WAR 04-11-2015-to-04-17-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
(157) 03-14-2015-to-03-20-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...20-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(158) 03-21-2015-to-03-27-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...27-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(159) 03-28-2015-to-04-03-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...03-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(160) 04-04-2015-to-04-10-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...10-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deuts...leopard-2-kampfpanzer-bekommen-a-1027894.html

Verteidigung: Bundeswehr rüstet sich mit mehr Kampfpanzern aus

Die Ukraine-Krise hat Folgen für die Ausstattung der Bundeswehr: In den kommenden Jahren soll nach Informationen des SPIEGEL die Zahl an einsatzbereiten "Leopard 2"-Panzern erheblich aufgestockt werden.

Freitag, 10.04.2015 – 15:07 Uhr
Kommentieren | 218 Kommentare

Die Bundeswehr will in den kommenden Jahren weit mehr Kampfpanzer des Typs "Leopard 2" einsatzbereit halten als bisher erwartet. Nach internen Plänen sollen nach Informationen des SPIEGEL in Zukunft 328 "Leopard" statt der bislang angestrebten Zahl von 225 Fahrzeugen beim Heer zur Verfügung stehen. (Diese Meldung stammt aus dem SPIEGEL. Den neuen SPIEGEL finden Sie hier.)

Die Bundeswehrführung trug im Verteidigungsministerium vor, dass eine Vollausstattung der geplanten sechs deutschen Panzerbataillone, die jeweils aus 44 "Leopard" bestehen, eine Aufstockung zwingend nötig mache. Hinzu kämen noch 56 Ausbildungsfahrzeuge und 8 beim Wehrbeschaffungsamt.

Derzeit sind die meisten Verbände nicht zu 100 Prozent mit Panzern ausgerüstet. Nur im Ernstfall sollen sie zusätzliche Fahrzeuge aus den Ausbildungsstätten der Bundeswehr bekommen. Die geplante Aufstockung ist eine Folge der erhöhten Alarmbereitschaft, die wegen der Krise zwischen Russland und der Nato entstanden ist.


Was im neuen SPIEGEL steht, erfahren Sie im SPIEGEL-Brief - dem kostenlosen Newsletter der Redaktion. Jetzt hier anmelden.

__

Translated via google.....

Defense: Army equips with more battle tanks from

Ukraine crisis has consequences for the equipment of the Bundeswehr: In the coming years, the number of deployable "Leopard 2" -Panzern to be substantially increased by information obtained by SPIEGEL.

Friday, 04/10/2015 - 15:07 clock
Comment | 218 Comments

The armed forces' in the coming years hold much more battle tank of the type "Leopard 2" ready than previously expected. According to internal plans are to be available for information obtained by SPIEGEL in future 328 "Leopard" instead of the previous target number of 225 vehicles in the Army. (This message comes from SPIEGEL. The new MIRROR, click here.)

The Bundeswehr leadership argued in the Defense Department that a full equipment of the planned six German tank battalions, each consisting of 44 "Leopard", an increase'm absolutely necessary. Addition, there would still 56 training vehicles and 8 at military procurement office.

Currently, most organizations are not equipped to 100 percent with tanks. Only in case of emergency they should get additional vehicles from the training centers of the Bundeswehr. The planned increase is a result of increased alert that has arisen because of the crisis between Russia and NATO.


What does the new MIRROR, MIRROR please refer to the letter - the free newsletter from the editors. Sign up here.

__

http://www.un-register.org/NationalHoldings/CountryDetail.aspx?Register_Id=2311

Germany 2013

A B C D
Category (I-VII) Active Military Description Comments

I. Battle tanks

815 147 Leopard 1, 668 Leopard 2

II. Armoured combat vehicles

2245 1179 Marder, 402 Tpz-1 Fuchs, 127 GTK Boxer, 240 Wiesel, 77 BV 206 S, 220 SpWg FENNEK

III. Large calibre artillery systems

387 10 FH M101, 2 PzH M109, 166 PzH 2000, 124 Tampella, 85 MLRS

387 10 FH M101, 2 PzH M109, 166 PzH 2000, 124 Tampella, 85 MLRS

387 10 FH M101, 2 PzH M109, 166 PzH 2000, 124 Tampella, 85 MLRS

387 10 FH M101, 2 PzH M109, 166 PzH 2000, 124 Tampella, 85 MLRS

IV. (a) Combat aircraft

269 137 Tornado, 100 EF-2000, 24 F-4F, 8 P-3C Orion

V. (a) Attack helicopters

159 110 BO-105 PAH-1, 27 UH TIGER, 22 SEA LYNX

VI. Warships

63 12 Frigates, 5 Corvettes, 18 MCM Boats, 8 Fast Patrol Boats (PBFA), 14 Auxiliary Ships, 6 Submarines (SSK Type U 212)

VII. (a) Missiles and missile launchers

1527

VII. (b) Man-Portable Air-Defence Systems (MANPADS).

835 MANPADS (STINGER)
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/10/us-mali-talks-idUSKBN0N126620150410

World | Fri Apr 10, 2015 5:23pm EDT
Related: World, United Nations, Africa, Mali

Mali rebels refuse to initial peace accord in current form

BAMAKO

(Reuters) - Mali's rebel coalition said on Friday it was not ready to give preliminary approval to a United Nations-backed peace proposal a day after the government announced that it would.

The statement on behalf of the Coordination of Azawad Movements (CMA) is another setback for mediators and the Malian government, which have been urging Tuareg-led separatists to sign for weeks.

It received initial approval from the government and another coalition of pro-government armed groups in early March.

"... The CMA states that it can not initial the so-called agreement for peace and reconciliation in Mali in its current state and on the date indicated," a CMA statement said, reminding mediators of a list of amendments to the document they submitted last month.

A ceremony to celebrate the initialing of the proposal had been planned for April 15 in Algiers, where mediators have worked for months to thrash out a deal.

The negotiations aim to prevent future revolts by Tuareg-led insurgents who have risen up four times since Mali's independence in 1960.

In the most recent rebellion in 2012, they allied with Islamic militants and briefly seized the desert north until a French-led military operation scattered them. Diplomats also hope that a deal will free up Malian and international forces to tackle the militants who remain a threat.


(Writing by Emma Farge; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/korean_peninsula/AJ201504110025

Pyongyang intent on provocation, but no sign of nuclear test, U.S., South Korea say

April 11, 2015
REUTERS

SEOUL--North Korea is intent on using missile launches to increase regional tension, but it does not appear to be preparing for a fourth nuclear test or long-range missile launch, the U.S. and South Korean defence ministers said on April 10.

However, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and his South Korean counterpart, Han Min-koo, said they did not discuss the possible deployment of an advanced missile defense system, the THAAD, in South Korea to counter Pyongyang's nuclear missile threat.

"We're not at the point yet where we would begin discussions with anyone around the world about where the THAAD batteries in production are going," Carter said.

China and Russia have both spoken out against placing THAAD, or Terminal High Altitude Area Defence, in South Korea.

North Korea fired two surface-to-air missiles off its west coast just before Carter arrived in the region on April 7 to visit staunch U.S. allies Japan and South Korea. The country launched four short-range missiles off its west coast on April 3.

"As it demonstrated once again with its recent missile launches, North Korea is intent on continued provocation," Carter told a news conference in the South Korean capital, Seoul.

North Korea is under heavy sanctions over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

Not all North Korean short-range missile launches are in defiance of a U.N. ban on ballistic missile technology. The isolated country has, however, previously launched a long-range rocket it said was designed to carry a satellite into space.

Carter said the U.S. military was developing and preparing to deploy new weapons in the region including new stealth bombers and different classes of naval vessels.

North Korea accuses the United States of building up forces in the region with the aim of invading it and it denounces annual military exercises by the United States and South Korea as a prelude to war.

Han said North Korea did not appear to be preparing for another long-range rocket launch or nuclear test any time soon.

"We haven't seen or confirmed any signs of an additional North Korean nuclear or (long-range) missile test in the near future," he said.

"But given their past behavior, when their strategic objectives are not met, there is always the possibility that they will resort to provocations."

North Korea's first nuclear test, in 2006, was widely condemned by other countries. It tested again in 2009, and more recently in 2013, drawing criticism from China, the isolated North Korea's closest ally.

REUTERS
 

Housecarl

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

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-36922-Revisiting-the-sole-purpose-of-developing-Shaheen-III

Revisiting the ‘sole purpose’ of developing Shaheen III

Iqtidar Khan
Saturday, April 11, 2015
From Print Edition

ISLAMABAD: It was a rare occasion. The chief architect of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme, General (R) Khalid Kidwai decided that it was time to engage with the public and the forum was significant. It was the Carnegie’s International Conference on Nuclear Policy, ‘the grand nuke fest’ as some would call, attended by officials, experts and academics working on nuclear policies from around the world. The venue was significant too - Washington DC.

The general was forceful and assertive yet, diplomatic about the relations with India. He presented a nuanced case on the need for introducing battlefield nuclear weapons to the South Asian war theatre yet, dismissed the inherent command and control concerns with usual platitudes. The dichotomy was apparent.

After terming the nuclear weapons as the ‘weapons of peace’, he went on to take credit - and rightly so - for overseeing the transformation of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme from a ‘scientific complex’ to a ‘fully functional arsenal’. Every statement seemed calibrated until the general explained, rather bluntly, the rationale behind testing Shaheen III - a Pakistani land based Medium Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM) - which, according to the ISPR statement, is capable of carrying conventional as well as nuclear warheads to the range of 2,750 kilometres.

Many in Pakistan viewed the testing as an attempt to ‘deny India any safe haven’ to launch a second nuclear strike. This was also echoed by the general when he told the packed audience that the ‘sole purpose of developing Shaheen III’ was to give Pakistan the ability to target Nicobar and Adaman Islands (NAI) - a group of Islands separating Bay of Bengal from the Adaman Sea.

These islands historically gained little attention in New Delhi until 2001 when India established the Adaman and Nicobar Command (ANC). In recent times, India has invested heavily in developing strategic military assets over these islands and by the general’s comments it would be safe to conclude that the Pakistani nuclear planners believe that these islands add a significant value to India’s second strike capability.

In a world where Google Maps are no luxury, it didn’t take much to verify the validity or otherwise of the general’s claim.

A rather simple analysis revealed that in order to reach Nicobar and Adaman Islands, the missile would need to travel more than 3,200 kilometres if launched from Balochistan’s eastern border with Sindh, at least 3,000 kilometres if launched from the eastern most side of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and some 3,200 kilometres from Northern Areas of Pakistan. The 2,750 kilometres range of Shaheen III, therefore, is clearly not enough to target the NAI if launched from anywhere in these provinces.

However, if Shaheen III were to be fired from the eastern most sides of the Punjab, from a distance that is less than 70 kilometres from the eastern border with India, the range would just be enough to take out some targets in NAI. A similar check up on Sindh would tell that the missile’s range would barely be sufficient if launched from the South Eastern Sindh, from points that are again less than 70 kilometres away from the border.

Missiles of as much strategic importance as Shaheen III are stored and/or fired from a location where they are safe and minimally exposed to the enemy’s surprise attack. Targeting NAI would require Shaheen III to be placed dangerously close to the International Border with India hence, making it extremely vulnerable to an air or land attack; an extremely risky move militarily speaking. So, in Pakistan’s case, launch points near the border are anything but safe.

If one were to derive conclusions, it would be safe to say that the missile wouldn’t be able to deny India its ‘safe haven’ if launched from roughly 95 percent of the Pakistani territory. Launching it from the other 5 percent would deny Shaheen III its ‘safe haven’.

Mind you, General Kidwai is still a senior adviser to Pakistan’s Nuclear Command Authority and pretty much remains the brain behind the formulation of its nuclear weapons policies. One would doubt that the general was unaware of the above facts. This brings us back to the original question: What could be the ‘real’ purpose behind testing Shaheen III?

The answer might not lie in Adaman Islands but far from it; above the atmosphere in space: Between the exosphere and the thermosphere where not a single Pakistani indigenously launched satellite orbits.

Pakistan needs its own Satellite Launch Vehicle (SLV) to achieve this feat and a longer range multi staged technology, just like the one used in Shaheen III, is an important precursor for that.


The writer, a former visiting research fellow at the Co-operative Monitoring Centre Sandia National Labs and James Martin Centre for Non-Proliferation Studies, is Assistant Editor of the newspaper’s National Security Desk.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.the-newshub.com/business/iran-deal-may-spur-more-us-arms-sales

Iran deal may spur more U.S. arms sales

Paul Iddon in Business
10 Apr 2015, 19:45 GMT

Unprecedented is a word that is used far too much in political discourse. Nevertheless it would not be a stretch to say that the amount of weaponry both the United States and the United Kingdom have sold to Saudi Arabia and its Arab neighbours in recent years is unprecedented. Indeed the amount of arms sold by the United States during the two Obama administrations is the highest of any administration in decades. And, especially whereby the wider Middle East region is concerned, there will likely be more in the near future.

In 2010 the Saudis ordered approximately $60 billion worth of arms from the United States to massively expand its air power. The order consists of about eighty sophisticated F-15E Strike Eagle jets, seventy-two Black Hawk utility helicopters, seventy Apache helicopter gunships and thirty-six Little Bird attack helicopters. A package which, it goes without saying, will greatly expand the size and capabilities of the kingdoms air force. Britain is also set to deliver the Saudis at least seventy-two Eurofighter Typhoon jets. Possession of such hardware makes the Saudi air force among the most advanced technologically in the region – something which of course doesn't necessarily make it even competent or formidable power, we saw last June how, despite billions spent on military hardware and training, the Iraqi Army instantly fragmented due to disorganization and unpreparedness, especially on the command level.

Discounting everything they had before these orders the Saudis, and other Gulf states, have ordered enough weapons in the last five years alone to build a highly sophisticated defense force from scratch.

These record arms sales may be complimented by yet more arms sales in light of fears among these states in light of Iran reaching a deal agreement with the P5+1 nations on its nuclear program. These stated fears from these Gulf powers primarily revolve around what they perceive to be the general ascendency to regional and political power of the Shi'ite Muslim minority across the region, with Iranian backing.

Saudi Arabia, remember, was opposed to the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq by the Anglo-American coalition in 2003 partly because, even though they had participated in a war against it 12-years beforehand, they saw it as a neutered power which no longer posed a direct threat to them and was in fact beneficiary to their geo-strategic interests – since it was keeping Iran out of Iraq and the Shia majority inside Iraq itself brutally subdued. Since 2003 of course the majority Shia have much more of a say in Iraq's affairs since they are after all the majority.

Also, in the wake of the dramatic and violent rise of the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, Iran is becoming steadily more involved in Iraq by supporting its proxy militia forces there. At the same time the recent takeover of swaths of western Yemen by the Shi'ite Houthi tribe in Yemen to its south has seen to Saudi Arabia bringing the military's of friendly powers from across the wider region to bomb that group. A move which Iran has condemned.

And all of this comes as the U.S. administration is issuing security assurances and guarantees to the Saudis and its allies in light of the nuclear agreement they are seeking with Iran. Something which they fear will see to Iran attain a larger role in the region both economically and politically and in turn damage their regional interests. President Obama recently told The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that he seeks to “build their [the Gulf states] capacity so that they feel more confident about their ability to protect themselves from external aggression.”

Such a statement signals more arms may very well be on the way in the not-too-distant future. And at a time when these states, which may soon be facing inevitable political instability in the coming years, are already armed to the teeth with large quantities of qualitative armaments.

Regarding the political situation in Egypt the Obama administration is casting aside serious concerns about democracy and human rights in President Fattah el-Sisi's Egypt, a man who became president as a direct result of the July 2013 army coup against the Muslim Brotherhood government carried out while Sisi was chief of the Egyptian armed forces.

Egypt may soon be receiving more air-to-surface Hellfire missiles. Ideal weapons for targeting the Houthis in Yemen, a campaign Sisi's Egypt has joined in for numerous reasons. One suspects one of the prominent ones for his joining is the fact the Gulf states have invested billions in his regime to help keep it propped up as a bulwark against the Muslim Brotherhood – a group whose influence they fear and which Sisi's Egypt has banned and rigorously, not to mention violently, cracked down upon.

The Middle East is once again gripped by seemingly unending crises, presently we face the risk of a permanent break-up of both Iraq and Syria. In addition to this destructive instability and violence are leading to increased fears of yet more sectarian tensions, terrorism and bloodletting across the region. In Pakistan, for example, mere talk of Pakistani participation to the Saudi-led operation against the Houthis led to fears amongst the Shia minority in that country that they could be targeted by their own fellow Sunni citizens.

One wonders if such an enormous, not to mention rapid, influx of hi-tech weaponry will serve to stabilize and secure the region or simply serve to make the instability even more destructive and divisive.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Heads Up: "Realistic Military Training" In 7 SW States: Jade Helm 15
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ary-Training-quot-In-7-SW-States-Jade-Helm-15
__

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/blog/p...ice-records-shed-light-2014-military-training

Minneapolis police records shed light on 2014 military training

By Matt Ehling, Public Record Media
April 08, 2015
Comments 345

In August of 2014, military helicopters flew low over residential neighborhoods of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, engaged in a series of night-time training exercises. The exercises involved the Naval Warfare Development Group - a "special forces" component of the U.S. Navy - and were aimed at enhancing urban combat tactics.

Just as they had two years earlier, military personnel had come to the Twin Cities to conduct counter-terrorism training operations in an urban environment. And just as before, those operations commenced with little advance notice to the public.

Follow-up to 2012 exercise

Records obtained from the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) by Public Record Media (PRM) indicate that, in many ways, the 2014 training was built upon foundations laid two years earlier. Correspondence between the U.S. Navy and the MPD involved many of the same figures who participated in the 2012 operation - most centrally, those tasked to the Minneapolis SWAT unit.

An April, 2014 e-mail from MPD's Jonathan Kingsbury to SWAT Commander Robert Skoro references the upcoming military exercise, and notes that "it is very similar to the August 2012 event." Kingsbury also states that the operation "has been briefed and approved by the Mayor's office … and is being hosted by the SWAT officers of the Minneapolis Police Department."

As referenced by Kingsbury, the 2014 exercises had been solicited by the U.S. military via a letter delivered to Minneapolis mayor Betsy Hodges. The letter requested the Mayor's support for "low-intensity urban tactical training" by special forces personnel who are "constantly refining tactics to learn how to most effectively engage the enemy while ensuring the safety of non-combatants."

As with the 2012 exercises, it appears that plans were made to provide cross-training exercises for Minneapolis police officers. "Hopefully," Kingsbury's states in his e-mail, "we will have the opportunity to get some of our folks into the game like we did last time."

Low-profile sought

Throughout the MPD documents, repeated references are made to the Navy's desire to keep the profile of the event as discreet as possible. A January, 2014 e-mail from MPD Deputy Chief Edie Frizell characterizes the training mission in just those terms. "This is a highly respected and security sensitive effort," Frizell writes. "The training was conducted in 2012 in Minneapolis with little or no fanfare - that is the way they want it."

Frizell's message states that strict security protocols extended even to the Navy's initial, written solicitation. Frizell recounts that the Navy's letter was hand delivered, and that face-to-face planning conversations were required "because of the sensitivity of the training."

The Navy's letter to Mayor Hodges expands on the security concerns surrounding the exercise, and explicitly requests that advance notice of the event be limited. "Due to the sensitivities of this training," the letter states, "we respectfully request that any information pertaining to this training be excluded from automatic public release."

Documents written seven months later - just prior to the the training itself - indicate that the Navy's wishes appear to have been adhered to by the MPD. An e-mail from Jonathan Kingsbury to Robert Skoro notes that a memo on the exercise had been disseminated to precinct commanders, but that it did not contain "much info."

Training schedule

Messages traded among MPD personnel indicate that police were directly involved in portions of the Navy operation, and also provided perimeter security at the various training sites.

The presence of low-flying, black helicopters was the most obvious sign to the public that military training was underway, but records show that Naval exercises had already been occurring a week previous to this. Naval forces had commenced ground operations on August 11th, independent of aerial support. Helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft arrived on August 17th, and the "full mission profile" of combined air-ground operations ran from August 18 to 21.

A closing ceremony for the exercises was held at the Air National Guard museum on August 21st, just prior to the commencement of the final exercise. An unidentified federal official notified MPD personnel that the event was a closed ceremony, but that "DOD specifically invited all of you to attend." Chief Harteau's administrative assistant replied that her schedule was not open at that time, but that the Chief "sent her best."

Closer military-police collaboration?

While much about the 2014 exercise appears to have paralleled its 2012 predecessor, MPD documents indicate that there were some notable - and perhaps significant - changes to the training regime.

Documents obtained by PRM in 2012 suggested that the Navy's training operation was - at the time - undertaken for the purpose of preparing special operations forces for foreign deployment. However, records relating to the 2014 exercise include hints that some aspects of that training may have had a domestic focus.

According to an e-mail from an anonymous federal official, "There is a significant change in our ‘template’ since the August 2012 exercise," and as such "we are under new DOD regulatory guidance for this type of training."

The military's solicitation letter to Mayor Hodges included a list of training specifics that mirrored language in its 2012 letter. Those specifics included training for "low visibility movement, low-altitude precision helicopter operations, surveillance, and counter-surveillance." However, the Navy's 2014 letter also stated that its exercises would help its personnel in "preserving evidence for criminal prosecution" and that the relationships established with urban law enforcement professionals would be critical to the Navy's "future success."

"Evidence collection" highlighted

Due to the existence of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, federal military personnel have largely been barred from participating in civilian law enforcement in a direct, operational capacity. While Congress has provided Posse Comitatus exceptions for logistics and counter-narcotics support, federal law still prohibits military personnel from engaging in arrests, evidence collection, and other tasks in support of domestic public safety and criminal prosecution.

Do the references to "evidence collection" by Navy personnel indicate that the military is actively preparing to undertake such operations on the domestic front? Or do the references point to some other function?

One possibility might be that Navy Special Forces personnel are being trained to preserve material from foreign combat zones in the service of later, federal terrorism prosecutions. It should be noted that criminal prosecution was a cornerstone of the Clinton administration's approach to counter-terrorism. During the 1990s, multiple foreign nationals were brought before American courts, including the principals in the bombings of the USS Cole and the U.S. Embassy in Kenya.

In more recent years, military personnel have been instrumental in the removal of computers and material from foreign combat zones. For instance, in May of 2011, Special Forces personnel obtained thousands of pages of documents from the raid of Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan - material that held a high (and ongoing) intelligence value. The same material might also yield valuable evidence for possible criminal trials of al-Qeada operatives upon their later capture.

At the same time, references to the Navy's increased collaboration with "urban law enforcement professionals" clearly indicates a domestic purpose to some of the training, but the extent is impossible to determine from the MPD documents alone. PRM has two other pending record requests related to the 2014 exercise, and hopes to make available additional details about this matter soon.

MPD inquiry into training event

Despite the Navy's wishes for a low-profile event, the fact that training missions occurred over residential areas spurred more public attention and media coverage than in 2012. That coverage registered a high level of public concern about the safety and implications of the operation, and also generated a strong response from city officials who had been kept out of the communications loop.

Minneapolis City Council Member Blong Yang was quoted on KSTP TV as saying that the Minneapolis City Council was "not notified of the event." Likewise, Council Member Cam Gordon told the City Pages newspaper that he felt "like an idiot" for being unable to respond to constituent questions with specific information. In the aftermath of the event, Council Member Yang called for public hearings.

MPD records indicate that inquiries had also commenced within the police department itself. An August 29, 2014 e-mail from MPD's Tony Schoenberger to SWAT chief Robert Skoro indicates that Chief Harteau had commissioned a "review" of events surrounding the training exercise. Schoenberger's message states that the review "is not an investigation and there is no allegation of misconduct or inappropriate action by anyone involved." Instead, he notes that the intention of the review is for the Chief to "better and more thoroughly understand the role of MPD in this training."

The existence of this inquiry apparently delayed PRM's access to police records for a time. September, 2014 e-mails from MPD's David Pena to PRM stated that documents related to the training exercise were part of an "internal investigation" and thus could not be disclosed at the time.

PRM will be posting additional training documents as it receives them from the St. Paul Police Department and federal officials.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/11/us-pakistan-murders-idUSKBN0N205M20150411

World | Sat Apr 11, 2015 3:34am EDT
Related: World

Gunmen kill 20 sleeping laborers in Pakistan's Baluchistan

QUETTA, Pakistan | By Gul Yousufzai

(Reuters) - Gunmen in Pakistan killed 20 laborers as they slept early on Saturday, a government official said, in what appeared to be the latest violence by separatist rebels battling for control of resources in gas- and mineral-rich Baluchistan province.

Rebels have been fighting a low-intensity insurgency in the province for decades, demanding an end to what they see as the exploitation of their resources by people from other parts of Pakistan.

The workers killed at a construction site 15 km (9 miles) from the town of Turbat were mostly from outside Baluchistan which suggested the Baluch rebels were responsible, said provincial interior minister Akbar Hussain Durrani.

"All were sleeping in their camp when they were targeted," he said.

Three wounded survivors said the gunmen opened fire on the sleeping men with automatic weapons, then escaped on motorcycles, he said.

There was no claim of responsibility.

The separatists frequently kidnap and kill civilians from other parts of the country and also attack gas facilities, infrastructure and security posts.

Baluchistan, which borders Afghanistan and Iran is Pakistan's poorest and most thinly populated province.

Human rights groups say the security agencies often arrest ethnic Baluch, torture them and dump their bodies in a policy that has become known as "Kill and Dump."

Some families say that children as young as 11 have been arrested and their bodies later found in shallow graves.

Baluchistan is also home to Taliban insurgents, drug smugglers, kidnapping rings, sectarian militants, and government-backed paramilitary death squads.


(Writing by Katharine Houreld; Editing by Robert Birsel)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/11/us-saudi-security-shooting-suspects-idUSKBN0N205220150411

World | Sat Apr 11, 2015 3:00am EDT
Related: World, Saudi Arabia

Saudi authorities catch police shooting suspect

RIYADH

(Reuters) - Saudi Arabia's security services have detained a Saudi Arabian man on suspicion of shooting dead two policemen and wounding two others in separate attacks in Riyadh on Wednesday and in March, state media reported on Saturday, citing the Interior Ministry.

Police found the weapon and car used for the shootings at the home of Rami Abdullah Thulab al-Shammari, according to a ministry statement published by state news agency SPA on Saturday.

Last year militant group Islamic State called on sympathisers in the kingdom to assassinate members of the security services or governnment, non-Muslim residents and members of the Shi'ite Muslim minority. Al Qaeda has also vowed to bring down Saudi Arabia's ruling family.

Although the conservative Sunni Muslim kingdom imposes a version of sharia law supported by jihadists, the ruling family are seen by some as having betrayed Islam through having strong ties with Western countries.

Three other Saudi citizens and two Yemenis, one of whom was living in the kingdom illegally, have also been detained on suspicion of trying to help Shammari flee the country. He was detained in Jizan province close to the border with Yemen, the Interior Ministry said.

Riyadh's police spokesman said on March 30 that shots fired from an unidentified car had injured two policemen in a patrol car late the previous night, and said on Wednesday that two policemen had been killed after a similar attack.


(Reporting by Angus McDowall; Editing by Louise Ireland)
 

Housecarl

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

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.651194

Iran deal robs Israel of its main enemy. So what now?

Israel may be forced to freeze its plans for a preemptive strike, allowing the Israeli military to return to its proper dimensions. There may even be room for a strategic move of the diplomatic kind.

By Amir Oren | Apr. 10, 2015 | 3:00 AM | Comments 9

On October 25, 1956, four days before the Sinai Campaign started and before the Israeli cabinet had given its approval for IDF operations in the Sinai, IDF chief of staff Moshe Dayan gathered the General Staff and justified to them linking up with France and Britain against Egypt. Israel must, said Dayan, "One, carry out our operation in a manner that we will benefit as much as possible from the actions of others. By comparison, we are riding a bicycle and they are riding a motor vehicle, and it is worthwhile for us to grab on. Two, we must be sure not to be run over by that same car."

Last week, in the Ben-Gurion House in Tel Aviv, where then-prime minister and defense minister David Ben-Gurion lay ill during the Sinai Campaign (and where, as the former authority, in May 1967 he tormented the then-IDF Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin until he had a breakdown), Air Force commander Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel presented a logical structure that complemented Dayan's from six decades earlier. Eshel is more than just an outstanding Air Force commander. He is a central member of the "cabinet" of Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot, who is a year younger than him, alongside deputy chief of staff Yair Golan, one of only two major generals to have held that position since 2008.

The question that interested him last week at the conference dedicated to Operation Focus (Moked), the massive airstrikes that opened the Six-Day War in 1967, which were carried out by surprise and with amazing success - with former Air Force commander and Deputy Chief of Staff Ezer Weizmann being the main proponent of its planning and implementation - was whether the Air Force was capable of repeating its achievements and surprise in a new, though not identical, version of the preemptive attack.

The summary of Eshel's doctrine: Yes, the Air Force has incredible capabilities, much greater than those in 1967, to carry out and surprise; and it is important that the decision makers, the political leadership, trust in its existence and its ability to carry out any order - as long as the double price of a preemptive strike is clear in advance in order to manage expectations with the cabinet (and the public) beforehand.

The price that will have to be paid

The first part of the price will have to be paid to the powers in the form of relations with Israel. For example, in the wording of the cease-fire resolution, which will be presented to the UN Security Council. If Israel attacks out of the blue, without a specific justification, it will take the risk of global enmity and even sanctions against it. Dayan's bicycle was French-made, and suffered an embargo from de Gaulle - and now they are American made; in October 1973, after the supply of Phantom jets and air-to-surface missiles was made conditional on the commitment to avoid a preemptive airstrike, it was one of Dayan's considerations (and of prime minister Golda Meir) against such an attack, alongside the fear of pressure for a withdrawal from the territories is Israel was painted as the aggressor. And even if these countries will not be enthusiastic about harming Israel, unions and other organizations could very well sabotage the supply chain of weapons and other essential items.

The second part of the price to be paid will be handed to the Israeli homefront. The Air Force will hit 1,000 targets a day, 2,000 on the fateful first two days of the campaign, but the home front will suffer thousands of rocket and missile attacks, since the entire offensive forces can't go after the rocket launchers, and the entire defensive forces won't be assigned - or will be adequate - to intercept the volleys at the homefront; there will be other high priority missions such as defending airbases and infrastructure targets. As nimble the Air Force will be in its operations, defense will be only partial, also because strengthening these defenses will ruin the surprise and leave signs that will send the enemy (and especially its leaders) into hiding - or ambushes. The IDF realized this too late during the period of the reprisal operations in the 1950s, which ended with the 18 victims of Qalqilya just two weeks before that very same General Staff meeting headed by Dayan: The stimulus (terror attack) provided everyone with a warning of the response (the raid).

The Air Force has proved something of its power to operate nimbly and in a crowded airspace, but without any significant opposition, in Operation Cast Lead, Operation Pillar of Defense, and Operation Protective Edge in Gaza. It was impressive in its coordination between fighter planes, helicopters, and unmanned aerial vehicles - and between all these and the ground forces. But we cannot draw a conclusion from this that victory is guaranteed against more determined and better armed enemies; and even if the scales of military force will lean to Israel's side, it is the diplomatic results that will determine the outcome - the framework of the ceasefire (speedy is very much desirable) and the progress in its wake to an agreement.

One of the lessons of recent years is that it is worthwhile for Israel to grit its teeth, overcome its desire for revenge and call for Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah to come out of his bunker, where he has been sheltering since July 2006; because Israel needs an address, for a representative and authorized leadership to talk with and reach an agreement. The supreme consideration is once again not if Nasrallah's successor will be better or worse for Israel than he is, but whether without Nasrallah, or the present leadership of Hamas, there will be anyone to talk to in order to prevent a continued war of attrition.

Dayan, in that same meeting with his small band in on the secrets in the General Staff (and not all of them knew all the secrets), noted that "our plans always included starting the war and fierce bombardments of the Egyptian air force in order to destroy their air power" - in other words, an unripe Operation Focus, over a decade before the Air Force was really read to carry it out; since, as the person who was really the chief planner of the operation, retired brigadier general Rafi Sibron, said last week that the self-knowledge of the pilots and the systems that planned, armed, controlled and trained for the operation was no less important than the intelligence on the enemy.

The surprise was not wasted in 1956 and was preserved for 1967, without the Egyptians being prepared for it (for example by building underground hangers for their warplanes or by preparing to rapidly repair the runways), since according to Dayan: "This time, because we believe that some of the work will be done by others - we will not do it. If it turns out that we made a mistake, it could be a mistake we will pay for dearly."

Instead of Egypt then, we can now write Iran; instead of the British and the French - the Americans. The Lausanne deal, whose completion by June 30 will postpone the attainment of Iranian nuclear weapons until 2025 to 2030, has stolen from the IDF one of its main enemies. An enemy whose threat is the reference scenario, according to which the forces are built and prepared, and the operations are planned for. When Egypt and Jordan signed peace treaties with Israel, it had a clear influence on the IDF's order of battle (fewer regular armored divisions) and the equipment budgets, training and active reserve service. Transferring Iran from a concrete enemy to a more fluid threat on the list of enemies that the IDF is preparing to counter in a greater war, could have a similar influence, especially in the aerial sphere.

The Congress, which Israel is so enthusiastic to involve in the process, seems combative today, but it is fickle and could well put on the brakes and not just speed up, mostly for internal reasons relating to the balance of powers and party considerations. In May 1967, Levi Eshkol's government was paralyzed and it failed in its efforts to decide on carrying out Operation Focus as the kick off for the campaign in Gaza and Sinai (Dayan, who was appointed defense minister, expanded the plan), because they wanted to let the diplomatic process in Paris run its full course (France was the supplier of the Mirage jets and surface- to-surface missiles) and in Washington, with the mission of Foreign Minister Abba Eban.

The U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Arthur Goldberg, was a mutual friend of President Lyndon Johnson and Israel. Goldberg later told how Johnson called him after Eban's visit to the White House and expressed his worries that he went too far in his commitment to military action to break the Egyptian blockade on the sea lanes to Eilat. Goldberg, a former Supreme Court justice, calmed Johnson down: Eban also visited him and heard that the president's commitment was subject to constitutional processes, in other words to the agreement of the Congress.

One of the reasons for Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser's complacency on the morning of June 5, 1967, despite his general estimate that an Israeli attack was expected; was the mission of his Vice President Zakaria Mohieddin, who was considered pro-American, to Washington. Almost fifty years later, when the Iranian leadership is following to a certain extent in the footsteps of Anwar Sadat and adopting the "Infitah" Sadat's economic policy of "opening the door" to private investment (necessarily to the West, though given the situation in the 21st century not only to them), an Israeli attack during the diplomatic contacts between the six powers and Tehran would be viewed as treachery, similar to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor at the same time Japanese messages continued to arrive at the State Department in Washington; and would lead to a harsh American response.

All these considerations against an Israeli attack to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure would not apply to the Israeli-Iranian clashes in the ground floor and basement of the relations between the two countries, whether directly or through proxies; but for that the IDF doesn't require any reinforcement – not to its means nor to its level of preparation.

The Iranian threat will be reduced to the level of the Iraqi threat in the period between the two wars the Americans fought against Saddam Hussein, from 1991 to 2013. During that period, before the withdrawal from Gaza and the increased missile threat from Hezbollah and Hamas, the IDF viewed Syria as its chief enemy. For its mission in the Iranian sphere, the IDF defined for itself (as usual, the government evaded this responsibility) more or less: The goal is to deter Iran from intervening militarily in a war between Israel and one of its neighbors or the Palestinian Authority. The accomplishment required to achieve this included a significant attack on a small number of specific targets over two days, the destruction of strategic infrastructure (especially nuclear), attacking the surface-to-surface missiles and preventing the sending of troops to reinforce Hezbollah and the countries abutting Israel.

With the exception of the nuclear infrastructure targets, which have been taken off the agenda because of the diplomatic constraints, what the Air Force and Navy have been building over the past decade, along with Military Intelligence and the Mossad, is more than enough to deal with the other Iranian challenges. Additional investments will be superfluous - it would be better to put them to other uses, in the IDF (as the General Staff has recommended) or for civilian use.

The decade after the Sinai Campaign was quiet, relatively, and was used to raise the standard of living, alongside the building up of the IDF in the air and with tanks, as well as the construction of the nuclear reactor in Dimona. After the Yom Kippur War Israel wasted two decades - the 1980s, despite the peace with Egypt and the Iran-Iraq War, since it threw itself into Lebanon; and the 1990s, despite the end of the Cold War and the defeat of Saddam Hussein and Iraq, since it did not have the courage to pay the price for peace with Syria.

The Lausanne deal, if it is completed and implemented, will provide Israel with an additional opportunity to focus its multi-year plans for the IDF on nearer and more essential priorities, without the craziness of a war with Iran. A reappraisal of the list of military purchases is also necessary. F-35 planes, for example, should be received as late as possible, once they have outgrown their childhood growing pains, and not in any rush. The best alternative would be a peace initiative, a diplomatic act of prevention instead of a military one. Given the present composition of the Israeli leadership that would be a huge surprise, maybe even for the politicians themselves.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...hinkable_about_obamas_middle_east_policy.html

April 11, 2015

Thinking the unthinkable about Obama's Middle East Policy

By Lee DeCovnick
Comments 8

I am not generally given to doomsday fantasies, but I am starting to get unnerved by where I see President Obama’s Middle East diplomacy taking us.

Now that Israel’s Prime Minster Bibi Netanyahu has been re-elected, with Obama’s knife is still firmly lodged in his back, we can reasonably expect the long anticipated Middle East regional wars to become a no-holds-barred slugfest.

Just to recap, we have the Saudis already bombing the hell out of the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. The Egyptians are bombing ISIS jihadists in Libya who slaughtered Coptic Christians. There are credible reports of Iranian troops massing near the Israeli lines in the Golan Heights. Thousands of suicidal Hamas fanatics, modern day troglodytes, are once again digging tunnels in Gaza and being re-armed by Iran. And Iran’s bootlicking spawn Hezb’allah, among the foremost virulent Jew haters on the planet, eagerly waits for orders to launch an estimated 40,000 well-entrenched surface-to-surface missiles into the Israeli population centers. Plus, Hamas desires Abbas’s untimely demise, and ISIS is out-tweeting Iran for bragging rights as the radical Islamic state most likely to restore a 9th century theocracy.

The Saudis most likely have already acquired a half a dozen or so tactical nuclear weapon as payment in kind for bankrolling the Pakistani nuclear development program. And conversely, it is reasonable to assume that Iran has also acquired a handful of tactical nuclear weapons from North Korea.

The Saudis and Egyptians are praying five times a day for Israel to use its nuclear weapons to stop Iran. The Israelis would love that the Sunni world, led by the Saudis, would strike Iran first, and then the IAF could follow up with precision strikes on the centrifuges. Be assured that just as the US continues its geopolitical insanity of capitulating to Iranian nuclear ambitions, so too Israel, Egypt, and the Kingdom likely have held extensive talks on joint military action to stop the Shia-centric expansion in the Middle East.

Oh yeah, did I mention that our twice-elected community organizer has successfully conspired and orchestrated this Middle East power vacuum? Just ask the Israelis, Egyptians, Jordanians, Libyans, Iraqis and Afghanis how Obama’s deceitful policies hooked and then gutted them like a rainbow trout.

With the worldwide collapse of America’s political and military support for the post Cold War order, we stopped being the planet’s cop and morphed into a starry-eyed sycophant for all those evil and abhorrent regimes. This power vacuum, magnified in the religious and ethic labyrinths of the Middle East and Muslim controlled Africa, has created inevitable and catastrophic consequences.

What consequences could those be?

Our species has a decent probability of unleashing a limited nuclear war within the next 12 months. There would be mega deaths from the initial detonations, radiation poisoning, starvation, lack of drinking water, and inadequate medical assistance for the injured, children and elderly. A limited nuclear exchange ultimately could easily result in the horrific deaths of up to two billion souls, around a fouth of earth’s human population. Or more.

That huge figure is because even a limited nuclear war would cause the cessation of deliveries of Middle East oil to Asia, the EU, and North America, unleashing massive worldwide economic disruptions that would adversely affect food production, transportation and manufacturing for every person on the planet.

And this economic depression could continue for the next decade.

Either by incompetence or deign, our community organizer has created a Middle East power vacuum with truly dire potential consequences

We will never be able to fully comprehend our President’s sociopathic narcissism, since his brain may have been damaged by inhaling so much Maui Gold as an adolescent. So predicting his motives and subsequent actions, should this doomsday result, is full of hazards. But, as his former chief of staff, the current mayor of Chicago, explained, a basic operating principle is to “never let a crisis go to waste.”

Such chaos could enable Obama to “temporarily suspend” the 2016 national elections, declare and implement an iron-fisted martial law, and transform himself into the America’s First Oligarch. There would be an obvious national emergency, a severe crisis to respond to, to use as the excuse to finally abolish our Constitutional Republic.

I have been wondering why Valerie Jarrett made all those secret visits to Tehran. Just to share her tahdig and fesenjan recipes with the wives of the Revolutionary Council?

I realize this may seem far-fetched. It does to me, too. And I hope to God that it is but an idle fantasy of a worrywart. But the seeds of a catastrophic nuclear war in the Middle East are being planted.

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

____

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/the_left_both_here_and_there_betraying_israel.html

April 11, 2015

The Left, Both Here and There, Betraying Israel

By James Lewis
Comments 3

Well, the facts are all in, and we know what Obama is about.

Obama’s betrayal of this country and the world did not start with his worthless “agreement” with the mullahs, a pure kabuki shadow play. The war-priests of Iran already have all the makings for nukes, and the ICBMs to land them on your front door.

Obama’s betrayal started before the start of this administration. Since then, Jarrett has carried on secret “negotiations” with Tehran, ending in the suicidal surrender plan we see today. Obama and Jarrett started six years ago or earlier, because the left began its death-to-Israel campaign a long time ago, and Obama’s friends are all in the radical left.

Today Obama is boasting about this fabulous “chance of a lifetime” – to surrender the world to the mullahs. But today is just the culmination of decades of warmongering, paid for by Wahhabi and Khomeinist war cults, better known as the Saudis and the Iranians, in criminal collusion with the raging left in the U.S. and Europe.

It becomes obvious when you know what to look for. Eight years ago, before Obama made his way to the presidency, this news item showed up in the Jerusalem Post, quoting David Landau, then the editor in chief of Israel’s biggest socialist newspaper, the New York Times of Israel:

[Ha’aretz editor in chief] David Landau told US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a recent private dinner that Israel "wants to be raped by the US" … Landau, who was seated next to Rice, reportedly referred to Israel as a "failed state" politically that needed a US-imposed settlement. … Landau reportedly "implored Rice to intervene, asserting that the Israeli government wanted 'to be raped' and that it would be like a 'wet dream' for him to see this happen." In response, Landau told the New York weekly that this description was "inaccurate" and "a perversion of what I said," and that he had expressed his views with "much more sophistication." But, he went on, "I did say that in general, Israel wants to be raped - I did use that word - by the US, and I myself have long felt Israel needed more vigorous US intervention in the affairs of the Middle East."

Please understand that what leftists say in public is only a pale reflection of what they rant about in private. And please understand that you don’t become the editor in chief of the biggest socialist propaganda rag in Israel without telling your real thoughts to thousands of other lefties. David Landau wasn’t just a lone fruitcake. He represented the old socialist establishment in Israel, which controlled Israel’s media for years. Today they hate Netanyahu because he is a democratic, free-market conservative. They hate conservatives because we dissent from the Party Line.

And finally, don’t forget that the left talks only to itself.

David Landau talked to other radical socialists in the U.S. (like Bill Ayers) and Europe (like George Galloway), who also happened to be suborned by Muslim oil money and blackmail in the last four decades.

People like Landau and Ayers founded the left-Islamofascist Axis that now corrupts our universities and media.

Landau signaled his personal rage and hatred to the very Muslim priesthood that is getting nuclear bombs today, courtesy of Barack Hussein Obama, who spent two decades “sitting at the feet” of hate preacher Jerry Wright, who started his career as a Muslim, before he made it big in Chicago by preaching racial revenge to the left. You can trace it all to the sources, if you want to bother.

Obama explained in his autobiographies how he picked radical left friends in high school and college. It seems that for decades Obama never talked to anybody who could pinpoint all the fallacies and delusions in the Party Line. This is how the Jim Jones suicide cult developed – by ordinary people sitting at the feet of Rev. Jim Jones, who made damn sure they wouldn’t listen to anybody else.

Cults are just people reinforcing their delusional opinions to each other. If you shut out dissent, everything becomes totally clear, and wrong.

Obama is still confused about anybody who dares to disagree with him today, because he’s never met a sane person who disagreed with Obama. You’d have to be evil to disagree with Obama.

The late David Landau was a major hater and preacher of hatred against his own country, but he also reflected a real and treacherous political current in Israel, which has been allowed to agitate and – let’s use the word – to literally betray Israel in wartime.

Other nations would call this treason and prosecute it as a major crime, but Israel still has a court system stacked by the left. Socialists were among the founders of Israel, and when their aging and corrupt establishment was voted out by Likud a couple of decades ago, they turned into a cult of rage and hatred.

Look at Obama’s closest buddies if you want to see how the same thing happens here. Check out Jerry Wright’s YouTube sermons. Or Louis Farrakhan. These people all indoctrinate each other, and they do not tolerate dissent. They create cults, and if they are hate preachers, they create warmongering cults.

The left’s loss of power in Israel has driven them over the edge. As a result, Obama feels righteous while trying to rape Israel, with the happy cooperation of the mullahs, because he knows some real fanatics over there who validate his delusional beliefs. Remember, they talk only to each other.

The left begins with delusional assumptions, and anybody who can see reality therefore becomes an enemy to be destroyed.

If you indoctrinate a kid to believe that peace on Earth forever and ever is just one little flip of the coin away, and that only Those Evil People are keeping it from happening, because they are wicked and greedy, all your idealistic intentions turn to hatred very quickly.

Your real enemy is the violence and gullibility of human beings, including the left itself, but your deadly hatred is directed to the messengers – the people who remind you of that reality.

It has to be their fault. Let’s hate on Sarah Palin, because we care so much about women. Let’s hate on Jews and Christians who want Israel to survive, because we care so much about Jews and Christians (as long as they obey orders). Let’s hate on Republicans, because etc., etc.

And don’t forget: let’s hate on Justice Clarence Thomas and Dr. Ben Carson, because we love the black folks of this country.

That is why the radical left turns into a murderous lynch mob, every time its adherents get into power. They must destroy what they cannot tolerate.

Genocide is in the known character of the left and of Islamofascists. The left has always had a yen for genocide – look at North Korea, at Karl Marx himself, at Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot: 100 million human beings murdered in the 20th century alone, according to Marxist historians, who analyzed the records in a project sponsored by the French government.

As for Islamic fascists, the history of Muslim genocides goes back to Mohammed in the desert. Mohammed was a desert raider who did all the things desert raiders did: kill and rape the weak, and maybe trade with the strong if you had to. Preying on the weak is one of the oldest professions, and it’s not limited to Arabs.

Still, the Koran is the only surviving warmongering scripture in this age of nuclear weapons. Warmongering beliefs are not unique in history – but just try to mix holy warmongering with nuclear weapons, and you’ve got a clear and present danger today. With the nuke-loving mullahs, Obama’s left is now making sure the killing won’t be confined to some faraway country in the Middle East.

But don’t blame Barack Hussein Obama – or not Obama alone. He could not do what he is doing without tens of thousands of leftist “activists” in the U.S., at the U.N., in Europe, and in Israel itself.

Eurosocialist support for Obama’s latest suicidal brainstorm is more than enough evidence of Europe’s collusion with a second Holocaust of the Jews. Eurosocialists are deeply delusional. Reality is just not their thing.

Obama’s ideological treachery is not limited to the United States and Israel. This time all the civilized peoples of the world are in lethal danger if he gets his way. As we can plainly see, ISIS is killing Christians wherever it can find them – children, women and men – just because they are Christians and will not renounce their faith.

The left in the U.S. and Israel has known this all along, in direct and culpable collusion with Islamic fascists.

The September 11 attacks were a Saudi war-cult act of terror. All the hijackers were Wahhabi suiciders, just following their holy instructions. The murder of almost 200 US Marines and French peacekeeping troops in Beirut in 1983 was an Iranian act of terror. Same theology, just a different brand. But the president of the United States today will not speak the words “Muslim terrorism” in public.

Until we elect a rational president, the United States and its allies will be in great danger.

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/opinion/north-koreas-real-lessons-for-iran.html?_r=0

The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributors

North Korea’s Real Lessons for Iran

By ROBERT L. GALLUCCI and JOEL S. WIT
APRIL 10, 2015
Comments 2

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S defense of his emerging nuclear deal with Iran as a “once in a lifetime opportunity” reminds his critics of an earlier landmark agreement, intended to end the threat of a nuclear-armed North Korea.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and others have argued that the eventual collapse of that agreement, resulting in North Korea’s building nuclear weapons, proves that a deal with Tehran is a big mistake. Those of us who negotiated the North Korea deal know that important lessons can be learned from that experience. But they are not the ones based on the critics’ fundamental misreading of history.

Faced with the prospect of a hostile, nuclear-armed North Korea in 1994, the Clinton administration reached a deal that required the North to give up its weapons program in return for energy assistance, the lifting of sanctions and better relations with the United States. In the late 1990s, however, we caught the North Koreans cheating and, early in the George W. Bush administration, the agreement collapsed. Today, the North’s reinvigorated bomb program may be poised, as Mr. Netanyahu pointed out in his recent speech to Congress, to produce as many as 100 nuclear weapons over the next five years.

Although our policy ultimately failed, the agreement did not. Without the 1994 deal, North Korea would have built the bomb sooner, stockpiled weapons more quickly and amassed a much larger arsenal by now. Intelligence estimates in the early 1990s concluded that the North’s nuclear program was so advanced that it could produce 30 Nagasaki-size nuclear weapons a year by the end of the decade. More than 20 years later, that still hasn’t happened.

The collapse of the North Korea deal has been used to argue that it is impossible to conduct diplomacy with rogue states. But the only litmus test that matters is whether an agreement serves our national interest, is better than having no deal at all, and is preferable to military force. The arrangement with Iran appears to be well on its way to meeting that standard.

The real lessons from North Korea have to do with why a deal with such a promising start ultimately collapsed. While reaching an agreement is tough, making it stick is even tougher.

The United States and its partners must avoid the “problem solved” mentality that inevitably follows landmark agreements. This mentality took hold in 1994 as senior officials moved on to deal with other foreign policy challenges while implementation, left in the hands of lower-level bureaucrats, suffered. As a result, the United States didn’t follow through on two major incentives it had promised in return for North Korea’s nuclear restraint: the establishment of better political relations and the lifting of economic sanctions. This does not excuse the North’s behavior, but it does show these deals require constant attention.

The Iran framework is extraordinarily complex, and will require monitoring to ensure that all the moving pieces — limiting Iran’s nuclear capabilities, providing for inspections and lifting sanctions — are effectively implemented. One way to do this is for the United States and its partners to establish a body that meets regularly to oversee implementation.

Another lesson is that we should not be surprised if Tehran is caught cheating. While the Obama administration has emphasized the emerging agreement’s highly intrusive verification measures, the trick will be not only to catch cheating in a timely manner, but also to react with a clear plan.

We failed to do that with North Korea. When the Bush administration confronted the North about its cheating in 2002, the North simply withdrew from the agreement and restarted its nuclear program. Having just gone to war in Afghanistan and about to invade Iraq, the administration decided to start from scratch and seek new nuclear negotiations that dragged on and eventually petered out. In hindsight, President Bush could have followed the Clinton administration’s plan to confront North Korea with an opportunity rather than an accusation. That meant offering the North more progress in building better relations in return for stopping its threatening activities, including its cheating.

For Iran, we need a mechanism for resolving disputes and a plan for political, economic and possibly military steps to deal with violations that we and our partners have agreed on beforehand.

Finally, we should understand that without a positive shift in political relations, the chances that a nuclear deal will fail increase over time. We included provisions in the 1994 accord for improving relations between the United States and North Korea, but failed to recognize that four decades of hostility could not be erased overnight. Continuing tensions on issues unrelated to the nuclear agreement helped undermine the deal.

The same danger exists with Iran, given its hostility to American and Israeli interests in the Middle East. Of course, North Korea and Iran are very different politically; Tehran, along with hard-liners, has a young and increasingly vocal reform movement. That may be reason for hope. But whether that difference will translate into future moderation in Iranian foreign policy remains uncertain.

As American negotiators move toward a final agreement with Iran by the end of June, they are right to look to our experience with North Korea. But they should ignore the critics who say that the lesson is to abandon diplomacy. Diplomacy can succeed with political will and sustained focus. We just need to remember that the deal itself is only the beginning.


Robert L. Gallucci, a professor of diplomacy at Georgetown University, was the chief negotiator for the 1994 nuclear deal with North Korea. Joel S. Wit, a senior fellow at the U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins, was the coordinator for the deal from 1995 to 1999.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummmm.............

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2015/04/197_176884.html

Posted : 2015-04-10 16:37
Updated : 2015-04-10 16:53

The end of the BRICs
음성듣기
By Gwynne Dyer

"The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable," said John Kenneth Galbraith, the wisest American economist of his generation. ("A paltry honor," he would have murmured.) But you still can't resist wondering when the Chinese economy will be bigger than the U.S economy ― or the Brazilian bigger than the British, or the Turkish bigger than the Italian ― as if it were some kind of horse race.

The latest document to tackle these questions is: "The World in 2050," drawn up by HSBC bank, which ranks the world's 100 biggest economies as they are now, and as (it thinks) they will be in 2050. It contains the usual little surprises, like a prediction that per capita incomes in the Philippines and Indonesia, now roughly the same, will diverge so fast that the average Filipino will have twice the income of the average Indonesian by 2050.

The Venezuelan economy will only triple in size, but Peru's economy will grow eightfold. Per capita income will double-and-a-bit in Nigeria; in Ethiopia it will grow sixfold. Bangladesh powers past Pakistan, with a per capita income in 2050 that's half again as big as Pakistan's. (It's only two-thirds of Pakistan's at the moment.) And so on and so forth: local phenomena mostly of interest to local people.

But what's happening at the top of the list is of interest to everybody. That's where the great powers all live, with the BRICs nipping at their heels. Or rather, some of the BRICs are nipping at their heels, and some are not. That's the big news.

We owe the concept of the BRICs to Jim O'Neill, who came up with it almost 15 years ago when he was head of economics at Goldman Sachs. He was the first to realize that some big, poor countries were growing so fast economically that they would overtake the established great powers in a matter of decades.

The really impressive performers were Brazil, Russia, India and China, so he just called them the BRICs – and pointed out that at current growth rates the Chinese economy would be bigger than that of the United States by the 2040s. We're quite familiar with that kind of prediction today, but at the time it was shocking (especially to Americans), and the term BRIC has become firmly entrenched in the language. Just in time for HSBC to spoil it.

By now the BRICs are formally the BRICS (with a capital S added for South Africa). But the South African economy is only in the group out of courtesy, because you couldn't leave Africa out altogether. It's much smaller than any of the others and growing very slowly, so you can safely leave it out of the calculations altogether.

China is performing roughly as expected, and by 2050 its economy will be around 10 percent bigger than that of the United States. (Per capita income, of course, is a different matter, and even then China's will be only a third of America's.) India will come next, but with an economy only one-third as big as China or the United States.

But the other BRICs practically vanish from view. Brazil hasn't even overtaken Britain by 2050, despite having three times as many people. And Russia's performance is downright embarrassing: its economy barely doubles in the next 35 years, and it ends up smaller than Spain's. So six of the top 10 countries in the 2050 list are already there today, and the world isn't going to look so dramatically different at all.

Now, predictions like this are open to all sorts of criticism. China's growth rate has consistently been two or three percentage points higher than India's for several decades. Project that to 2050, and China ends up far ahead of India. But China's growth rate is falling, and India's may even overtake it this year.

India will almost certainly grow faster in the long run, because it has a young, rapidly growing labor force and China does not. There's enough time for that to change the pecking order radically by 2050.

The recent performance of the economy obviously affects the long-range forecast more than it should, so Russia drops down the list and Mexico goes soaring up. Five years ago it would have been the other way around, and yet there's no reason to believe that the fundamental strengths of either economy have changed.

And then there are the "Black Swans", events like the Sarajevo assassination that tumbled the world into World War I and invalidated all existing assumptions about the economic future. Not to mention the disasters that you know are coming, like catastrophic climate change ― but leave out of your calculations anyway, because you don't know how to quantify them and don't know when they will arrive even to the nearest decade.

All that said, some sketchy notion of what the future may bring is better than no idea whatever. And the basic idea behind the BRICs is still sound: the center of gravity of the world economy is moving south and east.

Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150412/ml-egypt-d78025e510.html

Officials: Roadside bomb kills 6 soldiers in Egypt's Sinai

Apr 12, 9:19 AM (ET)
By ASHRAF SWEILAM

EL-ARISH, Egypt (AP) — A roadside bomb attack on an armored vehicle in Egypt's restive northern Sinai killed six soldiers on Sunday, including an officer, military officials said.

The attack took place as the country's defense minister carried out a limited military reshuffle, replacing the commander of the army division responsible for securing northern Sinai. Maj. Gen. Mohammed el-Shahat, who only commanded Egypt's second field army for about a year, was promoted to head of military intelligence; el-Shahat's deputy, Maj. Gen. Nasser el-Assi, will replace him.

El-Assi inherits a simmering Sinai-based Islamic insurgency that continues to successfully target army soldiers and police officers despite an intensive military campaign. The attacks surged following the 2013 military ouster of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi.

The largest Sinai-based militant group, Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group last year and now refers to itself as the group's Sinai Province. The group claimed responsibility on Twitter for Sunday's deadly attack.

Officials said the explosion Sunday occurred in the village of Kharouba south of El-Arish, the capital of North Sinai province. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief journalists.

Earlier this month, the IS affiliate in Sinai killed at least 16 soldiers and three civilians and kidnapped a conscript. On Friday they posted a video showing the kidnapped soldier pleading with Egyptians not to join the army before being shot to death.

The reshuffle in military leadership also included the commander of the Egyptian navy at a time when the navy could begin playing an increasingly prominent role, because of the Yemeni crisis. Egyptian warships are already deployed off the coast of Yemen to secure the strategically vital Bab el-Mandab strait — the gateway to the Suez Canal.

Egypt is currently a main member of the Saudi-led military coalition launching airstrikes against Shiite rebels who have conquered the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, and forced out the Western-backed president. Egyptian military leaders have repeatedly stated their willingness to commit ground troops, if necessary, to the operation.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150412/as-india-rebel-attack-c8fc9e5276.html

Rebels ambush police in central Indian forest, killing 7

Apr 12, 7:17 AM (ET)

PATNA, India (AP) — Maoist rebels attacked a group of policemen patrolling in a central Indian forest, killing seven and wounding another 10, police said.

The ambushed policemen were part of a special task force out searching for rebel activity early Saturday when the militants opened fire, according to R.K. Vij, a top police official in Chhattisgarh state.

Ten wounded officers were airlifted to a hospital in the state capital of Raipur. Few other details were available from the remote region in Sukma district, 385 kilometers (240 miles) south of Raipur.

The rebels have been called India's biggest internal security threat, operating in 20 of India's 28 states with thousands of fighters. Inspired by Chinese revolutionary leader Mao Zedong, they've been fighting for over three decades in central and eastern India to demand the poor receive more jobs and a greater share of wealth from natural resources.
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
News_Executive @News_Executive · 39m 39 minutes ago

BREAKING: Turkey has Recalled Its Ambassador to the Vatican After Pope Calls Armenian Killings Genocide.


Jon Williams @WilliamsJon · 33m 33 minutes ago

100 years on #Armenia events of April 1915 still raw: #Turkey pulls #Vatican ambassador after #Pope says was "1st genocide of 20th century"
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...schoolgirls-acts-of-defiance/article23892110/

Former Boko Haram captive tells of abducted schoolgirls’ acts of defiance

GEOFFREY YORK
ABUJA, NIGERIA — The Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Apr. 12 2015, 11:00 PM EDT
Last updated Sunday, Apr. 12 2015, 11:00 PM EDT

In the brief moments when their Boko Haram guards were gone, the abducted schoolgirls committed a small and hurried act of defiance: They recited Christian prayers.

The girls from Chibok were thin and haggard and clothed in the Islamic attire that their captors forced them to wear, according to a woman who was held captive with them. When their overseers were gone, the schoolgirls hugged, cried and prayed. They talked mostly about one subject: how to escape.

This is the harrowing account of a former Boko Haram captive who says she spent several weeks with the Chibok girls late last year in Gwoza, a Boko Haram stronghold in northeastern Nigeria. Her account is difficult to verify, but was detailed, credible and partially corroborated by reports from other former captives.

The abductions of more than 200 teenage schoolgirls from Chibok provoked a global wave of shock and outrage, sparking an international “Bring Back Our Girls” campaign and pledges of help from Western governments, including Canada.

But with the first anniversary of the abductions due to be marked on Tuesday by rallies and marches around the world, their fate is still unknown. Even after Nigeria announced the recapture of Gwoza on March 27, there was no sign of the abducted girls. People who have fled the region are convinced that Boko Haram took the girls into remote hideouts in the Mandara mountains, above Gwoza, near the border of Cameroon, after the military pushed the extremists out of the town.

The detailed account of the Chibok girls was given by Liatu Andrawus, a 23-year-old mother of two children, who spent six months in Boko Haram captivity before escaping in December.

She told The Globe and Mail that nearly all of the Chibok girls had been forcibly “married” – as Boko Haram called it – to members of the radical Islamist militia. She said the girls told her that 236 students from the Chibok school were in captivity, and only 13 had not been “married.”

Ms. Andrawus, who now lives in an informal camp for displaced people on Abuja’s outskirts, was herself forced into a “marriage” with a Boko Haram fighter last October, despite her protests. She repeatedly refused their demands to convert to Islam, even when threatened with death, but the militants still deemed her a Muslim and ordered her to attend Islamic studies and prayers at a school building in Gwoza, six times a week. That’s where she says she met the abducted girls.

“They told me they were the Chibok girls,” she said, recalling snatched conversations with the students when the male guards had sent them away to do their ablutions and Islamic prayers. “We always talked about how we could escape. Sometimes we sat down and prayed together and hugged and cried. They were remembering their good moments with their parents and loved ones.”

Ms. Andrawus said she only saw the “married” schoolgirls. She never saw the 13 others, but was told that Boko Haram kept them locked in a large compound belonging to a Nigerian politician, who had abandoned it when the extremists captured the town.

Another former captive, 56-year-old Mbutu Papka, told Nigerian media last month that the Chibok girls were in Gwoza. She said she did not talk to the girls herself, but was told by people in Gwoza that some of the abducted girls were being held in a locked building adjacent to hers.

The story of Ms. Andrawus and her six-month captivity by Boko Haram could be similar to the ordeal of the Chibok girls after their abduction. Ms. Andrawus, from the village of Ngoshe in eastern Gwoza district, was travelling with her children and six men, including her brother, in a vehicle headed to Abuja last June when the car was ambushed by nine Boko Haram gunmen who shot at it until it stopped. The passengers tried to run up a hill, but were caught by the motorcycle-riding militants.

They were taken deep into the Sambisa forest, a notorious Boko Haram hideout, where the men were tied up and ordered to convert to Islam. When they refused, they were shot dead with machine guns.

Then the extremists told Ms. Andrawus to convert. They forced her to the ground and threatened her with a knife, but she refused. “I would not abandon my faith,” she said.

At one point the men asked her whether she preferred to be killed with a gun or with a knife. She asked to be shot.

Boko Haram gave her an Islamic name, Aisha, and held her captive in the Sambisa forest with five other Christian women who had also refused to convert. The others were beaten with a rubber belt, but she was spared because of her children.

After Boko Haram captured Gwoza last August, she was taken there and forced to study the Koran with hundreds of other captives. In October, she was “married” to a Boko Haram fighter and forced to cook and clean for him. When she wasn’t in Islamic classes, she was locked in his house.

At the Islamic classes, the captives were forced to watch videos of Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau. They were whipped with a rubber belt if they made errors in their Koranic studies, leaving Ms. Andrawus with bruises, bleeding and swelling.

She watched the Boko Haram fighters leave Gwoza almost daily to raid other villages, returning with stolen money and looted goods. When they stole jewellery, they gave it to a man who sent it to the northern city of Kano for sale. “We saw him weighing the jewellery,” she said.

Among others there, she met a former Nigerian army officer who boasted that he had joined Boko Haram because it paid better than the army. She saw four Arabic-speaking foreigners who issued commands and seemed to hold senior positions in Boko Haram. And she talked to a female member of Boko Haram who planned to become a suicide bomber.

“She was very proud of it,” Ms. Andrawus said. “She said it was the work of God.”

In early December, she was allowed to visit her mother in a nearby town. One night she crept out of the house, with her mother and children, and walked 20 kilometres to Cameroon. After a week there, they made their way by foot and car to safety in Abuja.

More Related to this Story

World Insider Why did thousands have to die before Boko Haram was taken seriously?

Nigeria’s war against Boko Haram takes to the airwaves

Boko Haram disguised as preachers kill at least 24 in Nigeria

In Nigeria, beggar students vulnerable to exploitation and extremism
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-prepared-me-for-the-brutality-of-boko-haram/

WorldViews

I’ve seen the Taliban’s brutality in Afghanistan. Boko Haram might be worse.

By Kevin Sieff April 12 at 12:42 PM Follow @ksieff

GWOZA, Nigeria — Flying into northeastern Nigeria, I thought about southeastern Afghanistan.

I was in an MI-24 helicopter last week traveling with the Nigerian army toward Boko Haram’s former headquarters, trying to imagine what the insurgents had left behind after they were forced to flee in the face of a major military operation.

[Related: War-torn Nigerian town shows devastating legacy of Boko Haram]

One of the complications of covering insurgencies is that you can typically visit the militants’ strongholds only once they’ve left. And so we assess what we can based on what those groups have left behind. It’s not a comprehensive indicator, but it’s a glimpse into the way militants use their power.

In 2½ years as a Post correspondent in Afghanistan, I often found myself in Taliban strongholds newly vacated by the insurgents. Many of them were pockmarked by bomb blasts and cratered by airstrikes, full of residential structures that had been turned into munitions depots.

But there were always signs that the Taliban was there to do more than fight. In the Tangi Valley, I once embedded with the Afghan army on a mission into a well-known insurgent haven. The road had been mined to keep intruders out, but the valley itself showed few signs of destruction by the Islamist extremists — it was a stunningly pristine landscape of well-irrigated farmland, neat wooden bridges over a mountain stream, a functioning clinic.

A small observation post in a rugged stretch of Afghanistan's Paktika province. (Kevin Sieff/The Washington Post)

On another trip with the U.S. military into a small Taliban-run village in Paktika province, we saw an active bazaar and government-operated schools. None of this detracts from the horrors of the Taliban: the senseless killings, the abuse of women, the attacks on helpless civilians. But I was reminded of these details — the Taliban’s attempts at bringing about order — as our helicopter descended last week upon Gwoza, the capital of Boko Haram’s self-proclaimed Islamic caliphate.

The scene was post-apocalyptic, an entire city destroyed. Almost every building, it seemed, had been ransacked or set on fire. Schools were in ruin. Bodies decayed in a pile. Gwoza felt orderless and uninhabitable.

It was impossible to know whether all the destruction was due to Boko Haram; the military had been conducting airstrikes in northeastern Nigeria, and it engaged in a fierce firefight with the militants to drive them from their stronghold. Nigerian soldiers certainly had committed abuses in the past. But residents blamed the insurgents for much of the damage. The burning and looting corresponded to reports of the insurgents’ behavior in other areas.

In videos and statements, Boko Haram, like the Taliban, has presented itself as a religious alternative to a dysfunctional, irreligious government. But it has made no attempt to govern. Unlike the Taliban, it has won no public confidence.

As we sped through the devastation of Gwoza in a military convoy, this fact seemed to me a reason to be hopeful. Defeating the Taliban means conducting a nuanced counterinsurgency campaign — clobbering the appeal of the insurgents as much as their ability to fight. In religious and insular parts of the country, that can be a near-impossible prospect.

[A Nigerian soldier walks by a secondary school destroyed by Boko Haram. This is in the insurgent group's former stronghold -- just retaken by Nigerian forces. The entire city has been demolished. (Kevin Sieff/The Washington Post)]

In Gwoza, no one seemed to long for the days of Boko Haram. When people who had been displaced began to return, they told of unspeakable horrors — their husbands killed, their wives raped, their children gunned down.

I thought of the relics of a Taliban court I once saw — a symbol of an archaic and inhumane system of justice, but nonetheless evidence of an attempt to govern. Gwoza appeared to have had nothing like this.

Walking through the ruins here, there was an aspect of the destruction that felt almost meticulous. There are thousands of homes in Gwoza, and insurgents appeared to have been intent on marking or destroying each of them. For now, trying to document those acts, the speed or breadth of the violence, is an act of imagination.

We know little more about the specifics of Boko Haram’s reign than we do about Gwoza’s future.

And what of its future? In Afghanistan, when I left a town from where the Taliban had been pushed out, it was typically only a matter of time before the insurgents returned. The fighters were from those villages, and it seemed that they would always have some support there, particularly if the Afghan government didn’t develop a permanent and robust presence.

A man walks passed a destroyed building in Gwoza, Nigeria, which the military recently reclaimed from Boko Haram. (Jane Hahn for The Washington Post)

In Gwoza, victory should be easier, but the fight ahead is still a massive one. I passed groups of Nigerian troops sitting in their makeshift posts, seeking shade in the scorching heat. None of the Boko Haram checkpoints had been cleared away. Even as civilians came back, there seemed to be no plan to house them.

One senior commander said he hoped “organizations” would come to assist the returning residents, referring to aid groups and the United Nations. But for the foreseeable future, the problem was theirs alone.

Related coverage:

War-torn Nigerian town shows devastating legacy of Boko Haram

Children rescued from Boko Haram are so traumatized they forgot their names

South African mercenaries join Nigeria’s fight against Boko Haram.


Kevin Sieff has been The Post’s bureau chief in Nairobi since 2014. He served previously as the bureau chief in Kabul and had covered the U.S. -Mexico border.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/04/12/japan-national-security-space-buildup/25412641/

Japan Begins National Security Space Buildup
By Paul Kallender-Umezu 11:01 a.m. EDT April 12, 2015

TOKYO — In January, Japan's Office of National Space Policy cemented a new 10-year space strategy that for the first time folds space policy into national security strategy, both to enhance the US-Japan alliance and to contain China.

Under the third Basic Plan, Japan's priorities go beyond building out its regional GPS-backup Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS) navigation constellation, advancing its space situational awareness (SSA) capabilities and developing a maritime domain awareness (MDA) constellation. The country will also as much as double its Information Gathering Satellite (IGS) reconnaissance program to an eight-satellite constellation, and develop a space-based missile early warning capability.

"Japan's three most important space programs are the QZSS, SSA and MDA, but we are also looking toward [space-based] shared [ballistic missile] early warning," Liberal Democratic Party lawmaker Hiroshi Imazu said. As former chairman of the party's Space Policy Committee and current chairman of its Policy Research Council's Research Commission on Security, Imazu is a leading advocate for Japan bolstering its national security space architecture.

Reflecting this, the current space budget increases QZSS funding by 18.5 percent to ¥22.3 billion (US $187.3 million) to build a "full" seven-satellite regional constellation, and the IGS program gets a 14 percent boost to ¥69.7 billion, as part of an overall 18.5 percent increase for total government space spending to ¥324.5 billion for this year.

The Basic Plan differs from previous policy statements in clearly stating national security objectives and issues. It directly names China as a destabilizing factor in global security, citing China's 2007 direct-ascent anti-satellite weapon test and subsequent activities such as jamming and laser-blinding experiments.

The folding of space policy into domestic and alliance security strategy was mandated in Japan's first National Security Strategy of December 2013. It is one of a series of major orientations away from a "passive defense" to a "proactive" strategy advocated by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

The US strongly supports the new direction. Following preparatory and discussion meetings at the second Japan-U.S. Comprehensive Dialogue on Space in Washington last May, both sides agreed to boost cooperation in national security space, particularly for SSA and MDA to monitor the growing aggressiveness of China.

"I think Japan's new policy marks a major shift," said James Clay Moltz, professor at the Monterey, California-based Naval Postgraduate School and author of "Asia's Space Race: National Motivations, Regional Rivalries and International Risks." "It is also the first document to lay out a set of concrete steps toward ... allowing military activities in space. Compared to US national space policy documents, it is very detailed and lays out a relatively clear vision."

More remarkable is the extent to which national security space has been knitted into the programs of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), which until a 2012 legal change allowed it to participate in military space development was a research and development organization.

JAXA is busy with a slew of new dual-use projects, including two next-generation data-relay satellites, one of them an optical interorbit asset, to cope with growing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance traffic. JAXA is also directly cooperating with the Ministry of Defense (MoD) to host an MoD-built infrared missile sensor on a JAXA-built reconnaissance satellite. The agency is also developing a new line of 150-kilogram multipurpose tactical satellites that can be rapidly built and adapted to a range of missions, and the Super Low Altitude Test Satellite (SLATS), a highly maneuverable surveillance-satellite technology platform to develop assets that can dip in and out of the atmosphere to take sharper images.

Yoshi Chihara, director of the Space Development and Utilization Division at the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), which controls JAXA, said the ministry is fully behind the new direction.

"Cooperation between MEXT-JAXA and MoD is strengthening," Chihara said. "The agreement on scientific and technological cooperation between JAXA and MoD is a good example of cooperation ... the [hosted payload missile sensor aboard the] Advanced Optical Imaging Satellite is a good example. Following ... the latest Basic Plan, we will continue to reinforce [our] partnership."

"I think the establishment of a space body within the MoD and its outreach to JAXA is certainly a major milestone," Moltz said.

Though a major step forward, the new policy also pulls back somewhat from commitments recommended by Imazu in August to quickly raise the annual budget to ¥500 billion to accommodate national security programs, double the IGS constellation, prioritize MDA, and put overall control of space into an agency reporting directly to Japan's new, more powerful National Security Council.

For example, the Basic Plan states no fixed commitment to the number of new IGS satellites, and lays out a two-year discussion period to sort out how and how much Japan wants to use a space-based component for MDA, despite agreement to forge ahead with the US.

"Space policy is slow in every country, so I think the US is prepared to be patient, especially when fundamentally new tasks are being asked of Japanese space organizations," Moltz said.

Imazu said that if the money can be found, on top of space-based early warning and dual-use operationally responsive space and Tacsat-type technologies under development by JAXA, Japan will also consider space-based signal intelligence and electronic intelligence satellites, both of which can be developed, perhaps with some difficulty, from prior JAXA civilian-use-only programs.

The scope of the change can be seen particularly through the now open development of programs like SLATS. Other potentially highly useful military technologies proposed by Japanese research institutions — for example, co-orbital anti-satellite weapons-convertible technologies — have failed to receive funding as proponents failed to find sufficient non-military-use justifications. Now dual-use technologies form a core component of modulating Japan's military space policy, said Chris Hughes, an expert on the Japanese military at the University of Warwick in England.

"The revised ... plan lays down a marker of intent for space-based defense needs," he said. "The most striking feature ... is the foregrounding of national security as the prime rationale, casting off the previous emphasis on civilian programs as the cover for the steady build-up of military capabilities. [T]he intended capabilities are truly impressive and many already realized."

Email: pkallender@defensenews.com
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...ssile-defense-radar-nato-syria-iran/25523519/

Syrian Scud Unveils Turk Vulnerabilities
By Burak Ege Bekdil 4:53 p.m. EDT April 11, 2015

ANKARA, Turkey — On the morning of March 25, a Russian-made Syrian scud missile estimated to have been fired from a range of 180 kilometers exploded near the Reyhanli district in Turkey's southernmost city of Hatay, neighboring Syria.

The projectile left a 15-meter-wide crater in a stream bed, broke the windows of the surrounding houses, caused the roof of a building in the nearby military unit to collapse, damaged two military vehicles and inflicted minor injuries on five Turkish civilians.

The Syrian scud luckily did not cause any casualties on Turkish soil but left behind pressing questions: Why did the NATO Patriot systems stationed in southern Turkey not intercept the Syrian missile? How vulnerable is Turkey to tactical missile threats from its unstable neighbors to the south?

The Turkish military headquarters said that Turkish howitzers immediately retaliated and shelled unspecified Syrian targets. Military officials told Defense News the Syrian missile was probably fired from a Russian naval base in Tartus to target anti-regime rebels who have been fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces since 2011.

Germany, the Netherlands and the United States currently provide two Patriot batteries each, located in the provinces of Kahramanmaraş, Adana and Gaziantep.

A Feb. 20, 2013, Defense News story said the six Patriot anti-missile batteries deployed in Turkey ostensibly to protect Turkish airspace from a potential missile strike from neighboring Syria, in fact, had the primary purpose of protecting a radar that would track Iranian missile launches, instead of protecting the Turkish civilian population or military bases.

The story quoted officials and analysts as saying the mini missile defense architecture actually provided the pretext to guard a US-owned, NATO-assigned radar deployed since 2012 in Turkey in the event hostilities break out with Iran. NATO officials vehemently denied the story.

Slightly over two years later, a Turkish military official said the Syrian scud was not intercepted because it fell in an area outside the radar range of Patriot batteries in Turkey.

"Patriots cannot provide a blanket protection to vast lands in their vicinity," the official said. "They can only protect areas in their immediate vicinity."

Sitki Egeli, a missile defense expert, agrees. He said the Patriots are not designed to protect large swathes of land; wherever they are deployed, they can only protect areas in their near vicinity. And, Egeli said, the X-band NATO radar in Kurecik (in eastern Turkey) is designed not to intercept a Syrian scud coming from 180 kilometers away but (probably) an Iranian ballistic missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers.

Aware of its vulnerability to such missile attacks, Turkey in 2007 designed a program to indigenously develop and produce short- and medium-altitude air defense systems. Ankara chose a partnership of military specialist Aselsan and missile maker Roketsan, both government-controlled companies.

In October 2013, Aselsan completed the test launch of its first domestically developed and manufactured low-altitude air defense missile, Hisar-A, and set off to work on Hisar-O, the medium-altitude system.

Aselsan, the prime contractor, is developing all radar, fire control, command, control and communication systems for the program while Roketsan is acting as the executive subcontractor. Ideally, the Hisar-A system, which will provide protection against all kinds of airborne targets thanks to its vertical launch capability, will enter the Turkish military inventory in 2017, but industry sources said the program faces delays due to technical snags.

When combined and made interoperable, Hisar-A and Hisar-O will destroy threats at low-medium altitude. The program involves the development and production of two types of ground systems, self-propelled armored vehicle-mounted air defense missile systems, and the missile.

Hisar-A is an air defense missile system mounted on a self-propelled armored vehicle and can be fully autonomous by means of 3D radar, electro-optic system, command, control and fire control.

Hisar-O is composed of one battalion headquarters and headquarters company and three batteries, each of which has a sufficient amount of launchers, missiles, radars, command, control and communication systems and other support equipment.

Email: bbekdil@defensenews.com
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...stal-scandal-sub-helicopter-frigate/25512681/

South Korea Focuses on Underwater Protection
By Jung Sung-Ki 2:45 p.m. EDT April 12, 2015

SEOUL — The South Korean Navy is focusing on modernization efforts to guard against North Korean coastal threats while building a deep sea operational capability.

The service launched an independent submarine command Feb. 1, highlighting its emphasis on undersea operations to counter North Korea and other regional threats. The command, the sixth of its kind in the world, brings operations, logistics, training and maintenance under one roof, according to Navy officials.

"The command's main mission is to better protect the country from North Korean naval provocations, as the North is increasingly building up its underwater capabilities," Cmdr. Lim Myung-soo, at the Navy's public affairs office, said.

The command, located in the southern port city of Jinhae, operates 13 diesel-electric submarines — nine 1,200-ton 209-class, and four 1,800-ton 214-class subs — with five more 214 subs being commissioned by 2020.

The Navy's buildup, however, is likely to be hindered by a string of corruption scandals involving top Navy officers.

Former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Hwang Ki-chul has been indicted for irregularities regarding the procurement of a naval salvage ship, named Tongyeong.

Hwang, who stepped down last month, is suspected of having helped a foreign sonar supplier win a contract in the construction of the 3,500-ton Tongyeong by manipulating documents related to the evaluation of the ship's performances when he worked as director of the naval ship procurement bureau at the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) in 2009.

Due to defects in the sonar system, the salvage ship failed to participate in rescue operations during last year's ferry tragedy that killed more than 300 people.

Former CNO Chung Ok-geun, who led the Navy from 2008-2010, was also arrested in January on charges of taking bribes from a local arms agency after helping it win a deal to acquire telecommunications and electronic intelligence-collecting devices for spy ships.

"A series of arms procurement corruption scandals has eroded public confidence seriously in the Navy's arms buildup efforts," said Yang Wook, a researching member of the Korea Defense & Security Forum (KODEF). "That means any naval buildup programs in the future will be censored thoroughly and questioned every time, which could delay the timing of weapons deployment and harm the security posture."

In other plans, the Navy also will deploy nine 3,000-ton heavy attack submarines, code named KSS-III, equipped with multiple vertical launch tubes to fire 1,500-kilometer cruise missiles that could hit key targets in North Korea. The development of the KSS-III lead ship started last November at the dockyard of Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering.

The North is believed to have about 70 submarines, including 20 of the 1,800-ton Romeo class. In particular, the communist state is thought to be developing an upgraded version of the Soviet-designed Romeo that can fire a ballistic missile.

"Though North Korean submarines are presumed to be inferior to South Korean subs in terms of modernization and capabilities, they pose grave threats to the security of South Koreans," said Shin In-kyun, president of the Korea Defense Network, a Seoul-based defense-related civic group. "The submarine command is to serve as the groundwork for the South's deterrence underwater."

To beef up anti-submarine operations, the Navy plans to procure 12 more helicopters; in 2013, the service bought eight AW-159 Lynx Wildcat helicopters for about $540 million.

"A final decision to procure more naval helicopters is to be made by the year's end after a preliminary study on the required operational capability," Cmdr. Park Sung-soo, vice spokesman for DAPA, said.

The AW-159 is considered a strong candidate for the new contract, while the Sikorsky MH-60 Seahawk and a modified variant of the Surion utility helicopter built by Korea Aerospace Industries are competing, according to sources.

Frigate acquisition plans also are on track. Under the FFX batch I program, five 2,300-ton Incheon-class frigates have been commissioned, with one more hull planned to be set afloat this year.

The warship will take charge of operations, such as coastal patrol and anti-submarine warfare. It has a maximum speed of 50 knots and is armed with Raytheon's Mk 49 RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) and a Phalanx Block 1B close-in weapon system.

The ship has a hull-mounted sonar and six torpedo tubes carrying indigenously developed "Blue Shar" 324mm torpedoes.

Under the second batch program, up to 12 more frigates are projected to enter service by 2020. These ships are expected to be slightly larger and feature a vertical launch system for locally designed medium-range air defense missiles in place of the batch I's short-range RAM.

The fleet of new frigates is expected to help counter threats posed by North Korea's ship destroyers, according to Kim Dae-young, a researching member of KODEF.

"New radars and sensors of the new frigates will help thwart the threats of North Korean stealth destroyers recently unveiled," Kim said.

In February, the North released an image of its new "stealth" ship-destroyer, threatening that it can strike South Korean and US vessels without warning at any time.

Pyongyang's state media said the high-speed ship was the result of a 10-year project, claiming it would be extremely difficult for other vessels to detect the destroyer before it launched sea-skimming missiles.

Email: jsungki@defensenews.com

__

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...ing-reconnaissance-missile-undersea/25238515/

Asia-Pacific Leads Sub Market
By Wendell Minnick 2:43 p.m. EDT April 12, 2015

TAIPIEI — Submarine investment remains popular globally, with the Asia-Pacific region taking the lion's share of builds and programs, according to Tony Beitinger, vice president of market intelligence for AMI International Naval Analysts & Advisors.

Worldwide naval investments in submarines continue to outpace all other naval procurements, he said, with 34 countries procuring or planning to acquire submarines over the next 20 years.

There are 12 countries in the Asia Pacific region investing in submarines: Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam. The Philippines, Thailand and Bangladesh have publicly voiced the desire to acquire new or used submarines.

Submarines are a leading indicator of the larger pattern of naval spending in the Asia-Pacific region, said Bob Nugent, an independent naval analyst. Spending on submarines in the region, as with naval spending overall, is going up as a result of stronger economies for some countries and an increased sense of sea-based vulnerabilities and threats in the region for others.

"Submarines are the most expensive [ton for ton] naval platforms to acquire and arguably the most expensive to sustain in readiness from a broad perspective of resources needed to recruit, train, operate, maintain and modernize a capable submarine force," Nugent said. This raises the question of the fiscal constraints to growing and modernizing regional submarine fleets.

"This issue of affordability and tradeoffs of a submarine force is especially public in Australia right now, but likely also being heard in defense circles in South Korea, Japan and elsewhere in the region."

Despite high costs, technological improvements have made submarines more lethal and quieter, especially with air independent propulsion, and this has driven wealthy and poor nations alike to procure them.

"These types of submarines are becoming more capable and are beginning to carry more lethal weapons like submerged-launched anti-ship and land attack missiles, as well as reconnaissance systems such as unmanned underwater vehicles used to collect intelligence or deploy special operations forces," Beitinger said.

China's growing military force has pushed Taiwan's Navy into a corner. The service is in the midst of a major new submarine build program expected to produce four to eight submarines within the next 20 years. Taiwan naval officials said industrial interest has been expressed in Europe and the United States.

"Submarines are the key offset strategy platform for a strategic planner looking to counter the greater spending and greater numbers of naval platforms and systems fielded by future rivals," Nugent said. With China's naval spending outpacing that of Japan, Australia, South Korea and others in southeast Asia combined, submarines are likely to remain priorities for continued investment in the region, he said.

Nugent said he saw accelerating investment in some submarine-related force multiplier technologies, including unmanned vehicles, advanced energy and propulsion systems that reduce fuel use and improve range, stealth and weapons performance, and advanced undersea sensors for intelligence and surveillance.

Email: wminnick@defensenews.com

___


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...rginia-class-ohio-class-replacement/25537589/

Bow Wave of Subs Rolling Through Yards
By Christopher P. Cavas 2:54 p.m. EDT April 12, 2015

Submarine Production Is Booming Now and Well Into The Future at Electric Boat

GROTON, Connecticut — A surge of work is rippling through the building yards of General Dynamics Electric Boat (EB) the likes of which has not been seen since the end of the Cold War.

At the manufacturing facility in Quonset Point, Rhode Island, and the assembly and design facilities in Groton and New London, Connecticut, thousands of employees have been added, with more hires to come. Quonset Point is expanding and erecting new buildings and the Groton waterfront is getting a major refurbishment. The ramp ups are expected to continue for at least another decade, into the mid-2020s and beyond.

All this is in reaction to a heightened tempo of submarine attack boat construction, increased conversion and overhaul work, and the beginnings of the program to build the biggest undersea craft the US Navy has ever fielded — a new class of ballistic missile subs known as the Ohio Replacement Program (ORP), designated SSBN(X) by the Navy.

The pace of construction for Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarines has doubled since 2011, when the US Navy upped the construction rate to two subs per year. Construction is split between EB and Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia — each yard builds specific parts of the submarines — and the shipbuilders alternated in assembling and completing the subs.

But two per year means that, beginning this year and next, each yard will start to deliver one Virginia-class submarine per year, and both shipbuilders have been steadily increasing their workforces to deal with the surge. The wave of increased production already has swept through the manufacturing facilities at Quonset Point, and when the Illinois is delivered in December, the surge will be increasingly felt in Groton.

EB is hard at work on four major projects: Virginia-class Block III and Block IV submarines are under construction, and work on the first of two moored training ship conversions is under way. In development are Block V Virginias, incorporating an added 85-foot midsection called the Virginia Payload Module, and work to prepare for and design the ORP has already begun, long in advance of 2021, when the first ship is expected to be fully funded.

"We have got 2,700 people or thereabouts, designers and engineers and other pre-production personnel, working on the ORP right now," Jeff Geiger, president of Electric Boat, said April 1. "That is doing the work now. That is not prepping. That is actually producing the systems engineering and the early functional design and basic arrangements for the submarine."

The workload numbers are impressive: A total of 17 Block III and Block IV subs are expected to be built, along with up to 20 or more Block Vs. The Navy plans to build 12 ORPs in a program that stretches well into the 2030s.

Parts of at least nine submarines are being worked on in Quonset Point and Groton. The Illinois, with all hull sections fully assembled, is expected to be launched next month at Groton, and parts of the Washington, Colorado, Indiana, South Dakota, Delaware, Vermont, Oregon, the yet-to-be-named SSN 794, and the Hyman G. Rickover can be found in various stages all through the yards.

In other words, EB is full up with Virginia-class construction.

"We're at capacity now in certain areas, and one of them is hull construction," said Sean Davies, general manager of the Quonset Point plant.

To handle the increased ORP workload, GD in December 2013 leased an additional 42 acres from the state of Rhode Island specifically to support ORP construction. The length of the 25-year leases are, Davies said, "unprecedented for GD."

The new acreage is adjacent and in addition to the existing 133-acre Electric Boat plant, of which GD owns just 33 acres.

Construction already has begun on the newly leased land on a new Automated Frame and Cylinder building (AFC), which will handle construction of the ORP's pressure hull and other structures.

After completion, the first work in the new AFC building will support the common missile compartment, a cooperative arrangement to design and build the missile compartments for the ORP and the United Kingdom's Successor ballistic-missile submarine. Work to build the first four-tube missile assemblies for the British subs will begin in 2017, before the ORP units.

Already in use at Quonset Point is an annex added to an existing building to assemble components for the Moored Training Ship (MTS), a project to convert the Los Angeles-class attack boats La Jolla and San Francisco into static training assets.

"We were already at capacity," explained Walter Tift, manager of operations for the MTS project. "We needed this space." Around him were new hull sections for the La Jolla, which entered Norfolk Naval Shipyard in February to begin the conversion. Up to 420 EB employees are working on the MTS program.

The MTS facility has been set up in just over a year.

"We went from a building that did not have a certificate of occupancy a little over a year ago to having 400 to 500 people cranking out modules," said Geiger. "It has been a very compressed and schedule-critical effort, but it has gone very well."

Quonset employment is shooting up from less than 2,000 employees in 2010, to 3,400 today, and will continue to grow to 3,750 by this July, Davies said. The Rhode Island facility expects to add about 2,200 employees over the next decade, reaching a peak of nearly 6,000 in 2025.

The previous peak was 5,900 in 1984, when Ohio-class and Los Angeles-class submarine construction was at its highest point. As production wound down, employment at Quonset dropped to about 1,000 employees in 1996.

At Groton, the plant isn't expanding as it is in Quonset Point, but rather a number of facility replacements and upgrades are underway or planned. Among the improvements, said Tom Plante, director of strategic planning at EB, are a new pontoon barge for the dry dock, a new built-for-the-purpose barge to shuttle submarine sections between locations, waterfront improvements to support the big ORPs in the post-launch fitting-out period, and possibly a new pier to handle the increased activity.

EB is also working to get back on the step to deliver its submarines ahead of schedule, and to increase that rate with each successive hull. That pace suffered a setback last year when the goal of delivering the North Dakota four months ahead of schedule couldn't be met, primarily because of challenges stemming from the ship's altered configuration as the first Block III submarine. The ship ended up being delivered just two days prior to the contract date.

But construction of the Illinois is back on the fast track, said Ken Blomstedt, EB's Virginia program manager, with a goal of a 58-month building time — which would be a new class record.

"It is aggressive," Blomstedt acknowledged, "but we're very confident we can get under 60 months."

With its expanding workforce, EB has increased the number of submarine overhauls, or availabilities, done at Groton. The Minnesota, commissioned in 2013, is in the yard now undergoing its post-shakedown availability — all Virginia-class submarines undergo their PSA, the first overhaul performed on a new submarine, at Groton — but the yard has contracts to take in the Los Angeles-class submarines Columbia and Montpelier this year, and it performed four similar overhauls in 2014.

EB's ability to handle overhauls is getting better, as the time it takes a Virginia-class sub to undergo its PSA is being cut nearly in half; the Minnesota is the last to schedule a year-long overhaul, and subsequent PSAs will be closer to six months.

While Congress and the Navy in Washington wrangle over how to pay for the ORPs, there does not appear to be any major dispute that the ships will be built. Not surprisingly, Geiger is optimistic about his shipyard's future.

"We are a pretty popular entity" in New England, he said. "Not just because of what Electric Boat offers but because of what that does throughout the supply base and how it ripples both in the communities locally and nationally. To have the US Navy and the congressional support for the submarine programs in the midst of the very tight fiscal environment for defense and otherwise, it is a great place to be."

Email: ccavas@defensenews.com

Twitter: @CavasShips
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...-poland-submarine-high-north-crimea/25368547/

Nations Respond to Russian Buildup in Baltics
By Gerard O'Dwyer 2:52 p.m. EDT April 12, 2015
Militaries Respond to Growing Russian Presence in Baltic, High North

HELSINKI — Poland and Sweden are reinforcing their strike power and reach in the Baltic Sea area, a direct response to the Kremlin's continued strengthening of naval and air assets in the Baltic and High North regions.

Sweden has embarked on a US $2 billion capital investment program to acquire a new submarine class, convert existing corvettes into frigates and re-establish a strong military presence on its forward Baltic island, Gotland.

For its part, Poland is expanding its strike capability in the Baltic Sea with plans to procure cruise missiles for three submarines earmarked for purchase by 2023, and also plans to acquire Norwegian-built naval strike missiles.

The primary motivation driving Moscow's military buildup around the Baltic Sea and the High North is its unshakeable perception that it is surrounded by a hostile military alliance — the 28-member NATO.

Digital Show Daily: Complete coverage from the Navy League Sea-Air-Space Exposition

This perception dates to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and decimation of its naval forces in the early 1990s. Amid the pursuant economic collapse, funding for Russia's Navy dried up, forcing ships to sit in port and rust for years. Moreover, important infrastructure on shore along the Baltic coast and the Crimean Peninsula were lost to newly independent states.

Moscow's muscle-flexing in the Baltic and High North forms part of massive military programs aimed at reversing that decline. The Russian government's 20 trillion ruble (US $640 billion) rearmament program includes building new frigates and corvettes as well as new nuclear- and diesel-powered submarines.

Fleet Emerges From Lean Years

Russia's Baltic Fleet was particularly hard hit by the Soviet collapse. The Navy's infrastructure was spread along the Baltic coast from Kaliningrad to St. Petersburg. Though it held onto the port city of Kaliningrad, its isolation from Russia makes it difficult for Russia to support a large fleet.

According to publicly available data, Russia's Baltic Fleet consists of some 50 different vessels, comprising diesel-powered submarines, one Sovremenny-class destroyer, about eight Steregushchy- and Nanuchka-class missile corvettes, two Neustrashimy-class guided missile frigates, six Paschim-class anti-submarine warfare vessels, and a few dozen smaller vessels and landing ships.

However, the fleet doesn't see much action in the Baltic, according to Mikhail Barabanov, a naval expert at the Moscow-based Center for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.

"There is no special naval buildup being performed in the Baltic, with the exception of the commissioning of several Project 20380 [Steregushchy-class] corvettes, " Barabanov said.

"Moreover, the main large warships of the Baltic Fleet, the Project 11540 [Neustrahimy-class] frigates and the large tank landing ships, serve almost constantly outside of the Baltic Sea, especially in the Mediterranean," Barabanov said.

In the face of the Ukraine crisis and Russia's antagonistic relationship with NATO, the Baltic has taken on a greater military significance, according to Dmitry Gorenburg, a Russian Navy expert at CNA Corp. in Virginia.

In this climate of heightened tensions, Gorenburg said the Baltic Fleet is again taking on a counter-NATO component. "There's also an espionage component, with small subs used to probe NATO and Swedish and Finnish maritime defenses," he added.

This rising instability is reflected in increased Russian multi-branch naval exercises. Warships from Russia's Baltic Fleet are preparing to enter the open seas for rocket, artillery and torpedo exercises under approval from the Western Military District, which is expected to sanction and conduct about 4,000 military drills in 2015.

Sweden To Re-establish Gotland

Sweden's response to Russia's near-neighborhood capacity-building has been to launch major naval upgrades, including the modernization of part of its submarine fleet and the acquisition of two A26-class stealthy subs from 2016-2024. About $1 billion is being spent on the purchase of the two A26 subs alone.

The capital investment will refocus the Navy's submarine and surface fleet on operations in the Baltic.

"The A26 submarine will represent the very best in stealth and advanced technologies. It will be pivotal to our ambition to expand the reach of our present operations in the Baltic Sea," Swedish Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist said.

The program will include a $700 million project to upgrade submarine-hunter warships, with major refits and technology improvements scheduled for the Gävle- and Sundsvall Göteborg-class corvettes, which will be effectively converted to frigates.

More important, Sweden is re-establishing permanent air, naval and fast reaction forces on Gotland Island, its southern-most military outpost in the Baltic. It will station Gripen jets, a support helicopter unit, submarine-hunter ships and a rapid response Army battalion on the island.

"We are responding to needs," Hultqvist said. "There is increased activity by Russia in the Baltic Sea region and this is generating tensions. Gotland will have a strategic importance in our Baltic Sea defenses."

Polish Missile Plans

Poland is in talks with Washington and Paris to buy cruise missiles for new submarines to boost its Baltic Sea presence, said Tomasz Siemoniak, Poland's deputy prime minister and defense minister.

Sources close to the potential deal suggest Warsaw aims to buy 24 Tomahawk missiles from Raytheon, Polish news agency PAP reports. Should the deal be approved by the US Congress, the first eight missiles could be delivered to the Polish Navy in 2022.

The acquisition, to be carried out as part of the Polish Claws program, could significantly improve the Navy's strike capability. Should Poland acquire the Tomahawks, it would become the third country to operate these long-range missiles, alongside the US and UK. Poland's actions are connected to increased Russian military presence in Eastern Europe and the annexation of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula in 2014.

Under the Polish Defense Ministry's Military Modernization Plan for 2013-2022, two new submarines are to be delivered by 2022, and a third by 2023.

In late 2014, Poland ordered additional naval strike missiles from Norwegian company Kongsberg to establish a second coastal missile defense squadron on the Polish Baltic shore. The first squadron was deployed in 2013 and new missiles are to be delivered to Poland by May 2018.

At the signing ceremony in December, Siemoniak said the military "wants the strike range of the [coastal defense missile squadron] to cover the entire Polish coast."

"Poland must be secure on its Baltic Sea shore, which is the reason behind the decision to set up a naval missile unit and expand its range of operations," Siemoniak said. Poland's military "wants the strike range of the [coastal defense missile squadron] to cover the entire Polish coast."

The two acquisition programs form part of the MoD's Navy modernization strategy. By 2030, Poland plans to spend some 900 million zloty (US $240 million) per year on new vessels and armament, according to MoD figures. Poland's coastline runs to 440 kilometers.

Britain Chasing 'Ghost' Russian Subs

It's not just on the front line with Russia where Moscow's more aggressive military policy is getting noticed. Like Sweden, Britain has been chasing possible Russian submarines around its territorial waters in the west of Scotland close to the Royal Navy's Faslane nuclear submarine base on the Clyde.

NATO maritime patrol aircraft from four nations were scrambled in late 2014 after fishermen spotted what could have been the periscope of a Russian nuclear submarine.

Virtually all of the attention in Britain, though, centered on the fact that the government had to call up its allies to provide maritime patrol aircraft to help conduct the search from the air as it had scrapped all of its own capabilities in 2010 to help balance the books at the Ministry of Defense.

Jaroslaw Adamowski in Warsaw, Matthew Bodner in Moscow and Andrew Chuter in London contributed to this report.

Email: godwyer@defensenews.com
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.dw.de/steinmeier-appeals-to-russia-ukraine-ahead-of-berlin-summit/a-18377315

Ukraine
Steinmeier appeals to Russia, Ukraine ahead of Berlin summit

Germany's foreign minister has urged Russia and Ukraine to move forward with the terms of the Minsk ceasefire, ahead of a key meeting in Berlin. He rejected opposition calls to reinstate Russia in what's now the G7.

Date 13.04.2015

"We expect both Moscow and Kyiv to seize the central issue of the implementation of the next phase of Minsk," Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said in Monday's edition of German daily Die Welt.

This phase foresees "the preparation of local elections in the areas occupied by the separatists, but also humanitarian aid access and reconstruction in eastern Ukraine," Steinmeier said.

The Social Democrat will host his counterparts from France, Russia and Ukraine in Berlin on Monday evening for talks on the continued implementation of the Minsk Accord - a ceasefire which has largely halted violence in eastern Ukraine, despite repeated breaches.

Steinmeier lauded the progress that had been made, citing the "well-advanced withdrawal of heavy weapons." He said that observers on the ground in eastern Ukraine, from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), were making good progress, "but it is not enough."

Earlier in the week, the OSCE demanded that both pro-Russian separatists and the regular Ukrainian army stop intimidating or restricting the movements of its 400 monitors.

After Crimea: 'We could not act as if nothing had happened'

Steinmeier also responded to a contentious appeal from Germany's far-left party, Die Linke, in his interview with Die Welt, rejecting calls to reinstate Russia into the G7 group of industrialized nations. From 1998 through March 2014, the G8 included Russia until the group's newest member was ejected following the annexation of Crimea.

The Left party's leader, Gregor Gysi, had told the dpa news agency that Germany - current holders of the G7's rotating presidency - should invite Russia back for this summer's summit in Elmau, southern Bavaria, near the Austrian border.

"As no crises can get solved without Russia, of course, the G7 should again be made into a G8," Gysi had said. "Isolating Russia achieves nothing, it only hurts us."

Steinmeier rejected this assertion but indicated a desire to restore more positive ties to Moscow: "It is not in our interests to isolate Russia in the long term," he said. "But after the annexation of Crimea, contravening international law, we could not simply act as if nothing had happened and carry on with business as usual."

Besides Germany, the US, UK, France, Italy, Japan and Canada are also members of the G7. After Monday's foreign minister's meeting in Berlin, the G7's foreign ministers will discuss the developments at a mini-summit in Lübeck northern Germany.

Compared to key NATO members like the US and UK, Germany has been milder in its criticism of Russia since the conflict in Ukraine began, and Steinmeier did offer hope that Russia could eventually return to the G7, under key conditions.

"The route back to a G8 goes via respect for the unity of Ukraine and the implementation of Russia's obligations as part of the Minsk Accord," Steinmeier told die Welt.

msh/jil (AFP, dpa)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/a-perilous-escalation-1.2171714

A perilous escalation
Yemen

First published:
Mon, Apr 13, 2015, 00:26

Yemen’s civil war is becoming a humanitarian catastrophe, a playing field for regional rivalries and a spoiler in the geopolitical detente between the United States and Iran. This threatens to make the strategically positioned but poor country of 26 million people a failed state like Libya or Syria unless moves are rapidly made to initiate negotiations on a power-sharing solution to its conflicts.

Experts warn against framing Yemen’s many problems into simple conflicts between Sunni and Shia Moslems or Saudi and Iranian interests - even if war on this scale trumps such complexities. The Houthi rebels from the northern part of the country are from a branch of Shia Islam quite distinct from Iran’s. They were in revolt without Iranian aid over inequitable treatment for over a decade against the previous autocratic government, which was overthrown in 2011. The succeeding regime failed to resolve this and other conflicts, including one with a separate Al-Qaeda faction in the east of Yemen. As a result the Houthi groups seized their chance to take over the capital Sana’a and Aden, the principal port.

These events coincided with two crucial developments in Yemen’s immediate region: the concluding round of nuclear talks between Iran and major powers, and a change of leadership in Saudi Arabia’s monarchy. The Saudis’ rooted hostility to an Iran deal arises from their regional rivalry and a fear that the United States is shifting its allegiances. The Saudis’ rapid assembly of a pan-Arab Sunni military coalition to head off Iranian interference in the Arab world and their decision to launch an ambitious air intervention in Yemen over the last two weeks has taken the US by surprise. It is partly intended to make President Obama choose between these two regional rivals. Since the extensive air attacks on Houthi positions cannot defeat them a ground troop intervention may be planned.

That would radically transform the Yemeni and regional political and strategic landscapes for the worse, especially if it drew in other Arab states, as seems likely. The potential for greater escalation was seen in the outright hostility with which Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei attacked the Saudi intervention. It is also seen in the grave shortages of food and water in Yemeni cities and the mounting death toll. A failing state that became a battleground for such proxy wars would further endanger regional security by giving Al-Qaeda type groups even more scope to expand.

President Obama should indeed choose a political way through this tangle by demanding a ceasefire, a halt to Saudi intervention and immediate humanitarian access. He should aim to sponsor talks about a power-sharing solution among Yemen’s leaders and pressure Iran to support them as part of a wider effort to stabilise the region.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20150412.aspx

Submarines: U.S. Navy Plans For China

April 12, 2015: The U.S. Navy submarine admirals are being less silent about operations against China than they were about the covert operations against the Russians during the Cold War. In the 1990s the U.S. allowed some details of these submarine espionage operations to go public and it turned out they were very important, especially since the Russians never caught on. Now that everyone knows about that the American submarine community is being rather more open about what (in general) current plans mean for China.

One tactic involves U.S. nuclear subs carrying a dozen or more torpedo sized UUVs (unmanned underwater vehicle) to be launched from torpedo tubes (and sometimes recovered for reuse as well) to perform electronic warfare (mostly jamming) and reconnaissance (electronic and the more conventional forms). The advantage of this approach is that the sub can launch these devices then quietly move away while some UUVs jam enemy sensors for a while then, before the Chinese can pinpoint their location and attack, switch off and silently move away. The UUVs can, when finished, go to a prearranged location and wait underwater until the sub comes by to pick them up. The subs can also release buoys that rise to the surface and listen or jam. For the listening devices the sub comes by after a while and collects the data. These buoys can also be used to send data collected back to navy headquarters via encrypted satellite link. That will enable the Chinese to spot them but the buoys can either self-destruct or simply sink in deep water. The navy has also tested UAVs launched from torpedo tubes, for reconnaissance or jamming.

This submarine based electronic warfare and reconnaissance effort is nothing new. A decade ago it was known that the U.S. Navy was very interested in UUVs and some of these ideas can be traced back to the 1990s or earlier. It was often a matter of waiting for the tech to catch up with the ideas. News of some of the development work has been released.

For example, back in 2007 it was announced when an American sub made its first successful launch and recovery of a UUV while submerged. The UUV was an AN/BLQ-11 long-term mine reconnaissance system (LMRS), which contained sonars that enabled it to search for naval mines, or anything else. In effect the LMRS can scout ahead for the SSN, or simply search an area. The LMRS is about the size of a torpedo, and is launched and recovered via a torpedo tube. It is then recovered via an 18.5 meter (60 foot) robotic arm. This system worked the first time out, and the process was repeated two days later. The UUV was designed to be used on Los Angeles and Virginian class subs.

The LMRS can operate for 40 hours, and up to 135 (eventually over 200) kilometers from the submarine. Cruising speed is about 7 kilometers an hour, with a top speed of 12 kilometers an hour. It can operate from 3 to 61.5 meters (ten to 200 feet) beneath the surface. In addition to GPS, the LMRS has side scan sonar, forward-looking sonar, hunting and docking sonar, acoustic communications and range pingers. The UUV is battery powered and uses a thrust-vectored pumpjet for movement and maneuvering. Previous UUVs were wire (fiber optic cable) controlled, while LMRS can carry out missions by itself. Each LMRS (two UUVs, the recovery arm, and other gear) costs over $100 million. At the time the navy planned to buy about a dozen systems. This, it turned out, was only one of many UUV designs for submarines. Details on most of the other ones were apparently kept secret.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.dawn.com/news/1175519/arab-frustration-with-pakistan

Arab frustration with Pakistan
Editorial — Published about 5 hours ago
552b0f7ded4d0.jpg

http://i.dawn.com/large/2015/04/552b0f7ded4d0.jpg?r=737520771

It is in Pakistan’s interests to broaden ties with Iran, especially in terms of energy cooperation, and to position itself to take advantage of the rollback of sanctions that the US-Iran nuclear deal may allow. —Reuters/File
-
After the resolution, the recriminations. It may have been a stirring riposte to unreasonable demands, but the consensus parliamentary resolution last week was always going to draw criticism from the Arab states that had wanted Pakistan firmly on the side of the Saudi-led coalition attacking the Houthis inside Yemen.

Perhaps the only surprise is that the first broadside has come from the UAE, with Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Mohammad Gargash using decidedly undiplomatic language to vent his, and possibly his state’s, apparent frustration with the Pakistani decision to not participate in hostilities inside Yemen.

Explore: Parliament calls for neutrality in Yemen conflict

There are at least two things that need to be considered here. First, Mr Gargash’s comments have underscored precisely what was argued in parliament last week: the conflict in Yemen is not about Yemen itself but seen by Saudi Arabia and its allies as part of a much wider struggle to push back against perceived Iranian influence in the region.

That in and of itself is reason enough for Pakistan to abide by the parliamentary resolution — Pakistan’s ties with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries cannot and should not come at the expense of a third country with which Pakistan shares a significant border.

Read: UAE minister warns Pakistan of ‘heavy price for ambiguous stand’ on Yemen

What Mr Gargash, and surely his counterparts in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf and Arab countries, may be perceived as seeking to do is to use the Yemen conflict to effectively declare war on Iran. But Pakistan has no reason whatsoever to engage Iran in a conflict, directly or via proxies.

In fact, it is in Pakistan’s interests to broaden ties with Iran, especially in terms of energy cooperation, and to position itself to take advantage of the rollback of sanctions that the US-Iran nuclear deal may allow.

Also read: Resolution on Yemen is Pakistan's internal matter: Saudi minister

If there is any role for Pakistan in the Yemen conflict, it must lie in the diplomatic route that the government has stressed in recent days. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is already coordinating closely with the Turkish government and has tried to encourage the OIC and the UN to play a more proactive role — that remains the responsible thing to do.

Second, Mr Gargash’s comments have made it imperative to launch a parallel and urgent diplomatic outreach to Saudi Arabia and its allies in the Yemen conflict.

Their anger and resentment directed at Pakistan may be unjustified, but it should not be ignored. Pakistan has many political, economic and diplomatic stakes in the GCC countries and Saudi Arabia, not least the estimated several million Pakistani expatriates.

Also read: Turkey, Pakistan back peaceful resolution to Yemen conflict

Ensuring the safety and security of Pakistanis abroad and the continuation of an economic lifeline ought to be a priority of the government here. Surely, the Pakistani emphasis should be on the much broader spectrum of ties that exist with the GCC countries and Saudi Arabia and the self-defeating economic rationale of curtailing financial and employment ties with Pakistan. Ultimately, it is no one’s interest to escalate a policy difference over Yemen into wholesale damage to long-standing and close ties.

Published in Dawn, April 13th, 2015
 

Housecarl

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

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://972mag.com/how-israel-can-stop-a-nuclear-arms-race-in-the-middle-east/105499/

By +972 Blog |Published April 12, 2015

How Israel can stop a nuclear arms race in the Middle East

While Israel is busy wringing its hands over a nuclear deal over which it has no control, it should instead be looking at processes it can influence.

By Sharon Dolev

People in Israel tend to see the nuclear agreement with Iran as an isolated, historical event, one that will either save Israel or place it under an existential threat. While we’re discussing and dissecting an agreement over which we have absolutely no influence, however, passing by right under our nose are other processes and developments — ones we haven’t thought of, spoken of, or even contemplated. That is, despite the fact that they affect us all, and despite the fact that we have a lot to say on the matter. We are talking about the risk of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and the chance that the Arab states — and others — might drop out of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Related stories

America’s choice on Iran: Obama’s peace or Netanyahu's war
By Larry Derfner | April 5, 2015
An important year for Iran nuclear talks: What Israel got wrong
By Shemuel Meir | December 22, 2013
A way out from under the Middle East's nuclear shadow
By Neve Gordon | December 18, 2013

The NPT, which was written in 1968 and came into effect in 1970, is based on three basic principles: not using nuclear weapons, dismantling nuclear weapons, and the right to nuclear energy. Most countries in the world are parties to the treaty, save for Pakistan, India and Israel, which never joined, and North Korea, which left.

Although the treaty has three legs, it only walks on two of them because the member states have never managed to agree on a timetable for the elimination of nuclear weapons. Therefore, the Convention’s main drawback is that it focuses on non-proliferation, as opposed to other conventions on weapons of mass destruction, which focus on absolute prohibitions.

The importance of the Convention lies mainly in its ban on nuclear proliferation. At the end of the 1960s we may have feared a world-wide nuclear arms race, but today there are only nine countries that have nuclear weapons. Five of them are the permanent members of the UN Security Council (U.S., Russia, China, the UK). The other four are India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel, which are not members of the NPT, and are therefore not bound by it.

So why is it important to talk about the NPT now? Because NPT Review Conference, which acts as a type of follow-up body that gathers every five years, will take place at the end of April, and there is a chance that the Arab states will leave the treaty or sabotage the conference. Even UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is worried. The risk is based on the lack of progress in talks that were supposed to begin in 2012 in Helsinki as part of an international framework to create a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. Thus far, the Arab States and Iran have committed to the talks. Israel has not. In the interest of fairness we should mention that Israel has participated in secret talks in Sweden, some five meetings so far; in order to make perfectly clear that the talks were not official, the Israel representative refused to even enter the room until all of the UN logos were removed.

The decision to create a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East was already made in 1995 and adopted a second time by the Review Conference in 2010, with some small changes. When the conference didn’t meet by its deadline, the member states gave it another deadline. When that deadline was also missed, Egypt temporarily dropped out of the NPT at a preparatory session for the Review Conference in 2013. In a meeting in May 2014, Egypt and the Arab states warned that if no significant progress is made ahead of the April 2015 conference — there will be consequences. They didn’t say what those consequences would be, and it’s likely that they themselves never decided what they would be, but from private conversations behind closed doors, we understand that they mean non-cooperation and possibly even leaving the NPT.

Such a breakdown isn’t so worrying in and of itself, but a glance at the region at the moment raises the fear of a nuclear arms race, or the beginning of one — the first time since the NPT came into force.

Saudi Arabia, which fears Iranian hegemony in the Persian Gulf, has invested large sums of money in the Pakistani nuclear weapons program and has developed advanced missile launching capabilities. Stubborn rumors hint at a Saudi-Pakistani deal to buy ready made nuclear weapons. Those rumors have been growing for the past three years, and they’re not coming from the region’s usual scare monger — Netanyahu — but from the various Arab states. Egypt has already declared its desire to renew its nuclear program, Jordan is developing nuclear reactors with Russia, and the Gulf states aren’t far behind. It is true that at the moment, Saudi Arabia aside, we’re talking about nuclear energy facilities. But the technology is the same technology, and a working nuclear reactor, even if it is civilian in nature, is already seven out of 10 steps toward a nuclear weapon.

So while we are busy talking about Iran, the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty is facing danger of collapse. There is something we can do, however. Israel won’t join the treaty this year, but it can join the talks. At the end of the day, it is a process that Israel has already agreed to in principle in various forums, but conditioned it on various preconditions. The Arab countries admit that the process will be complicated and take years. But even if Israel has no interest in entering the talks now, there are other steps it can take, ones designed to increase the sense that Israel is ready, under certain circumstances, to join the regional and global processes. For instance, it could ratify the two treaties it has already signed: the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

Those are two steps that Israel could at least declare right now, act on them in the next year, and thereby ensure the NPT survives another year — in order to ensure until we accomplish a nuclear-free world, that we don’t annihilate one another.

So what can we do? First of all, we can stop staying silent. Only then can we demand that the prime minister ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. A small but important step. Sending a letter to Netanyahu about it is as simple as one click and typing your name.

But a few words about the Iran deal. The exact number of centrifuges isn’t really important. The American document details agreements that are neither good nor bad. The most important part of the agreement is the diplomatic process itself, which wasn’t even on the table three or four years ago. At the time, when people spoke about options being on the table they usually were talking about sanctions and military strikes. The idea that diplomacy must also be on the table was considered fantastical at the time. So there.

Sharon Dolev is director and founder of the Israeli Disarmament Movement. This post was first published on our Hebrew site, Local Call. Read it here.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/04/...end-on-a-group-youve-probably-never-heard-of/

The Foreign Policy Essay: Whether or Not Pakistan Will Join the War in Yemen May Depend on a Group You’ve Probably Never Heard Of

By C. Christine Fair and Ali Hamza
Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM

Editor’s Note: It’s payback time. As Saudi Arabia goes to war in Yemen, it is calling in favors, with Egypt and other allies joining Riyadh’s “alliance” against the Houthis, whom the Saudis see as another Iranian proxy. Pakistan, with perhaps the most capable military in the Muslim world, is considering joining the fray. Georgetown University’s C. Christine Fair and Ali Hamza explain Pakistan’s domestic dynamics, focusing particular attention on Jamaat-ud-Dawa, formerly called Lashkar-e Taiba, the terrorist group that has long worked closely with the Pakistani military and intelligence service.

***

On March 26, as Iranian-backed Houthi rebels appeared to gain the upper hand in Yemen, Saudi Arabia initiated a military campaign against Houthi rebels in support of President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi. Saudi Arabia, which has long patronized Pakistan’s economy, military, and even nuclear program, wants Pakistan to support this gambit militarily.

When Riyadh comes knocking in the twin cities of Rawalpindi (where the army’s general headquarters is located) and Islamabad (the seat of the civilian government and domicile of Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI), ignoring the clamor is not an option. Last March, Saudi Arabia “gifted” Pakistan with $1.5 billion, and many analysts viewed this as essentially a down payment on Pakistan’s support for Saudi Arabia’s preferred policies in Syria.

Pakistan’s powerful military—long accustomed to getting its way in Pakistan—has said that it wants to comply with Riyadh’s request. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who has long-standing ties to the Kingdom, including a long exile in Saudi Arabia after General Musharraf seized power in October 1999, is also likely inclined to support the request. Even the “left-of-center” Pakistan Peoples’ Party has publicly stated that it supports the Saudi intervention in Yemen.

Unfortunately, the civilian government and the army have hit a road bump: Pakistanis do not support entering this war. So to generate public support for this endeavor, the Pakistan army’s most loyal militant proxy, Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), has stepped into the fray. The group, which was responsible for the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks among other outrages, has been using its social media and convening rallies across the country to mobilize public support for providing military assistance to the Saudi intervention in Yemen. This essay documents JuD’s messaging efforts by examining JuD’s various official Twitter feeds as well as the rhetoric that JuD deploys during its rallies.

Jamaat-ud-Dawa: Loyal Ally of the Army and ISI

Jamaat-ud-Dawa was known as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) until it was “banned” in 2002. Following the ban, the group simply reorganized itself under the new name. Most international analysts consider Jamaat-ud-Dawa (née Lashkar-e-Taiba) to be a terrorist organization that prosecutes the army and ISI’s agenda in India and, at different times, in Afghanistan. In contrast, many Pakistanis view JuD more as a philanthropic organization than a purveyor of terror at the state’s behest. What few analysts have generally understood is that JuD also plays a critical role in Pakistan’s domestic politics that derives from its close ties to Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies. One of these important roles is that JuD, with its commitment to safeguarding the state, offers ideological and material competition to other violent groups in Pakistan. JuD also offers the important utility of street power through its ability to mobilize thousands of ordinary Pakistanis behind government policies.

JuD Messaging

In its campaign to generate public support for Pakistani military assistance to Saudi Arabia, JuD’s messaging has pushed five themes: 1) it is the duty of all Muslims to defend Saudi Arabia, as it is the home of the two holiest sites in Islam; 2) the crisis in Yemen is the result of a Jewish-Crusader alliance out to destroy the Muslim holy places; 3) the Houthi rebels plan to attack imminently and thus Saudi Arabia is fighting a defensive war to protect the sacred sites; 4) the Muslim world must unite to fend off this menace; and 5) everyone in Pakistan supports this effort.

1) Protect the Harmain and Saudi Arabia

JuD’s emir (leader) Mohammad Hafez Saeed has proclaimed at public rallies that it is the duty of every Pakistani, and indeed every Muslim, to protect the “harmain”—the Grand Mosque in Mecca, which surrounds the Ka`ba, and the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina—from a Houthi onslaught. JuD also argues that because of the presence of the harmain in Saudi Arabia, that country is the spiritual center for Muslims; thus, Saudi Arabia must also be protected against the enemies of Islam and of God who have conspired to create fitna (strife) on Saudi Arabia’s doorstep.

On April 2, JuD announced that it had formed a new nationwide movement called “Pasban-e-Harmain-Sharifian” (Defenders of the Holy Sites) for the defense of the revered structures, aimed at generating support beyond JuD’s traditional support base. They set up a separate Twitter account and designed a special symbol to represent the movement, which JuD’s national twitter feed also adopted (see Figure 1). Saeed explained that under this banner JuD would gather the various political and religious parties on a single platform for the defense of the harmain.

Figure 1. Logo for Pasban-e-Harmain-Sharifian (Defenders of the Holy Sites)

The logo is a remarkable piece of propaganda. In addition to featuring the Ka`ba, it references the poetry of Allama Iqbal, a Muslim political philosopher that Pakistanis revere alongside Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the so-called Father of Pakistan. In fact, Iqbal’s portrait appears along with that of Muhammad Ali Jinnah in Pakistani public buildings. At the top of the logo is a well-known couplet from one of Iqbal’s most important poems, “Dunya-i Islam” (World of Islam), in which Iqbal implores Muslims to unite for the defense of the Ka`ba. The poem argues that the biggest impediment to Muslim unity is “racialism.” Ironically, though Iqbal thought parochial nationalisms undermined the strength of the umma (the global Muslim community), Pakistanis revere Iqbal because they believe he argued for a separate Muslim state. (Needless to say Iqbal’s corpus of writings cannot so easily be reduced to this demand as many Pakistanis believe.) JuD’s mobilization of this Pakistani revision of Iqbal’s call to Muslim unity is a clever and emotive strategy because most Pakistanis will recognize this line and immediately understand the message its use is meant to convey.

2) Blame the Jews and Crusaders

A second theme that JuD propounds in its efforts to galvanize support for providing Pakistani military aid to Saudi Arabia is that, contrary to what the international and even Pakistani media claim, the conflict in Yemen is not sectarian and it is not about Iranian and Saudi competition; rather, the JuD claims that the conflict is a result of a conspiracy on the part of “the Crusaders and Jews” to destabilize Yemen. Sometimes the Crusaders are omitted. For example, on March 27, Saeed declared that that a “Jewish conspiracy” (yahudi sazish) has destabilized Yemen. Rather than characterizing Iran’s involvement in the conflict as “sectarian,” Saeed explained that Iran is involved because it is part of a “US and Zionist conspiracy” and castigated Iran for not representing the “Muslim world.” Incidentally, this supports JuD’s anti-sectarian commitments within Pakistan. Similarly, on April 3, Saeed explained to the people gathered at a public rally that the Houthi rebellion in Yemen is not a problem of “Saudi Arabia vs. Iran” or “Shi`a vs. Sunni;” rather it is due to a conspiracy waged by “Crusaders and Jews.” The concept of a nefarious “Crusader-Jew” alliance has considerable takers throughout the Muslim world. Indeed, Osama bin Laden himself alleged that such a nexus exists to harm Muslims.

It also has salience in Pakistan. Even though the vast majority of Pakistanis have never met a Jew in their life, many Pakistanis are deeply anti-Semitic. Pakistan’s media spends considerable time dilating upon Israel’s treatment of Palestinians while paying virtually no regard to Arab maltreatment of the same. Many Pakistanis are susceptible to any number of conspiracy theories about “the Jews,” including, inter alia, that they: 1) run Hollywood; 2) run global finance; 3) dictate U.S. foreign policy; 4) are behind virtually every woe in Pakistan; and 5) were behind the events of 9/11. Pakistanis tend to conflate being Jewish with being Israeli and typically use “Jew” and “Zionist” interchangeably. In addition to believing that Jews are behind every malady in Pakistan, many Pakistanis believe that Jews operate in tandem with Hindus (sometimes referred to even more pejoratively as Brahmans or Baniyas) and the Crusaders (i.e., the United States). Ordinary Pakistanis, popular media personalities, and many in the military or government take it as fact that there is a “Zionist-Hindu-Crusader” nexus that seeks to impose any number of tragedies upon Pakistan. Lamentably, these themes are commonplace in Pakistani textbooks.

3) Saudi Arabia Is Fighting a Defensive War

JuD asserts that the Houthi rebels pose an imminent threat to the Muslim holy sites in Saudi Arabia. To protect them, Saudi Arabia is fighting a defensive war. On social media, JuD uses the hashtag #DefendingHarmain and phrases like “defending and protecting the harmain” to imply that the war is being fought inside Saudi Arabia rather than in Yemen (see Figure 2). Additionally, JuD claims that ISIS and the Houthi rebels are part of the same conspiracy, bent on destroying sacred sites.

Figure 2. #DefendingHarmain

(Translation: “Saudi Arabia is the spiritual leader of Muslims and Pakistan is the defensive center of the Muslims. We will consider defense of Harmain our religious obligation.)

Pakistanis, like Americans, are not well versed in geography, and JuD has not used maps in their rallies. Portraying this offensive war in Yemen that was launched to protect Saudi strategic interests as a defensive war in Saudi Arabia to protect the harmain is a straightforward communication strategy that will resonate with Pakistanis, most of whom will know that the holy sites of Mecca and Medina are in Saudi Arabia even if they have no clue about Yemen and the complex web of woes ensnaring it.

4) Muslims Must Unite (to kill other Muslims)

Another theme the JuD emphasizes is that only unity across the Muslim world can undermine this conspiracy. For this reason, the invocation of Iqbal’s call for all Muslims to unite to protect the sanctuary is particularly salient. Hafez Saeed told his followers that Muslims of all countries—including Pakistan—should worry more about the harmain than their own countries and the problems they confront. This message is particularly germane to Pakistanis given that Pakistan has been at war with itself since 2002. During a press conference at JuD’s headquarters in Khyber, Saeed told attendees that protecting the harmain is “a part of our faith” and that Pakistan should unite Muslim countries in their defense.

In this vein, JuD exhorted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to unite Islamic countries in defense of the “Land of the Harmain” (Saudi Arabia) and called on him to present himself as the leader of the Muslim world. After all, Saeed argued, Pakistan is an atomic power and is thus at the center of defending the Muslim world and standing up the various world powers. Saeed also reminded Pakistanis that Saudi Arabia has always played a role in Pakistan’s defense (Saudi Arabia is widely suspected of funding Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program). JuD’s statements construct Pakistan as the “defense center” of the Muslim world and Saudi Arabia as the “spiritual leader.” In this way, Pakistan is obliged to defend Saudi Arabia against this threat, construed as a Jewish and Crusader alliance to mobilize Houthis against the holiest of Muslim sites.

Of course, Saeed and the JuD conveniently tend to gloss over the fact that this war to “defend the Muslim world” will mostly involve killing other Muslims.

5) There’s Already a Consensus (Even If It’s Fictitious)

Finally, many of JuD’s statements give the impression that the civilian government and military have already made the decision to militarily support Saudi Arabia and that the Pakistani public is behind the government’s decision. Figure 3 presents a typical JuD rally and concomitant tweet to this effect.

Figure 3. The People are Ready to Fight

The caption reads: “The people are ready to fight shoulder to shoulder with the Saudi government to protect the Holy Harmain!” The tweet also includes a photo of rally in which JuD activists, who are easily identified by the organization’s distinctive black and white flag, carry a sign that reads: “We strongly support the decision of the Pakistani government to protect the sanctity of the holy sites.” Extraordinarily, JuD claims that Pakistanis are ready and willing to sacrifice their lives in defense of the “Guardian of the Holy Sites”—that is, the king of Saudi Arabia.

The reality is quite different. Pakistani opinion leaders have noted that Saudi Arabia is behind much of the terrorism that has ravaged Pakistan and has done little to attenuate Saudi-origin support for extremist madrassas that churn out students steeped in sectarian hate-mongering. Opponents have also rightly asked what Saudi Arabia has done to support Pakistan in its various internal and external military challenges. Moreover, Pakistan’s military has been fighting the Pakistani Taliban in the tribal areas for more than a decade, and the Pakistani Taliban receive support from Saudi Arabia (among others). Pakistanis—especially Shi`a—also worry that the sectarian-tinged war in Yemen will exacerbate the ongoing war being waged against Shi`a in Pakistan by Sunni militants with ties to Saudi Arabia..

Conclusion

It is impossible to assess what the net impacts of JuD’s messaging will have on public opinion. And it should be remembered that JuD is not the only organization engaging in such efforts. Deobandi political religious leaders have also weighed in to support the move; Deobandis have influence over most of the militant groups operating in Pakistan and they have influence over most of the country’s mosques and madrassas. Mainstream Ahl-e-Hadis ulema (religious scholars) also support the move. Meanwhile, Barelvis and Shi`a oppose militant support for Saudi Arabia’s Yemen misadventure.

Ultimately, the Pakistani state will decide after weighing numerous considerations, not the least of which is Saudi largesse. However, if the past provides any clues, the efforts of JuD will likely be significant. After all, JuD has an enormous domestic infrastructure, deep credibility among Pakistanis, and considerable street presence. Unlike its Deobandi counterparts who support this measure as part of their larger sectarian worldview, JuD espouses national unity. Even after the decision is taken, likely to support Saudi Arabia, JuD’s efforts will continue to shore up support for the controversial policy. No matter the ultimate outcome, JuD will use this opportunity to burnish its credentials with the deep state and further imbricate itself in Pakistan’s domestic and foreign policies.

***

C. Christine Fair is an assistant professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. She is the author of Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army’s Way of War and, along with Sarah J. Watson, is the co-editor of Pakistan’s Enduring Challenges.

Ali Hamza is an M.A. candidate in the Public Policy Program at Georgetown’s McCourt School of Public Policy.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/vie...o-alliance-between-Washington-and-Tehran.html

A de-facto alliance between Washington and Tehran
Sunday, 12 April 2015
Raghida Dergham

Within one week, this is what Tehran reaped and sowed: The Islamic Republic of Iran celebrated the opening of a new historical chapter with the United States and the European Union, signing the declaration of what is its own understanding of the framework nuclear agreement with the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia, and Germany, especially as relates to lifting the international and U.S. sanctions on Tehran. Tehran engaged Pakistan, which had declared its willingness to join the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, with the result being a joint declaration by the Iranian and Pakistani foreign ministers supporting the “facilitation” of a Yemeni dialogue.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that a "consensus" over the Iranian position on Yemen was the outcome of meetings held with officials in Oman - which neighbors Yemen - Turkey and Pakistan, which have the top two armies in the Islamic world and which are not members of the Arab coalition in Yemen. Tehran received Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who had criticized Iranian interference in Yemen through the Houthis, and explained to him how the Islamic Republic has become a heavyweight in the regional balance of power. Tehran declared that it is dispatching navy destroyers and cruisers to the Gulf of Aden and the Strait of Bab el Mandeb, in a three month mission - the same time period ahead of the June 30 deadline for reaching a final nuclear deal that would practically establish Iran as a nuclear power in the Middle East, with a stay of execution. All this happened in just a week. All this should compel Arab leaders, particularly the Saudi leadership, to sit down to draw both immediate and long-term strategies in light of Iran's achievements, even if Tehran is exaggerating its “historic achievements” and behaving as if it has triumphed before the battle has ended.

The new chapter in the relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran is a historical event, because it gives Tehran exactly what the Mullah regime wants from the Obama administration since President Barack Obama began his series of concessions. The nuclear deal will give Tehran what it has always insisted upon, namely: recognition by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council of its nuclear “right” and caving in to Tehran’s insistence on acquiring nuclear capabilities, provided it agrees to postpone implementation. The deal establishes Iran as an honorary member of the international nuclear club with the approval of the five nuclear powers along with Germany.

The framework agreement declared last week as a prelude to the anticipated final deal to follow the negotiations of the coming three months is important in a way that goes beyond the nuclear dimension. It also meets two other important demands of the Islamic Republic: first, a public American declaration, which has the the flavor of being an official pledge, that the United States respects the Mullah regime in Tehran and will never seek to topple this regime no matter what. Indeed, this regime has now become a partner of the United States for the next ten years - at the very least - being the party pledging to comply with the inspection regime to be agreed upon for the nuclear activities led by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Regional ambitions and key threats

Second, the U.S. president agreed to another very important demand made by Tehran, namely, recognizing its regional weight, ambitions, and roles without meddling on the part of the United States. Thus, Barack Obama bowed down to the Iranian insistence on non-U.S. objection to Iranian intervention in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen, to secure the nuclear deal that he wants to serve as his historic legacy. In this context, it is not important what this or that U.S. official may say about the American position on Iranian intervention here or there. The bottom line is that the Obama administration has abandoned -- or was forced to abandon -- the chips through which it could have put pressure on Tehran to stop it from encroaching on key Arab nations such as Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon.

The Arab leaderships, especially Saudi leadership, have three months to effect a radical change in the equation of the American-Iranian-Arab relationship
Raghida Dergham

This is the picture then: First, the U.S. president’s recognition that Iran, within 13 years, will be ready to turn into a nuclear military power. What will supposedly prevent this is an ambiguous and loose inspection mechanism whose features are yet to be specified, to be conducted by the IAEA with a yet mysterious and non-specified link to the process of lifting the international sanctions at the U.N. Security Council.

Secondly, the international sanctions on Iran will be gradually lifted at the Security Council in parallel with the gradual implementation of nuclear commitments -- in the Obama administration’s view. In the view of Tehran and a number of European capitals, however, the sanctions will be lifted as soon as the nuclear deal is signed. No matter how many ways the agreement can be interpreted, the countries gearing up to capitalize on the nuclear deal are ready to reap the spoils -- led by Russia, India, China, and Brazil, the so-called BRICS countries, which had for long appeased Iran and spared it from accountability on Syria and on the international resolutions Iran violated. The first milestone will be Russia’s delivery of advanced air defense systems such as the S-300 to Iran, as soon as the sanctions are lifted.

At the level of the United States, lifting the sanctions is the purview of Congress and not just the U.S. administration. Many in Congress consider that lifting the sanctions on Iran prematurely is tantamount to dropping a necessary “stick” to ensure Iran is honest about abiding by its commitments and pledges, and that this squanders the proverbial “carrot” at the same time.

Realistically speaking, the Obama administration in its eagerness to lift the U.S. and international sanctions, is practically funding Iranian nuclear and regional ambitions, as represented by fighting the war in Syria, supporting the Iraqi militias, backing the arrogance of its ally Hezbollah, and arming the Houthis in Yemen where the U.S. ally Saudi Arabia is fighting a fateful war.
Remaining silent

Practically speaking, the Obama administration has told Tehran that it will remain silent and will not mind the Iranian regional role, and has signaled to it on the ground that Tehran remains a de-facto ally in the U.S.-led war on ISIS.

In reality, and following more than three decades of official estrangement, the U.S.-Iranian relationship is now being normalized through this de-facto alliance and the blessing of the Iranian expansion in the Arab region, with the pledge to recognize the legitimacy of the regime in Tehran.

The Arab leaderships, especially Saudi leadership, have three months to effect a radical change in the equation of the American-Iranian-Arab relationship. Work must begin immediately in a way that goes beyond short-term actions, even if these appear to be qualitatively advanced.

Of course, it is significant that the U.S. Department of Defence (Pentagon) stated the U.S. air force has started operations to support the Saudi air force operating over Yemen, beginning with refueling in mid-air for Saudi fighters partaking in Operation Decisive Storm against the Houthis in Yemen. Washington has stressed that its military support for Decisive Storm will remain “limited”, and will not reach the level of taking part directly in the air strikes, and will instead remain limited to intelligence and logistical support. This support has come late, but it remains worthwhile, especially if intelligence assistance helps pinpoint military sites to avoid civilian casualties, and if it helps end military operations and the return to political dialogue to reach a settlement.

However, it is imperative for the Arab leaderships to demand from the Obama administration more determination and insistence, especially with regard to showing firmness with Iran to compel it to stop sending military aid to the Houthis and cease its naval deployment in the Gulf of Aden and Bab al-Mandab. Any delay in such a determination would have disastrous consequences on Yemen and Decisive Storm, which the Arab coalition cannot afford to lose no matter what the cost is. This is a fateful battle for the forces of the coalition, including Saudi Arabia, and failure will lead to extremely dangerous regional repercussions.

President Barack Obama invited the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries -- Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Oman - to Camp David to give them reassurances regarding the anticipated nuclear deal. Oman has practically left the Arab-Gulf camp and is now designated neutral if not close to Iran in the equation. Nevertheless, the events in Yemen have brought Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar closer together, and opened a new door to inter-Gulf cooperation and a new strategy that could be up to the level of the challenges.

Washington will not take the Arab coalition, which included Egypt -- the largest Arab army -- seriously enough unless these countries come up with a tight plan with both a strategic tack and a tactical tack.

Washington will become further divided in the coming weeks and months, not only between Republicans and Democrats, or between Congress and the administration, but also at the level of the public opinion. The majority of Americans do not want war or anything resembling a war, and thus will welcome the proposals of the Obama administration, even if they entail a showdown with Israel over the Iranian issue. However, the Democratic Party and Democratic congressmen and women will not support the Obama administration automatically. They are open to a more profound understanding of the implications of the nuclear deal with Tehran.

What does not receive attention enough in America, however, is the regional dimension of the Iranian intervention, expansion, and encroachment in the Arab countries. This is a problem for which the Arab countries bear responsibility, a problem they should explain and highlight. The American media does not accept Arab opinion easily or coherently, be it from Arab officials or Arab commentators. This is a flaw that must not be ignored, especially since the Arabs have the capacity to address it.

More importantly, there should be an Arab strategy to deal with Congress without appearing to be at odds with the administration or to be undermining its jurisdictions. There is an important window that the Arabs must not fail to benefit from. America is divided, and there is nothing wrong about trying to explain the implications of the nuclear deal in the context of the policy of self-dissociation the U.S. administration is pursuing vis-a-vis the Iranian adventures on Arab soil.

Then there is the ISIS and al-Qaeda factor. It is not logical for the Arab countries to ally themselves with the United States against ISIS and al-Qaeda without highlighting the importance of Arab participation in crushing these two terrorist organizations. The United States has stopped at the 9/11 terror attacks for which it blames Sunni Arabs. Therefore, there is a dire need to highlight the quality, quantity, history, and objectives of Arab participation in the war on ISIS and al-Qaeda, which U.S. circles largely see as Sunni terrorism.

The United States understands the language of both immediate and strategic interests, and the Arab leaderships must speak this language fluently in light of the developments, and not with an archaic, rigid language.

As stated in an article in The Wall Street Journal by both Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, both of whom served in several posts in previous U.S. administrations, if political controls are not added to nuclear controls, a deal that liberates Iran from sanctions risks furthering Iran’s expansionist abilities. This is no joking matter.


This article was first published in al-Hayat on April 10, 2015 and was translated by Karim Traboulsi.

_____________________
Raghida Dergham is Columnist and Senior Diplomatic Correspondent for the London-based Al Hayat, the leading independent Arabic daily, since 1989. She writes a regular weekly strategic column on International Political Affairs. Dergham is also a Political Analyst for NBC, MSNBC and the Arab satellite LBC. She is a Contributing Editor for LA Times Syndicate Global Viewpoint and has contributed to: The New York Times, The Washington Post, The International Herald Tribune and Newsweek Magazine. She serves on the Board of the International Women's Media Foundation, and has served on the Advisory Council of Princeton University's Institute for Transregional Studies of the contemporary Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia. She was also a member of the Women's Foreign Policy Group. She addressed U.N. General Assembly on the World Press Freedom Day when President of The United Nations Correspondents Association for 1997 and was appointed to the Task Force on the Reorientation of Public Information by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. She moderated a roundtable of 8 Presidents and Prime Ministers for UNCTAD at Bangkok in 1991. Dergham served as Chairman of the Dag Hammarskjold Fund Board in 2005. She tweets @RaghidaDergham.

Last Update: Sunday, 12 April 2015 KSA 13:12 - GMT 10:12
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in the opinion section are their own and do not reflect Al Arabiya News's point-of-view.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/04/chinese-nuclear-subs-in-the-indian-ocean/

Chinese Nuclear Subs in the Indian Ocean

An extended deployment has sent a powerful message to the Indian Navy.

By P K Ghosh
April 12, 2015

27 Shares
130 Comments

The deployment of a Chinese nuclear submarine – presumably a Type 093 Shang-class – as part of the anti-piracy patrol of two ships and a supply vessel operating off the Gulf of Aden has set alarm bells ringing loudly in the Indian Navy. The implications of such a strategically significant move are simply enormous, as analysts try to decipher the real reason behind deploying such a platform in the region.

Submarines are not appropriate platforms for dealing with pirates or with piracy. The Somali pirates are known to use small craft known as skiffs individually or as part of swarm tactics to attack ships, returning to larger mother ships nearby. This gives them large operating ranges. Such highly manoeuvrable crafts can hardly be chased by relatively slow moving submarines or torpedoed from underwater, making submarines quite superfluous to anti-piracy operations. Apart from this, in a region where the incidence of piracy has declined to negligible levels, such that other navies are scaling back their presence, China is actually increasing its patrol strength.

China has been conducting independent counter-piracy deployments, mainly in the Gulf of Aden area, since 2008 as part of its Military Operations Other than War (MOOTW) and ostensibly for the common good. Since such patrols require coordination, the Chinese have been cooperating closely with the Indian, Japanese and South Korean navies, although they operate independently.

However, the deployment of the nuclear submarine from December 13, 2014 to February 14, 2015 with the PLA(N) flotilla – the 18th convoy from its South Sea Fleet – was unique and raises questions about China’s agenda. The Indian Navy has told the government that the Chinese may have been conducting hydrological studies in India’s western seaboard, as the Chinese task force was also joined by a research vessel capable of bathymetric studies: mapping the depth of the ocean floors. But the Navy also conceded that it did not spot the Chinese boats in Indian territorial waters.

Hence the rationale for the deployment of the submarine was open to interpretation and analysis.

First, it is well known that the Chinese initiative to deploy ships under the benign guise of anti-piracy patrols was a master stroke aimed at operating for extended periods in distant seas, and more importantly in India’s strategic backyard. Simultaneously, China was able to cooperate with adversarial navies such as Japan and India, enabling it to evaluate these navies (and vice versa).

Second, the deployment sent a strategic message, especially to the Indian security establishment, who have endlessly debated the strategic implications of the Chinese naval foray into the IOR. Clearly, the PLA(N) has the capability to project and sustain its blue water reach, operating thousands of miles from its base for an impressive seven months.

Third, Chinese nuclear submarines like the earlier Xia class were constrained in their ability to operate for even short periods beyond nearby waters. The new Shang and Jin classes are far superior technologically, as this deployment has demonstrated. Consequently, China has reaffirmed its prowess in creating high-tech platforms, along with its ability to project power and demonstrate “blue water” capability in distant oceans.

Fourth, frequent operation in the Indian Ocean will enable China to get a feel for the hydrological conditions in the region, facilitating additional underwater deployments.

Finally, while other navies in the region are looking to reduce their presence in anti-piracy patrols because of the financial burden and the sharp fall in the number of piracy attacks in the region, China has not only maintained its strength but increased it at times. The most likely rationale for this is giving its ships, submarines and crew a “sustained feel” for the area, perhaps in anticipation of frequent deployments in the near future. Hence, it is not idle speculation to suggest that both the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea may become frequent hunting grounds for Chinese submarines, which could lie waiting at choke points or off Indian harbours to operate against the Indian Naval fleet in a crisis.

Clearly, India has a new maritime neighbour in China, which has the capacity to operate near Indian shores and in the Indian Ocean. India neglects this potential threat at its own peril.

Dr. P K Ghosh is a Senior Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation. He is the former lead co-chair of the CSCAP international Study Group on Naval Enhancement in Asia Pacific. He can be reached at pkghosh@orfonline.org
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nation.com.pk/lahore/13-Apr-2015/the-deal-in-the-background

The deal in the background
April 13, 2015

With the reaching of an agreement between Iran and the P5+1 countries, the stage has been set for the lifting of sanction from Iran, in exchange for not so much as a stopping of the Iranian achievement of a nuclear weapon, as of a delay.

However, the deal must be seen within the context of the Yemen crisis, in which Iran is involved through its support for the Houthis fighting against Yemeni President Abdur Rabbu Mansour Hadi, as it is another arena for conflict with Saudi Arabia.

It would be too much of a coincidence for the deal to have come at a time when Yemen represents another Iranian intervention in the Middle East, following not just its support to the Syrian regime, which is Alawite, but also to Lebanon’s Hezbollah and the Iraqi regime, which are both of the same Ithna Ashariya subsect of the Shias as the Iranian regime.

At one level, the deal is not permanent.

It merely puts off for 10 years Iranian enrichment and enrichment research and development plans, In other words, the P5+1 negotiators merely put off the problem for the time they were responsible.

The agreement, among other things, requires an increase of the timeline Iran has for developing a nuclear weapon from the current two-three months to one year, for the next 10 years.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told US Congress that the deal did not gain Israel sufficient security.

That was supposed to be a target of the deal, which did not pit Israel versus Iran, but did put limits on the Iranian nuclear programme, both in terms of uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing, which seemed to close both routes to nuclearisation.

All this has been in exchange for the lifting of US and EU sanctions, which are to be set to snap back if there is any Iranian noncompliance with any of the measures.

This places Pakistan in focus.

First, it keeps it in the position of being the only Muslim nuclear power.

Also, it opens the way for a revival of the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, which was abandoned after India backed out, and Pakistan oiled out, under US pressure.

Pakistan’s internal controversy over whether or not it will join Saudi Arabia in fighting the Houthis in Yemen is another cause for its being concerned in the nuclear deal.

Iran has declared that it is against nuclear weapons on theological grounds, to the extent that the Supreme Guide, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has pronounced a fatwa against them.

However, while Iran claims that it will follow the Jaafari fiqh, its support has been going out to Shias of any description.

Only the Iraqis or the Lebanese Hizbollah are both Jaafari and Ithna Ashariya.
In Syria, the Iranians are supporting the Alawites, even though they have been pronounced outside the pale of Islam.

In Yemen, the Houthis are Fivers, and follow the Zaydi school of thought.

With this latitude, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons should not be precluded.
It should be remembered that the sole Muslim nuclear power, Pakistan, never faced any theological objections to its nuclear programme.

The Iranian government portrays the deal as opening the way to the lifting of sanctions.

That indicates that sanctions work.

India and Pakistan did serve as examples that they do not, for both of them braved US sanctions to go nuclear, and had them rolled back to the extent that India has made a civilian nuclear accord, and Pakistan is asking for one.

However, the big difference between Pakistan and Iran is that the former’s programme has not caused any Israeli clamouring; the latter’s has.

It might be said that Netanyahu’s grandstanding to US Congress was more about the Israeli election which followed, and which he won, but not only did he snub US President Barack Obama, he also highlighted Israel’s concerns with the nuclear deal.

He did this before the terms of the deal were made public, thus casually indicating the depth of the penetration of Israeli intelligence.

However, the Israeli support of the Saudis does confirm that the re-elected Netanyahu will leave no opportunity for a slaughter of Arabs.

The USA has been driven by Israel in the region, but has also been closely linked with the Saudis.

Now, it appears that it wishes to draw once again Iran into its ambit.

It should not be forgotten that Iran under the Shah had gone so far as to recognize Israel, and that too at a time when no Arab country had done so.
Now it expresses in the strongest terms opposition to the Zionist entity, but that will be diluted by the desire to conciliate the Zionist-dominated USA, a desire shown by the deal itself.

There have been many warnings that there has been no final deal, but that only a framework has been agreed, for a final deal that will be struck by June 30 in the shape of a Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA).

This follows the Joint Plan Of Action agreed upon in November 2013.

That was also not final, indeed did not set any dates, as the present JCPOA does, but it has been followed.

It may be worthwhile to notice that this is not the first agreement which takes away from a Muslim country the ability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction against Israel.

Syria, it should be remembered, had its chemical weapons taken from it in the aftermath of the Ghouta gas attack in August 2013.

Syria agreed to the destruction of its chemical weapons in September, and subsequently UN inspectors supervised to process.

Similarly, Iran’s process of de-nuclearisation is to be supervised by the UN.

The next target should be the Pakistani weapon, and there Pakistan should expect India to play a vocal role in trying to portray the Pakistani bomb as a threat to Israel, because even more than the USA, India does not want a defiant and nuclear Pakistan.

India claims its own nuclear weapon is designed to counter China, but its first use was its brandishing it against Pakistan.

Pakistan should note that the party which tested in India is back in office there.
The danger of the bomb falling into the hands of militants if they execute a takeover will be raised, and that being Sunnis they will not have the same theological restraints against use as Iran.

Pakistan would do well to prepare for a torrid time, for though its reasons for going down the nuclear path differed from Iran’s, it still faces the same opponents.
 

Housecarl

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

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Think-About-It-Life-beyond-Irans-nuclear-capability-396876

By SUSAN HATTIS ROLEF \ 04/12/2015 21:19

Think About It: Life beyond Iran’s nuclear capability

Khamenei has declared that unless all the sanctions are lifted immediately there will be no agreement.

At this stage of the game with regard to the agreement with Iran about its nuclear capabilities, several facts have emerged. The first is that it is not at all clear whether at the end of the day an agreement will actually be signed. This is not due to our prime minister’s campaign against the agreement, or Republican tactics in Congress, but because it isn’t at all certain that Iran’s moderates are going to prevail opposite Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is apparently opposed to an agreement.

Khamenei has declared that unless all the sanctions are lifted immediately there will be no agreement.

Not even US President Barack Obama can agree to that. Unless Khamenei is playing an especially ruthless game of chicken, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif appears to be in the role the hapless Tzipi Livni found herself in the negotiations with the Palestinians as a member of Netanyahu’s third government – i.e. a fig leaf to conceal a rejectionist policy.

The second is that whether or not an agreement is signed, Iran will have a military nuclear capability sooner or later, and the question that must be answered is whether it is better for all concerned – be it Israel, Saudia Arabia and the Gulf States, the Western powers, or Russia and China – that this happen with or without an agreement. With an agreement such as the one that is on the table at the moment (a “better agreement,” which is what Netanyahu is demanding, is simply not an option) there will be more international supervision over the process, which will help delay the inevitable.

See the latest opinion pieces on our Opinion & Blogs Facebook page

Without an agreement sanctions against Iran will be expanded, which will make Iran even more dependent than it is today on China and Turkey, and Iran will be less inclined to play “by the rules of the game,” while becoming even more active than it is at present in trying to gain control over more countries in the Middle East, in addition to Syria and Yemen. The likelihood of Iran collapsing economically, or a successful revolution taking place against the ayatollahs, is zero.

So where does all this leave Israel? Netanyahu has been arguing that a nuclear Iran poses an existential threat to Israel. But does it really? Certainly it is preferable from Israel’s point of view that Iran should not go nuclear. But will a nuclear Iran really constitute a greater threat to Israel than a non-nuclear Iran? Today there are nine states in the world with a known military nuclear capability. These are the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and – let us not forget – Israel.

The first and last time anyone actually used nuclear weapons against another state was in August 1945, when the US dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan.

Since then nuclear weapons have become more of a diplomatic than a military means in brinkmanship power games, serving mainly as a deterrent. The closest the world actually got to a nuclear confrontation was during the 1961 Cuban Missile Crisis, and it has been reported that during the Yom Kippur War Israel had actually made operative preparations to use nuclear weapons.

The likelihood of a nuclear Iran actually using nuclear weapons against Israel, as opposed to threatening to do so, is extremely low, if not totally non-existent, for two reasons: the fact that Israel has the capacity to return in kind and multifold, and the fact that any nuclear attack against Israel would also affect the Palestinians.

Though a nuclear Iran will certainly constitute an additional headache for Israel’s political leadership and the IDF – requiring a major mental switch in the way Israel perceives its status in the Middle East, and forcing it to revert to thinking in diplomatic terms and not only military ones, as it did in the first two decades of its existence – it does not constitute an existential threat to Israel as presently constituted i.e. as a Jewish and democratic state.

In fact, Israel’s most urgent problems have nothing to do with the prospect of Iran going nuclear, though at a certain level Iran is certainly one of the problems.

If indeed the reports are correct that Iran is financing Hamas efforts to rebuild a system of tunnels from the Gaza Strip into Israel and stockpiles of missiles, and that despite Israel’s attempts to stop Iranian arms from reaching Hezbollah in Lebanon, in the next military confrontation between Hezbollah and Israel, the latter will have the capability of firing thousands of rockets a day in Israel’s direction (as declared by Home Front Commander Maj. Gen. Eyal Eizenberg several weeks ago), then Israel certainly faces a major security problem, though not an existential one.

Leaving the military sphere, Israel has many other major problems than Iran’s future nuclear capabilities.

For example, the Dead Sea is facing a major ecological disaster, which threatens the whole economic infrastructure of the region, resulting from the sinkholes that are opening up at a frightening rate all along its western coast. Four years ago Netanyahu promoted the Dead Sea as one of the seven wonders of the world. Today he is totally silent – possibly because there are not as many potential Likud voters there compared with Judea and Samaria. It might be too late now, but a decision to stop diverting water from the Jordan River north of the Sea of Galilee, and increasing Israel’s desalination capacity, is urgently required – wake up! Or look at another issue, which symbolizes the collapse of basic services in Israel. I do not know what happens in the rest of the country, but in Jerusalem for quite a while already, mail is being delivered only twice a week; letters sent from within Israel can take between a month and a month and a half to arrive; letters and packages sent via air mail from abroad can take as long as three months to arrive; and I recently got a notice informing me that a package had arrived for me, two weeks after the notice had been sent out by the post office, which is a few blocks away from where I live.

Yes, I know, one could use UPS, FedEx and the like, and one can use private medical services as the public services collapse, etc. etc. However, if one is talking of “life,” as Netanyahu keeps doing with regard to Iran’s nuclear capabilities, life is here – and in too many spheres it is starting to resemble hell.

And of course, there is the issue of continued Jewish settlement activities in Judea and Samaria, which threaten both the Jewish and democratic characteristics of the State of Israel.

Furthermore, as soon as the negotiations with Iran come to an end with or without an agreement, the world will revert its attention to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and guess what – the pressure will be on Israel much more than on the Palestinians. Due to Netanyahu’s ruthless, rule-breaking campaign on the Iranian issue, American diplomatic support will be much more difficult to come by. What will Netanyahu do then – turn to Iran for advice on how to live with economic sanctions? Life, Mr. Netanyahu, is here and now. So as our prime minister, would you please start doing something about it? And I do not mean Iran.

The writer is a retired Knesset employee.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150413/eu-ukraine-5a6c42770e.html

Fighting picks up in war-torn eastern Ukraine

Apr 13, 5:55 AM (ET)

DONETSK, Ukraine (AP) — Fighting has picked up in eastern Ukraine, after more than a month of relative calm, as diplomats gathered in Berlin Monday to discuss the Ukraine crisis.

The military conflict between Russia-backed rebels and government forces has killed more than 6,000 but has largely subsided since the cease-fire was announced in February and at least some heavy weaponry withdrawn.

Observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe said Sunday that its mission observed an intense clash with the use of tanks, heavy artillery as well as grenade launchers and mortars in the north of the rebel stronghold of Donetsk. On Sunday alone, the OSCE recorded at least 1,166 explosions, caused mainly by artillery and mortar shell strikes in northern Donetsk as well as on its outskirts including the airport, now obliterated by fighting

The OSCE also reported intense mortar fire outside the village of Shyrokyne by the Azov Sea but said its representatives were repeatedly barred from accessing the village on Sunday.

Mortar fire was also heard at night and in the morning on Monday in central Donetsk.

Foreign policy chiefs from Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany are meeting to discuss the crisis in Ukraine later on Monday.

In an indication that hostilities are picking up in the region, the rebel Donetsk News Agency reported on Monday that the number of injured fighters tripled on the weekend compared with previous weeks.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150412/lt--brazil-protests-9e0e70a1db.html

Protests across Brazil seek ouster of president

Apr 12, 7:09 PM (ET)

By STAN LEHMAN and ADRIANA GOMEZ LICON

(AP) Demonstrators shout anti-government slogans during a march demanding the impeachment...
Full Image

SAO PAULO (AP) — Nationwide demonstrations calling for the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff swept Brazil for the second day in less than a month, though turnout at Sunday's protests appeared down, prompting questions about the future of the movement.

A poll published over the weekend suggested the majority of Brazilians support opening impeachment proceedings against Rousseff, whose second term in office has been buffeted by a corruption scandal at Brazil's largest company, oil giant Petrobras, as well as a stalled economy, a sliding currency and political infighting. Only 13 percent of survey respondents evaluated Rousseff's administration positively.

Sunday's protests, which took place in cities from Belem, in the northern Amazonian rainforest region, to Curitiba in the south, were organized mostly via social media by an assortment of groups. Most were calling for Rousseff's impeachment, but others' demands ranged for urging looser gun control laws to a military coup.

While last month's protests drew substantial crowds in several large cities, Sunday's turnout was lackluster.

(AP) A street vendor sells shirts with the words "Dilma out, and take the Workers Party...
Full Image

In Rio, several thousand people marched along the golden sands of Copacabana beach, many dressed in the yellow and green of the Brazilian flag. The March 15 protest, by contrast, drew tens of thousands.

In the opposition stronghold of Sao Paulo, about 100,000 people marched on the city's main thoroughfare, according to an estimate by the respected Datafolha polling agency. The crowd was less than half the size of last month's demonstration here, when more than 200,000 people turned out, making it the biggest demonstration in Sao Paulo since 1984 rallies demanding the end of the military dictatorship.

"I was on the avenue on March 15 and without a doubt, today's demonstration was much smaller," said Antonio Guglielmi, a 61-year-old sales representative for construction materials company, vowing, "I will keep coming back to demonstrations like this one — big or small — because it is the best way for us to make our voices heard and demand an end to the Dilma government and the PT and end to corruption. The country cannot go on like this."

Still, many analysts predict that lower turnout Sunday protests could spell the end of the movement.

"I do not think we will see the protest movement grow in size and frequency," said Carlos Lopes, a political risk analyst at Brasilia office of the Insituto Analise consultancy. Given Sunday's smaller turnout, "people will be less inclined take part in future demonstrations and the movement toward large-scale rallies will begin to fizzle out."

(AP) A demonstrator shouts anti-government slogans during a march demanding the...
Full Image

One of the heads of the Movimento Brasil Livre, or Free Brazil Movement, which helped organize Sunday's demonstrations rebuffed the suggestion that turnout was down, stressing that many more cities and towns staged protests than last month.

A survey released Saturday by the Folha de S.Paulo daily found that 63 percent of Brazilians surveyed supported impeachment proceedings against Rousseff, while 33 percent opposed them. The same poll, by Datafolha, showed Rousseff's approval ratings holding steady, with 13 percent of respondents giving her a great or good rating while 60 percent of respondents evaluated her performance as bad or terrible. The survey of 2,834 people in 171 municipalities was conducted on Thursday and Friday. It had an error margin of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

Much of the protesters' ire focused on the Petrobras scandal. Prosecutors say at least $800 million was paid in bribes and other funds by construction and engineering firms in exchange for inflated Petrobras contracts. Rousseff, a former chairwoman of Petrobras' board, has not been implicated and so far is not being investigated, though two of her former chiefs of staff are among the dozens of officials caught up in the inquiry.

One president, Fernando Collor de Mello, has been impeached since Brazil's return to democracy in 1985, but many legal experts have said that Rousseff could only be impeached if evidence emerges directly linking her to crimes committed during her second term, which began in January.

---

Adriana Gomez Licon reported from Rio de Janeiro. Associated Press writer Jenny Barchfield contributed from Rio.
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
:eek: :screw:

posted for fair use

Vietnamese Man Tries to Fly From Kiev to Moscow With Radioactive Clock

© AFP 2015/ SERGEI SUPINSKY
Europe
13:36 13.04.2015(updated 14:30 13.04.2015)

A Vietnamese man attempted to board a plane from Kiev to Moscow over the weekend with a clock which sent radiation detectors buzzing, pouring out 6,000 times the normal level of radiation.

According to Ukraine's Border Guard Service, the man was detained at Kiev's Boryspil International Airport on Saturday after a radiation detector went off in the baggage checking area.

"As a result of the controlled measurement by representatives of environmental monitoring services, the level of radiation of the baggage, measured by a dosimeter, was determined at a level of 2.5 millisieverts per hour," a statement on the border security services' website noted. Russian news hub Lenta.ru explained that this level of radiation is 6,000 times above normal levels.

After examining the man's baggage, border security agents determined that the source of the radiation was a tabletop clock released in 1984. The man explained that he had purchased the clock at a local market. Local security authorities have been informed of the incident.

http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150...l&utm_content=ddQ&utm_campaign=URL_shortening
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
:eek: :screw:

posted for fair use

Vietnamese Man Tries to Fly From Kiev to Moscow With Radioactive Clock

© AFP 2015/ SERGEI SUPINSKY
Europe
13:36 13.04.2015(updated 14:30 13.04.2015)

A Vietnamese man attempted to board a plane from Kiev to Moscow over the weekend with a clock which sent radiation detectors buzzing, pouring out 6,000 times the normal level of radiation.

According to Ukraine's Border Guard Service, the man was detained at Kiev's Boryspil International Airport on Saturday after a radiation detector went off in the baggage checking area.

"As a result of the controlled measurement by representatives of environmental monitoring services, the level of radiation of the baggage, measured by a dosimeter, was determined at a level of 2.5 millisieverts per hour," a statement on the border security services' website noted. Russian news hub Lenta.ru explained that this level of radiation is 6,000 times above normal levels.

After examining the man's baggage, border security agents determined that the source of the radiation was a tabletop clock released in 1984. The man explained that he had purchased the clock at a local market. Local security authorities have been informed of the incident.

http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150...l&utm_content=ddQ&utm_campaign=URL_shortening

Radium dial more than likely.
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
Daniel Nisman retweeted
Military Edge @Military_Edge · 4h 4 hours ago

Defense secretary: Bunker-busting bomb against Iran 'ready to go' http://bit.ly/1aX7dev via @thehill

CCfGiqzWgAA3NVv.jpg:medium





posted for fair use

Defense secretary: Bunker-busting bomb against Iran 'ready to go'


Getty Images

By Kristina Wong - 04/10/15 06:52 PM EDT

Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Friday the Pentagon had ready a bunker-busting bomb that could destroy Iran’s underground nuclear facility, in case the U.S. ever had to resort to a military option to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

“We continue to improve it and upgrade over time so that there is this alternative,” Carter said in an exclusive interview with CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront,” referring to a weapon called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator.

U.S. and international negotiators have until June 30 to reach a final deal with Iran, which would exchange sanctions relief for limits on Iran’s nuclear program, which they believe is for a nuclear bomb.

Carter said though the Pentagon hopes the talks will successfully conclude, “We don’t know. My job as secretary of Defense is to, among other things, make sure that the so-called military option [is] on the table.”

Carter added that the U.S. has the capability to “shut down, set back and destroy” the Iranian nuclear program.

“I believe the Iranians know that and understand that,” he said. However, he indicated such an option could be futile, before defending the talks.

“If we were to do that, it is also important to think about what the next step would be. And as the president has indicated, they could over time than recreate a nuclear program; they would then be free of sanctions, of course, because this whole arrangement would have blown up. And we would be in a worse position then,” he said.

“So we could do it, and it would set back the Iranian nuclear program for some period of time. And what the objective of the negations has been to get that much certainty through negotiation rather than through military action, because the military action is reversible over time,” he said.

Carter also said inspections of military sites must be included in the final deal negotiated with Iran, despite recent remarks by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khomenei indicating they would not be included.

“It depends on what you mean by military sites, but yes. Absolutely," he said.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/2...-bunker-busting-bomb-against-iran-ready-to-go
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-32289368

South Asia

Nuclear tensions rising in South Asia

Jawad Iqbal
Analysis and insight editor
1 hour ago
From the section South Asia

The time, attention and effort devoted to reaching a deal with Iran over its nuclear ambitions has unwittingly tended to obscure the growing dangers of nuclear proliferation elsewhere in the world.

South Asia, a volatile and unstable region, has been witnessing an escalation in military and nuclear rivalry, somewhat overshadowed by the understandable fears of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

This part of the world, according to analysts, is fast becoming a race for nuclear supremacy between three powers - India, Pakistan and China (while technically not classified as South Asia, the country shares borders with both India and Pakistan). This rivalry in the eyes of many analysts is dangerous in itself but is made even more complex by the mutual suspicions and historical enmities that bedevil the region.

'Restraint and deterrence'

First, take Pakistan. The country is plagued by economic and political insecurity but is locked in a fight for military bragging rights with India. The country is believed to have one of the world's fastest growing nuclear arsenals. A recent report indicated that it had tripled the number of warheads it had a decade ago.

Nuclear strength is a political and military strategy in the eyes of the Pakistani governing class, a way of countering India's political and military clout. Pakistan has no official nuclear doctrine, but official communiques speak of "restraint" and "deterrence".

The Pakistan government recently approved the purchase of eight submarines from China. It is not clear from reports whether they have the capacity to be equipped with nuclear missiles. The deal, said to be worth billions, is one of China's biggest arms deals. It also threatens to intensify a growing battle for military supremacy in the Indian Ocean, a stretch of sea that has long been a source of rivalry and tensions in the region.

The reported deal sheds light on one other area of conflict and rivalry. China has long been one of Pakistan's main arms suppliers, accounting for half of Pakistani weapons imports, according to a report published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Troubled history

China and Pakistan have been close for decades, based largely on their mutual suspicion of India.

In other developments, the Pakistanis are reported to have test-fired a missile recently that appears capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. Pakistan possesses the medium-range Shaheen-III missile with a range of some 1,700 miles, leaving India easily within range. A recent leader article in the New York Times reported claims that Pakistan continues to develop short-range tactical nuclear weapons. Again, leaving India well within range.

No-one should underestimate the rivalry between the two countries, informed by their troubled history, which includes outright wars in 1947, 1965 and 1971.

India is estimated by analysts to have some 110 warheads but continues to expand its nuclear programme but at a slower pace, according to some reports. The country has a mixed strategy, combining short and long-range ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines and cruise missiles. It tested its first nuclear device in 1974.

India has a No First Use doctrine, recently confirmed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Security is a key part of India's nuclear strategy. China's nuclear strength is a worry to India, as is its more advanced strategic weapons and its numerically superior military force. Also a worry is the traditionally close relationship between China and Pakistan, India's erstwhile enemy.

Informed analysis estimates that China's nuclear weapons number some 250 warheads - a mixture of short, intermediate, and long-range ballistic missiles. China's ambitions encompass land, air and sea-based nuclear delivery systems.

China's nuclear ambitions took off in the 1950s, in the wake of the Korean War. Its first nuclear test is believed to have been conducted in 1964. It is a view among informed commentators that the country's nuclear capability will continue to grow in the coming years. China has always maintained that its own No First Use policy is defensive. The country is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the NPT. It is also a signatory to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) but has yet to ratify it.

Lethal cocktail?

The fierce nuclear competition in South Asia is seen by many as a recipe for instability in a region already burdened with problems.

It is a potentially lethal addition to the cocktail of territorial disputes and cross-border terrorism. The capacity of other world powers to influence the situation is hampered by the fact that neither India nor Pakistan belong to the NPT.

Pakistan's economic and political instability also poses huge and troubling questions. The country is persistently challenged by militant groups and fears persist that these groups could get their hands on nuclear materials, despite strong insistence from Pakistani officials that its nuclear facilities are secure.

America and Russia still possess more than 90% of the world's nuclear weapons but South Asia, home to three nuclear states, remains a growing worry, perhaps one that will get more attention in the coming months.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...c2884a-defa-11e4-be40-566e2653afe5_story.html

Economy

Obama’s goal to make a deal with Iran gets a new test in Congress

By Steven Mufson and Greg Jaffe April 13 at 7:33 PM
Comments 10

President Obama’s quest to get a deal with Iran on its nuclear program hinges on not only reaching across the aisle in Congress but also across oceans to find common ground with enemies.

That strategy — which links two themes that have dominated his presidency, a yearning for post-partisan politics and a belief in engagement — receives a new test Tuesday as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee begins debate on a bill that would severely restrict Obama’s ability to cut a nuclear arms deal with Iran.

The bill would force him to send an Iran accord to Congress for approval and require Tehran to renounce terrorism. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday that Obama would veto such a bill.

The issue of Iran has pushed Obama’s core principles to the limits on two fronts. His overtures to Iran have inflamed *already-simmering partisan politics at home. Abroad, they have tested his broader theory of engagement, straining relations with U.S. allies without any guarantee of easing sectarian fighting that appears to be spinning out of control throughout the Middle East.

Success may be close, but failure looms almost everywhere.

Even if the Iran deal holds, the result will lack the pomp and promise that mark some of the historic foreign policy of the past, such as President Richard M. Nixon’s opening to China. There will be no equivalent of Nixon’s walk on the Great Wall or banquet in the Great Hall of the People. Obama will not stroll through the ruins of Persepolis or dine in Qom.

“The big disappointment for Obama is what he was hoping would be his signature foreign policy agreement, even if he gets a deal, will be one that generates enormous opposition abroad and political discord at home,” said Richard H. Solomon, former president of the U.S. Institute of Peace and a former U.S. ambassador who worked with *then-national security adviser Henry Kissinger on Nixon’s trip to China. “Internationally, it’s going to mean further gaps and tensions, not just with the Israelis, but with a number of the Sunni states.”

Despite Republican victories in November, Obama began his presidency’s seventh year with high hopes and an impassioned plea for what he called a “better politics” to replace the partisan divisions that have marked much of his time in office.

“Imagine if we broke out of these tired old patterns,” Obama told lawmakers at his State of the Union address in January. “Imagine if we did something different.”

As a deadline on Iran talks neared, Republicans did, indeed, produce something “different” — an open letter, signed by 47 GOP senators, that sought to undermine the talks by warning that a future president or Congress could undo any nuclear deal.

Now, Obama has stopped talking about a “better politics.”

Even as the administration works to resolve contentious details before a June 30 deadline for the Iran negotiations, the White House will be scrambling simultaneously to stop or alter legislation that could prompt the Iranians to back out of the deal.

The biggest worry is the Senate Foreign Relations Committee bill, sponsored by committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). Obama has praised Corker as “a good and decent man” and spoke with him by phone Wednesday as part of an effort to find common ground. Some Democrats want to strip the terrorism portion out of the bill, but some Republicans would go even further. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a presidential candidate, would demand that Iran explicitly recognize Israel’s right to exist.

If Obama’s outreach to Congress fails, it could doom the Iran accord and extend bitter partisan infighting far beyond “the water’s edge,” where, in the mid-1940s, Republican Sen. Arthur Vandenberg famously said it should end. “Essentially we would have 535 secretaries of state,” Earnest said . “Not just one.”

Such an outcome would damage not only relations with Iran, but with Britain, France and Germany — members of a group that also includes Russia and China and that has been negotiating alongside the United States. “The impact on alliance structure would be devastating,” said Charles W. Freeman, Jr., former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia and a veteran diplomat. “Who would trust us after that?”

The coming months will also test Obama’s broader world view that “principled” engagement — even with America’s longest-standing enemies such as Cuba and Burma, also called Myanmar — can produce sweeping change. “I believe that engagement is a more powerful force than isolation,” he said of Cuba during a stop in Jamaica on Thursday.

It is a view born in part of Obama’s criticism of President George W. Bush’s strategy of removing dictators by force, in the hope that democratic leaders, with help from the United States, would come forward.

On Iran, Obama has navigated this issue carefully, saying the framework deal was primarily about stopping Iran from producing a nuclear weapon and heading off an arms race in one of the most unstable regions of the world.

But he also has voiced repeatedly the hope that an Iran free of sanctions and open to Western investment would change, spending more money on improving living standards and less on destabilizing proxy militias and terrorist groups.

In the near term, though, the nuclear deal seems just as likely to increase tribal infighting between Iran and America’s allies abroad.

Saudi Arabia remains deeply suspicious of Iranian intentions. Before the framework was complete, a former Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal, warned that a flawed deal could spark a global nuclear arms race. In early March, Kerry traveled to Riyadh, the Saudi capital, to calm nerves, assuring Saudi leaders that the nuclear deal would not mean a U.S. rapprochement with Iran — and that the old divisions Obama once talked about overcoming would remain comfortably and familiarly intact.

Obama has begun providing weapons and intelligence to help Saudi Arabia in its battle against Iranian-supported Houthi fighters in Yemen. Last week, the Pentagon said that it would expedite weapons deliveries to the Saudis and that it was using air-refueling planes to support the Saudi-led coalition conducting airstrikes in Yemen.

In return, Saudi Arabia has given the nuclear deal tepid support. The state news agency said that the kingdom’s council of ministers “expressed hope for attaining a binding and definitive agreement” and stressed a need for “good neighborliness and non-interference in the affairs of Arab states.”

The statement hinted at an important question: How far will U.S. engagement go? Should the technical details of an agreement be linked to understandings about Iran’s conduct in the region — where it lends support to allies such as Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iraqi government and Houthi rebels while questioning Israel’s right to exist?

Obama has said that those sorts of demands would torpedo the preliminary deal.

Instead, the president, as part of his overseas sales job, has promised to bolster security assistance to America’s Arab allies so that they can better defend themselves against what he said are some “very real external threats.” By that, Obama principally means Iran. He has also vowed new efforts to make sure that the Israeli people are “absolutely protected.”

At the same time, the president hopes that Iran will keep at home whatever money it gets from a full or partial lifting of economic sanctions. Some critics doubt that will be the case.

“I mean it’s an authoritarian regime,” said Tamara Cofman Wittes a former top Obama administration State Department official and director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. “It has never focused on its people and sanctions relief won’t change it.”

The extra money that comes from lifting sanctions would give Iran more resources to fund proxy fighters and terror groups.

“It is much more likely that Iran will react to a nuclear deal by acting more aggressively in other domains,” Wittes said, adding that such an outcome doesn’t mean the nuclear deal is a bad idea. Rather, she said, it puts new pressure on the Obama administration to articulate a clearer vision for how it plans to counter Hezbollah and Iranian influence, especially in Syria where critics have said that the administration lacks a coherent strategy.

“It really matters that the administration has to be willing to up its game in the region,” Wittes said.


Steven Mufson covers the White House. Since joining The Post, he has covered economics, China, foreign policy and energy.

Greg Jaffe covers the White House for The Washington Post, where he has been since March 2009.
 
Top