WAR 03-07-2015-to-03-13-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

(152) 02-07-2015-to-02-13-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...13-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(153) 02-14-2015-to-02-20-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...20-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(154) 02-21-2015-to-02-27-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...27-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(155) 02-28-2015-to-03-06-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...06-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

_____


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/content/tikr...n-takeover-sectarian-splintering/2669819.html

Amid IS Fight, Concern Over Iran, Sectarian Divide

Carla Babb
Last updated on: March 06, 2015 8:55 AM
Comments 19

PENTAGON - As the battle for Tikrit rages between Islamic State militants and Iraqi security forces and Shi'ite militias, two major concerns have emerged: the role of Iran and the fear that sectarian divides will grow wider.

Days of fighting around Tikrit have yielded slow progress against Islamic State militants, who have held the city since last June.

''Our troops are now advancing according to the drawn up plan, though there are so many bombs planted by Islamic State militants to hinder our progress,” Iraqi Lieutenant General Abdul Amir al-Zaidi said.

The enemy is the same, but this fight against the militants is different. Above, there is no U.S. support from the air, and on the ground, Iranians are helping Shi'ite militiamen.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said Thursday the situation in Tikrit is a prime example of what Gulf states have feared - Iran “taking over” Iraqi forces.

Another fear is sectarian violence. Sunni leaders say the Iraqi government is failing to support them.

“[The government] stands with hands folded towards the Sunni tribes, while it pays heed to and supports the Shi'ite militiamen who came from everywhere to purge the areas occupied by IS militants, while the Sunni tribes don't have weapons,” said Sheik Abdul Madhi al-Smaidaie, the Grand Mufti of Iraq.

“We’ve been down the road of sectarianism in Iraq and it’s important that the government of Iraq not go down that road again,” said U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter.

In Washington, caution from military leaders is growing.

“We’re watching carefully, and if this becomes an excuse to ethnic cleanse then our campaign has a problem and we’re going to have to make a campaign adjustment,” said Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.

Those leading the fight have sent mixed messages. U.S.-backed Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has called for the protection of civilians, but he’s also declared, "There is no neutrality in the battle against ISIS.”

Human rights defenders like Joe Stork say a statement like that could be used to justify violence.

“Even very recently we’ve seen these militias carrying out terrible acts in the aftermath of these kinds of operations,” said Stork.

Terrible acts include the demolition of homes and even executions. A graphic mobile phone video emerged on social media this week, but VOA has not been able to verify its authenticity or date. It shows a Sunni boy captured by men wearing uniforms with the Iraqi insignia.

Seconds later, the boy is shot to death.

“There has to be consequences when people carry out these kinds of crimes, and we haven’t seen any of that yet,” said Stork.

As the battle continues for northern Iraq, officials are urging restraint and accountability from Iraqis and Iranians helping in the fight. But they are all aware the sectarian tinderbox could ignite at any moment.

Related Articles

IS Fighters Set Ablaze Oilfields Near Tikrit
Video Video Claims to Show Shi'ite Forces in Iraq Executing Sunni Boy
Militants Stubbornly Resist Tikrit Offensive

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......That would also go some of the way to mending fences with Russia as well......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/In...ing-relations-with-Assad-to-fight-ISIS-393178

In private, some in European mull repairing relations with Assad to fight ISIS

By REUTERS
03/07/2015

Such countries say that the threat from Islamic State has made Assad the lesser of two evils, seeing a need to re-engage with Damascus as a potential ally against the extremists.

NEW YORK - Syria's envoy to the United Nations says it's time for the United States and other Western powers to accept that President Bashar al-Assad is here to stay, and to abandon what he suggested was a failed strategy of trying to split the Middle East into sectarian enclaves.

Speaking to Reuters on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the Syrian war, Assad's long-serving UN ambassador Bashar Ja'afari said his president was ready to work with the United States and others to combat terrorism in the Middle East.

"We don't want any vacuum in the country that would create chaos such as happened in Libya and Iraq and ... Afghanistan," he said. "President Assad can deliver because he is a strong president. He rules over a strong institution, which is the Syrian army. He has resisted pressure for four years."

"He is the man who can deliver any solution," he added.

Britain and France have rejected calls to restore ties with the Assad government. US officials say there is no shift in their policy regarding Assad, even as their focus is fighting Islamic State, an al Qaida offshoot which is also an enemy of Damascus.

"We have been open for cooperation (with the US)," Ja'afari said. "They don't want it."

Some European Union countries that withdrew their ambassadors from Syria are saying privately it is time for more communication with Damascus, diplomats said in February.

Diplomats say the calls have come from or would be supported by countries including Sweden, Denmark, Romania, Bulgaria, Austria and Spain, as well as the Czech Republic, which did not withdraw its ambassador. Norway and Switzerland, which are outside the EU, are also supportive.

Such countries say that the threat from Islamic State has made Assad the lesser of two evils, seeing a need to re-engage with Damascus as a potential ally against the extremists, according to the diplomats.

US officials at the United Nations did not have an immediate comment on Ja'afari's latest statements.

They noted recent comments to the Security Council by Washington's UN ambassador Samantha Power rejecting the argument that countries should partner with Damascus to more effectively fight extremists.

The United States and other Western powers have condemned Assad for widespread human rights violations since the uprising against his government began in 2011.

But Ja'afari insisted that keeping Assad, who was re-elected last year in a poll his foes regard as illegitimate, was the only path to peace and unity.

"NOT A SYRIAN CONFLICT"

Ja'afari said that "many European delegations" had visited Damascus to ask for strengthened anti-terrorism cooperation, without specifying which countries.

"We are telling everyone ... if you want this cooperation to be fruitful you need to get back to Syria, to reopen your embassies."

Indicating that Damascus wants Assad restored to international political legitimacy in exchange for security cooperation, Ja'afari said that "the benefit of such cooperation should be mutual ... not only unilateral."

He blasted US President Barack Obama's strategy of training and arming what he described as "so-called moderate" rebels, saying it had only served to deliver weapons into the hands of Islamic State.

The training of rebels has proven difficult. The Hazzm movement was once central to a covert CIA operation to arm Syrian rebels, but the group's collapse last week underlined the failure of efforts to unify Arab and Western support for mainstream insurgents.

"This is not a Syrian conflict," Ja'afari said.

"It is an international terror war waged against the Syrian government and the Syrian people," he added, referring to the tens of thousands of foreign fighters who have joined Islamic State and other jihadist group in the country.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...ov-surveillance-insight-idUSKBN0M225820150306

Nemtsov's friends ask: where were the police when he was shot?

By Darya Korsunskaya and Gabriela Baczynska
MOSCOW Fri Mar 6, 2015 3:07pm EST

(Reuters) - Last week, when Boris Nemtsov was shot dead as he walked across a bridge next to the Kremlin, it took 11 minutes before a police car arrived at the scene, according to the time stamp on closed circuit television footage.

From the moment the 55-year-old former deputy prime minister was shot late last Friday night, associates of the Kremlin critic have been asking why the police took so long to get there, and how, in such a heavily monitored location, someone could fire six shots at him and get away.

Nemtsov was the most high profile opposition figure killed during President Vladimir Putin's 15-year rule. His shooting prompted accusations from Putin opponents, and Western states, that democratic freedoms in Russia were under attack.

Russian officials have denied any involvement in Nemtsov's killing. Russian President Vladimir Putin called it a shameful tragedy, and demanded a thorough investigation.

Accounts gathered by Reuters from opposition activists and Nemtsov's friends raise questions about state security agencies' actions in the minutes before and after the attack on Nemtsov.

Those sources say they believe Russian security agencies, which run close surveillance on many prominent opposition figures, especially in the run-up to a protest, were monitoring Nemtsov, who was organizing a rally due to take place two days after his death.

That surveillance, they said, included the tapping of phone conversations and security agents at times physically tailing opposition figures. They said they knew of the practice because in the past their telephone conversations had been posted on the Internet.

In addition, people with experience of trying to stage protests close to the Kremlin said the area is under 24 hour monitoring from closed circuit cameras and a heavy concentration of police and security service agents, making it one of the most tightly protected places in Russia.

It was not possible to independently establish whether Nemtsov was under surveillance at the time of his killing, or that the area was being monitored by state security. It is possible surveillance data has been passed to investigators, but not made public.

Reuters sent detailed questions about the circumstances of the killing to the Investigative Committee, the state body leading the investigation, and to the Federal Security Service (FSB), the main state security agency. They did not respond.

The issue of surveillance may be crucial to understanding who could have killed Nemtsov, say his friends.

Given the level of security normally in place, the killing could only have been done by trained killers acting with the possible involvement or acquiescence of some part of the security services, say several of Nemtsov's associates.

That would make less likely some of the lines of inquiry that investigators and officials have mentioned in recent state media reports: that the killing was over Nemtsov's business dealings or personal life, or committed by extremists acting on their own initiative.


EAVESDROPPING

Some of Nemtsov's friends said their experience showed he must have been under surveillance.

Lev Ponomaryov, an opposition activist and Nemtsov ally recalled how he had arranged by phone to meet Michael McFaul, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia on March 29, 2012. When McFaul reached the venue, a television crew from Kremlin-controlled television station NTV was waiting for him, Ponomaryov said.

McFaul tweeted on that date: "Everywhere I go NTV is there. Wonder who gives them my calendar? They wouldn't tell me."

Ilya Yashin, the co-chairman of Nemtsov's party, said when he arrived at a restaurant for a meeting with a foreign diplomat, the manager came up to him and warned him that state security agents had been there two hours earlier to install listening devices. Reuters was not able to independently verify this account or the details of the meeting.

Nemtsov was subject to the same treatment, said Olga Shorina, his closest aide. "Three days before a march, they always did that. They always monitored."

Said Vladimir Ryzhkov, a veteran opposition leader who worked with Nemtsov: "How else do they know about all our movements?"

Shorina added that a prosecution case against dozens of opposition activists including well-known opposition figure Maria Baranova, over a May 6, 2012 protest, contained evidence about planning for the rally that could only have come from organizers being tailed. Reuters has not seen the documents.

Against this backdrop, some of Nemtsov's associates say they are bemused as to how he could be shot dead without state security agencies being immediately aware.

Individual surveillance, layered on top of the security permanently in place around the Kremlin, would have made an attack like the one on Nemtsov difficult to pull off, say his friends. And, after he was shot, police or another state security agency should have appeared on the scene much sooner, the friends said.

In 2013, one of Nemtsov's fellow opposition activists, Sergei Sharov-Dalaunay, tried, with one other person, to stage an impromptu picket on Red Square, a few hundred yards from the spot where Nemtsov was killed. In contrast to the 11 minutes it took police to arrive on the night Nemtsov was shot, Sharov-Dalaunay said it took police only seconds to grab him from the moment he unfurled a banner.


(Writing by Christian Lowe; Editing by Sophie Walker)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/07/us-japan-northkorea-kidnapping-idUSKBN0M304P20150307

Japan, North Korea could resume abduction talks this month: Nikkei

TOKYO Fri Mar 6, 2015 10:28pm EST

(Reuters) - Japan and North Korea could resume talks as early as this month over an investigation North Korea is conducting into the fate of Japanese citizens it kidnapped decades ago, the Nikkei newspaper reported on Saturday.

There was informal contact between Japanese and North Korean diplomats in China in late February, and the two sides agreed to hold a meeting about the investigation in China sometime late March or early April, the Nikkei said without citing sources.

Foreign ministry officials were unavailable for comment.

If the talks do take place they would be the first official contact since Japan sent a diplomatic mission to Pyongyang in October only to be disappointed to learn that North Korea had no new information about abductees.

North Korea admitted in 2002 to kidnapping 13 Japanese citizens, and five of those abductees and their families later returned to Japan. North Korea said that the remaining eight were dead and that the issue was closed, but Japan has been pressing for more information.

The North promised to reopen the investigation in 2008, but never followed through.

When North Korea agreed last year in May to reopen an investigation into the abductees Japan responded by easing some sanctions in a sign the often fractious relationship between the two countries could improve.


(Reporting by Stanley White; Editing by Jeremy Laurence)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/is...ive-isis-out-al-baghdadi-u-s-military-n318901

Iraqi Troops Drive ISIS Out of Al-Baghdadi, U.S. Military Says

The Iraqi military and tribal fighters have pushed ISIS militants from the town of Al-Baghdadi, the U.S. military said Friday. The terror group had held three bridges in the town — which is located near a U.S. air base — since September.

Iraqi forces also drove ISIS from seven villages near Al-Baghdadi, located south of Haditha, the U.S.-led Combined Joint Task Force said in a statement. The U.S.-led coalition conducted 26 airstrikes in as part of the effort to retake the region.

ISIS fighters launched a major offensive in Al-Baghdadi on Feb. 12, approaching the town from several directions, but Iraqi forces were able to retain control of most of the city. Al-Baghdadi is just seven miles from Ain Al-Asad Air Base, where U.S. military advisers are located.

The military also said Friday that a new round of airstrikes were launched against ISIS fighters in Syria and Iraq. Four airstrikes hit a crude oil collection point, fighters and fighting positions in Syria, and 12 airstrikes were launched against ISIS forces in Iraq Thursday and Friday local time, the task force said.


IN-DEPTH
•Iraq Launches Offensive on ISIS North of Baghdad
•U.S. Official: American Forces May Help Iraq Retake Mosul
•ISIS Launches Offensive Near Iraqi Base Housing U.S. Forces

— Phil Helsel

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm........

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.scmp.com/business/china-...y-end-former-would-be-superpower-says-goldman

'China likely to end up as former would-be superpower', says Goldman partner who foresaw Japan's demise

PUBLISHED : Saturday, 07 March, 2015, 6:00am
UPDATED : Saturday, 07 March, 2015, 10:49am

Forecasts for China to surpass the US as the world's main economic power are misplaced. So says an observer who foresaw Japan's eventual demise a year before its land-price bubble began to burst.

"The vulnerabilities in China today are very similar to the vulnerabilities in Japan," said Roy Smith, 76, who was a Goldman Sachs partner when he wrote a column saying Japan's rise as a financial hegemon was finished. "Nobody agrees with me. But they didn't agree with me in 1990, so at least I have one right."

Bad loans, overpriced stocks and a frothy property market are flashing danger for China's economy and putting pressure on a fragile financial system - similar to conditions that triggered Japan's fall, said Smith, a finance professor at New York University's Stern School of Business.

A further parallel is the burden of an ageing population, with mounting pension and health-care costs, he says.

While China probably will avoid prolonged Japan-style stagnation, a major crisis could expose weaknesses that are not apparent now, Smith said.

"Most people today are talking about China displacing the United States as the great power of the 21st century," he said. "My view is that it is more likely to end up like Japan - that is, the status of a former would-be superpower that isn't."

China surpassed Japan as the world's No2 economy by gross domestic product in 2010 after three decades of rapid growth. It is tipped by many forecasters eventually to overtake the US in output. By other measures, such as GDP per person, China is further behind the US.

On a per capita basis, China's GDP in 2013 was still just half of where Japan was in 1960, according to World Bank data. That leaves plenty of scope to catch up to rich-world peers, more optimistic observers say.

"The key difference I see between China now and Japan in 1990 is that China is at a much lower stage of development," said Louis Kuijs, chief China economist at Royal Bank of Scotland in Hong Kong.

Last year, the economy expanded at the slowest full-year pace in almost a quarter century. The slowdown has thrown a spotlight on a mounting debt pile. Doubts about creditworthiness of debt deepened last year, when Premier Li Keqiang started to pare back implicit guarantees for regional financing units.

China's total debt pile, including borrowing by households, banks, governments and companies, ballooned to 282 per cent of national output in the middle of last year from 121 per cent in 2000, according to an estimate by the McKinsey Global Institute.

"The Chinese financial structure is very fragile because a lot of it is misreported and will reveal a great deal of weakness when it comes out," said Smith. "I don't know when it is going to come out, but when it does it is going to have consequences and take away a lot of the world's confidence in the Chinese system."

Some signs of stress are already emerging: Kaisa Group Holdings, a troubled real-estate developer based in Shenzhen that must repay billions of dollars in borrowings this year, rattled investors by missing payment deadlines on a loan and a bond after the local government blocked several of its projects late last year.

"They say a rising tide lifts all boats - a falling tide reveals all the rocks and slime," said Smith. "There was a lot of it in Japan that people did not expect to see.''

China's leaders are trying to restructure the economy toward domestic demand led by consumption and services.

"China won't end up in this peculiar Japanese no man's land between growth and non-growth," Smith said. "But I do think they could have an economic smash-down that could really set back the China dream and the China role as a global superpower in major ways."


This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as China could become former would-be superpower

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/china-the-us-and-africa-competition-or-cooperation/

China, the US, and Africa: Competition or Cooperation?

Plus Taiwan’s international role, China-Pakistan ties, and a cyber salvo in the Senkaku/Dioaoyu dispute.

By Shannon Tiezzi
March 06, 2015

13 Shares
5 Comments

To start out the weekly links round-up, two interesting pieces on the U.S.-China-Africa triangle:

First, Carly Laywell of the Monterey Terrorism Research and Education Program, writing for USNI News, explores how Chinese investment in Africa affects U.S. counterterrorism. Her conclusion: “The massive influx of Chinese immigrants and investment in Africa pose significant obstacles to U.S. development and counterterrorism efforts in the region” by reinforcing “the preexisting political and economic issues that plague impoverished African nations.” To shore up U.S. interests, Laywell argues for increased U.S. aid in areas like public health and education to lay the groundwork for political and economic reforms. It’s a classic formulation of Chinese vs. U.S. engagement with Africa as a zero-sum battle for influence.

Furthermore, we have Somini Sengupta, who writes for The New York Times about the U.S. and China’s shared interests in South Sudan. The piece explores whether the two countries can work together to halt the bloodshed. Apparently Washington and Beijing did come to some sort of consensus; a United Nations Security Council Resolution allowing for sanctions against the warring paries in South Sudan passed unanimously on March 3.

In other news, the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Bonnie Glaser and Jacqueline Vitello released a report analyzing how Taiwan’s exclusion from international security organizations harms both Taiwan itself and the world. The report outlines how Taiwan can contribute more to the global commons if allowed to play an expanded role in international organizations. Given Chinese President Xi Jinping’s tough talk recently on Taiwanese independence, the prospects don’t look great.

Over at War on the Rocks, Raza Rumi looks at the proposed China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and how it will expand China’s influence in both South and Central Asia. She notes how critical the project will be for both sides – propping up Pakistan’s economy while also expanding Chinese influence (and opening up new markets for Chinese goods to boot). Rumi also looks at how security and political concerns have helped determine the route of the CPEC – to the consternation of local leaders from Kyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and Balochistan provinces.

The Diplomat’s own Franz-Stefan Gady already reported this week on China’s double-digit defense budget increase for 2015. However, for a different perspective, check out two articles that emphasize how China’s defense spending may actually be slowing: one piece from Bloomberg Business (linking the slowdown in budget increases to the PLA corruption crackdown) and one from Xinhua itself (which points out that “the 10.1-percent rise represented the lowest expansion in China since 2010”).

China now has Japanese and English versions of its website laying out its case for ownership of the Diaoyu Islands (known as the Senkakus in Japan). The website rollout sparked a protest from Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga, who said that website “distorts facts.” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying retorted that “facts are fact. Whether Japan is willing to accept this or not, the fact cannot be changed.”

On the lighter side of the news, China Daily reports that Saturday Night Live will be setting up roots in Beijing. Sohu, an online video platform, will partner with SNL to produce a Chinese remake, complete with musical performances and comedy skits. Of course, as China Daily notes, to succeed in China’s media environment the Chinese SNL will have to stay “away from political satire.”

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/will-south-korea-have-to-bomb-the-north-eventually/

Will South Korea Have to Bomb the North, Eventually?

As North Korea expands its nuclear arsenal, will Seoul have to consider targeting missile sites at some point?

By Robert E. Kelly
March 06, 2015

494 Shares
42 Comments

As North Korea continues to develop both nuclear weapons and the missile technology to carry them, pressure on South Korea to take preemptive military action will gradually rise. At some point, North Korea may have so many missiles and warheads that South Korea considers that capability to be an existential threat to its security. This is the greatest long-term risk to security and stability in Korea, arguably more destabilizing than a North Korean collapse. If North Korea does not arrest its nuclear and missile programs at a reasonably small, defensively-minded deterrent, then Southern elites will increasingly see those weapons as threats to Southern survival, not just tools of defense or gangsterish blackmail.

During the Cold War, the extraordinary speed and power of nuclear missiles created a bizarre and frightening “balance of terror.” Both the Americans and Soviets had these weapons, but they were enormously vulnerable to a first strike. Under the logic “use them or lose them,” there were enormous incentives to launch first: If A did not get its missiles out of the silos quickly enough, they might be destroyed by B’s first strike. One superpower could then hold the other’s cities hostage to nuclear annihilation and demand concessions. This countervalue, “city busting” temptation was eventually alleviated by “assured second strike” technologies, particularly submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM). SLBMs ensured the survivability of nuclear forces; hard-to-find submarines could ride out an enemy first strike and still retaliate. So the military value of launching first declined dramatically. By the 1970s, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union had achieved enough survivability through various “hardening” efforts that nuclear bipolarity was relatively stable despite the huge number of weapons in the arms race.

The Korean nuclear race does not have this stability and is unlikely to ever achieve it. Nuclear Korea today is more like the Cold War of the 1950s, when nuclear weapons were new and destabilizing, than in the 1970s when they had been strategically integrated, and bipolarity was mature. Specifically, North Korea will never be able to harden its locations well enough to achieve assured second strike. North Korea is too small to pursue the geographic dispersion strategies the Soviets tried, and too poor to build a reliable SLBM force or effective air defense. Moreover, U.S. satellite coverage makes very hard for the North to conceal anything of great importance. North Korea’s nuclear weapons will always be highly vulnerable. So North Korea will always face the “use it or lose it” logic that incentives a first strike.

On the Southern side, its small size and extreme demographic concentration in a few large cities makes the Republic of Korea an easy target for a nuclear strike. More than half of South Korea’s population lives in greater Seoul alone (more than 20 million people), and Seoul’s suburbs begin just thirty miles from the demilitarized zone. This again raises the temptation value of a Northern strike. Both the Soviet Union and the United States were so large, that only a massive first strike would have led to national collapse. In South Korea by contrast, nuking only about five large cities would likely be enough to push South Korea toward national-constitutional breakdown. Given its extreme urbanization and centralization, South Korea is extremely vulnerable to a WMD and/or decapitation strike.

While large-scale North Korean offensive action is highly unlikely – Pyongyang’s elites most likely just want to survive to enjoy their gangster high life – nuclear weapons do offer a conceivable route to Northern military victory for the first time in decades: a first-strike mix of counterforce detonations to throw the Southern military into disarray; limited counter-value city strikes to spur social and constitutional break-down in the South; followed by an invasion and occupation before the U.S. military could arrive in force; and a standing threat to nuke Japan or the United States as well should they intervene. Again, this is unlikely, and I still strongly believe an Allied victory is likely even if the North were to use nuclear weapons. But the more nukes the North builds, the more this threat, and the “use it or lose it” first strike incentives, grow.

It is for this reason that the U.S. has pushed South Korea so hard on missile defense. Not only would missile defense save lives, but it would dramatically improve Southern national-constitutional survivability. (Decentralization would also help enormously, and I have argued for that repeatedly in conferences in Korea, but it is unlikely.) A missile shield would lessen the military-offensive value of North Korea’s nuclear weapons, so reducing both first-strike temptations in Pyongyang and preemptive air-strike pressure in Seoul. Unfortunately South Korea is not hardened meaningfully to ride-out Northern nuclear strikes. Missile defense in South Korea has become politicized as a U.S. plot to dominate South Korean foreign policy (yes, really) and provoke China. (Although opinion may, at last, be changing on this.) Air drills are routinely ignored. And no one I know in South Korea knows where their shelters are or what to do in case of nuclear strike.

Ideally North Korea would de-nuclearize. And we should always keep talking to North Korea. Pyongyang is so dangerous that freezing it out is a bad idea. Talking does not mean we must be taken advantage of by the North’s regular bargaining gimmicks. But we must admit that North Korea seems unlikely to give up its nuclear weapons. The program goes back decades, to the 1960s. Rumor has it that Pyongyang has devoted more than 5 percent of GDP in the last two decades to developing these weapons. The program continued through the 1990s, even as more than a million North Koreans starved to death in a famine resulting from post-Cold War economic breakdown. The North has repeatedly lied and flimflammed to outsiders like the ROK government and the IAEA to keep its programs alive clandestinely. Recently Kim Jong Un has referred to nuclear weapons as the “nation’s life.”

We could even go a step further and admit that a few Northern nuclear missiles are tolerable. If we put ourselves in Pyongyang’s shoes, a limited nuclear deterrent makes sense. Conventionally, North Korea is falling further and further behind. No matter how big the North Korean army gets quantitatively, it is an increasingly weak shield against high-tech opponents. U.S. regime change in the Middle East has clearly incentivized despots everywhere in the world to consider the ultimate security which nuclear weapons provide. The North Koreans have openly said that nuclear weapons ensure their post-9/11 regime security. As distasteful as it may be to us, there is a logic to that. A small, defensive-minded deterrent – say five to ten warhead-tipped missiles that could threaten limited retaliation against Southern cities – would be an objectively rational hedge against offensive action by the U.S. or South Korea. Indeed, this is almost certainly what Pyongyang says to Beijing to defend its program to its unhappy patron.

But this is the absolute limit of responsible Northern nuclear deployment and it is probably where the DPRK is right now. Further nuclear and missile development would exceed even the most expansive definition of North Korean security and takes us into the realm of nuclear blackmail, highly dangerous proliferation, and an offensive first-strike capability. Pyongyang does not need, for example, the ICBM it is supposedly working on.

In this context, my greatest fear for Korean security in the next two decades is North Korean nuclearization continuing apace, generating dozens, perhaps hundreds of missiles and warheads, coupled to rising South Korean paranoia and pressure to preemptively strike. There is no possible national security rationale for Pyongyang to keep deploying beyond what it has now, and if it does, expect South Korean planners to increasingly consider preemptive airstrikes. North Korea with five or ten missiles (some of which would fail or be destroyed in combat) is a terrible humanitarian threat, but not an existential one to South Korea (and Japan). South Korea could ride out, perhaps, five urban strikes, and Japan even more.

But a North Korea with dozens of nuclear missiles, possibly one hundred, some of them on submarines, would constitute a state- and society-breaking, constitutional threat to South Korea and Japan in the event of conflict. That in turn will incentivize pre-emptive airstrikes. Of course, China and the United States might be able to restrain such South Korean action. Unlike the Soviets and Americans in the Cold War, Seoul is uniquely tied to U.S. “permission” to act. In 2010, after two North Korean actions against the South, the then-South Korean president did want to retaliate, but the Americans talked him out of it. Similarly, offensive action against the North that potentially provokes a war – as airstrikes certainly might – would unnerve China, and China’s opposition to South Korean missile defense has already altered that discussion in Seoul. But a nuclear capability of one-hundred missiles is a whole new level of existential threat to the South (and Japan). I find it hard to believe, in lieu of very robust missile defense, that South Korean planners would tolerate this in the long-term. Airstrikes against North Korea have been considered before (1994 and 2010 especially), and this pressure will grow again.

This spiral of paranoia between North Korea nuclearization, and pressure on Seoul (or even Tokyo) to preemptively defang North Korea before it can threaten state-destruction, is entirely predictable – and the reason why everyone, even China and Russia, wants North Korea to stop building. Let’s hope they listen.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....Recall those RIF'd PLA officers that held those sit in protests? Is this the beginning of a new "warlord" era or Chinese Condottieri?.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/ousted-chinese-general-aided-myanmar-rebels-report/

Ousted Chinese General Aided Myanmar Rebels: Report

SCMP reports that a general accused of corruption was actually ousted for giving assistance to Myanmar’s Kokang rebels.

By Shannon Tiezzi
March 07, 2015

191 Shares
14 Comments

Earlier, I covered two seemingly unrelated stories for The Diplomat: lingering accusations that ethnic Chinese rebels in Myanmar were receiving aid from China and the recent announcement of 14 PLA generals under investigation for corruption. Now a recent report from South China Morning Post suggests there’s overlap in those stories: Major General Huang Xing, one of the 14 officers listed as being investigated for corruption, reportedly stands accused not only of fraud, but of leaking state secrets and assisting Kokang rebels in Myanmar back in 2009.

Huang, formerly a top researcher at the Chinese Academy of Military Sciences, was an odd figure to appear on the PLA’s list of corrupt officers. As I mentioned in my earlier story, most of the officers on the list were working in either logistics departments or political bureaus – areas rife with opportunities for embezzlement and accepting bribes. As Arthur Ding Shu-fan, a PLA researcher at the Chinese Council of Advanced Policy Studies in Taiwan, told SCMP, seeing Huang’s name on the list was a surprise: “As a military scholar, I don’t think he would be implicated in corruption because he doesn’t have many opportunities to take bribes.”

Sources told SCMP that, in fact, Huang was charged not because of rampant corruption but because he made the “political mistake” of supporting Kokang rebels in their fight against Myanmar government troops. Both military officials, as well as a self-described friend of Huang’s, told SCMP they suspected the fraud charges were merely a convenient pretext for arresting Huang. His support for the Myanmar rebels “embarrassed” top leaders, one retired senior colonel told SCMP, so “they picked up another convenient charge to punish him with.”

It’s not clear exactly what Huang did to aid the rebels. One of SCMP’s sources said Huang was accused of leaking state secrets to the rebels, presumably to help them gain an advantage in their fight against government troops. Notably, the charges are tied to a previous outbreak of fighting in 2009, not to the current violence. Some Myanmar military officials have said that the rebels are currently receiving aid and training from China; both Beijing and rebel leaders have denied this.

It may be China’s state policy not to get involved, but that doesn’t mean individual actors from China are following suit. According to a Radio Free Asia report, sources near the China-Myanmar border say Chinese villagers are smuggling medical supplies and other necessities to the Kokang fighters, despite efforts from local authorities to stop the flow of goods. The SCMP report about Huang also suggests that he aided the rebels back in 2009 without authorization (hence the reported charge of leaking state secrets).

Taking down Huang may be the PLA’s way of signaling that support for the Kokang rebels is politically inadvisable. Beijing would find it difficult to officially report on Huang’s supposed assistance to the rebels in 2009, given its vehement denials that any PLA personnel were involved. Taking Huang down on corruption charges, however, will get the message across to anyone else considering wading into the current conflict.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/assessing-us-military-power/

Assessing US Military Power

A new report takes a look at the U.S. military’s strength across the world, including the Asia-Pacific.

By Akhilesh Pillalamarri
March 07, 2015

436 Shares
4 Comments

Politicians are fond of telling Americans that they have the most powerful military in the history of mankind. However, rarely is it explained how they reached that conclusion.

As it turns out, despite the seemingly endless number of government and think tank reports being released all the time, there isn’t a single index measuring America’s military power against the threats it is asked to defend the country from. Or at least, there didn’t used to be.

Last week, the Heritage Foundation released the first edition of what will be an annual report on America’s military might. The report, entitled 2015 Index of U.S. Military Strength: Assessing America’s Ability to Provide for the Common Defense, is modeled on Heritage’s widely successful Index of Economic Freedom.

The military Index assesses America’s hard power, the condition of which is measured in terms of the military’s “capability or modernity, capacity for operations, and readiness to handle assigned missions successfully.” The report also assesses “the ease or difficulty of operating in key regions based on existing alliances, regional political stability, the presence of U.S. military forces, and the condition of key infrastructure.”

The United States needs a military force of “sufficient size,” known to Pentagon as “capacity,” in order to meet its strategic interests on a global scale. According to various presidential “Administrations, Congresses, and Department of Defense staffs,” the military should be large enough to have “an ability to handle two major wars” or two “major regional contingencies” simultaneously or in “closely overlapping timeframes.”

The Index assesses the operating environment for the U.S. military in three vital regions: Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. These three regions, the report notes, are the most likely to feature the intersection of America’s vital interests with “actors able to challenge them.” For each of the three regions, the factors of alliances, political stability, U.S. military posture, and infrastructure were rated on a scale with five options: very poor, unfavorable, moderate, favorable, and excellent.

In Europe, the Index deems the overall operating environment to be favorable. While U.S. military posture in Europe is rated as moderate, all other factors there are ranked as favorable to the United States. Although Europe is characterized by “generally peaceful conditions,” there “remain latent security concerns.” The main challenges in the region include “unfinished business in the Balkans or on Europe’s periphery in the Southern Caucasus” and more obviously, Russia. Russia’s nuclear missiles, its propaganda, and its activities in the Arctic, Eastern Europe, and Caucasus all remain threats to watch out for. The report rates Russian behavior as “aggressive” and its capability as “gathering,” the second strongest possible level of capability after “formidable.” Another worry for the United States in Europe is the declining capacity of NATO allies, meaning that America will be forced to participate in operations, like Libya, that ought to have been shouldered by allies.

In the Middle East, the Index rates the operating environment for U.S. forces as moderate, the rating given to all other factors in the region except political stability, which is deemed unfavorable. The Middle East is described as a “troubled area riven with conflict, ruled by authoritarian regimes, and populated by an increasing number of terrorist and other destabilizing entities.” Due to its location, it is extremely strategically important to the United States. American alliances in the region are bilateral, and while its relationships with countries like Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are strong, there is no NATO-like organization for this region. The military records of the states of the region are “mixed,” with Israel being considered the most capable, followed by the Gulf States, who despite this fact are “quite happy to continue their dependence on the U.S. for their security needs.” The two largest threats to the United States from this region are Iran and greater Middle East-based terrorism. Iran, which “represents by far the most significant security challenge to the United States, its allies, and its interests” is classified behaviorally as aggressive, with an “aspirational” capability. Middle East terrorism is likewise ranked as aggressive and aspirational.

In Asia as well, the overall operating environment is considered moderate, although the alliances factor is considered favorable to the U.S. Unlike in Europe, bilateral relationships form the mainstay of U.S. partnerships in the region, as there is no NATO-like security structure. Among American allies, “there is a wide range of capabilities, influenced by local threat perceptions, historical factors, and budgetary considerations.” The bottom line is that the Asian strategic environment is “extremely expansive,” so it is difficult to make blanket assessments of it. There will always be physical limitations due to the “tyranny of distance” and the United States cannot always count on the support of its allies due to their varying capabilities and historical tensions with each other (with the prime example being Japan-South Korea tensions).

According to the report, the three main threats from Asia are terrorism (from Afghanistan and Pakistan), China, and North Korea. All three threats are ranked behaviorally as being aggressive. China’s capability, like Russia’s, is considered to be “gathering” and Beijing continues to “present the United States with the most comprehensive security challenge in the region.” North Korea and terrorism from the Af-Pak region are considered “capable” threats. The situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in particular, is very uncertain. Also threatening regional security are the border disputes involving various Asian claimants, including the South China Sea issue.

Of all the countries mentioned as being aggressive towards the United States, the most capable are China and Russia, who present the highest threats to U.S. vital interests. Terrorism from Afghanistan and Pakistan is judged more dangerous than terrorism from the Middle East; Iran and Middle Eastern terrorism’s abilities to threaten U.S. interests are relatively lowly ranked, as aspirational.

In terms of the overall status of American military power in dealing with all these global threats, the overall posture of the U.S. military is rated as “marginal.” The index concludes that this means that currently, U.S. military force is “adequate to meeting the demands of a single major regional conflict while also attending to various presence and engagement activities,” thus falling below the Pentagon’s ideal “capacity” needs. There is no doubt that the military is under “significant pressure” and many units are undergoing deployments for longer periods. In terms of overall power, the Index concludes that the power of the army, navy, marine corps, and nuclear forces is marginal, while the U.S. Air Force is strong. This is not surprising, given the heavy reliance on air power in U.S. campaigns. Several aspects of American nuclear power are considered weak, as is the capability of the navy, the capacity of the marine corps, and the readiness of the army.

The report concludes that the U.S. military is “marginally able to meet the demands of defending America’s vital national interests.” While America has the capability of securing its objectives, its ability to do so on multiple fronts in increasingly becoming frayed, and it is unlikely that U.S. forces will be able to handle two major conflicts at once, given their present state.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-...o-locals-shot-dead-in-mali-restaurant/6288344

Mali restaurant attack: Three Europeans and two locals shot dead in 'terror attack'

Posted 20 minutes ago

Three Europeans and two locals have been shot dead in a busy restaurant in the Malian capital in what security sources described as a terrorist attack.

At least one gunman entered La Terrasse in an area of Bamako popular with expatriates shortly after midnight and opened fire, according to police and a correspondent on the scene in the aftermath.

"This is a terrorist attack, although we're waiting for clarification. Provisionally, there are four dead - one French national, a Belgian and two Malians," a policeman said, adding that the dead included a police officer who had been passing the restaurant.

A source at the Gabriel Toure hospital in Bamako said a third European, whose nationality was not immediately clear, had died on arrival, while eight people were wounded.

Firefighters carried the body of the French national from the restaurant in Bamako's lively Hippodrome district.

In the moments after the attack the body of the police officer and a guard of a private home could be seen in the street outside, while a little further on the body of the Belgian national was also visible.

Dozens of police officers secured the area but the few witnesses to the attack were initially refusing to testify, fearing reprisals.

The French embassy in Bamako issued a message to all French nationals in the city to exercise caution if they had to leave their homes.

French foreign minister Laurent Fabius confirmed one of the dead was a French national.

"I condemn this odious and cowardly act that has caused the death of several people among them a French citizen," Mr Fabius said in a statement.

He said the attack strengthened France's resolve to "fight terrorism in all its forms".

France has more than 3,000 soldiers in West Africa as part of a counter-insurgency force against al Qaeda-linked militants.

Mali's vast desert north is divided by ethnic rivalries and an Islamist insurgency, and has struggled for stability and peace since a coup in 2012.

Jihadists linked to al-Qaeda controlled an area of desert for more than nine months until a French-led military intervention in 2013 that partly drove them from the region.

The west African nation is also struggling with a militant Tuareg movement that has launched four uprisings since 1962 to fight the army over the territory they claim as their homeland and call Azawad.

But day-to-day life in the capital has been largely unaffected by the northern conflict, and bloodshed blamed on terrorism is rare in the city of 1.8 million.

Saturday's attack came less than 24 hours after United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon urged Mali's Tuareg rebel groups to sign a peace deal agreed nearly a week ago in Algeria.

AFP/Reuters

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.independent.ie/world-new...ttle-in-headquarters-in-nigeria-31046708.html

Boko Haram 'gathering for battle' in headquarters in Nigeria

Published
06/03/2015 | 14:39

Boko Haram fighters are massing at their headquarters in the north-east Nigerian town of Gwoza in preparation for a showdown with multinational forces, residents and an intelligence officer said.

A woman trapped there since Gwoza was seized in July told her daughter that Islamic extremists are urging civilians to leave town to avoid being killed in crossfire in an anticipated major battle.

Hajiya Adama said her mother said the fighters have also released young women being held against their will, including some made pregnant during their captivity.

She said her mother left last week and escaped to the town of Yola, in neighbouring Adamawa state.

"She told me that Boko Haram terrorists asked them to leave suddenly, that they were preparing grounds for a major battle," Ms Adama told the Associated Press.

"She said while being helped by other women to leave through Madagali, they saw many Boko Haram terrorists in trucks and some on bikes moving towards Gwoza."

An intelligence officer said security forces are moving slowly for fear of harming civilians, and especially since Boko Haram is surrounding Gwoza with land mines.

He confirmed forces from Chad are in the area.

Boko Haram in August declared an Islamic caliphate across a swathe of north-east Nigeria where it held sway.

In recent weeks, Chadian and Nigerian troops have retaken a score of towns. But the militants continue to kill scores in suicide bombings and village attacks.

Retaking Gwoza would be a major coup for Nigeria and for the campaign of president Goodluck Jonathan for re-election at critical March 28 ballots.

Critics say the contest is too close to call between Mr Jonathan, a southern Christian, and retired general Muhammadu Buhari, a former military dictator who has vowed to stamp out the six-year-old insurgency that has killed an estimated 12,000 people and left 1.6 million homeless.

Press Association

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...p-to-a-million-Libyan-migrants/5001425672870/

EU official: Expect up to a million Libyan migrants

The chief of the European Union border security agency Frontex stressed preparation.

By Ed Adamczyk Follow @adamczyk_ed Contact the Author | March 6, 2015 at 3:41 PM

WARSAW, Poland, March 6 (UPI) -- Between a half million and one million migrants could leave Libya and head for Europe in 2015, a European Union official warned.
Fabrice Leggeri, chief of Frontex, the EU's border security agency headquartered in Warsaw, Poland, told the Italian news agency ANSA Friday, "We have to be ready to address a more difficult situation than last year. According to the sources, we have been told there are from 500,000 to a million migrants ready to leave from Libya."

Italy, 130 miles across the Mediterranean Sea, would be their logical embarkation point. The Italian Navy's "Mare Nostrum" search-and-rescue operation was replaced last year by the Frontex "Triton" program, which operates with less funding than the Italian mission, leading some in Europe, notably in Italy, to worry that a possible Islamic State takeover in Libya will lead to increased immigration.

Seven different rescue operations were conducted Wednesday off the Italian island of Sicily, as nearly, 1,000 migrants arrived at various ports. Italian coast guard officials said 941 migrants, including 30 children, arrived safely and 10 died during their voyage. Two Coast Guard vessels, and one Navy ship working in the Triton program were involved in the rescues.


Related UPI Stories
•Anti-immigration rally in Rome brings out thousands, incites counter-protest
•Italian coastguard conducts rescue operation to save 1,000 migrants in Mediterranean
•Second 'ghost ship' rescued off Italy's coast with no crew

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/gunmen-attack-libyas-al-ghani-oilfield-kill-eight-082408917.html#cSOEFkM

Gunmen attack Libya's Al Ghani oilfield, kill eight guards -NOC spokesman

By Patrick Markey | Reuters – 34 minutes ago.

TRIPOLI - Unidentified gunman have attacked Libya´s Al Ghani oilfield, killing eight guards, a spokesman for the national oil company said on Friday. Smoke was seen rising from the field, the official said, citing preliminary information from guards there.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Militants-attack-oil-field-in-central-Libya-kill-8-20150306

Militants attack oil field in central Libya, kill 8

2015-03-07 09:12

Tripoli - Militants attacked an oil field in central Libya on Friday, killing eight guards before setting it ablaze in the latest in a spate of attacks on petroleum facilities blamed on a local ISIS affiliate.

The gunmen attacked al-Ghani oil field near the town of Zalla, some 750km southeast of the capital Tripoli, National Oil Corporation spokesperson Mohammed al-Harari told The Associated Press. He said black smoke filled the sky above the facility.

A company statement said the attackers came from the north, an apparent reference to the city of Sirte, seized by an ISIS affiliate last month. Since then several attacks have been launched on nearby oil sites, but no one has claimed responsibility.

"Initial information shows that the group targeted the field, sabotaged its contents and caused extensive damage," the statement said. It added that workers and employees were evacuated to the town of Zalla, about 60km from the field.

It was not immediately clear if the militants seized control of the field or fled.

The attacks in recent weeks have forced Libya to declare 11 fields non-operational, including al-Ghani, and invoke a force majeure clause that exempts the state from contractual obligations.

Three years after Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown in an Arab Spring-inspired uprising, Libya is bitterly divided between two rival governments and a wide array of militias. The internationally recognized government and parliament were forced to relocate to the country's far east after Tripoli fell to Islamist-allied militias last summer.

The turmoil has provided fertile ground for militants allied with the Islamic State group, who control Darna in eastern Libya as well as Sirte, and have carried out several deadly suicide bombings across the country. In January, they stormed a luxury hotel in Tripoli, and in February released a video showing the beheading of 21 captured Egyptian Christians. The Egyptian military launched airstrikes on Darna in retaliation.

Libya's oil production has meanwhile dropped to about 25% of normal levels. It recently reached 500 000 barrels per day, according to Oil Minister Mashallah al-Zewi.


- AP

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.dw.de/in-libya-islamic-state-caliphate-grows-on-tribal-fears/a-18300716

In Libya, 'Islamic State caliphate' grows on tribal fears

Since IS's arrival in Sirte, the police have vanished from the streets and religious hatred has spread from Iraq and Syria to local mosques, which are inciting their followers to jihad. Nancy Porsia reports from Sirte.

Her hair covered in a fashionable pink veil, hair covered a woman drives her car through southeastern Sirte, while a couple of miles to the north the black flag of the "Islamic State" waves in the the city center.

The black uniformed men are headquartered in the conference hall building "Ouagadougou," at the top of which black flag IS flags flutter. Years ago Ouagadougou was built as a stage for Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's addresses to the nation from his hometown and named after the capital of Burkina Faso, where the African Union was formed. Inside the immigration office and the post office are flooded with the militiamen.

A few meters away, IS took over the University of Sirte, a local radio station, the Mahari Hotel and the prison, all of which had been abandoned. The buildings IS controls are all scattered in the central neighborhood of Sabha. "They remain barricaded inside there," says Colonel Mohamed Al Hisan, field commander of the Brigade 166, which was assigned by the Tripoli-based government to fight IS in Sirte.

Since the fall of the previous regime, Sirte has remained lawless: None of the local tribes, which had remained loyal to Gadhafi's regime until its ouster by NATO bombing, had the power to take over the city. The Islamists of Ansar al-Sharia in Libya sent in their men and established their system.

"Everyone loves Ansar al-Sharia in Sirte, because it was the only force since the end of the former regime to ensure security in the city," a resident told DW.

The Islamists replaced the local administrative system about three years ago, attracting hundreds of men of different tribes to Sirte. The members of minor tribes joined Ansar seeking protection from of the more powerful tribes. But the death of the head of Ansar, Ahmed Attir, in early 2014 left a vacuum that opened the door to IS.

"They arrived in the city piecemeal," the man says. "No one was paying attention because [the IS forces] were still under the control of Ansar al Sharia."

The route to Sirte

After Derna, Sirte is the second city in the war-torn country to end up under the Islamists control. IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's influence has also spread to Benghazi, the second-largest city in Libya after the capital, Tripoli. The so-called "Caliphate" has been putting pressure on the followers of al Qaeda and Ansar al Sharia to join the ranks of IS. Derna, the cradle of al Qaeda cells in Libya, already proclaimed its allegiance to the IS last October, staging a massive parade in the far eastern coastal city.

In December, the bombing campaign led by General Haftar on Derna prompted dozens of IS militants to repair to the extremism breeding grounds of Gadhafi's hometown.

Tripoli intelligence counted around 500 IS militants in Sirte, including 100 foreign fighters, most of whom apparently came from Tunisia, Algeria and Afghanistan.

Since the arrival of IS in the city, police have disappeared from the streets, and all but three Salafist mosques have been giving sermons that perpetuate the rhetoric of religious hatred from Iraq and Syria, inciting jihad.

The graphic video of Egyptian Copts' beheading, purportedly filmed in Sirte and published two days after the arrival of IS forces in the city, has terrorized the local people and caused the entire Egyptian community to flee.

But the slaughterers are invisible on the streets. IS foreign fighters stay behind closed doors, whereas IS's local followers move around in plainclothes, explains a local, who declines to give his identity for security reasons.

There is no show of military force here. The pickup truck laden with heavy artillery seen in a video of IS parading though the city, seems to have evaporated.

In the streets surrounding the neighborhood of Sabha, life carries on as if nothing had changed. The Islamic State's militants have asked beauty salons and perfume shops to shut down, but some are still open. IS called for female and male students to be kept separate at the university, and the following day no one attended lessons. The college is now closed.

Negotiations with tribes

Sitting in his compound five kilometers (three miles) southeast of Sirte, Colonel Al Hisan explains. "We could wipe them out in a few hours, but we fear they would open fire on civilians on their way out. And we would like to avoid such bloodshed." Then he stresses: "We do not want to make the mistake Haftar did in Benghazi," referring to the military operation led by the general last year that left a high death toll among civilians without any significant impact on the security of the city.

While negotiating with IS forces in Sirte for a peaceful way out from the city, Brigade 166 have been trying for weeks to convince the elders of the local tribes to lift the traditional protection of individual tribe members who joined IS. "We aim to socially isolate the few hundred local men inside the terrorist groups to avoid triggering a tribal feud," says Al Hisan.

Playing on the tribal divisions in Libya, the expansion of IS ideology westwards and up to Sirte has gone faster than many expected. Attacks on a luxury hotel as well as the embassies of Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen over the past few months have led to a heightened warning even in the capital.

"The fundamentalists are also in Tripoli," says a rebel commander from the north-western town of Jadu. Arching his eyebrows inadvertently, he stresses: "They are waiting until we will run out of ammunition fighting each other, Zintan against Misrata, moderates against Islamists. Then they will come out to conquer Libya."

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rafting-nuclear-back-up-plan-to-counter-iran/

Nuclear Proliferation

‘Nobody is going to wait’: Saudi drafting nuclear back-up plan to counter Iran?

By Lucas Tomlinson
·Published March 07, 2015 · FoxNews.com

Video

Saudi Arabia, growing increasingly nervous about its neighbor across the Persian Gulf, may be hedging its bets and crafting a nuclear back-up plan if a diplomatic deal with Iran fails to halt the Islamic Republic's alleged march toward a weapon.

The latest sign is a curious visit on Wednesday by Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the day before Secretary of State John Kerry's visit to the capital Riyadh.

Sharif arrived in Saudi Arabia following a visit by the Egyptian president on Sunday and Turkey's president on Monday -- but the Pakistan PM's House of Saud call might be the most significant of the three, considering Pakistan is seen by some analysts as Saudi Arabia's future nuclear tech supplier, should the Kingdom take that leap.

"The visit by the PM ... almost certainly has to be seen in the context of Saudi Arabia looking to Pakistan for nuclear cooperation to counter Iran's emerging status," Simon Henderson, of the Washington Institute, told Fox News.

Henderson, in an essay for the Washington Institute last month, also noted Riyadh's support for Pakistan's nuclear program, "providing financing in return for a widely assumed understanding that, if needed, Islamabad will transfer technology or even warheads."

The developments point to increasing tension in the region over the course of U.S.-driven nuclear talks. Earlier this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave an address to Congress urging the Obama administration to pull back on the talks, warning the pending deal is too soft on Iran.

"When the Israelis and Arabs are on the same page, people should pay attention," Israel's ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer told Fox News on Thursday. "That doesn't happen too often."

President Obama and his top advisers have urged allies, and lawmakers, to be patient and wait until a deal is actually presented before judging it.

But some in the region are getting impatient. "Nobody is going to wait for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. Proliferation has already started," retired Col. Derek Harvey, a former senior intelligence official in Iraq, told Fox News. The reported sunset clause allowing unrestricted enrichment for Iran after 10 years may be a driving factor.

The State Department did not return a request for comment from Fox News on whether it was concerned about Saudi Arabia seeking a nuclear weapon.

Henderson, in his essay, pointed out that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan may have just renewed a secret nuclear weapons pact.

In early February, the chairman of Pakistan's Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee visited Saudi Arabia, amid some speculation that the House of Saud had indeed reconfirmed a supposed arrangement with Pakistan for the nation to supply Saudi Arabia with warheads should Iran go nuclear. The visit to Saudi Arabia last month came a day after a successful test-firing of Pakistan's Raad air-launched 220-mile-range cruise missile, which supposedly is able to deliver nuclear and conventional warheads.

Ironically, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer "AQ" Khan, also provided the technology to Saudi Arabia's nemesis, Iran.

Kerry is navigating complicated Arab world geopolitics as he meets with foreign counterparts. Amid wariness over Shiite Iran's nuclear program, these countries are also concerned about Iran's support for Shia militants against ISIS militants in Iraq, support for Houthi rebels in Yemen and the country's ever-growing regional footprint.

In Riyadh, Kerry met Thursday with counterparts from the Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman -- all Sunni nations concerned about Iran's intentions in Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

At a press conference Thursday, Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal expressed concern over Iran's involvement in helping Iraqi forces in Tikrit. "The situation in Tikrit is a prime example of what we are worried about. Iran is taking over the country," he said.

The Pentagon acknowledged Iran's leading role in the battle for Tikrit. Two-thirds of those taking part in the operation are Iran-backed Shia militias led by Quds Force commander Gen. Major General Qasem Soleimani, the special operations wing of Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

"This is the most overt conduct of Iranian support in the form of artillery and other things," Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told members of Congress Tuesday.

Kerry did his best to reassure Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies that the United States will not ignore Iran's actions in the region outside of the ongoing nuclear talks.

"The first step is, make sure they don't have a nuclear weapon, but nothing else changes the next day, with respect to our joint commitment, to stand up against any other kind of interference of violation of international law, or support for terrorism," he said Thursday in Riyadh.

Joining the Sunni alliance against Iran is Israel. Netanyahu cautioned the U.S. on Tuesday not to become too dependent on Iran fighting inside Iraq.

"When it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy -- is your enemy," Netanyahu told Congress.

While Pakistan's prime minister was meeting his ally in Saudi Arabia this week, over in northern Iraq, the head of the Kurdistan Regional Government was also looking to shore up support from one of its patrons -- Iran.

An official representing the KRG in Iran, Abdullah Akerei, told Iranian Press TV that gas for the Kurdistan region's power plants would be supplied by Iran.

KRG has welcomed Iran's help in the past. Over the summer, Soleimani and 70 soldiers arrived to defend Irbil from the Islamic State after Mosul fell. Iran has since helped supply the Kurds with weapons to help them in their ongoing fight against ISIS.

Fox News' Jonathan Wachtel contributed to this report.

More on this...

Effort to keep US-led coalition against ISIS together

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150307/eu--russia-opposition-a31adea91f.html

Russia: 2 suspects detained in murder of Boris Nemtsov

Mar 7, 4:42 AM (ET)

MOSCOW (AP) — The head of Russia's federal security service said Saturday that two suspects have been detained in the killing a week ago of opposition politician Boris Nemtsov.

Alexander Bortnikov made the statement on state television. He said the two suspects were from Russia's North Caucasus region, but no other details were given.

It was not clear if either of the suspects was believed to have fired the shots that killed Nemtsov as he walked over a bridge with a companion near the Kremlin on Feb. 28.

Nemtsov's killing shocked Russia's already beleaguered and marginalized opposition supporters. Suspicion in the opposition is high that the killing was ordered by the Kremlin in retaliation for Nemtsov's adamant criticism of President Vladimir Putin. The 55-year-old was reportedly working on a report about Russian military involvement in the eastern Ukraine conflict.

But Russia's top investigative body said it was investigating several possible motives, including that he was killed in an attempt to smear Putin's image. It also said it was looking into possible connections to Islamic extremism and Nemtsov's personal life.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/07/us-egypt-execution-islamist-idUSKBN0M30AU20150307

Egypt carries out first execution of Mursi supporter

CAIRO Sat Mar 7, 2015 5:02am EST

(Reuters) - Egypt executed an Islamist on Saturday for a murder committed during riots in mid-2013, the first death sentence carried out against a supporter of the banned Muslim Brotherhood under President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

The interior ministry said in a statement on its Facebook page that Mahmoud Hassan Ramadan had been hanged for an incident where children were thrown from a building during protests in 2013 against the ouster of Islamist President Mohamed Mursi.

Security sources have described Ramadan as a radical Islamist who is not officially a Brotherhood member.

Former army chief Sisi oversaw the army's removal of the Brotherhood's Mursi, elected president following the 2011 uprising, in July 2013 following mass protests against his rule. He has since implemented a harsh crackdown on Islamists as well as secular political opponents.

Egyptian courts have sentenced hundreds of alleged Brotherhood supporters to death in recent months, many in mass trials condemned by foreign governments and rights groups as violating international law.

Saturday's execution came a month after Egypt's high court upheld the death sentence against Ramadan. Most of the other death sentences are still under review in a complex system of legal appeals.

In one of the most dramatic scenes of the upheaval following Mursi's fall captured on video, Ramadan threw someone off a rooftop during clashes in the northern Mediterranean city's Sidi Gaber district. An al Qaeda flag was seen tucked into the back of Ramadan's trousers.

Fifty-seven others were sentenced to 15-25 years in the case.

The Brotherhood, which says it is committed to peaceful activism, has accused the military of staging a coup and curbing freedoms won in the 2011 uprising that toppled Hosni Mubarak.


(Reporting by Omar Fahmy and Stephen Kalin; Editing by Catherine Evans)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.ibcworldnews.com/2015/0...ng-nuclear-capabilities-with-no-end-in-sight/

China, India, And Pakistan—Growing Nuclear Capabilities With No End in Sight

Posted on Mar 7 2015 - 3:13pm by IBC World

CHINA ::

Unlike India and Pakistan, China is formally a nuclear weapon state under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). China is also a major nuclear power possessing advanced, repeatedly tested, and diverse nuclear weapons designs, diverse delivery systems, and a centralized command and control network that is intended to ensure that the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party can exercise effective command of the country’s nuclear weaponry.

In contrast to the United States and the former Soviet Union, China historically maintained a small nuclear force consisting primarily of land-based missiles whose warheads were stored separately, with the delivery vehicles maintained routinely in un-alerted status in silos or caves. This relatively relaxed posture was viewed as sufficient to protect Chinese security during the Cold War because Beijing believed that the positive externalities of mutual U.S.-Soviet nuclear deterrence bestowed on China sufficient protection. Because even a small number of survivable nuclear weapons capable of reaching an adversary’s homeland could wreak unacceptable damage, Chinese leaders sought to maintain relatively modest forces that through a combination of opacity, sheltering, and sometimes limited mobility, could survive the remote contingencies of direct nuclear attack at a time when these dangers were limited principally by the political constraints of strong bipolar competition.

With the ending of the Cold War and with the progressive rise of Chinese power, Beijing—whether it publicly admits it or not—has come to view the United States as its principal strategic competitor. Given China’s recognition of the sophistication of U.S. nuclear and conventional forces in the face of Beijing’s desire to reclaim the strategic primacy it once enjoyed in Asia, Chinese nuclear modernization became inevitable. This modernization, which consists principally of efforts to increase the survivability of its nuclear deterrent in the face of what it perceives to be a formidable U.S. nuclear threat supplemented by other major regional dangers from Russia, India, and other prospective nuclear powers, has taken the following form: the deployment of new land-based solid-fueled ballistic missiles of varying ranges (to include intercontinental-range ballistic missiles); ballistic missile submarines with weapons capable of reaching the continental United States; new highly survivable nuclear weapon storage sites; and a robust national command and control system that incorporates a resilient, dedicated nuclear command and control segment.

The number of nuclear warheads in the Chinese arsenal has also progressively increased as the nuclear delivery systems have been augmented, but there still significant uncertainties about the existence and the number of nuclear gravity bombs and tactical nuclear weapons in the Chinese arsenal. The total size of the Chinese nuclear weapons inventory today is widely believed to consist of some 250 nuclear warheads, but the accuracy of these or any other numbers is debatable.

China has a substantial fissile material stockpile consisting of some 16 metric tons of highly enriched uranium and some 1.8 metric tons of weapon-grade plutonium, so there are no practical constraints on its ability to produce an arsenal of any size it chooses. Given the choices China makes in regard to delivery systems, it could deploy anywhere up to an additional 150 warheads over the next ten years.

At arsenal levels of such size, the Chinese nuclear force will be oriented fundamentally towards deterring nuclear use (or the threat of use) against China by maintaining a survivable retaliatory capacity during conflicts with any nuclear-armed state and by maintaining the capacity for escalation dominance vis-à-vis weaker nuclear adversaries. Toward these ends, China will continue to reiterate its “no first use” nuclear policy, though what that doctrine means precisely is unclear.

China today views the United States as its principal active nuclear and conventional threat, followed by India in the nuclear realm. Russia remains a latent nuclear threat and although it was historically an important driver of Chinese nuclear planning, Russia has receded considerably in Chinese calculations today. North Korea, Taiwan, and Japan remain longer-term sources of strategic uncertainty for Beijing, with nuclear threats remaining a current or prospective challenge in all three cases. The most pressing practical contingencies involving Chinese nuclear use in the prospective future, however, involve employment against U.S. forces to forestall defeat or signal a willingness to risk further escalation in the context of a successful U.S. intervention in a Taiwan crisis or in another crisis of similar magnitude in East Asia (for example, on behalf of Japan), and the use of tactical (or other) nuclear weapons in a conflict with India.

INDIA ::

The rivalry between China and India since their birth as modern states after the Second World War created the preconditions for a nuclear rivalry between them—a competition that was inflamed when China first tested nuclear weapons in 1964 driven by its antagonism to the United States and its emerging split with the Soviet Union. The first Chinese nuclear test, coming two years after India’s defeat in the 1962 Sino-Indian conflict, precipitated the Indian nuclear weapons program, which in turn first demonstrated its capacity in 1974. Despite the supposed Chinese disdain of India, Beijing began to systematically target India with nuclear weapons after the latter’s first nuclear test, and sometime in the late-1980s transferred a nuclear weapon design and fissile material to Pakistan, at least in part as a strategy of containing India. New Delhi responded to the Chinese challenge with additional nuclear tests in 1998, declared itself to be a nuclear weapon state, and began to overtly develop its nuclear deterrent since—aimed at both China and Pakistan.

India today is believed to possess an arsenal of some 100 nuclear weapons, though this figure is highly uncertain. The country is thought to have produced close to 600 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium, though it is unclear whether all this material has been machined into warheads. India can produce extremely large quantities of weapons-grade plutonium, should it chose to use its power reactors currently outside of safeguards for this purpose. To date, however, there is no evidence that India has embarked on any crash program to enlarge its nuclear arsenal, despite its having the technical capacity to do so. If India persists in producing about 5-6 nuclear weapons annually (as it is believed to have done since 1998), the India nuclear deterrent would consist of some less than 200 nuclear weapons by 2025—assuming the public assessments of its current inventory are correct. These weapons will be deployed aboard primarily mobile, solid-fueled, ballistic missiles of up to intermediate range, though these will be supplemented by a limited number of legacy gravity weapons and a small but growing number of sea-launched ballistic missiles. All Indian nuclear weapons currently are maintained routinely in de-mated condition, though whether this posture will persist after the four ballistic missile submarines are eventually inducted into its arsenal is unclear.

The heart of India’s current nuclear modernization program, which is centered on developing and inducting mobile, sold-fueled intermediate-range ballistic missiles, deploying ballistic missile submarines, developing a ballistic missile defense system, building weapon storage and integration sites, and completing its command and control network, is aimed principally at refurbishing its deterrence capability vis-à-vis China. The threats emerging from Pakistan are significant, but Indian policy makers judge that their current deterrent against Islamabad as generally adequate. The deterrence gap versus China, however, is considerable and it will not be bridged until India acquires the capacity to range the Chinese heartland with missiles of adequate reach.

Even when the effort to reach this goal is completed—an endeavor that will continue well beyond 2025—it is likely that New Delhi will persist with its currently relaxed nuclear posture so long as current trends in Sino-Indian and Indo-Pakistani relations persist. This posture is predicated on the requirement of a “minimum” deterrent (whose numerical size is not publicly known) and a strict “no first use” policy (which is likely to subsist durably because of India’s general conventional military superiority over Pakistan and its still substantial, though decaying, operational military superiority over China along their disputed border). As long as these conditions obtain, there is little incentive for India to violate its “no first use” policy, which is oriented fundamentally towards deterring nuclear attack (or threats of attack) emerging from Pakistan and China.

PAKISTAN ::

The contrast between India and Pakistan on “no first use” could not be greater. Unlike India, which is both stronger than Pakistan and no pushover where China is concerned, Pakistan is a weak state that is unfortunately growing even weaker as a result of its awful strategic choices. Pakistan’s security competition with India, which dates back to the creation of the two countries as independent states, is multi-dimensional in nature and involves territorial, religious, and power-political dimensions. These grievances have combined in unhelpful ways to make Pakistan the anti-status quo power in the Indian subcontinent. Having fought four unsuccessful wars with India in an effort to secure its strategic aims, Pakistan switched to a dangerous and provocative strategy in the last decades of the 20th century—a strategy of supporting terrorist groups aimed at enervating India through “a thousand cuts,” even as Pakistan began to feverishly expand its nuclear arsenal in an effort to prevent New Delhi from retaliating with conventional forces.

The post-2001-02 shift in Indian policy, which holds out the threat of conventional retaliation to Pakistani-supported terrorist attacks (despite the overarching presence of nuclear weapons in the subcontinent), has only deepened Pakistan’s dependence on nuclear weapons further, resulting in an acceleration of its weapons program. Today, the Pakistan arsenal includes both gravity weapons and ballistic missiles of up to medium range as well as cruise missiles, glide bombs, and a plethora of new and diverse tactical nuclear weapons. The Pakistani nuclear arsenal is judged by many reputable scholars to consist of some 90-110 weapons, though at the current pace of growth the force could easily expand to over three times that number within a decade.

Pakistan’s strategic weaponry is believed to be deployed in de-mated condition routinely in peacetime. Whether that posture will apply to the newer tactical systems is unclear. Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine, unlike India or China’s, is centered fundamentally on first use, and it is oriented primarily towards defeating India’s conventional superiority in the event of conflict. Although Pakistan’s nuclear forces are intended, strictly speaking, for deterrence and not war fighting, Islamabad’s emerging tactical capabilities could inadvertently push Pakistan towards the latter.

The external dangers of deterrence breakdown, which could precipitate the catastrophe of Pakistani nuclear use against India, are complemented by internal dangers as well. Pakistan’s internal fissures, it is often feared, could bleed into its armed forces, resulting in risks to the security of its nuclear weaponry. Although the Pakistani military has made enormous investments in enhancing nuclear security (aided by the United States) in recent years, fears about the loss or compromise of its nuclear weaponry because of domestic dangers still persist—and not unreasonably so.

TAKING STOCK ::

When all three states are synoptically considered, therefore, the following contingencies remain the most pressing from the viewpoint of U.S. strategic interests for the reasons adduced below:

1) Chinese use or threats of use of nuclear weaponry to deter U.S. military intervention on behalf or Taiwan or other American allies in Asia.

Of the three nuclear weapons states that are the subject of this testimony, only China conceives of its nuclear arsenal as having direct utility for deterring U.S. military operations directed against its interests at various locations along the Asian rimland. Any contingency that brings U.S. forces in confrontation with China would represent a dangerous predicament and would require both local conventional and overall nuclear superiority for political and military success. Any failure on this score could not only precipitate immediate operational reverses that would frustrate the realization of U.S. political aims, but it could lead over time to the erosion of the U.S. alliance system in East Asia, the future acquisition of nuclear weapons by current American allies, and the eventual loss of American primacy in the Indo-Pacific. For all these reasons, preparing seriously to ensure success in this contingency should remain at the top of American strategic priorities. The recent innovations centered on the “AirSea Battle” concept indicate that the Pentagon has taken the emerging Chinese threats to the U.S. ability to aid its East Asian allies seriously, though it is unclear whether force planning for nuclear escalation vis-à-vis China has been adequately integrated into the current war plans. If this lacuna is real, it could prove costly in the context of a conflict—and could undermine the confidence of the allies in the viability of the U.S. nuclear umbrella.

2) Pakistani “use” of nuclear weapons as cover to support continued terrorist attacks against India.

Although this contingency derives from Pakistan’s ability to exploit the deterrence capability inherent in its nuclear reserves for revisionist ends—and represents the dominant threat levied by the Pakistani military against India now for some three decades—it embodies the most likely route to nuclear deterrence breakdown in South Asia. Neither Indian nor U.S. nuclear capabilities are directly useful in defeating this threat, but U.S. and international political pressure on Pakistan, which has been employed episodically, might offer a means of mitigating its worst dangers. The most likely antidote that could alter such Pakistani behavior, however, would be the rising costs of terrorist blowback within Pakistan—which is, unfortunately, an expensive way of getting Pakistan to change course.

3) Pakistani nuclear use against India or against Indian military forces in the context of Indian retaliation against Pakistani-supported terrorist attacks against India.

This contingency arises if India decides to retaliate against Pakistan through the large scale use of military force for punitive purposes. Any significant employment of Indian military force obviously carries the risk of a Pakistani nuclear response, which is why Indian leaders have shied away from exercising major conventional war options that require especially the large scale use of land forces. Should India contemplate major military operations, however, it is likely that the United States would intervene, but mainly through energetic diplomacy as it did in 2001-02 and again in 2008. It is unlikely that the United States would choose to intervene militarily to prevent either conflict escalation or nuclear weapons employment for a host of operational reasons, though some kinds of trans- or post-conflict assistance might be feasible: in such circumstances, the most important U.S. capabilities that would be relevant would be intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) assets, capabilities required for noncombatant evacuation operations, and Nuclear Emergency and Support Teams (NEST) and other assets essential for post-detonation assistance and recovery (if nuclear use has occurred). Because of the large numbers of U.S. citizens normally resident or traveling in India, and the complexity of evacuation operations in a nuclear environment, this scenario can be more stressing than is commonly realized. The most useful U.S. contribution towards preventing a Pakistani use of nuclear weapons in such a scenario—and the Indian nuclear retribution that would result thereafter—would be to press Pakistan to exit the terrorism business or risk being left alone (or, even worse, the object of international sanction) if a major Indian military response ensues in the aftermath of any pernicious terrorist attack. Other than this, there is little that the United States can do to preserve deterrence stability between two asymmetrically-sized states where the gap in power promises to become even wider tomorrow than it is today.

4) Pakistani loss of control over nuclear assets in the context of conventional military operations against India OR a compromise of nuclear security in peacetime in Pakistan.

This scenario, which has been discussed considerably in recent years both in India and in the United States, would also be highly complex in the demands it places on the U.S. military, depending on the details of the contingency. U.S. ISR elements, special operations forces, and other quick reaction capabilities would be highly relevant in such a contingency—as would close coordination with the government of Pakistan and its armed forces. The United States has already aided Pakistan significantly in regards to nuclear weapons protection, but there are obvious limits to further assistance beyond a point, not least because of the deep-rooted Pakistani fears about the United States seeking access and information about the location of Pakistan’s nuclear weaponry.

5) Chinese or Indian nuclear coercion against the other in the context of a border crisis OR in the limiting case, the actual use of nuclear weapons to stave off battlefield defeat.

This last contingency, admittedly remote today, would put a high premium on U.S. ISR assets as well as, obviously, active U.S. diplomacy. At the present, it is unlikely that the United States would find itself involved in such a conflict except as a concerned bystander, but if this situation were to change as U.S.-Indian ties grow deeper over time, U.S. conventional and nuclear forces might acquire new roles for extended deterrence and reassurance with respect to India. Until then, however, U.S. ISR capabilities and diplomacy would represent the instruments most relevant to coping with such a scenario.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES ::

The broad range of nuclear challenges arising from a consideration of the problems involving China, India and Pakistan suggest several important conclusions as far as U.S. strategic forces are concerned.

First, U.S. nuclear forces will continue to remain the ultimate backstop where American national security is concerned. The notion that these forces will become irrelevant any time soon, or that their abolition can be contemplated, is a dangerous fantasy. Eliminating nuclear weapons globally must instead take a backseat to protecting U.S. nuclear dominance and maintaining the effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear deterrent over the long term.

Second, the progressive growth of Chinese, Indian, and Pakistani nuclear forces over the next ten years—and the likelihood of further proliferation elsewhere in years to come–implies that any further reduction of U.S. nuclear forces beyond the New Start treaty ought to be eschewed. Given the complexity of the emerging nuclear environment—a world that is best described as asymmetric nuclear multipolarity—the United States must seek to maintain the requisite superiority of the total force that permits it to achieve conventional success in regional contingencies while preserving the advantages currently enjoyed by U.S. nuclear forces. Given the onerous U.S. extended deterrence commitments in Europe and Asia, American nuclear parity with Russia must not diminish to a point where parity with China slinks into reach.

Third, the United States must think seriously about the threat of nuclear deterrence breakdown in Asia as a time when the continent will host many nuclear powers whose arsenals vary in capacity, architecture and doctrine. The desire to reduce the salience of nuclear weaponry in global politics is estimable. That means that U.S. nuclear weapons ought not to be brandished unnecessarily. However, it does not imply forgetting that U.S. nuclear weapons are still essential for deterring not only nuclear attacks (or the threats thereof) on the United States and its allies but also major conventional attacks as well, while still remaining useful as tactical warfighting instruments in certain specific, admittedly limited, contingencies where conventional weapons currently remain ineffective. As a general rule, therefore, the desire to reduce the salience of nuclear weapons in world politics should not extend to devaluing the utility of nuclear weapons for deterrence because these instruments will continue to remain the ultima ratio in an environment that only promises more, not less, proliferation.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-31774333

BBC News
Latin America & Caribbean

6 March 2015 Last updated at 17:34 ET

Venezuela to get South American help for food crisis

Long queue outside Caracas supermarket The government says many queues are "artificially created" by unscrupulous businessmen

Foreign ministers from 12 South American nations gathering in Caracas have promised to help Venezuela overcome an ongoing shortage of food, medicine and other products.

The regional Unasur bloc agreed with President Nicolas Maduro to provide items that have gone missing from many Venezuelan supermarkets.

The shortage of staples has contributed to popular discontent.

Unasur highlighted the importance of safeguarding democratic stability.

"The idea is to get all the countries to support the distribution of staples," said Ernesto Samper, Secretary-General of Unasur (Union of South American Nations).

"We will work together with the Venezuelan authorities to strengthen the distribution networks in our countries so they help Venezuela," said Mr Samper.

He criticised recent anti-government protests in Venezuela that descended into violence.

The opposition must "express its opinions in a democratic, peaceful and lawful manner," said Mr Samper.

'Vote threatened'

The Unasur ministers will meet opposition leaders and government officials in the next few days to seek guarantees that Venezuela will be able to hold free and fair elections later this year.

Nicolas Maduro and Ernesto Samper Mr Samper (right) promised Mr Maduro (left) support for Venezuela's democracy Demonstrators in Caracas Anti-government protesters have been calling for President Maduro to resign
Opposition leader Henrique Capriles told the AFP news agency on Tuesday that Mr Maduro could cancel the vote, which is scheduled for the second half of this year.

"The government had never had such a large deficit [in the polls] heading into an election. Now it does. How does it change that? It rigs the game," said Mr Capriles.

Mr Maduro said the elections would go ahead as planned.

He has recently accused the opposition and the United States of plotting a coup against his government.

The mayor of Caracas, Antonio Ledezma, was arrested last month and has been charged with conspiracy.

Mr Maduro accuses Venezuela's business elite of boycotting his government.

Last month, owners of several chains of supermarkets of drugstores were arrested for allegedly artificially creating long queues

They reduced the number of employees working on cash tills in order to create queues and "annoy the Venezuelan people", said Mr Maduro.

The economic crisis in the oil-rich nation has been made worse by falling oil prices in international markets.

The opposition blames the socialist policies of the past 16 years for the crisis.


Related Stories
Venezuelan shop owners arrested
Is Venezuela losing faith in president?
Venezuela's leader Nicolas Maduro divides opinion

 

[Housecarl]

Doomer Doug posted the link to this article on the Iran Yemen thread.....
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...NAL-AND-YEMEN-1-21-2015&p=5564539#post5564539

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/127...-launcher-more-accurate-stealthy-expert-says/

China’s New Nuke and Launcher More Accurate, Stealthy, Expert Says

By Leo Timm, Epoch Times | March 6, 2015
Last Updated: March 6, 2015 6:30 pm

http://img.theepochtimes.com/n3/eet-content/uploads/2015/03/05/1631200_-_main-676x423.jpg

A recently-produced Chinese missile capable of targeting the United States may be getting an upgrade—improved accuracy, different payloads, and a new, off-road mobile launch platform that would make the threat harder to neutralize. According to experts, the changes represent a further hardening of China’s nuclear capabilities, and another potential threat from China for the United States to monitor.

An Off-Road Launcher?

Shown in a photo published Feb. 19 on People’s Liberation Army Pictorial, a Chinese military magazine, is a 16-wheel ballistic missile launch truck, known in more technical terms as a transporter erector launcher. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) uses TELs produced by the Tai’an company for its newer missiles.

According to reports, this new launcher may carry the DF-31B, a Chinese intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) reported to be in development. If deployed, it would join the DF-41, a long-range ICBM most recently tested by the Chinese military last December.

What sets the new TEL vehicle apart from its predecessors is its apparent all-terrain characteristic. According to Richard Fisher, a Senior Fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, the Chinese military at present stores its missiles in bases hidden underground. The weapons, loaded onto their TELs, must then be driven along paved roads to suitable launching sites.

In addition to being costly, this network of roads reduces the secrecy of the PLA’s nuclear base locations because it makes them “highly visible from outer space,” according to Fisher. A TEL that could transport and launch its payload independently of paved road would boost the survivability of China’s strategic assets during a nuclear exchange.

For a military that possesses nuclear weapons, a reliable delivery method is every bit as important as the bomb itself. During the Cold War, ballistic missiles were usually built to be launched from silos or submarines. In the 1980s, however, the Soviets pioneered missiles that could be launched from trains and trucks.

The United States had a similar program, called the Midgetman, which called for an ICBM small enough to be transported and launched from a vehicle called a Hard Mobile Launcher. Successfully developed in the 1980s, the project was eventually abandoned in 1992 following the collapse of the Soviet Union and political pressure on the U.S. military to scale back its nuclear deterrent.

American ballistic missiles are currently confined to stationary silos, making them vulnerable to first strikes should their locations be known to an adversary.

Smaller, More Accurate

Mounted on the new launcher shown in the photo could be a new variant of the DF-31, the DF-31B, according to testimony by a high-ranking U.S. military officer. This new missile would carry a payload of several warheads, making it a so-called “multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle,” or MIRV.

On Feb. 26, Admiral Cecil D Haney, commander of US Strategic Forces Command, said in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Armed Services Committee that China is “enhancing existing silo-based ICBMs, conducting flight tests of a new mobile missile and developing a follow-on mobile system capable of carrying multiple warheads.”

The DF-31B will potentially join another road-mobile missile, the DF-41, in service with the Chinese military. The DF-41 was first tested in 2012, according to the Washington Free Beacon, and can deliver 10 warheads to anywhere in the continental U.S.

Last December, the Chinese regime confirmed that it had conducted launch tests with the DF-41 at the Wuzhai aerospace testing center in central China’s Shanxi Province.

Referring to the admiral’s statements, Richard Fisher said that “for the commander of US Strategic Forces to indirectly mention these two ICBMs bolsters this threat in the estimation of the U.S. government.”

While one missile can carry multiple nuclear warheads, the explosive power of each nuke must be reduced accordingly. Because targeting equipment possessed by communist states has tended to lag behind that of the West, their missiles typically carried larger, more destructive warheads to compensate.

According to Fisher, the DF-31 and DF-41, with their multiple payloads, are more accurate than earlier Chinese intercontinental ballistic missiles. Pointing to the smaller yield size of modern Chinese warheads, he says it stands to reason that the Chinese would move to smaller warheads if they were indeed getting more accurate.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150307/ap-ml--iran-nuclear-0ecd0572dd.html

Iran: Key technical roadblocks for nuclear deal eliminated

Mar 7, 12:03 PM (ET)
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's vice president said key technical roadblocks hampering a final nuclear accord with world powers have been eliminated during ongoing discussions with American negotiators.

Ali Akbar Salehi, who is also in charge of Iran's nuclear agency, told state television on Saturday that Tehran offered proposals to remove "fake concerns" over the country's nuclear program, paving the way for a final deal.

Salehi is involved in ongoing talks with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz on formulating a comprehensive deal that would curb Iran's nuclear activities in exchange for relief from crippling international sanctions.

Salehi said Iran put fresh proposals on the table to ease concerns over Tehran's uranium enrichment program as well as the heavy-water reactor at Arak in central Iran. Differences between Iran and the U.S. over the size and scope of Iran's enrichment program and the plutonium-producing reactor remain the core obstacles to a deal.

"We have taken very good steps and managed to remove, as we believe, their fake concerns and worries through the technical offers we proposed," he said.

Salehi didn't elaborate on the proposals Iran put on the table but he has said in the past that Tehran was ready to redesign the Arak reactor so its plutonium output decreases significantly to ease concerns by the West.

On the key issue of uranium enrichment, the U.S. had sought a 20-year freeze while Iran proposed a freeze of no more than 5 years. President Barack Obama this week outlined a deal under which Iran should commit to at least a 10-year freeze of its most sensitive uranium enrichment activities if a landmark nuclear deal is to be reached.

The other sticking point is the issue of sanctions relief. Iran wants the immediate lifting of all sanctions but the U.S. and its partners are proposing a phased approach.

The entire negotiation process remains controversial inside Iran. Hardliners are worried that President Hassan Rouhani is giving away too many concessions in return for too little.

The hardline daily paper Kayhan slammed the negotiations, saying the American proposal of a 10-year suspension of uranium enrichment is a first step aimed at finally toppling Iran's ruling Islamic government.

"By giving in to a 10-year suspension, we have given away a major concession to the rival party and at the same time have tied our hands for bargaining," Kayhan wrote on Saturday. "The Americans are paving the way to confront the foundation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The first step is change in Iran's behavior and the second stage is structural changes and that's toppling the ruling system."

The West fears Iran seeks to build an atomic bomb. Iran insists its program is for peaceful purposes such as energy production and medical research.

Iran and the six global powers — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — reached an interim accord in November 2013. Now, negotiators hope to reach a rough draft of a deal on Iran's disputed nuclear program by the end of March and a final agreement by June 30.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2...ill-be-nearly-impossible/106914/?oref=d-river

Keeping Iraq Unified Will Be Nearly Impossible

By James Kitfield

March 6, 2015

When his three-car convoy pulled up to a police checkpoint in Baghdad on Friday the 13th of February, Sheikh Qassem al-Janabi had little reason for concern. An influential Sunni moderate who was assisting the Iraqi government's efforts to draw Sunni tribes away from the orbit of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, the charismatic Sheikh Janabi had many friends in high places.

He was in the capital, supposedly far away from any likely ISIS assassins. And he was a longtime friend of the United States, which in the past year had sent military forces back to Iraq to counter the ISIS terrorist group. Sheikh Janabi was riding with seven bodyguards and his son Mohamed, recently returned to Iraq from earning a law degree from the University of Glasgow. They were traveling from their tribal homeland south of Baghdad on the Muslim day of prayer.

The men at the police checkpoint were impostors and suspected Shiite militiamen, and they bundled up Janabi and his entourage at gunpoint, quickly driving them away. Their bodies were later found across town in the ramshackle Shiite slum of Sadr City. Janabi was slumped in the back of one of the cars, his hands tied behind his back with his own belt, a bullet in his head. The bodies of his son Mohamed and seven bodyguards lay nearby, all of them shot execution style. To reach Sadr City, the gunmen would likely have passed through several police checkpoints, raising questions of possible official collusion in the murders.

When the history of the second Iraq civil war is written, the death of Sheikh Qassem al-Janabi may prove notable for what it said about the rapidly closing window for national reconciliation, and for foreshadowing the ominous turn toward outright sectarianism that the fighting in Iraq has taken. Certainly the Sunni lawmakers who walked out of parliament in mass protest on learning of his murder understood his importance, both real and symbolic. Along with other moderate Sunni tribal leaders who first turned against al-Qaida in 2006-07 and took part in the "Anbar Awakening" during Iraq's first civil war, Janabi rejected the terrorists' vision of a purifying civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. Instead he continued to embrace the U.S. vision of a unified and democratic Iraq until the day of this death.

When U.S. officials and military forces returned to Iraq last year, helpfully nudging aside sectarian strongman and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the question they posed was whether enough Sunni leaders of goodwill could still be found to rekindle the dream of reconciliation and create another Anbar "miracle." The ascendance of Iranian-backed Shiite militias and death squads, and the manner of Janabi's death, suggest that such hopes are tenuous. In a well-documented massacre in the eastern province of Diyala just weeks before his death, for instance, more than 70 unarmed Sunni men were killed by Shiite militiamen, and there have been numerous accounts of smaller scale atrocities by roving Shiite death squads.

Even more ominously, Iranian-backed Shiite militias are leading the Iraqi offensive launched this week to retake the Sunni stronghold of Tikrit, former home of Saddam Hussein. Multiple credible reports indicate that Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces and Shiite Hezbollah fighters are actively supporting the offensive, which reportedly is overseen by infamous Iranian Quds Force Commander General Qassem Suleimani. There are also reports that Sunni civilians in Tikrit, terrified of revenge killings and a campaign of ethnic cleansing, are fleeing north to the ISIS-occupied city of Mosul. Shiite militia commanders have promised on state television to take revenge in Tikrit for ISIS's massacre of Shiite soldiers captured at nearby Camp Speicher last June, when hundreds were executed in an atrocity videotaped and posted on YouTube.

Just as worrisome, U.S. officials remarkably insist that they were taken "by surprise" by a Tikrit offensive involving tens of thousands of Iraqi troops and irregulars. Not only were they apparently not consulted, but U.S. forces are not providing air power to the campaign. Nor are U.S. officials otherwise involved in the biggest Iraqi counteroffensive since ISIS captured roughly a third of the country last summer.


The Obama administration seems to think that reconciliation is something that they can focus on later, or just leave to the Iraqis to sort out themselves, but they are flat-out wrong.

Ken Pollack, senior fellow, Brookings Institution's Center for Middle East Policy

"Bottom line, Iranian-backed Shiite militias are doing most of the anti-ISIS fighting in the Tikrit campaign and elsewhere in Iraq, and that is terrifying to Sunni populations who have heard all these stories about ethnic cleansing, both real and exaggerated," said Ken Pollack, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Center for Middle East Policy, and formerly a CIA Middle East analyst. "The Obama administration seems to think that reconciliation is something that they can focus on later, or just leave to the Iraqis to sort out themselves, but they are flat-out wrong," said Pollack, who recently returned from Iraq. "This is not a theoretical issue. If this trend continues, the United States really will become the air force for Iranian-backed Shiite militias and the Kurdish Peshmerga in a sectarian civil war."

An Unlikely Ally

In retrospect, Sheikh Qassem al-Janabi was an unlikely ally. In 2004 he was an influential Sunni tribal leader in an area just south of Baghdad that was so violent and overrun by insurgent activity that U.S. commanders dubbed it the "Triangle of Death." When two foreign contractors working for the U.S.-led coalition were kidnapped by insurgents in the area, diplomats in Baghdad reached out to him for help. Janabi put the word out through tribal networks that the contractors should not be hurt, and at the request of the diplomats he worked as an interlocutor, eventually arranging a deal for the contractors to be returned in exchange for a ransom.

Only a U.S. brigade commander in the area got word of the deal, and he called Janabi in for questioning. Despite the fact that Janabi was working on behalf of coalition diplomats in Baghdad, the colonel was angry that he hadn't been tipped off to the exchange in order to arrest the kidnappers.

"Sheikh Janabi told him that would have certainly gotten the hostages killed, but the U.S. brigade commander arrested him anyway," said Rick Welch, who at the time was an American adviser in Iraq in charge of a U.S.-led tribal "conflict resolution" program that Janabi supported. "I visited Janabi in Abu Ghraib prison a bunch of times, and thought I had arranged for his release by the time I rotated back home in 2005. Then I returned to Iraq in 2007 and learned that he was still in prison! I was so furious that we Americans could be so arrogant and stupid, but I finally got him released, and we worked closely together for the next four years."

By 2011, Welch was in charge of the U.S. military's reconciliation program in Iraq, which sought to establish relationships and provide the connective tissue between Sunni tribal leaders and the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad. After wanton slaughter by Sunni al-Qaida and Shiite death squads very nearly pushed Iraq over the abyss into an all-out sectarian civil war in 2006-07—a slide reversed only by the U.S. troop surge and the Anbar Miracle—everyone understood that reconciliation between Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds was the only hope for a unified Iraq.

After U.S. military forces exited Iraq in 2011, however, Prime Minister Maliki began a relentless campaign to purge government institutions and the security forces of Sunni leaders, and he violently crushed the mostly peaceful protests of Sunni demonstrators that resulted. "After the U.S. forces left, Maliki knew that he was unchecked, and he looked for every excuse to violently subjugate the Sunnis, to the point where a lot of Sunni tribal leaders eventually decided that their chances for survival were better with ISIS than with Maliki's government," said Welch. And yet Janabi remained a friend of the United States and the democracy project to the end. "I was in touch with him just a few weeks before he was murdered, and he was critical of the sectarian agenda of the Iraqi government, but even more so of ISIS. He kept encouraging Iraqis who had fled the country to come back and help rebuild it."

New Prime Haider al-Abadi talks a good game in terms of inclusion and reconciliation, said Welch, but the fact that he has ceded security to Iranian proxies and Shiite militias that are the flip side of the same sectarian coin as ISIS suggests that the Iraqi leader has insufficient political and military backing. The United States has to support Abadi much more forcefully in trying to rein in the Shiite militias, said Welch, because the tentative and reactive approach that U.S. officials have taken, in comparison to Iran, is putting American friends like Sheikh Qassem al-Janabi at risk. "He was a good man, with a beautiful son, and their death sickens me. I continue to see their faces in my dreams."


A Narrow Tightrope


To date U.S. officials say that Abadi has largely lived up to his promise to form a more inclusive government and seek reconciliation with the Sunni tribes. They laud him for reaching a long-elusive deal to share oil revenue with Kurds in the north, for instance, and for agreeing to the future formation of National Guard units made up of local, indigenous troops, as opposed to having an overwhelmingly Shiite army enforcing security in Sunni areas. Abadi has also agreed to allow a more federal system of governance—permitted under the Iraqi constitution—that will give Sunni provinces more autonomy.

Until U.S. train-and-assist forces can complete the task of helping to rebuild Iraqi Security Forces decimated by Maliki's cronyism, corruption, and purges of Sunni commanders, however, Abadi has in the short term continued to rely disproportionately on well-established Shiite militias and Iranian backing. Under current plans, U.S. commanders hope to field 12 Iraqi combat brigades, but they concede that these are also overwhelmingly manned by Shiite troops.

"In the end, we have said that it's important that Iraq be for all Iraqis, but right now—no surprise—much of the Iraq Security Force in the field and available for training is Shiite, because much of the Sunni population has either departed Sunni areas, or else live under ISIS domination," retired Gen. John Allen, President Obama's special envoy for the global coalition to counter ISIS, said this week at the Atlantic Council. Abadi is trying to balance the equities of all elements of the government, Allen said, but he is in the midst of a turbulent crisis and "walking a narrow political trail in trying to ensure that all members of the government—Shiite, Kurdish, and Sunni—feel that their interests are best served in a unified Iraq."

As a senior U.S. commander in Iraq in 2007 during the Anbar Awakening, Allen knows better than most that the Iraqi government's heavy reliance on Shiite irregulars is a grave risk. If what happened to Sheikh Qassem al-Janabi is repeated once Tikrit is recaptured or in other Sunni areas "liberated" by overwhelmingly Shiite Iraqi forces, then the expedient deal that Abadi and his American backers have made with the devil could well tear Iraq apart. "How the outcome of the counteroffensive unfolds," Allen said, "how populations liberated from ISIS are treated and represented by a central government that is largely Shiite—that will determine in the end whether Iraq's Sunnis want to be part of this experiment."


By James Kitfield // James Kitfield a senior fellow at the Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress and a Defense One contributor. He is a former senior correspondent for National Journal and has written on defense, national security and foreign policy issues from Washington, D.C. for more than two decades.

March 6, 2015

 

[Be Well]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150307/eu--russia-opposition-a31adea91f.html

Russia: 2 suspects detained in murder of Boris Nemtsov

Mar 7, 4:42 AM (ET)

MOSCOW (AP) — The head of Russia's federal security service said Saturday that two suspects have been detained in the killing a week ago of opposition politician Boris Nemtsov.

Alexander Bortnikov made the statement on state television. He said the two suspects were from Russia's North Caucasus region, but no other details were given.

It was not clear if either of the suspects was believed to have fired the shots that killed Nemtsov as he walked over a bridge with a companion near the Kremlin on Feb. 28.

Nemtsov's killing shocked Russia's already beleaguered and marginalized opposition supporters. Suspicion in the opposition is high that the killing was ordered by the Kremlin in retaliation for Nemtsov's adamant criticism of President Vladimir Putin. The 55-year-old was reportedly working on a report about Russian military involvement in the eastern Ukraine conflict.

But Russia's top investigative body said it was investigating several possible motives, including that he was killed in an attempt to smear Putin's image. It also said it was looking into possible connections to Islamic extremism and Nemtsov's personal life.

Hmm, are the North Caucasus regions moslem? I posted on the long Ukraine thread 2 articles about Nemtsov's "complicated" lust life, one with quotes from his 23 yr old girl friend. Complicated is right. GF saw nothing, knows nothing, and is sure it isn't a jealous woman. How would she know? And supposedly he was shot in the front, no, in the back. and no photos show blood, but that of course is not definitive, but just more ?s with no answers.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/red-alert-the-south-china-seas-new-danger-zone-12373

Red Alert: The South China Sea's New Danger Zone

Beijing has its sights set on a new target.

Ristian Atriandi Supriyanto
March 7, 2015
[2] [3]

Indonesia’s Natuna Archipelago, with only 27 of its 154 islands inhabited, is the republic’s northernmost region in the South China Sea and potentially its most vulnerable. Due to their proximity to the disputed areas and features in the South China Sea, the Natuna Islands could become yet another flashpoint in the area.

However, any effective security and military presence in the area will critically depend on local economic and infrastructure development. How will Indonesia under President Joko Widodo manage this potential point of contention with China, which is aggressively pressing its claim over a large swathe of the South China Sea?

Tyranny of distance

More than a thousand kilometers from Jakarta and located about midway between the two halves of Malaysia, the Natuna islands are spread across about 262,000 square kilometers of water, more than ten times their total land size. This presents a major geographical challenge, as does the tyranny of maritime distance within the Natuna archipelago itself. There is also a great distance between the Natunas and the rest of Indonesia, though it is part of the Riau Islands Province with Bintan, Batam and Karimun.

This tyranny of distance consequently compounds Indonesia’s vulnerability in monitoring and controlling this northern frontier. There is no direct commercial flight between Jakarta and Ranai, the largest town in Natuna Besar Island, while daily commodities must be shipped a great distance from Pontianak in West Kalimantan, or from Batam and Bintan Islands near Singapore. Lack of a deep-water port prevents larger ships from calling at Ranai, while smaller ships cannot risk sailing the rough seas during monsoon season.

Ironically, just a stone’s throw away to its north, west, and east are countries that the Natunas can tap into for trading networks and investments. This seems difficult, however, since Jakarta can be concerned about the far-flung regions of its frontier having too close a relationship with neighboring countries.

The Natuna Islanders of around 76,000 people claim to share closer historical and cultural affinities with their Malay brethren in Malaysia than to Java. It does not help Jakarta when memories from the Permesta rebellion and Aceh insurgency still linger and secessionist tensions in Papua still simmer. Notwithstanding this, the Natuna Islands were slated to become a separate province from the Riau Islands, thus getting greater attention and a bigger share of their revenues from Jakarta.

A sea of troubles

Lacking effective control from Jakarta, a plethora of security problems consequently beset the Natuna Islands. While illegal fishing is rampant in the area, this is only part of a bigger problem. Indonesia claims to lose around $25 billion annually to illegal fishing, although the figure seems highly inflated. But even 10 percent of it, which is more realistic, can still present a huge loss for a country where many people live on less than $2.00 a day. This is in addition to losses from other maritime illegal activities due to corruption within Indonesia’s own legal system.

The problem of illegal fishing is becoming more complicated due to the Natunas’ proximity to the disputed South China Sea. Despite Indonesia officially insisting it is a non-claimant in the South China Sea disputes, the waters northeast of the Natuna Islands is where Indonesia’s 200 nautical miles Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) overlaps with China’s 9-dash line or U-shape line claim.

While it does not want to overtly antagonize Beijing, Jakarta feels it must do something to challenge China’s claim. Several Chinese fishing vessels have been arrested [4], which in 2013, triggered a brief skirmish involving one Indonesian patrol boat. Nevertheless, the number of Chinese vessels arrested in the area thus far pales in comparison to that of the Vietnamese and Thais.

While the Indonesian government claims that the Natunas’ fishery could yield at least 500,000 tonnes annually, fishing is mostly subsistence and done artisanally. A lack of infrastructure, such as cold storage, adequate fishing ports, and seafood processing facilities, as well as adequate transport for the catch, means that any substantial improvement depends on a massive capital injection, which the local government can ill-afford.

Indeed, much depends on energy supply to power the Natunas’ economy. In areas beyond Ranai, power shortages result in frequent periods of blackouts. Ironically, numerous offshore oil and gas installations dot the Natunas’ seascape while some parts of its surrounding seabed are reported to contain one of the world’s largest natural gas deposits.

Avoiding wrong signals to Beijing

Contrary to reports of a build-up [5], Indonesia still maintains a low military profile in the area. Naval presence is limited to small vessels unable to safely navigate the rough seas of Indonesia’s EEZ, while no combat aircraft are permanently stationed at Ranai airport. Although military exercises have been conducted here since 1996, substantial military upgrades in the Natunas itself appear challenging due to limited basing infrastructure and difficult access to operational necessities, such as fuel and spares for maintenance and repair.

Attracting foreign investment, especially Chinese, can play into Indonesia’s broader strategy in gaining recognition and respect of its territorial sovereignty, while compensating for its lack of military strength. Despite the Natunas lack of infrastructure, foreign investment has somehow trickled in, with three Chinese companies reportedly showing interest in the local seafood industry. Such arrangements could become more apparent when supported by Jakarta’s embrace of Beijing’s “21st Century Maritime Silk Road” to help build President Joko Widodo’s maritime vision.

However, this could potentially send a wrong signal to Beijing, as Indonesia might give the impression that it has nothing to worry about from China’s ambitions in the South China Sea. With reclamation works underway in nearby Chinese-occupied features, the Natuna Islands could easily fall under Beijing’s air and naval radar coverage. Airstrips in the Fiery Cross or Johnson South Reef could place Chinese frontline strike fighters much closer to Indonesia and make it possible for China’s air defence identification zone to be enforced over some parts of the Natunas.

The reclaimed features could also become a staging base for Chinese long-distance fishermen, and their armed escorts, to operate within Indonesia’s EEZ. This would lead to more possible encounters with Indonesian fishermen and patrol vessels.

With the above challenges in mind, Indonesia has to act immediately on its intent to develop the Natuna Islands. It can begin simply by building a power plant sufficient to meet growing local demand, thus allowing everything else to follow.

Ristian Atriandi Supriyanto is an Associate Research Fellow with the Maritime Security Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. This article was originally published as an RSIS commentary, here [6].

Links:
[1] http://nationalinterest.org/feature/red-alert-the-south-china-seas-new-danger-zone-12373
[2] http://nationalinterest.org/profile/ristian-atriandi-supriyanto
[3] http://twitter.com/share
[4] http://thediplomat.com/2014/12/indonesia-may-sink-chinese-vessels-jokowi-adviser/
[5] http://www.janes.com/article/36214/indonesia-to-station-su-27-su-30s-on-south-china-sea-islands
[6] https://www.rsis.edu.sg/rsis-public...ashpoint-in-the-south-china-sea/#.VPlXf_nF-Uw
[7] http://images.airforce.gov.au/fotow...5763F08697438EC14D99B0C70F08C9EFE026FC&sz=450
[8] http://nationalinterest.org/topic/security

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/03/08/boko-haram-swears-formal-allegiance-to-isis/

Middle East

Boko Haram swears formal allegiance to ISIS

Published March 08, 2015
FoxNews.com

A message allegedly from the head of Nigeria’s Boko Haram terror group Saturday pledged his group’s allegiance to Islamic State.

The pledge to IS came in an Arabic audio message with English subtitles alleged to have come from Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau and posted Saturday on Twitter, according to the SITE Intelligence monitoring service.

"We announce our allegiance to the Caliph of the Muslims ... and will hear and obey in times of difficulty and prosperity, in hardship and ease, and to endure being discriminated against, and not to dispute about rule with those in power, except in case of evident infidelity regarding that which there is a proof from Allah," said the message. IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has declared himself the caliph.

The message was posted on Twitter, hours after Boko Haram was blamed for four suicide bomb attacks in northeastern Nigeria that killed at least 54 people and wounded more than 140 people.

The pledge comes as the Nigerian militants reportedly are massing in a northeastern town for a showdown with a multinational force that has dislodged them from a score of towns in recent weeks.

Boko Haram has increased suicide bombings and village attacks in recent weeks as forces from Nigeria and Chad have driven the insurgents from a score of towns along Nigeria's border with Cameroon.

The insurgents also have attacked villages in Cameroon and Niger in response to Nigeria's neighbors forming a multinational force to confront the spreading Islamic uprising.

Chad's President Idris Deby this week said his forces know the whereabouts of Shekau and warned him to surrender or face death.

Boko Haram fighters are massing at their headquarters in the northeastern town of Gwoza, in apparent preparation for a showdown with multinational forces, according to witnesses who escaped from the town.

An intelligence officer said they were aware of the movement but that the military is acting cautiously as many civilians still are trapped in the town and Boko Haram is laying land mines around it.

Though there was no way to independently verify the message, it comes weeks after Boko Haram's new Twitter account broadcast that the group's Shura council was considering whether to swear formal allegiance to ISIS.

The Twitter account, increasingly slick and more frequent video messages from Boko Haram, and a new media arm all are considered signs that the group is being helped by ISIS propagandists.

Boko Haram in August followed the lead of IS in declaring an Islamic caliphate in northeast Nigeria that grew to cover an area the size of Belgium. The Islamic State had declared a caliphate in vast swaths of territory that it controls in Iraq and Syria.

The Nigerian group also began publishing videos of beheadings. The latest one, published March 2, borrowed certain elements from IS productions, such as the sound of a beating heart and heavy breathing immediately before the execution, according to SITE.

In earlier video messages last year, Shekau sent greetings and praise to both al-Baghdadi and leaders of Al Qaeda. But Boko Haram has never been an affiliate of Al Qaeda, some analysts surmise because Al Qaeda considers the Nigerians' indiscriminate slaughter of Muslim civilians as un-Islamic.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.commercialappeal.com/opi...ar-ambitions-predate-rise-of-mullahs_22802110

Iran's nuclear ambitions predate rise of mullahs

James Gibney
12:00 AM, Mar 8, 2015

It's tempting to make mad mullahs the face of the Iranian nuclear problem. But the arc of Iran's nuclear program before the 1979 revolution suggests something else: Obtaining the weapons has long been a central goal as Iran endeavors to secure its position as a power in the Middle East.

This history suggests that, even now, Iran's nuclear ambitions are more likely to be managed than extinguished. And in the current context, the best one can hope for would be an imperfect negotiated agreement between Iran and the P5+1 that leaves some enrichment capacity intact.

The two-decade history of Iran's nuclear program under Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi is one of growing ambitions and deceptions. Although the Shah was a close ally — his grip on power was cemented by an American-instigated coup — his nuclear efforts met with mounting alarm on the part of the U.S., which signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement with Iran as part of the Atoms for Peace Program in 1957.

During the early 1960s, the U.S. sold a five-megawatt research reactor to Tehran University. By the early 1970s, citing a need to save oil reserves and develop Iran's technological capabilities, the Shah announced a sweeping plan to build enough nuclear plants to generate 23,000 megawatts of energy by 1994. A few months after making that splash, and shortly after India's first nuclear test in May 1974, the Shah turned heads by telling a French magazine that Iran would have nuclear weapons, "without a doubt and sooner than one would think."

U.S. anxiety over the Shah's nuclear program is highlighted in a compendium of declassified cables and memos assembled by the National Security Archive. One June 1974 Department of Defense memo, for instance, notes that the planned nuclear power plants (including eight from U.S. companies) could produce enough plutonium for 600-700 warheads.

Using language that echoes the protests of Iran's current leaders, the Shah and his ministers insisted that no country "has a right to dictate nuclear policy to another" and that "Iran should have full right to decide whether to reprocess" fuel.

U.S. policymakers wrestled to come up with ways to ensure control over reprocessing, suggesting a multinational enrichment facility or one jointly operated and controlled by the U.S. and Iran.

In a November 1975 cable, Ambassador Richard Helms (previously head of the Central Intelligence Agency) in Tehran laments the impasse over how much enriched uranium Iran can store and its "right" to reprocess U.S.-supplied fuel without prior U.S. approval:

"We do not believe it is realistic to expect that Iran will alter its position on these issues substantially. We are thus confronted with the option of continuing the impasse through insistence on holding to our own position or attempting to accommodate Iran on these questions. We recommend that we take the latter course of action … and instead assure the GOI of US participation in a binational reprocessing plant under mutually agreeable safeguards."

As it happened, the final draft of the proposed agreement prepared in 1978 under the Jimmy Carter administration allowed for no reprocessing in Iran, and reprocessing outside Iran only with U.S. approval. But before it could be signed, the regime collapsed.

Subsequent revelations made clear the Shah's intent to acquire the ability to build a bomb. In fact, a 2013 documentary, "Before the Revolution," hints that Israel may have been one of the countries that helped to advance his nuclear ambitions.

The Israelis, of course, know how hard it is to stop the nuclear train from leaving the station. Another National Security Archive cable trove covers the Nixon administration's unsuccessful tussles with Israel over its covert nuclear program, which one 1969 Pentagon memo called "the single most dangerous phenomenon in an area dangerous enough without nuclear weapons."

So, the U.S. and its partners should by all means set a stringent inspection regime and limits on Iran's centrifuges and nuclear material. But don't expect the 10-year nuclear freeze reportedly under discussion in Geneva to turn ugly militant ducklings into nuke-free secular swans.

James Gibney writes editorials on international affairs for Bloomberg View.

Copyright 2014 Memphis Commercial Appeal. All rights reserved.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...059198-c1d1-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html

The Post's View
North Korea’s nuclear ambitions

By Editorial Board March 7 at 8:07 PM

THE CARICATURE of North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un as a clownish figure and his nation as reckless, backwards and isolated is unhelpful in trying discern the reality of the Pyongyang regime and judge the dangers both to its own population and to those beyond its borders. The Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, as it is formally named, is most certainly a modern human rights disaster, as the United Nations Commission of Inquiry has exposed. And there can be no question that North Korea remains cut off from the powerful currents of economic and information globalization that have swept the globe.

But no one should ignore North Korea’s ability to make trouble. How else to explain that it was capable — if U.S. officials are correct — of executing a covert, sophisticated cyberattack on Sony Pictures Entertainment in the United States that stole truckloads of internal information and then destroyed Sony’s computers? This singular act should give pause to the rest of the world when thinking about North Korea’s quest to build ever-better nuclear weapons and missile programs. A clear-eyed view of the North’s weapons technology is essential, so that it is spotted before it becomes a surprise.

Making such an assessment is extremely difficult in a country that is hostile and closed. But a new report from Joel S. Wit and Sun Young Ahn at the US-Korea Institute at the School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University raises the prospect that North Korea is already moving to fulfill ambitious goals of a bigger, better nuclear arsenal that could put it on par with Pakistan and Israel.

Based in part on research from David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security, the report concludes that North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs “have gathered significant momentum” and “these programs now appear poised to rapidly expand over the next five years.” Offering a range of scenarios from now to 2020, the authors suggest that North Korea could take an existing stockpile of 10 to 16 nuclear weapons and expand it, with a middle scenario of 50 weapons in five years and a worst-case of 100 warheads. Even the middle estimate raises the possibility that North Korea could achieve an increase in the yield of its weapons. The report also notes North Korea’s efforts to improve its delivery systems, with the appearance of road-mobile and solid-fuel missile technologies.

The technical uncertainties are many, including how much fissile material North Korea can produce, how much political effort is put behind the modernization drive, and, not in the least, whether scientists and engineers can overcome serious technical hurdles. North Korea has surprised before, as in the building of a plant to enrich uranium. However, this report ought to give the Obama administration a jolt. After the collapse of a tentative deal in 2012, the United States seems to have turned its attention elsewhere — especially to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. If the past is any guide, North Korea is not taking a break and may be exploiting U.S. inattention to climb to the next level.

Read more:

Anne Applebaum: North Korea’s incomprehensible regime

The Post’s View: This is no time to lose sight of North Korea’s human rights catastrophe

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/iran_preventing_a_deal_with_the_devil.html

March 8, 2015

Iran: Preventing a Deal with the Devil

By Elise Cooper
Comments 3

President Obama should worry about his legacy concerning the possible deal with Iran. He will become the 21st-century Neville Chamberlain. This is such a bad plan on many accounts, yet the president is so narcissistic that he is doubling down as the criticism increases.

Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu was asked to speak to Congress on the Iranian deal, much to President Obama's chagrin. The president did not want the American people to hear the prime minister's arguments regarding this horrific plan. Many in Congress agree with the assessment. Congressman Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) told American Thinker, "America's special relationship with Israel is vital to the security and interests of both of our nations, and it will always transcend politics. No one understands the threat that Iran poses to Middle Eastern peace, the very existence of the nation of Israel, and the Jewish people better than Prime Minister Netanyahu, and he proved that again in his address."

Yet there were some Democrats who made disparaging remarks after hearing the speech. Democrats called Israeli leader Netanyahu condescending and childish and told him to go home. President Obama only read the speech and found "nothing new." House of Representatives Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said afterwards that as a friend of Israel, she was near tears during his speech, calling it "an insult to the intelligence of the United States" and "condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran."

Speaking of condescending, how about all the past remarks the president and those in his administration have said about Israel? Obama called for the creation of an independent Palestinian state in his "new beginning" address during a visit to Cairo in June of 2009, which heightened tensions with Israel. The president said the U.S. "does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements" on land occupied during the Six-Day War, which was claimed by Palestinians as their territory. Obama proposed to make the 1967 borders the starting line for a peace deal, saying it was not "based on reality, on unshakeable facts." And there was the "hot mic" incident at the G-20 summit in 2011, when Obama and former French president Nicolas Sarkozy exchanged disparaging remarks about the Israeli prime minister. According to a French interpreter, in response to Sarkozy's comment "I cannot bear Netanyahu; he's a liar," Obama reportedly replied, "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you."

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) told American Thinker, "What this administration has utterly failed to acknowledge is that Iran poses an existential threat to the nation of Israel and to the United States. A recent article quoted anonymous senior administration officials referring to Prime Minister Netanyahu with an epithet for poultry manure. But what was startling about that article was not the invective, not the disrespect, not the contempt heaped upon the leader of the nation of Israel. The most disturbing part of that article was a quote from that same senior adviser who said the best thing of all is that we have delayed Israel from acting so that it's too late for Netanyahu to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons arsenal. This is lunacy, and America must stand up and say on the world stage that under no circumstances will Iran be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons."

Maybe the Democrats and those in the Obama administration should take a page from Newt Gingrich, who told American Thinker, "Prime Minister Netanyahu has been a staunch ally of America and the cause of freedom. As the leader of Israel, a country the Iranian dictatorship has threatened to destroy, he has an unavoidable obligation to his country to be concerned about any agreement involving Iranian nuclear arms."

The president said the Israeli prime minister did not put forth any new ideas in the speech to Congress. Elliott Abrams, former foreign policy advisor to George W. Bush, feels that the president and those in his administration are attempting to disengage from the actual arguments Netanyahu is making. "The question every American should be asking is who is right, not what is new. Now the president is saying if you don't like this deal, you are a warmonger. He is ignoring the facts, that this is a bad deal."

Abrams also suggests that Secretary of State Kerry was wrong in not insisting on a quid pro quo, linking any deal with Iran's behavior toward women's rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and recognition of Israel's right to exist. According to Senator Cruz, the sunset provision in ten years should not be lifted unless Iran stops being the world's greatest exporter of terrorism. It has to stop bullying neighboring countries like Syria and Lebanon, and it has to stop calling for the destruction of Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu in the speech correctly pointed out that a nuclear-armed Iran would start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Abrams wants to remind Americans that in the first years of his administration, the president talked about nuclear disarmament. Yet this deal could lead to nuclear proliferation, with Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia obtaining a bomb themselves. He also says that this administration should consider that "there could be a regime change within these nations. Someone could come to power that also wants to annihilate Israel. Having all these nukes allows for the possibility of a terrorist group getting one."

What also must be considered are the North Korea negotiations. As the prime minister articulated in the speech, "I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past." What comes to mind is how easy it was for North Korea to reverse its commitments once its nuclear infrastructure was left standing. North Korea has shown that the options are limited if a country obtains nuclear weapons.

Senator Cruz insists that this bad deal threatens not only Israel, but also America, reminding people how Iran recently blew up a model of an American aircraft carrier. He noted, "And for those who say, Well that may be Israel's concern, but how does that impact America?, it is not by accident that Iran refers to Israel as the 'Little Satan' and America as the 'Great Satan.' I would note 'Great Satan' is not a compliment. In Iran they have a holiday celebrated every year, the Death to America day. It is the anniversary of Iran taking American hostages. Just over a year ago, Iran named as its United Nations ambassador one of the terrorists that participated in holding Americans hostage in 1979, Hamid Aboutelabi. I was proud to file legislation to prevent known terrorists from serving as U.N. ambassadors, legislation that unanimously passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Obama."

What can be done to prevent this bad deal? The senator agrees with Abrams, that any deal must include restrictions on Iran developing ballistic missiles whose sole purpose is to deliver nuclear weapons. Both feel there should be bipartisan support of the Corker-Menendez and the Kirk-Menendez legislation. Senator Cruz also would like to gather support for a bill he filed last year, the Sanction Iran, Safeguard America Act, which withholds funding to prevent negotiations until certain conditions have been met, including freeing American prisoners of conscience held in Iranian prisons, complying with unconstrained IAEA inspections, dismantling its capacity to enrich uranium, ending its intercontinental ballistic missile program, ending its money-laundering operation through the Central Bank of Iran, and demonstrating its renunciation of state-sponsored terrorism.

President Obama should consider the sentiment best expressed by Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), "Israel is our greatest partner in the Middle East and one of the only countries in the world that shares our values of freedom and security so strongly. Anything less than a deal that prevents Iran from having a future nuclear weapon is unacceptable and should be rejected if it will jeopardize the safety of the United States and our allies." Instead of being resentful of those who are standing up to this bad deal, the president should realize he is making a deal with the devil.

The author writes for American Thinker. She has done book reviews and author interviews and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/the_economics_of_the_war_against_jihad.html

March 8, 2015

The Economics of the War against Jihad

By Dean Kalahar
Comments 3

Remember the Tehran hostages, Terry Anderson, Beirut, the Achille Lauro, the Berlin disco bombing, Lockerbie, the World Trade Center bombing, Khobar Towers, the Kenya and Tanzania attacks, the USS Cole, 9/11, Shanksville, Karachi, Riyadh, Amman, Algeria, Yemen, Little Rock, Richard Reed, Jose Padilla, Ft. Hood, Fort Dix, Times Square, Benghazi, Boston Marathon, James Foley, and others?

Despite this sea of evidence, many American’s, as well as the Obama administration, seem hesitant to realize what is happening and fight back. Some may not want to battle due to war fatigue, apathy, or ignorance. Still others are so politically correct that any atrocity can be explained away as “cultural.”

If we fight the war against radical Islamic extremism, can we win? Based on the economics of our enemy, a look at the U.S. and Israel versus Iran, Iraq, and Syria provides us a gauge as to the ability to wage war. The data shows our enemy as less than weak, and the ability for America to prevail a foregone conclusion.

Actually, if we wanted a “fair” fight with Iran, we would have to pit the cities of Houston/Dallas with a GDP of $964 billion against Iran’s GDP of $945 billion. The odds would be on the “cowboys” as they are over 5 times more productive than Iranians per capita, $66,595 versus $12,264.

What about a matchup against Syria and Iraq? The good news is that Boston (GDP $323 billion) is on equal footing economically with Iraq/Syria (combined GDP, $330 billion). As far as being efficient fighters, Boston’s per capita GDP is $74,643, while Iraq/Syria averages $5,015. Since Bostonians are 14 times more productive than Iraq/Syria, the money is on the “patriots” over the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

What about the Iranian threat to Israel? Israel’s GDP is $273 billion while Iran’s is $945 billion. That’s a big difference. The good news is that Israel per capita GDP is $34,770 while Iran’s is $12,264, meaning that Israel citizens are 2.5 times more productive than Iranians. This matchup is why our long-time ally needs the support of the U.S.

If the U.S. wants to defeat radical Islamic extremism, there is no fight we can’t win. As far as Israel’s threats from all fronts, especially Iran, they can more than take care of themselves as long as the U.S. has their back.

Maybe this is the reason President Obama is hesitant to fight? No doubt the opponent is so weak it could legitimately be called the JV, so underplaying or ignoring Islamic radicalism keeps from exaggerating the threat’s credibility. It’s also understandable that some simply lash out and use America as a scapegoat as an excuse for their failed institutions. Realizing the need for economic development and jobs or focusing on the “root cause” of terrorism does shows a compassionate and hopeful State Department.

But here is the thing, and there is really no way around it.

Radical Islamists want to bring more terror and death to America and Israel. Any ideological extremist who would fly jet airliners into office buildings, burn humans alive in cages, and line up Christians and behead them have no problem with violence and in fact revel in the idea of slaughtering millions. This is a religious war for the Jihadists, and they view dying as winning, as long as it takes some of the enemy infidels with them.

The terrorists may be weak by every metric in the ability to win a conventional war, but for Islamic extremists and the nations that support them, losing is winning as long as the loss brings with it the annihilation of Western civilization. With this understood, getting their hands on a nuclear device actually feeds into their narrative.

If a terrorist detonated in Manhattan a small nuclear device similar to that used in Hiroshima, nearly 700,000 people in a four-mile radius would die directly from the blast, and tens of thousands of others would have their lives cut short because of the fallout and other effects. That is the equivalent of two-hundred thirty-three 9/11s happening in an instant.

A nuclear bomb dropped on Tel-Aviv would kill over 84,000 people instantaneously and many thousands of other lives would be cut short. This unfortunately would not be the last atomic attack on that fateful day. Israel would unleash a nuclear counterstrike on Iran that would make Nagasaki look like a pillow fight. The destabilization of the region would unleash a prolonged period of war with death and suffering for millions.

These costs are unacceptable. Moreover, this type of attack is not only possible, it is closing in on probable the longer we sit around discussing cultural sensitivity and treaties instead of accepting human nature and history.

Economic sanctions could disrupt society to the point where citizens would rise up and overthrow the regimes, but when you hold all the firepower it’s unlikely. And Jihadists don’t care about economic well-being, they care about serving Allah.

A negotiated peace would be great, but we no longer have the time to “hope” we can “change” evil’s central core within the fallible human spirit.

We are faced with some serious questions and decisions. Are we facing an enemy that will commit any brutal murderous slaughter in the name of a twisted religious ideology? Yes. Can the enemy be defeated? Yes. Will we realize our responsibilities? Time will tell.

We must defend civilization against barbarism and a retreat into the dark ages. We must defend the natural laws of morality including life, liberty, and property. We must be willing to do anything and everything to establish peace, stability, and order to Earth. If that means eradicating evil’s ability to function through force, so be it. It’s time to fight. War may be evil, but it is not the worst evil. The alternative is so unspeakable that crushing its possibility is humanities only choice.

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/sisis_religious_revolution_gets_underway.html

March 8, 2015

Sisi's religious revolution gets underway

By Michele Antaki
Comments 7

Last week, the news spread across the web that Egypt’s President Al-Sisi had “cancelled Islamic education” in all of Egypt. Was it in fulfillment of his New Year call for a religious revolution? Was that dramatic announcement for real or a just a wild rumor?

Bonjour Egypte, a French-language online publication, announced on February 20th that Al-Sisi's Ministry of Education had “published a manual of values and ethics, for all levels of education, after canceling the program of Islamic education.” It added: “The decision is explained by the lack of moral values in the Egyptian street. Sissi, a champion of secularism and an enemy of the Muslim Brotherhood, has canceled the teaching of Islam in the schools of Egypt.”

The same word-for-word announcement had already been made by a different publication on 26 June 2014, only to be denied as a fake in an online forum one day later.

On February 22, in the Saudi holy city of Mecca where a counter-terrorism conference was held in the aftermath of the slaughter of 21 Copts by the Islamic State, Grand Imam Ahmed Tayyeb called for a radical reform of religious education to prevent the misinterpretation of the Quran by extremists. "The only hope for Muslim nations to restore their unity is to deal with this Takfiri trend [accusing other Muslims of being unbelievers] in our schools and universities." He offered no indication whether this reform had been effected in Egypt and to what extent.

When Sisi called for a religious revolution on January 1st, 2015 before an assembly of ulema and clerics at prestigious Al-Azhar University, the world caught its breath. Could it be that the leader of a great Muslim nation, seat of the foremost Sunni Islamic learning center, was truly intent on carrying out such a historic and unprecedented reform?

Sisi knew that in requesting the revisiting of the "corpus of texts and ideas” that had been “sacralized over the years" and were "antagonizing the entire world," he was taking enormous risks and not endearing himself to the radical fringes of his people. And indeed, voices calling out for his death were quickly heard on programs broadcast by Turkey-based Muslim Brotherhood channels: “Anyone who kills Egyptian President Abdel Al-Fattah Al-Sisi and the journalists who support him would be doing a good deed,” said Salama Abdel Al-Qawi on Rabea TV. On Misr Alaan TV, Wagdi Ghoneim clamored that “whoever can bring us the head of one of these dogs and Hell-dwellers” would be “rewarded by Allah.”

In calling for a ‘religious revolution,’ Sisi also knew that he was up against tremendous odds, owing to Al-Azhar’s educational curricula that had been promoting a radical Salafist and Wahhabist brand of Islam for quite some time.

On Jan 4, the popular satellite TV host Ibrahim Issa showed, with book in hand, that what Al-Azhar taught in its curricula was exactly what Daesh [ISIS] practiced. To wit, that “all adult, free and able men” were to “kill infidels,” and do so “without so much as a prior notice or even an invitation to embrace Islam.” Issa, in his characteristically refreshing and funny style, chided his audience for being so deeply in denial. “So you find Daesh horrible, don’t you? Oh dear, oh dear! But why, when Daesh does exactly what Al-Azhar teaches?” He added that there was “no hope that Al-Azhar would ever lead the “religious revolution’” requested by Sisi, unless Al-Azhar was first willing to “reform itself.” For how could an entity that was “part of the problem be also part of the solution?”

As Sisi had done, Issa made the distinction between religion/doctrine/belief (deen/ akida) on the one hand, and the thinking/ideology (fikr) on the other. He further explained that what was meant by the latter was the body of interpretative and non-core texts -- such as Bukhari’s Hadith, for example, which narrated violent episodes taken from the lives of the Prophet’s companions. Those were amenable to re-interpretation in terms of contextual relevance.

In an earlier, Dec.14 program, Al-Azhar refused to consider the Islamic State as an apostate. On Dec.11, Al-Azhar had called the Islamic State criminal while insisting that “No believer can be declared an apostate, regardless of his sins.” Nonsense, opined Issa. Apostasy had been declared many times against believers. The real reason for the reluctance was simply that ISIS’s practices were based on Al-Azhar’s teachings, which had been allowed to stand for decades with the regrettable connivance and complicity of the State. Consequently, if ISIS was now declared an apostate, so should Al-Azhar.

Issa’s views echoed those of Sheikh Mohammed Abdallah Nasr, a former Al-Azhar student and a leading figure of the “Azhariyyun” Civil State Front, which is opposed to political Islam. “Although many consider Al-Azhar a representative of moderate Islam, its curricula incite hatred, discrimination and intolerance, and are a doctrinal reference for the Islamic State,” he said to MCN direct.

It is to be remembered that soon after his New Year’s bombshell, Sisi had created another commotion on Jan.7, by becoming the first Egyptian leader ever to visit the Coptic Orthodox Cathedral during mass, to wish his Christian compatriots a Merry Christmas. His overtures towards the Copts were a bold gesture that went against conventional wisdom. As stated by Ibrahim Issa, religious radicalism and supremacism were “deeply embedded in the minds of some Egyptians contaminated by pollutants inherent in the Brotherhood’s ideology.” The contamination “endured despite Egypt’s massive rejection of the MB rule in 2013,” he believed. Those people would not take kindly to Sisi’s move.

And sure enough, a leading Takfiri Salafist by the name of Yahia Rifai Suroor launched into inflammatory rhetoric that spread across Facebook and was also reported by Copts Today. Suroor posted that unless Christians clearly renounced “the war waged by the Church on Islam,” shedding their blood would be “a religious duty.” As for Muslims who were “Sisi’s supporters,” they were automatically “renegades” and their blood was also fair game.

A few days later at Davos, however, Sisi appeared to have taken a step back in his carefully worded address where he described Islamic terrorism as the action of a “minority” that “distorted religion,” instead of his previous strong language on the need for a “religious revolution.”

But his speech was delivered in the aftermath of the Paris terror attacks and subsequent violent protests that had swept the Muslim world; the timing was probably not right for him to come down too hard on Islam.

On Jan. 31, he was back on track when a wave of deadly attacks rocked the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. Responsibility was claimed by a group of extremists previously called “Beit al-Maqdis,” who had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State and morphed into the “Province of Sinai.” The new terror acts presented Sisi with an opportunity to forecefully renew his commitment to fighting terrorism and to also tackle its root cause, religious extremism. He reiterated his undertaking on Feb.1st before a huge gathering of leaders of the Armed Forces, Islamic and Coptic clerics, and government members. He said he was aware of how sensitive the subject of religion was, yet he had to confront it head on because he would be “accountable before God” for his stewardship of the country. In a dramatic tone, he added that he was ready to “lay down his life” for the completion of his mission -- perhaps a veiled allusion to the fate of late assasinated President Sadat. He reminded the assembly that Egyptians had mandated him to lead their fight against the enemy [the Muslim Brotherhood, which he never named other than by “them”], adding that “they” had declared armed jihad on Egypt on their official website as of that very day. Therefore, it was war and Egyptians needed to brace themselves for it. This said, he emphasized he would not lead them against their will because he had to respect their freedom of choice.

This freedom, he said, extended to the religious sphere, for freedom was God-given gift to the human species. There were three aspects to religious freedom, which he enumerated. “First, the freedom to embrace a religion or none at all. Second, the freedom to choose which religion. Third, the freedom to do the right thing based on the teachings of that religion or to stray away from the path of righteousness.” Fourteen minutes into his address, Sisi called moderate Sheikh Ali al-Jifri in the assembly, and pleaded with him half-jokingly: “Sheikh Ali al-Jifri, the world is so tired of us...Can we please, please have some tolerance and moderation?” Turning next to Grand Imam Ahmed al-Tayyeb, he assured him that he would not interfere with the technical aspect of the reform process entrusted to him, adding that the the religious problem as a whole was indeed a shared concern for all Egyptians. Both statements drew a round of applause.

On 3 Feb, Egypt’s Imams came out in a massive show of support for the President, chanting pro-Sisi and anti-Muslim Brothers slogans.

The Feb.15 massacre of 21 Egyptian Copts that took place in Libya at the hands of ISIS was a further test of Sisi’s resolve. At Christmas mass on Jan.7, he had told the Coptic Christian congregation that all of them were “Egyptians, without distinction.” And he proved true to his word by immediately launching punitive strikes against ISIS’s positions in the wake of the mass slaughter, in coordination with the Libyan government.

Sisi returned to the Coptic cathedral to present his condolences in person to the congregation and decreed 7 days of national mourning for the victims. This went far beyond what governments of Christian-majority Western countries ever did to honor their own nationals targeted by terrorist attacks. He also acknowledged to all 21 Copts the status of “martyrs,” an unprecedented move in a country that previously denied its victimized Copts such recognition -- deemed incompatible with the uncertainty on whether they would end up in hell or paradise, owing to their condition of “kufar.” He finally granted a generous financial compensation to the victims’ families -- bereaved and deprived of their breadwinner -- both as one-time cash payments and yearly income.

In doing so, Sisi did not fear arousing again the ire of the “Ikhwan” [Muslim Brotherhood]. And sure enough, ex-Muslim Brother Wagdy Ghoneim started his ranting against Copts from his exile in Turkey. He justified their killing by arguing that they behaved as though they owned the country. On his public Facebook page, he also lashed out at those who had expressed condemnation for the beheadings, including the Church.

In a statement uploaded to his personal YouTube channel on February 19, he accused the Coptic Pope of having “staged a coup” for the removal of former MB President Morsi in 2013, saying that “treachery run in the blood of Copts.”

Ibrahim Issa held another episode of his 25/30 TV program on that same day, where he blamed the religious education infused with a Wahhabi and Salafist ideology -- taught in schools and at Al-Azhar University -- for the radicalization that boomeranged now against Egypt. He said that Egypt was only reaping what it had sewn for 30/40 years by allowing its students to be poisoned by notions of religious supremacy and hatred of non-Muslims. It was sheer hypocrisy to feign being scandalized by the slaughter of these 21 Christians, knowing that ISIS’s legal and religious justifications for their killings found their origins in the teachings of Al-Azhar.

On a more positive note, the Copts’ massacre was perhaps the catalyst that allowed Grand Imam Ahmed Tayyeb to be persuaded to modify his stance on religious education. Previously, his position had been that the teachings dispensed at Al-Azhar reflected the true and immutable word of God -- as he stated in his closing remarks at the Al-Azhar meeting of Jan.1st, 2015.

Ibrahim Issa had analyzed them as meaning that Sisi’s initiative of a “religious revolution” was doomed to be indefinitely shelved. In Issa’s opinion, those remarks by the Grand Imam effectively closed the door on exegesis or ijtihad [also called intellectual jihad].

Yet, in a dramatic turnabout after the Copts’ massacre, it was the same Grand Imam who called for a radical reform of religious education while speaking at a Mecca conference on “Islam and counter-terrorism.”

Just as one was wondering where Egypt stood exactly with this on-again, off-again reform of the religious discourse and education, the “cancelation of religious education” reported by Bonjour Egypte appeared to have been misstated. On Feb. 23, Dar al-Akhbar reported not a cancelation, but a revision, was stillo worked on. The media representative of the Education Ministry, Omar Turk, said that efforts, focused on “generating a spirit of tolerance,” were part of “a 3-year strategy for intellectual security established in response to Sisi’s repeated calls for a religious revolution.”

Some people on social media expressed doubts the revision would ever take place. But as the project seemed pushed back to a distant future -- if not downright taken off the table -- an article suddenly appeared last Monday in the Egyptian publication Youm7 showing the first amendments made to Al-Azhar’s educational manuals. It was immediately shared and profusely commented upon on Facebook’s public pages. Jihad was not abrogated -- because it could “merge with the protection of the homeland” -- but postponed to the last 3 years of high school (ages 15-18 years); the crime of “terrorism” replaced that of “spreading [moral] corruption on earth,” perhaps to prevent the latter expression from covering atheism or “polytheism” [Christianity]. And the distribution of war booty among the victors was suppressed as being incompatible with modern warfare.

Last but not least, a former license to cannibalise enemies was also removed as being incompatible with modern mentalities. Comments under the Facebook post revealed readers’ genuine outrage and disbelief at discovering what had been taught for all these years under their nose -- with the exception of a minority who attempted to find excuses.

A special Nov. 26, 2014 Youm7 investigative report predating the start of the reform analyzed the main contents of Al-Azhar’s educational books in some detail. It revealed that late Grand Imam Mohammed Tantawi was very much aware of how “catastrophic” the Al-Azhar curricula were, and that is why he had removed certain texts deemed ill-adapted to our day and age. But his successor, current Grand Imam Ahmed al-Tayyeb, yielding to pressure by some groups, had reinstated them.

The report added that Al-Azhar had always professed to promote an “Islam for all times and places,” truly “in the service of mankind,” as was “the purpose of all revealed religions.”

Al-Azhar, touted as a “bastion of moderation in the Muslim world,” had clearly not walked the talk, said the report. In deciding to sponsor archaic texts, revolting for modern minds, it had instead produced a generation of “extremists” who also suffered from “psychological and behavioral troubles, and a sense of alienation from others,” as confirmed by the interviewed psychologists and sociologists.

These texts “could have been studied as part of a ‘history of religion’ curriculum without any problem, but not as a source of 21st century doctrine,” the report went on to say, least of all in an embattled country “fighting for its prosperity, and against terrorism and extremism.” It was important, concluded the report, to make proposals “in a dispassionate spirit,” for “the substitution of all articles inciting violence and hatred against non-Muslims and against women, for others reflecting true Islam.”

Recent examples of horrific acts probably inspired by Al-Azhar’s anachronistic teachings come to mind. Such as the video of an FSA fighter, showing him eating the heart of an Assad loyalist back in 2013. Or this week’s repulsive story of a mother fed the flesh of her kidnapped son when she came to enquire about him with ISIS members.

In light of the apocalyptic convulsions shaking our world, never had the reform of the Islamic religious discourse been of more consequence and urgency than now. Sisi warned this would take time. One can see why, but he is to be applauded for keeping the pressure on in order to remove resistance to his initiative. The reform, which had known several false starts in the past, is now firmly underway.

Michele Antaki was raised in Egypt and France. LLM of Law - France. PG Diploma of Conference Interpretation - UK. She was a UN interpreter in NY for 27 years in 4 languages - Arabic, English, French, Spanish.

“All infidels inside the country and everywhere else are killed without exception or excuse, to get them to convert. If they refuse, both to convert and to pay the jizya (protection money conferring the status of dhimmi - protected, second-class citizen), death is their fate, “including by immolation.” Infidels slated to be killed have “their weapons, clothes and horses confiscated, their lands burned. If the Imam entered a town by force, he could decide to distribute the booty among the looters [his men]. He could also decide to kill or enslave prisoners. Those allowed to pay the jizya, have first to be subdued and humiliated.”

FOLLOW US ON
American Thinker on FacebookAmerican Thinker on Twitter
American Thinker Newsletter Signup

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/w...ercise-turns-urgent-as-threats-grow.html?_r=1

Africa

African Training Exercise Turns Urgent as Threats Grow

By ERIC SCHMITT
MARCH 7, 2015


Slide Show|12 Photos
African Troops Train With Urgency as Terrorist Groups Make Advances
African Troops Train With Urgency as Terrorist Groups Make Advances

Credit Tyler Hicks/The New York Times

MAO, Chad — An oath of allegiance from Boko Haram, the Nigeria-based militant group, to the Islamic State on Saturday reinforces Western fears that the terrorist group is growing beyond its base in Iraq and Syria. These worries have prompted American and allied commandos to rush to train African counterterrorism troops to fight extremists on the continent.

The expanding effort here on the edge of the Sahara to fight militancies like Boko Haram comes as the group has kidnapped schoolgirls, slaughtered thousands of people, and now has expanded its attacks from Nigeria into Cameroon, Niger and Chad.

“When your neighbor’s house is burning, you have to put it out, because if not, yours is next,” said Lt. Col. Brahim Mahanat, a Chadian Army officer who spoke during the Pentagon’s annual military exercise with 1,200 African troops, United States Army Special Forces and other Western commandos, which ends on Monday.

Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

Boko Haram Generates Uncertainty With Pledge of Allegiance to Islamic StateMARCH 7, 2015
In Newly Sophisticated Boko Haram Videos, Hints of Islamic State Ties FEB. 20, 2015
Nigerian soldiers in Maiduguri. Boko Haram militants have been attacking the city and terrorizing civilians in the towns around it.
Boko Haram, and Massacres Ruled by WhimFEB. 5, 2015

More than any exercise in the past decade, this year’s training — three weeks of marksmanship, mock ambushes and patrols in harsh desert terrain — is bumping up against real-world operations. The Chadian capital, Ndjamena, is just 30 miles from militant-held territory in Nigeria, and Boko Haram has vowed revenge since Chad began cross-border attacks against the militants. Police officers and army troops have stepped up patrols in the capital in response to increased risks, including suicide bombings.

Photo
The Chadian army trained with American Special Forces during the annual Exercise Flintlock in the Sahara Desert. Credit Tyler Hicks/The New York Times

Boko Haram has, in the meantime, pushed more than 200,000 Nigerian refugees across the border into neighboring countries. And on Saturday, three explosions rocked the northeastern Nigerian city of Maiduguri, killing dozens of people in the worst attack there since suspected Islamist militants tried to seize it in January.

“Boko Haram is not just a threat to our country or to Africa,” said Brig. Gen. Zakaria Ngobongue, a senior Chadian officer who has trained in France and at Hurlburt Field, Fla., and is overseeing this year’s exercise. “They are an international threat.”

The Obama administration agrees.

New Boko Haram propaganda videos, including beheadings, mirror the releases of the Islamic State and had officials in Washington and European capitals watching to see if the two terrorist groups would draw closer together.

The announcement by the Boko Haram leadership that it had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, was still being analyzed on Saturday by Western counterterrorism officials, who said the proclamation appeared to be legitimate.

Officials suggested that Boko Haram, by aligning itself more closely with the Islamic State, was seeking to elevate its standing in the jihadi world, attract foreign fighters and possibly win financing from the militants.

“By allying with ISIS, Boko Haram is seeking greater validation in the global jihadi community,” said Laith Alkhouri, a senior analyst at Flashpoint Global Partners, a security consulting firm that tracks militant websites.

But American intelligence analysts said it remained unclear what specific fighting capabilities, if any, the relationship would add to Boko Haram, or how soon.
Continue reading the main story

Boko Haram seized the world’s attention last April when it kidnapped nearly 300 teenage girls in Nigeria. While some girls escaped the initial abduction, none have been found since, and many are believed to have been married off to Boko Haram fighters. Last summer, the United States committed $40 million over the next three years to help Nigeria, Niger, Chad and Cameroon develop more effective border security and long-range patrolling, and to pay for weapons, ammunition, night-vision goggles and radios.

In a reflection of heightened American and European concerns, Army Special Forces from Fort Carson, Colo., as well as other American Special Operations and military instructors from several Western countries, are training African troops here in Chad to conduct combat patrols and to foil terrorist ambushes, missions many of the troops will most likely carry out against Boko Haram. In another sign of the group’s growing menace, the State Department recalled from retirement last month a former ambassador with longstanding ties in Africa, Dan Mozena, to coordinate the American diplomatic effort against the militants.

In West Africa alone, the United States has more than 200 Special Operations troops at any given time instructing local soldiers, but not fighting themselves. Navy SEALs are training Nigerian commandos for action in the oil-rich delta. Air Force Reaper reconnaissance drones support French operations in Niger and Mali.

With the backing of Western officials, African leaders have taken the unusual step of forming an 8,700-member regional force to combat Boko Haram. The success of this new African counterterrorism force will be a test of the Obama administration’s focus on training, advising and equipping African troops to deal with their own security threats, rather than using American ground troops.
Continue reading the main story Video
Play Video|3:51
Boko Haram Kidnapping Tactics, Explained
Boko Haram Kidnapping Tactics, Explained

In Nigeria, more than 200 schoolgirls have been held captive since last April. Some background information on the Islamist group that has been trying to topple the country’s government for years.
Video by Natalia V. Osipova on Publish Date May 9, 2014. Photo by Sunday Alamba/Associated Press.

No one is expecting it to be easy. The troop-contributing nations of Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Cameroon and Benin must overcome years of distrust, rivalries and disparate military abilities to forge an effective fighting unit, Western and African officials said.

African officers, as well as observers from the United States, France and Britain, met in Ndjamena late last month to discuss the force’s command structure and other details, but fell short of reaching a final agreement. More talks are expected in the coming weeks.

The American strategy in Africa also hinges on European partners that have historical ties to the region and forces there. France has reorganized its 3,000 troops in the Sahel — a vast area on the southern flank of the Sahara that stretches from Senegal east to Chad — to carry out counterterrorism operations more effectively, officials said.

As part of this regional mission, called Barkhane, or “sand dune” in French, France sent a group of 15 men last month to the city of Diffa in southeastern Niger, just across from Nigeria, to collect intelligence on Boko Haram, French military officials said.

Chad, Niger and Cameroon have already mobilized thousands of troops to push back Boko Haram, whose army of 4,000 to 6,000 fighters has overwhelmed Nigeria’s underequipped and poorly led troops. So far troops from the three African nations have been able to reclaim in cross-border attacks some of the 30 towns in northeastern Nigeria that the militants have seized over the past year.
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

Chad’s American-trained Special Antiterrorism Group forces, which have fought alongside French troops in Mali against Al Qaeda’s affiliate there, are among 5,000 Chadian troops deployed to fight Boko Haram in the region. Cameroon’s Israeli-trained rapid intervention brigade has also fought well against the militants, Western specialists said.
Photo
Participating nations provided medical training and care at a hospital in Mao, Chad, during the military exercise between African and Western counterterrorism forces. Credit Tyler Hicks/The New York Times

On Wednesday, President Idriss Déby of Chad said he knew the whereabouts of Abubakar Shekau, Boko Haram’s leader, and called on him to surrender or risk being killed.

This regional response seems to have stiffened Nigeria’s spine as its troops have fought more effectively in recent weeks, chasing Boko Haram fighters out of some of the territory they controlled, Western officials said. “They got their nose bloodied,” said Col. George K. Thiebes, who commands American Special Operations troops in West Africa.

Still, senior American intelligence and counterterrorism officials voiced skepticism that Nigeria and its neighbors would successfully contain the threat, at least initially.

“Boko Haram will probably continue to solidify control over its self-declared Islamic State in northeastern Nigeria and expand its terror campaign in neighboring Nigerian states, Cameroon, Niger, and Chad,” James R. Clapper Jr., director of national intelligence, said in Washington in his annual threat assessment on Feb. 26.

Nicholas Rasmussen, the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, told a Senate panel last month, “It remains to be seen if the regional parties can in concert turn that tide.”

Creating a regional force, which the participating countries initially embraced last October and the African Union authorized in January, will mean overcoming years of distrust between Nigeria and its neighbors.
Continue reading the main story
Graphic: Boko Haram: The Other Islamic State

“Regional cooperation so far has been weak,” according to an internal European Union assessment obtained by Wikilao, a Rome-based security website, adding that future cooperation may be hindered by the countries’ “little tradition of working together and sharing a long history of local disputes, different languages.”

The irony is not lost on poorer French-speaking countries riding to the rescue of Nigeria, whose military’s negligence and incompetence has unleashed the militant plague on everyone in the region. “If there was will in Nigeria, Boko Haram would have never become what they are now,” said Col. Khassim Moussa, a senior officer in Chad’s Special Antiterrorism Group.

Nigerian officials privately acknowledged that their country’s military — which regularly contributes troops to United Nations peacekeeping operations — neglected the problem for too long. But Nigerian officials contend that many of Boko Haram’s heavy weapons are coming from Libya and the black market, and its neighbors have failed to manage their borders.

African officials say a model for their operation is the African force created several years ago to combat the Islamic militant Shabab group in Somalia. That force, which includes troops from Uganda, Kenya and Burundi, suffered through severe growing pains before emerging as a capable fighting unit.

Here in Mao, the main site for the military exercise, some 135 miles northeast of the Chadian capital, African soldiers teamed with American, Danish, Italian, Belgian and other Western advisers to learn new skills, including how to counter an enemy ambush.

“This will help them raise their game,” said one senior Danish instructor, who like other trainers and soldiers could not be identified under the exercise’s ground rules.

One group of Nigerian Navy commandos, including many veterans of the six-year war against Boko Haram, paused after fighting through a mock ambush in the rolling sandy hill, to reflect on the emerging alliance.

“Before, people felt it was all Nigeria’s fight,” said one Nigerian commando cradling his Israeli-made Tavor assault rifle. “Now other countries are getting involved.”

A version of this article appears in print on March 8, 2015, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: New Urgency Seen as Group Embraces ISIS. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archi...r-pledges-allegiance-to-the-islamic-state.php

Boko Haram leader pledges allegiance to the Islamic State

By Thomas Joscelyn | March 8th, 2015 | tjoscelyn@gmail.com | @thomasjoscelyn

Abu Bakr Shekau, the leader of Boko Haram, has pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the emir of the Islamic State. Baghdadi’s organizations claims to rule large portions of Iraq and Syria as a “caliphate.” Shekau’s allegiance was made public in an eight and a half minute audio message released on Twitter. Shekau’s announcement, in Arabic, is accompanied by a simple screen shot showing a microphone and is subtitled in both English and French. An image from the message can be seen above.

Shekau addresses Baghdadi as Caliph Ibrahim, the name Baghdadi assumed after declaring last year that his organization was now a caliphate. “[W]e announce our allegiance to the Caliph of the Muslims…and will hear and obey in times of difficulty and prosperity, in hardship and ease, and to endure being discriminated against, and not to dispute about rule with those in power, except in case of evident infidelity regarding that which there is a proof from Allah,” Shekau says.

“We call on Muslims everywhere to pledge allegiance to the Caliph and support him, as obedience to Allah and as their application of the absent duty of the era,” Shekau adds. The emir of Boko Haram goes on to explain that he has pledged allegiance to Baghdadi “because there is no cure [for] the dissimilarity” in the Ummah [community of worldwide Muslims] “except the Caliphate.” He adds that should other Muslims pledge allegiance to Baghdadi it will only “enrage the enemy of Allah.”

Shekau’s announcement is not surprising.

US officials told The Long War Journal in February that the Islamic State had dispatched a team to Nigeria to negotiate a more formal alliance.

Boko Haram’s propaganda has been promoted by Islamic State media operatives in recent months. Online jihadists have noted that the videos look increasingly polished, especially when compared to Boko Haram’s amateurish productions of the past. Even Shekau, a notorious thug, appeared to be more composed in videos released this year. Shekau’s organization has also begun calling itself the “Islamic State in West Africa.” And the SITE Intelligence Group reported in February that Boko Haram had released a statement saying its shura council was evaluating a potential oath of fealty. [See LWJ report, Jihadist divisions grow in Nigeria.]

Ansaru, an al Qaeda-allied jihadist group in Nigeria, has denounced Boko Haram more frequently since late last year. There are longstanding differences between Ansaru and its more notorious rival, but Ansaru’s criticisms have become more pointed. In a video released on Feb. 9, Ansaru compared its approach to fighting the Nigerian government to Boko Haram’s. Ansaru’s jihad “is different from Boko Haram[‘s],” which “launches physical and bomb attacks at Muslims and public places such as mosques, markets, and motor parks,” the speaker in the video said. “These acts are contrary to the teachings of Islam. In fact, jihad is prescribed to assist the wounded.”

A wealth of evidence shows that al Qaeda and its regional branches, including al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), and Shabaab in Somalia have supported Boko Haram’s operations in various ways. Boko Haram was also reportedly in contact with al Qaeda’s senior leadership.

But while Shekau and other Boko Haram leaders have expressed their affinity for al Qaeda, they never publicly declared their allegiance to either Osama bin Laden or his successor, Ayman al Zawahiri. It is likely that al Qaeda’s senior leadership does not approve of Boko Haram’s methodology for waging jihad. Al Qaeda has issued guidelines as part of their attempt to put restrictions on the jihadists’ violence in the Muslim-majority world. Al Qaeda has been particularly concerned about the impact of operations that kill large numbers of Muslim civilians, thereby alienating segments of the population that al Qaeda hopes to woo to the jihadists’ cause.

Much like the Islamic State, Boko Haram has shown that it is unwilling to put any real limits on its violence. Ansaru, on the other hand, markets itself as the true defender of Nigerian civilians. It is not known if Shekau’s decision to join the Islamic State’s international network will lead to more violent clashes with Ansaru. The Islamic State and its supporters have fought their jihadist rivals elsewhere, especially in Syria.

Shekau is the highest profile jihadist to swear allegiance to Baghdadi on behalf of his group thus far. The Islamic State’s international network has been growing, but its growth has been fueled by lesser-known jihadist personalities. On Nov. 10, 2014, jihadist groups in Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Yemen all committed to Baghdadi in a coordinated show of support for the self-proclaimed Caliph. Baghdadi recognized the pledges three days later on Nov. 13. But none of the pledges came from well-known jihadists. Even the jihadist from Ansar Bayt al Maqdis (ABM) who pledged to follow Baghdadi was unidentified. ABM was quickly rebranded as a “province” of the Islamic State and remains a prolific source of terror in Egypt.

Baghdadi has earned the loyalty of other jihadists, including in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But those jihadists, while deadly, have been mainly second-tier personalities in the jihadists’ world. Disaffected commanders from the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban and al Qaeda have all sworn allegiance to Baghdadi. While they have demonstrated a significant operational capacity, none of them are as powerful as their counterparts in the Taliban and al Qaeda. None of them as well-known as Shekau.

Boko Haram’s internal dynamics are opaque, so it is unknown at present if any faction within the group disapproves of Shekau’s move.

However, Shekau is an international pariah and commands a large fighting force, making him a significant ally of Baghdadi’s Islamic State.

Tags: Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, Abu Bakr Shekau, Al Qaeda, ansaru, Boko Haram, Islamic State, Nigeria
2 Comments

mike merlo says:
March 8, 2015 at 5:00 am

no surprise here. ISIS/ISIL is obviously bringing something to the ‘table’ that AQ is lacking in. It was just a matter of time for BH to begin openly pledging fealty to ISIS/ISIL. What’ll be interesting is where all the these new found allegiances will be a year or more from now. Especially if and when ISIS/ISIL should begin to experience notable/measurable losses on the battlefield or any of their allies also experience a noticeable deterioration of theor position(s). One could also apply the the flipside to the aforementioned if ISIS/ISIL should manage to hold their ground over the coming year(s) & experience possible success on some other ‘fronts.’ Also coupled with AQ’s continuing transition into an Ideological Standard Bearer & possible expansion by any of those who’ve already committed themselves to AQ’s brand/style of leadership could change & or influence the dynamic’s for elements of The Islamic Internationale ‘moving’ in particular directions. Great Theater though no matter ‘which way’ it shifts.
Reply
Birbal Dhar says:
March 8, 2015 at 9:16 am

I think analysts knew that something was fishy when Boko Haram videos started to look like Islamic State ones, where a significance in quality of videos were improved and the similarities started to prop up. I guess they have to wait for Baghdadi to proclaim parts of Nigeria occupied by Boko Haram as an Islamic State, before it becomes legit.
Reply

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/w...illing-blows-himself-up-report-says.html?_r=0

Europe

Suspect in Russian Politician’s Killing Blows Himself Up, Report Says

By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
MARCH 8, 2015

MOSCOW — A suspect in the murder of the opposition politician Boris Y. Nemtsov blew himself up as the police closed in on him overnight, Russian news reports said on Sunday, while new disclosures indicated that one of the men already detained in the killing had served as a police officer in the fight against Islamic insurgents.

Five suspects were due to be arraigned at Basmanny District Court in Moscow, Vladimir Markin, a spokesman for Russia’s Investigative Committee, said in a statement. Security forces established a cordon around the court.

The two prime suspects, whose names have been officially confirmed, are Zaur Dadayev and Anzar Kubashev, whose arrest was announced on Saturday. There was no announcement from law enforcement agencies confirming the names of the other three suspects although details of further detentions emerged overnight.

Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

Mourners on Saturday at the site where the Russian opposition figure Boris Y. Nemtsov was shot and killed in February in Moscow.
2 Suspects Are Detained in Killing of Kremlin CriticMARCH 7, 2015

The arrests and the police activity were centered in the Northern Caucasus, long a trouble spot for Russia, but there was still no coherent picture of the case from Russia’s law enforcement agencies as scattershot details emerged.

The main question many Russians want answered is who ordered the brazen assassination of Mr. Nemtsov, a former deputy prime minister, in central Moscow on Feb. 27, the first killing of a such an important political figure in many years. Given the fact that the shooting took place within sight of the Kremlin, among the most heavily guarded sites in Moscow, opposition figures have accused the government of complicity in the crime, which it has denied.

Mr. Nemtsov was one of the government’s most persistent critics and was due to publish a report that he said would reveal the involvement of the Russian military in the war in Ukraine. The Kremlin has called Russians fighting in Ukraine “volunteers.”

Mr. Nemtsov was killed while walking across a bridge over the Moscow River with his girlfriend, who was not injured. He was shot in the back four times by a gunman who then escaped in a car driven by an accomplice.

In the North Caucasus, the acting head of the Security Council in Ingushetia, Albert Barakhoev, was quoted by the state-run news agencies, Tass and RIA Novosti, as saying that two other men were in police custody, with all four arrests having taken place there. The two other men were Shagid Kubashev, the younger brother of Anzar, and a man described as having been in a car with Mr. Dadayev at the time of his arrest.

All the men detained so far were Chechens, the reports said. In Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, which borders Ingushetia, one suspect blew himself up with a grenade after tossing another one at law enforcement officials outside his apartment who were demanding that he surrender, Interfax reported. No one else was injured in the blasts, the report said.

Mr. Barakhoev revealed some new information about the suspects, including the fact that Mr. Dadayev had worked as a law enforcement officer, serving as deputy commander of a battalion of Interior Ministry troops assigned to fight Islamist insurgents. It was unclear whether he was still with the unit.
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

The other main suspect, Mr. Kubashev, had worked for a private security company in Moscow as a guard in a hypermarket, according to Mr. Barakhoev. Both are between 30 and 35 years old, he said.

Ajmani Dadayev, the mother of Mr. Dadayev, told state television that the Kubashev brothers were her nephews. The suspects had worked in Moscow for years without any problems, she said.

As of midday Sunday, there had been no official police announcement about further arrests or the Grozny incident.

There have been a series of high-profile murders of government critics in Russia over the past two decades in which the mastermind was never identified.

Last June, for example, Moscow’s highest criminal court sentenced five men, all from the North Caucasus, to prison for the 2006 murder of the investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya. But her supporters stress that the question of who ordered her killing remains open.

Ms. Politkovskaya was a scathing critic of Kremlin policies in Chechnya and of the local strongman, Ramzan A. Kadyrov.

After two wars in the 1990s, which leveled Grozny, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia essentially subcontracted control over Chechnya to Mr. Kadyrov.

In recent weeks, Mr. Kadyrov and his supporters have assumed a highly visible role in the movement that seeks to block any attempt to recreate in Russia the kind of political upheaval that forced a change in government in neighboring Ukraine. More broadly, these figures support the conservative, nationalistic, anti-Western ideology that Mr. Putin has made a signature of his third term.

Nikolay Khalip contributed reporting.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/content/un-p...ans-killed-in-mali-rocket-attack/2671955.html

News / Africa

UN Peacekeeper, 2 Civilians Killed in Mali Rocket Attack

VOA News
March 08, 2015 7:23 AM

A U.N. peacekeeper and two civilians were killed in a spray of rocket fire on and near a United Nations base camp in northern Mali.

A U.N. statement said eight soldiers were also wounded, and that "the rockets also hit ... citizens outside the camp," killing two people and wounding four others.

It was not immediately clear who is responsible for the attack, which took place Sunday morning.

The attack came a day after gunmen killed at least five people and wounded several others in an attack on a restaurant in Mali's capital, Bamako.

The attack Saturday on La Terrasse restaurant took place in the early morning hours. A hooded gunman ran into the restaurant and opened fire on guests then got into a vehicle where another was waiting and they sped away, police said.

Two people were detained shortly afterwards, but police could not confirm that they were linked to the attack.

Three Malians, a French national and a Belgian were killed. The restaurant is in a Bamako neighborhood popular with expatriates.

French President Francois Hollande denounced the attack as a "cowardly act" and said that security has been stepped up at the French embassy and other French installations in Mali, a former French colony.

France has helped wrest control of Mali's northern territory from separatist rebels and al-Qaida-linked fighters.

It still has about 3,000 troops there. Mali's government signed a preliminary peace deal recently with some of the country's northern separatist groups, but the main Tuareg rebel alliance asked for more time for consultations before agreeing to the accord.

The region remains plagued by violence, but Bamako, in the south, has been largely peaceful.

Lynching of suspects

In a separate incident in northern Mali, an angry mob lynched and burned two suspected bombers in the town of Gao Saturday, security sources said. The suspects were planning to set off bombs remotely when they were surprised by Gao residents who reportedly would not be stopped.

In a statement, Hollande's office said France has agreed with Mali to implement new measures to reinforce security, although no details were given. The statement also said President Hollande will meet with Malian President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita to show his sympathy and France's support.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who is visiting Paris, called the attack in Bamako a "horrific" and "cowardly" act of terrorism. He added that the act of opening fire on a restaurant filled with innocent civilians "only strengthens our resolve to fight terrorism in all of its forms, wherever it exists."

Belgian Foreign Minister Didier Reynders also condemned the attack.

The Mauritanian news website Al Akhbar has said that the al-Qaida-linked group al-Mourabitoun has claimed responsibility for an attack in Mali's capital that killed five people.

Al Akhbar often posts statements by Islamist militants in Mali.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...killed-in-egypt-army-raids/article6971709.ece

News » International
Cairo, March 8, 2015
Updated: March 8, 2015 15:55 IST

70 militants killed in Egypt army raids

70 militants in Egypt were killed in army raids during the last week, the military said on Sunday.

Apart from the 70 killed, 118 wanted and suspected militants were arrested from March 1-7, while 27 militant bases were destroyed, army spokesperson Brigadier General Mohamed Samir said.

He added that 108 vehicles and motorcycles used by militants in their attacks against police and army personnel were also destroyed. Egypt’s Sinai region has witnessed many violent attacks by militants since the January 2011 revolution that toppled dictator Hosni Mubarak.

The attacks targeting police and military increased after the ouster of Islamist ex-president Mohamed Morsy in 2013. Over 500 security personnel have been reported killed since then.

The military has launched security campaigns in the area, arrested suspects and demolished houses that belong to terrorists, including those facilitating tunnels leading to the Gaza Strip.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/08/us-egypt-violence-idUSKBN0M40D820150308

Blasts kill one, wound nine in Egypt's Alexandria - health ministry

ALEXANDRIA, Egypt Sun Mar 8, 2015 7:00am EDT

(Reuters) - A series of bombings killed one and wounded nine others in Egypt's second city of Alexandria on Sunday, security and medical sources said.

One person was killed and five were wounded in the first blast, outside of a supermarket in the Seyouf district of eastern Alexandria, Magdy Hegazy, undersecretary at the health ministry said.

A bomb outside of Harambe police station in central Alexandria wounded four, while another near the police station was disarmed by security forces, security sources said.

A fourth bomb went off near the Bab Sharq police station without injuring or killing anyone, Hegazy said.

Egypt is facing an Islamist insurgency that has killed hundreds of police officers and soldiers since the army removed Islamist president Mohamed Mursi in 2013 following mass protests against his rule.

Most militant attacks take place in the remote but strategic Sinai Peninsula, but attacks in cities, particularly near police stations, have also increased.

(Writing By Shadi Bushra; Editing by Yara Bayoumy, Greg Mahlich)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/08/us-yemen-security-idUSKBN0M40A820150308

Yemen's defense minister escapes Houthi-controled Sanaa

ADEN Sun Mar 8, 2015 5:21am EDT

(Reuters) - Yemen's defense minister has fled Houthi-controled Sanaa for Aden, officials said on Sunday, in a move expected to bolster President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi in his power struggle with the Shi'ite Muslim group.

Yemen is caught in a stand-off between the Western-backed president and the Iran-backed Houthi clan, now the country's de facto rulers. The group seized the presidential palace in Sanaa in January and confined the president to his private residence.

Hadi managed to escape from the Houthis two weeks ago.

Officials said the defense minister, General Mahmoud al-Subaihi, escaped in a convoy on Saturday night, arriving in the southern port city of Aden early on Sunday.

They said the Houthis shot and killed four of Subaihi's security guards in the western province of Hodeida where they attacked a convoy in their search for the minister.

Hadi, who resigned after the Houthis seized the presidential palace, has since re-claimed the presidency and is seeking to set up a rival power center in the south with loyalist army units and tribes.

An impoverished country of 25 million, Yemen is part of a regional struggle for influence between rival powers Saudi Arabia and Iran.

The Iran-backed Houthis control much of the northern half of the country while several Gulf state embassies have said they would operate from Aden in the south after Hadi's escape.

(Reporting by Mohammed Mukhashaf; additional reporting by Mohammed Ghobari; writing by Maha El Dahan; editing by Sami Aboudi and Jason Neely)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150308/ml--islamic_state-dempsey-db58dbb00b.html

Dempsey: Some Iraqi troops show up for training ill-prepared

Mar 8, 2:14 PM (ET)
By ROBERT BURNS

(AP) Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, right, confers with...
Full Image

ABOARD THE CHARLES DE GAULLE (AP) — Some Iraqi army units in line for U.S.-led training to fight the Islamic State group are showing up ill-prepared, the top American general said Sunday.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, speaking to reporters aboard this French aircraft carrier in the northern Persian Gulf not far from Iran's coast, said he sees no reason to send more U.S. military trainers or advisers at this time. More, broadly, he defended the pace of the overall military campaign in Iraq.

"Right now we don't need more advisers on the ground," Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said with his French counterpart, Gen. Pierre de Villiers, at his side on the hangar deck of the de Gaulle.

"We've got trainers and advisers that are waiting for some of the Iraqi units to show up, and when they've shown up — a handful of them — they've shown up understrength and sometimes without the proper equipment. The Iraqi government can actually fix that themselves."

(AP) Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, left, confers with...
Full Image

The crux of the U.S.-led coalition's strategy for dislodging IS from Iraq is this: degrade the militants' fighting power and resources through limited airstrikes against positions in northern and western Iraq, as well as in Syria; train and advise underperforming Iraqi security forces; and press the Iraqi government to take firmer steps to reconcile with the disaffected Sunnis.

"This is going to require some strategic patience," Dempsey said.

He said the military part of the conflict could be concluded "in the foreseeable future." The underlying problems — failures in Iraqi governance and a disaffected Sunni population — probably will take longer to resolve.

Dempsey spent the day aboard the de Gaulle to highlight U.S.-French military cooperation and to discuss strategies for combating IS in Iraq. He planned to visit Iraq next to discuss the campaign with government leaders and U.S. military commanders.

France is flying a variety of missions into Iraq from aboard the de Gaulle, which began operating in the northern Gulf on Feb. 23 and is scheduled to remain for eight weeks.

Dempsey watched as four French Rafale attack aircraft roared off the carrier's deck en route to Iraq, and later he observed four Super Etendard fighters land after returning from a mission.

French officials said they are flying 12 to 15 missions a day, including intelligence and surveillance flights, airstrikes and close air support missions in coordination with Iraq ground troops. Dempsey said that makes the French a valued partner in a conflict that has about 20 countries flying various air missions but only three conducting maritime operations.

Dempsey arrived aboard the de Gaulle on a U.S. Navy C-2 Greyhound twin-engine aircraft. After meetings with de Villier and other French and American officers, he was catapulted off the carrier in the C-2 for a return flight to a U.S. Navy station in Bahrain. Earlier Sunday he met with Bahrain government officials.

While they met aboard the de Gaulle, an American aircraft carrier, the USS Carl Vinson, pulled to within about 1,000 yards. The two carriers have been coordinating their air operations in what Dempsey called a sign of increased U.S.-French military cooperation around the world. In an unusual arrangement, the French carrier is under the operational control of the Americans as part of the IS campaign.

Dempsey was asked by reporters to respond to criticism by some that the U.S. is not using air power aggressively enough in Iraq and Syria. Dempsey said there are valid reasons for limiting the pace of the bombing while other aspects of the conflict are addressed.

"Carpet bombing through Iraq is not the answer," he said, adding that IS fighters have adapted since the U.S.-led bombing began in Iraqi in August.

"This is not an enemy that is sitting around in the open desert waiting for me to come find it and either use U.S. or French aircraft to attack it," Dempsey said. "They did some of that in the beginning and paid the price. So the enemy has adapted and they have developed tactics and techniques that make them a little more difficult to find."

Dempsey said the intensity and scale of the bombing campaign is necessarily limited by a need to avoid civilian casualties and to ensure the best possible intelligence is collected before striking targets.

"We are very precise because the very last thing we want to do is create a condition of civilian casualties on the ground, which would add to these competing narratives about taking sides and it being a religious issue, and Christianity and Islam. And so we have a responsibility to be very precise in the use of air power, and that means it takes time" to build the proper intelligence picture before striking.

"If I had more targets and I could be precise, we could produce more effects on the ground," he added.

---

Follow Robert Burns on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/robertburnsAP