacity and military might to be a top-tier competitor. It is only natural, given these facts, that the Defense Department seeks a rebalancing.

It will not be so easy, though, to pivot away from the jihadists. ISIS and al Qaeda have tied up security services throughout the West for years. Thousands of terror suspects across Europe require monitoring. The FBI has been swamped by hundreds of U.S. cases involving potential terrorists. The CIA and allied intelligence agencies continue to hunt down professional terrorists who plot mass destruction in the West. ISIS and al Qaeda operatives still threaten aviation with smartly concealed bombs. And while ISIS has lost its territorial caliphate, the fight is far from over.

This past week, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) presented its annual worldwide threat assessment to the Senate. It contains numerous warnings that the Defense Department pivot may be premature: “Over the next year, we expect that ISIS is likely to focus on regrouping in Iraq and Syria, enhancing its global presence, championing its cause, planning international attacks, and encouraging its members and sympathizers to attack in their home countries.” ISIS, the ODNI assessment warns, “has started—and probably will maintain—a robust insurgency in Iraq and Syria as part of a long-term strategy to ultimately enable the reemergence of its so-called caliphate,” and it will continue to “threaten U.S. interests in the region.”

The bottom line: ISIS is far from finished. While most of the territory once under its rule in Iraq and Syria has been “liberated,” the group still retains the resources to wage guerrilla warfare indefinitely.

A map produced by the ODNI underscores the global nature of the threat. Outside of Iraq and Syria, ISIS fighters continue to wage insurgencies in several countries. And some of these branches of the so-called caliphate still threaten the United States and its allies.

Consider the situation in Egypt. In November 2014, an al Qaeda-linked group known as Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis swore its fealty to ISIS emir Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The group was then rebranded Wilayat Sinai, or the Sinai Province (of the caliphate), and pledged to fight for the caliphate’s cause. Wilayat Sinai remains a security threat to the Egyptian state. Its members blew up a Russian airliner in October 2015, killing all 224 passengers and crew on board. The bombing was the jihadists’ first successful attack on commercial aviation since the 9/11 hijackings. Wilayat Sinai has assassinated Egyptian officials, harassed locals, and conducted a series of bombings against mosques, tribesmen, and Christians. At times, the ISIS branch has been strong enough to capture Egyptian checkpoints and overrun security facilities. ISIS also spawned a terror network in mainland Egypt that has dispatched suicide bombers to strike Coptic churches, including on Palm Sunday last year.

The Sinai jihadists are so fierce that President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s men haven’t been able to contain them on their own. Earlier this month, the New York Times confirmed a thinly veiled secret—Israel has been helping the Egyptians hunt down ISIS leaders and commanders in the northern part of the Sinai since 2015. Despite this assistance from Israel’s expert terror-hunters, Wilayat Sinai hasn’t been eradicated. Just this past week, the group threatened Egypt’s upcoming presidential election, scheduled for late March. In a lengthy video disseminated on ISIS media channels, the caliphate’s Sinai brethren pledged to extract blood from the “tyrants” and celebrated some of its most heinous acts. In one scene, a jihadist snuck up behind an Egyptian security official, slowly raising his pistol to the man’s head before pulling the trigger. The murder was meant to send a message to the Egyptian government: Nobody is safe. It is a threat Sisi has taken seriously. Earlier this month, his government announced a major campaign against the Sinai jihadists. The Egyptians have struggled to find the right counterinsurgency formula, meaning the jihadists will likely continue to threaten the area for the near future.

In Libya, ISIS no longer controls significant turf. But there are reasons to worry that Baghdadi’s goons may make a comeback. At the height of its power in North Africa, beginning in 2015, ISIS ruled over the city of Sirte for more than a year. Muammar Qaddafi’s hometown and site of the Libyan dictator’s demise in 2011, Sirte was more than just a symbolic stronghold. ISIS considered it one of the three most important cities under its control, ranking just behind Mosul, Iraq, and Raqqa, Syria. But the Libyan branch of ISIS lost control of the city in December 2016, after a prolonged siege by U.S.-backed local forces.

Some of the ISIS survivors decamped for remote areas south of Sirte in the Libyan deserts, where they attempted to regroup. In early 2017, the U.S. government announced that two of their makeshift training camps had been bombed after “external plotters”—that is, operatives responsible for planning terror attacks in Europe or the United States—were discovered there. Some of these terrorists may have been directly involved in the May 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, which left 22 people dead and hundreds more wounded.

How many men does ISIS still have inside Libya? We don’t really know. The State Department estimates that ISIS had “as many as 6,000 fighters in its ranks” in Libya in early 2016—that is, before the start of the heaviest fighting inside Sirte. Some 1,700 ISIS jihadists are thought to have been killed in or around the city in the months that followed, in U.S. airstrikes and during ground battles. This implies that upwards of 4,300 ISIS members either slithered away or were stationed elsewhere inside Libya. It is possible that ISIS retains a significant cadre of diehards in North Africa.

Elsewhere in Africa, ISIS has upstart branches that are seeking to expand. In West Africa, a former al Qaeda commander named Adnan Abu Walid al-Sahraoui leads a group that claimed responsibility for killing four American and five Nigerien soldiers last October. The circumstances surrounding their deaths are murky, but the men were on patrol in Niger when the jihadists seized an opportunity to strike. Sahraoui and his men have fought in the caliphate’s name since 2015. Separately, the leader of Boko Haram, Abubakar Shekau, also swore allegiance to Baghdadi in 2015. Boko Haram is infamous for a string of high-profile slayings and kidnappings, including the abduction of hundreds of Nigerian schoolgirls. Even compared to Baghdadi’s psychopaths, Shekau has always been one of the most disturbed jihadists on the planet. His unhinged ways led to a dismissal in 2016, when ISIS named a new leader for its men in West Africa. Shekau continues to run his own Boko Haram contingent.

To the east, in the horn of Africa, ISIS has carved out a small but deadly fighting force. Headquartered in the autonomous northern Puntland region of Somalia, another former al Qaeda commander, Abdulqadir Mumin, heads an ISIS contingent that carries out regular attacks. Mumin’s men have been unable to capture and hold ground for any significant length of time, and their remoteness hampers their efficacy. But they have exploited their local roots, relying on Somali businesses to fund their enterprise.

Across the Gulf of Aden, in Yemen, ISIS fanatics have added another dimension to an already complex, multisided war. In December 2017, U.S. Central Command cited “intelligence estimates” that ISIS there “has doubled in size over the past year.” This hardly speaks to an effort on the wane. What’s worse, the Pentagon has warned that ISIS “has used the ungoverned spaces of Yemen to plot, direct, instigate, resource and recruit for attacks against America and its allies around the world.” The jihadists use the war-torn country as “a hub for terrorist recruiting, training and transit.”

The American air campaign in the southern Arabian Peninsula was increased dramatically last year, with a record number of airstrikes (131) targeting jihadists in Yemen. Most of these hit Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which rejects Baghdadi’s caliphate. But several, for the first time, struck the growing ISIS presence. In October, the Pentagon said that “dozens” of ISIS militants had been killed in two Yemeni training camps. One of the camps was named after Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, a deceased ISIS spokesman who helped build the jihadists’ campaign of terror across the world. Adnani played a direct role in instigating and planning attacks in the heart of the West. That the Yemeni jihadists train in his name is an ominous portent.

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, ISIS loyalists fight their foes nearly every day. Wilayat Khorasan, or the Khorasan Province of the caliphate, has lost significant ground in eastern Afghanistan, where it once controlled several districts. The United States has systematically hunted down several of Wilayat Khorasan’s emirs, disrupting its chain of command. But the jihadists remain resilient—surviving such extreme measures as America’s use of a GBU-43 Massive Ordnance Air Blast (also known as a MOAB, or “mother of all bombs”) in Nangarhar Province in April 2017. It was the first time that a MOAB, the largest nonnuclear bomb in the American arsenal, has been deployed in combat.

Baghdadi’s representatives regularly claim operations in the heart of Kabul, the Afghan capital. In January, a team of highly trained inghimasis (guerrilla fighters who immerse themselves in battle before carrying out suicide bombings) struck the Marshal Fahim National Defense University in Kabul. Last March, an inghimasi squad infiltrated the Sardar Mohammad Daud Khan Hospital, Afghanistan’s largest medical facility for military personnel and their families. It killed or wounded dozens.

Some claim that outfits such as Wilayat Khorasan have merely adopted the caliphate brand and lack meaningful connections to Baghdadi’s enterprise. This is not so. The U.S. military has discovered connective tissue. Gen. John Nicholson, the commander of U.S. Forces-Afghanistan and NATO’s Resolute Support, has explained that there is a “connection” between Wilayat Khorasan and the ISIS headquarters. The first head of Wilayat Khorasan “went through the application process” and the group has received “advice,” “publicity,” and “some financial support” from ISIS. In June 2017, the U.S. bombed an ISIS “media production hub” in eastern Afghanistan. The Pentagon explained that the bombing “disrupt[ed] their connections to ISIS main in Syria.”

ISIS fighters remain a threat as far away from Iraq and Syria as Southeast Asia. As elsewhere, ISIS built a network in Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines by wooing some veteran jihadists to its cause, while also electrifying new recruits with its initial battlefield successes in 2014. Indonesian and Malaysian authorities have disrupted a string of terror plots tied directly to operatives in Syria and Iraq. The governments of Australia and Singapore have as well. In one startling case last year, the Aussies discovered that ISIS had shipped bomb components from Syria to a cell targeting Australian aviation. Meanwhile, over the span of several months last year, Philippine armed forces fought to eject jihadists from the city of Marawi, on the island of Mindanao. The Treasury Department recently revealed that at least some of the money used to arm the insurgents in Marawi came from ISIS central command.

Look at the ODNI map again and you’ll notice something else: ISIS isn’t the only jihadist menace. Al Qaeda lives—despite the Obama administration’s many attempts to declare it dead. In some countries, such as Somalia and Yemen, al Qaeda’s footprint is broader and deeper than that of the ISIS outfits. A new al Qaeda chapter is especially prolific in Mali and the surrounding countries. In Afghanistan, al Qaeda remains heavily invested in the Taliban-led insurgency. Although many in Washington, particularly at the State Department, would have us believe that the Taliban and al Qaeda are mutually exclusive, numerous details show otherwise. The Taliban’s deputy leader, Siraj Haqqani, is a longtime al Qaeda ally. And some of the Taliban’s most important facilitators also serve al Qaeda.

In September 2014, Ayman al Zawahiri, the successor to Osama bin Laden, announced the formation of Al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS). Its primary mission is to help the Taliban reconquer Afghanistan. Today, the Taliban and its allies contest or control more than 40 percent of Afghanistan’s districts—far more territory than the caliphate’s flag-bearers. The Taliban also regularly rocks Kabul with large-scale bombings and guerrilla-style raids. In neighboring Pakistan, al Qaeda has reorganized elements of several decades-old jihadist groups under the AQIS banner, ensuring that the organization has staying power.

Al Qaeda hopes to use ISIS’s territorial losses to win the loyalty of disaffected jihadists. It remains to be seen how successful these efforts will be, but an al Qaeda recruiting campaign is underway in several of the ISIS hot spots discussed above. Recently, for example, a pro-al Qaeda group known as Jund al-Islam reemerged in the Sinai after several years of quiet. It is explicitly marketing itself as an alternative to ISIS. Similar efforts are reportedly underway elsewhere, including in Syria. Al Qaeda has encountered serious management problems in northwestern Syria, where thousands of fighters were once under its command. But it is too early to count al Qaeda out of that fight.

The Pentagon is not wrong in its National Defense Strategy. China is rising. And Vladimir Putin will always see America as Russia’s adversary. It is no coincidence that Iran and North Korea — the two rogue states highlighted in the new strategy document — have benefited from Chinese and Russian largesse. The U.S. government will have to counter new challenges from all four nations. But the jihadists’ revolution has spread across the globe in the 16 years since 9/11. In many of the areas highlighted on the ODNI’s map, America’s involvement is the only thing standing in the way of new Islamic emirates sprouting up. That is what the jihadists are fighting for — to claim new territory, either for Baghdadi’s caliphate or a new one. The United States cannot wish away this threat. ISIS isn’t defeated. Neither is al Qaeda.

Thomas Joscelyn is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Senior Editor for FDD's Long War Journal.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...security-in-mass-abduction-town-idUSKCN1GA2RJ

World News February 26, 2018 / 1:19 PM / Updated 13 hours ago

Nigerian army and police disagree over security in mass abduction town

Reuters Staff
3 Min Read

ABUJA, Nigeria (Reuters) - Nigeria’s army and police on Monday publicly disagreed over the security arrangements that were in place in the northeastern town where 110 girls were abducted by suspected Boko Haram militants.

The army issued a statement in which it said soldiers were withdrawn from Dapchi, in Yobe state, before the girls were seized from their school in the town by armed insurgents on Feb. 19.

The attack was one of the largest abductions since the Chibok kidnappings of 2014 in which more than 250 girls were taken by the Islamist militant group. It has prompted questions about the ability of security forces to fight insurgents which the government has repeatedly said have been defeated.

“Troops earlier deployed in Dapchi were redeployed to reinforce troops at Kanama, following attacks on troops,” army spokesman Onyema Nwachukwu said in an emailed statement. Kanama is a town near the border with Niger some 120 km (75 miles) from Dapchi.

“This was on the premise that Dapchi has been relatively calm and peaceful and the security of Dapchi town was formally handed over to the Nigeria police division located in the town,” he said. No details were given of when the redeployment took place.

Sumonu Abdulmaliki, Yobe state police commissioner, later issued a statement saying the claim of a handover was “untrue, unfounded and misleading”.

“There was no time that the military informed the police of their withdrawal, consulted or handed over their locations in Dapchi town to the police,” he said in the emailed statement.

President Muhammadu Buhari acknowledged on Monday that the girls had been abducted and said the government was determined to rescue them. The authorities had previously referred to the girls, not seen since the attack on their school, as missing.

“Let me clearly reiterate the resolve of this administration to ensure all persons abducted by the insurgents are rescued or released safely,” Buhari said in comments broadcast by state television.

He said security agencies had been ordered to make every effort to return “the abducted girls to their families”.

Reporting by Felix Onuah; Additional reporting and writing by Alexis Akwagyiram; Editing by Nick Tattersall and Alison Williams
 

Housecarl

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

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://apnews.com/446ce496eb9c44cd...leaders-replaced-amid-stalemated-war-in-Yemen

Saudi military leaders replaced amid stalemated war in Yemen

By JON GAMBRELL
Today

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Saudi Arabia replaced its military chief of staff and other defense officials early on Tuesday morning in a shake-up apparently aimed at overhauling its Defense Ministry during the stalemated and ruinous war in Yemen.

The kingdom also announced a new female deputy minister of labor and social development as it tries to broaden the role of women in the workplace.

Saudi Arabia made the announcement in a flurry of royal decrees carried by the state-run Saudi Press Agency. As with many announcements in the ultraconservative Sunni kingdom, it was short on details.

King Salman “approved the document on developing the Ministry of Defense, including the vision and strategy of the ministry’s developing program, the operational pattern targeting its development, the organizational structure, governance and human resources requirements,” one statement said.

That restructuring was part of a “multi-year effort,” Prince Faisal bin Farhan, a senior adviser at the Saudi Embassy in Washington, wrote on Twitter.

Prominent among the personnel changes was the firing of military chief of staff Gen. Abdulrahman bin Saleh al-Bunyan. Another announcement said the general would become a consultant to the royal court.

Al-Bunyan was replaced by Gen. Fayyadh bin Hamid al-Rwaili, who once had been the commander of the Royal Saudi Air Force, among the nation’s premier military forces.

Also appointed as an assistant defense minister was Khaled bin Hussain al-Biyari, the CEO of the publicly traded mobile phone and internet service provider Saudi Telecom Co.

The decisions come as the Saudi-led coalition, chiefly backed by the United Arab Emirates, remains mired in a stalemate in Yemen, the Arab world’s poorest country. Over 10,000 people have been killed in the war in which Saudi-led forces back Yemen’s internationally recognized government against Shiite rebels and their allies who are holding the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, and much of the north of the country.

The kingdom faces wide international criticism for its airstrikes killing civilians and striking markets, hospitals and other civilian targets. Aid groups also blame a Saudi-led blockade of Yemen for pushing the country to the brink of famine.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the heir to the throne after his father King Salman, is the Saudi defense minister and architect of the Yemen war. While the crown prince has burnished his reputation abroad with promises of business-friendly reforms and other pledges, his role in Yemen haunts that carefully considered public personae.

But the overhaul in the Saudi defense forces should not be seen only as a reaction to the Yemen war, said Becca Wasser, a Washington-based RAND Corp. analyst specializing in Gulf security who has traveled to Saudi Arabia in the past.

The war in Yemen functions “to push these reforms forward, but it’s not the driver,” Wasser told The Associated Press.

In general, Wasser said such an overhaul would include improving training and recruitment of troops, allocating better resources and changing a military’s leadership to one willing to hear new ideas and make changes.

Also noticeable was an effort to include a “careful balancing” of appointments of others in the Al Saud royal family, said Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, a research fellow at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University
“It seems the Saudi shake-up is more about moving forward with Mohammed bin Salman’s attempt to put in place a new generation of leadership in tune with his vision to transform the structure of Saudi decision making,” Ulrichsen told the AP.

The appointment of a woman in a ministerial position, Tamadhir bint Yosif al-Rammah as deputy minister of labor and social development, comes as the kingdom prepares to allow women to drive this year and pushes to have more women in Saudi workplaces.

Also appointed was Prince Turki bin Talal Al Saud as deputy governor of the Asir region. The prince’s brother is billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who recently was detained for months at the Ritz-Carlton in Riyadh as part of what the government described as an anti-corruption campaign.

As with the anti-corruption purge, Wasser said the military overhaul also fit into the consolidation of power by Crown Prince Mohammed.

“Reform is a tricky thing to do. To create change in a larger bureaucratic structure like a military is difficult. To create change in Saudi Arabia ... is incredibly difficult,” she said. “It is not going to be easy and change is not going to happen tomorrow. This is much more of a long-term endeavor.”
___

Follow Jon Gambrell on Twitter at www.twitter.com/jongambrellap . His work can be found at http://apne.ws/2galNpz .
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://jamestown.org/program/potential-new-strand-islamist-extremism-pakistan/

The Potential for a New Strand of Islamist Extremism in Pakistan

Publication: Terrorism Monitor Volume: 16 Issue: 4
By: Farhan Zahid
February 26, 2018 02:29 PM Age: 2 days

The emergence of violent Barelvi extremism in Pakistan was brought sharply to the country’s attention last year when Tehreek-i-Labaik Ya Rasool Allah, an Islamist political party, staged an almost month-long sit-in that later turned violent.

The party objected to an alleged change to the wording of the oath of office contained in the 2017 Election Bill, which it considered to be blasphemous, and demanded the resignation of then-Federal Minister of Law and Justice Zahid Hamid. Police operations to uproot the protesters served only to spread the protests wider, paralyzing the whole state apparatus.

Barelvi extremism is a new phenomenon, a potential threat still in the making, but one that the Pakistani government must address.

A New Strain of Extremism

Most militant Islamist organizations in South Asia—and particularly in Pakistan—adhere to either the Deobandi-Sunni or Ahl-e-Hadith (Salafist) schools of Islam. Prominent among these are Deobandi organizations like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Harkat ul Jihad-e-Islami, Harkat ul Mujahedeen, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Lashkar-e-Omar and Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda, Islamic State, Waliyat-e-Khurasan, Hizb-ut Tahrir and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) adhere to the Salafist tradition.

By contrast, before the emergence of Tehreek-i-Labaik, no Islamist organization belonging to the Barelvi sect of Sunni Islam had been involved in violent activities. Sunni Tehreek, a Barelvi group that is now part of Tehreek-i-Labaik, was considered by some to have violent tendencies, but it was not a designated terrorist organization.

Barelvism is a South Asian variant of Sufi Islam and is widely practiced in the region. While there are no official figures, it is possible that about 70 percent of Pakistanis adhere to the Hanafi-Sunni sect of Islam, and of those more than half are Barelvi Sunni. [1] As a consequence, Tehreek-i-Labaik considers itself to be the representative of Pakistan’s religious majority.

In this respect, it enjoys some level of support at the community level for two main reasons. First, because it purports to safeguard the rights of Pakistan’s sizeable Barelvi population; and second, because it has framed its purpose in terms of fighting against blasphemers and protesting any move by the government to amend Pakistan’s anti-blasphemy law.

Prior to the 2017 protests, Barelvi leaders Syed Khadim Hussain Rizvi and Dr. Ashraf Jalali, considered the founders of Tehreek-i-Labaik, had not enjoyed much prominence. However, in recent by-elections in three different constituencies, candidates backed by their party managed to win 5-10 percent of the popular vote, a small but impressive performance for a party that has only just emerged on the Pakistani political landscape. In the latest poll at a provincial assembly constituency of Chakwal district in Punjab province, the Tehreek-i-Labaik-backed candidate came in third place, surprising media pundits (Samaa News, January 9).

Violent Tendencies

Violent Barelvi extremism gained momentum following the assassination of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer by Mumtaz Qadri, his police bodyguard, in Islamabad in January 2011 (Dawn, January 5, 2011). Qadri, a diehard follower of the Barelvis proselytizing group Dawat-e-Islami, blamed the governor for visiting a convicted Christian woman, Aasia Bibi, in prison, who had been found guilty of committing blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammad by the court. Qadri was later sentenced to death and executed in February 2016 (Dawn, February 29, 2016).

In the wake of Taseer’s assassination, a number of Barelvi parties joined hands to stage massive protests across the country, objecting to Qadri’s trial, which they viewed as unjust. On the day of Qadri’s funeral, on March 1, 2016, Tehreek-i-Labaik leaders called on their supporters to gather in Rawalpindi, a city adjacent to Islamabad, and in response, hundreds of thousands attended the funeral procession (The Hindu, March 1, 2016).

During last year’s Tehreek-i-Labaik protests, government attempts to engage the party’s leadership in dialogue to end the 18-day-long sit-in failed. The resulting police operation against the crowd of more than one thousand Tehreek-i-Labaik protesters was unsuccessful and instead sparked violence. Protesters burned vehicles and attacked passersby in the capital. Six protesters were killed in clashes with police in Rawalpindi, while 40 personnel of the Rawalpindi police, 76 members of the Islamabad Capital Territory police, 64 Frontier Constabulary personnel and 50 civilians were injured (Express Tribune, November 25, 2017).

The district administration of Islamabad Capital Territory called for the deployment of the military to restore order (Dawn, November 25, 2017). Tehreek-i-Labaik leader Rizvi ordered his followers to stage sit-ins across the country, and in response, Tehreek-i-Labaik workers across Pakistan turned violent, cutting off the national communications and railway networks. They blocked roads, damaged railway tracks and vandalized public and private property. After a day of violent protests across the country, the government accepted Tehreek-i-Labaik’s terms to end the protests, including sacking the justice minister.

Changing Fortunes

Describing the reasons behind the Barelvi outburst, an Islamabad-based Tehreek-i-Labaik leader explained that his party had acted to protect Pakistan’s blasphemy laws amid “rumors” that the government’s amendment was the result of U.S. and Western pressure. [2]

He also indicated that a lack of strong leadership among the Barelvi community had put Barelvi interests under threat, leading to the forcible appropriation of Barelvi mosques and seminaries by Deobandi extremists, terrorist attacks on Sufi shrines across Pakistan and the assassination of important Barelvi leaders. A significant event in this regard was the Nishtar Park suicide attack in 2005 in Karachi, in which a number of prominent Barelvi sect leaders were killed (Dawn, January 14, 2016).

The law enforcement agencies’ inability or unwillingness to tackle Deobandi and Salafist militancy in Pakistan has posed grave dangers to Barelvis, he said.

The rise of Tehreek-i-Labaik is a direct result of that failure, and heading the movement is its wheelchair-bound leader Khadim Hussain Rizvi, who masterminded the 2017 sit-in. Born in 1966 in Pindi Gheb, Punjab province, Rizvi attended his local madrasa where he memorized the Quran and later became a prayer leader in a Lahore mosque. He worked for a time in Auquf department of Punjab government, and has been in a wheelchair since 2006 when he was left disabled in a road accident (Dawn, December 3, 2017). While his speeches lack the eloquence of politicians and are full of foul language and colloquialisms, he has, according to his supporters, filled a void in the Barelvi leadership.

Future Prospects

The events of 2017 illustrate both the level of support Tehreek-i-Labaik has in urban centers across Pakistan, and the party’s willingness to resort to violent protest. It invokes emotive issues, such as the country’s blasphemy laws, and relies on a religiously charged agenda, deepening social divides along sectarian lines and bringing with it the risk of intra-Sunni communal violence. It cannot be ruled out that, in the future, it may develop a militant wing to combat Deobandi and Salafist terrorist organizations, further weakening state control.

With Pakistan due to hold a general election in July, there is the possibility Tehreek-i-Labaik’s Islamist candidates could win a small number of seats in parliament and gain greater political clout. Conversely, if its candidates fail to win any parliamentary representation, it could change tack and remain outside of the political system as a violent Islamist movement

NOTES

[1] See estimates on GlobalSecurity.org

[2] Author’s discussions with senior Tehreek-i-Labaik leader in Islamabad (December 20, 2017).
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://jamestown.org/program/russias-general-staff-draws-lessons-learned-syria/

Russia’s General Staff Draws Lessons Learned in Syria

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 15 Issue: 30
By: Roger McDermott
February 27, 2018 05:27 PM Age: 1 day

Since President Vladimir Putin ordered Russia’s Armed Forces to commence operations in Syria, the campaign has provoked controversy and criticism abroad. Criticism ranges from asserting that it would repeat the experience of the Soviet-Afghan conflict (1979–1989) to risking proxy conflicts with other powers, including the United States. While Moscow has carefully managed these operations, aimed at achieving its objectives with minimal risk and costs to the Russian state, it has generally proved successful in shaking off the legacy of Afghanistan; and the General Staff is certainly exploiting the Syria operations to boost military prestige and extrapolate the lessons learned. However, the potential lessons the General Staff may glean from the complex variety of operational experience in Syria reveals something about the Russian approach to military science. Like no previous conflict since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Moscow has been able to use Syria as a testing ground for personnel, equipment, weapons and experimental systems (Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye, February 22, 2018; Technowar.ru, August 23, 2017).

The most outstanding features of the Russian military performance in Syria relate to its use of airpower in support of regime forces as well as the limited numbers of Russian troops engaged on the ground. Russia has also gained experience in conducting a train-and-equip program in wartime that has contributed to preventing the collapse of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA). Moreover, Russian sources constantly frame these observations in terms of avoiding a “second Afghanistan.” Western sceptics find much to criticize in Russia’s military operations and how they are reported—especially the successful US attack on the Wagner private military company (PMC) (see EDM, February 15) or in Putin’s “premature” declaration of victory (see EDM, November 27, 2017; December 14, 2017). Nonetheless, while these developments will not be ignored by the General Staff, they do not appear to take primary place in its considerations of possible lessons from the conflict (Warfiles.ru, December 26, 2017).

In a sense, the lack of perception by the General Staff that the conflict has exposed weaknesses on the part of Russia’s Armed Forces mitigates a “lessons learned approach.” Other factors also limit this reflective analysis. These include the fact that the conflict continues, making such assessment provisional, and the tendency for Russian officers to see more weaknesses in the SAA for which they must seek ways to compensate. Undoubtedly, some concern is apparent regarding the performance of Russian-supplied air-defense systems to the SAA, but the best and most advanced air-defense assets Russia has deployed during the conflict are tasked with protection for its own forces (Izvestia, February 14).

By far the most revealing insight into General Staff thinking on these issues was provided by the chief of the General Staff, Army General Valery Gerasimov, during his interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda in late December 2017. It is clear from Gerasimov’s comments that the General Staff assesses Russia’s involvement in Syria in ways that are far removed from the opinions of foreign observers. First, Gerasimov identifies what is so unique in Moscow’s approach to these operations, noting operational planning difficulties, assessing the role of military advisors and concluding by offering an overview of the lessons for the General Staff. Taken together, these observations provide valuable insight into how the top brass views the performance of the military in Syria, some possible lessons to be drawn and perhaps most importantly how the senior leadership of the Armed Forces perceives a “lessons learned” analysis (Komsomolskaya Pravda, December 26, 2017).

In the context of discussing military operations in Syria, Gerasimov singled out the important role played by the National State Defense Management Center (Natsionalnyy Tsentr Upravleniya Oboronoy— NTsUO), in Moscow, which facilitates operations in real time. Gerasimov explained, “The establishment of the National State Defense Management Center has cardinally changed approaches to the command, control, and management of the state’s entire military organization. This, specifically, is what we experienced during the conduct of operations in Syria. All forms of communication are accessible when the daily data collection and situation analysis is organized. We have begun to feel comfortable in our work, and we have no sense that we are lacking any information” (Komsomolskaya Pravda, December 26, 2017).

Turning to the difficulties in operational planning, Gerasimov noted the most serious challenge was at the very early stage in preparing the operations and in the initial phase of commencing combat, which was compounded by the need to train local forces and integrate these with Russian forces, as well as organize the supply lines. Later, at the Hmeymim airbase near Latakia, a “state-of-the-art” command post was established to support command and control over the Russian groups of forces operating in Syria. Additionally, the complex nature of the conflict demanded constant adjustment and refinement and improvements in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. Moreover, on the issue of Russian military advisors, Gerasimov rated their performance highly. Regarding their level of integration with the SAA, he explained, “Within every subunit—battalion, brigade, regiment, division—there is a military advisor’s staff. It comprises the essential officials: namely, operations staff, intelligence officer, artilleryman, engineer, interpreters and other officials. They essentially plan the combat operations. They provide assistance in subunit command and control during combat mission performance. In all sectors, actions are linked by a common concept of operations, by a single plan; leadership is exercised from the grouping’s command post at Hmeymim” (Komsomolskaya Pravda, December 26, 2017).

Noting the extent to which weapons and equipment were tested, Gerasimov pointed to the interaction between the military, engineers, designers and military scientists to work on the flaws and improvements to such systems in the future. But on the “lessons learned,” Gerasimov made perhaps his most striking points. He explained that this is a constant process “carried out from the first day of the campaign,” involving sharing experience and delivering the results of analyses to commanders in the field. Gerasimov added, “We have held several conferences on sharing experiences. A whole range of training manuals that generalize this experience has been published” (Komsomolskaya Pravda, December 26, 2017).

Based upon Gerasimov’s comments, it seems the General Staff has drawn numerous lessons from the conflict in relation to combat operations, combat support and combat service support, integrating forces with proxies and exercising command and control in real time. Significantly, Gerasimov confirms that the Russian approach to “lessons learned” differs from their Western counterparts, and it seems many of these lessons are already feeding into ongoing operations.
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1204755/escalating-to-de-escalate/


ESCALATING TO DE-ESCALATE

by Michael Krepon | February 28, 2018 | 1 Comment

Quote of the week:

“In light of the certain prospect of retaliation there has been literally no chance at all that any sane political authority, in either the United States or the Soviet Union, would consciously choose to start a nuclear war. This proposition is true for the past, the present, and the foreseeable future…”

“There is an enormous gulf between what political leaders really think about nuclear weapons and what is assumed in complex calculations of relative ‘advantage’ in simulated strategic warfare…”

“In the real world of political leaders…a decision that would bring even one hydrogen bomb on one city of one’s own country would be recognized in advance as a catastrophic disaster; ten bombs on ten cities would be a disaster beyond history; and a hundred bombs on a hundred cities are unthinkable.”
— McGeorge Bundy, “To Cap the Volcano,” Foreign Affairs, October 1969

Is Bundy still right? Do political leaders in nuclear-armed states want no part of nuclear war-fighting plans? We know that as long as nuclear weapons exist, these plans will exist. They will be briefed to national leaders who prefer to keep them in locked safes. One extreme case: I am told on responsible authority that when Indian Prime Minister Narasimha Rao was first handed these plans, he demanded that only one copy be made, that it be placed in a locked safe and that no-one else see it. He was later persuaded otherwise.

National leaders that have murdered millions, like Mao and Stalin, declined to employ nuclear weapons on battlefields. Will Donald Trump break this crucial norm of national leadership? His public statements about the use of nuclear weapons have given us all pause, and have prompted useful ideas constraining the first use of nuclear weapons by the United States, including a three person rule to authorize first use.

Has Bundy’s dichotomy between the mind of the nuclear enclave and the political mind eroded? Scott Sagan’s recent public opinion research suggests changes are afoot in thinking about the Bomb’s use. Is this also the case among new national leaders? If so, we are in even more trouble than we think.

Bundy, who sat with President Kennedy during deliberations on the Cuban missile crisis and heard proposals for military action against targets where nuclear weapons were wrongly presumed to be absent, was fortunate to work for a president whose utterly risky personal choices did not carry over to strategic calculations. Bundy came to the conclusion that nuclear weapon strategists were living in an “unreal world.” He wrote that, “In sane politics,” no level of superiority and no perceived tactical advantage would make first use “anything but an act of utter folly.”

Speaking of utter folly, have the Kremlin’s war planners embraced the gonzo nuclear war-fighting concept of “escalating-to-de-escalate” by means of tactical nuclear weapons? Granted, the Kremlin opposes the post-Cold War geo-political status quo and is engaged in nefarious activities to disrupt democracies, but there is scant evidence that Russia is a revisionist nuclear power. Instead, it is looking to increase its leverage by muscling its neighbors — including by circumventing the INF Treaty. As was the case in the late 1970s and early 1980s when it last attempted this gambit, it is likely to backfire.

Russia has also recapitalized its strategic forces – as the United States is now doing — but within the framework of limits agreed upon in the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Moscow has proposed extending these constraints, suggesting that Putin recognizes the benefits of the strategic nuclear status quo with the United States.

It is not surprising that the mind of the nuclear enclave would dwell on the first use of low-yield nuclear weapons to “escalate-to-de-escalate.” But how exactly would the crossing of the nuclear threshold in this way – by definition a highly freighted symbolic act – tip the scales toward de-escalation rather than escalation? Would a political leader accompany first use with signals that subsequent use would not follow? How reassuring would that be? If, instead, first use would be accompanied by the threat of subsequent use to reinforce deterrence, how likely would this serve de-escalatory purposes? Can the aggrieved state accept restraint when it can retaliate in kind and up the ante? Whatever the scenario, the notion of crossing the nuclear threshold first as a de-escalatory step sounds hallucinatory.

It is hard for the mind of one insular nuclear enclave to read the mind of another. This makes mirror imaging a real problem. During the Cold War, U.S. nuclear strategists devised graduated targeting options on the assumption that the Kremlin was similarly inclined. After gaining access to Soviet nuclear war-fighting plans after the Cold War ended, U.S. nuclear strategists discovered that they were wrong about their assumptions. In fact, the Soviet military, if given the green light, didn’t believe in escalation control.

Fast forward to speculative assessments that Russia’s targeting plans have adopted a war-fighting posture to “escalate-to-de-escalate.” On what basis does this hypothesis exist? True, Russia possesses more “tactical” nuclear weapons than the United States, but this is not dispositive evidence. The Soviet Union also possessed more low-yield weapons than the United States, and Soviet doctrine was not postured to escalate to de-escalate; it was to escalate to win.

Do Russian nuclear doctrine and military exercises indicate an “escalate-to-de-escalate” posture? The highly respected French strategic analyst Bruno Tertrais has reviewed available evidence and has concluded otherwise. His essay “Does Russia really include limited nuclear strikes in its large-scale military exercises?” in the Survival Editors’ Blog deserves a wider audience.

Bruno’s assessment questions the hypothesis that “Russia’s doctrine of ‘escalate-to-de-escalate’ is real, as it is not reflected in large-scale military exercises, official doctrine and public statements:

“All the elements of this narrative, however, rely on weak evidence – and there is strong evidence to counter most of them. This applies to the role of nuclear weapons in Russian military exercises.”

“Exercises are important in understanding Russian nuclear posture, because, as the saying goes, Moscow trains as it fights and fights as it trains. So what do large-scale ones such as Zapad(Western front) and Vostok (Eastern front) tell us?”

“What they tell us is that the last time a Zapad included nuclear use was almost 20 years ago, in 1999 – Russia was explicit about it – and that no known large-scale theatre military exercise has included nuclear-weapons use for at least a decade. This is unsurprising: Russia now ‘wins’ – or at least ‘resists’ – without nuclear weapons.”

Another way for the Kremlin to “strengthen” deterrence by warning that it is inclined to “escalate to de-escalate” is through official pronouncements. While reserving the right of first use, Russian doctrine makes no mention of an “escalate to de-escalate” posture. Here is a relevant passage from the 2014 Russian Military Doctrine:

“The Russian Federation shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when under threat the very existence of the state.”

Here’s what the 2010 Russian Military Doctrine has to say:

“The Russian Federation reserves the right to utilize nuclear weapons in response to the utilization of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, and also in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation involving the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is under threat.”

Perhaps doctrine has been updated. If so, it would make sense for Russian officials to reinforce this deterrent message with public statements. They have not done so. Instead, they have denied an interest in escalating to de-escalate. Those who assert that Russia now embraces this posture – and the need for new low-yield U.S. options to counter it — are obliged to provide supportive evidence for their claims. I’m skeptical. The analysis offered by Olga Oliker seems more on the mark:

“[T]he evidence that Russia’s nuclear strategy is one of “de-escalation,” or that it has lowered its threshold for nuclear use, is far from convincing. Rather, Russia’s statements and behavior indicate more a desire to leverage its status as a nuclear power—less a lowering of the threshold than a reminder that escalation is possible, and that Russia must therefore be taken seriously.”

Dear Readers: If there is hard evidence to substantiate the Russian “escalate to de-escalate” hypothesis — something beyond un-sourced commentary in Polish media and off-the-cuff remarks by U.S. officials — to substantiate this folly, please provide it here or elsewhere. Or has the “escalate-to-de-escalate” hypothesis been concocted mostly out of thin air to support new low-yield nuclear options long cherished by the U.S. nuclear enclave?

-

COMMENTS
Davey (History)
February 28, 2018 at 6:32 pm
Michael,

“National leaders that have murdered millions, like Mao and Stalin, declined to employ nuclear weapons on battlefields. Will Donald Trump break this crucial norm of national leadership?”

This article is about Russian doctrine, specifically the Russian “escalate to de-escalate” hypothesis. It is worthy of discussion, since it may inform our response to Russian nuclear weapon deployment. Yet somehow, you managed to find a reason to compare Donald Trump to Mao and Stalin. Seriously?

This is supposed to be a world-class forum. Please try to keep your personal dislike for the President out of an academic discussion. It reflects poorly on you.
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Putin Warns Russia Has Powerful Nuclear Weapons Incapable of Being Stopped

RUSSIAN PRESIDENT Vladimir Putin announced Thursday the country boasts a new array of nuclear-capable weapons, including an intercontinental ballistic missile that leaves defense systems "useless," NBC News reported.

:siren::siren::siren::siren::hof:

Putin made the announcement 17 days before Russia's presidential election — which polls suggest he is on track to win — saying the ICBM has a longer range than any other in the world and can reach almost any target on the planet. He described the missile as "powerful and modern and defense systems will not be able to withstand it." Warning, "missile defenses will be useless against it."

He said Russia has also developed supersonic missiles and drone submarines incapable of being stopped. A new intercontinental hypersonic missile, the Avangard, can fly to targets at 20 times the speed of sound. The Kinzhal, a weapons system already deployed in southern Russia, employs hypersonic missiles that can hit targets 1,250 miles away, according to NBC.

Putin's annual state of the nation address, which covers topics ranging from health care to the economy, was accompanied by video footage of the new weapons in action, as well as simulations. He accused the West of "ignoring" Russia, saying "Nobody listened to us. Well listen to us now."

"I want to tell all those who have fueled the arms race over the last 15 years, sought to win unilateral advantages over Russia, introduced unlawful sanctions aimed to contain our country's development ... you have failed to contain Russia," Putin said.

Despite Putin's boastful showcase of his country's new weapons, he insisted Russia would not "be an aggressor."

"We are not going to take anything away from anybody. We have everything we need," Putin said. "Russia's strong military is a guarantor of peace on our planet."

However, Putin warned an attack against Russia or its allies would be grounds for instantaneous action "no matter what the consequences are. Nobody should have any doubt about that."https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-03-01/putin-warns-russia-has-powerful-nuclear-weapons-incapable-of-being-stopped
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Putin unveils new Russian nuclear missile, says it renders defenses ‘useless’

Russia has a new array of nuclear-capable weapons including an intercontinental ballistic missile that renders defense systems “useless,” President Vladimir Putin announced Thursday.

The ICBM has a longer range than any other and can reach almost any target in the world, Putin said in his annual address to lawmakers and political elites.

Other new technologies he highlighted included supersonic missiles and drone submarines that he said cannot be stopped.

Putin's marathon speech came 17 days before a presidential election in which he is seeking an unprecedented fourth term in power. It was accompanied by video footage showing some of the new weaponry in action as well as simulations on a giant screen.To rapturous applause, Putin said the new technology had been developed despite skepticism from other countries about Russia's capabilities.

"I want to tell all those who have fueled the arms race over the last 15 years, sought to win unilateral advantages over Russia, introduced unlawful sanctions aimed to contain our country's development ... you have failed to contain Russia," he said.

He accused the West of "ignoring us. Nobody listened to us. Well listen to us now."He boasted that Russia's new ICBM is “powerful and modern and defense systems will not be able to withstand it,” he said. “Missile defences will be useless against it.”Other new weapons include the Avangard — an intercontinental hypersonic missile that would fly to targets at a speed 20 times the speed of sound — and a weapons system called Kinzhal, already deployed in southern Russia, that uses hypersonic missiles that can strike targets 1,250 miles away.

Putin insisted Russia had "no plans to be an aggressor."

"We are not going to take anything away from anybody. We have everything we need," he said. "Russia’s strong military is a guarantor of peace on our planet."

However, he warned: "Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies … any kind of attack … will be regarded as a nuclear attack against Russia and in response we will take action instantaneously no matter what the consequences are. Nobody should have any doubt about that."

He added: "Our policy will never be based on exceptionalism, we just protect our own interests."

America's nuclear strategy had "raised concerns in Russia," he said. The display of military prowess came at the end of Putin's state-of-the-nation speech, which lasted almost two hours and covered everything from health care to the annual grain harvest.

Earlier, the leader pledged to improve the lives of Russians by cutting poverty by half, boosting pensions and creating more daycare places. He also called for spending on urban infrastructure to be doubled over the next six years.

However, there was no detail on how his spending pledges would be funded.

Polls suggest Putin, who has dominated Russian politics as president or prime minister for 18 years, is on track to comfortably secure another six-year term.

He told lawmakers and members of the political elite that Russia had "huge potential" but needed to improve its living standards.

"We have not reached the necessary level in terms of people's well-being," he said.Some 20 million Russians — or almost one-in-seven people — are still living below the poverty line, Putin added, calling it "unacceptable."

Almost 70 percent of Russians are ready to support Putin in the March 18 election, according to a poll published Thursday by state news agency, TASS.

There has been little in the way of campaigning, and opposition leader Alexei Navalny has been barred from running. He was arrested Jan. 28 moments before a protest march in Moscow. Navalny wants voters to boycott the election, hoping low turnout will take the shine off Putin’s likely win.https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/vladimir-putin-set-state-union-speech-election-looms-n852211
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
“We Know Who, And We Know Where” – Russia Warns Of New Plot To Set Off Chemical Attacks In Syria And Blam

Russia is aware of planned chemical provocations, in which the government of Syria will be blamed.
The world community was informed about this by the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN Vasily Nebenzia.

RevContent InArticle SOLO
He stressed that Moscow knows which meetings are held for this purpose, where they are held, and who participates in them.

The diplomat proposed to the UN Security Council to adopt a statement in support of the implementation of the resolution on the cessation of hostilities in Syria. https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/03/k...t-set-off-chemical-attacks-syria-blame-assad/
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Russia says NATO's missile shield has holes in it

Reuters|Published: 03.01.18 , 15:55
MOSCOW – Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Thursday that elements of NATO's anti-missile system deployed in Poland, Romania and Alaska were like an "umbrella with holes in it", Russian news agencies reported.



"It turns out that the anti-missile umbrella has holes in it," Interfax cited Shoigu as saying.


Shoigu was cited as saying that the holes had become apparent after President Vladimir Putin unveiled an array of new Russian nuclear weapons earlier on Thursday.



Shoigu was also cited as saying that NATO countries were trying to drag Russia into a new arms race, but that the new nuclear weapons would help to avoid this scenario. https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5139608,00.html
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Well this shouldn't surprise anyone other than it not having happened yet on a large scale....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/arti...m=0_b02a5f1344-94c89785f3-122460921&mc_cid=94

Officials: ISIS Followers Plot WMD Attacks on US

MARCH 1, 2018 | KIMBERLY DOZIER

U.S. officials are working to protect the continental U.S. from possible chemical attack by ISIS followers in the Mideast, who are plotting to bring chlorine or other “simple” weapons of mass destruction to America’s shores, U.S. officials told The Cipher Brief Wednesday.

The U.S. has intercepted “chatter” by ISIS followers who were discussing how to engineer deadly chlorine and similar attacks used in Syria and launch them in the United States, one official said, speaking anonymously to discuss the sensitive matter. There was no specific plot, but rather an aspiration that U.S. counterterrorism officials are working to block.

The revelation follows public comments by Homeland Security official Col. Lonnie Carlson confirming that DHS is actively working to thwart ISIS activity.

“We are working on a real world threat related to ISIS in the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] space that is really an export of something happening in the Middle East that is causing us to devote thousands of dollars in very near-term funding,” Carlson said, speaking at the National Defense Industrial Association’s Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict conference in Crystal City, Va., Wednesday.

“We’re putting capabilities out in the field right now to counter this threat that 6 months ago, we probably never would have thought of happening. I can’t get into the details right now. It’ll come out shortly,” added the officer, who is director of strategy, plans and policy in DHS’s Counter WMD office.

He said the White House had “principal committee- level meetings with senior cabinet officials” on the issue.

“The bottom line is…the threat is real,” he said to the audience of current and former special operations forces.

“ISIS and other terrorist groups continue to explore novel attack methods, including chemical weapons,” another U.S. official told The Cipher Brief, downplaying the remarks. “We saw that with the terror plot disrupted last August in Australia when ISIS operatives allegedly tried to fabricate an improvised chemical dispersal device to attack civilians,” he said, also speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

“But we are a step ahead of them. We’ve taken steps to make it much harder for terrorists to threaten the transportation sector, including through seen and unseen security enhancements,” including measures to defend against chemical weapons threats, he said.

The White House declined to comment and the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to requests for comment at the time of publication. An NSC official would only say that the Trump White House was “constantly monitoring and evolving the response” to the WMD threat.

The intelligence community’s 2018 Worldwide Threat Assessment states that ISIS uses “chemicals as a means of warfare” in Syria, and continues to present the leading terror threat to the United States, together with al Qaida.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Putin boasts of new Russian nuclear weapons
Started by Shacknasty Shagrat‎, Today 07:24 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?532466-Putin-boasts-of-new-Russian-nuclear-weapons


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://spacenews.com/northrop-grumm...esign-impact-of-orbital-merger-still-unclear/

Northrop Grumman moves ahead with new ICBM design, impact of Orbital merger still unclear

by Sandra Erwin — February 27, 2018

Defense official: “As a department you don’t want to get in the middle of business."
Updated March 1 with a Defense Department statement


WASHINGTON — If all goes as planned, the U.S. Air Force next year will start evaluating design concepts for a new intercontinental ballistic missile that will replace the aging Minuteman III.

Northrop Grumman and Boeing are developing competing designs of the “ground based strategic deterrent.” They expect the Air Force to settle on a concept by 2020. The GBSD is one of the pillars of the Pentagon’s effort to modernize U.S. nuclear forces. The development and procurement of the next-generation ICBM is projected to cost nearly $100 billion over the next decade.

A backstory in this program is that one of two manufacturers that would make the solid rocket motors for the GBSD, Orbital ATK, is about to merge with Northrop Grumman. For the current “technology maturation and risk reduction” phase of the program, Orbital ATK is supporting both prime contractors, Boeing and Northrop Grumman.

Orbital ATK’s competitor for the GBSD propulsion system, Aerojet Rocketdyne, also is aligned with both teams.

Northrop Grumman and Orbital ATK reported their intent to merge just weeks after the Air Force announced the selection of the two GBSD primes. Boeing and Northrop Grumman initially had been expected to compete the rocket motor work between Orbital and Aerojet. With Orbital under Northrop Grumman ownership, that type of competition would not be possible.

The Pentagon is not concerned, however. “There will still be two providers,” said Jerry McGinn, principal deputy director of Defense Department’s office of manufacturing and industrial base policy. McGinn did not elaborate on what potential arrangement could be made to ensure there is competition for propulsion systems even though one of the providers will be owned by a GBSD prime.

The Pentagon had a chance to review the merger of both firms, but a spokesman said the department would not comment specifically on its views on the merger, or whether competition in the GBSD program would be a deal breaker.

Defense Department spokesman Adam Stump said in a statement that DoD “generally opposes mergers that overly reduce or eliminate competition, limit innovation, raise credible threats to national security, and are not in the Department’s best interests. Each transaction is unique and will be evaluated on its own merits.”

The Northrop Grumman – Orbital ATK transaction “will be evaluated on its own merits,” he said. “We are not in a position to comment as the review is still in-process. We welcome any thoughts from industry on areas of concern, as part of our normal process.”

The Federal Trade Commission is the antitrust agency leading this investigation. “DoD is working closely with the FTC to conduct our due diligence,” Stump said.

Speaking on Monday at a New America event in Washington, McGinn said “it’s a balance” between market forces and the Pentagon’s desire to have multiple competitors in major programs.

“As a department you don’t want to get in the middle of business,” he said.

Carol Erikson, GBSD vice president at Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, told SpaceNews that the company is confident in its GBSD design as the competition moves forward. She declined to comment on the Orbital merger or on any other potential alliances with other suppliers. “Northrop Grumman previously announced that both Orbital ATK and Aerojet Rocketdyne are members of our GBSD team,” she said. “Other teammates are not being divulged at this time due to competitive reasons.”

In the current stage of the GBSD program, the technical maturation and risk reduction phase, she said, “We’re focused on bringing forward our systems engineering expertise,” she said. “We are supporting the Air Force by performing trades to identify the right balance between performance, cost and risk.”

The GBSD program is not just a missile replacement, Erikson said. “It’s looking at the entire system. It’s a new missile, new command, control and communications all wrapped in a cyber-resilient and nuclear surety environment.”

A Boeing spokeswoman said the company would not comment on potential supplier roles.

Northrop Grumman President and Chief Operating Officer Kathy Warden told analysts during a Jan. 25 earnings call that the Orbital ATK transaction should close in the first half of this year. “We believe our combination represents a powerful opportunity to better serve customers,” she said.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-r...ngs-against-allies-unacceptable-idUKKCN1GE1MQ

World News March 2, 2018 / 4:20 AM / Updated 3 hours ago

NATO says Russian warnings against allies "unacceptable"

Robin Emmott
3 Min Read

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin’s warnings to NATO allies are“unacceptable” and do not help efforts to calm tensions, the alliance said on Friday, a day after the Russian leader announced an array of new nuclear weapons.

Already angry at NATO’s expansion eastwards into its old Soviet sphere of influence, Putin said in a speech on Thursday that any attack on Moscow’s allies would be regarded as an attack on Russia itself and draw an immediate response.

While it was unclear which ally Putin had in mind, the U.S.-led NATO said the speech, one of the Russian leader’s most bellicose in years, did not help calm tensions that have surged since Russia seized Ukraine’s Crimea four years ago.

“Russian statements threatening to target allies are unacceptable and counterproductive,” NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu said in a statement.

The Crimea crisis has given NATO a new sense of purpose, but the alliance insists its new deterrents in the Baltics and Poland are defensive.

“We do not want a new Cold War or a new arms race,” Lungescu said.“All allies support arms control agreements which build trust and confidence, for everyone’s benefit.”

One particular sore point for Moscow is NATO’s U.S.-built missile defence umbrella across Spain, Poland and Romania, which the alliance says is designed to shoot down Iranian rockets.

Putin, speaking ahead of an election on March 18 that polls indicate he should win easily, said in his speech that new Russian technology would render such defences“ineffective”.

But NATO said it was Russia that has a“continued military build-up from the Barents Sea to the Mediterranean.”

“As we have repeatedly made clear, the alliance’s missile defence is neither designed nor directed against Russia. Our system defends against ballistic missiles from outside the Euro-Atlantic area,” Lungescu said, in reference to the Middle East and further afield.

The NATO-Russia Council, which was briefly broken off in June 2014 after the Crimea crisis, is the forum in which Russian and NATO diplomats seek to air their grievances, although the West and Moscow remain at odds over eastern Ukraine.

More than 10,000 people have been killed in separatist fighting that NATO accuses Moscow of directly backing.

“NATO is pursuing a twin-track approach to Russia: strong deterrence and defence, combined with meaningful dialogue. We are committed to delivering on both tracks,” Lungescu said.

Reporting by Robin Emmott; Editing by Angus MacSwan
 

almost ready

Inactive
Elijah J. Magnier
‏ @ejmalrai
11m11 minutes ago

I have heard a couple of years ago that #Iran has developed a cruise un-intercepted multi-interchangeable speed cruise missile. So #Russia' n announcement in this particular regard wasn't really a surprise.


Mangier is a war correspondent in Damascus and thereabouts with his ear to the ground. Always interesting, and if you can ignore his determination of blame, the details of movements is unimpeachable.

Lilbitsnana used to quote him often, and thanks for that!

https://twitter.com/ejmalrai

Alternatively, there is a hatmaker in Britain who used to be the voice "on the ground" in Syria until he was outed as being far from the scene. Takes all kinds, I guess.
 

almost ready

Inactive
Actually, there is no surprise here at all. Just must assume it's some sort of preparation of the unwashed masses for policy changes that reflect a bit of the reality of the scene.

So many are still in pretend mid-20th century, courtesy of Hollywood fantasy programs that people actually believe, until they run into a piece of the real world and go into shock or cognitive dissonance. Temporary, sometimes.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australia-nuclear-strategy-empty-middle-ground/

Australia and nuclear strategy: the empty middle ground?

28 Feb 2018|Rod Lyon

Some years ago, Christine Leah and I published an article that explored Australian thinking about nuclear weapons and strategy. We argued that for more than six decades Australians had essentially espoused ‘three visions of the bomb’.

Those visions—which we labelled Menzian, Gortonian and disarmer—competed on four grounds: the role that nuclear weapons play in international order; the doctrine of deterrence; the importance of arms control; and the relevance of nuclear weapons to Australia’s specific needs.

It’s important to have a sense of each of the visions. Menzians believed that nuclear weapons made a positive contribution to global order provided that they were held by responsible, self-deterred great powers. Deterrence played a central role in that contribution because the primary role of nuclear weapons was to deter great-power war, not to fight it.

Extended deterrence allowed great powers’ allies to benefit from the security offered by nuclear weapons without needing to build their own. Arms control agreements were important in stabilising international competition and minimising the risk of nuclear proliferation.

And Australian security was maximised by constraining nuclear weapons to their broader, indirect, systemic role; it would be damaged by the wider spread of such weapons.

Gortonians believed that nuclear weapons, over time, would proliferate beyond the small group of great powers. But they also believed that great powers were, like other states, self-centred, and that nuclear weapons would only ever be used to defend key interests. Since interests usually attenuated with distance, it would always be difficult for a great power to extend deterrence to its distant allies; deterrence was, by its nature, a ‘local’ phenomenon.

Arms control wasn’t central to the Gortonian world view: this was the group that opposed Australian signature of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, fearing it would tie our hands in relation to future options. And, of course, the Gortonians believed that an indigenous nuclear arsenal was necessary to safeguard properly Australia’s key strategic interests—including defence of the continent itself.

Disarmers saw nuclear weapons as order-destroyers rather than order-builders. They denied that great powers were responsible custodians of nuclear arsenals and believed that such states were even more self-interested than smaller states. They declared nuclear deterrence—and extended nuclear deterrence—a myth, and pointed to both the continuation of conventional war and the potentially high cost of system failures as reasons to seek a better path to security.

The disarmers were arms controllers on steroids: they sought grand outcomes, and pursued an absolutist version of nuclear disarmament. And, of course, they saw no value in nuclear weapons for Australian security—whether of the indirect contribution championed by the Menzians or the direct contribution sought by the Gortonians. They wanted Australia to disengage from the nuclear world—spurning the notion of extended nuclear deterrence, closing the joint facilities and forgoing sales of its own uranium.

The three visions advertised radically different futures. The Menzians had a plan for Australia to live in a world where nuclear weapons were held by a small number of great powers. The Gortonians had a plan for Australia to live in a more highly proliferated world. The disarmers had a plan for Australia to live in a world without nuclear weapons.

Each of the visions boasted a long lineage, but it would be wrong to imagine that they were equally influential in shaping Australian nuclear policy. In brief, the Menzians were the dominant vision in every decade; the Gortonians were the nuclear mavericks of the right, the disarmers the nuclear mavericks of the left. Across both major political parties, Labor and the Coalition, a bipartisan commitment to the Menzian vision prevailed.

And so we come to 2018.

An age of nuclear revival is upon us. The great powers are modernising their nuclear arsenals. North Korea has shown that it can design and test not merely simple fission devices, but thermonuclear ones. Our major ally, the United States, has published a Nuclear Posture Review that’s distinctly more muscular than the one it published in 2010—despite the key elements of continuity that the latest document contains.

A small debate has begun to unfold about whether Australia should be reconsidering its own indigenous nuclear arsenal—a debate containing many resonances from the Gortonian vision. Separately, the disarmer vision has begun to reclaim its ground, championing the nuclear ban treaty as the way forward, and urging Australian signature and ratification.

But what’s striking about the recent national conversation on nuclear weapons has been the relative absence of the Menzian voice. Governments have traditionally been key supporters of that vision because it articulates a centrist, moderate view of nuclear order, and because it allows Australia to benefit from nuclear deterrence while bearing few of the costs. Moreover, it adds meaning and purpose to Australia’s long-running efforts to strengthen global and regional non-proliferation regimes.

But in recent years, public defence of nuclear deterrence has been confined to a few references in Defence white papers. Ministers and departmental heads, for whom the complexities of nuclear order were once the grist of daily debate, have moved on to other priorities, as though the big nuclear questions have all been settled.

That’s wrong. Nuclear issues are returning rapidly to the international agenda. Menzians need to find their voice—and soon. If they don’t, the other two visions will begin to compete over the empty middle ground. And Australians would find that competition bitter and divisive.

AUTHOR
Rod Lyon is a senior fellow at ASPI. Image courtesy of Flickr user Charles.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/03/01/socom-grappling-new-counter-wmd-mission.html

SOCOM Grappling With New Counter-WMD Mission

Military.com
1 Mar 2018
By Matthew Cox

U.S. Special Operations Command may now lead the effort to stop terrorists from obtaining mass-casualty weapons such as dirty bombs, but experts in the SOF community warn that operators can't do it alone.

U.S. Strategic Command recently passed the leadership role in counter-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction mission to SOCOM, a move that has SOF leaders scrambling to figure out where it fits into this complex mission.

Michal Lumpkin, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict, said he worries that SOCOM will try to take on too much of the mission.

Special Operations personnel are known for being "solution people," he said. "They solve problems. They fill gaps, seams and voids."

"But every gap, seam and void is not theirs to fill, so the interagency has to do their part," Lumpkin told an audience Wednesday at National Defense Industrial Association's 29th Annual Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict Symposium. "So one of the things that I always fear is we would maybe get out in front of the headlights farther and faster than we should and accept too much of the mission."

Lumpkin took part in a counter-proliferation panel discussion, where all the panelists agreed that chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are quickly becoming one of the top threats to the United States and its allies.

U.S. Army Col. Lonnie Carlson, director of Strategy, Plans and Policy in the Department of Homeland Security's Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office, said keeping WMD out of the hands of ISIS extremists is one of his top priorities.

"Those real-world things are there, and the bottom line is, they are definitely terrorism-related, they are coming out of the Middle East, and they are not things we were worried about two months ago," Carlson said.

Components of these mass-casualty weapons are also coming out of North Korea and turning up in places like Syria, said Michael Waltz, a former Special Forces officer and policy advisor to the Bush administration.

There have been "40 to 50 previously unknown, unreported shipments of essentially chemical weapons components or dual-use components from North Korea to Syria," he said.

Syria's legitimate chemical industry "isn't exactly thriving, so I think it is safe to assume what those parts are for," he added.

Waltz said he agreed with President Trump's policy of "stopping the North Korean program in its tracks," but said he thought the administration's failure to fill key positions in the State Department would make it difficult to counter the proliferation of these types of weapons.

"I think we are really suffering in many respects ... with the lack of appointments and with what is going on in the State Department," Waltz said. "How do we work the non-proliferation piece, which State should and will lead, when they don't have the manpower? The answer I think is, it's going to fall on DoD, and it's going to fall on SOCOM."

Carlson pointed out that that SOCOM has been given the "synchronization" role in the effort, "but that doesn't mean they own all the operations."

"It's still the global and geographic chain of command with their theater units and SOF operating commands that actually do the executions," he said.

SOCOM has been given a "significant plus-up" in the proposed fiscal 2019 budget, mainly in the overseas contingency operations account, but that will not be enough to fund this new mission, Lumpkin said.

"There are still shortages for SOCOM and across the inter-agency [in] resourcing this issue," he said. "The reality is, you can't put a new mission on anybody without either taking something off the table, something else that they are doing, or you are going to have to give them more resources."

SOCOM has no shortage of missions these days, Mark Mitchell, principal deputy assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, said during his speech on Wednesday.

In addition to leading the new WMD mission, "they also maintain their coordinating authority for countering violent extremists," Mitchell said. "These are no-fail missions for the nation. ... We are going to look at where we can shut some missions."

Mitchell welcomed the conventional Army's recent decision to stand up its new Security Force Assistance Brigades, units of highly trained officers and soldiers designed to take over the "advise-and-assist" mission of training foreign troops in conventional infantry operations.

The Army plans to have all six SFABs in place by 2022. Perhaps these new units can take some of the burden off of Special Forces units, who have traditionally assumed these foreign training missions, Mitchell said.

Waltz suggested turning to the National Guard and Reserves since many of its personnel have civilian expertise in some the areas needed in the counter-proliferation mission.

"SOCOM isn't going to solve this by themselves," Lumpkin said. "The only way we are going to get our arms around the counter-WMD, counter-proliferation challenges is to do it in a unified, whole-of-nation approach."

-- Matthew Cox can be reached at matthew.cox@military.com.

===

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine....cial-calls-for-greater-capability-development

SPECIAL OPERATIONS-LOW INTENSITY CONFLICT

Official: Special Operators Must 'Reinvent' Themselves

2/28/2018
By Connie Lee

Special Operations Forces must “rediscover and reinvent” themselves to adjust for the increasing ability of near peer competitors, according to a Defense Department official.

Mark Mitchell, principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, said Feb. 28 special operators will not always have technological advantages over their enemies and must be prepared for a “great power competition.”

“Russia today is not the Soviet Union and China today is not the China of the 70s or 80s,” he noted at the Special Operations-Low Intensity Conflict Symposium and Exhibition in Arlington, Virginia sponsored by the National Defense Industrial Association. “There are many ways in which [these nations] are much more integrated into the international security architecture and the economic systems while also trying to manipulate and undermine it.”

The National Defense Strategy also notes that competition will occur in areas “short of open warfare”; the United States will need to compete in areas such as cyber warfare and industrial espionage, he said. Adversaries have acquired advanced capabilities such as advanced computing, big data analytics, artificial intelligence and autonomous systems, he noted.

Rapid technological advancements change the character of war, he said, and the United States must adopt new capabilities quickly to adjust.

For instance, the United States must adjust to adversaries’ use of social media, he added.

“Our understanding and analysis of publicly available information has the potential to provide significant impact at the tactical, operational and strategic level if we can leverage it … at the speed of relevance,” he said.

Special operations forces are the “epitome ... of lethal force,” he noted, but must evolve to counter these increasing capabilities and reduce its dependence on expensive solutions, such as costly intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms.
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
:dot5:

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/03/01/what-is-darpa-doing-in-ukraine/

Europe

What is DARPA doing in Ukraine?

By: Aaron Mehta  
1 day ago

WASHINGTON — DARPA, the Pentagon’s high-tech office, is working with the government of Ukraine to develop capabilities to help Kiev in its hybrid warfare challenge.

DARPA director Steven Walker, who recently took over that job after five years as the agency’s deputy, told reporters that he had personally visited the country in 2016 for talks with Ukrainian military, intel and industry leaders.

“We did have a good visit to the Ukraine,” Walker said Thursday at a breakfast hosted by the Defense Writer’s Group. “Yes, we have followed up with them, and through the U.S. European Command, we have started several projects with the Ukraine, mostly in the information space.”

“Not providing them weapons or anything like that, but looking at how to help them with information,” Walker added, before declining to go into further detail.

Ukraine has become a testing ground for hybrid warfare techniques from Russia and Russian-backed militant groups ever Russia’s invasion of Ukrainian territory in 2014, including disinformation campaigns. While that has allowed Moscow to test out new capabilities and techniques, it also provides an opportunity to develop counter techniques — which may benefit the U.S. and its allies in the long term.

“I think we’ve got to get better, as a country, in information warfare and how we approach info warfare,” Walker said. “I think there are capabilities there that we need to improve upon, and DAPRA is working in some of those areas.”

This is not the first tie between DARPA and Kiev. The Ukrainian government has hired Tony Tether, who led DARPA for the entirety of the George. W. Bush administration, to help lead a reorganization of their science and technology efforts, something Tether in a LinkedIn post said was necessary in part because so much of Ukraine’s S&T facilities were in the territory seized by Russia.

The former DARPA head has also consulted for the Ukroboronprom group, Ukraine’s largest defense contractor, and just a few weeks ago was added to the group’s supervisory board in a move that Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko called a “symbol of effective cooperation between Ukrainian and American partners.”

Tether is expected to try and recreate some of what make DARPA so successful in Ukraine, but Walker notes that many countries have tried to do that — and failed, in large part due to a cultural fear of giving workers the freedom to fail they need.

“When I talk to others about DARPA and why it works, many other cultures say ‘this couldn’t happen,’” Walker noted.

More broadly, Walker said part of what he wants to see at DARPA during his tenure is looking at increasing counterinsurgency capabilities.

“I think as more populations across the world move to larger and larger cities, we need to understand the three dimensionality of cites and how to operate in those very crowded, very three-dimensional spaces,” Walker said, noting DARPA is working on ways to sense and map underground tunnels and infrastructure.

Updated 3/1/18 at 1:45 PM EST to reflect the fact that after publication, DARPA confirmed that Walker visited Ukraine in 2016.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/ar...w-american-‘war-on-terror’-in-the-philippines

What to Expect in the New American ‘War on Terror’ in the Philippines

by Conor McCormick-Cavanagh
Journal Article | February 28, 2018 - 1:08pm

The U.S. military resumed its counterterrorism mission in the Philippines in September 2017. This new operation comes on the heels of the rise of ISIS-linked groups in the southeast Asian nation. Political analysts believe the new operation will share some similarities with a past one that lasted from 2001 to 2015, but will also include a focus on urban warfare training and equipment improvements. Some analysts also questioned if the plan would succeed.

The previous counterterrorism mission, which lasted for 14 years, degraded, but never fully eliminated Al Qaeda-associated groups. Less than two years after the operation ended, groups with allegiances to ISIS seized the Muslim-majority city of Marawi and held it for five months. The seizure sparked fighting that killed 168 Philippine soldiers, wounded 1,584 others, and displaced more than 350,000 civilians.

The Marawi siege revealed the threat posed by ISIS-linked militants and spurred the new operation. Codenamed Pacific Eagle – Philippines, the mission will involve 200 to 300 American advisors, as reported by The Wall Street Journal and confirmed by the Department of Defense. Pacific Eagle – Philippines qualifies as an Overseas Contingency Operation, which allows a budget exempt from spending constraints. The Department of Defense justified this designation “to acknowledge the severity of the terrorist threat facing the Philippines,” according to a report by the Lead Inspector General for Overseas Contingency Operations.

Urban Warfare Training

The first step of the mission will be to fix a weakness highlighted during the Marawi battle - urban warfare operations.

“The Philippine military needs to receive [this],” said Steven Rood of Social Weather Stations, a Philippine social research non-profit. “Everyone is onto that. The Australians, the Singaporeans, and the Americans are all now doing that” in the Philippines.

The recent city fighting in Marawi caught the Philippine military by surprise, as their soldiers had been previously trained to engage in jungle warfare. The conflict earned the ignominious title of the longest urban battle in the Philippine’s modern history.

The length of the violence in Marawi also troubled some observers. “It was not supposed to last for five months,” said Zachary Abuza, a professor at the National War College. “I don’t want to take away from the bravery of individual soldiers, but [the battle] revealed glaring weaknesses in the Philippine intelligence, military operations, and joint operations.”

Collateral Damage

One such weakness proved particularly deadly. During the fight, the Philippine military operated air assets itself, in accordance with domestic law, which prevents foreign military forces from engaging in combat on Philippine soil. Not all of the airstrikes were accurate. These mistakes proved fatal, including one instance where ten Philippine soldiers were killed and eight were wounded by a friendly-fire strike.

“Marawi was levelled. Absolutely levelled. The Philippine army has no experience operating with air assets,” said Abuza, indicating another potential area where American advisors can provide guidance.

In the future, American military officials might be tempted to just handle the airstrikes themselves. But this may not be sustainable. “You want the Americans to help, but you don’t want them to do it for you. Long term, that brings up a whole host of problems,” said Greg Poling, director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Various Forms of Military Assistance

Instead of providing boots on the ground or manning their own armed air assets, the U.S. will continue providing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assistance in the fight against extremists, according to the new plan.

In addition to providing this type of assistance, the U.S. can also capitalize on the manpower advantage that the Philippine military has over the Abu Sayyaf and Maute groups, and a faction of Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters, all of whom pledged allegiance to ISIS. The Philippine military killed the top leaders of Abu Sayyaf and Maute groups during the battle.

At the same time, it is important to match this size advantage with enough equipment for forces to “make sure that the Philippine military does indeed own the night,” said Rood. The Philippine military could further tilt the balance against Abu Sayyaf if the U.S. provides it with more night-vision goggles, something that groups like Abu Sayyaf have only in small quantities.

All of the assistance from the U.S. military is essential in fighting against a mobile insurgency which, during times of pressure from the Philippine military, can easily slip from mainland Mindanao, where Marawi is located, to Sulu, a string of islands to the west and even across borders into Malaysia and Indonesia. Importantly, the Philippines already agreed with Indonesia and Malaysia to cooperate on cross-border pursuit of Islamic militants. This should help limit the freedom of movement of extremist elements.

Human Rights Concerns

Critics of President Rodrigo Duterte believe his problematic human rights record should preclude the U.S. from providing military aid. Duterte’s war on drugs has drawn international concern for heavy-handed tactics and extrajudicial killings by police.

A report by the U.S. intelligence community pointed to Duterte’s autocratic tendencies as a danger to democracy in southeast Asia. The report highlighted Duterte’s threat to impose martial law throughout the country. Martial law currently exists only on Mindanao.

Still, some analysts believe human rights concerns should be separated from military aid. “Countries shouldn’t cut off military training for human rights violations because in a situation like this, it’s crucial that [military] exercises go forward, and colonels go off to the U.S. and do six months or a year” of exchange, said Steven Rood, pointing to the importance of winning over the Philippine military.

Is it All for Nothing?

But Rood recognized the limits of the advising approach. He pointed to insurgent activity in the Sulu archipelago as a major challenge. “By retraining the units that are there, the U.S. can help in better managing the situation. But that won’t be a solution to the situation.”

Zachary Abuza questioned why the U.S. is still even involved. “I personally am very skeptical of the Philippine military. Why do they never finish the job? We’ve been fighting Abu Sayyaf since 1991. They always manage to slip away.”

About the Author

Conor McCormick-Cavanagh is a reporter based in New York. He is currently a graduate student studying international affairs and journalism at Columbia University. He previously reported from Tunisia.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/...latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

AFRICA

Boko Haram Militants Kill Aid Workers at Military Base in Nigeria

By REUTERS
MARCH 2, 2018

ABUJA, Nigeria — Boko Haram militants have killed at least 11 people, including three aid workers, in an attack on a military base near a camp for displaced people in the northeastern state of Borno in Nigeria, according to the United Nations migration agency.

The raid Thursday night in the town of Rann, near the border with Cameroon, was the latest high-profile attack by militants in Nigeria’s northeast, and it comes less than two weeks after the abduction of 110 girls from a school in the town of Dapchi in neighboring Yobe State.

The United Nations agency, the International Organization for Migration, said the attack had been carried out by militants using automatic weapons, rocket-propelled grenades and gun trucks. The three aid workers who were killed were all Nigerian, the agency said.

Four soldiers and four police officers were also killed in the attack, the agency said, with three other humanitarian workers wounded.

The Medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres said it had suspended its work in Rann after the attack and had evacuated staff members.


RELATED COVERAGE

In Nigeria, Another Mass Kidnapping Stirs Painful Memories and Anger FEB. 25, 2018
Boko Haram Storms Girls’ School in Nigeria, Renewing Fears FEB. 21, 2018

Nigerian Jet Mistakenly Bombs Refugee Camp, Killing Scores JAN. 17, 2017


Last year, a Nigerian fighter jet, searching for Boko Haram members, accidentally bombed the camp for displaced people in Rann, killing up to 170 people. At the time, a Western diplomat said that the Nigerian military had been informed that fighters were massing to attack a military post nearby but that the strike had hit the camp in error.

Thursday’s attack in Rann was a further setback for President Muhammadu Buhari, who took office in May 2015 vowing to improve security and who has repeatedly said that the Boko Haram insurgency has been defeated. The government said on Friday that its search for the girls taken in Dapchi, about 250 miles west of Rann, had been extended to neighboring countries.

The Boko Haram insurgency has been centered in Borno, where militants have used violent means to pursue the imposition of a strict interpretation of Islam. More than 20,000 people have been killed and two million forced to leave their homes since 2009.

Two of the aid workers who died in Rann were contractors with the International Organization for Migration and were working as coordinators at the camp for 55,000 displaced people, the United Nations said. The third was a doctor employed as a consultant for Unicef.

“We call on authorities to ensure the perpetrators are brought to justice and account,” Edward Kallon, the United Nations humanitarian coordinator in Nigeria, said in a statement.

Attacks on aid workers are rare, but not unheard-of. In December, four people were killed when a World Food Program convoy was ambushed in Borno.

Boko Haram held a large swath of territory in northeast Nigeria in late 2014. It was pushed out of most of that land by the Nigerian Army, backed by troops from neighboring countries, in early 2015.

Although it has failed to control large areas of land since then, Boko Haram continues to carry out suicide bombings and gun raids in northeast Nigeria, as well as in Cameroon, Chad and Niger.

RELATED COVERAGE
In Nigeria, Another Mass Kidnapping Stirs Painful Memories and Anger FEB. 25, 2018

Boko Haram Storms Girls’ School in Nigeria, Renewing Fears FEB. 21, 2018
Nigerian Jet Mistakenly Bombs Refugee Camp, Killing Scores JAN. 17, 2017

=====

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/...=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article

AFRICA

Militants Carry Out Deadly Attacks in Burkina Faso

By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA and JAIME YAYA BARRY
MARCH 2, 2018

Militants carried out simultaneous attacks on Friday morning on the military headquarters of Burkina Faso and the French Embassy in the nation’s capital, the government said.

It appeared to be another stunning assault by Islamist militants in Burkina Faso, a West African nation that has suffered two big deadly attacks by jihadists in the past two years.

The assault on the military headquarters appeared to have been aimed at a gathering of senior officers, according to Security Minister Clément Sawadogo, who told journalists that the army might have been “decapitated” had the meeting not been fortuitously moved to a different location at the last minute.

By nightfall, a full picture of the situation was still coming into view, but the government reported that at least eight members of the security forces, as well as eight assailants, died in the attacks.

Government officials did not assign specific blame for the gunfire and explosions that erupted in the downtown area of Ouagadougou, the capital, but the focus fell on radical jihadist groups that have attacked the city in the past. Officials said the attackers shouted “God is great” in Arabic.

The state broadcaster RTB showed video of soldiers closing around one of the buildings involved, with gunshots echoing, a helicopter swooping low overhead and a car ablaze nearby.

In 2016 and again last year, jihadists attacked civilian sites that were popular with Westerners — cafes and a hotel — killing a total of 49 people.

Paul Kaolaga, a terrorism analyst with the Strategic Network on Security in the Sahel, said the military, supported by French special forces, had reasserted control at both attack scenes.

In recent years, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb has pushed south from its base in Algeria, into Mali, and then to Burkina Faso. In aiding the fight against terrorist groups, Mr. Kaolaga said, Burkina Faso has become one of their targets.

Aurélia Laget, a spokeswoman for the French Institute in Ouagadougou, which is near the embassy, said that workers there had taken shelter and that sounds of fighting had gone on for more than an hour. “We heard gunfire for sure, and explosions, I think,” she said.

Some witnesses said the gunmen at the embassy set fire to their vehicle when they arrived, which could have caused an explosion.

President Emmanuel Macron of France called President Roch Marc Christian Kaboré of Burkina Faso and condemned the attack in “the strongest terms,” Mr. Macron’s office said in a statement.

France leads a 5,000-member multinational force — including troops from Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Chad and Mauritania — that is trying to combat terrorism in the region.

The State Department urged Americans on Friday to reconsider travel to the country.

“Terrorist groups continue plotting attacks in Burkina Faso,” it said in a travel advisory. “Terrorists may conduct attacks anywhere with little or no warning. Targets could include hotels, restaurants, police stations, customs offices, military posts, and schools.”

Blaise Compaoré, the longtime president of Burkina Faso, a former French colony once known as Upper Volta, was ousted in a popular uprising in late 2014; a coup was mounted the following year but ultimately failed. Mr. Kaboré took office at the end of 2015.

Aurelien Breeden contributed reporting.

RELATED COVERAGE
Deadly Standoff Leaves Burkina Faso Stunned JAN. 16, 2016

Gunmen Kill 18 at Restaurant in Burkina Faso AUG. 14, 2017

At Least 20 Killed in Siege by Militants in Burkina Faso JAN. 15, 2016

======

west-africa-political-map.jpg

http://www.nationsonline.org/maps/west-africa-political-map.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top