WAR 04-04-2015-to-04-10-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/u-s-...r-new-missile-sensors-in-the-arctic-1.2316106

U.S. military to ask Canada for new missile sensors in the Arctic
Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press
Published Tuesday, April 7, 2015 6:31PM EDT
Comments 9

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. military is preparing to ask that new sensors be installed in the Canadian Arctic that would be able to track different types of incoming missiles.

A senior defence official said Tuesday the request is being made to U.S. policy leaders -- as well as the Canadian government. He said it's too early in the process to set a target date.

"I don't think we have a timetable just yet," said Admiral William Gortney, the head of the Canada-U.S. Norad program and of Northern Command -- the Colorado-based body with tracking responsibility for the U.S. missile-defence program.

"We're just now bringing it up through our policy leaders as well as with the Canadian government."

He told a news conference at the Pentagon that it's nearly time to replace the aging sensors in the Canada-U.S. North Warning System, along the old Arctic distant early warning line, the Cold-War era DEW Line.

He said he'd prefer to replace them with newer versions that could not only see farther, over the horizon, but also be able to track shorter-range cruise missiles.

"In a few years -- I'd say 10 years is the number -- (the current equipment is) going to reach a point of obsolescence and we're going to have to reinvest for that capability," Gortney said.

"The question is, what sort of technology do we want to use to reconstitute that capability? We don't want to put in the same sorts of sensors because they're not effective against the low-altitude, say, cruise missiles. They can't see over the horizon."

The U.S. military has in the past voiced a hope for more flexible sensors in the Arctic, but Gortney's remarks suggested that a more formal request is in the works.

Canada refused a decade ago to join the American ballistic missile defence, or BMD, although it does play a role in monitoring the airspace through Norad. The Arctic sensors would deliver tracking information to the missile-defence program.

Defence Minister Jason Kenney recently said the government would look at modernizing Norad's capacity to detect potential threats.

He also reiterated that it was examining the long-standing opposition to participation in ballistic missile defence and would await the findings of a study by the House of Commons defence committee.

"But up to now, we haven't seen information that has changed our opinion on BMD," Kenney told a news conference call last month.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/04/08/north-koreas-nuclear-breakout-canary-in-the-coalmine/

North Korea’s Nuclear Breakout: Canary in the Coalmine

Michael Auslin | @michaelauslin
04.08.2015 - 11:50 AM

Even a few months ago, nuclear war still seemed passé, an artifact of the Cold War, or derided as a fading dream for neoconservatives who want any excuse to increase defense budgets and meddle abroad. Sometimes, however, reality takes a bite out of comfortable establishment nostrums. Such was the case yesterday, when the commander of NORAD, Adm. William Gortney, admitted what many in D.C. have been whispering for months, that North Korea now has an “operational” road-mobile long-range ballistic missile, the KN-08, and that Pyongyang has “the ability to put a nuclear weapon on a KN-08 and shoot it at the [U.S.] homeland.”

Thus, the fundamental goal of three U.S. administrations, to prevent North Korea from becoming a nuclear power that can threaten the United States and its treaty allies, has utterly failed. Two decades of intensive, repeated negotiation have resulted in the polar opposite of what Washington wanted. The nuclear non-proliferation model has been cracked, if not broken, and America’s ultimate security guarantee, “extended deterrence,” will now be called into question even more by nervous allies in Asia, and elsewhere.

Adm. Gortney’s announcement, which senior officials have been inching toward over the past year, now raises two distinct problems for U.S. policymakers, completely separate from the question of whether or not Pyongyang would ever use one of its nuclear weapons.

First, it is time to accept that we are moving into a future of nuclear proliferation, and therefore the increased likelihood of a nuclear event, be it an accident or a conscious act of aggression. In short, America’s holiday from nukes since the end of the Cold War is now over. In addition to smaller nuclear states, great power nuclear competition may well heat up. With Russia and China, two adversarial regimes, modernizing and increasing their nuclear forces, Americans and their allies will have to become used to nuclear saber rattling once again, as shown by recent comments from Vladimir Putin.

Will nuclear blackmail become a standard tool of statecraft in the 21st century? If so, will we simply ignore it, or decide to be more cautious in pursuing our interests? How do we begin thinking again about the unthinkable, yet also learn new lessons that may well have little connection to those from the Cold War, when there were primarily two stable nuclear blocs? We face, instead, a far more fragmented and complex nuclear future, in which aggressive, destabilizing rogue regimes will have control over the world’s most powerful weapons. What strategy will ensure the safety of the American homeland, and does the administration’s plans to slightly modernize, yet draw down our nuclear capability still make sense in this new world?

The second problem is how to deter would-be nuclear regimes, most obviously Iran, when the playbook for gaining nuclear weapons has now been written and published by the North Koreans. Pyongyang is the canary in the coalmine for nuclear proliferators. The failure of negotiation, the unwillingness of the United States to take serious steps to prevent proliferation, the wishful thinking on the part of diplomats and leaders from both parties, has led us to the threshold of a world far more terrifying than anything we’ve faced in a long time. The repeated assurances of U.S. officials that we would never permit nor accept a nuclear North Korea now ring hollow around the world. It can only be a balm to Tehran to look at our record, and to judge that both time and more sophisticated negotiating strategies are on their side.

Pundits are fond of saying that “elections have consequences.” So do policy failures. The consequences of two lost decades that have allowed one of the world’s most evil regimes to gain the ultimate weapon could be unthinkable. It is a black mark against the comfortable belief that “a bad deal is better than no deal.” Such statements only reveal the poverty of thinking among those who do not show the imagination to see how quickly the world can change for the worse, and how the spillover effects of our misguided approaches can themselves cause far greater disruption than the particular policy failure itself.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wire...ssiles-threaten-asia-30161642?singlePage=true

US Researchers: Hundreds of NKorea Missiles Threaten Asia

WASHINGTON — Apr 7, 2015, 2:02 PM ET
By MATTHEW PENNINGTON
Associated Press

Nuclear-armed North Korea already has hundreds of ballistic missiles that can target its neighbors in Northeast Asia but will need foreign technology to upgrade its arsenal and pose a more direct threat to the United States, U.S. researchers said Tuesday.

Those are the latest findings of a research program investigating what secretive North Korea's nuclear weapons capability will be by 2020.

Unlike Iran, the current focus of international nuclear diplomacy, North Korea has conducted atomic test explosions. Its blood-curdling rhetoric and periodic missile tests have set the region on edge and there's no sign of negotiations restarting to coax it into disarming.

For now, the emphasis is on sanctions and military preparedness. Defense Secretary Ash Carter visits Japan and South Korea this week amid speculation the U.S. wants to place a missile defense system in South Korea against North Korean ballistic missiles, which Seoul is reluctant about as it would alienate China. The U.S. has already deployed anti-missile radar in Japan.

The North Korean Futures Project — a joint effort by the U.S.-Korea Institute at John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and National Defense University's Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction — is trying to shed some light on what kind of threat Pyongyang poses.

Aerospace engineer John Schilling and a research associate at the institute, Henry Kan, say Pyongyang's current inventory of about 1,000 missiles, based on old Soviet technology, can already reach most targets in South Korea and Japan.

"North Korea has already achieved a level of delivery system development that will allow it to establish itself as a small nuclear power in the coming years," they write in a paper published Tuesday on the institute's website, 38 North.

But despite the North's 2012 success in launching a rocket into space — the clearest sign yet it has the potential to reach the American mainland — Pyongyang faces greater technical challenges in developing effective intercontinental missiles that could fire a nuclear weapon across the Pacific at the U.S.

It may already be able to field a limited number of long-range Taepodong missiles in an emergency but they would be unreliable, vulnerable to pre-emptive strike and inaccurate, the analysis says.

Foreign assistance could be critical for overcoming the technological and engineering hurdles it now faces in developing better missiles, including progress on high-performance engines, heat shields, guidance electronics and rocket motors that use solid fuel instead of liquid fuel, it says.

And that's become tougher as North Korea's international isolation has intensified since its first nuclear test explosion in 2006.

That hasn't stopped its nuclear program, although it remains unclear whether the North has been able to miniaturize a nuclear device to mount on a missile. According to a recent estimate by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, the North likely has enough fissile material for at least 10 weapons, and that could increase to between 20 and 100 weapons by 2020.

But whereas the basic designs and production infrastructure are now largely in place for the nuclear program, technological progress on the missile front has been slower, the analysis says. North Korea has failed to make the kind of advances that Iran and Pakistan have made, although both countries relied on North Korean assistance for missiles in the 1990s.

In North Korea's arsenal, U.S. officials have expressed most concern about an intercontinental ballistic missile called the KN-08 that has been displayed in military parades. It is said to be capable of being launched from a road-mobile vehicle and would therefore be difficult to monitor via satellite.

Last October, the commander of U.S. forces in South Korea, Army Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, said North Korea may be capable of fielding a nuclear-armed KN-08 missile that could reach U.S. soil, but because it has not tested such a weapon the odds of it being effective were "pretty darn low."

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-iran-deal-and-its-consequences-1428447582

Opinion

The Iran Deal and Its Consequences

Mixing shrewd diplomacy with defiance of U.N. resolutions, Iran has turned the negotiation on its head.

By Henry Kissinger And George P. Shultz
Updated April 7, 2015 7:38 p.m. ET
863 COMMENTS

The announced framework for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program has the potential to generate a seminal national debate. Advocates exult over the nuclear constraints it would impose on Iran. Critics question the verifiability of these constraints and their longer-term impact on regional and world stability. The historic significance of the agreement and indeed its sustainability depend on whether these emotions, valid by themselves, can be reconciled.

Debate regarding technical details of the deal has thus far inhibited the soul-searching necessary regarding its deeper implications. For 20 years, three presidents of both major parties proclaimed that an Iranian nuclear weapon was contrary to American and global interests—and that they were prepared to use force to prevent it. Yet negotiations that began 12 years ago as an international effort to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability, albeit short of its full capacity in the first 10 years.

Mixing shrewd diplomacy with open defiance of U.N. resolutions, Iran has gradually turned the negotiation on its head. Iran’s centrifuges have multiplied from about 100 at the beginning of the negotiation to almost 20,000 today. The threat of war now constrains the West more than Iran. While Iran treated the mere fact of its willingness to negotiate as a concession, the West has felt compelled to break every deadlock with a new proposal. In the process, the Iranian program has reached a point officially described as being within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon. Under the proposed agreement, for 10 years Iran will never be further than one year from a nuclear weapon and, after a decade, will be significantly closer.

Inspections and Enforcement

The president deserves respect for the commitment with which he has pursued the objective of reducing nuclear peril, as does Secretary of State John Kerry for the persistence, patience and ingenuity with which he has striven to impose significant constraints on Iran’s nuclear program.

Progress has been made on shrinking the size of Iran’s enriched stockpile, confining the enrichment of uranium to one facility, and limiting aspects of the enrichment process. Still, the ultimate significance of the framework will depend on its verifiability and enforceability.

Negotiating the final agreement will be extremely challenging. For one thing, no official text has yet been published. The so-called framework represents a unilateral American interpretation. Some of its clauses have been dismissed by the principal Iranian negotiator as “spin.” A joint EU-Iran statement differs in important respects, especially with regard to the lifting of sanctions and permitted research and development.

Comparable ambiguities apply to the one-year window for a presumed Iranian breakout. Emerging at a relatively late stage in the negotiation, this concept replaced the previous baseline—that Iran might be permitted a technical capacity compatible with a plausible civilian nuclear program. The new approach complicates verification and makes it more political because of the vagueness of the criteria.

Under the new approach, Iran permanently gives up none of its equipment, facilities or fissile product to achieve the proposed constraints. It only places them under temporary restriction and safeguard—amounting in many cases to a seal at the door of a depot or periodic visits by inspectors to declared sites. The physical magnitude of the effort is daunting. Is the International Atomic Energy Agency technically, and in terms of human resources, up to so complex and vast an assignment?

In a large country with multiple facilities and ample experience in nuclear concealment, violations will be inherently difficult to detect. Devising theoretical models of inspection is one thing. Enforcing compliance, week after week, despite competing international crises and domestic distractions, is another. Any report of a violation is likely to prompt debate over its significance—or even calls for new talks with Tehran to explore the issue. The experience of Iran’s work on a heavy-water reactor during the “interim agreement” period—when suspect activity was identified but played down in the interest of a positive negotiating atmosphere—is not encouraging.

Compounding the difficulty is the unlikelihood that breakout will be a clear-cut event. More likely it will occur, if it does, via the gradual accumulation of ambiguous evasions.

When inevitable disagreements arise over the scope and intrusiveness of inspections, on what criteria are we prepared to insist and up to what point? If evidence is imperfect, who bears the burden of proof? What process will be followed to resolve the matter swiftly?

The agreement’s primary enforcement mechanism, the threat of renewed sanctions, emphasizes a broad-based asymmetry, which provides Iran permanent relief from sanctions in exchange for temporary restraints on Iranian conduct. Undertaking the “snap-back” of sanctions is unlikely to be as clear or as automatic as the phrase implies. Iran is in a position to violate the agreement by executive decision. Restoring the most effective sanctions will require coordinated international action. In countries that had reluctantly joined in previous rounds, the demands of public and commercial opinion will militate against automatic or even prompt “snap-back.” If the follow-on process does not unambiguously define the term, an attempt to reimpose sanctions risks primarily isolating America, not Iran.

The gradual expiration of the framework agreement, beginning in a decade, will enable Iran to become a significant nuclear, industrial and military power after that time—in the scope and sophistication of its nuclear program and its latent capacity to weaponize at a time of its choosing. Limits on Iran’s research and development have not been publicly disclosed (or perhaps agreed). Therefore Iran will be in a position to bolster its advanced nuclear technology during the period of the agreement and rapidly deploy more advanced centrifuges—of at least five times the capacity of the current model—after the agreement expires or is broken.

The follow-on negotiations must carefully address a number of key issues, including the mechanism for reducing Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium from 10,000 to 300 kilograms, the scale of uranium enrichment after 10 years, and the IAEA’s concerns regarding previous Iranian weapons efforts. The ability to resolve these and similar issues should determine the decision over whether or when the U.S. might still walk away from the negotiations.

The Framework Agreement and Long-Term Deterrence


Even when these issues are resolved, another set of problems emerges because the negotiating process has created its own realities. The interim agreement accepted Iranian enrichment; the new agreement makes it an integral part of the architecture. For the U.S., a decade-long restriction on Iran’s nuclear capacity is a possibly hopeful interlude. For Iran’s neighbors—who perceive their imperatives in terms of millennial rivalries—it is a dangerous prelude to an even more dangerous permanent fact of life. Some of the chief actors in the Middle East are likely to view the U.S. as willing to concede a nuclear military capability to the country they consider their principal threat. Several will insist on at least an equivalent capability. Saudi Arabia has signaled that it will enter the lists; others are likely to follow. In that sense, the implications of the negotiation are irreversible.

If the Middle East is “proliferated” and becomes host to a plethora of nuclear-threshold states, several in mortal rivalry with each other, on what concept of nuclear deterrence or strategic stability will international security be based? Traditional theories of deterrence assumed a series of bilateral equations. Do we now envision an interlocking series of rivalries, with each new nuclear program counterbalancing others in the region?

Previous thinking on nuclear strategy also assumed the existence of stable state actors. Among the original nuclear powers, geographic distances and the relatively large size of programs combined with moral revulsion to make surprise attack all but inconceivable. How will these doctrines translate into a region where sponsorship of nonstate proxies is common, the state structure is under assault, and death on behalf of jihad is a kind of fulfillment?

Some have suggested the U.S. can dissuade Iran’s neighbors from developing individual deterrent capacities by extending an American nuclear umbrella to them. But how will these guarantees be defined? What factors will govern their implementation? Are the guarantees extended against the use of nuclear weapons—or against any military attack, conventional or nuclear? Is it the domination by Iran that we oppose or the method for achieving it? What if nuclear weapons are employed as psychological blackmail? And how will such guarantees be expressed, or reconciled with public opinion and constitutional practices?

Regional Order


For some, the greatest value in an agreement lies in the prospect of an end, or at least a moderation, of Iran’s 3½ decades of militant hostility to the West and established international institutions, and an opportunity to draw Iran into an effort to stabilize the Middle East. Having both served in government during a period of American-Iranian strategic alignment and experienced its benefits for both countries as well as the Middle East, we would greatly welcome such an outcome. Iran is a significant national state with a historic culture, a fierce national identity, and a relatively youthful, educated population; its re-emergence as a partner would be a consequential event.

But partnership in what task? Cooperation is not an exercise in good feeling; it presupposes congruent definitions of stability. There exists no current evidence that Iran and the U.S. are remotely near such an understanding. Even while combating common enemies, such as ISIS, Iran has declined to embrace common objectives. Iran’s representatives (including its Supreme Leader) continue to profess a revolutionary anti-Western concept of international order; domestically, some senior Iranians describe nuclear negotiations as a form of jihad by other means.

The final stages of the nuclear talks have coincided with Iran’s intensified efforts to expand and entrench its power in neighboring states. Iranian or Iranian client forces are now the pre-eminent military or political element in multiple Arab countries, operating beyond the control of national authorities. With the recent addition of Yemen as a battlefield, Tehran occupies positions along all of the Middle East’s strategic waterways and encircles archrival Saudi Arabia, an American ally. Unless political restraint is linked to nuclear restraint, an agreement freeing Iran from sanctions risks empowering Iran’s hegemonic efforts.

Some have argued that these concerns are secondary, since the nuclear deal is a way station toward the eventual domestic transformation of Iran. But what gives us the confidence that we will prove more astute at predicting Iran’s domestic course than Vietnam’s, Afghanistan’s, Iraq’s, Syria’s, Egypt’s or Libya’s?

Absent the linkage between nuclear and political restraint, America’s traditional allies will conclude that the U.S. has traded temporary nuclear cooperation for acquiescence to Iranian hegemony. They will increasingly look to create their own nuclear balances and, if necessary, call in other powers to sustain their integrity. Does America still hope to arrest the region’s trends toward sectarian upheaval, state collapse and the disequilibrium of power tilting toward Tehran, or do we now accept this as an irremediable aspect of the regional balance?

Some advocates have suggested that the agreement can serve as a way to dissociate America from Middle East conflicts, culminating in the military retreat from the region initiated by the current administration. As Sunni states gear up to resist a new Shiite empire, the opposite is likely to be the case. The Middle East will not stabilize itself, nor will a balance of power naturally assert itself out of Iranian-Sunni competition. (Even if that were our aim, traditional balance of power theory suggests the need to bolster the weaker side, not the rising or expanding power.) Beyond stability, it is in America’s strategic interest to prevent the outbreak of nuclear war and its catastrophic consequences. Nuclear arms must not be permitted to turn into conventional weapons. The passions of the region allied with weapons of mass destruction may impel deepening American involvement.

If the world is to be spared even worse turmoil, the U.S. must develop a strategic doctrine for the region. Stability requires an active American role. For Iran to be a valuable member of the international community, the prerequisite is that it accepts restraint on its ability to destabilize the Middle East and challenge the broader international order.

Until clarity on an American strategic political concept is reached, the projected nuclear agreement will reinforce, not resolve, the world’s challenges in the region. Rather than enabling American disengagement from the Middle East, the nuclear framework is more likely to necessitate deepening involvement there—on complex new terms. History will not do our work for us; it helps only those who seek to help themselves.


Messrs. Kissinger and Shultz are former secretaries of state.

 

[Housecarl]

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ture-of-North-Korean-Nuclear-Delivery-Systems

Report is 28 pages long....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://38north.org/2015/04/nukefuture040715/

The Future of North Korean Nuclear Delivery Systems

By 38 North
07 April 2015

The Future of North Korean Nuclear Delivery Systems

Pyongyang’s inventory of delivery systems is a key factor in considering North Korea’s nuclear future. While its current inventory is well developed, although limited to old Soviet technology only able to reach regional targets, North Korea has bigger ambitions and is seriously pursuing the deployment of more capable, longer-range, more survivable weapons. However, the future of its nuclear delivery systems remains uncertain given technical, engineering and other challenges the North will have to face.

This report details North Korea’s current missile program and provides low-end, medium and high-end scenarios for its future delivery systems capabilities. In developing these projections, a number of potential constraints are considered, including engineering and technical challenges, access to foreign assistance and the regime’s political and economic commitment to the modernization of its arsenal.

Download the report, “The Future of North Korean Nuclear Delivery Systems,” by John Schilling and Henry Kan.

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

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150408/eu--turkey-kurdish_peace_talks-4063221b96.html

Erdogan slams brakes on Kurdish peace process ahead of polls

Apr 8, 6:43 AM (ET)
By DESMOND BUTLER and SUZAN FRASER

(AP) With a traditional Nowruz fire in the background, supporters hold posters of...
Full Image

DIYARBAKIR, Turkey (AP) — The peace process to end decades of violent strife between Turkey and Kurdish rebels has been one of Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan's signature achievements.

But with key parliamentary elections looming in June, the president has hit the brakes on peace talks — and exposed a rare rift within his own party.

Until recently, chances looked good for a deal that could see the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, lay down its arms after a three-decade insurgency that has left tens of thousands dead. Last month, imprisoned Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan was allowed to release a statement in Kurdish read out to hundreds of thousands of Kurds celebrating a Kurdish holiday in Diyarbakir, the symbolic heart of Turkey's Kurdish southeast. A decade ago, neither the celebration, nor the statement would have been conceivable.

The event was part of a calibrated effort toward a final deal that would include legislating greater autonomy and rights for Kurds, who make up 20 percent of Turkey's 78 million people.

(AP) In this Saturday, March 21, 2015 file photo, supporters hold flags showing...
Full Image

The negotiations, begun secretly in late 2012 with Ocalan, were a political risk for Erdogan in a country that has often demonized the Kurdish rebels. Turkish leaders going back to the Republic's founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk had maintained harsh repressions of Kurdish culture, even calling Kurds "mountain Turks" to deny their separate ethnic identity.

But the ceasefire negotiated in the talks has been a boon to Erdogan and the country. In return Erdogan has eased some of the restrictions pending a more comprehensive deal.

Early last month, negotiators under Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and Kurdish members of parliament held a joint press conference, while emissaries shuttled to Ocalan's island prison for talks. The rebel leader, in statements read at the festival, called on PKK militants to abandon arms for good and seek a democratic solution.

Then, Erdogan abruptly sounded a halt.

Just days before the Kurdish celebration, he asserted that "there is no Kurdish question" — implying that Kurds grievances had already been addressed. Then he castigated his own party members for considering a key concession demanded by the Kurds.

This provoked rare criticism of Erdogan by a party elder, Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc, who was a co-founder with Erdogan of the Justice and Development Party, or AKP. Arinc accused Erdogan of meddling in the negotiations, which he said should be the responsibility of the prime minister, and vowed that the government would plow ahead.

Erdogan, who sits astride an increasingly authoritarian government, appears to have won. Last month, in a blow to the peace process, parliament passed a security bill giving broad new powers to the police. Kurdish parties and PKK militants had included defeat of the bill among a list of demands for the talks to move forward.

The explanation for Erdogan's gambit appears to lie in electoral politics and his own future ambitions to change the constitution and head a strong presidential system. Amid signs that opposition parties including the Kurdish HDP are gaining support, Erdogan appears to have concluded that further peace moves won't aid his cause.

In previous elections the HDP has sent a relatively small number of legislators to parliament by running as independents. But this time, the party, led by the charismatic Selahattin Demirtas, seems to be in reach of a 10 percent threshold required for entering parliament as a party. If they make it, Erdogan will almost certainly not obtain the supermajority needed to make constitutional changes.

"Erdogan has a plan and that is to increase tensions and polarization ahead of the elections. This plan has worked well for him in the past," said Sukru Kucuksahin, a columnist for the liberal Turkish daily Hurriyet. "The HDP falling below the threshold would greatly benefit the AKP and the government is doing all it can to ensure it does."

But the gamble could backfire, as many non-Kurdish liberals seem intent on voting HDP to catapult it into parliament.

One such voter, Cem Terzih, a doctor and peace activist from the staunchly secularist redoubt of Izmir, was in in Diyarbakir for the Kurdish celebrations. "HDP getting in will stop Erdogan's big ambitions," he said.

Erdogan may hope that in that event he can trade concessions to the Kurds for HDP support on constitutional changes. But following Erdogan's recent comments, Demirtas ruled that out.

"Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, as long as the HDP exists, as long as the HDP continues to breathe on these lands," he said, "you will never be the head (of a presidential system)."

Despite the escalation of rhetoric, Kurds in Diyarbakir seem confident that the peace process is already too far along to go backwards.

"All the people in this country have suffered violence for so long, they know the value of peace," said H. Sherife Farqin, an 84-year-old practitioner of traditional Kurdish verse. "After the election, they will demand it."

---

Follow on Twitter: Desmond Butler at https://twitter.com/desmondbutler and Suzan Fraser at htttnps://twitter.com/suzanfraser

 

[Housecarl]

300 page report....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://csis.org/publication/changing-security-balance-gulf

Joint and Asymmetric Warfare, Missiles and Missile Defense, Civil War and Non-State Actors, and Outside Powers

Changing Security Balance in the Gulf

By Anthony H. Cordesman
Apr 2, 2015

The Burke Chair at CSIS has prepared a new report on the balance of conventional forces, asymmetric warfare forces, missile forces, nuclear forces, and paramilitary and non-state forces in the Gulf. It is entitled The Changing Security Balance in the Gulf and is available on the CSIS web site at https://csis.org/publication/changing-security-balance-gulf

http://csis.org/files/publication/150401_gulf_military_balance.pdf

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/09/us-cuba-usa-venzuela-idUSKBN0N004W20150409

World | Wed Apr 8, 2015 10:29pm EDT
Related: World, Cuba

Defying U.S., Cuba stands by Venezuela on eve of regional summit

HAVANA | By Nelson Acosta

(Reuters) - Cuba said on Wednesday it would remain steadfast by Venezuela even as it seeks to improve ties with the United States, criticizing Washington's Venezuela policy before a summit meeting where the U.S. and Cuban leaders will meet face-to-face.

Cuban Vice-President Miguel Diaz-Canel chastised Washington over its decision last month to declare Venezuela a national security threat and order sanctions against seven Venezuelan officials.

"Nobody could think that in a process of re-establishing relations, which we're trying to move forward on with the United States, Cuban support for Venezuela could be made conditional," Diaz-Canel, the heir apparent to Cuban President Raul Castro, told reporters in Havana.

"If they attack Venezuela, they're attacking Cuba. And Cuba will always be on Venezuela's side above all things," he said.

Under late Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, Venezuela became Cuba's closest ally and its most important benefactor.

When Raul Castro and U.S. President Barack Obama announced in December that the longtime enemies would restore full diplomatic relations and seek to improve trade, the move was widely applauded by Latin American governments.

But the praise of Obama's policy shift was tempered when the United States imposed the Venezuela sanctions on May 9, and the controversy now hangs over the Summit of the Americas in Panama this week.

Ahead of the meeting, the U.S. government has tried to persuade Latin American leaders that declaring Venezuela a security threat was a prerequisite for the sanctions, not a signal of U.S. aggression.

"The wording ... is completely pro forma," Ben Rhodes, a national security advisor to Obama, told reporters on Tuesday. "This is a language that we use in executive orders around the world. So the United States does not believe that Venezuela poses some threat to our national security."

Thomas Shannon, a top aide to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, was in Caracas on Wednesday to meet with senior Venezuelan leaders in an effort to ease tensions.


(Reporting by Nelson Acosta; Writing by Daniel Trotta; Editing by Kieran Murray)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/content/paki...ationship-with-saudi-arabia-iran/2710343.html

Pakistan Has Complicated Nuclear Relationship With Saudi Arabia, Iran

Ayesha Tanzeem
April 07, 2015 4:12 PM

ISLAMABAD — Iran’s foreign minister visits Pakistan Wednesday to discuss the conflict in Yemen, which many see as a fight for influence between regional rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Iran also has recently reached a framework nuclear agreement with six world powers to possibly curb the weapons potential of its nuclear program.

Saudi Arabia, in the past, has reportedly sought to form its own nuclear alliances to counter a perceived Iranian threat. A member of the Saudi royal family and the kingdom’s former intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal, warned a few months ago that the kingdom would seek the same nuclear capabilities that Tehran is allowed to maintain under any deal.

In this regard, Pakistan’s relationship with the kingdom is unusual.

On one hand, it has sold nuclear secrets to Iran in the past through a network run by former chief Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan. The network also sold nuclear technology or know-how to Libya and North Korea.

On the other, it has faced allegations of promising Saudi Arabia a nuclear umbrella against Iran.

'Unacknowledged nuclear partnership'

Bruce Riedel, director of the Intelligence Project of the Washington-based Brookings Institute, wrote in 2008 that Pakistan has “an unacknowledged nuclear partnership to provide the kingdom with a nuclear deterrent on short notice if ever needed.”

A BBC Newsnight story in 2013 declared that Saudi nuclear weapons were practically “on order” from Pakistan.

“Saudi Arabia has invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects, and believes it could obtain atomic bombs at will,” the story said based on sources.

As late as last month, a Wall Street Journal story on Saudi nuclear ambitions declared: “Saudi officials have told successive U.S. administrations they expect to have Pakistan’s support in the nuclear field, if called upon, because of the kingdom’s massive financial support for the South Asian country.”

While Pakistan denies all of these allegations - and unlike Pakistan’s nuclear dealings with Iran, Libya and North Korea, the Saudi connection has never been officially proven - its past behavior makes people suspicious.

“We know that Pakistan’s nuclear program was heavily subsidized by outsiders, financed by outsiders,” Pakistani nuclear physicist Abdul Hameed Nayyer said.

Some of those, such as Libya, who helped finance the program, received help with their nuclear programs in return.

Evidence of Pakistan’s involvement was discovered when Libya abandoned its nuclear program and turned over its equipment to the United States.

“If Saudi Arabia also financed Pakistan’s nuclear program, it is possible that Saudi Arabia would also demand such a thing from Pakistan,” Nayyer said.

While there is no concrete evidence of Saudi financing of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, critics point to ancillary support.

Slapped with sanctions

After Pakistan tested its nuclear device and was slapped with international sanctions, Saudi Arabia provided it with oil on deferred payments for three years and later forgave some of the payments.

According to Riedel, the Saudi promise to provide 50,000 barrels of free oil per day to counter any sanctions was key in helping then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to decide to go forward with its nuclear test.

Saudi Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz was given a tour of Pakistani nuclear facilities in 1999, soon after Pakistan’s nuclear test. Pakistan claims he was not shown the weapons program.

Awais Laghari, head of the foreign affairs committee in Pakistan’s national assembly, insists Pakistan's nuclear proliferation chapter is closed, and despite its excellent relationship with Saudi Arabia, the country will not share its nuclear weapons or know-how.

“Pakistan can’t afford to do that. … Pakistan’s own nuclear program would be at stake,” Laghari said.

Nuclear physicist Nayyer hopes Laghari is right.

Nayyer acknowledges that Pakistan’s nuclear support to Iran stopped after the A.Q. Khan network was discovered. And he thinks the changed international environment may have convinced Pakistan that the cost of nuclear proliferation now is too high.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150409/as--carter-korea-936d6a60b3.html

Carter: NK missile test-firing reminder of danger in region

Apr 9, 2:46 AM (ET)
By ROBERT BURNS

YOKOTA AIR BASE, Japan (AP) — U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Thursday that the latest test-firing of short-range missiles by North Korea is fresh evidence that the Korean Peninsula is a potential flashpoint for conflict.

"It's a reminder of how dangerous things are on the Korean peninsula and how a highly ready (U.S.) force in support of a very strong ally ... is necessary to keep the peace out there," he said.

Carter made his comments to reporters while visiting Yokota air base, home to U.S. Forces Japan. Afterward he flew to Osan air base in South Korea, his first visit to the country as defense secretary.

Carter was responding to reports that North Korea launched two missiles Tuesday into the sea off its western coast.

He joked, "If it's a welcoming message to me I'm flattered. I've been on the job six weeks and that's two missiles; that's pretty good."

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/iran-calls-for-timetable-to-disarm-31128720.html

Iran calls for timetable to disarm

Published
09/04/2015 | 02:41

Iran has accused Britain and the United Nations' other nuclear-armed powers of failing to take concrete action to eliminate their stockpiles and called for talks to achieve disarmament by a target date.

Iran's deputy UN ambassador Gholam Hossein Dehghani told the world body's Disarmament Commission that "a comprehensive, binding, irreversible, verifiable" treaty was the most effective and practical way to eliminate nuclear weapons.

He accused the nuclear powers - the US, Russia, China, Britain and France - of promising nuclear disarmament, but making no significant progress.

Mr Dehghani's speech came days after the announcement of a framework agreement between Iran and the five nuclear powers and Germany aimed at keeping Tehran from being able to develop a nuclear weapon. It has to be finalised by June 30.

The commission, which includes all 193 member states, is supposed to make recommendations in the field of disarmament, but has failed to make substantive proposals in the past decade.

Its three-week meeting is taking place ahead of the five-year review of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), the world's single most important pact on nuclear arms, which begins on April 27.

The NPT is credited with preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to dozens of nations since entering into force in 1970. It has done that via a grand global bargain: nations without nuclear weapons committed not to acquire them; those with them committed to move towards their elimination; and all endorsed everyone's right to develop peaceful nuclear energy.

Mr Dehghani said that as a non-nuclear weapon state and NPT member, Iran believed it was time to end the incremental approach towards disarmament and to start negotiations with all nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states on a convention that would set a deadline for ridding the world of the warheads.

He noted that a proposal in 2013 by the Nonaligned Movement, which represents more than 100 developing countries, to start talks on a comprehensive nuclear weapons convention in the Conference on Disarmament gained wide support.

Russia said President Vladimir Putin had confirmed that Moscow was ready for a serious and substantive dialogue on nuclear disarmament.

But Olga Kuznetsova, a counsellor in Russia's Foreign Ministry, warned in a speech on Tuesday that the US deployment of a global missile defence system could lead to the resumption of a nuclear arms race.

The only way to change the situation, she said, is for states that pursue anti-missile capabilities follow the "universal principle" of not trying to strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states.

Ms Kuznetsova also warned that development of high-precision non-nuclear weapons threatened "strategic parity" between the two nuclear powers and could lead to "global destabilisation of (the) international situation in general."

Chinese counsellor Sun Lei urged countries to "abandon Cold War mentality" and said those with the largest nuclear arsenals should be the first to make "drastic and substantive" cuts in their nuclear weapons.

Ukraine's representative called for the urgent development of a binding agreement that would give assurances to countries without nuclear weapons that they will not be threatened by nuclear weapons. Pakistani ambassador Maleeha Lodhi echoed that call.

The United States said the negotiation of a treaty that would cap available fissile material "is the next logical step on the multilateral nuclear disarmament agenda". John Bravaco said the US has not produced fissile material for nuclear weapons since 1989.

North Korea's deputy UN ambassador An Myong Hun declared that "our nuclear forces are the life and soul of our nation" and would not be given up as long as nuclear threats remained in the world.

Press Association

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Conflict News @rConflictNews · 6m 6 minutes ago

India successfully test-fires nuclear weapons-capable Dhanush missile from ship - @Megha_Gawde


posted for fair use
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/dhanush-successfully-testfired-by-sfc-team/article7084822.ece

Updated: April 9, 2015 13:05 IST
Dhanush missile successfully test-fired from ship

Y.Mallikarjun

Dhanush, a manoeuvring missile is a naval variant of Prithvi-II, and can carry a nuclear payload of 500 kg. It was successfully test-fired from a ship on Thursday.

India successfully test-fired nuclear weapons-capable Dhanush missile from a ship, off the Odisha coast on Thursday.

The ship-based missile was launched at 11.02 a.m. by personnel of the Strategic Forces Command (SFC) from an Offshore Patrolling Vessel (OPV), which was deep inside the sea, for its full range of 350 km, according to Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) missile scientists.

It was a perfect mission and the missile splashed down near the target point with high degree of accuracy, they said.

Dhanush, a manoeuvring missile is a naval variant of Prithvi-II, and can carry a nuclear payload of 500 kg.

It can target both land-based and sea-based targets. The missile has already been inducted into the armed services and the SFC personnel randomly picked up the missile from the production lot for Thursday’s trial, which was carried out as part of regular user training.

Dhanush was one of the five missiles developed by the DRDO under the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2015/04/485_176797.html

Posted : 2015-04-09 14:50
Updated : 2015-04-09 18:24

Two Koreas in dispute over NK nukes at UN meeting
loading
À½¼ºµè±âBy Yi Whan-woo

Diplomats from the two Koreas clashed Tuesday over Pyongyang's nuclear program during the annual U.N. Disarmament Commission session in New York.

South Korea's Deputy Permanent Representative to the U.N. Paik Ji-ah urged North Korea to abandon all nuclear weapons during a debate, Tuesday, which was a part of the session that runs from April 6 to 24.

According to the U.N. website, Paik said that Pyongyang is posing challenges to international non-proliferation efforts under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This is an U.N. objective aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and related technology as well as promoting peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Paik also urged North Korea to return to dialogue for denuclearization with a "sincere attitude and commitment."

Her remarks came amid growing speculation that the reclusive state may carry out its fourth nuclear test in October.

North Korea's Deputy Permanent Representative to the U.N. An Myong-hun fired back at Paik, saying his country possesses nuclear weapons as "a deterrent in response to external conditions, namely, the hostile policies of the United States against his country."

"The Republic of Korea's representative, who brought up the issue of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's nuclear weapons during the general debate, ignored the hostile activities taking place in her country in the form of the joint military exercises with the United States," An said.

He referred to both South Korea and North Korea by their official names, Republic of Korea, and Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The repressive regime has claimed annual joint military exercises between Seoul and Washington are "rehearsals for a war against North Korea."

Paik then responded that such exercises are defensive measures against the military threats from the North.

She also pointed out that the U.N. Security Council resolutions obliged the reclusive state to give up its nuclear program in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner.

In a subsequent meeting, Wednesday, An claimed it was the U.S. that constantly intensified the nuclear threat instead of providing security assurances to North Korea.

"Our nuclear forces are the life and soul of our nation, which cannot be given up as long as the nuclear threat to us persists," he said.


yistory@koreatimes.co.kr,

 

[brudog]

Thank ya'll very much for the updates....

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150409/eu--us-russia-saber_rattling-ce63ad2228.html

US, Russian war games rekindle Cold War tensions

Apr 9, 9:00 AM (ET)
By JARI TANNER and DAVID KEYTON

(AP) In this photo taken Wednesday, April 8, 2015, a U.S. military fighter jet...
Full Image

AMARI AIR BASE, Estonia (AP) — Russia is so close that the F-16 fighter pilots can see it on the horizon as they swoop down over a training range in Estonia in the biggest ever show of U.S. air power in the Baltic countries.

The simulated bombs release smoke on impact, but the M-61 cannon fires live ammunition, rattling the aircraft with a deafening tremor and shattering targets on the ground.

The four-week drill is part of a string of non-stop exercises by U.S. land, sea and air forces in Europe — from Estonia in the north to Bulgaria in the south — scaled up since last year to reassure nervous NATO allies after Russia's military intervention in Ukraine. U.S. and Russian forces are now essentially back in a Cold War-style standoff, flexing their muscles along NATO's eastern flank.

The saber-rattling raises the specter that either side could misinterpret a move by the other, triggering a conflict between two powers with major nuclear arsenals despite a sharp reduction from the Cold War era.

(AP) In this photo taken Wednesday, April 8, 2015, a U.S. military fighter jet...
Full Image

"A dangerous game of military brinkmanship is now being played in Europe," said Ian Kearns, director of the European Leadership Network, a London-based think-tank. "If one commander or one pilot makes a mistake or a bad decision in this situation, we may have casualties and a high-stakes cycle of escalation that is difficult to stop."

With memories of five decades of Soviet occupation still fresh, many in the Baltic countries find the presence of U.S. forces a comfort rather than a risk.

In recent months, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have seen hundreds of U.S. armored vehicles, tanks and helicopters arrive on their soil. With a combined population of just over 6 million, tiny armies and no combat aircraft or vehicles, the last time tanks rumbled through their streets was just over 20 years ago, when remnants of the Soviet army pulled out of the region.

The commander of Estonia's tiny air force, Col. Jaak Tarien, described the roar of American F-16s taking off from Amari — a former Soviet air base — as "the sound of freedom."

Normally based in Aviano, Italy, 14 fighter jets and about 300 personnel from the 510th Fighter Squadron are training together with the Estonians — but also the Swedish and Finnish air forces. Meanwhile, Spain's air force is in charge of NATO's rotating air patrols over the Baltic countries.

(AP) In this photo taken Wednesday, April 8, 2015, a U.S. military fighter jet...
Full Image

"A month-long air exercise with a full F-16 squadron and, at the same time, a Spanish detachment doing air policing; that is unprecedented in the Baltics," said Tarien, who studied at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.

In Moscow the U.S. Air Force drills just 60 miles (100 kilometers) from the Russian border are seen in a different light.

"It takes F-16 fighters just a few minutes to reach St. Petersburg," Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said, referring to the major Russian port city on the Baltic Sea. He expressed concern that the ongoing exercise could herald plans to "permanently deploy strike aircraft capable of carrying nuclear weapons at the Russian border."

Moscow also says the U.S. decision to deploy armored vehicles in Eastern Europe violates an earlier agreement between Russia and NATO.

American officials say their troop deployments are on a rotational basis.

(AP) In this photo taken Wednesday, April 8, 2015, a U.S. military fighter jet...
Full Image

Russia has substantially increased its own military activity in the Baltic Sea region over the past year, prompting complaints of airspace violations in Estonia, Finland and Sweden, and staged large maneuvers near the borders of Estonia and Latvia.

"Russia is threatening nearly everybody; it is their way," said Mac Thornberry, the Republican chairman of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, during a recent visit to Vilnius, the Lithuanian capital.

"They want to intimidate the Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine and Romania, country after country. And the question is, do you let the bully get away with that or do you stand up and say 'no, you can threaten, but we will not allow you to run over us,'" Thornberry said.

The Pentagon has said that some 3,000 U.S. troops will be conducting training exercises in Eastern Europe this year. That's a small number compared to the hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops that have been withdrawn from Europe since the days when the Iron Curtain divided the continent. But the fact that they are carrying out exercises in what used to be Moscow's backyard makes it all the more sensitive; the Kremlin sees NATO's eastward expansion as a top security threat.

During a symbolic visit to Estonia in September, U.S. President Barack Obama said that the defense of the Baltic capitals of Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius is just as important as defending Berlin, Paris and London — a statement warmly received in Estonia, a nation of 1.3 million and with a mere 5,500 soldiers on active duty.

(AP) In this photo taken Wednesday, April 8, 2015, Lt. Col Christopher Austin Comander of...
Full Image

Welcoming the U.S. fighter squadron to Estonia, U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey D. Levine said the air drill was needed "to deter any power that might question our commitment to Article 5" — NATO's key principle of collective defense of its members.

On Wednesday, The Associated Press observed bombing and strafing drills at the Tapa training ground both from the ground and from the back seat of one of the two F-16s taking part.

On board the fighter jet, the pull of the G-force was excruciating as the pilot swooped down onto his target before brutally ascending to circle the range.

After dropping six practice bombs each, the two jets returned to Amari air base, flying so low over the flat Estonian countryside that they frequently had to gain altitude to avoid radio towers.

On the ground, Lt. Col. Christopher Austin, commander of the 510th Squadron, dismissed the risk of his pilots making any rash moves that could provoke a reaction from the Russians.

"We stay far enough away so that we don't have to worry about any (border) zones or anything like that," he said. "We don't even think about it."

---

AP reporters John-Thor Dahlburg in Brussels, Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow and Liudas Dapkus in Vilnius, Lithuania, contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150409/ml--syria-ff3e93e824.html

Palestinian envoy: 'Military' option agreed for Syrian camp

Apr 9, 11:12 AM (ET)
By ALBERT AJI

(AP) In this Feb. 4, 2014, file photo released by the Syrian official news agency...
Full Image

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — A senior Palestinian official said Thursday that an agreement has been reached with the Syrian government to use military force to expel Islamic State militants from an embattled Palestinian refugee camp in Damascus.

IS fighters overran much of the Yarmouk camp last week, marking the extremists' deepest foray yet into the Syrian capital. The IS incursion is the latest trial for Yarmouk and its estimated 18,000 remaining residents, who have already survived a devastating two-year government siege, starvation and disease.

"We have agreed with the Syrian government on ways to force the terrorist group IS out of the Yarmouk refugee camp," Ahmad Majdalani, the labor minister in the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority, told the Voice of Palestine Radio. "The military solution is the only one to force these terrorists out of the camp."

Majdalani, who is leading a West Bank delegation to Damascus to address the crisis, told reporters in in the Syrian capital that all Palestinian factions have agreed to continue consultations with the Syrian leadership and to form a joint operations room with government forces.

(AP) Sheep forage in rubble during a during a government escorted visit to Yarmouk...
Full Image

But it was unclear who exactly had signed onto the plan. Yarmouk is home to factions that support Syrian President Bashar Assad and groups that oppose him, and it was unclear whether Palestinians from both sides of the divide had indeed agreed to join forces.

There was no immediate word from the main Palestinian faction fighting the Islamic State group in Yarmouk, known as Aknaf Beit al-Maqdis. The group is opposed to Assad and affiliated with Hamas.

Majdalani also said the Syrian government has agreed to ensure safe passage to refugees in Yarmouk and to provide them with shelter outside the camp.

Yarmouk was the main refugee camp established in Syria for Palestinians who fled the 1948 war that attended Israel's creation. Before the Syrian civil war it was a sprawling, built-up neighborhood that was home to tens of thousands of Palestinians and Syrians alike.

Once Syria's conflict began in March 2011, some Palestinian factions based in the camp, including Hamas, sided with Sunni rebels fighting to topple the Syrian government, and it became a refuge for anti-Assad activists. Over the past four years, the camp has been devastated by the conflict.

On Thursday, buildings at the northern entrance to Yarmouk were nothing but empty shells, their insides having been blown out by explosives and charred black by fire, according to an Associated Press reporter who visited the government-held segment of the camp. Walls were pockmarked by bullets.

Fighters had dragged battered water tanks into the streets to use them as barriers. Downed electricity cables and rubble covered the pavement. An aid distribution center once run by the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, known as UNRWA, was totally destroyed by shelling.

The latest fighting in Yarmouk has worsened an already desperate situation for civilians still in the camp. On Thursday, the International Committee of the Red Cross joined a growing chorus of aid groups calling for immediate access to the camp.

The ICRC said emergency medical care is "urgently needed" for the estimated 18,000 people still inside the camp, and warned that humanitarian needs "are growing by the day." It called on the armed factions to allow the "immediate and unimpeded passage" of humanitarian aid and to permit civilians who wish to flee to be able to do so.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150409/af--south_sudan-sudan-bombs-81d6fa3a98.html

S Sudan accuses Sudan of dropping bombs across the border

Apr 9, 10:52 AM (ET)
By JASON PATINKIN

JUBA, South Sudan (AP) — Four people were killed and nine others wounded in an apparent Sudanese airstrike on South Sudanese territory, a South Sudanese government official said Thursday.

Sudan is to blame because it is the only neighboring country with "the history of this type of unprovoked attacks," said South Sudanese presidential spokesman Ateny Wek Ateny.

"Although we have not launched a direct accusation against Sudan, we believe that the only country with Antonovs capable of carrying bombs to drop them in South Sudan is Sudan," Wek told The Associated Press. Russian-made Antonovs form the bulk of Sudan's air attack capabilities, often using crude bombs rolled out of the back.

Deng Kuel Kuel, a South Sudanese official who heads a local commission that coordinates emergency and humanitarian response in Northern Bahr al Ghazal state bordering Sudan, said two children were among those killed in a bombing Wednesday.

Kuel said that another bombing took place Thursday but gave no casualty figures. Wek, the presidential spokesman, also said there was aerial bombardment on Thursday.

South Sudan broke away from Sudan in 2011 following decades of armed struggle, though border skirmishes and sporadic bombings have continued.

Both countries at times trade accusations over harboring or supporting rebels.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150409/af--kenya-university_attack-2075dc3b0f.html

Kenyan police official says Kenyans should resist militants

Apr 9, 12:06 PM (ET)
By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA

(AP) Mother Rosina Nafuna Wanda, center right, an unidentified relative, center left, and...
Full Image

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — Kenyans confronted by armed Islamic extremists should fight back and avoid being killed "like cockroaches," a senior police official said Thursday at a Nairobi morgue holding the bodies of some of the 148 people who died in last week's attack on a college.

Some Kenyans, however, said it was difficult to expect civilians to resist militants and that it was the government's responsibility to protect them. The Kenyan government has faced criticism for an allegedly slow response by security forces to the April 2 attack on Garissa University College in eastern Kenya.

Many of those who died likely had no chance or any means to fight back effectively. The assailants were heavily armed and, according to survivors, were swift and ruthless while gunning down unarmed, terrified students.

"If something happens like that, fight back," Pius Masai Mwachi, a Kenyan police superintendent, said to journalists.

(AP) A morgue worker observes a row of photographs of some of those killed in the Garissa...
Full Image

Kim Kemboi, a former student leader in Nairobi, said the term "cockroaches" is insensitive because it is a reminder of the Rwandan genocide in 1994, when killers used the word as a slur to describe the Tutsis they slaughtered.

But Kemboi described fighting back as an option, saying he recently viewed a video produced by the city of Houston, Texas that recommends people under assault try to run, or hide if fleeing is not possible. As a last resort, it says people should fight an attacker by whatever means they can.

The four gunmen died when an elite team of police commandoes entered the campus.

Any Kenyans who fall into the hands of militants should not allow themselves to be divided along ethnic and religious lines, "like what happened in the Garissa attack," Mwachi also said.

Survivors say gunmen from the al-Shabab extremist group targeted Christian students for killing after separating them from Muslims, though there were also many accounts of indiscriminate shooting.

(AP) A morgue worker stands by a row of photographs of some of those killed in the...
Full Image

"If you are in the hands of terrorists, free yourselves as soon as possible," said Mwachi, suggesting that people shout and be disruptive until help arrives. "Don't just be killed like cockroaches."

Boniface Mwangi, a human rights activist, said "those young kids died a very brave death" at Garissa.

"It's not the work of the citizens to protect themselves," Mwangi said, citing a "social contract" that requires the government to safeguard its people.

On Thursday, students in the western Kenyan city of Kisumu demonstrated for better security on campuses. One protest sign referred to the strife in Somalia, where al-Shabab is based, with the slogan: "Somalia is safer than Kenya."

Mwachi, the police official, told The Associated Press that some people might die while trying to fight any attackers, but more could survive if they thwart people who won't negotiate and plan to die themselves.

"There are some situations whereby you must do something more than the norm," said Mwachi, a leader of Kenya's national disaster agency. "You don't have to wait for somebody to kill you."

At the morgue, relatives of those killed waited in nearby tents to collect bodies for transport in coffins to hometowns and villages for burial. Framed photographs of some of the young victims were displayed outside a morgue door.

Phanice Lijodi's cousin, 23-year-old Jacob Bushuru, died at the Garissa college, where he was studying business management.

Lijodi said it would be hard to fight killers armed with "special guns" and possibly explosives.

"It's a good idea but not applicable here in Kenya," she said.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://johnbatchelorshow.com/schedules/tuesday-7-april-2015

Hour Two
Tuesday 7 April 2015 / Hour 2, Block A: Stephen F. Cohen, NYU & Princeton professor Emeritus; author: Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, & The Victims Return: Survivors of the Gulag after Stalin; in re: Minsk II – nothing signed by the heads of state, but everyone's disengaging from the Donbass front and looking at [federal?] independence for eastern Ukraine. the Atlantic Council website: "What’s at stake isn’t Ukraine; it’s a war for the future of Russia and of European and Eurasian security; . . . we’re only storing up for ourselves and progeny [more] problems]." Tusk, the Pole at the head of the Euro Council, is in a bit of a spot. "The call for federalization . . . " Note that the Donbass was not invited to the constitutional referendum discussion. Doubts about Minsk II extend to Moscow: Sergei Lavrov says it’s blocked by Ukraine, and that all the Euros say that they're under much pressure from Washington. SFC: I've been thinking about Moynihan's "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." The fact is, the Minsk agreement may be our last chance to avoid war with Russia. The [rhetoric] out of Washington is based not on facts. JB: It’s widely thought that the cease-fire is holding . . . SFC: Six thousands have dies, many have fled, and many are right now lying dying in rubble. Most of those who die are women, children, old people,
Tuesday 7 April 2015 / Hour 2, Block B: Stephen F. Cohen, NYU & Princeton professor Emeritus; in re: Today's NY Times published three pieces on this story – warning the Greeks not to accept money from Russia, and tow other tacks. Omits two factors: How does Putin have cash since the US put heavy sanctions on him? Inconsistent Washington tales. Note that Greece and Russia share confessions. Is there a US policy toward Russia and Ukraine that's splitting Europe? Not clear what'll come of this; but . . . eurozone crisis was financial, now includes political with the Ukraine [mess]. Cyprus & Greece – Niko Anastasiotis is offended by Obama Adm deed; the US ambassador to Cyprus suggested that Mr Anastasiotis was visiting Moscow in connection with the murder of Boris Nemtsov; and the US had to apologize – the State Dept has again commingled policy with [propaganda]. The US ambassador disgraced himself.
Tuesday 7 April 2015 / Hour 2, Block C: Stephen F. Cohen, NYU & Princeton professor Emeritus; in re: The US amb and the Czech president are at odds: "If the Czech president went to Moscow's enormous VE day celebration, 70th anniversary of liberation, then the US will make it unpleasant for the Czech Republic." The president of Ukraine is not Poroshenko but the US proconsuls. Last night, an eminent academic in Canada, head of University of Alberta Ukrainian studies, said that I, Stephen Cohen, was of lower moral stature than a certain Ukrainian who was a known Nazi collaborator and Jew-killer. John Kerry could put a stop to most of this with one classified memo. Poroshenko is a weak, inexperienced and not-clever pol; but US [minions] are sabotaging agreements. He unilaterally announced that there cd be no element of federalism [e.g., states' rights, can pick their own police chiefs, educational leaders, and the like], and Poro demanded that there be only one official language, Ukrainian, not Russian. This is nutty. . . . gerrymandered: the SE speaks Russian; president and parliament voted in by the East and North of Ukraine. Poroshenko does this with powerful backers in Washington. Result: permanently partitioned Ukraine, or else war. I think Americans need to make a decision about this. The facts here are clear, reported by intl media daily that the Ukr army is in tatters, wd need a lot of weapons; that the intact fighting forces are militias, mostly neofascists and some who are clearly fascists – formed into the Ukrainian National Guard. It's this crew that the US will start training this month! The House has voted to send weapons; 48 voted against. Some Americans have connected the dots, that these militias do not represent American views at all. Some wear swastikas on their helmets and speak with admiration of Hitler.
Tuesday 7 April 2015 / Hour 2, Block D: Stephen F. Cohen, NYU & Princeton professor Emeritus; in re: "Much pressure from Washington to abrogate Minsk II." Lavrov says Minsk II would solve Russian-European relations – the US seems to think that would isolate the US. Lavrov also said that Kerry said he supports Minsk II - but all his minions are sabotaging; Lavrov said: "Kerry is detached from reality." Lavrov is the most informed and moderate of Russia's leaders. Russians are baffled – are ht Americans uninformed, or do thy have a plan? Increasingly, Moscow thinks that [collective] Washington has an all-out plan for war against Putin's Russia.
.. .. .. .. ..
OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Dunja Mijatovic today welcomed new legislation to foster the development of public broadcasting in Ukraine.
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko today signed a bill amending the public broadcasting law, which includes the legal status of and the basis for the creation of public broadcasting, establishes supervisory and editorial councils and introduces changes to the system of funding.
The bill was adopted by Ukraine’s parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, on 19 March.
“This is one more assertive and important step made by the authorities to transform state media into a public broadcaster in Ukraine,” Mijatovic said. “Public broadcasting should reflect the diversity of the entire population, offer quality content, and practice editorial independence free of the direct and indirect political and commercial pressures.
“I also strongly believe that true and independent public broadcasting has great potential to deter hostile propaganda by setting the standards of truth, pluralism and openness,” Mijatovic said. “I urge the authorities to do their utmost in order to support implementation of the law.”
The Representative commissioned a legal review on a public broadcasting law in 2013 and provided Ukrainian authorities with recommendations. The review is available in Russian at: http://www.osce.org/ru/fom/104653
The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media observes media developments in all 57 OSCE participating States. She provides early warning on violations of freedom of expression and media freedom and promotes full compliance with OSCE media freedom commitments. Learn more at www.osce.org/fom, Twitter: @OSCE_RFoM and on www.facebook.com/osce.rfom.
1. NATO/US Allegations, accusations, conspiracies against Minsk II: Putin's Ukraine War Is about Founding a New Russian Empire According to Vladimir Putin, Crimea and Ukraine are where the spiritual sources of Russia's nationhood lie. And he “always saw the Russians ...
Putin’s objective, then, can only lead only to a perpetual state of war within the former Soviet space and a state of siege with Europe and the world. That means another Cold War, if not a series of hot wars along Russia’s periphery. Russia has already been a state in a permanent war condition since 1994 when the Chechen war broke out as what used to be called a war of national liberation. Now the entire North Caucasus is aflame with a militant Islamist uprising that Moscow cannot quell and that has become ever more brutal.
The Kremlin’s 2008 war with Georgia, which Putin admitted to planning from 2006, its coercive incorporation of the Georgian territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia into Russia, and the war with Ukraine all represent a working out of this logic of imperialism and war. Even if the Ukraine war devolves into a so-called frozen conflict, that logic will still be operative. We already have seen how quickly frozen conflicts can become unfrozen and how they corrode civility and democracy throughout their regions. Beyond that, a renewed Russian empire essentially reincarnates the idea that Russia is not safe unless everyone connected to it, and not only its immediate neighbors, is unsafe or insecure. This state can only be preserved then by what the late Russian defense analyst, Vitaly Shlykov, called structural militarization. And we see that happening now with the growth of the defense sector as the rest of the economy shrivels due to sanctions and falling energy prices.
This is what is at stake in Ukraine. It is not just a quarrel over the fate of Ukraine. It is a war for the future of Russia and beyond that for the long-term future of European and Eurasian security. And to the extent that we hide behind rhetoric that masks a deeper inaction or complacency about Russia and Ukraine, we are only storing up for ourselves and future generations a larger continental crisis.
That crisis, even if we ignore it now, will inevitably occur when the unsustainability of this imperial adventure becomes fully clear not to analysts in the West but to the Russian people and their government. For this regime, unlike Gorbachev’s, will not go peacefully. In a country that is arming itself to the hilt, and that possesses nuclear weapons, that is a terrifying future. Thus inactivity today only ensures and accelerates the onset of the much larger conflict that Putin’s action will inevitably bring upon Russia.
Stephen Blank is a senior fellow for Russia at the American Foreign Policy Council. This article first appeared on the Atlantic Council website.
..
Waving Cash, Putin Sows EU Divisions in an Effort to Break Sanctions Mr. Putin has methodically targeted, through charm, cash, and the fanning of historical and ideological embers, the European Union’s weakest links in a campaign to assert influence in some of Europe’s most troubled corners. One clear goal is to break fragile Western unity over the conflict in Ukraine.
On Wednesday, Greece’s new left-wing prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, will be the next to visit Moscow. Ahead of the trip, Mr. Tsipras declared himself opposed to sanctions on Russia, describing them as a “dead-end policy.” On Sunday, Mr. Putin’s efforts to peel away supporters from the European Union opened a new rift, after the United States ambassador in Prague criticized a decision by the president of the Czech Republic, Milos Zeman, to attend a military parade in Moscow on May 9. And in February, Mr. Putin visited Hungary, the European Union’s autocratic backslider, peddling economic deals. Russia has so far been unable to turn such hand-holding into something more concrete against sanctions that require the approval of all 28 European Union members. But pressure for a rupture is building.
Speaking in an interview last week here in Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus, Mr. Anastasiades said Cyprus had grave doubts about Europe’s policy toward Russia and was part of a “group of member states who have the same reservations.” The cracks opening up in Europe’s policy toward Russia have presented a difficult problem for Donald Tusk, the former prime minister of Poland who is now president of the European Council, a body in Brussels that represents the European Union’s 28 leaders. The Russian Embassy in Nicosia reacted with fury last year when Makarios Drousiotis, a part-time historian and presidential adviser, published a diplomatic history that detailed Russian duplicity in its relations with Cyprus. The embassy denounced the book as “politically unacceptable” and criticized Mr. Drousiotis, who lost his job as an adviser to Mr. Anatasiades.
The United States, in contrast, has struggled to get a hearing. When Russia won gushing praise on social media for restructuring its loan to Cyprus, the United States ambassador, John M. Koenig, tried to dampen the enthusiasm with messages posted on Twitter that were widely interpreted as implying a link between Mr. Anastasiades’s visit to Moscow and the killing a few days later of the Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov. The Twitter posts set off an uproar, prompting the United States ambassador to issue a contrite statement that his comments had been “misunderstood.”
.. ..
2. Kiev resistance to Minsk II Ukrainian Leader Is Open to a Vote on Regional Power President Petro O. Poroshenko of Ukraine on Monday denounced calls for “federalization” of the country, which Russia has . . . In his speech, Mr. Poroshenko spoke of the historical importance of Pylyp Orlyk, a Cossack nobleman and Ukrainian hetman, or leader, in exile who in 1710 wrote the Bendery Constitution. Many scholars believe it was the first to codify the separation of powers among the executive, the legislature and the judiciary as a democratic standard.
Mr. Poroshenko urged the head of the constitutional commission, Volodymyr Groysman, who is the speaker of Ukraine’s Parliament, to seek input from the Opposition Bloc, the one minority faction in the legislature. It includes former allies of President Viktor F. Yanukovych, who was ousted last year after huge street protests. “I would like very much, and believe it is possible, for the commission to become a unifying platform of all political forces, society, domestic and international experts in working out such important constitutional initiatives required by our society,” Mr. Poroshenko said.
In eastern Ukraine, however, it was clear that Mr. Poroshenko was falling short of that goal. Separatist leaders noted that they had not been invited to join the commission on constitutional changes, and they took issue with Mr. Poroshenko’s remarks, including his insistence that Ukraine would remain a “unitary state” and his declaration that Ukrainian would remain the country’s only official language. “These things are absolutely unacceptable,” Andrei Purgin, head of the Donetsk People’s Republic, told the Interfax news agency. “Everything they now say and do contradicts the Minsk agreements that took so much work to achieve.” As for the commission and the constitutional amendment process, Mr. Purgin told Interfax: “We did not receive any invitations. We don’t have any representatives there.”
Ukraine and Separatists Report 'Intensifying' Skirmishes Near ... But, he said, the Russian-backed separatist group calling itself the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) has “started to intensify their activities” in Shyrokyne and in other areas surrounding Mariupol after a period of “relative calm”.
Meanwhile Edward Basurin, a spokesman for DNR, confirmed details of skirmishes between rebels and pro-Ukraine forces near Shyrokyne but insisted it was the pro-Kiev soldiers who had opened fire on DNR forces, not the other way around. "At five in the morning today they fired a machine gun at a GAZelle vehicle which was transporting [our] soldiers. Two people were wounded as a result,” Basurin, who goes by the title of minister of defence in the unofficial republic, told a Donetsk local news site. Mariupol is a major seaport in the Donetsk region and continues to be under Kiev’s control, however DNR leader Alexander Zaharchenko has expressed he would like to “take” the city.
3. European and German hopes for Minsk II UPDATE 2-IMF official sees 'leeway' in judging Ukraine's debt ... Ukraine's officials have set themselves a June deadline to complete debt ... As part of its IMF bailout, Ukraine must comply with a slew of ...
IMF defends huge support for war-torn Ukraine Ukraine's officials have set themselves a June deadline to complete debt restructuring needed to plug a $15 billion funding gap in the IMF program. Many analysts are skeptical that deadline can be met. "We have a fair amount of leeway in how we judge the progress at that point," David Lipton, the IMF's first deputy managing director, said at an event at the Washington-based Peterson Institute. "It would be best if Ukraine and its creditors could reach agreement by that point," he said. "But if we can't make (a decision) in June, we will figure out how to go forward." As part of its IMF bailout, Ukraine must comply with a slew of conditions to get its economy in better shape, including strengthening public finances, repairing bank balance sheets and shaking up its energy sector.
It must do so amid continued uncertainty over its territorial integrity. The government in Kiev struck a ceasefire with pro-Russia separatist rebels eastern Ukraine two months ago, but fighting has continued almost daily. The IMF itself has admitted that efforts to restore Ukraine's financial stability face "exceptionally high" risks, including from creditors balking at the terms of the debt restructuring.Russia holds a $3 billion Eurobond of Ukrainian debt coming due in December, and has said it would not be part of the private sector restructuring. And Kiev may have difficulties persuading all bondholders to agree to write off some debt and accept reduced interest rates or a longer repayment period.
IMF first deputy managing director David Lipton said that a real window for progress has opened "for the first time" after decades of government mismanagement and corruption. As recently as 2013, he said, there was no will among Kiev's leaders to undertake the reforms needed to right its economy, especially to address massive corruption. "Now, Ukraine has the political will, but it has to contend with full-blown economic and financial crisis," Lipton told the Peterson Institu . . . http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...ofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
4. Kremlin hope for Minsk II Ukraine has key to better Russia-EU relations - Lavrov "The Minsk agreements are being blocked by Ukraine. Thus, Ukraine now holds the key to normalization of relations between Russia and the ... Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s attempts to have foreign troops deployed in eastern Ukraine as a peacekeeping mission might be a "tactical loophole," Russia's top diplomat said. Ukraine Today: Slovaks protest Russia's 'imperial and aggressive ... http://rt.com/news/241441-strategic-bombers-crimea-redeployment/
CRIMEA Several Tu-22M3 (NATO designation ‘Backfire’) variable-sweep wing, long-range strategic and maritime strike rocket aircraft are due to arrive to Crimea as part of global training exercises for the Russian military in the European part of the country.
KALININGRAD Russia’s Central Command is also beefing up its presence in Kaliningrad. The task force in Kaliningrad Region is set to be bolstered with Iskander-M tactical ballistic missile complexes and additional fighter jets and bombers. “The task force in the Baltic region will be enhanced with Iskander missile complexes of the Western military district, the delivery of complexes is going to be carried out by large landing ships of the Baltic Fleet,” said the source.
---Rising talk of and prospect of renewed and larger war, continuing discussion of Minsk II.
--- In that connection, alarming reports of rising power of ultra-neonazi battalions in the UKR
military, with Yarosh/Right Sector appointed to high post. Would another Maidan be neo-fascist?
--- Impact of new cold war on politics inside Russia, both official and opposition, including
culture, etc. A new Moscow Winter?
The Chechen War, Part 4: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/143546/nicholas-waller/a-chechen-... ; Thus far, these two groups have not faced each other directly on the battlefield. Kadyrov’s fighters were instrumental in the final assault on Donetsk Airport in January, having fought for months to capture the wrecked hulk of buildings that once made up the passenger terminals. For its part, the Dudayev Battalion has acted as a special operations unit charged with disrupting separatist communications and supply lines, using the small-fire group tactics perfected during intense urban battles in Chechnya. Even if their role remains modest in terms of numbers, however, the presence of these two opposing camps has turned the Ukraine conflict into a proxy war of sorts, further tangling the knot of competing interests and creating repercussions that might reach far beyond the region.
Yanukovych's Choice Alexander J. Motyl Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych has a decision to make. On November 28–29, Ukraine could sign an Association Agreement with the EU that will expand their political and trade ties, security cooperation, and cultural connections. Success or failure to sign the agreement . . .
Rust Belt Rising Yuri M. Zhukov In recent days, the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine has reached a new phase. With a political mandate to use force, and with Russian troops partially pulled back from the border, Petro Poroshenko, the newly elected president, has stepped up his government’s counterinsurgency operations in the . . .
Broken Ukraine Paul Stronski Continued violence between Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine is dashing hopes about last month’s Minsk II cease-fire agreement. February’s terrorist attacks in Kharkiv, Ukraine, and the continued threat of a separatist assault on the strategic port city of . . .

http://johnbatchelorshow.com/podcasts/tues-4715-hr-2-jbs-stephen-f-cohen-nyu-princeton

Tuesday 7 April 2015 / Hour 3, Block C: Eli Lake, Bloomberg Politics, in re: Obama Undermines His Own Case for the Iran Deal In the aftermath of the Iran nuclear agreement reached last week, President Barack Obama has had a lot to say about sanctions. On one hand, the president doesn't think they really work. Obama now concedes -- as does Iran's foreign minister, Javad Zarif -- that while Iran was facing crippling sanctions it continued to install thousands of centrifuges at its illicit facilities. In his weekly address on Saturday, Obama said there were three options for Iran's nuclear program: aerial bombardment, his deal, and sanctions. Not surprisingly, Obama warned that sanctions "always led to Iran making more progress in its nuclear program."
Here's the catch: Two days earlier, at the announcement of the framework agreement, Obama praised the efficacy of renewing sanctions in case Iran cheats. "If Iran violates the deal," he said. "Sanctions can be snapped back into place." All of this presents a major problem for Obama and his team as they try to sell their deal to a skeptical Congress. If Obama doesn't think the sanctions that have cut off Iran's banks from the international finance system and blocked the Tehran government from legally selling its oil will halt the regime's nuclear program, why does he think snapping them back would deter Iran from cheating? I put that question to Darryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association and a supporter of the deal. He acknowledged that Iran built up nearly 20,000 centrifuges at the facility at Natanz since 2006, when the first United Nations Security Council sanctions were passed against the regime. And he acknowledged that the snap-back provision was designed to increase the cost of cheating. But he said the influx of trade and foreign investment may change the . . . [more]
Tuesday 7 April 2015 / Hour 3, Block D: Margot Kiser, The Daily Beast, in re: Christians Warned, Then Killed in Kenyan University Massacre According to Reuters' most recent report, Kenyan Interior Minister Joseph ... Is a wall between Kenya and Somalia next? . . . [more] / Kenya attack victims: Vigil mourns 147 slain by terrorists in Garissa Nairobi, Kenya (CNN) They were sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and fellow citizens. They were students and dreamers, ... Gunman in Attack Was Kenyan Official's SonWall Street Journal-Apr 5, 2015

http://johnbatchelorshow.com/podcas...une-review-bob-zimmrman-behindtheblackcom-eli

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/northcom-china-begins-missile-sub-patrols/

Northcom: China’s Three Missile Submarines a ‘Concern’

North Korea has small warheads for ICBMs (Updated)

BY: Bill Gertz
April 7, 2015 5:10 pm

The Chinese Navy has deployed three ballistic missile submarines at sea capable of striking the United States with nuclear missiles, the commander of the U.S. Northern Command said Tuesday.

Adm. William Gortney, the commander, said the submarines are a “concern” and will be able to strike the United States when fully deployed with missiles and warheads.

The missile submarines are deployed in the South China Sea at a base on Hainan Island, according to a defense official.

“They’ve not loaded their missiles or begun strategic patrols,” the official said. “But we believe they are likely to begin this year.”

Gortney also stated explicitly that U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that North Korea is capable of mounting a small nuclear warhead on its new road-mobile KN-08 intercontinental missiles.

In a wide ranging interview with reporters at the Pentagon, the admiral also disclosed that Russia is engaged in political “messaging” by sending long-range nuclear bombers near the United States and will probably follow through with promises to fly Tu-160 Blackjack bombers near the southern U.S. coast.

On the Chinese sea-based nuclear threat, Gortney said: “They have put to sea their sea-launched ballistic missile submarines. I believe they have three in the water right now.”

Gortney said any time a nation has nuclear weapons and delivery systems that can reach the U.S. homeland, “it’s a concern of mine.”

It was the first time a senior U.S. military official voiced worries about Chinese nuclear missile submarines.

The four-star admiral in charge of the Colorado-based Northern Command in charge of homeland military defense said Chinese missile submarines are watched very closely.

“And you know, their very long-range capability is a function of how far do they reach,” he said. “So even from their own waters, they can reach part of our homeland. Hawaii is part of our homeland and they can reach Hawaii. And then the farther east they go, they can reach more and more of our nation.”

Asked if they have conducted sea patrols near U.S. coasts, Gortney suggested Chinese submarines could conduct underwater operations near U.S. shores in the future.

“We haven’t seen those patrols just yet, but it doesn’t mean that those patrols can’t exist in the future,” he said.

China in January conducted a flight test of the new JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile that is deployed on what the Pentagon calls China’s new Jin-class submarines.

A congressional commission reported that the JL-2 appears to have reached initial operating capability.

“The JL-2’s range of approximately 4,598 miles gives China the ability to conduct nuclear strikes against Alaska if launched from waters near China; against Alaska and Hawaii if launched from waters south of Japan; against Alaska, Hawaii and the western portion of the continental United States if launched from waters west of Hawaii; and against all 50 U.S. states if launched from waters east of Hawaii,” the U.S.-China Economic Security and Review Commission stated in its latest annual report.

Jin-class submarines can carry up to 12 JL-2 missiles, each of which is expected to have multiple warheads.

Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the House Armed Services Committee Feb. 3 that the first missile submarine patrols were expected this year.

“In 2014, China twice deployed submarines to the Indian Ocean,” Stewart said. “The submarines probably conducted area familiarization to form a baseline for increasing China’s power projection.”

Gortney said he is not alarmed at the evolution of Chinese nuclear forces from silo-based ICBMs to road-mobile missiles and now missile-firing submarines.

“It doesn’t surprise me that they’re doing it,” he said. “We do the same thing. We’ve done that for years.”

China also has adopted a policy of not being the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict that Gortney said “gives me a little bit of a good news picture there.”

Rick Fisher, a China military affairs expert, said that Chinese missile submarine patrols have been expected for years. The missile submarine patrols, when launched, will mark “the end of China’s 40-year quest to build a submarine-based nuclear second-strike capability,” said Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center.

Fisher said China also is building more advanced missile submarines and possibly a longer-range version of the JL-2.

“It is conceivable that China eventually will deploy six to 10 SSBNs with slightly less than or over 100 submarine-launched ballistic missiles,” he said. SSBN is the acronym for a ballistic missile submarine.

On North Korea’s nuclear missile threat, Gortney provided the most detailed explanation to date of U.S. assessments of Pyongyang’s nuclear missile capability.

“Our assessment is that they have the ability to put a nuclear weapon on a KN-08 and shoot it at the homeland,” Gortney said, referring to North Korea’s six road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles.

“We haven’t seen them test the KN-08 yet and we’re waiting to do that,” he added.

Asked if the assessment was based on excess caution, he said: “No, I think it’s a prudent decision by my assessment of the threat, and the threat to the nation.”

The assessment that the KN-08 could be armed with a nuclear warhead was made in the last one or two years, he said.

Gortney voiced confidence that U.S. missile defenses currently deployed on ships in Asia and at bases in Alaska and California can stop a North Korean missile attack.

“As the person that owns the trigger … I have high confidence that it will work against North Korea,” he said.

Gortney said he is “very concerned” by North Korea’s new KN-08 truck-mounted ICBM that can be moved on roads and hidden in shelters and caves.

“It’s a re-locatable target set that really impedes our ability to find, fix, and finish the threat,” he said.

“And so, as the targets move around, if we don’t have the persistence there and the persistent [intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance], which we do not have over North Korea at this time, that re-locatable nature makes it very difficult for us to be able to counter it.”

However, if the North Koreans fire one of the missiles at the United States, “I’m confident that we’ll be able to knock it down,” he said.

The KN-08 is deployed on Chinese-made transporter-erector launchers that were shipped to North Korea in violation of U.N. missile sanctions.

The Northern Command is preparing for Russia to conduct provocative strategic bomber flights along U.S. southern coasts.

Moscow announced last year that it would begin conducting bomber flights in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean.

“The one that we expect would be either Blackjack bombers or large jet bombers, not the Bears that we see them flying elsewhere,” Gortney said.

“It wouldn’t surprise me that they do that,” he said. “We’re prepared for it, you know, to intercept them, should we need to, should we choose to.”

The Russians are conducting the flights as part of nuclear forces exercises and as political signals, he said.

“They’re messaging us, showing us that they have a long-range conventional reach or nuclear reach with their manned bombers,” he said.

Gortney said Russia under Putin has developed a far more capable military than the very large military of the former Soviet Union, and has a new military doctrine to go along with the buildup.

“You’re seeing that bear out. You’re seeing them employ that capability and that doctrine in the Ukraine,” he said. “At they same time they are messaging us … that they’re a global power.”

The aggressive flights were conducted with great frequency following the downing of a civilian airliner over Ukraine in July. At the time, Russian bombers were conducting flights near Canada, Alaska, and the English Channel.

Two Russian naval vessels also have been sailing near the United States. An intelligence gathering ship recently left Venezuela and another logistics ship sailed to Cuba.

Mark Schneider, a former Pentagon strategic affairs policymaker, said the admiral is correct about Russia planning Blackjack flights for political messaging.

“The Russian message is nuclear intimidation,” Schneider said. “There is no reason to fly bombers that far south when they carry nuclear cruise missiles with ranges of thousands of kilometers. They do this because they know the intimidation factor will be higher if the bombers come close to the United States.”

The same rationale is behind recent, large-scale Russian nuclear forces exercises near Crimea and Kaliningrad, where Moscow is deploying nuclear-capable Iskander M short-range missiles and Backfire bombers, along with recent nuclear threats by a Russian ambassador directed at Denmark, and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threatening language regarding Ukraine.

“They want to scare us but not so much that we take measures to enhance our nuclear deterrent,” he said. “As long as we do little or nothing in response, these threats will continue to escalate.”

On the threat posed by the Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIS or ISIL) terrorist group, Gortney said the threat that IS fighters will infiltrate through porous U.S. borders is less a worry than the current “very sophisticated” social media campaign being used by the group to recruit terrorists here.

“That’s how they are trying to attack us,” he said.

U.S. borders could be used, however by enemies that seek “seams” in defenses.

Gortney also said he is not in favor of building a third ground-based missile defense interceptor on the U.S. East Coast. He would prefer to spend the limited money available for missile defenses on other elements of missile defenses, such as sensors and other equipment.

“Our current approach is on the wrong side of the cost curve,” he said.

UPDATE 5:38 P.M.: An earlier version of this article stated that the Chinese missile submarines had begun patrols. Though defense officials report that they have been deployed at sea, the submarines have not yet loaded missiles or begun strategic patrols. The article has been updated to reflect the distinction.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.popsci.com/new-chinese-submarines-pakistan

New Chinese Submarines to Pakistan

Why do they matter?

By Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer Posted April 7, 2015

S-20

IHS Janes

The S-20 SSK was first offered at the IDEX 2013 arms show in the UAE; it is a quiet 2,600 SSK capable of firing cruise missiles and torpedoes, in addition to inserting special forces and mines. Pakistan's Chinese subs are likely to be based off the S-20 design.
..On March 31st, Pakistan announced plans to buy eight new Chinese-made submarines. The submarines are likely to be based of the Type 39B Yuan SSK, of which the export version is designated the S-20. The S-20 displaces about 2,300 tons, but air independent propulsion (AIP) is not standard to the submarine. AIP a closed off propulsion system, like a gas compression Stirling engine or fuel cells, that doesn't require a separate oxygen supply It is a must have for modern SSKs, allowing them to stay underwater for up to four weeks without using noisy snorkels to recharge batteries (often SSK batteries have enough charge to last several days at most). Pakistan's S-20s are likely to have AIP since its Agosta 90B submarines already have the technology; the PLAN's 12 Yuan SSKs all have sophisticated AIP systems.

China Navy Type 039 Submarine

Type 39C SSK


www.top81.cn


The Type 039C Yuan SSK is the latest Chinese conventional submarine, launched in 2014. It features a redesigned conning tower, as well as better sonar. The Yuan class's AIP system makes it China's most capable conventional submarines.
..The significance of the plan is that it Pakistan badly needs to modernize and expand its submarine fleet, especially given rival India's acquisition of domestic, French and Russian conventional and nuclear submarines. Overall, Pakistan's 2015 naval plan calls for twelve submarines. The Pakistani Navy currently operates five French Agosta submarines, with two of its Agosta 70s 40 years old and in need of replacement soon.

Pakistan Babur Cruise Missile Nuclear

Babur Cruise Missile


Pakistan Military Review


The Babur LACM has a range of 750-1000km, and is equipped for both conventional and nuclear attack. It is likely that it will form the basis of a submarine launched LACM, potentially giving Pakistan an underwater second strike nuclear capability.
..
The other important features of the S-20 purchase stems from its weaponry and its effect on regional balances of power. The S-20 has a standard load of six torpedo tubes, able to fire up to 18 torpedoes and missile canisters, which include the 533mm Yu-6 heavy torpedo, naval mines and 300km range YJ-82 anti-ship missile. Such capabilities could prove quite important in any conventional war scenario in the region. In addition, Pakistan is working to modify its nuclear capable Babur land attack cruise missile for launch from its current Agosta 90B submarines, so the new S-20s would almost certainly also be designed to carry nuclear armed Babur missiles. In addition to being able to launch nuclear strikes from previously inaccessible areas like the Bay of Bengal, an underwater nuclear deterrent would finally give Islamabad a credible second strike capability.


You may also be interested in: Chinese Thunderbolts Replace American Cobras: New Z-10 Attack Helicopters for Pakistan

China's Submarine Hunting Plane Has a Giant Stinger

Not a Shark, but a Robot: Chinese University Tests Long Range Unmanned Mini Sub

New Chinese 039C Submarine Doesn't Need to Come up for Air.. In Several Weeks

Missile Sub Pairs with Aircraft Carrier

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/04/one-new-way-to-resolve-the-south-china-sea-disputes/

A New Way to Resolve South China Sea Disputes?

A retired U.S. admiral suggests an out-of-the-box solution.

By Prashanth Parameswaran
April 10, 2015

70 Shares
1 Comment

As disturbing trends in the South China Sea continue into 2015, some interesting proposals have been floated in various circles about how to resolve – or at least manage – the contentious territorial and maritime disputes there. We have explored some of these direct and indirect approaches at The Diplomat, which range from imposing greater costs on Chinese coercion in the South China Sea to leaving the issue to the next generation altogether.

At a recent conference at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, former director of national intelligence and commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Command Admiral Dennis Blair suggested an interesting idea. In essence, Blair proposed that an ‘International Conference on the South China Sea’ be convened to work out an international solution to conflicting claims in the South China Sea, and that the results of that conference then be used by these actors as the new reality on the ground.

The logic of such an approach, Blair said, would be to establish clarity on how these disputes are handled, something that is absent today. He argued that similar disputes in East Asia have tended to be handled in one of three ways: treaty agreements of some sort (eg. the 1979 agreement between Malaysia and Thailand); tacit agreements to work toward a diplomatic resolution (eg. the Kurils, Dokdo/Takeshima); and military standoffs (eg. Taiwan, Senkaku/Diaoyu, the two Koreas). In the South China Sea, however, Blair said the actors have yet to all work out exactly which method to use, with the declaration of conduct on the South China Sea virtually ignored and China using non-military, gray-zone actions to advance its controversial nine-dash line claim.

For Blair, convening an ‘International Conference on the South China Sea’ would help establish clarity on how to resolve conflicting claims in a two-step process. First, a conference would be held involving claimants – Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam and yes, China too, if it agrees – and supported by other seafaring nations such as the United States, Japan and Australia. The objective would be to work out a rough international solution to claims in the South China Sea. While Blair acknowledged that China may not participate, he believed other claimants could use general precedents and standards to come up with a specific solution – down to territorial seas, economic zones and joint development areas – that would be roughly fair to all.

Second, following the conference, Blair said the claimant nations who were at the conference should then act as if the results of that conference were the new ground reality in the South China Sea. The rest of the international community, meanwhile, should recognize the legitimacy of that conference and support actions that are in line with it and opposing those that are not.

While it is not uncommon to hear versions of such an idea floated as potential options publicly and privately, it is certainly not one of the more orthodox approaches usually featured in the headlines. It would also seem to make some sense, if achieving some clarity as soon as possible is the overriding objective. But the proposal would also likely face several formidable challenges if actually attempted. First, even leaving China aside, it is unclear how much support there would be among the remaining South China Sea claimants for such a public way to resolve differing claims. A few may not even wish to attend the conference, as they may prefer more low-profile or quieter ways of handling disputes. Much of this will also depend on form rather than substance. Heavy involvement by outside actors including the United States might appeal to bolder claimants like the Philippines or Vietnam but be less appealing to Malaysia, for example — particularly if it is read as external interference by China and places these states in a rather awkward position between Washington and Beijing. And let’s not even mention the diplomatic minefield of inviting both Taiwan and mainland China to participate in an international dialogue on sovereignty issues.

Second, assuming the conference is convened and most of the claimants do attend, resolving claims between parties is likely to be notoriously difficult in practice. For all the attention paid to China’s nine-dash line and its challenge to other claimants, several Southeast Asian states have unresolved disputes amongst themselves as well. Blair suggested that some of these issues might be more negotiable than other, fiercer disputes because they do not involve lost homelands, large populations, or even significant economic resources (depending on how one estimates potential hydrocarbon resources). Instead, the South China Sea disputes are largely about national pride and politics. To be fair, incremental efforts have been made to at least resolve some of these disputes over the years, including Malaysia’s quiet resolution with Brunei in 2009. But as the recent controversy between Malaysia and the Philippines over issues related to the South China Sea and Sabah during the past few weeks has illustrated, some of these disagreements are tough nuts to crack.

Third and lastly, even if the conference did leave with some resolution of the disputes between claimants, it is unclear how exactly these claimants, along with other outside actors, would implement this new reality on the ground, as Blair proposed, and whether they have both the capabilities and the willingness to do so. This is particularly the case if China is not part of how that reality is shaped; Beijing has so far aggressively demonstrated that it is serious about altering the status quo in its favor – including through coercion if necessary. Would the Philippines or Malaysia, or even ASEAN countries collectively, be expected to challenge Beijing over areas that lie within the nine-dash line following the conference, and, if so, how much would they be willing to risk? I have noted more specifically some of the challenges inherent in even slightly more forward-leaning individual and regional approaches in the maritime realm and the South China Sea, let alone overt challenges to China there (see, for instance, here, here and here).

As for outside actors, taking the example of the United States, how much would Washington be willing to commit to operationalize this new reality given its nuanced policy of not taking a position on the disputes themselves but being concerned about how they are resolved and their broader consequences for the region? Blair, for his part, believes that U.S. policy in the South China Sea thus far has been “tentative and quite weak” and does not adequately recognize key American interests. But that still leaves the more difficult question of how far America is willing to go – including committing assets and risking a downturn in the U.S.-China relationship – to see a proper resolution to conflicting claims in the South China Sea.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/04/how-china-seeks-to-shape-its-neighborhood/

How China Seeks to Shape Its Neighborhood

China trades U.S. relations for "peripheral diplomacy" in its foreign policy priority list.

By Shannon Tiezzi
April 10, 2015

5 Shares
0 Comments

China has moved from a focus on ¡°great power¡± diplomacy ¨C emphasizing its relationship with global powers, especially the U.S. ¨C to prioritizing ¡°neighborhood diplomacy¡± ¨C China¡¯s relationships with its neighbors and near neighbors. That shift, which has been slowly transforming China¡¯s foreign policy since Xi Jinping came to power, has major ramifications for the Asia-Pacific, as well as U.S.-China relations.

Historically, scholars have seen China as placing a premium on the U.S.-China relationship. Getting that relationship right was the ¡°key of keys¡± (ÖØÖÐÖ®ÖØ) for Chinese foreign policy as a whole. It¡¯s no coincidence that Xi took a trip to the U.S. in February 2012 to prove his bona fides before assuming China¡¯s top leadership position. And during that trip, Xi coined his first major catchphrase. Before the ¡°Belt and Road,¡± before even the ¡°China Dream,¡± Xi put his stamp on Chinese policy by proposing ¡°new type of major country relations.¡± The phrase has dominated Chinese rhetoric on the relationship ever since. In December 2013, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi declared that China¡¯s diplomatic priority for 2014 would be advancing ¡°new type of major country relationships.¡±

How much has changed in one year. For 2015, China has instead announced that its top foreign policy priority is advancing the Silk Road Economic Belt and Maritime Silk Road (the ¡°Belt and Road¡±), China¡¯s vision for regional integration. Rather than emphasizing ¡°great power relations,¡± China is focusing its energy on advancing economic, cultural, and security ties with its Asian neighbors.

The shift didn¡¯t happen overnight. China held a major conference on peripheral diplomacy in October 2013, where Xi said strong diplomatic relations with China¡¯s neighbors would be crucial to realizing China¡¯s development goals. Just over a year later, at the Central Conference on Work Relating to Foreign Affairs in November 2014, Xi again said that China must ¡°promote friendship and partnership with our neighbors¡± as part of creating a ¡°community of common destiny.¡±

The ¡°Belt and Road¡± policy grew alongside this focus on neighborhood diplomacy ¨C the concepts were introduced in fall 2013 and heavily emphasized throughout 2014. The Belt and Road, as well as the numerous smaller proposals for economic corridors (such as ones linking China-Pakistan and Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar), provide the economic underpinnings of China¡¯s neighborhood diplomacy.

At the same time, China used regional multilateral organizations to advance its regional strategic diplomatic goals. The Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are the two most notable examples. At CICA in particular, Xi raised the idea of a ¡°new regional security cooperation architecture,¡± which in China¡¯s definition involves a new Beijing-led security mechanism to replace the current U.S.-centered alliance structure. China¡¯s ¡°Asia for Asians¡± concept would inevitably mean that China ¨C as the largest, wealthiest, and arguably the most powerful Asian nation ¨C would play the dominant role in handling regional affairs.

From the ¡°Belt and Road¡± to the ¡°community of common destiny,¡± China is investing serious diplomatic energy in remaking its neighborhood diplomacy. The wealth of new initiatives led Chinese scholar Yan Xuetong to argue that peripheral diplomacy has replaced relations with the U.S. as the single-most important priority for Chinese foreign policy.

A recent op-ed in Xinhua cited the Chinese proverb ¡°a near neighbor is better than a distant cousin¡± to explain China¡¯s diplomatic priorities. ¡°With proactive diplomacy reaping fruitful results, China is more actively setting the agenda for regional development,¡± the piece said. For China¡¯s neighbors, this means an increased emphasis on cooperative economic projects, but also pressure to join China¡¯s vision for regional security (and those countries with territorial disputes with China are certainly not keen on that latter point).

Meanwhile, China¡¯s push for regional leadership puts it in conflict with the U.S., as Washington ¡°rebalances¡± to Asia to shore up its own influence. At the same time, Beijing is placing relatively less of a premium on keeping the U.S.-China relationship steady at all costs (although this is undoubtedly still important). That means less of a steadying influence on U.S.-China relations at precisely the time Beijing and Washington are butting heads over regional order setting.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.janes.com/article/50546/defence-becomes-hot-topic-in-uk-election

Defence becomes hot topic in UK election

Nicholas de Larrinaga, London and Dr. Lee Willett, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
08 April 2015

Defence has become a hot political topic in the United Kingdom ahead of the country's upcoming May general election.

Just as in the last general election in 2010, the future of the country's nuclear deterrent is the centre for disagreement between the various parties vying for power.

Tensions between the parties over defence issues were raised significantly on 9 April when the incumbent UK defence secretary, Conservative Michael Fallon, claimed that the opposition Labour Party would "stab the UK in the back" by doing a post-election deal with the (fiercely pro-disarmament) Scottish National Party (SNP) that would derail the replacement for the UK's nuclear deterrent.

To read the full article, Client Login

(105 of 788 words)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de.../08/north-korea-icbm-nuclear-weapon/25422795/

US: N. Korean Nuclear ICBM Achievable

By Aaron Mehta 1:51 p.m. EDT April 8, 2015

WASHINGTON — US intelligence believes North Korea is capable of miniaturizing a nuclear weapon and putting it on its KN-08 intercontinental ballistic missile, the head of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) said Tuesday.

It has been widely assumed that North Korea would look to develop the technology to place a nuclear warhead on top of the KN-08, a mobile intercontinental ballistic missile. But the statement by Adm. Bill Gortney is further confirmation that the US believes the Kim regime has that capability at hand.

"Our assessment is that they have the ability to put a nuclear weapon on a KN-08 and shoot it at the homeland," Gortney told reporters during a Pentagon briefing. "That is the way we think, and that's our assessment of the process.

"We haven't seen them test the KN-08 yet and we're waiting for them to do that, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they will fly it before they test it," he added.

Even without seeing a test of a nuclear-capable KN-08, Gortney called it "prudent" to plan for the threat.

Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, pointed out that there have been previous assessments, both from the US and South Korea, that the Kim regime could equip a KN-08 with a nuclear weapon. The challenge, he said, is getting that payload to be effective.

"It's not that hard to shrink it down, but what happens is you start to encounter reliability problems, especially if it's got a ride on an ICBM," Lewis said.

Given that there are doubts in many sectors about whether a KN-08 could ever deliver a nuclear payload, Lewis said different parts of the national security apparatus have handled it differently. The Pentagon, he said, errs on the side of caution when discussing and planning for the threat.

"I think they are getting the underlying intelligence assessments, which say they can make it small enough to fit on the missile," Lewis said. "Then they have to go out and fend for themselves in public, and what else can they say? They can't say North Korea can't do this, because that's not what the assessment says. So it wouldn't surprise me they say they have to assume it works."

Certainly, the idea that North Korea would want to develop a nuclear weapon capable of going on an ICBM is not a shock. Kingston Reif, director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association, said there is plenty of evidence the Kim regime is looking to build that capacity.

"Based on its nuclear and ballistic missile testing activities and other evidence, North Korea does appear to be trying to develop long-range missiles armed with nuclear weapons," he said.

Gortney's comments come as Secretary of Defense Ash Carter begins his first trip to Asia since he took office in February. Carter is spending two days in Japan before moving on to Seoul for talks with South Korean officials.

Those talks, Carter said in a Monday speech, will "reinforce deterrence and improve capabilities on the peninsula to counteract an increasingly dangerous and provocative North Korea."

The proliferation of mobile ICBMs is an issue for missile defense systems as a whole, and Gortney acknowledged the cost curve for missile defense needs to drop for the future.

To help drive prices down and keep up with current threats, Gortney would prefer to see the money Congress wants to spend on an East Coast missile defense network instead be reinvested into new technology development.

"If I had one more dollar to do ballistic missile defense, I wouldn't put it against the East Coast missile site," he said. "I'd put it against those technologies that would allow us to get to the correct side of the cost curve in ballistic missile defense."

"It is a proliferating threat. It is growing. Countries are developing those capabilities, they can threaten their neighbors with power projection with that, and our current approach has us on the wrong side of the cost curve," he continued. "So I would take those dollars and invest it in those necessary technologies."

Email: amehta@defensenews.com

Twitter: @AaronMehta

 

[Housecarl]

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?466717-US-Army-Readying-Unmanned-Systems-Doctrine

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...-readying-unmanned-systems-doctrine/25473749/

US Army Readying Unmanned Systems Doctrine

By Joe Gould 5:22 p.m. EDT April 8, 2015

WASHINGTON — The US Army is drafting doctrine for the first time that would govern its robotic and unmanned systems, with the service's sights set on robots for supply convoys, tactical reconnaissance and as robotic wingmen for soldiers on foot.

Driving the push for a unified strategy is concern an enemy would use robots on the battlefield first, said Lt. Col. Matt Dooley, lethality branch chief at the Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC). Although the Army is now moving toward an open systems architecture for its ground robots, it had fielded a variety of them on an ad hoc basis in Iraq and Afghanistan, largely for stand-off missions, such as bomb disposal.

"In the end, we want to prevent our enemies from leaping ahead of us," Dooley said, speaking at a ground robotics conference on Wednesday. "There is a risk associated with investing a lot of money and a risk to not doing anything. You have allies and potential threats that are moving forward with robotics. We have to acknowledge conditions on the battlefield in 2025 will include robotics whether we invest in it or not."

Over the next decade, the Army will prioritize its ongoing autonomous convoy and counter-IED efforts, as well as efforts to provide platoons and squads with reconnaissance capability at the company and battalion level, Dooley said.

"We have a sky full of UAVs and industrial sized full-motion video, but the person at the point of contact has access to none of it," Dooley said. "If we can enable soldiers at that level, we think that's in the realm of the feasible."

In March, ARCIC's chief, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, directed creation of the "Army Concept and Strategy for Robotic and Autonomous Systems," due in 2016. The result will include a range of near, mid- and long-term capabilities, and an acquisitions strategy for prioritizing and integrating robots with various levels of human control across the force.

"We needed a single document we could point to and say this is the Army's overall mission," Dooley said. "There are a lot of [concepts of operations] and concepts for deployment out there, slides and white papers that point to a particular capability and gap, but there's not been one overarching vision."

Dooley was firm that there was no effort to create a lethal autonomous function, in keeping with the Pentagon's 2012 directive on the topic. "We're not going to leave those types of decisions to a robot," he said.

The Army is assuming industry investment in the technology will drive down cost, and it assumes a moral imperative to pursue unmanned platforms for "getting soldiers out of the way of the greatest hazards." However, Dooley said the guidance is not to use robots as an offset strategy to take soldiers out of formations.

The Army Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center is already pursuing tactical vehicles that drive themselves through an Autonomous Mobility Appliqué System (AMAS), developed by Lockheed Martin. AMAS uses radar and lidar to read the road surface, lanes and curves of the road, as well as fixed or moving obstacles like pedestrians and cars, and a "drive-by-wire" kit to control the steering, acceleration and brakes.

Dooley said he would like to see AMAS appear in one of the Army's semi-annual Network Evaluation Exercises to allay some of the safety concerns. He said he would also like to see reconnaissance drones used at the platoon level, but modified to create alerts so as not to suck up a soldier's attention.

"The soldier needs to have the asset and still perform the task in front of him," Dooley said.

Email: jgould@defensenews.com

Twitter: @reporterjoe

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/09/us-ukraine-crisis-nato-membership-idUSKBN0N01OW20150409

World | Thu Apr 9, 2015 1:08pm EDT
Related: World, Russia

Ukraine sets sights on joining NATO

KIEV


(Reuters) - Ukraine, locked in conflict with Russian-backed separatists in its east, on Thursday drew up a new security doctrine denouncing Russia's "aggression" and setting its sights on joining the U.S.-led NATO military alliance.

Oleksander Turchynov, head of the national security council, told a session of the body that Ukraine saw Russian aggression as a "long-standing factor" and viewed NATO membership as "the only reliable external guarantee" of its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Turchynov's comments and the move to draft a new security strategy were certain to raise hackles in Russia, which annexed the Crimean peninsula in March 2014 after a pro-Western leadership took power in Kiev in the wake of an uprising that ousted a Moscow-backed president.

Russian officials have said the radical change of leadership in Kiev raises the strategic threat of U.S. and NATO warships one day being based in the Black Sea waters off Crimea.

Moscow has backed separatists fighting Kiev government forces in eastern Ukraine, in a conflict in which more than 6,000 people have been killed.

Turchynov said the five-year strategy was based on the reality of military aggression unleashed by Russia.

"For the first time in history a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council which possesses the nuclear weapon uses this factor to intimidate the international community and uses its military potential for annexation and seizing the territory of a European country," he said.

He said European and Euro-Atlantic integration was now a priority for Ukraine's policies and the country would aim to coordinate its armed forces and intelligence services with those of the Western alliance.

Ukraine, at the center of a geo-political tug-of-war between Russia and the West, has grown close to the NATO alliance during the years since independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.


Related Coverage
› NATO hones response time of its rapid reaction units

The pro-Western leadership has prepared the way for a swerve in strategic direction by scrapping the "non-bloc" status introduced under ousted former president Viktor Yanukovich.

NATO has said membership is one day possible for Ukraine, but has declined to arm the Kiev government on the grounds that, as a non-member, it does not qualify for military help under NATO's collective defense rules.

The new military doctrine drawn up by the national security council will become policy once it has been endorsed by a decree from President Petro Poroshenko.


(Reporting by Pavel Polityuk; Writing by Richard Balmforth; Editing by Andrew Roche)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/09/us-china-southchinasea-reef-idUSKBN0N001N20150409

World | Thu Apr 9, 2015 3:49pm EDT
Related: World, China

China mounts detailed defense of South China Sea reclamation

BEIJING | By Sui-Lee Wee and Ben Blanchard


(Reuters) - China on Thursday sketched out plans for the islands it is creating in the disputed South China Sea, saying they would be used for military defense as well as to provide civilian services that would benefit other countries.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told a news briefing that the reclamation and building work in the Spratly archipelago of the South China Sea was needed partly because of the risk of typhoons in an area with a lot of shipping that is far from land.

"We are building shelters, aids for navigation, search and rescue as well as marine meteorological forecasting services, fishery services and other administrative services" for China and neighboring countries, Hua said.

The islands and reefs would also meet the demands for China's military defense, Hua said without elaborating.

It's rare for China to give such detail about its plans for the artificial islands. The rapid reclamation taking place on seven reefs has alarmed other claimants and drawn U.S. criticism, including from Defense Secretary Ash Carter, who is visiting Japan and South Korea this week.

"The relevant construction is a matter that is entirely within the scope of China's sovereignty. It is fair, reasonable, lawful, it does not affect and is not targeted against any country. It is beyond reproach," Hua added.

China claims most of the South China Sea, through which $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan also have overlapping claims.


Related Coverage
› U.S. says Chinese activity in South China Sea causes regional 'anxiety'

All but Brunei have fortified bases in the Spratlys, which lie roughly 1,300 km (810 miles) from the Chinese mainland but much closer to the Southeast Asian claimants.

While China's new islands will not overturn U.S. military superiority in the region, workers are building ports and fuel storage depots as well as possibly two airstrips that experts have said would allow Beijing to project power deep into the maritime heart of Southeast Asia.

Western and Asian naval officials privately say that China could feel emboldened to try to limit both air and sea navigation once the reclaimed islands are fully established.

The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea does not legally allow for reclaimed land to be used to demarcate 12-nautical-mile territorial zones, but some officials fear China will not feel limited by that document and will seek to keep foreign navies from passing close by.

Jin Canrong, associate dean of the School of International Studies at Beijing's Renmin University, said that China probably felt it needed to give its side of the story following growing criticism from Washington over the reclamation.

"The motivation in giving an explanation is a good one, to set minds at ease," Jin said.



MISCHIEF REEF

Hua's comments came hours after a Washington-based think tank published new satellite images that show China is quickly reclaiming land around Mischief Reef in the Spratlys within an area the Philippines regards as its exclusive economic zone.

The work on Mischief Reef is China's most recent reclamation.

A March 16 image published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) shows what it said were a chain of small artificial land formations as well as new structures, fortified seawalls and construction equipment along Mischief Reef.

Several dredgers are also present while the entrance to the reef had been expanded, the CSIS Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative said on its website. amti.csis.org/

An image from Feb. 1 showed a Chinese amphibious transport naval vessel several hundred meters from the reef's entrance.

Surveillance photos taken of Mischief Reef in October and seen by Reuters showed no reclamation work.

Asked about Mischief Reef in light of the images, Carter said he did not want to speculate on China's future plans but added that the militarization of territorial disputes in the South China Sea could lead to "dangerous incidents".

"It's not just an American concern but a concern of almost every country in the entire region," Carter told reporters before leaving Japan for South Korea. He spoke before Hua's news briefing.

Philippine Defense Ministry spokesman Peter Paul Galvez urged China to dismantle the work on Mischief Reef, 216 km (135 miles) west of the Philippine island of Palawan, saying it would affect his country's national security.

China occupied Mischief Reef in 1995. The October photos showed two structures, including a three-storey building sitting on an atoll.

(Additional reporting by David Brunnstrom in TOKYO, Greg Torode in HONG KONG and Manny Mogato in MANILA; Editing by Dean Yates)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/ukraine-oligarchs-ambitions-divide-kiev

In Ukraine, Oligarchs' Ambitions Divide Kiev

Analysis
April 9, 2015 | 09:36 GMT

Summary

The unity of the coalition government in Kiev is again at risk. On April 7, Ukrainian authorities legally challenged the privatizations of several companies that former President Viktor Yanukovich's government sold in 2012 and 2013. Although Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko presented the decision as a step toward reducing the influence of Ukraine's oligarchs, this move may be designed to give some oligarchs, including Poroshenko, the opportunity to redistribute coveted assets among themselves. This decision may signal increased cooperation among some oligarchs aligned with the pro-Western government. However, the renationalization and subsequent privatization of assets ultimately will alienate reform-minded members of the coalition government.

Analysis

The Ukrainian Prosecutor General's office is seeking to annul the 2012 privatization of a stake in DTEK Dniproenergo, one of the largest thermal power companies in Ukraine. Ukrainian authorities are arguing that DTEK, the firm owned by Ukrainian oligarch Rinat Akhmetov, bought the stake in an unfair tender and at a price much lower than the market value. The Prosecutor General's office is also challenging a 2013 sale of a majority stake in power company Donbasenergo to one of Akhmetov's allies, Igor Gumenyuk, as well as the privatization of regional power distribution firm Zakarpattyaoblenergo.

https://www.stratfor.com/sites/defa...raine_oligarch_influence_v2.jpg?itok=xL_1zXyn

Although privatizations in Ukraine have often involved corrupt practices, the decision to target the assets of Akhmetov and his ally is the result of a change in the power dynamics among Ukraine's oligarchs following the onset of the crisis in the country's east. Akhmetov, formerly the most powerful oligarch in Ukraine, lost some of his influence in Kiev and suffered substantial financial losses as his allies in the Yanukovich-led Party of Regions lost power and as separatists took hold of parts of Donetsk province, the center of his business empire. Akhmetov's weakened position led to the prosecutor general's decision to target these particular companies.

Meanwhile, the change in government empowered certain oligarchs. Poroshenko became president, while Igor Kolomoisky became governor of Dnipropetrovsk and a highly influential player in Kiev. Poroshenko and Kolomoisky recently clashed over Kolomoisky's insistent assertion of control over two majority state-owned energy enterprises, including the use of armed men to take control of the firms' headquarters. Kolomoisky's subsequent dismissal as governor raised the specter of a political rift between the two oligarchs. Kolomoisky has not appeared in public since the appointment of his replacement and reportedly is spending time abroad.

Conversation: Oligarchs in Ukraine Stand Off

Nevertheless, the decision to legally challenge past privatizations may indicate that Kolomoisky and Poroshenko have reached an accommodation, at least in the near term. Kolomoisky has publicly advocated for the reprivatization of some assets that he claims were privatized illegally in the past, arguing that such privatizations would help ameliorate Ukraine's budgetary problems. Kolomoisky and businessmen close to him, as well as Poroshenko and his allies, all have an interest in reversing past deals that benefited rival oligarchs and giving oligarchs close to the government an opportunity to purchase sought-after assets.

However, some members of the pro-Western coalition oppose the renationalization of oligarch assets. Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who is locked in a political rivalry with Poroshenko, has previously questioned proposals to annul past privatizations. Moreover, he has taken steps to slow down the process of redistributing the assets of oligarchs such as Akhmetov. Still, Yatsenyuk has called for regional energy distribution companies owned by Dmitri Firtash and Sergiy Lyovochkin, oligarchs who have close links to Russia and Yanukovich, to pay rent for using the state-owned pipeline system.

Foreign governments, the International Monetary Fund and Western companies will watch carefully as Ukrainian authorities proceed with their legal challenges to past privatizations. Once these assets are up for auction, international bodies and governments will want to ensure that the reforms and anti-corruption measures that Ukraine's government pledged to implement in exchange for extensive financial assistance are actively enforced. They will also make sure politicians and oligarchs associated with the coalition do not use their positions to gain an unfair advantage. Western companies, concerned about property rights, will follow these developments closely as well. At the same time, in the eyes of Ukrainian voters who supported the Maidan movement and new coalition government with the expectation of reforms and better governance, the outcome of reprivatizations will be a key test of the government's commitment to change.

Divisions among the coalition in Kiev could serve the Kremlin in its ambition to weaken Ukraine and hinder its integration with Western political and defense blocs. The annulment of past privatizations may initially be regarded as a step in Ukraine's reform process. But the reprivatization of these assets could reveal the continued influence of oligarch interests in Ukrainian politics, undermining the government's legitimacy and endangering Ukraine's economic prospects. As oligarchs such as Poroshenko and Kolomoisky work to redistribute assets, Kiev's credibility and cohesion will come under further scrutiny.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-iran-would-go-war-against-america-12548

How Iran Would Go to War against America [1]

Don't get too excited about the nuclear "framework" just yet.

Harry J. Kazianis [2] [3] 12
April 6, 2015

While all sides here in Washington battle to shape public opinion over the Iran nuclear deal, we should not kid ourselves—this is not Obama’s “Nixon goes to China” moment, nor should we expect Air Force one to touch down in Tehran anytime soon.

Call me a pessimist, but I am not that impressed. There is a long way to go from a “framework [4]” to an actual hard deal—with decades of mistrust making the road to a deal even longer and tougher. So before we start awarding Nobel Prizes, a hard look at the facts when it comes to the U.S.-Iranian relationship are in order.

The facts are simple: Washington and Tehran are locked into a long-term geopolitical contest throughout the Middle East that will span decades—a similar contest in many ways to Washington and Beijing’s battle for influence in the Asia-Pacific and wider Indo-Pacific regions. While President Barack Obama and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei might be toasting one another from afar, the geopolitical showdown between these two countries is certainly not over—no nuclear framework will change that.

(Recommended: 5 Iranian Weapons of War America Should Fear [5])

Over the long term, the U.S.-Iranian struggle throughout the Middle East could very well be a mini-Thucydides trap, to steal the phrase from my beloved Harvard’s resident geostrategic guru, Graham Allison—the classic tale of how when a rising power meets an established power, war is oftentimes the most common result (eleven out of fifteen times, per Allison). Taking such a long view of U.S.-Iranian relations only reveals stormy seas ahead. No serious foreign-policy or national-security mind can see a long-term partnership beyond maybe short-term alignments in Iraq and decreased tensions from Iran putting its nuclear program on ice for ten years (Remember, folks: In ten years, Iran can slowly expand its nuclear program, and in fifteen years, it has no restrictions on the amount of uranium it wishes to produce [6]...then what?).

Looking at any map reveals a whole host of challenges. From Yemen, to Syria, to Lebanon and over the long term in Iraq, it is quite clear Washington and Tehran have too many areas of contention for their relationship to turn rosey. Iran is a nation that, like China, feels history has certainly not been kind, especially at the hands of Western powers. Tehran, while not trying to create an empire of sorts throughout the Middle East, as some have offered, certainly seems focused on expanding its regional interests and influence—as any power on the rise would naturally seek to do. The natural defense of such interests could, by default, turn Iran into the Middle East’s new regional hegemon. Look far and wide into the soul of U.S. diplomats, and that is the real fear (and a shared one among Washington’s allies in the region). While many in the Middle East and beyond fear Iran’s possible nuclear aspirations, such weapons are only a part of a much bigger geostrategic challenge.

(Recommended: 5 Israeli Weapons of War ISIS Should Fear [7])

So the real question seems quite simple: Will America and Iran come to blows over Tehran’s regional aspirations? I, for one, certainly hope not. I think the best possible solution to these countries’ conflicting goals would be for both sides to take a very pragmatic approach—to align their interests in areas of shared goals, while agreeing to disagree, and even competing in many areas across the wider Middle East—“frenemies,” if you will.

(Recommended: 5 Reasons Israel Won't Attack Iran [8])

However, as history has shown us time and time again, the end result we want does not always come to pass. This piece will explore the various ways Iran could strike U.S. forces if conflict ever occurred. Looking specifically at Tehran’s military capabilities, one quickly realizes Iran’s military, while not nearly as advanced as the United States’, is certainly tough enough to constrain Washington’s strategic objectives through large parts of the Middle East, especially as one approaches Iran’s borders.

From China with Love: Iran Loves A2/AD

While the pages of many publications—including this one—are filled with various ideas and concepts that detail one of my favorite subjects, Chinese anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD), other nations are adopting this smart asymmetric strategy, and Iran is one of them. While nowhere near as advanced as China’s various sea mines, ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines, cyber weapons and C2 and C4ISR systems, Iranian A2/AD still packs quite a punch.

(Recommended: 5 U.S. Weapons of War Iran Should Fear [9])

So what would an Iranian A2/AD campaign against U.S. forces look like? Well, let us assume Iran decided, for whatever reason, to strike first and strike decisively—the best way to utilize any A2/AD force. The best research to guide us in such a discussion is a 2011 report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) that looks at Iranian A2/AD capabilities and possible U.S. responses, titled: “Outside-In: Operating from Range to Defeat Iran’s Anti-Access/Area-Denial Threats [10].”

The real highlight of this report is that it sketches out an Iranian A2/AD campaign against U.S. forces in the timeframe between 2020 and 2025 with what CSBA assumes Iran would have developed in terms of military capabilities by that time. The scenario also assumes a U.S. force posture at roughly 2011-levels. While these qualifiers do detract slightly from the accuracy of the scenario, CSBA does show the reader quite effectively what Iran could do.

For starters, as noted prior, surprise will be the key, with Iran going all in with a massive strike:

Iran will likely exploit the element of surprise to subject U.S. forces in the Gulf to a concentrated, combined-arms attack. Using coastal radars, UAVs, and civilian vessels for initial targeting information, Iranian surface vessels could swarm U.S. surface combatants in narrow waters, firing a huge volume of rockets and missiles in an attempt to overwhelm the Navy’s AEGIS combat system and kinetic defenses like the Close-In Weapons System and Rolling Airframe Missile, and possibly drive U.S. vessels toward prelaid minefields. Shore-based ASCMs and Klub-K missiles launched from “civilian” vessels may augment these strikes. Iran’s offensive maritime exclusion platforms could exploit commercial maritime traffic and shore clutter to mask their movement and impede U.S. counter-targeting. While these attacks are underway, Iran could use its SRBMs and proxy forces to strike U.S. airfields, bases, and ports. Iran will likely seek to overwhelm U.S. and partner missile defenses with salvos of less accurate missiles before using more accurate SRBMs armed with submunitions to destroy unsheltered aircraft and other military systems. Proxy groups could attack forward bases using presighted guided mortars and rockets, and radiation-seeking munitions to destroy radars and C4 nodes.

Iran would also try to lock out the Strait of Hormuz:

After initial attacks to attrite U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, Iran will likely use its maritime exclusion systems to control passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Mine warfare should feature prominently in Iranian attempts to close the Strait. As with many of its A2/AD systems, Iran could employ a combination of “smart” influence mines along with large quantities of less capable weapons such as surface contact mines. Iran may deploy many of its less sophisticated mines from a variety of surface vessels, while it reserves its submarine force to lay influence mines covertly. Though Iran may wish to sink or incapacitate a U.S. warship with a mine, its primary goal is probably to deny passage and force the U.S. Navy to engage in prolonged mine countermeasure (MCM) operations while under threat from Iranian shore-based attacks. U.S. MCM ships, which typically lack the armor and self-defenses of larger warships, would be unlikely to survive in the Strait until these threats are suppressed.

Iran could deploy its land-based ASCMs from camouflaged and hardened sites to firing positions along its coastline and on Iranian-occupied islands in the Strait of Hormuz while placing decoys at false firing positions to complicate U.S. counterstrikes. Hundreds of ASCMs may cover the Strait, awaiting target cueing data from coastal radars, UAVs, surface vessels, and submarines. Salvo and multiple axis attacks could enable these ASCMs to saturate U.S. defenses. Similar to the way in which Iran structured its ballistic missile attacks, salvos of less capable ASCMs might be used to exhaust U.S. defenses, paving the way for attacks by more advanced missiles.

Also, according to CSBA, Iran would be rewarded by spreading the field of conflict:

Undoubtedly aware that the United States’ ability to bring military power to bear is influenced by the demand for forces in other regions, Iran may seek to expand the geographical scope of a conflict in order to divert U.S. attention and resources elsewhere. Iran’s terrorist proxies, perhaps aided by Quds Force operatives, could be employed to threaten U.S. interests in other theaters. Iran could conceivably leverage its relationship with Hezbollah to attempt to draw Israel into the conflict or tap Hezbollah’s clandestine networks to carry out attacks in other regions.

Concluding Thoughts

The above is only a very small sample of what is an excellent, but frightening, report. CSBA deserves credit for showing what such a conflict would look like, and did not get nearly enough credit when the report was released. While slightly dated, since it was written towards the end of 2011, any defense or national-security wonk should sit down and read it cover to cover. After reading the whole report, along with just a quick parsing of many other documents and resources on Iran’s military over the years, one can easily come to the conclusion that Iran’s forces, when confronted close to its shores, would not be easily subdued. What is referred to commonly as the “tyranny of distance,” combined with Tehran’s growing A2/AD capabilities, creates an interesting challenge for U.S. warfighters if the unthinkable ever came to pass. Let’s just hope Washington and Tehran can make “frenemies” work over the long haul.

Harry J. Kazianis serves as Editor of RealClearDefense [11], a member of the RealClearPolitics [12] family of websites. Mr. Kazianis is also a Senior Fellow for Defense Policy at the Center for the National Interest [13] (non-resident) and a Senior Fellow at the China Policy Institute (non-resident). He is the former Executive Editor of The National Interest [14] and former Editor of The Diplomat [15]. Follow him on Twitter: @grecianformula [16].

Image: [17] Wikimedia Commons/kremlin.ru

Topics
Security [18]
Regions
United States [19]Middle East [20] [3]
Source URL (retrieved on April 9, 2015): http://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-iran-would-go-war-against-america-12548

Links:
[1] http://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-iran-would-go-war-against-america-12548
[2] http://nationalinterest.org/profile/harry-j-kazianis
[3] http://twitter.com/share
[4] http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/iran-nuclear-deal-breakthrough-116618.html
[5] http://nationalinterest.org/feature/5-iranian-weapons-war-america-should-fear-12092
[6] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-talks.html?_r=0
[7] http://nationalinterest.org/feature/five-israeli-weapons-war-isis-should-fear-11331
[8] http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/five-reasons-israel-wont-attack-iran-9469
[9] http://nationalinterest.org/feature/5-us-weapons-war-iran-should-fear-12087
[10] http://www.csbaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/CSBA_SWA_FNL-WEB.pdf
[11] http://www.realcleardefense.com/
[12] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
[13] http://www.cftni.org/
[14] http://nationalinterest.org/
[15] http://thediplomat.com/
[16] https://twitter.com/grecianformula
[17] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rouhani_and_Putin_CICA_summit_2014_2.jpeg
[18] http://nationalinterest.org/topic/security
[19] http://nationalinterest.org/region/americas/north-america/united-states
[20] http://nationalinterest.org/region/middle-east

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150410/eu-russia-syria-8b31d6ba5d.html

Both sides in Syria conflict wrap up 4 days of Moscow talks

Apr 10, 5:02 AM (ET)

MOSCOW (AP) — Representatives of the Syrian government and opposition have wrapped up four days of talks in Moscow, with an opposition leader calling for a third U.N.-sponsored international conference aimed at resolving Syria's four-year civil war.

It was unclear if any substantial progress was made during the Russian-mediated talks.

The government representatives and the Russian mediator were to speak at separate briefings later Friday.

Qadri Jamil, a former deputy prime minister who now represents the opposition Popular Front of Change and Liberation, was quoted by Russian news agencies as saying that further talks in Moscow should be held only after a third international conference in Geneva.

Leaders of the top opposition groups did not take part in the talks in Moscow this week or an earlier round in January.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150410/ml--yemen-904e9a2042.html

Pakistani lawmakers vote to stay out of Yemen conflict

Apr 10, 4:56 AM (ET)
By MUNIR AHMED

(AP) A supporter of Pakistani religious group Jamat ud Dawa waves a party flag during a...
Full Image

ISLAMABAD (AP) — Pakistan's parliament on Friday decided not to join the Saudi-led coalition targeting Shiite rebels in Yemen, with lawmakers adopting a resolution that calls on the warring parties in the impoverished Arabian Peninsula country to resolve the conflict through peaceful dialogue.

After days of debating, Pakistani lawmakers unanimously voted in favor of a resolution, which states that "the parliament desires that Pakistan should maintain neutrality in the Yemen conflict so as to be able to play a proactive diplomatic role to end the crisis."

The predominantly Sunni Pakistan, which has a Shiite minority of its own and shares a long border with the Shiite powerhouse Iran, has been concerned about getting involved in Yemen's increasingly sectarian conflict and a Saudi-Iran proxy war in the region.

The conflict in Yemen pits the Saudi-led Sunni Gulf Arab coalition against Shiite rival Iran, which supports the rebels known as the Houthis and has provided humanitarian aid, though both Iran and the rebels deny it has armed them.

(AP) Visiting Iranian Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, center, leaves the...
Full Image

The growing regional involvement risks transforming what until now has been a complex power struggle into a full-blown sectarian conflict like those raging in Syria and Iraq.

Since the Saudi-led coalition launched the aerial campaign more than two weeks ago, pro-Saudi groups have rallied across Pakistan, urging Islamabad to join the coalition. The rallies, organized by a militant-linked Sunni group and Hafiz Saeed, who heads the Jamaat-ud-Dawa religious group, have condemned the Shiite rebels' advance in Yemen.

Pakistan's parliament resolution came a day after Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif visited Pakistan to discuss the conflict in Yemen with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and other officials.

Zarif said Wednesday, after the talks, that Iran is ready to facilitate peace talks that would lead to a broad-based government in Yemen. He also called for a cease-fire to allow for humanitarian assistance. "We need to work together in order to put an end to the crisis in Yemen," Zarif said.

Sharif attended the joint session of parliament Friday to indicate his approval.

If the conflict in Yemen becomes an all-out sectarian war, this will "have a critical fallout in the region, including in Pakistan," the resolution said.

The parliament½a0}also urged Muslim countries and the international community to intensify their efforts to promote peace in Yemen. It called on Pakistan's envoys to "initiate steps" before the U.N. Security Council "to bring about an immediate ceasefire in Yemen."

Even though the lawmakers opted to stay out of the conflict, the parliament also expressed its "unequivocal support" for Saudi Arabia, vowing that in case of any violation of its territorial integrity or any threat to the Muslim holiest places in the kingdom, Pakistan would "stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Saudi Arabia and its people."

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150410/ml--egypt-militants-89694c9be5.html

Egyptian militant group behind Cairo blast names new leader

Apr 10, 4:37 AM (ET)

CAIRO (AP) — An Egyptian militant group that was behind a Cairo bridge bombing this week has appointed a new leader after his predecessor was killed in a shootout with police.

The group known as Ajnad Misr, or "Egypt's Soldiers," said on its Twitter account late Thursday that Izzeddin al-Masri has succeeded Hammam Mohamed Attia.

Attia was killed Sunday in the shootout, just hours before the bridge attack in Cairo killed a policeman and wounded at least two passers-by.

The group's statement also pledged to continue its holy war, or jihad.

Ajnad Misr has carried out several attacks on security forces, especially after the 2013 military overthrow of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi. Militant groups say they are avenging a security crackdown on Islamists, while authorities blame Morsi's supporters for the violence.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150410/ml--syria-ee90e9b42c.html

PLO says no to military action in Syria's embattled Yarmouk

Apr 10, 5:58 AM (ET)

(AP) Rubble and heavy damage remain on a deserted street during a government escorted...
Full Image

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — The Palestine Liberation Organization says it won't be drawn into military action in an embattled Palestinian refugee camp in Syria that has been overrun by Islamic State extremists.

The statement late Thursday contradicted assertions made earlier in the day by a PLO emissary to Damascus, Ahmad Majdalani. He said that Palestinian groups are ready to join forces with the Syrian government to expel IS fighters from the camp.

The PLO called for non-military means to "spare the blood of our people" and said that "we refuse to be drawn into any armed campaign."

IS seized much of the Yarmouk camp on the edge of Damascus last week, establishing a foothold in the Syrian capital for the first time. About 18,000 people are left in Yarmouk, following a two-year government siege.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/10/us-pakistan-india-militant-idUSKBN0N10T420150410

World | Fri Apr 10, 2015 6:10am EDT
Related: World

Pakistan court frees on bail accused mastermind of Mumbai attack: lawyer

ISLAMABAD | By Syed Raza Hassan

(Reuters) - A Pakistani court freed on bail on Friday a man accused of plotting a 2008 militant assault on India's financial capital that killed 166 people and seriously strained ties between the nuclear-armed neighbors, his lawyer said.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had condemned the prospect of bail for Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, which comes months after India and Pakistan were engaged in their worst cross-border violence in more than a decade in the disputed Kashmir region.

"Lakhvi has been released and he is out of the jail now," his lawyer, Malik Nasir Abbas, told Reuters on Friday. "I don't know where he will go now."

A security official also confirmed his release.

India's Ministry for External Affairs said before the release that its concern about Lakhvi had been made clear to Pakistan.

"The fact is that known terrorists not being effectively prosecuted constitutes a real security threat for India and the world," an Indian ministry spokesman said.

"This also erodes the value of assurances repeatedly conveyed to us with regard to cross-border terrorism."

India blamed the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba for the Mumbai attack. Ten gunmen infiltrated the city by boat and spent three days spraying bullets and throwing grenades around city landmarks.

Indian investigators said Lakhvi was Lashkar-e-Taiba military chief.

He was arrested in Pakistan in 2009 in connection with the attack.

Relations between India and Pakistan, which have fought three wars since independence in 1947, nosedived after the Mumbai attack and have not fully recovered. A dispute over the Kashmir region periodically flares into violence.

Lakhvi was granted bail by an Anti Terrorism Court in Islamabad on Dec. 18, two days after a militant attack on a high school in the city of Peshawar killed 132 children.

The fact that he was granted bail just two days after an attack, that shocked a nation used to such atrocities, forced the government to detain Lakhvi under Maintenance of Public Order legislation.

His lawyer told Reuters his client has been granted bail because of insufficient evidence.


(Reporting by Reuters TV, Amjad Ali and Syed Raza Hussan; Writing by Nick Macfie; Editing by Robert Birsel)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/10/us-yemen-security-pakistan-idUSKBN0N10NP20150410

World | Fri Apr 10, 2015 5:43am EDT
Related: World, Saudi Arabia, Yemen

Pakistan MPs draft resolution urging neutrality in Yemen crisis

ISLAMABAD | By Faisal Mahmood and Amjad Ali

(Reuters) - Pakistan's parliament adopted a draft resolution on Yemen on Friday urging Pakistan to stay neutral in the conflict, as expected, expressing support for Saudi Arabia and calling on all factions to resolve their differences peacefully.

Sunni Saudi Arabia had asked its staunch ally, Sunni-majority Pakistan, to join the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen and had requested warships, aircraft and troops.

Pakistani members of parliament have spoken out against becoming militarily involved in Yemen all week and the draft resolution is bound to disappoint the Saudis.

"The parliament of Pakistan expresses serious concern on the deteriorating security and humanitarian situation in Yemen and its implications for peace and stability of the region," the resolution said.

"(It) desires that Pakistan should maintain neutrality in the Yemen conflict so as to be able to play a proactive diplomatic role to end the crisis."

The Pakistan military, which has ruled the country for more than half its history, has said it will respect the civilian government's decision.

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has repeatedly said he will defend any threat to Saudi Arabia.

The resolution said parliament "expresses unequivocal support for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and affirms that in case of violation of its territorial integrity or any threat to Haramain Sharifain (Islamic holy places), Pakistan will stand shoulder to shoulder with Saudi Arabia and its people".

Shi'ite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia are rivals for power in the Middle East and many in Pakistan fear being caught between them if Pakistani troops are sent to Yemen.

Last month, a Saudi-led coalition began air strikes in Yemen against Iranian-allied Houthi rebels. Saudi Arabia and Yemen share a border and Saudi Arabia says it is afraid that instability might spill over to its territory.

Pakistan's parliament began debating the request on Monday and no legislator spoke in support of sending troops for Saudi to use in Yemen.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif wound up a two-day trip to Pakistan on Thursday in which he urged Pakistan to reject the Saudi request.

Pakistani army chief General Raheel Sharif had publicly remained silent on the request. Army officials have said they will defer to the civilian government.

Saudi Arabia's request had put Pakistan in a tight spot. The nuclear-armed nation of 180 million people has strong economic, religious and military ties to Saudi Arabia but also a long and porous border with Iran in a mineral-rich region plagued by a separatist insurgency.


(Writing by Nick Macfie; Editing by Robert Birsel)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.yahoo.com/71-chadian-soldiers-killed-fighting-boko-haram-army-135722263.html

71 Chadian soldiers killed fighting Boko Haram: army

AFP
4 hours ago

N'Djamena (AFP) - Seventy-one Chadian soldiers have been killed and 416 injured in two-and-a-half months' fighting Boko Haram, the Chadian army said on Friday.

Chad is taking part in a regional offensive against the Nigeria-based Islamist radicals along with troops from Nigeria, Niger and Cameroon.

Chad army chief General Brahim Seid told reporters in N'Djamena the "valiant soldiers" had died since February 3 in the "just and noble cause of bringing peace and security" to the region.

The countries neighbouring Nigeria, including Chad, sent troops to help crush Boko Haram after the Islamists began to threaten the region surrounding Lake Chad, where the borders of all four nations converge.

Nigeria's army has been criticised for failing to deal with Boko Haram fighters whose bid to set up a hardline Islamic state has killed more than 15,000 people since 2009 and put scores of thousands to flight, according to the UN.

The UN on Thursday launched an appeal for $174 million to give "life-saving aid" to the almost 200,000 Nigerians who have fled the country due to the group's brutal attacks.

View Comments (76) .

 

[Housecarl]

Difference and problem with this analogy is that Yemen is right next door to Saudi and not an ocean and half a world away as Vietnam is from CONUS......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...045766-ddf6-11e4-b6d7-b9bc8acf16f7_story.html

Middle East

Yemen conflict’s risk for Saudis: ‘Their Vietnam’

By Hugh Naylor April 9 
Comments 248

BEIRUT — Two weeks into a Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen, airstrikes appear to have accelerated the country’s fragmentation into warring tribes and militias while doing little to accomplish the goal of returning the ousted Yemeni president to power, analysts and residents say.

The Yemeni insurgents, known as Houthis, have pushed ahead with their offensive and seem to have protected many of their weapons stockpiles from the coalition’s bombardments, analysts say. The fighting has killed hundreds of people, forced more than 100,000 people to flee their homes and laid waste to the strategic southern city of Aden.

The battles are increasingly creating problems that go beyond the rebels opposing President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi and the forces supporting him. The conflict has reduced available water and food supplies in a country already suffering from dangerous levels of malnutrition and created a security vacuum that has permitted territorial advances by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

For the Saudi government and its allies, the military operation in Yemen may be turning into a quagmire, analysts say.

“What’s a potential game changer in all of this is not just the displacement of millions of people, but it’s this huge spread of disease, starvation and inaccessibility [of] water, combined with an environment where radical groups are increasingly operating in the open and recruiting,” said Jon B. Alterman, director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Saudi-led airstrike targets rebels in Yemen(1:16)

The Saudi-led airstrike campaign entered its 14th day on Wednesday, hitting a residential area in the capital of Sanaa. (AP)

The Yemen conflict, he added, could become a situation where “nobody can figure out either who started this fight or how to end it.”

Saudi Arabia, a Sunni powerhouse, views the Houthis as proxies of Shiite Iran. The air campaign that began March 25 is widely seen in the region as an attempt by the Saudis to counter the expanding influence of Iran, which has gained significant sway in Arab countries like Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

Hadi, the internationally recognized Yemeni president, was pushed out of the capital, Sanaa, in February. He then attempted to establish an authority in Aden before being forced to flee to Riyadh, the Saudi capital, last month.

In a media briefing in Riyadh this week, a Saudi military spokesman painted a positive picture of the offensive in neighboring Yemen, saying that Houthi militias had been isolated in Aden and that groups of rebels were abandoning the fight. Saudi officials have argued that a two-week time frame is too short to judge the operation’s outcome and have emphasized that they are moving carefully to avoid civilian casualties.

The Saudi-led coalition, which the U.S. government supports with intelligence and weapons, consists of mostly Arab and Sunni Muslim countries, and the level of quiet coordination among their armed forces has impressed analysts. The United Arab Emirates and Jordan are believed to have joined Saudi Arabia in conducting air raids that have destroyed scores of military bases and arms depots, said Theodore Karasik, a Dubai-based analyst on Middle Eastern military issues. The Saudis also have received support from Egypt’s navy in patrolling the coast of Yemen, he said.

Still, Karasik said, Houthi rebels appear to have successfully hidden from bombardment significant stores of weapons, possibly by moving them to the insurgents’ mountainous northern stronghold of Saada. To destroy those arms and persuade the Houthis to halt their offensive and agree to peace talks, a ground attack would be required, he said.

“This illustrates that air power alone cannot rid enemy ground forces of their weapons and capability,” Karasik said. “It makes them scatter, and it makes them hide their weapons for a later day.”


Saudi airstrikes in Yemen View Graphic 

Difficult choices

Ground troops would certainly face stiff resistance from the Houthi militiamen. Seasoned guerrilla fighters, they seized parts of southern Saudi Arabia during a brief war in 2009, killing over 100 Saudi troops.

Saudi Arabia has not ruled out a ground attack, but its allies appear wary of such a move. The kingdom has asked Pakistan to commit troops to the campaign, but that country is deeply divided over participating in an operation that could anger its own Shiite minority.

Though fraught with risk, continued airstrikes and a possible ground incursion may be the only choices that Saudi Arabia sees itself as having, said Imad Salamey, a Middle East expert at Lebanese American University. He said that officials in Riyadh probably are concerned that relenting could be perceived as weakness, especially by Iran.

Saudi Arabia also considers Yemen to be its backyard, he noted. “As far as the Saudis are concerned, this is a fight for their homeland, the existence of their regime.”

On Thursday, Iranian leaders issued strong condemnations of the Saudi-directed strikes. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called them a “crime and a genocide” in a televised speech.

Crumbling support

The Yemen campaign is part of an increasingly assertive Saudi policy in the region that is driven in part by what analysts say is concern over a possible agreement on Iran’s nuclear program. The Saudis fear such a deal could amount to U.S. recognition of Iran’s growing influence in the region.

The Saudis have said that they want to restore Hadi’s government. But the president’s support base — both in the splintered military and among the public – appears to be crumbling.

Many residents say they resent how Hadi and fellow exiled leaders cheer on coalition assaults from abroad as Aden residents confront heavily armed Houthi militiamen and their allies.

“He’s only ever let us down,” said Ali Mohammed, 28, an unemployed resident of Aden, referring to Hadi.

Wadah al-Dubaish, 40, who is leading a militia in Aden fighting the Houthis, said that Hadi is no longer welcome in the city. “We don’t want him here and don’t want to see his face here,” he said.

In other areas where anti-Houthi sentiment runs high, Hadi’s stock also appears to be falling. Ahmed Othman, a politician in the southern city of Taiz who opposes the Houthis, blamed Hadi for not organizing military resistance against the rebels. He also expressed worry about unidentified fighters who are increasingly staging attacks on Houthi positions in the city.

“The biggest concern we have now in Taiz is the absence of security,” he said.

In provinces where opposition to the Houthis runs high, especially in the south, tribal forces have played an increasingly prominent role in opposing the rebels.

Farea al-Muslimi, a Yemeni analyst and visiting scholar at the Carnegie Middle East Center, said that mounting civilian casualties from the coalition air raids have fanned public anger. So, too, have worsening shortages of food and water, he added.

He said the chaos is creating fertile ground for extremist groups like AQAP. The group, which uses Yemen as a base to stage attacks in the West, has seized significant territory during the fighting, including Yemen’s fifth-largest city as well as a military installation on the border with Saudi Arabia.

It may be impossible to put Yemen back together, Muslimi said.

“The days of a Yemen that could be run by one person who could be dealt with and who could take care of things are gone,” he said.

That leaves the Saudis with no obvious military or diplomatic exit, he added. “This is becoming their Vietnam.”


Ali al-Mujahed in Sanaa contributed to this report.


Hugh Naylor is a Beirut-based correspondent for The Post. He has reported from over a dozen countries in the Middle East for such publications as The National, an Abu Dhabi-based newspaper, and The New York Times.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.ibtimes.com/germany-tank...surrect-100-cold-war-era-war-machines-1877721

Germany Tanks: Amid Ukraine Crisis, German Army To Resurrect 100 Cold War-Era War Machines

By Philip Ross †y@ThisIsPRo ‰Òp.ross@ibtimes.com on April 10 2015 3:10 PM EDT

The German army plans to resurrect more than 100 inoperative tanks, a move it says will ensure that its troops are ready to respond to the escalating Ukraine crisis at the flip of a switch. The military will pay the defense ministry 22 million euros ($23.6 million) to take the tanks out of storage and modernize them beginning in 2017, the Associated Press reported.

In the wake of the Cold War, Germany¡¦s active tank fleet dropped from 3,500 armored vehicles to just 225. "The ministry has decided to raise the upper limit for the future to 328," a defense ministry spokesman said during a news conference on Friday, Reuters reported.

Because of Germany¡¦s shrunken tank fleet, different units are often forced to share heavy equipment, which can be a tedious process. The military hopes troops will be able to respond to situations quicker if they don¡¦t have to constantly swap around tanks. "This can only succeed if the equipment does not need to be first moved around through the country,¡¨ the spokesman said.

In March 2014, on the heels of the Ukrainian revolution, Russia annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea, a move that was widely criticized as a violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for the country giving up its nuclear weapons stockpile. The event tipped off months of fighting between Russian and Ukrainian forces.

Russia¡¦s aggression in Ukraine has sent chills through the region, reflecting a restlessness not felt since the Cold War. The U.S. has stepped up its military presence in several Baltic countries in response to Russia¡¦s increased presence there. "Russia is threatening nearly everybody; it is their way," U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said during a recent visit to Lithuania. "They want to intimidate the Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine and Romania, country after country. And the question is, do you let the bully get away with that or do you stand up and say 'no, you can threaten, but we will not allow you to run over us.¡¦"

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm........

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/04/how-sri-lanka-won-the-war/

How Sri Lanka Won the War

Lessons in strategy from an overlooked victory

By Peter Layton
April 09, 2015

2.4k Shares
62 Comments

How to win a civil war in a globalized world where insurgents skillfully exploit offshore resources? With most conflicts now being such wars, this is a question many governments are trying to answer. Few succeed, with one major exception being Sri Lanka where, after 25 years of civil war the government decisively defeated the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and created a peace that appears lasting. This victory stands in stark contrast to the conflicts fought by well-funded Western forces in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade. How did Sri Lanka succeed against what many considered the most innovative and dangerous insurgency force in the world? Three main areas stand out.

First, the strategic objective needs to be appropriate to the enemy being fought. For the first 22 years of the civil war the government’s strategy was to bring the LTTE to the negotiating table using military means. Indeed, this was the advice foreign experts gave as the best and only option. In 2006, just before the start of the conflict’s final phase, retired Indian Lieutenant General AS Kalkat in 2006 declared, “There is no armed resolution to the conflict. The Sri Lanka Army cannot win the war against the Lankan Tamil insurgents.”

Indeed, the LTTE entered negotiations five times, but talks always collapsed, leaving a seemingly stronger LTTE even better placed to defeat government forces. In mid-2006, sensing victory was in its grasp, the LTTE deliberately ended the Norwegian-brokered ceasefire and initiated the so-called Eelam War IV. In response, the Sri Lankan government finally decided to change its strategic objective, from negotiating with the LTTE to annihilating it.

To succeed, a strategy needs to take into account the adversary. In this case it needed to be relevant to the nature of the LTTE insurgency. Over the first 22 years of the civil war, the strategies of successive Sri Lankan governments did not fulfill this criterion. Eventually, in late 2005 a new government was elected that choose a different strategic objective that matched the LTTE’s principal weaknesses while negating their strengths.

The LTTE’s principal problem was its finite manpower base. Only 12 percent of Sri Lanka’s population were Lankan Tamils and of these it was believed that only some 300,000 actively supported the LTTE. Moreover, the LTTE’s legitimacy as an organization was declining. By 2006, the LTTE relied on conscription – not volunteers – to fill its ranks and many of these were children. At the operational level some seeming strengths could also be turned against the LTTE, including its rigid command structure, a preference for fighting conventional land battles, and a deep reliance on international support.

Grand Strategy

Second, success requires a grand strategy. A grand strategy defines the peace sought, intelligently combines diplomacy, economics, military actions, and information operations, and considers the development of the capabilities the nation needs to succeed. The new government decided not to continue with the narrowly focused military strategies that had failed its predecessors, but rather adopt a comprehensive whole-of-nation grand strategy to guide lower-level activities.

In the economic sphere, the new government decided to allocate some 4 percent of GDP to defense and increase the armed forces budget some 40 percent. This would significantly strain the nation’s limited fiscal resources so annual grants and loans of some $1 billion were sought from China to ease the burden. Other forms of financial assistance, including lines of credit for oil and arms purchases, were provided by Iran, Libya, Russia and Pakistan.

Diplomatically, the government took steps to isolate the LTTE, which received some 60 percent of its funding and most of its military equipment from offshore. This succeeded and over time the group was banned in some 32 countries. Importantly, a close working relationship was formed with India, the only country able to meaningfully interfere with the new government’s grand strategy. The U.S. in the post-9/11 counterterrorism era also proved receptive to the government’s intentions of destroying the world’s premier suicide bomber force. America assisted by disrupting LTTE offshore military equipment procurement, sharing intelligence, providing a Coast Guard vessel, and supplying an important national naval command and control system. Canada and the European Union also came on board by outlawing the LTTE’s funding networks in their countries, severely impacting the group’s funding base.

Internally, the government set out to gain the active support of the public. By 2006 many Sri Lankans were war weary and doubted the new government’s abilities to achieve a victory no one else could. To win popular support the government realized that development activities had to be continued, not stopped while the war was fought. Moreover, various national schemes addressing poverty needed to be sustained, a prominent example being the poor farmer fertilizer subsidy scheme. These measures made financing the war very difficult and foreign financial support important, but were essential to convincing the people that there was a peace worth fighting for. The measures worked. Before 2005, the Army had difficulty recruiting 3,000 soldiers annually; by late 2008, the Army was recruiting 3,000 soldiers a month.
The increased budgets and popular support allowed the Sri Lankan armed forces to grow significantly. The Army in particular was expanded, growing from some 120,000 personnel in 2005 to more than 200,000 by 2009.

Astute Tactics

Third, to meet the ends that the grand strategy seeks, the focus of the lower-level, subordinate military strategy needed to be exploiting the enemy’s weaknesses while countering its strengths. The LTTE had limited numbers of soldiers, fielding only some 20,000-30,000, and with astute tactics could be overwhelmed. In this regard, the government forces had already won a major success before Eelam War IV started in mid-2006.

In late 2004, a senior LTTE military commander, Colonel Karuna, defected, bringing with him some 6,000 LTTE cadres and seriously damaging the LTTE’s support base in Eastern Sri Lankan. The mass defection provided crucial intelligence that offered deep insights into the LTTE as a fighting organization. Crucially, for the first time, the government intelligence agencies now had Lankan Tamils willing to return to LTTE-held areas, collect information, and report back. The scale of the defection also clearly showed that the legitimacy of the LTTE was waning.

At the start of Eelam War IV, the LTTE were able to operate throughout the country. There were no safe rear areas as high-profile suicide attacks on the foreign minister, defense secretary, the Pakistani high commissioner and the army chief underlined. This capability was countered by using the enlarged armed forces and police on internal security tasks, and by developing a Civil Defence Force of armed villagers. Operations were also conducted to find and destroy LTTE terrorist cells operating within the capital and some large towns. This defense-in-depth neutralized the LTTE’s well-proven ability to undertake both leadership decapitation strikes and terrorist attacks on vulnerable civilian targets.

These defensive measures in the south and the west of the country allowed the Sri Lankan military strategy in the north and east to be enemy-focused rather than population-centric. The primary aim there was to attack the LTTE and force them onto the defensive rather than try to protect the population from the LTTE – the conventional Western doctrine. The areas under LTTE control were accordingly attacked in multiple simultaneous operations to confuse, overload, tie down and thin out the defenders. Tactical advantage was taken of the Army’s new much greater numbers.

In these operations, small, well-trained, highly-mobile groups proved key. These groups infiltrated behind the LTTE’s front lines attacking high-value targets, providing real-time intelligence and disrupting LTTE lines of resupply and communication. Groups down to section level were trained and authorized to call in precision air, artillery and mortar attacks on defending LTTE units. The combination of frontal and in-depth assaults meant that the LTTE forces lost their freedom of maneuver, were pinned down, and could be defeated in detail.

The small groups included Special Forces operating deep and a distinct Sri Lankan innovation: large numbers of well-trained Special Infantry Operations Teams (SIOT) operating closer. The considerably expanded 10,000 strong Special Forces proved highly capable in attacking LTTE military leadership targets, removing very experienced commanders when they were most needed and causing considerable disruption to the inflexible hierarchical command system. Of the SIOTs, Army Chief General Fonseka, who introduced the concept, notes that: “we also fought with four-man teams… trained to operate deep in the jungle…. be self-reliant and operate independently. So a battalion had large numbers of four-man groups that allowed us to operate from wider fronts.” When Eelam War IV started there were 1500 SIOT trained troops; by 2008 there were more than 30,000.

Learning Organization

With enhanced training in complex jungle fighting operations, Sri Lankan solders generally became more capable, more professional, and more confident. The Army could now undertake increasingly difficult tasks day or night while maintaining a high tempo. The Army had became a ‘learning organization’ that embraced tactical level initiatives and innovations.

The LTTE was unique amongst global insurgency groups in also having a capable navy that conducted two main tasks: interdiction of government coastal shipping and logistic sea transport.

For interdiction operations the LTTE developed two classes of small, fast boats: fiberglass-hulled, attack craft armed with machine guns and grenade launchers, and low-profile, armored suicide boats fitted with contact-fused, large explosive charges. In Eelam War IV, sizeable clusters of some 30 attack craft and 8-10 suicide craft operated as swarms, mingling with local trawler fleets to make defense difficult. These were eventually defeated by even larger counter-swarms of 60-70 government fast attack craft that used targeting information from some 20 shore-based coastal radars coordinated through the command and control system the U.S. had provided.

For sea transport operations the LTTE used eleven large cargo ships that would pick up military equipment purchased from around the globe, station themselves beyond the Navy’s reach some 2,000 kms from Sri Lanka and then dash in close to the coast and quickly offload to waiting LTTE trawlers. In Eelam War IV though, the Navy used three recently acquired, second-hand offshore patrol vessels (including the donated ex-U.S. Coast Guard Cutter) combined with innovative tactics and intelligence support from India and the U.S. to strike at the LTTE’s transport ships. The last ship was sunk in late 2007 more than 3,000 km from Sri Lanka and close to Australia’s Cocos Islands.

The combination of the three factors of adopting a strategic objective matched to the adversary, using a grand strategy that focused the whole-of-the-nation on this objective, and adopting an optimized, subordinate military strategy proved devastating. The LTTE was completely destroyed. The government proved able to change its strategies in response to continuing failure and win, whereas the LTTE doggedly stuck to its previously successful formula and lost.

Some have criticized the Sri Lankan victory as only being possible because the government disregarded civilian casualties and used military force bluntly and brutally. This view correctly emphasizes that wars are by their nature cruel and violent and should not be entered into or continued lightly. However, it unhelpfully neglects critical factors and explains little. As this article has discussed, victory came to the side with the most successful strategies – even if it took the government more than 22 years to find them.

In this regard, a comparison with the two other Western-led counterinsurgency wars of the period comparing soldiers and civilians killed is instructive:


Breakdown of Overall Deaths in the Conflict

Category of those Killed Sri Lanka War (1983-2009) Iraq War
(2004-09) Afghanistan War (2001-14)
Friendly Force Personnel 29% 17% 29%
Enemy Force Personnel 37% 22% 46%
Civilians 34% 61% 25%



These were three different civil wars that each featured counterinsurgency strategies that progressively evolved. All involved significant civilian casualties with Iraq markedly the worse with 61 percent of those killed being civilians and Afghanistan the best at 25 percent. The Sri Lankan war with 34 percent of those killed overall being civilians, and thus broadly comparable to Afghanistan, then seems somewhat unremarkable except that the Sri Lankan war was decisively won. In Iraq and Afghanistan there was no victory, there remains no peace and people continue to die.

In Sri Lanka the guns fells silent in 2009, there is 7 percent GDP growth, low unemployment, and steadily rising per capita incomes. Even an economically poor country it seems can win the peace in a civil war. The key is to focus on getting the strategy right.

Peter Layton has considerable defense experience and a doctorate in grand strategy.