WAR 04-11-2020-to-4-17-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

(412) 03-21-2020-to-03-27-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

WAR - 03-21-2020-to-03-27-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(413) 03-28-2020-to-04-03-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****



WAR - 03-28-2020-to-04-03-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
(410) 03-07-2020-to-03-13-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR**** WAR - 03-07-2020-to-03-13-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR**** (411) 03-14-2020-to-03-20-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****...

(414) 04-04-2020-to-4-10-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

WAR - 04-04-2020-to-4-10-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(411) 03-14-2020-to-03-20-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR**** WAR - 03-14-2020-to-03-20-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR**** (412)...

www.timebomb2000.com

----------

Posted for fair use.....

Wuhan Rent Protest Shows Unrest Brewing in China After Lockdown

(Bloomberg) -- Dozens of small shop owners protested outside one of Wuhan’s biggest shopping malls to demand a cut in rent, in one of the first signs of unrest since authorities lifted a lockdown at the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak.Sitting down about one meter apart, the shop owners on...

news.yahoo.com

Wuhan Rent Protest Shows Unrest Brewing in China After Lockdown

Bloomberg News,
Bloomberg • April 9, 2020

(Bloomberg) -- Dozens of small shop owners protested outside one of Wuhan’s biggest shopping malls to demand a cut in rent, in one of the first signs of unrest since authorities lifted a lockdown at the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak.

Sitting down about one meter apart, the shop owners on Friday sat or kneeled outside the Grand Ocean Department Store, wearing masks and holding placards as police monitored. A day earlier they chanted “Exempt rental for a year, or refund the lease” in videos uploaded on the Chinese social media platform Sina Weibo that were quickly censored.

“Can’t survive” said a sign held by one woman who rented a stall at Grand Ocean, which also called on the landlord to return the rent and security deposit during the period of the lockdown.

The woman said the property developer in charge of the mall, which translates to World City, should exempt rent for them because 99% of protesters are small shop owners and they haven’t had any business since the virus outbreak. Most neighborhoods in the city are still facing string restrictions on movement and there’s little business traffic.

Another protester said the government didn’t respond after their protest yesterday, and said the police had assaulted people on Wednesday. None of the protesters Bloomberg spoke with revealed their names due to concern of retribution.

A woman who answered the phone at World City said they haven’t restarted work and couldn’t answer questions. A call to Grand Ocean’s general office was not answered.

Hubei Clashes
Wuhan officially emerged on Wednesday from a mass quarantine put in place on Jan. 23. The strict restrictions helped China stem the outbreak of the deadly disease known as Covid-19, but it also led to a deep slump in investment and consumption that pushed the economy into its most dire situation in decades.

The demonstration, however small, shows the challenges President Xi Jinping now faces in getting millions of people back to work all while preventing a second wave of infections. Early in the crisis, Xi warned the virus posed a threat to “social stability” in China, and since then he’s seen tensions flare both within the country and with the U.S., its main export market.

The protest in Wuhan this week comes after earlier violent clashes on the border of surrounding Hubei province and neighboring Jiangxi province in late March. Scenes captured on videos posted on social media showed Hubei police clashing with officers from Jiangxi who wanted to keep the border closed.

China has recently signaled its desire to deal with any signs of dissent harshly. Earlier this week, Chinese authorities placed outspoken property tycoon Ren Zhiqiang under investigation after a copy of an essay widely attributed to him criticizing the government’s virus response was circulated on social media.

For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com
Subscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.
©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

Comments 142

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Moscow Sets Up New ‘Cossack’ Paramilitary Units for Possible Use Against Ukraine

Recent reports that Moscow is deploying Cossack groups along the Russian-Ukrainian border near the Kharkiv, Sumy and Chernihiy regions of Ukraine are extremely worrisome, as the Kremlin ostensibly used similar units in its initial invasion of southeastern Ukraine in 2014. Such revelations may...

jamestown.org

Moscow Sets Up New ‘Cossack’ Paramilitary Units for Possible Use Against Ukraine
Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 17 Issue: 48
By: Paul Goble

April 9, 2020 06:15 PM Age: 13 mins

Recent reports that Moscow is deploying Cossack groups along the Russian-Ukrainian border near the Kharkiv, Sumy and Chernihiy regions of Ukraine are extremely worrisome, as the Kremlin ostensibly used similar units in its initial invasion of southeastern Ukraine in 2014. Such revelations may presage a new Russian move against Ukraine and be intended as an attempt to muddy the waters about who is behind any aggression. But at the same time, they are the latest sign that the Kremlin wants to have groups with which it can maintain a certain plausible deniability when engaging in destabilizing or aggressive operations both internationally and within the Russian Federation.

In late March, Oleksandr Belokobylsky of Radio Liberty’s Ukrainian Service reported that Moscow had dispatched Federal Security Service (FSB) specialists on Cossack affairs to prepare new paramilitary formations and to integrate them into existing Russian Army forces, so as to provide them with professional military training (Radio Svoboda, March 26). According to Belokobylsky, last autumn, President Vladimir Putin effectively signaled the importance of the Cossacks in these and other domestic and foreign siloviki (security services) operations by naming Ataman Nikolai Dolluda as their overall commander. Notably, Dolluda was actively involved in the annexation of Crimea six years ago (Yuga.ru, Yugtimes.com, November 5, 2019).

Moscow used Cossacks in Crimea as well as Donbas and has promoted the inclusion of “Cossack” units in the Russian military at various points over the past five years to address the problems of the declining size of the Russian draft pool. However, the new alarm sounded by the Radio Liberty journalist appears to be based on the claims of an anonymous Ukrainian telegram channel, @UkraineHack. This channel said a few days earlier that Cossacks are now going to be brought into the Russian military as professional soldiers with their own units and suggested that they will be playing an expanded role in Donbas and elsewhere (see EDM, March 7, 2018; Kazak-edinstvo.ru, March 30, 2018; Rodkray31.ru, July 29, 2019).

Understanding what is going on and what is at stake requires recognition that the most important divisions among Cossacks today are not among the traditional “hosts” like the Don, Kuban, Terek and so on that defined Cossack life for much of the imperial period. Rather, today’s divisions are between the descendants of these historical communities (who number several million) and the officially registered “Cossack” organizations set up by the Putin regime. The official organizations are Cossack in name only and have been used against the Kremlin’s opponents domestically and abroad.

The genuine Cossack groups—as opposed to the state-created Cossack units—are currently pressing hard to be listed as a separate nationality in the 2020 Russian census (Nazaccent.ru, December 17, 2019). These genuine Cossacks only this week achieved a signal victory when a Krasnodar court reaffirmed the right of an individual previously listed as an ethnic Russian to declare himself an ethnic Cossack (Vkpress.ru, April 3).

Such moves are a threat to the Kremlin’s promotion of ethnic Russians as the unique “state-forming” nation in the country by potentially cutting its numbers by a million or more. To counter such efforts at Cossack self-determination, Moscow has been playing up the role of its “registered” Cossacks, who invariably declare that they are “a military stratum” of ethnic Russians. The Kremlin has assigned them ever more responsibilities related to domestic control, including sending Cossacks to break up demonstrations and provide them with more money and status to try to attract others to their ranks (see EDM, August 9, 2018 and March 18, 2020).

Even as Moscow has boosted its “Cossacks” at home and abroad, the government has tightened its control over them, underscoring their status as creatures of the Kremlin rather than a nation (see EDM, July 18, 2019). Some experts have suggested this has been the objective from the beginning (Lenta.ru, November 7, 2012). Consequently, if Moscow does use its registered Cossacks either to beef up the occupation forces in Donbas, as it already has done, or launch a new round of aggression, these “Cossacks” will be fully under the control of the Russian government and not independent actors (see Commentaries, July 16, 2019).

The Kremlin’s reasoning for adopting such a strategy is obvious: the largest historical Cossack communities overlap with what is now the Russian-Ukrainian border. Moscow, in using Cossacks, can promote the idea that these are really people from Ukraine who want to escape from Kyiv’s “Ukraine-centric” approach. Such notions are fully consistent with Putin’s insistence that what is taking place in eastern Ukraine is a civil war rather than a Russian invasion, a position that all too many people in the West have accepted as plausible or at least as a view that they must consider.

This latest report about Moscow’s use of “registered” Cossacks does not mean the Russian government is definitely about to launch a new round of aggression. It may simply be facing difficulties manning units in areas it now occupies. But the appearance of such “Cossack” units, with the plausible deniability they provide, is certainly an indication that Moscow may deploy them to sow confusion if and when it does decide to again ramp up its aggressive attacks against Ukraine.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Strengthening Central Asian Security

Central Asia lives in a dangerous neighborhood. It is situated between two resurgent empires: Russia and China. It includes Afghanistan in its borders, and despite the February 29 agreemen

www.realcleardefense.com

Strengthening Central Asian Security

By Stephen Blank
April 11, 2020

Central Asia lives in a dangerous neighborhood. It is situated between two resurgent empires: Russia and China. It includes Afghanistan in its borders, and despite the February 29 agreement between the U.S. and the Taliban, the Taliban broke the treaty within 72 hours. Therefore, Central Asian governments are all conducting what has been called a multi-vector foreign policy to balance between Moscow, Beijing, the EU in Brussels, Washington, and other players like Japan, South Korea, and India. The new U.S. strategy for Central Asia, also issued in February, recognizes this strategic challenge in Central Asia and postulates support for these states’ sovereignty and independence as a primary goal of that strategy.

For these reasons, it is understandable that during Secretary of State Pompeo’s January 2020 visit to the region and in the talks of other high-ranking diplomats with local governments security and security cooperation featured prominently on their agendas. Even though the Coronavirus crisis will temporarily force other issues to the top of their agenda, we can be sure they will not forget about their security. The confluence of these trends has therefore galvanized policymakers to see the region of Central Asia in a new light and to realize that there are both threats to U.S. interests here beyond terrorism and also opportunities to advance our interests, particularly as regards economics, security assistance, reforms in governance, and support for greater regional cooperation. And this continues to be true despite the current pandemic.


At the same time, one of the central pillars of the Administration’s policies towards Central Asia has been to sponsor increased U.S. trade and investment with those states. And when this crisis ends, their need for such trade and investment and our needs for markets will come together again. A second pillar is also security cooperation to meet the threats of terrorism and promote their defense capabilities and economies. Indeed, the U.S. has provided security assistance to states like Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. This aid not only enhances these states' capacity for self-defense, in some cases, it can also enhance their economic capabilities by creating jobs and training to local citizens and also helping to diffuse advanced technology throughout these countries. Their ties to the U.S. literally embody the principle governing all Central Asian states' foreign policies of not becoming overly dependent on any one provider of security, be it economic or military. This example of a multi-vector foreign policy is greatly facilitated by U.S. investment, both economic and security. Thus, Kazakhstan has successfully partnered with the South African based Paramount Group to build armored personnel vehicles and carriers to the point where it is on the verge of becoming an exporter of these vehicles to other countries.

Investment in and cooperation with entities like Kazakhstan Paramount Engineering (KPE) provides mutual benefits to the U.S. and Central Asian states, not only Kazakhstan. Such investments enhance local defense capabilities and create jobs and add to local industries in these countries. Ultimately, we could see cooperative projects, not unlike what is occurring in Europe, among these states that could add to the already growing trend towards regional cooperation among them. Such assistance simultaneously enhances American influence in these states while also imparting a greater sense of ownership of their self-defense to Central Asian governments. It would also allow at least a partial reduction of their dependency jupon Russian equipment and training, which are also conduits of Russian military-political influence.

Since the U.S. wants to return troops from Afghanistan to the U.S. or to other priority theaters in Europe or Asia, it is necessary that Washington help create among Central Asian states a stronger sense of confidence in our reliability and presence during peacetime to deter future crises. One way to do this would be to set up partnerships with local defense industries that would display U.S investment and presence while also helping reorient military thinking and production methods to non-Russian and non-Chinese models.

Adding to regional security in these ways is especially desirable at this time. Even as governments are stressed by the Coronavirus, investment projects in general, including in defense, sustain employment. Security cooperation allows them to build up their own capability for self-defense as in Kazakhstan’s case because we cannot rely upon the Taliban to uphold the new agreement. Neither can we rely upon the “tender mercies” of Russia and China. Moscow just launched a global oil war that severely constrains the economic opportunities and resources available to its alleged partners in the Eurasian Economic Union with scant regard for their interests. Meanwhile, China's solicitude for Central Asian interests is well known, and it is making more overt military as well as economic moves to shape regional trends there. Under the circumstance and even though Central Asia is not vital to the U.S. in the way that Europe or Northeast Asia are, its strategic importance has grown. The new U.S. strategy for Central Asia, the first of its kind, clearly envisions the region as being one of enhanced strategic importance. Therefore, programs that support this strategy and open the door to even wider fulfillment of its programmatic tendencies should be encouraged and welcomed. Whatever the impact of the Coronavirus is or will be, it will not negate geographic and fundamental strategic realities. Central Asia’s location between Russia and China is one of those realities, as is local states' search to diversify their foreign policy and achieve a balance among the great powers. Their quest fully meshes with our interests, so practical steps that support our and their goals make compelling strategic sense.


Stephen J. Blank, Ph.D., is Senior Fellow at FPRI’s Eurasia Program. He has published over 900 articles and monographs on Soviet/Russian, U.S., Asian, and European military and foreign policies, testified frequently before Congress on Russia, China, and Central Asia, consulted for the Central Intelligence Agency, major think tanks and foundations, chaired major international conferences in the U.S. and in Florence; Prague; and London, and has been a commentator on foreign affairs in the media in the U.S. and abroad. He has also advised major corporations on investing in Russia and is a consultant for the Gerson Lehrmann Group. He has published or edited 15 books, most recently Russo-Chinese Energy Relations: Politics in Command (London: Global Markets Briefing, 2006). He has also published Natural Allies? Regional Security in Asia and Prospects for Indo-American Strategic Cooperation (Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 2005). He is currently completing a book entitled Light From the East: Russia’s Quest for Great Power Status in Asia to be published in 2014 by Ashgate. Dr. Blank is also the author of The Sorcerer as Apprentice: Stalin’s Commissariat of Nationalities (Greenwood, 1994); and the co-editor of The Soviet Military and the Future (Greenwood, 1992).

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

Posted for fair use.....

US commander meets Taliban officials as Afghan peace process stutters

The meeting between Gen. Austin "Scott" Miller and Taliban leaders came as both sides accuse each other of ramping up violence since signing a peace deal on Feb. 29.

www.stripes.com

US commander meets Taliban officials as Afghan peace process stutters
By PHILLIP WALTER WELLMAN | STARS AND STRIPES Published: April 11, 2020

KABUL, Afghanistan — The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan flew to Qatar for urgent talks with the Taliban on Friday as concerns over the country’s faltering peace process mounted, officials said.

The meeting between Gen. Austin "Scott" Miller and Taliban leaders came as both sides accuse each other of ramping up violence since signing a peace deal on Feb. 29, which could see all international troops withdraw from Afghanistan in 14 months.

An initial drawdown has begun and is expected to see U.S. troop numbers reduce to 8,600 by early July.

The meeting, which focused on curbing violence, was part of a military channel established in the U.S.-Taliban deal, the U.S. military’s press office in Kabul told Stars and Stripes.

Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen said night raids and other operations in noncombat areas were discussed at the meeting, and Taliban officials “called for a halt to such attacks.”

On April 5, the insurgent group — which continues to claim attacks against Afghan security forces in rural areas — accused U.S. forces of violating the peace deal by carrying out repeated raids and “brutal drone attacks” across the country.

The U.S. military called the accusation baseless, saying their operations have defended Afghan forces, which is compliant with the agreement.

The U.S.-Taliban deal, which spells out conditions that must be met if foreign forces are to completely withdrawal from Afghanistan within 14 months, has been plagued by setbacks since its inception.

Disagreements over the release of thousands of Taliban and Afghan government prisoners continue to delay the start of talks between Taliban and government officials.

The prisoner release and the intra-Afghan talks were both supposed to start by March 10 and are key conditions of the peace agreement.

The Taliban also have rejected the delegation chosen by Kabul to participate in the intra-Afghan talks, saying it’s not inclusive enough.

An unresolved dispute between incumbent President Ashraf Ghani and his political rival Abdullah Abdullah over who won September’s presidential election has also complicated peace efforts.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said last month, after failing to resolve the impasse during a quick visit to Afghanistan, that the U.S. would withhold at least $1 billion in aid to Afghanistan unless a solution is found.

Pompeo’s visit amid the coronavirus pandemic appeared to underscore the urgency the U.S. places on the peace process and ending the country’s longest war.

wellman.phillip@stripes.com
Twitter: @pwwellman

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Kabul Refuses To Send Captured IS Leader To Pakistan

Afghanistan's government says it will not hand over a captured Islamic State (IS) militant leader to Pakistan because there is no formal extradition treaty between Kabul and Islamabad.

www.rferl.org

Afghanistan
Kabul Refuses To Send Captured IS Leader To Pakistan
April 11, 2020 01:30 GMT

• By RFE/RL's Radio Mashaal

Afghanistan's government says it will not hand over a captured Islamic State (IS) militant leader to Pakistan because there is no formal extradition treaty between Kabul and Islamabad.

The Afghan government announced its position on April 10, a day after Pakistan called for Afghanistan to hand over Aslam Farooqi -- the captured leader of an IS affiliate in Afghanistan.

Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs says the request had been made during a meeting with Afghanistan's ambassador to Pakistan on April 9.

During the meeting, the Afghan envoy was told that Farooqi "should be handed-over to Pakistan for further investigations" because he was involved in "anti-Pakistan activities in Afghanistan," the ministry said.

The statement said that the two countries "should coordinate actions against the menace of terrorism."

Afghan officials say Farooqi, whose real name is Abdullah Orakzai, was arrested in the Kandahar Province on April 4.

He has been a leader of the IS affiliate in Afghanistan since July 2019.

With additional reporting by AP

 

[Housecarl]

This is the one I'm really worried about going nova.....

Posted for fair use.....

Pakistan: Indian Cross-Border Fire in Kashmir Harms Civilians

Both sides have accused each other of starting the latest round of skirmishes in the divided Himalayan region

www.voanews.com

South & Central Asia

Pakistan: Indian Cross-Border Fire in Kashmir Harms Civilians
By Ayaz Gul

April 11, 2020 10:15 AM

ISLAMABAD - Pakistan and India have been locked in renewed military skirmishes across their disputed border in Kashmir for the past two days, with each side accusing the other of initiating the fight.

A Pakistan army spokesman said Saturday that at least six civilians, including children, had sustained “serious injuries” on its side of the divided Himalayan region.

Major-General Babar Iftikhar accused Indian troops of using artillery and heavy mortars to “deliberately” target villages near the Kashmir cease-fire boundary, known as the Line of Control (LoC).

Pakistan army troops responded effectively with matching caliber, he added, targeting those Indian Army posts which initiated fire.”

For its part, India accused Pakistani troops of starting the latest round of hostilities by attacking “forward posts and villages” along the LoC.

Indian media quoted an army spokesman as saying that Pakistani forces early Saturday resumed their aggression with small arms and intense shelling, prompting a “befitting response” by the Indian army.

Military clashes along the LoC have become routine in recent years, tearing apart a 2002 truce in Kashmir between the two nuclear-armed rivals.

Gen. Iftikhar accused India of committing 708 ceasefire violations since the beginning of the year, killing two civilians and injuring 42 others. He did not share details of any military casualties.

Officials in New Delhi are reported to have claimed around 1,100 ceasefire violations by Islamabad in 2020.

Kashmir has sparked two of the three wars between India and Pakistan, and it continues to be the primary source of tensions in bilateral ties.

Tensions have escalated particularly since August 2019 when India unilaterally revoked the decades-old constitutionally enshrined semi-autonomous status of the two-thirds of the disputed territory it administers.

Pakistan rejected the move as a violation of U.N. security council resolutions on Kashmir and existing bilateral agreements, saying neither side is allowed to unilaterally alter the status of the internationally recognized disputed territory.

Islamabad has, with the help of close ally China, raised the issue at the U.N. Security Council. But New Delhi has rejected any foreign intervention, saying the revocation of Kashmir’s status is India’s internal matter.


Written By
Ayaz Gul

 

[jward]

This is the one I'm really worried about going nova.....

Posted for fair use.....

Pakistan: Indian Cross-Border Fire in Kashmir Harms Civilians

Both sides have accused each other of starting the latest round of skirmishes in the divided Himalayan region

www.voanews.com

South & Central Asia

Pakistan: Indian Cross-Border Fire in Kashmir Harms Civilians
By Ayaz Gul

April 11, 2020 10:15 AM

ISLAMABAD - Pakistan and India have been locked in renewed military skirmishes across their disputed border in Kashmir for the past two days, with each side accusing the other of initiating the fight.

A Pakistan army spokesman said Saturday that at least six civilians, including children, had sustained “serious injuries” on its side of the divided Himalayan region.

Major-General Babar Iftikhar accused Indian troops of using artillery and heavy mortars to “deliberately” target villages near the Kashmir cease-fire boundary, known as the Line of Control (LoC).

Pakistan army troops responded effectively with matching caliber, he added, targeting those Indian Army posts which initiated fire.”

For its part, India accused Pakistani troops of starting the latest round of hostilities by attacking “forward posts and villages” along the LoC.

Indian media quoted an army spokesman as saying that Pakistani forces early Saturday resumed their aggression with small arms and intense shelling, prompting a “befitting response” by the Indian army.

Military clashes along the LoC have become routine in recent years, tearing apart a 2002 truce in Kashmir between the two nuclear-armed rivals.

Gen. Iftikhar accused India of committing 708 ceasefire violations since the beginning of the year, killing two civilians and injuring 42 others. He did not share details of any military casualties.

Officials in New Delhi are reported to have claimed around 1,100 ceasefire violations by Islamabad in 2020.

Kashmir has sparked two of the three wars between India and Pakistan, and it continues to be the primary source of tensions in bilateral ties.

Tensions have escalated particularly since August 2019 when India unilaterally revoked the decades-old constitutionally enshrined semi-autonomous status of the two-thirds of the disputed territory it administers.

Pakistan rejected the move as a violation of U.N. security council resolutions on Kashmir and existing bilateral agreements, saying neither side is allowed to unilaterally alter the status of the internationally recognized disputed territory.

Islamabad has, with the help of close ally China, raised the issue at the U.N. Security Council. But New Delhi has rejected any foreign intervention, saying the revocation of Kashmir’s status is India’s internal matter.


Written By
Ayaz Gul

Yes, I just saw that it's as bad as it's been in the last few years

jward
Thursday at 2:16 PM


..more good news eh..
Ankit Panda
@nktpnd
1h

“Indian and Pakistani troops in disputed Kashmir are engaged in their most frequent cross-border fighting of at least two years, official data shows”

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.......Pray for regime change in Tehran before this comes a to boil.....

Posted for fair use.....

The coming giant internal Israeli war over a nuclear Iran – A 2010 rematch

Sources break down Israeli defense officials’ disagreements.

www.jpost.com

The coming giant internal Israeli war over a nuclear Iran – A 2010 rematch
Sources break down Israeli defense officials’ disagreements.

By YONAH JEREMY BOB
APRIL 12, 2020 20:05

A massive internal storm may be coming that the coronavirus may delay, but cannot stop.

If it does, it will pit Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Mossad Director Yossi Cohen and others against Blue and White leaders Benny Gantz and Gabi Ashkenazi, as well as IDF Chief of Staff Lt.- Gen. Aviv Kochavi, over how to deal with Iran.


According to numerous interviews by The Jerusalem Post with current and former Mossad, CIA and other national security officials in the US and Israel, a point may get closer where the Islamic Republic of Iran will escalate its levels of uranium enrichment dangerously close to levels where it could weaponize within a short period.

This will draw Netanyahu, Cohen and their camp closer to a desire to preemptively strike Iran, while Gantz, Ashkenazi, Kochavi and their camp are more likely to define the “point of no return” – after which Tehran cannot be stopped from going nuclear – as a good bit later.

This debate would echo the all-out fight between Netanyahu and Gantz and Ashkenazi in 2010 and afterwards.

During that period, the Blue and White MKs followed each other as IDF chiefs and, especially Ashkenazi, helped block an Israeli preemptive strike, along with then-Mossad chiefs Meir Dagan and Tamir Pardo.

Pardo has since confirmed that he even discussed the issue with then-attorney-general Yehuda Weinstein. He explained that he believed a Netanyahu order to move pieces in place for a near-immediate attack on Iran without full security cabinet approval was illegal and said Weinstein confirmed his position.


There are multiple narratives, with one involving confusing moves by Netanyahu and then-defense minister Ehud Barak to merely scare the world into thinking they would attack.

But the majority public narrative is that the defense establishment’s opposition blocked Netanyahu and Barak from launching an attack.

Most expert estimates already have Tehran’s time to break out for a nuclear bomb – if it chooses to do so, which all agree it has not yet – down from 12 months to between three and a half to six months.

In early March, the usually relatively Iran-friendly International Atomic Energy Agency reported that the ayatollahs already had enough low-level (between 3.67-5%) enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon – should Iran make the decision to enrich to higher levels.

Multiple intelligence sources have indicated to the Post a belief that the Islamic Republic may jump to 20% enrichment, a step it took before the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

Some sources even speculated that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei may green light a small amount of enrichment at the 60% level (uranium becomes weaponized at the 90% level) – an idea the country already played with months ago, but has not yet carried out.

But sources have indicated that top intelligence officials in favor of an earlier military option to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb are not looking at just one specific factor.

Rather, they are looking at the full picture of Tehran’s actions, which will indicate whether it has made the decision to go to the threshold.

According to intelligence officials who view the point of no return as an earlier point in time, they look at nuclear enrichment as a more decisive factor for interpreting Iran’s intentions than the ability to deliver a nuclear weapon.

Put differently, they believe Israel would need to act militarily once Iran has enough nuclear material for a weapon, and that it could not wait for the point at which it is confirmed that Iran can properly fire the weapon.

The rationale of these intelligence officials is that enriching uranium and working on weapons delivery issues, though separate skills to master, do not need to happen in a chronological fashion.

Instead, intelligence officials have noted to the Post that the Islamic Republic could be working through problems with delivering a nuclear warhead on its Shahab 3 missile or other missiles in parallel to its uranium enrichment.

Further, these officials said once Iran gets to within a certain proximity to enough weaponized material for a nuclear bomb, the uncertainties – which might drag out the process by some period of weeks or might be solved immediately – are too fluid.

THERE IS a lesson from the North Korea case.

With North Korea, at some point the world was surprised by how slow it moved forward with developing nuclear weapons. However, later it shocked the world by being months ahead of what was expected. Exporting this lesson to Iran, it means the point of no return cannot wait for the clock to run out entirely.

Those intelligence officials in this camp are also keeping a careful eye on relations between the IAEA and the ayatollahs. Relations have gotten shakier since the March report, which used harsher language than usual against the regime.

In contrast, in January, Kochavi publicly laid out that he did not view Iran as a real nuclear threat until deep into 2021.

The Post has asked the IDF if Kochavi might move his calendar up by nine months since he also predicted in January that Tehran would not have enough low-enriched uranium for a bomb before December. Yet, the regime crossed that threshold already in March.

The IDF did not respond and has not issued a revised timeline.

This suggests that the IDF will not change its calendar as long as Iran is not enriching uranium to higher levels.

However, even more significantly, Kochavi explicitly treated the issues of uranium enrichment and nuclear weapons delivery as separate and chronological. He said weapons delivery pushed the nuclear threat off until deep into 2021.

It appears that this was the position of Ashkenazi and Gantz back in the 2010 era when they held Kochavi’s job.

At that point – and leading up to the 2015 nuclear deal – Iran went far beyond where it is today with nuclear enrichment, yet they were still dead set against Netanyahu and Barak’s discussion/order to attack.

Before the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran had enough low-enriched uranium for around 10 nuclear bombs and had substantial amounts of uranium enriched to the 20% level – which it has not done yet this time.

So even if Khamenei brings Iran far beyond its current uranium stock of low-enriched uranium for one weapon, and if he orders uranium enrichment at the 20% level, a rematch could mean Netanyahu’s Blue and White partners trying to hold him back from an attack.

Kochavi in the present, and Gantz, Ashkenazi, Dagan and Pardo from the past and present, in part represent an IDF mentality of needing to juggle short-term threats, like Hezbollah and Hamas, with long-term threats. They also represent an intelligence perspective beyond the IDF that even a surgical strike solely on Iran’s nuclear facilities could likely lead to a broader war with Iran and its proxies.

In contrast, Netanyahu and Cohen now, and Barak in the past, represented a mentality that the risks of Iran developing a nuclear weapon are so great (that it might use a weapon or that it could use the weapon to act more aggressively in the region) that it trumps other risks and warrants acting sooner.

This future internal war, a rematch of the 2010 era, could decide the fate of the country.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

Posted for fair use.....

VIEW: A new generation of bioweapons could make catastrophic pandemics tomorrow’s new normal

Business News: Get the latest Business News, Live Share & Stock Market Updates, Top News from India and across world. Read Top Business News and updates on financial, economic and banking news on CNBCTV18.

www.cnbctv18.com

Healthcare
VIEW: A new generation of bioweapons could make catastrophic pandemics tomorrow’s new normal
Updated : April 12, 2020 08:55 PM IST

Ever since 1945, biological weapons have been of limited interest to great powers: no conceivable disease, after all, can annihilate adversaries as surely as nuclear weapons

A release of bacteria from naval vessels off the coasts of Virginia and San Francisco infected an estimated 800,000 people.

Ken Yuasa chatted pleasantly with the other surgeons as they began work: the appendectomy they were about to perform was a simple procedure. “I cut with strength”, he remembered. “It was soft inside and I could not find the organ, so I cut again. Then I moved on to the trachea. The person used for the experiment was still laughing when I cut the neck and the blood gushed out”.

Finally, the doctors amputated their patient’s right forearm, shackled to the bed with handcuffs: Yuasa later recalled he felt “impelled by interest”.

From 1931 to 1945, operating from a sprawling two-storey complex in Harbin, doctors in the Imperial Japanese Army’s notorious Unit 731 ran the most gruesome biological weapons programme in history, deliberately exposing prisoners—including women and children—to disease. Entire populations were infected with cholera and plague, by poisoning wells or dropping rats infected with plague through air-delivered bombs.

Thousands of victims—among them the man Dr. Yuasa practiced on in March, 1942—were vivisected. The practice, it was claimed, facilitated study of the progress of infection through the human body. Estimates vary, but Unit 731 and other similar biowarfare units claimed the lives of at least 200,000 Chinese civilians, and perhaps over 500,000.

As the world considers the long-term consequences of the worst pandemic in a century, this ought to be among our concerns. The coronavirus pandemic has illustrated the kinds of catastrophic impacts a new generation of bioweapons could have—and how a new kind of conflict could transform warfare in the future.

FOUR years ago, former United States Director of National Intelligence, added gene editing to a list of threats posed by “weapons of mass destruction and proliferation”, in the annual threat assessment reflecting the collective opinion of that country’s intelligence services. “Given the broad distribution, low cost, and accelerated pace of development of this dual-use technology, its deliberate or unintentional misuse might lead to far-reaching economic and national security implications”, the report argued.

Ever since 1945, biological weapons have been of limited interest to great powers: no conceivable disease, after all, can annihilate adversaries as surely as nuclear weapons. For actors without the technological resources to sustain nuclear-weapons programmes—whether terrorist groups or smaller nation-states— bioweapons could offer a new path to parity with their adversaries.

In 2016, Bill Gates remarked that “the next epidemic could originate on the computer screen of a terrorist intent on using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the smallpox virus”.

The concern has been amplified by the growing use of a technique called CRISPR, which allows scientists to “cut and paste” DNA far more easily than ever in the past. The technique has found applications in everything from fighting cancer to breeding malaria-resistant mosquitos—but has also been used by so-called biohackers to pursue everything from personal cosmetic enhancements to dog breeds with special traits.

The scientist John Sotos stated that gene editing technology could “open up the potential for bioweapons of unimaginable destructive potential”.

Bioweapons experts agree, for the most part, that these doomsday scenarios are—conservatively—some distance in the future. Technological challenges mean it is a far from trivial scientific challenge to engineer a new disease into existence, and even more difficult to find means to reliably use it against a population.

New technologies, though, are making the pursuit, inexorably, easier: The same science that helps treat now-incurable diseases and increase agricultural yields will also provide radical new tools for killing.

TERRORIST groups have had a sustained interest in producing bioweapons. In 2002, for example, evidence surfaced that al-Qaeda had set up a small laboratory in Kandahar to experiment with bioweapons, along with other kinds of toxins. Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the architect of the 9/11 attacks, revealed Malaysian businessman Yazid Sufaat had sought to create an anthrax-based bioweapon. But, because of the formidable technological challenges involved, none of these attempts is believed to have made any real progress towards generating a usable bioweapon.

Evil as al-Qaeda pursuit of biological weapons might be, it—and other similar terrorist groups—are only emulating the behaviour of nation-states. From the use of smallpox against Native Americans by British forces in 1763, to the large-scale production of anthrax spores, brucellosis, and botulism toxins by the United States and United Kingdom, nation-states also pursued biological weapons programmes through the modern era.

Imperial Japan’s bioweapons programme was, without doubt, the most barbaric of these. "People were taken to a field and tied to posts”, Sadao Koshi, a former driver at Unit 731 has recorded. “Then planes dropped bombs carrying plague bacillus and collectotricium. When the bombs exploded the bacteria liquid fell like rain”.

Lieutenant-General Shiro Ishii, and the thousands of experts and medical personnel involved in Unit 731’s gruesome operations, evaded punishment for war crimes, after the United States decided to ignore their activities in return for their sharing information gathered during their operations. For decades, the testimonies of a small number of Unit 731 personnel captured and prosecuted in the Soviet Union were dismissed as propaganda.

But the United States, scholar Friedrich Frischknecht has shown, aggressively pursued bioweapons after the Second World War—even exposing its own unsuspecting citizens to both pathogenic and non-pathogenic microbes.

A release of bacteria from naval vessels off the coasts of Virginia and San Francisco infected an estimated 800,000 people. Bacterial aerosols were released at more than 200 sites, including bus stations and airports. The most infamous test was the 1966 contamination of the New York metro system with the non-infectious bacillus globigii, to study the spread of the pathogen in a big city.

In the 1970s, the Soviet Union’s covert biological weapons programme, BioPreparat, was estimated to be producing tons of antibiotic-resistant anthrax, smallpox, and other agents, designed to be delivered either by aircraft or missiles.

But it soon became clear to the great powers that these bioweapons capabilities were, for the most part, redundant: the use of such assets against nuclear-armed adversaries, was after all, almost certain to invite a devastating response. In 1975, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention—now signed by 146 countries—prohibited countries from developing developing or producing biological warfare agents, and weapons intended to deliver them in wartime.

There have been persistent concerns, though, that some countries have continued to violate the Convention—possibly hoping to create weapons that can be used without being traced back to laboratories. In 2018, for example, the expert Danny Shoham claimed Russia’s military “military still poses a potential menace, in terms of both stockpiled, probably deployable biological weapons, and prevailing production capacities”.

Beijing is also alleged by the United States to be pursuing similar capabilities, though little substantial evidence has surfaced in the public domain.

Likely, many states do have some form of ongoing bioweapons research: “As history tells us, virtually no nation with the ability to develop weapons of mass destruction has abstained from doing so” Frischknecht notes. That’s true of non-state actors, too.

For India, long faced with threats from a spectrum of, technologically-sophisticated adversaries it is critical to engage with the prospect of mass-casualty biological events now barely visible the horizon. In a country with a creaking, chronically-underfunded public health system, the consequences of a biological attack could be more catastrophic than those of any terrorist death-squad.

Experts have long been calling on government to create the infrastructure the country needs to address these future threats. In 2008, the National Disaster Management Authority had laid out granular plans to create state-level stockpiles of equipment, invest in biological sciences research facilities, and ensure thoroughgoing training of personnel to prepare for such emergencies. Bureaucratic infighting and intrigue, News18 revealed t, killed off the plans—plans which, if acted on, would have ensured the country would have been much better prepared for the pandemic.

The coronavirus pandemic teaches us what the unimaginable might look like. The time to act is now.

Catch the latest developments on the coronavirus pandemic here

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

Posted for fair use.....

US beefs up military presence in Syraq corridor, EU-NATO enhance strategic role in Africa

Washington’s assassination of a senior Iranian commander in Baghdad in January prompted Iraqi authorities to demand the immediate remove of US forces

nation.com.pk

US beefs up military presence in Syraq corridor, EU-NATO enhance strategic role in Africa

Sputnik
12:31 AM | April 12, 2020

Washington’s assassination of a senior Iranian commander in Baghdad in January prompted Iraqi authorities to demand the immediate remove of US forces from the country. America has gradually reducing its troop presence in the Middle Eastern nation in recent months, but has dragged its feet on making any commitment to complete withdrawal.

The US has beefed up its military presence in Iraq, deploying Patriot missile systems at the al-Asad Air Base in al Anbar governorate, and Erbil Airbase in Iraqi Kurdistan, officials speaking to the Associated Press have said.

The bases were struck by over a dozen Iranian missiles on January 8, 2020, causing traumatic brain injuries among 110 US troops, with Iran describing the strikes as retaliation to the January 3 drone strike assassination of Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Qasem Soleimani at Baghdad’s airport.

READ MORE: An existential crisis?

The officials did not elaborate the missile systems’ point of origin, nor any operational details. They did reveal however that a short-range rocket defence system was also installed at Camp Taji, a US military installation situated about 25 km north of Baghdad. That camp and other US facilities including the Green Zone Embassy compound area in Baghdad have come under repeated rocket attacks in recent months by Iraqi militias seeking to avenge Soleimani’s killing.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley confirmed Thursday that hundreds of troops from the 1st Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division would remain in Iraq due to the threat posed by Shia militias. According to Milley, US troops would remain hunkered down in Iraq “until such time that we think the threat has subsided.”

The most recent attack on US interests in the Middle Eastern country took place last week, when a Halliburton site was targeted in Basra governorate by Katyusha rocket fire. No damage or casualties were reported in that incident.

READ MORE: Russia seeks subsequent OPEC meetings to finalise deal for stabilising oil market

Earlier this month, President Trump warned that Iran would “pay a very heavy price, indeed!” if Tehran or its Shia mililtia ‘proxies’ targeted US troops or assets in Iraq.

The US presence in Iraq is estimated to amount to some 6,000 troops. The US and coalition has withdrawn some forces from the country and announced the closure of several bases, transferring control of the facilities to the Iraqi army. At the same time, however, new troops have been deployed to set up and operate the air defence systems.

Iraq has yet to comment on the Patriot deployment. The country’s parliament voted to expel all US forces in the country in January, but Washington has ruled out a total withdrawal, and said any exit would be on America’s “own terms.” President Trump has also threatened the country with tough sanctions, and demanded payment for the billions of dollars the US has spent on base infrastructure.

READ MORE: US announces to cut oil production by 4m barrels daily in next 3 months as OPEC meeting scheduled later on Sunday

Last week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the White House would start a “strategic” dialogue with Baghdad in mid-June, covering a variety of issues including possible future US military deployments.





READ MORE: Iraq’s new PM-designate vows to uphold Sovereignty as US deploys Patriot missile system

'Great Game' in Sahel: Europe Forms New Task Force, US Eyes Drawdown, Terrorists Team Up

As European countries agree to set up another task force to tackle terrorism in the Sahel against the backdrop of the US planned troop drawdown, experts warn that a new mission will not necessarily lead to a reduction in violence, but will help the West to retain its geopolitical clout amid the rise of rival actors on the ground.

On March 27, France and its allies established a new task force, dubbed Takuba, to fight terrorism in Africa's Sahel. It comes as the US reviews its military posture globally, prompting rumors about a complete withdrawal or a significant troop drawdown in West Africa and a potential end to logistical and intelligence support to the forces of France, a major player in the region.

READ MORE: PM chairs high level meeting to review Coronavirus situation

In an apparent response to the Pentagon’s call for "other European allies to assist as well in the region" to "offset whatever changes" to the US strategy in Africa, 11 European countries (Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, and the UK) thereby joined forces in a Paris-led task force to fight terrorists in the region alongside the armies of Mali and Niger.

The mission is set to be deployed to the region as early as this summer and reach its full operation capacity by early 2021.

It will be under the command of France’s regional counter-insurgency operation Barkhane but will have a high level of autonomy. The task force vows to work closely with a myriad of other missions on the ground, such as G5 Sahel, MINUSMA and EU missions across the region (EUTM Mali, EUCAP Mali and EUCAP Niger).

READ MORE: PM appeals for launching of debt relief initiative for developing countries

Number of Missions Multiplies, So Does Violence on the Ground

The international community has maintained a significant presence in the Sahel since the establishment of MINUSMA, the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, in 2013. The peacekeeping mission was created to stabilize Mali following the 2012 Tuareg rebellion.

MINUSMA is tasked with ensuring security, stabilization, protecting citizens, supporting national political dialogue, and rebuilding the security sector in the country. It is currently the largest mission in the Sahel, with more than 15,000 troops.

READ MORE: Sindh govt slammed over coronavirus measures

A year after MINUSMA was established, France found it necessary to launch its own 4,500-strong Operation Barkhane to fight terrorists.

This mission was reinforced by the establishment of the G5 Sahel in 2017. Endorsed by the African Union, the 5,000-strong group brings together Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger.

Now, fearing Washington’s withdrawal, France announced in February that it would send an additional 600 soldiers to the Sahel, bringing the total number of its troops on the ground to 5,100.

READ MORE: Rs22.46b disbursed among over 1.77 million deserving families

Despite all this foreign presence, terrorism in the Sahel is far from being beaten, with attacks becoming only more frequent, experts say.

"Over the past few years, and especially over the past months, the level of terror attacks in the Sahel grew drastically. The number of attacks both against military and civilian targets increased. In Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, the number of attacks has increased five times since 2016. Some 4,000 people became victims of these attacks in 2019," Olga Kulkova, a senior research fellow at the Institute for African Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, says.

According to Kulkova, violence is now spreading even to those West African countries that have traditionally been more politically and economically stable, such as Ghana, Togo, and Cote d’Ivoire.

READ MORE: COVID-19 cases far lower than estimates depict lockdown’s positive outcome: President Alvi

Salim Chena, an expert on Africa at Sciences Po Bordeaux, shares the assessment that terrorist organizations are expanding their sphere of activity beyond Mali to the entire Sahel region.

"For a couple of years, terrorist groups have expanded their reach outside Mali, and are direct threats to Niger and Burkina Faso. Since the French and African interventions in Mali, even if some of the leadership and troops of these groups have been limited, they tend now to restructure, unify and coordinate their action," Chena told Sputnik.

According to the expert, French and African interventions in the Sahel have had an adverse effect of unifying rival militant groups against a common enemy.

READ MORE: Finance advisor Hafeez Shaikh calls on PM Imran Khan

"The Ag Ghali group, affiliated with Al Qaeda* [terrorist organization banned in Russia], and the Saharan emirate of Islamic State [Daesh*] [terrorist organization banned in Russia] don't have a real interest to fight each other now, as they have a common enemy, share a common goal and are each too weakened to wage war against one another," the researcher said.

National Forces Fail to Demonstrate Self-Sufficiency

Yet, complete withdrawal of foreign missions may create even greater chaos as France, despite the success in stopping the advancement of militant groups in 2014, has failed to put a significant dent in terrorist activities, according to Didier Billion, deputy director of the French Institute for International and Strategic Affairs.

READ MORE: Six cops fall victim to coronavirus in Karachi

"The assessment of the French troops' presence in Mali is not very positive ... we also know, unfortunately – and that is a suggestion – that if France left Mali, the terrorist forces would immediately resume their attacks, given the deplorable state of the Malian army, and one could expect the worst," Billion told Sputnik.

The newly-established African missions – such as G5 Sahel – cannot shoulder responsibility for security in the region either, while being poorly equipped and short of expertise, according to Kulkova.

"They [G5 Sahel] only carried out a few operations. In 2017 their headquarters in Mali were attacked and destroyed. The financing declared by the donors is limited not everything that was promised was transferred. And the forces of the national armies that comprise the joint forces are not equipped well enough, and not trained enough. According to the president of Niger, there are areas in the Sahel where the situation is completely out of control. The situation is becoming chaotic and any assistance is welcome," she said.

READ MORE: K-P reports new polio case, country-wide tally reaches 38

A recent deadly attack when an ethic militia in Mali killed at least 35 civilians in the village of Ogossagou in February, decapitating some of them, is very telling. It happened several hours after government troops vacated a post maintained there since the March 2019 attack on the village, when roughly 150 people were massacred, and one hour after UN peacekeepers passed through, according to Human Rights Watch.

Continued.....

 

[Housecarl]

Continued.....

Presence in Sahel Geopolitically Important for Europe

Maintaining a presence in this troubled region is geopolitically vital to France and the whole of Europe. Therefore, in light of the American troop drawdown plans, the French government, including President Emmanuel Macron himself in a call with US leader Donald Trump, has repeatedly stressed the importance of joint counterterrorism efforts in the Sahel.

READ MORE: PM Imran to chair PTI spokespersons meeting tomorrow

"France is a traditionally strong geopolitical actor in the Sahel countries … At the same time France sees the US as an important partner in terms of intelligence data sharing, logistic support in the Sahel, and French diplomatic officials did everything to convince Trump not to decrease this support," Kulkova said.

According to the expert, France will likely do its best to retain its historical presence.

Another factor why Europe is directly interested in stabilizing the region is migration, as eternal violence in the Sahel threatens to push more people to cross the Mediterranean in pursuit of a better life on the neighboring continent, Billion, the French Institute for International and Strategic Affairs deputy director, noted.

READ MORE: FPCCI greets Rs 100 billion package decision provided to industrial sector by govt

As part of these stabilization efforts, Europe focuses on training national armies of Sahel countries and seeks to avoid any campaigns like in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The common trend for the European countries involved there, and for the US, is their sensitive attitude to losses of their people. European countries are extremely unwilling to see their soldiers die in Africa. That’s why they showed such warm support to the Sahel G5 initiative," Kulkova said.

The UK, meanwhile, also strives to reestablish its influence in Africa after the Brexit. In January, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said during a speech at an unprecedented trade conference with African countries in London that Africa’s "partner of choice" should be the UK. In March, the country announced that it would send 250 troops to join a UN mission in Mali.

READ MORE: Construction sector hails government’s decision for achieving status of Industry

"The UK has left the EU and it is paying much more attention to Africa now and maybe by this move, it wants to show that ‘we support the peacekeepers on the African continent, we support the UN and our African partners,' so this is a symbolic gesture because I do not think that 250 people will bring an important change in the Sahel. It’s a huge territory and a lot of zones are uncontrolled," Kulkova noted.

US Will Still Remain Deeply Invested in Battle for Africa

According to Chena, Africa and, especially, the Sahel are "a battleground between great powers, regional ones and outside forces, be they private or state-owned," with each of them seeking to gain influence and control over local natural resources and governments to promote own diplomatic and strategic agendas.

READ MORE: 175 visitors recover from coronavirus in DG Khan says CM Buzdar

Though Washington is now looking to review its military posture across the world, it will remain deeply invested in the Sahel, particularly when it relates to the competition with other powers, the expert believes.

"The US is concerned as the world power balance is shifting since the start of the 21st century, and they are more and more invested in African security policies and economies as it can see the rise of China, the strengthening of Russia following its internal disorders after the Soviet collapse during the 1990s. Also, new powers like Brazil, South Africa, Turkey now are emerging," Chena explained.

The US, for instance, has sought to boost its influence in the English-speaking countries in West Africa, which are now becoming threatened by the spread of violence from the Sahel. In February, State Secretary Mike Pompeo notably embarked on his first visit to the African continent as part of efforts to promote economic cooperation with the US in light of China’s growing regional influence. He made stops in Senegal, Angola, and Ethiopia.

READ MORE: President Alvi greets Christians on Easter

Africa is, however, not a top priority for the US, whose foreign policy interests lie in the Arab peninsula and the Middle East, according to Chena.

"Ultimately, the US seeks to defend its interests there and its view of what should be the world order, but they cannot overreach and overextend as Africa is still secondary to their foreign policy which is concentrated in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Pacific," he remarked.

At this stage, Washington has concentrated its activities on the continent in East Africa, due to its position as a gateway to the Persian Gulf, Chena stated.

READ MORE: PM Imran is the guarantor to safeguard the rights of Pakistanis: Dr Firdous

Is Russia Coming Too?

The first-ever Russia-Africa summit in October, attended by some 45 African leaders, shows that Moscow is interested in developing ties with the continent too.

In an interview with Sputnik on the sidelines of the summit, the head of the G5 Sahel Permanent Secretariat, Maman Sambo Sidikou, said that the leaders of the five Sahel states would hope to talk with President Vladimir Putin to assess how Russia could help fight terrorism in the region.

READ MORE: ‘It’s going to be the toughest decision’: Trump on opening the US economy

Sidikou added that the region would have found it more difficult to tackle the terrorist threat "without a country like Russia," an important UN Security Council member.

In December, Chadian Foreign Minister Mahamat Zene Cherif told Sputnik that Russia has extensive experience in combating terrorism, and this experience would be of great importance to maintain stability in Africa.

The idea of Russia stepping up presence in the Sahel is, however, prompting anxiety in the West.

READ MORE: Taliban to release 20 government prisoners on Sunday

"Taking the Central African Republic as an example, we see how sensitive the European countries are toward the attempts of Russia to help. At the same time, a petition of several NGOs is being circulated in Mali, calling for Russia to intervene and to help, and it got several millions of signatures. The representatives of the G5 Sahel group also traveled to the Russia-Africa summit in Sochi and expressed their desire for Russia to help fight terrorism," Kulkova explained.

While Russia may be looking to increase its influence in the region, it would be wrong to believe that France, at the same time, would look to reduce its activities in the region, she added.

The expert suggested that Russia’s full-scale involvement in the region was very unlikely but small groups of Russian military advisers could be sent to certain Sahel countries at the request of their governments.

"It is also important to develop the potential of the African armies. It’s important to share expertise. Russia is training a lot of African military and police officers. And we cannot rule out that upon request, we could enhance the amount of military assistance and send our instructors that could train them on the ground," the expert said.

Salim Chena pointed out that Russia simply tries to restore its historically good ties with the continent after a period of a slowdown in the relations in the 1990s.

"For several years, Russia tried to come back in the ‘African great game.’ During the period of the USSR, it was a significant actor in African international politics. Russia is also threatened by terrorism. As a consequence, it is understandable that it wants to cooperate in security matters, even if its interests in Africa are not as important as European ones, for example, its trade with the continent is nonetheless more and more significant," Chena said.

The expert noted that the numerous international players in the region must work together and missions have to complement each other to be effective.

"To be efficient, Russia's implication must complement the existing ones, not only in Mali or Libya but elsewhere in the Central Sahara. The region is already ‘crowded’ with security missions that compete with one another, rather than being complementary, and as a consequence are not so efficient," he said.

Economy Still at Heart of Africa's Woes

Yet, no foreign security assistance can bring sustainable peace to the Sahel unless economic woes of these countries are addressed.

"There are not only security issues that raise concerns. There is a very severe economic and humanitarian situation. The Sahel countries are some of the poorest countries in the world … So, there is a need to strengthen security and to increase the living standards of the population at the same time. Development and security go hand in hand, it’s even hard to say what one should start with. In Burkina Faso, 4,000 people lose their homes every day and become internally displaced because of the terror attacks. They lose all their sources of income and are forced to flee. And it is a huge humanitarian issue," Kulkova said.

Billion agreed that security missions must be complemented by economic and political solutions.

"I sometimes have the impression that Western leaders … aim for military operations only. They might be successful in the short-term, but in the middle- and long-term, it’s always political and economic issues that would make the eradication of terrorism possible," he said.

These views were shared by Salim Chena, who criticized the international community’s alleged push for an instant solution to an incredibly complex issue.

"The problem is not just to fight and disarm the current generation of terrorists or terrorist sympathizers and pretenders, but to prevent the rise of the next. By definition, it's a long game, a marathon, not a sprint. And there is more than one solution, as there is more than religious extremism in the picture," he said.

Chena also called for greater cooperation among countries that are operating in the region, and for a unified strategy that focuses on both security and economic development.

"The so-called international community acted in a badly organized fashion, which is understandable as each state seeks its national interests, and actors like the EU does not have sufficient unity in foreign policy to achieve real success … There could be a global, general approach, mixing security and development. States could allow resources to help and assist local populations, prove their goodwill to reshape their political relations with the region," the expert said.

The scale of the challenge facing the Sahel is thus tremendous. The solutions to the ongoing crisis are multifaceted and will require extensive investment, of both human and economic resources. It remains to see whether or not the international community is up to the task.



Justin Trudeau Says Canada ‘Evidently a Partner’ of Sahel as He Rallies Africans’ Support

Canada has not deployed peacekeepers to the Sahel region, where an Islamist insurgency has devastated Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger. But it has been providing transportation assistance to France, the former colonial ruler leading the counter-terrorist effort in the region.

Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has commented on the steps his government plans to take to counter terrorism in general and in Africa’s Sahel region in particular.

Fielding a question from a Sputnik reporter at the Munich Security Conference, Trudeau stated that Canada is “fully engaged” in the international anti-terror effort within the US-led anti-Daesh* coalition.

He added that he had recently talked about the Sahel crisis with President of Burkina Faso, Roch Marc Christian Kaboré, and Niger’s President Brigi Rafini.

He said that security remains high on the agenda in Sahel before adding that “Canada is evidently a partner”, but would not comment on specific plans regarding security.

A jihadist insurgence swept the region of Sahel, south of the Sahara Desert, in 2012 as a result of chaos in Libya. Northern Mali was the epicenter of the crisis, which later spread to the neighbouring Burkina Faso and Niger, causing a humanitarian disaster in all three countries.

Burkina Faso suffered most, with one-third of the country turning into a conflict zone; two other Sahel countries Chad and Mauritania have also found themselves under threat of growing extremism and organised crime in the wake of the crisis.

All five countries – which are former French colonies – have launched a joint cross-border force to counter the terrorist threat under France’s leadership.

Canada, unlike France, does not have troops on the ground in the Sahel but provides aircraft and pilots to help transport troops between Europe and the Sahel. Ottawa earlier pledged to apply for observer status in the Sahel Alliance, a regional development organisation.

Justin Trudeau this week toured African countries to discuss human rights, security and climate change, and reportedly pledged $10 million to African nations to improve gender equality. Critics have accused the Prime Minister of effectively trying to buy the votes of African governments to back Canada’s bid for one of the two rotating seats on UN Security Council as it faces off against the bids of Ireland and Norway in a General Assembly vote in June.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Chad will no longer jointly fight Boko Haram, ISWAP with any country - Deby

President Idriss Deby has declared that Chadian troops will no longer participate in military operations outside the country's borders. He said this was

dailypost.ng

News
Chad will no longer jointly fight Boko Haram, ISWAP with any country – Deby

Published 1 day ago on April 11, 2020
By Wale Odunsi

President Idriss Deby has declared that Chadian troops will no longer participate in military operations outside the country’s borders.

​

He said this was as part of National Army campaigns against Boko Haram and armed groups active in the Lake Chad region.

“Our troops have died for Lake Chad and the Sahel. From today, no Chadian soldiers will take part in a military mission outside Chad,” Al-Jazeera quoted him as telling Chadian national TV.

Deby’s lamented failures by allies to do more in the fight against Boko Haram and other terror sects including ISWAP.

Chad said its offensive left 1,000 insurgents dead while 52 troops lost their lives.

The area borders Cameroon, Chad, Niger and Nigeria.

In 2015, the four countries and Benin Republic formed the Multinational Joint Task Force (MNJTF), to fight Boko Haram.

But Chad complained to the Task Force after 92 soldiers were killed in Boma.

The country wondered how Boko Haram passed through the area other nations were supposedly guarding.

“Chad is alone in shouldering all the burden of the war against Boko Haram,” Al-Jazeera quoted Deby to have publicly protested.

Chad vs Boko Haram: Shekau charges jittery terrorists amid heavy firepower
Boko Haram: Why Buhari cannot emulate Chad President, lead Nigerian Army - Momoh
Boko Haram: Details of Nigeria, Chad defence meeting finally emerge

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Soldier, 6 'terrorists' killed in Burkina Faso clashes | Macau Business

International, MNA | A Burkina Faso soldier and six "terrorist" insurgents were killed in clashes in the north of the country Sunday, the army chief said in a statement.

www.macaubusiness.com

• MNA
• International

April 13, 2020
Soldier, 6 ‘terrorists’ killed in Burkina Faso clashes

By AFP

A Burkina Faso soldier and six “terrorist” insurgents were killed in clashes in the north of the country Sunday, the army chief said in a statement.

The fighting broke out in the town of Djibo on Sunday morning.

“A gendarmerie unit and a reconnaissance mission team were ambushed. Sadly a soldier was killed during the attack,” the military statement said.

The two units managed “to neutralise six terrorists,” it added.

Army chief Moise Miningou, in the same statement, said five other troops were killed on Thursday also in the north.

Burkina Faso’s northwest border is with Mali, and to the northeast is Niger, with all three countries fighting a long-running jihadist insurgency.

According to UN figures, jihadist attacks in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger left nearly 4,000 people dead last year, including 800 in Burkina Faso alone.

Some 800,000 people have been displaced since 2015.

The poorly-trained and badly-equipped Burkina security forces have been unable to stem the violence despite help from abroad, notably from France which has 5,100 troops taking part in the Barkhane anti-jihadist force in the Sahel region.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use..... (Rest is behind pay wall...HC)

On the Road With the French Foreign Legion (Published 2020)

Squeezed inside a military fighting vehicle in West Africa with soldiers from around the world recruited to France’s legendary force, just days before social distancing became the norm.

www.nytimes.com

west africa dispatch

On the Road With the French Foreign Legion

Squeezed inside a military fighting vehicle in West Africa with soldiers from around the world recruited to France’s legendary force, just days before social distancing became the norm.

By Ruth Maclean

• April 12, 2020, 2:02 p.m. ET

GAO, Mali — Six rifles, in my line of sight. Eleven bodies, only one (mine) female. Eleven flak jackets and helmets, slowly absorbing sweat. Eleven camp beds, mosquito nets and backpacks, hooked behind dark green seats alongside some wooden crates of ammunition. Thousands of baby wipes, as our next shower would be many days away......

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Mexican Government Confirms Journalist from Acapulco was Beheaded | ABC 14 News

Mexican authorities verified the murder and beheading of a journalist from the beach front vacationer hotspot of Acapulco who went lacking very last week. Through a organized statement, the Guerrero State Lawyer General’s Office discovered that human bodyparts identified on Wednesday in Acapulco...

abc14news.com

Mexican Government Confirms Journalist from Acapulco was Beheaded

News
By Brandon G. Jones On Apr 11, 2020

Mexican authorities verified the murder and beheading of a journalist from the beach front vacationer hotspot of Acapulco who went lacking very last week.

Through a organized statement, the Guerrero State Lawyer General’s Office discovered that human bodyparts identified on Wednesday in Acapulco ended up discovered by means of forensic testing as belonging to journalist Victor Fernando Alvarez Chavez. The statement discovered that family members had formally claimed the target as missing on April 2 in Acapulco.

Alvarez Chavez served as director of the nearby information outlet Punto por Punto and had formerly been the goal of several threats from the numerous drug cartels that work and are combating for control of Acapulco and other pieces of Guerrero. As Breitbart Texas described, Guerrero has been a hotspot for violence in current many years as many drug cartels combat for manage of the region’s drug production and drug trafficking routes.

According to Mexico’s El Universal, relatives claimed that immediately after the target went missing, Mexican prosecutors compelled them to wait 72 several hours right before they could file a lacking person’s report.

According to Guerrero’s FGE, authorities gathered the victim’s severed remains on Wednesday and submitted samples for screening. It continues to be unclear from their statement if the entire system was recovered or only particular human body areas.

Alvarez Chavez is the fourth murdered journalist in 2020. His loss of life arrives just times just after two gunmen on a bike fatally shot Maria Elena Ferral in Veracruz, Breitbart Texas described. Paramedics rushed the journalist to a area medical center the place she died hrs later. The governor of Veracruz mocked community news outlets at the time claiming they have been making use of the lethal assault on Ferral to criticize his authorities.

Ildefonso Ortiz is an award-profitable journalist with Breitbart Texas. He co-founded Breitbart Texas’ Cartel Chronicles task with Brandon Darby and senior Breitbart management. You can adhere to him on Twitter and on Facebook. He can be contacted at Iortiz@breitbart.com.

Brandon Darby is the taking care of director and editor-in-main of Breitbart Texas. He co-founded Breitbart Texas’ Cartel Chronicles venture with Ildefonso Ortiz and senior Breitbart management. Adhere to him on Twitter and Facebook. He can be contacted at bdarby@breitbart.com.

Tony Aranda from Breitbart Texas’ Cartel Chronicles undertaking contributed to this report

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

Posted for fair use.....

Old Juarez cartel closing in on ‘The Jaguar,’ Sinaloa cartel rivals

The brother and a nephew of a Sinaloa cartel leader are among the victims of a shooting that left 19 people dead last week in a town near the Chihuahua-Sonora border, Mexican authorities confirmed.

www.kxan.com

Old Juarez cartel closing in on ‘The Jaguar,’ Sinaloa cartel rivals

News

Recent drug massacre linked to La Linea push to regain drug-staging areas between Arizona and New Mexico

by: Julian Resendiz
Posted: Apr 10, 2020 / 11:10 PM CDT / Updated: Apr 10, 2020 / 11:10 PM CDT

EL PASO, Texas (Border Report) — The brother and a nephew of a Sinaloa cartel leader are among the victims of a shooting that left 19 people dead last week in a town near the Chihuahua-Sonora border, Mexican authorities confirmed.


The two were identified as Uriel Arvizu Ponce and Marco Antonio Arvizu Márquez, the latter a brother of Francisco Arvizu Marquez, a.k.a. “The Jaguar,” who according to U.S. intelligence analysts heads the Gente Nueva cell of the Sinaloa cartel in western Chihuahua.


A week after the shooting, some 300 state police officers remain in the area to maintain the peace, a state police spokesman told Border Report.


The shooting, described as an ambush in which a caravan of pickups and SUVs was shot at from multiple angles by up to 40 men with assault weapons, is part of a months-long struggle that has left more than 100 people dead around the town of Madera, analysts say.


“From what I hear it was Gente Nueva being ambushed by La Linea. They got hammered again,” said Scott Stewart, vicepresident of tactical analysis for Stratfor, an Austin-based geopolitical intelligence group.


La Linea is what remains of the old Juarez cartel, which was wiped out in the late 2000s when the Sinaloa cartel took control of most drug-trafficking in Mexico. The Juarez cartel was once the dominant criminal organization in Mexico, led by Amado Carrillo Fuentes, a.k.a “The Lord of the Skies” for his fleet of old Boeing 727 he used to ferry drugs from Colombia to Mexico for distribution in the United States. Carrillo died in 1997.


The current struggle has implications for U.S. law enforcement, as Madera is a corridor for drugs coming from the interior of Mexico and headed for staging areas into the United States at Janos and Ascencion, Chihuahua, south of New Mexico, and Agua Prieta, Sonora, south of Douglas, Arizona.

Madera, Chihuahua is a strategic town for the Mexican drug cartels, as it leads to drug staging areas into the United States between Nogales, Arizona, and El Paso, Texas.
This feud is what led to the massacre of nine American citizens who were traveling in caravan last November near the Chihuahua-Sonora border. According to Mexican authorities, La Linea gunmen mistook their vehicles for a convoy of the Sinaloa cartel cell known as Los Salazar, which controls the Agua Prieta region


Stewart says La Linea has been winning the war in the Chihuahua countryside since killing off the previous Gente Nueva leader, a drug trafficker known as “The Tiger,” and receiving weapons and monetary support from the Cartel Jalisco New Generation.


The Jalisco cartel is quickly becoming the most dangerous drug trafficking organization in Mexico, and is trying to secure mastery of border drug-staging areas by supporting La Linea in Juarez and Los Metros in Reynosa, in their fight against the Sinaloa cartel and the Gulf cartel, Stratfor and other experts have told border report.


Experts expect the bloodshed in Chihuahua to continue, as The Jaguar has now become the No. 1 target of La Linea.


Visit the BorderReport.com homepage for the latest exclusive stories and breaking news about issues along the United States-Mexico border.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

Posted for fair use.....

Fire Breaks Out On China's Massive New Type 075 Amphibious Assault Ship

The blaze struck while the ship was tied up to the pier at Hudong–Zhonghua Shipbuilding in Shanghai.

www.thedrive.com

Fire Breaks Out On China's Massive New Type 075 Amphibious Assault Ship
The blaze struck while the ship was tied up to the pier at Hudong–Zhonghua Shipbuilding in Shanghai.

By Tyler Rogoway
April 11, 2020

• The War Zone

Chinese Internet


Tyler RogowayView Tyler Rogoway's Articles
twitter.com/Aviation_Intel

China's first big-deck amphibious assault ship, a huge vessel that was built in a miraculously short amount of time, caught fire on Saturday, April 11th, 2020. Photos and video showing the ship billowing large clouds of black smoke hit Chinese social media earlier in the day. The warship, which is the first of the new Type 075 class, was resting alongside the pier at its birthplace, Hudong–Zhonghua Shipbuilding in Shanghai, when the blaze broke out.

You can and should read all about the Type 075 and why it is a major accomplishment for the rapidly expanding People's Liberation Army Navy in this past piece of ours.

China Just Launched Its Huge And Incredibly Quickly Built Amphibious Assault Ship By Joseph Trevithick and Tyler Rogoway Posted in The War Zone
China's New Amphibious Assault Ship Is A Monster By Tyler Rogoway Posted in The War Zone
Russia's Accident-Plagued Aircraft Carrier Is On Fire (Updated) By Tyler Rogoway Posted in The War Zone
New Details On Russian Submarine Fire Emerge Along With An Intriguing Schematic (Updated) By Joseph Trevithick and Tyler Rogoway Posted in The War Zone
Russian Icebreaker Under Construction Bursts Into Flames, Injuring At Least Two By Joseph Trevithick Posted in The War Zone

It is unclear how much damage has been done to the amphibious assault ship at this time, although it appears the fire emanated from, or at least involved, its well deck. A well deck is a floodable garage-like space that is used on amphibious assault ships for launching and recovering ship-to-shore transport boats and hovercraft, as well as amphibious fighting vehicles.

pic.twitter.com/o3C5EhHH0F
— Kushigumo Akane (@K3V1N_ZHU) April 11, 2020​

The second ship in the Type 075 class is wrapping up construction in the drydocks next to where the first is tied up. Some speculate that it could be launched very soon.

Recent satellite images from Hudong–Zhonghua Shipyard, #Shanghai, #China show the second PLAN type 075 amphibious assault vessel in docks awaiting a coat of paint on its deck as speculations for its launch date begin emerging pic.twitter.com/NLGUBTHE8T
— d-atis (@detresfa_) April 10, 2020​

As such, the fire couldn't have come at a worse time and it could end up being an embarrassing setback for one of the People's Liberation Army Navy's banner shipbuilding programs, but just how big of a setback is still yet to be seen.

Uncredited
China's Type 075 before it was scorched by today's fire.
We will update this post with more information when it comes available.
UPDATE: 12AM PST—
Alert 5 has posted a better view of her stern. Pretty badly scorched:

Closer view pic.twitter.com/ICy1VQWT0R
— Alert 5 (@alert5) April 11, 2020​

Contact the author: Tyler@thedrive.com

 

[energy_wave]

Wow, self exploding Chineese assult ships. What will they think of next. Saves us all the trouble without a shot being fired.

 

[jward]

25 Taliban militants killed, 17 wounded in the operation ‘Retake of Khamaab’

By Khaama Press / in Afghanistan / on Sunday, 12 Apr 2020 01:05 PM / 0 Comment / 38 views

A series of airstrikes killed 25 Taliban militants and wounded 17 others in Northern Jawzjan province of Afghanistan, the Afghan military said.
Reacting to Taliban claims regarding the casualties inflicted on civilians, the 209th Shaheen Corps in a statement said the Taliban militants not only lost the control of Khamaab district but sustained heavy casualties as well.
The statement further added that the Taliban militants are attempting to cover their defeat by alleging civilian casualties during the operation.
The 209th Shaheen Corps also added that the security forces launched the airstrikes as the Taliban militants were attempting to target the security posts.
The Taliban group had earlier claimed the security forces bombed the civilian homes in Boseagh area of Khamaab district.

posted for fair use

25 Taliban militants killed, 17 wounded in the operation 'Retake of Khamaab' - The Khaama Press News Agency

• 
  Khaama Press
  The Khaama Press News Agency is the leading and largest English news service for Afghanistan with over 3 million hits a month. Independent authors/columnists and experts are welcomed to contribute stories, opinions and editorials. Send stories to news@khaama.com.

 

[danielboon]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1249760116687208450

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/EndGameWW3/status/1249760116687208450

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm....

Posted for fair use.....

Now Is the Time to Shatter Iran’s Proxy Forces

President Trump has repeatedly warned in recent weeks that he expects additional attacks by Iranian proxies on U.S. forces in the Middle East. He has also made clear that there will be U.S. retaliatio

www.realcleardefense.com

Now Is the Time to Shatter Iran’s Proxy Forces

By Charles S. Faddis
April 13, 2020

President Trump has repeatedly warned in recent weeks that he expects additional attacks by Iranian proxies on U.S. forces in the Middle East. He has also made clear that there will be U.S. retaliation for any such attacks. That's a strong message and one that is no doubt warranted, but I have another suggestion.

Strike first.

In 56 BC Julius Caesar marched north to wage war in what is now the United Kingdom. As he did so, he was faced with hit-and-run raids by tribes on the east bank of the Rhine River that threatened Caesar’s flanks while he was occupied elsewhere. Caesar could have suffered the asymmetrical warfare, issued warnings, and retaliated when raiding tribes crossed the river and attacked Roman territory.

He did not.

Caesar instead directed his legions to build a massive bridge across the Rhine, marched into the tribal territories on the other side, and launched preemptive attacks on the forces threatening him. Eighteen days after crossing the Rhine and destroying the tribes’ towns and fields, Caesar crossed back over the Rhine into Roman territory, burned the bridge and continued north to Britain. The border was secure.

Iran’s proxy forces are the equivalent of those Germanic tribes. Too weak to confront US forces in battle, they attack outposts, kill US soldiers with rockets and missiles and harass US shipping, both military and civilian. Then they hunker down, expecting limited retaliatory strikes, which will make no lasting impact on their capacity to continue to cause mayhem. The cycle continues, and, on balance, it is unclear that we are getting the better of this tit for tat game.

It is time for a fundamentally different approach, one which plays to our strengths and one that will fundamentally change the strategic situation in the Middle East. It is time to destroy Iran’s proxy forces.

Step one in that process is to continue to ratchet up the financial pressure exerted by US sanctions. Iranian money is the lifeblood that keeps its proxy forces armed and equipped. Iranian complaints that sanctions are having a negative effect on its ability to fight the coronavirus are disingenuous. Food and humanitarian aid supplies are not impeded by sanctions, and anytime Iran truly feels it needs more cash for medical supplies, it can divert funds being sent to Hezbollah, the Houthis and a host of other terror groups across the Middle East.

The next step in the process of destroying Iran’s network of proxies is also financial. Every individual, company and other entity involved in that vast terror machine must be sanctioned and crushed financially. Iran counts on the ability of untold numbers of front companies to support its proxy forces, dodge responsibility, and continue to funnel money, arms and ordnance into the fight. The shadows in which this network operates must be dispelled.

Recently the Trump Administration has made a good start on this. In late March the Trump Administration designated a long list of "Iraq-based front companies, senior officials, and business associates that provide support to, or act for or on behalf of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF), in addition to transferring lethal aid to Iranian-backed terrorist militias in Iraq, such as Kata'ib Hizballah (KH) and Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq (AAH)," according to the Treasury Department. This pressure must be maintained, and it must be expanded worldwide. There can be nowhere left on Earth where Iranian front companies and IRGC surrogates are free to operate, move cash and cause death and destruction.

Financial pressure alone, however, is not sufficient to deal with the threat at hand. We must also seize the initiative militarily and take preemptive action.

This need not and should not involve the use of large numbers of conventional forces. Instead, our strategy should be one that plays to our strengths and uses our naval and air power, our special operations forces, and our intelligence assets to systematically dismantle Iranian proxy networks and deprive them of the capacity to attack American forces.

Soleimani was effectively taken off the battlefield in a targeted attack. Those Iranian commanders who have taken his place and are following in his footsteps should suffer the same fate. So should the commanders of every proxy force that is killing American servicemen and women.

Iranian vessels moving supplies and arms to proxies should be seized or sunk.

Iranian aircraft moving supplies to proxy forces should be seized or destroyed.

Arms dumps, command and control centers, and training facilities should be struck.

Across the entire Middle East, the ability of Iranian proxy forces to sit, wait, and prepare for attacks at times and places of their choosing must be eliminated.

As Caesar crossed the Rhine and fundamentally transformed the strategic landscape for his enemies, we must cross a similar barrier in our minds. Waiting for an enemy that has attacked us repeatedly to make good on his promises to strike us yet again is a self-defeating tactic.

Build the bridge. Cross the river. Strike first.


Charles S. Faddis is a former CIA operations officer who served for twenty years in the Near East, South Asia and Europe. He retired in May 2008 as head of the CIA’s WMD terrorism unit. In the summer of 2002 he took the first CIA team into Iraq in advance of the invasion of that country. He is the co-author of Operation Hotel California a book about the actions of his team inside Iraq. He is also the author of Beyond Repair an argument for reform of the CIA, which will be released in October 2009 by Lyons Press.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

U.S. offers $10 million reward for Hezbollah’s commander in Iraq | FDD's Long War Journal

Hezbollah operates closely in Iraq alongside Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps to prop up and support Shia militias hostile to the U.S. and the West. Muhammad Kawtharani has played a key role in Hezbollah's operations.

www.longwarjournal.org

U.S. offers $10 million reward for Hezbollah’s commander in Iraq

By Bill Roggio | April 11, 2020 | admin@longwarjournal.org | @billroggio

The U.S. State Department’s Rewards For Justice program has offered a $10 million bounty for information on Muhammad Kawtharani, one of Hezbollah’s senior operations commanders inside Iraq. Hezbollah operates in Iraq closely alongside Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps to prop up and support Shia militias hostile to the U.S. and the West.

In its reward announcement, State asked for “information leading to the disruption of the financial mechanisms” of Hezbollah.

The $10 million reward for Kawtharani places him in the second tier of State’s most wanted terrorists. He is on par with the likes of al Qaeda’s Saif al Adel and Yasin al Suri, Lashkar-e-Taiba’s Hafiz Saed, the the Taliban’s deputy emir, Sirajuddin Haqqani.
Only Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s emir, commands a larger bounty of $25 million.

State noted that Kawtharani “is a senior leader of Hezbollah’s forces in Iraq and has taken over some of the political coordination of Iran-aligned paramilitary groups formerly organized” by Qaasem Soleimani, the last commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps – Qods Force.

The U.S. killed Soleimani, Abu Mahdi al Muhandis, the deputy commander of the Iranian-backed Popular Mobilization Forces, and a number of Qods Force and militia members in an airstrike in Baghdad on Jan. 2. The strike was carried out after the militias attacked U.S. bases and the embassy in Baghdad.

Kawtharani “facilitates the actions of groups operating outside the control of the Government of Iraq that have violently suppressed protests, attacked foreign diplomatic missions, and engaged in wide-spread organized criminal activity,” according to State.

He is a “member of Hezbollah’s Political Council” and “has worked to promote Hezbollah’s interests in Iraq, including Hezbollah efforts to provide training, funding, political, and logistical support to Iraqi Shi’a insurgent groups.”

The U.S. Treasury previously identified Kawtharani as “the individual in charge of Hezbollah’s Iraq activities” in his terrorism designation in 2013. At the time, Treasury noted that he helped facilitate the movement of “fighters to Syria to support the Assad regime.”

Hezbollah has a long history of involvement in supporting Iran’s efforts to destabilize Iraq and back the multitude of Shia terror groups backed by the Iranian regime. Treasury also noted in 2013 that Kawtharani was involved in securing the release of Ali Musa Daqduq, a key Hezbollah leader who was tasked by Soleimani with establishing and training the Shia militias at the beginning of the Iraq war. Daqduq commanded both a Hezbollah special operations unit and the security detail of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. [See LWJ report, Iraq frees Hezbollah commander who helped mold Shia terror groups.]

The Kawtharanis, brothers in Hezbollah
Kawtharani’s brother, Hussein, is also listed by the U.S. government as a global terrorist. In 2018, Treasury added Hussein and three other Hezbollah leaders to its list of specially designated global terrorists.

Hussein was designated for facilitating business and financial dealing for Hezbollah in Iraq. Additionally, he “has served as the right hand man for his brother and senior Hezbollah member Muhammad Kawtharani,” according to Treasury.

As the U.S. military winds down its operations in Iraq and is working to consolidate its forces into two bases, the Iranian-backed militias continue to test American resolve. The militias have incessantly targeted American bases with mortar and rocket attacks, including one in early March that killed two U.S. soldiers and one British soldier.

Iran and its premier proxy, Hezbollah, will continue to fill the void that is being left by the U.S. drawdown.

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

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

China Sends Coast Guard Ship To Scarborough Shoal

By Drake Long China has deployed a Coast Guard patrol ship to the Scarborough Shoal, the latest salvo in its sustained pressure campaign against Philippine-claimed features in the disputed South Ch…

www.eurasiareview.com

China Sends Coast Guard Ship To Scarborough Shoal
April 12, 2020 BenarNews 0 Comments
By BenarNews

By Drake Long

China has deployed a Coast Guard patrol ship to the Scarborough Shoal, the latest salvo in its sustained pressure campaign against Philippine-claimed features in the disputed South China Sea, ship-tracking data shows.

The China Coast Guard (CCG) ship 3302 was at Scarborough Shoal as of Wednesday, BenarNews can confirm. It left the port of Sanya, Hainan province, China, on Sunday.

Its deployment means CCG ships are patrolling nearly all of the hotspots disputed between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea. That’s happening at a time of renewed diplomatic tension after Manila issued a statement on Wednesday directly criticizing China over the sinking of a Vietnamese fishing boat.

At the Philippine-occupied Second Thomas Shoal, another CCG ship, the 5302, has been patrolling near since March 6, last week. The ship was still at that location on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the CCG ship Haijing 5202 has been near Thitu Island, another feature claimed by the Philippines, since April 3.

Thitu Island has been the focus of a prolonged Chinese presence, as reported by the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. However, maritime militia appear to have left the area, leaving only the 5202, satellite imagery shows.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has sought closer ties with China since he took office nearly four years ago. He has sought to tamp down the tensions that flared under his predecessor, when Manila successfully challenged the legal basis of Beijing’s expansive South China Sea claims in a case before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.

But bucking that trend, on Wednesday the Philippines joined Hanoi and Washington in criticizing Beijing over the April 2 sinking of the Vietnamese boat in a confrontation with a China Coast Guard ship.

The Philippine foreign office issued what it called a “statement of solidarity” with Hanoi. The statement rebuked Beijing for the incident in waters near the Paracel Islands – which both China and Vietnam claim. It described the sinking as a “provocation” amid a global crisis around the COVID-19 outbreak.

China claims it has historical rights to much of the South China Sea, despite conflicting claims by other governments in the region.

Chinese ships strayed into the Scarborough Shoal area in 2012, leading to a diplomatic rift between Manila and Beijing.

The following year, Manila filed its arbitration case against China, arguing that the triangular shoal in the South China Sea had long been a fishing ground for Filipinos and was well within the Philippine exclusive economic zone. But instead of pushing to enforce the 2016 decision, Duterte, who took office that year, chose to appease China.

The CCG ship that has just deployed there, the 3302, is a Zhaoyu-class patrol vessel modeled after the Chinese Type 056 warship. It was last seen in that area in November and forced out a Filipino-crewed ship, Rappler reported at the time. The 3302 weighs roughly 3,500 tons and is equipped with a helicopter deck and a 30-mm gun – it’s designed to be an ocean-going ship, as opposed to patrolling China’s coasts.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

China sends aircraft carrier near Japan, Taiwan as Navy struggles with coronavirus

The Liaoning and five accompanying warships passed through the 155-mile-wide strait halfway between the Japanese islands of Okinawa and Miyako on Saturday, turned south and passed east of Taiwan on Sunday, according to reports.

www.stripes.com

China sends aircraft carrier near Japan, Taiwan as Navy struggles with coronavirus

The Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning with Chinese guided-missile destroyers and frigates took part in a combat exercise in the Western Pacific in April 2018.

MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE OF CHINA
By CAITLIN DOORNBOS | STARS AND STRIPES Published: April 13, 2020

Stars and Stripes is making stories on the coronavirus pandemic available free of charge. See other free reports here. Sign up for our daily coronavirus newsletter here. Please support our journalism with a subscription.

YOKOSUKA NAVAL BASE, Japan — Japan and Taiwan kept watch on the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning and its strike group as they steamed through the Miyako Strait and past Taiwan over the weekend, according to the Japanese Ministry of Defense and published reports Monday.

The Liaoning and five accompanying warships passed through the 155-mile-wide strait halfway between the Japanese islands of Okinawa and Miyako on Saturday, turned south and passed east of Taiwan on Sunday, according to reports. The strait is wide enough to qualify as an international waterway.

The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force tracked the Chinese aircraft carrier, two guided missile destroyers, two multi-role warships and one supply-class fast combat support ship as they passed 262 miles southwest of Nagasaki’s Danjo Islands about 7 p.m. Friday, according to a defense ministry Joint Staff official.

About 4 p.m. Saturday, the carrier and its group steamed through the strait, according to the official. Some Japanese government spokespersons traditionally speak under the condition of anonymity.

“We continuously checked those ships by the sea and air,” the official said.

The Taiwanese navy also sent ships from Suao to monitor the strike group as it passed the island on Sunday, according to the South China Morning Post, which cited the Taiwan Ministry of Defense.

The six vessels sailed east of Taiwan, according to the Japanese outlet Sankei News, which also cited the Taiwan defense ministry.

The Liaoning is the only aircraft carrier currently in the Western Pacific, however the USS America, a smaller amphibious assault ship that carries F-35B Lightning II stealth fighters, is underway in the East China Sea, according to its official Facebook page.

The U.S. carriers USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Ronald Reagan are in port, both dealing to some extent with the coronavirus.

The Roosevelt is sidelined in Guam, where much of its crew are undergoing isolation to stem a coronavirus outbreak. The ship meanwhile is being sanitized before it can return to sea.

As of Sunday, 4,309 Roosevelt crewmembers had been tested for the virus, of which 585 tested positive, according to a Navy update. About 400 sailors awaited testing.

The positive cases aboard the Roosevelt account for more than half of the total 890 sailors who have tested positive for the virus across the Navy.

Meanwhile, the Reagan, undergoing maintenance at its homeport of Yokosuka Naval Base since November, is preparing for deployment.

Officials with Task Force 70, the battle force of the 7th Fleet, in a post Sunday to its official Facebook page, said sailors with the task force are undergoing 14 days of sequestration prior to departing on patrol.

More than 1,000 sailors assigned to the Reagan and its accompanying strike group were bussed to Yokota Air Base and Naval Air Facility Atsugi over four days last week to sequester themselves prior to deployment, according to the Task Force 70 post.

“Once 14 days are complete, every sailor will provide a nasal swab sample that will be processed and returned. This process will take an additional 2-3 days before our COVID-free team embarks on Reagan,” according to the post, referring to the disease caused by the virus.

The Navy does not announce its plans for the Reagan and its task force, which includes warships based at Yokosuka.

Guided-missile destroyers USS Barry, USS Mustin, USS McCampbell and guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam have kept the virus from their vessels by remaining at sea or keeping their crews on board while in port. The ships deployed from Yokosuka in February, about a month before the virus grew to pandemic status.

Keeping sailors healthy is “key to our lethality” and ability to be “sentinels ready to respond to crisis,” The Task Force said.

Stars and Stripes reporter Aya Ichihashi contributed to this report.

doornbos.caitlin@stripes.com
Twitter: @CaitlinDoornbos

 

[jward]

N. Korea fires multiple short-range anti-ship cruise missiles into East Sea: JCS

14:16 April 14, 2020






SEOUL, April 14 (Yonhap) -- North Korea fired a salvo of short-range projectiles believed to be anti-ship cruise missiles into the East Sea on Tuesday, South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) said.

The firings came on the eve of the birthday of late founder Kim Il-sung and South Korea's general elections.

The projectiles, assumed to be surface-to-ship cruise missiles, were fired northeastward from areas near its eastern coastal town of Munchon at around 7 a.m., which lasted more than 40 minutes, the JCS said, adding they flew around 150 kilometers before splashing into waters off the east coast.

"The military is closely monitoring the situation for possible additional launches, while maintaining a readiness posture," the JCS said in a release.

It is the latest in a series of military actions by the North as the regime has sought to beef up defense capabilities amid stalled denuclearization talks with the United States and heightened vigilance against the coronavirus.

zoom in/out
These photos published by the North's daily Rodong Sinmun on June 9, 2017, show the launch of the country's new surface-to-ship cruise missile. The report said leader Kim Jong-un observed the missile launch, which South Korea detected a day earlier. (For Use Only in the Republic of Korea. No Redistribution) (Yonhap)


graceoh@yna.co.kr
(END)

posted for fair use

N. Korea fires multiple short-range anti-ship cruise missiles into East Sea: JCS | Yonhap News Agency

SEOUL, April 14 (Yonhap) -- North Korea fired a salvo of short-range projectiles believed ...

m-en.yna.co.kr

*******************************************************************************

All headlines (URGENT) N. Korea fires air-to-surface missiles from fighter jets: JCS

14:11 April 14, 2020
posted for fair use

(URGENT) N. Korea fires air-to-surface missiles from fighter jets: JCS | Yonhap News Agency

m-en.yna.co.kr

******************************************************

Laura Bicker
@BBCLBicker

OK MORE CLARITY ( sorry they've really mucked up this briefing) North Korea fired "several" short range cruise missiles this morning. They flew around 150km east. They ALSO fired a number of air to ground missiles from Sukhoi jets in the WEST coast.

********************************************************************************

North Korea fires suspected cruise missiles in latest launch
By HYUNG-JIN KIM10 minutes ago

FILE - This Aug. 29, 2017 file photo distributed on Aug. 30, 2017, by the North Korean government shows what was said to be the test launch of a Hwasong-12 intermediate range missile in Pyongyang, North Korea. South Korea says North Korea has fired several suspected cruise missiles off its east coast. South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff says in a statement that the projectiles — presumed to be cruise missiles — were fired from the North’s eastern Kangwon province on Tuesday morning. (Korean Central News Agency/Korea News Service via AP, File)
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korea fired several suspected cruise missiles off its east coast on Tuesday, South Korea’s military said, the latest in a slew of weapons launches by the North despite worries about a possible coronavirus outbreak in the country.
The launches came on the eve of the 108th birthday of North Korea’s late founder, Kim Il Sung, the grandfather of current leader Kim Jong Un. They also came a day ahead of South Korean parliamentary elections.
South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a statement that the projectiles — presumed to be cruise missiles — were fired from the North’s eastern Kangwon province on Tuesday morning before flying toward the country’s eastern sea.

It said South Korea’s military was monitoring possible additional launches, but gave no further details, such as exactly how many projectile were launched or what type of projectiles they were.
In recent weeks, North Korea has carried out a series of short-range missile and other weapons tests amid stalled nuclear talks with the United States.
Most of the weapons tested were ballistic missiles or long-range artillery shells, and it’s unusual for North Korea to launch a cruise missile.
All the tested weapons were still short-range and didn’t pose a direct threat to the U.S. mainland. A test of a missile capable of reaching the U.S. homeland would end North Korea’s self-imposed moratorium on major weapons tests and likely completely derail nuclear diplomacy with the United States.
Some experts say North Korea likely used the latest weapons launches to bolster its striking capability against South Korea, which has been introducing U.S.-made stealth F-35 jets and other sophisticated conventional weapons systems in recent years. Others say the latest weapons tests were also aimed at shoring up internal unity in the face of U.S.-led sanctions and the coronavirus pandemic.
North Korea has repeatedly said there has been no coronavirus outbreak on its territory. But many foreign experts are skeptical of that claim and have warned that a coronavirus outbreak in the North could become a humanitarian disaster because of the country’s chronic lack of medical supplies and fragile health care infrastructure.

posted for fair use

North Korea fires barrage of missiles from ground and air

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — A barrage of North Korean missiles fired from the ground and fighter jets splashed down on the waters off the country’s east coast on Tuesday, South Korea’s military said, a show of force on the eve of a key state anniversary in the North and parliamentary elections in the

apnews.com

 

[Pinecone]

Busy little bees, aren't they?

 

[jward]

Xi Jinping Won the Coronavirus Crisis
How China Made the Most of the Pandemic It Unleashed
By Yanzhong Huang April 13, 2020

People wear masks in front of a portrait of Xi Jinping in Shanghai, China, February 2020 Aly Song / Reuters
Two months ago, Chinese President Xi Jinping looked like he would emerge from the novel coronavirus pandemic with his legitimacy and his ambitions for Chinese global leadership in tatters. Today, as the Chinese government lifts its lockdown on the city of Wuhan, the epicenter of the outbreak, Xi can present himself instead as a forceful and triumphant leader on the world stage. Leaders in Europe and the United States are increasingly looking to China for help as they struggle to contain the virus in their own countries
Few would have predicted such a reversal. China’s blundering initial response to COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, seemed destined to weaken Xi and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). At first, authorities attempted to cover up the outbreak. A Wuhan physician named Li Wenliang warned of a deadly SARS-like disease in December, and the party ordered him to stop spreading “false comments.” Dr. Li died of COVID-19 in February, becoming a symbol that triggered mass mourning and anger at the government’s mishandling of the outbreak. With his legitimacy under assault at home and abroad, Xi backed out of the spotlight for a time and placed State Council Premier Li Keqiang in charge of the pandemic response. Pundits mused about China’s “Chernobyl moment” and speculated about a new era of political reform or even regime demise.

But over the last two months, China’s draconian containment measures have brought the disease under control. The government locked down the city of Wuhan, suspended intracity public transport, closed entertainment venues, and banned public gatherings. It rolled out aggressive testing measures and placed thousands of individuals deemed “high risk” in quarantine centers across the city. Because the hospitals were overwhelmed, many COVID-19 patients died at home (and as a result were probably not included in the official death statistics).

China’s blundering initial response to COVID-19 seemed destined to weaken Xi and the Chinese Communist Party.
When the virus continued to spread, the government extended the containment measures throughout the entire country, sealing off apartment complexes, villages, and entire cities and deploying security officers to enforce social-distancing measures. By late February, the number of new cases had begun to fall dramatically. On March 19, for the first time, Wuhan reported no new cases. By the end of that month, as many businesses in the West were struggling for survival, more than three-quarters of Chinese businesses had reportedly resumed operations. The World Health Organization praised China for “setting a new standard for outbreak control,” even suggesting that other countries should replicate its strict containment measures.

Many countries did not. Western Democracies, in particular, were slow to issue shelter-in-place guidelines and reluctant to lock down their economies. Now, as the death toll climbs steadily higher in Europe and the United States, Chinese officials claim that their “success” in containing the outbreak and Western countries’ ongoing “failure” to do so attests to the superiority of the so-called China model of one-party rule and a state-dominated economy. China’s war on COVID-19, according to one official Chinese media outlet, demonstrates the “powerful ability” of its political system to “rally, organize, mobilize, appeal, and act.”
Many liberal-minded Chinese intellectuals and officials had hoped that the crisis would lead to more openness and transparency. After the 2002–3 SARS epidemic, the government revised the Law on the Prevention and Treatment of Infectious Diseases to improve information flow and at least give the impression of greater transparency. But the coronavirus crisis has had the opposite effect. The public demands for reform after Dr. Li’s death appear to have alarmed Chinese leaders, prompting a crackdown on critical social media users and even more intense state censorship at government media outlets, some of which have been instructed not to cover the economic ramifications of the pandemic.
A triumphant Xi is now projecting his nation’s soft power abroad with “mask diplomacy.”



Chinese leaders have sought to deflect the blame for their initial mishandling of the outbreak. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian in particular has waged a disinformation campaign portraying the U.S. military as a potential cause of the outbreak. And the campaign appears to have been successful. The Chinese celebrity blogger Cui Yongyuan conducted an informal poll in which only 12 percent of nearly 10,000 Chinese respondents described COVID-19 as originating in nature. Conspiracy theories, coupled with propaganda portraying Western countries as incompetent, have fueled Chinese nationalism and bolstered the government’s legitimacy at home.

The Chinese government has turned the crisis to its advantage internationally, as well. A triumphant Xi, having evidently halted the COVID-19 epidemic at home, is now projecting his nation’s soft power abroad with “mask diplomacy.” He has sent test kits and personal protection equipment to 82 different countries, although there have been reports that some of the equipment has been faulty. And as of March 10, 25 Chinese provinces had proposed economic recovery packages worth $7 trillion, which will be used both to stimulate China’s domestic economy and to support the Belt and Road Initiative, Xi’s ultra-ambitious global development strategy that spans nearly 70 countries in Africa, Asia, and Europe.
In a remarkable turn of events, Xi has not only muddled through the crisis but emerged as a stronger leader at home and abroad. Arguably, he has succeeded because he was able to impose harsh restrictive measures that would be impossible to carry out in Western democracies. And as the death toll increases worldwide, Xi may face more international criticism for his government’s role in setting the pandemic loose—and for likely understating the number of infections and deaths in China. But as COVID-19 ravages one country after another, few can deny that China is fast becoming the safest place on earth. As John Allen of the Brookings Institution reminds us, history will be written by the victors of the COVID-19 crisis. And Xi looks like a winner, at least for now.

posted for fair use

Xi Jinping Won the Coronavirus Crisis

How China made the most of the pandemic it unleashed.

www.foreignaffairs.com

 

[jward]

This is the one I'm really worried about going nova.....

Posted for fair use.....

Pakistan: Indian Cross-Border Fire in Kashmir Harms Civilians

Both sides have accused each other of starting the latest round of skirmishes in the divided Himalayan region

www.voanews.com

South & Central Asia

Pakistan: Indian Cross-Border Fire in Kashmir Harms Civilians
By Ayaz Gul
April 11, 2020 10:15 AM

ISLAMABAD - Pakistan and India have been locked in renewed military skirmishes across their disputed border in Kashmir for the past two days, with each side accusing the other of initiating the fight.

A Pakistan army spokesman said Saturday that at least six civilians, including children, had sustained “serious injuries” on its side of the divided Himalayan region.

Major-General Babar Iftikhar accused Indian troops of using artillery and heavy mortars to “deliberately” target villages near the Kashmir cease-fire boundary, known as the Line of Control (LoC).

Pakistan army troops responded effectively with matching caliber, he added, targeting those Indian Army posts which initiated fire.”

For its part, India accused Pakistani troops of starting the latest round of hostilities by attacking “forward posts and villages” along the LoC.

Indian media quoted an army spokesman as saying that Pakistani forces early Saturday resumed their aggression with small arms and intense shelling, prompting a “befitting response” by the Indian army.

Military clashes along the LoC have become routine in recent years, tearing apart a 2002 truce in Kashmir between the two nuclear-armed rivals.

Gen. Iftikhar accused India of committing 708 ceasefire violations since the beginning of the year, killing two civilians and injuring 42 others. He did not share details of any military casualties.

Officials in New Delhi are reported to have claimed around 1,100 ceasefire violations by Islamabad in 2020.

Kashmir has sparked two of the three wars between India and Pakistan, and it continues to be the primary source of tensions in bilateral ties.

Tensions have escalated particularly since August 2019 when India unilaterally revoked the decades-old constitutionally enshrined semi-autonomous status of the two-thirds of the disputed territory it administers.

Pakistan rejected the move as a violation of U.N. security council resolutions on Kashmir and existing bilateral agreements, saying neither side is allowed to unilaterally alter the status of the internationally recognized disputed territory.

Islamabad has, with the help of close ally China, raised the issue at the U.N. Security Council. But New Delhi has rejected any foreign intervention, saying the revocation of Kashmir’s status is India’s internal matter.


Written By
Ayaz Gul

Indian army accused of using Kashmiris as human shields in border skirmish with Pakistan

Security forces amassed in residential areas of northern Kashmir resulting in three civilian deaths, including an eight-year-old

Villagers' homes and property were destroyed by artillery shells [MEE/Abid Nabi]

By
Azad Essa
Published date: 13 April 2020 22:45 UTC | Last update: 4 hours 35 min ago



The Indian army has been accused of war crimes after videos emerged of its military firing at targets in Pakistan from civilian areas of Indian-held Kashmir.
Residents in the Muslim-majority village of Panzgam in Kupwara district told Middle East Eye on Monday that Indian forces entered the area with heavy artillery late last week and began using the village as a base to launch attacks against the Pakistani army.

Villagers said that not only were they placed in the direct line of retaliatory attacks but the deafening sound from bofor artillery guns had damaged homes, terrorised children and turned the quiet village into a war zone.
"We approached the army but they are telling us to leave our houses. Where would we go?" Zaiba Hussain*, a resident of Panzgam, told MEE.
"On the one side, the government is telling us to stay home and maintain social distancing," Hussain said, referring to a raft of measures imposed by Delhi aimed at slowing the spread of the coronavirus.
"But when the army fires from these high range weapons, it shakes everything inside our house."
The cross-border attacks began on Friday along the de-facto border that separates Indian and Pakistan-held Kashmir. Both sides have blamed each other for breaching a 2002 ceasefire.

Villagers in Panzgam denounced the Indian army's moves, saying they were more than 20km away from the Line of Control (LoC), and the decision had endangered nearby villages.
"If we knew they would one day enter this area also and make us all human shields we would not have invested our lives into these houses," Hussain said.
"We are crying with fear. Our children and elders are panicking."

Residents say the large artillery weapons were placed in the local playground [Photo provided]
'We could not dig the grave properly due to fear'
By Monday, three Kashmiri civilians, including an eight-year-old boy had died in a neighbouring village due to the retaliatory shelling.
"Pakistan today at 5:00 pm (local time) initiated unprovoked cease-fire violation in Keran sector. Pakistan now targeting civilian population in Kupwara sector near the LoC resulting in killing three innocent civilians including one woman and a child," Rajesh Kalia, an Indian army spokesman in Srinagar, said in a statement.
Kashmiris equate India's new domicile law with Israel's 'settler-colonial' project
Read More »
Meanwhile, in Pakistan-held Kashmir, a two-year-old boy was killed and four others injured by Indian mortar fire.
Pakistan said the Indian army had "initiated unprovoked ceasefire violations" along the LoC, "deliberately targeting civilian population in Baroh, Dhudnial, Rakhchikri and Chirikot sectors."
While the cross-border shelling has since ceased, residents said the effect of escalating tensions was palpable.

"On Monday morning it was calm, but there is a lot of fear among people. It felt like it's a war," said Irfan Bhat*, whose 36-year-old cousin Shameema Begum was killed by a shell that landed in their garden.
"Yesterday, we laid my cousin to rest. We could not dig the grave properly due to fear."

Replicating Israeli methods
Khurram Parvez, a program coordinator at the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), told MEE that the Indian army's use of artillery weapons in civilian areas amounted to a "war crime".
"According to our information they have placed 155 mm bofors [in the village]. This shows the army is hiding in ivilian areas turning the civilian population into human shields - this is a war crime.
"It is very clear that [both] countries do not care about civilian lives. And with deaths on [the] Indian side [this] also shows Pakistan in a bad light. It is a psychological war - a war against the people of Kashmir."

Eight-year-old Zeyan died in the shelling over the weekend [Photo Provided]
Shrimoyee Ghosh, a lawyer and legal anthropologist based in Delhi, agreed, telling MEE that moving artillery positions into residential areas exposed villagers to shelling and deliberately placed them in "the line of enemy fire."
"If it was done deliberately, with the design to deter military attacks, this is a prohibited act of using civilian population as a human shield and would amount to war crime."

Arms over masks: India buys weapons from Israel as coronavirus cases spike
Read More »

Shri Ram Ambarkar, an Indian police officer, said the matter was a "misunderstanding" and was being rectified.
But Ghosh said that the military's actions should be seen as part of "India's widespread disregard for international and domestic laws and principles, and refusal to be subject to any norms in its offensive against Kashmiris."
"In the counter insurgency war in disputed Kashmir, we have seen the use of human shields, quite often during cordons and Searches. In 2016, when video footage emerged of a person tied to a military vehicle, then army chief (Bipin Rawat) actually applauded it as an 'innovative method'," she said.

The Indian army has been frequently accused of using Kashmiris as human shields, a practice made common by Israeli forces in the occupied Palestinian territories.
In April 2017, Farooq Ahmed Dar was tied to the front of a jeep and driven on a five-hour journey through several Kashmiri villages at the head of an army convoy. An inquiry was ordered but before it could be completed, the accused army officer was awarded a medal.
"India is blurring the distinction between civilians and military targets - which it has historically done and it must be investigated," Ghosh said.

The Indian army did not respond to MEE's request for comment.
The border escalation comes weeks after the Indian government enacted a domicile law in Indian-held Kashmir, raising fears that it's planning to create demographic change and turn the Muslim-majority region into a Hindu-majority, replicating Israeli methods in the occupied West Bank.
*Names changed.


posted for fair use

Indian army accused of using Kashmiris as human shields in clash with Pakistan

Security forces amassed in residential areas of northern Kashmir resulting in three civilian deaths, including an eight-year-old

www.middleeasteye.net

 

[jward]

As virus rages, risk of US-Iran military clash remains high, experts say
Islamic Republic seeks sanctions relief amid medical crisis, but continues uranium enrichment and sets up missile batteries near Strait of Hormuz
By Jon Gambrell Today, 10:14 am 0



An Iranian woman wearing a protective mask and gloves walks past a mask graffiti in Tehran on April 13, 2020, during the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic. (ATTA KENARE / AFP)



DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Even as both face the same invisible enemy in the coronavirus pandemic, Iran and the United States remain locked in retaliatory pressure campaigns that now view the outbreak as just the latest battleground.
Initially overwhelmed, Tehran now seeks to sway international opinion on US sanctions by highlighting its struggles with COVID-19, the illness caused by the virus. Iran asked for $5 billion from the International Monetary Fund even as it enriches uranium beyond the limits of its 2015 deal with world powers.
The US, which unilaterally withdrew from the deal in 2018 under President Donald Trump, insists that aid can reach the Islamic Republic — though humanitarian organizations say Washington’s sanctions disrupt even permitted trade.
At the same time, the US is now withdrawing troops from Iraqi bases, redeployments it insists are pre-planned even as Trump alleges Iran plans “a sneak attack” against them.
The risk of open conflict between the countries is overshadowed by the pandemic. Yet it persists — some say at levels as high as immediately after the January drone strike by the US that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Iraq.

Worshipers in Iran chant slogans during Friday prayers ceremony by a banner showing slain Iranian Revolutionary Guard general Qassem Soleimani, left, and Iraqi Shiite senior militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who were killed in Iraq in a US drone attack on January 3, and a banner which reads in Persian: ‘Death To America,’ at Imam Khomeini Grand Mosque in Tehran, Iran, January 17, 2020. (Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader via AP)

“After Soleimani’s killing, everybody thought there will be war, but nothing happened,” said Mahsa Rouhi, a research fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “Whereas we were so close to war that it’s not that nothing happened. And we are not back to normal. … We are back to a situation where any move could easily escalate into a conflict.”
The current tensions can seem trivial, compared to the pandemic, which has infected at least 1.9 million people worldwide and killed over 119,000. This perception has been helped by mocking social media posts from the US State Department and a former leader of Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard seemingly backing the fringe idea of California seceding from the US.

The stakes, however, are anything but. The night Iran retaliated for the Soleimani killing, it also accidentally shot down a Ukrainian jetliner, killing all 176 people aboard. Allied Shiite militias in Iraq also continue to threaten American forces deployed there in the aftermath of the fight against the Islamic State group.
While largely silent in the initial days of the outbreak in Iran, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has begun a concerted campaign targeting American sanctions. It’s a way to absolve Iran’s civilian government of responsibility for an outbreak it hasn’t contained. But Zarif’s allegations of “medical terror” by the US also highlight the challenge Tehran faces in accessing some medical supplies.

Iranian women, members of paramilitary organisation Basij, make face masks and other protective items at a mosque in the capital Tehran, amid the novel coronavirus pandemic crisis on April 5, 2020. (ATTA KENARE / AFP)

While the US says medical and humanitarian aid remains exempt, Human Rights Watch said American laws as written affect Iran’s access to crucial equipment, “including ventilators, CT scanners, decontamination equipment and full-mask respirators.” Meanwhile, international firms remain leery of running afoul of US sanctions even for authorized transactions with Iran.

“One of the problems for international aid has been to clarify the legal issues related to sanctions to ensure that medical supplies and medicines can be brought into Iran,” Olivier Vandecasteele, Relief International’s country director for Iran, said in a statement “This slowed down the health response in the first weeks of the outbreak.”
A European system called INSTEX did get aid through, as has a Swiss channel. China also has contributed, as have regional Gulf Arab countries, likely worried about Iran further spreading the virus into their own nations. Meanwhile, Iran insists it can produce masks and gloves, something the US has argued undercuts Tehran’s $5 billion request to the IMF, which would be its first loan since 1962.
All this comes as Iran continues to produce low-enriched uranium with equipment and sites barred by the nuclear deal. Its nuclear program chief recently reiterated a threat that Iran could withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, though Iran didn’t make a show of its program during its recent annual National Day of Nuclear Energy.

Iranian firefighters disinfect streets in the capital Tehran in a bid to halt the spread of the coronavirus, March 13, 2020. (AFP)

That bolsters suspicions of behind-the-scenes talks between intermediaries, particularly over the release of US prisoners and other Westerners. Iran’s judiciary acknowledged ongoing prisoner-swap discussions on April 6, without elaborating.
But overall tensions remain extraordinarily high. Online video and Iranian media reports suggest Iran has deployed Fajr-5 missile batteries on beaches along the crucial Strait of Hormuz, the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf through which a fifth of all oil traded in the world passes.
There have been reported maritime incidents in and around the strait as well. On March 27, two boats with a raised ladder approached a US-flagged container ship, while Revolutionary Guard vessels approached a ship on April 2, according to private maritime security firm Dryad Global.
The US Navy’s Bahrain-based 5th Fleet, which routinely has tense interactions with Iranian forces. declined to comment. However, last summer saw a series of tense encounters at sea and on land that included the seizure of oil tankers.
The US pressure campaign in part seeks to force Iran into spending at home rather than on its regional allies. Tehran views such groups as part of its defensive deterrence in the region.
Meanwhile, people continue to die of the virus in Iran in the pandemic that could spread further into American allies in the region, forcing the world to still work with Tehran, Rouhi said.
“At the end of the day, it’s still that bad actor that is governing a country of more than 80 million,” she said. “You don’t have an alternative.”

posted for fair use

As virus rages, risk of US-Iran military clash remains high, experts say

Islamic Republic seeks sanctions relief amid medical crisis, but continues uranium enrichment and sets up missile batteries near Strait of Hormuz

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

North Korea fires barrage of missiles from ground and air

A barrage of North Korean missiles fired from the ground and fighter jets splashed down on the waters off the country’s east coast on Tuesday, South Korea’s military said, a show of force on the eve of a key state anniversary in the North and parliamentary elections in the rival South.

www.spokesman.com

North Korea fires barrage of missiles from ground and air

UPDATED: Tue., April 14, 2020

By Hyung-Jin Kim Associated Press

SEOUL, South Korea – A barrage of North Korean missiles fired from the ground and fighter jets splashed down on the waters off the country’s east coast on Tuesday, South Korea’s military said, a show of force on the eve of a key state anniversary in the North and parliamentary elections in the rival South.

The back-to-back launches were the latest in a series of weapons tests that North Korea has conducted in recent weeks amid stalled nuclear talks and outside worries about a possible coronavirus outbreak in the country.

North Korean troops based in the eastern coastal city of Munchon first launched several projectiles – presumed to be cruise missiles – on Tuesday morning, South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a statement.

The weapons flew more than 93 miles at a low altitude off the North’s east coast, a South Korean defense official said. If confirmed, it would be the North’s first cruise missile launch in about three years, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, citing department rules.

Later Tuesday, North Korea launched several Sukhoi-class fighter jets that fired an unspecified number of air-to-surface missiles toward the North’s eastern waters, the defense official said.

The official said North Korea has recently appeared to be resuming its military drills that it had scaled back due to concerns about the coronavirus pandemic. He said other North Korean fighter jets also flew on patrol near the border with China on Tuesday.

All the recently tested missiles were short-range and didn’t pose a direct threat to the U.S. mainland. A test of a missile capable of reaching the U.S. homeland would end North Korea’s self-imposed moratorium on major weapons tests and likely completely derail nuclear diplomacy with the United States.

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed concern at the latest missile launches by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or DPRK, the country’s official name.

“Once again we call on the DPRK leadership to comply fully with its obligations under relevant Security Council resolutions,“ Guterres’ spokesman Stephane Dujarric said, referring to U.N. bans on ballistic missile launches.

The secretary-general reiterates that “diplomatic engagement remains the only path with sustainable peace and complete and verifiable denuclearization,“ Dujarric said.
U.S.-led diplomacy aimed at ridding North Korea of its nuclear weapons has largely been deadlocked since the February 2019 collapse of a summit between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Hanoi. Negotiations faltered after the U.S. rejected North Korean demands for broad sanctions relief in exchange for a partial surrender of the North’s nuclear capabilities.

Some experts say North Korea likely used the latest weapons launches to bolster its striking capability against South Korea, which has been introducing U.S.-made stealth F-35 jets and other sophisticated conventional weapons systems in recent years. Others say the latest weapons tests were also aimed at shoring up internal unity in the face of U.S.-led sanctions and the coronavirus pandemic.

Go Myong-Hyun, an analyst at the Seoul-based Asan Institute for Policy, said North Korea also wants to maintain tensions to secure leverage over the U.S. in future negotiations.

“North Korea wants to create and maintain tensions, but still aims to prevent those tensions from growing too much and pressuring the U.S. a lot,” Go said.

Cruise missiles fly at a lower altitude and slower speed than ballistic missiles, making them easier to intercept, but they are still considered more accurate. U.N. Security Council resolutions ban North Korea from engaging in any ballistic activities, but not cruise missile tests.

If the cruise missiles tested on Tuesday were newly developed weapons, they would still present a challenge to the South Korean and U.S. militaries, Go said. South Korea’s military said it was analyzing details of the launches. The launches came a day before North Korea marks the 108th birthday of the country’s late founder, Kim Il Sung, the grandfather of Kim Jong Un. They also came a day ahead of South Korean parliamentary elections.

In the South Korean elections, President Moon Jae-in’s liberal ruling party, which espouses greater reconciliation with North Korea, is expected to defeat the main conservative opposition amid a slowdown in the number of new coronavirus infections in South Korea, according to pre-election surveys.

North Korea has repeatedly said there has been no coronavirus outbreak on its soil. But many foreign experts are skeptical of that claim and have warned that an outbreak in the North could become a humanitarian disaster because of the country’s chronic lack of medical supplies and fragile health care infrastructure.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

'They didn't even have the medicine to stop diarrhea': Why North Korea insists it has no coronavirus

North Korea is having its busiest period of missile testing on record as the rest of the world fights the coronavirus. But why is North Korea ramping up its missiles testing now and shouldn't it be focusing its efforts on keeping the pandemic at bay?

www.abc.net.au

Why is North Korea firing missiles while the rest of the world is fighting coronavirus?
By Christina Zhou

Updated about 8 hours ago

As the world fights the coronavirus, North Korea is having its busiest period of missile testing on record, while maintaining it has the local epidemic situation under control.

Key points:

• North Korea has reportedly launched 10 missiles since March 2
• Experts believe Kim Jong-un is taking advantage of the COVID-19 distraction
• The hermit kingdom is among 15 countries that still haven't reported any coronavirus cases
  

Pyongyang yesterday launched what is believed to be multiple short-range cruise missiles into the sea between the Korean Peninsula and Japan, South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff said.

The test followed nine missile launches across four separate events in March — the highest number of launches in a single month on record.

North Korea is also among 15 countries around the globe that still claims to be untouched by COVID-19, which has now killed about 120,000 people and infected some 1.9 million, according to figures from Johns Hopkins University.

Coronavirus questions answered

Breaking down the latest news and research to understand how the world is living through an epidemic, this is the ABC's Coronacast podcast.


Despite this, North Korea's ruling party says the pandemic has created obstacles for its "economic construction" efforts, and has called for stronger coronavirus measures at a meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea on Saturday.

But experts have expressed concerns that the country's health system isn't equipped to fight an outbreak after decades of isolation and international sanctions, and also remain sceptical of its coronavirus-free status.

So why is North Korea ramping up its missile testing now? Shouldn't it be focusing its efforts on keeping the pandemic at bay? And what happened to the Christmas present North Korean leader Kim Jong-un promised US President Donald Trump?

Coronavirus update: Follow the latest news in our daily wrap.


Why is North Korea testing missiles now?
Photo: North Korea watchers believe the surge of missile activity is a calculated move by Kim Jong-un. (Reuters: KCNA)


The latest spate of North Korean missile launches started on March 2, which also marked the first since November 2019.

Ankit Panda, author of Kim Jong-un And The Bomb, noted the recent missiles launched were mostly KN-25 close-range ballistic missiles and not — at least according to state media — intended for "an explicit nuclear role".

After the March 2 tests, several European countries including France, Germany and the United Kingdom condemned Pyongyang for undermining regional and international peace and violating UN Security Council resolutions.

Photo: Ankit Panda noted the launch on March 21 was a short-range ballistic missile. (Reuters: KCNA)


South Korea's military also condemned the military demonstrations on March 21 as "very inappropriate", especially as the world was struggling to cope with the pandemic.

"With the exception of the KN-24 launch [on March 21], the KN-25 system appears to be undergoing a period of rapid operational testing as opposed to developmental testing," Mr Panda recently wrote.

"North Korea, in other words, is getting ground crews used to operating these systems through events that might be described as military exercises rather than 'tests.'"

Who can North Korea hit?

North Korea has threatened Australia with "disaster" — but could its missiles reach our shores?


However, North Korea watchers believe the surge of missile activity is a calculated move by Mr Kim to deliver both a domestic and an international message.

Zhiqun Zhu, a political science professor at Bucknell University, told the ABC the timing was "definitely intentional" because every country including the US, China, South Korea and Japan were busy combating the coronavirus and "barely have time to deal with any major foreign policy problems".

"So North Korea can easily escape any coordinated international condemnation or sanctions now," he said.

"Domestically, it hopes to continue to boost nationalism and demonstrate Kim's strong leadership in this difficult time.

"Internationally, it wants to attest that North Korea has no 'confirmed' coronavirus cases and its military is willing and capable of defending the nation as the world enters a period of greater uncertainty."

What else is Kim Jong-un hoping to achieve?
Photo: Jean Lee said Mr Kim had been trying to figure out how to gain the upper-hand in his negotiations with the US.


Korea expert Jean H Lee told a North Korea briefing organised by the US think tank Wilson Centre earlier this week the unfolding of the coronavirus crisis globally came at a time of "incredible political uncertainty" in Pyongyang.

After a year of failed denuclearisation talks, Mr Kim had warned Mr Trump that he had until December 31 to deliver a breakthrough proposal to restart negotiations. But the date came and went, and negotiations remain at a standstill.

"To put things into context, remember that Kim Jong-un had put so much into his relationship with President Trump, and as we know, it did not yield the deal that he had hoped for in Hanoi in February 2019," said the former Pyongyang AP bureau chief.

'Bad news for everyone'

North Korea is testing ballistic missiles again — but where's Donald Trump's "fire and fury"?



Ms Lee said Mr Kim had been trying to figure out how to gain the upper-hand in his negotiations with the US and how he was going to regain public confidence at home.

She said she believed Mr Kim wanted to go back to the negotiations, eventually, but with a "much stronger" hand than he had in Hanoi.

"He wants to have a little bit of that isolation study to carry out some testing and make some improvements, so that when he gets back to that negotiating table, he's in a stronger position," she said.

Photo: The testing of what local media call a super-large multiple rocket launcher in North Korea on March 28. (Reuters: KCNA)


Ms Lee said the failure of negotiations with Mr Trump also meant the North Korean leader had to come up with a way to show his people that he was on top.

At the end of a year of numerous rocket launches and missile tests in 2019, Mr Kim promised the US a cryptic "Christmas gift", which Mr Trump joked could be "a beautiful vase".

But many US officials speculated at the time the "gift" could be a nuclear weapons test or the resumption of long-range missile launches.

Kim's 'Christmas gift' for Trump

Can we expect North Korea to launch a nuclear warhead between Christmas and New Year? Erin Handley explains.


Professor Zhu said the gift could be interpreted in several different ways.

"It could be … a real gift of peace [without further missile and nuclear testings] or a 'hot potato' gift for Trump," he said.

"Military experts point out that currently North Korean missiles including ICBMs (Intercontinental ballistic missiles) use the liquid-fuelled system, which can only be fuelled before flight.

"However, recently-tested missiles apparently use solid-fuelled system, which, if successful, will significantly improve North Korea's missile and nuclear technologies, and North Korea will pose a greater threat since there will be no warnings when it may launch a missile.

"This is a kind of 'gift' that Trump does not really want."

Why would North Korea lie about being coronavirus-free?
Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.
Video: A look inside North Korea (ABC News)


North Korea shares its borders with Asia's two most infected nations: China, which had more than 83,000 confirmed cases and some 3,350 deaths, and South Korea, with some 10,500 cases and more than 220 deaths as of Tuesday evening.

North Korea was among the first countries to close its borders to all foreign tourists in January, just weeks after the mysterious virus was reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) in late December.

A WHO representative to North Korea said last week the country was still testing for coronavirus and had more than 500 people in quarantine, but still had no confirmed cases yet.

Photo: Professor Zhu said many people wearing masks in public suggests the virus was spreading. (AP: Cha Song Ho)


Widespread censorship in the hermit kingdom could conceal reports of an outbreak, but even if COVID-19 was spreading there, experts say Pyongyang itself may not know the extent of the infection or death.

"It's a guessing game regarding the pandemic situation inside North Korea," Professor Zhu said.

"Even the North Korean Government probably does not know how many cases there are in North Korea.

"The fact that they've requested assistance from other countries and many people are wearing masks in public suggests that the virus is spreading.

"North Korea's public health system is very fragile and may not be equipped to deal with such a pandemic."

North Korea: 'Socialist Fairyland'?

At first glance, Pyongyang does seem like the socialist fairyland the Kim dynasty always dreamed it would be — but it quickly becomes clear things are a lot more complicated.


As the former Pyongyang AP bureau chief, Ms Lee learned first-hand about the limited healthcare in North Korea.

She was last in the country in 2017 and has visited many health facilities over the years from top hospitals in Pyongyang to local clinics that were run by women.

"I still remember one clinic where the doctor told me they didn't even have the medicine to stop diarrhea, and that diarrhea was the main cause of death in her community," she said.

"And we can extrapolate and imagine how difficult it would be for them to cope with an epidemic like COVID-19."

While one of the key health measures being promoted around the globe is to wash hands in soap and water, Ms Lee said many healthcare facilities didn't have soap or even running water.

But Pyongyang — which is subject to multiple international sanctions over its nuclear and missiles testing programme — has sought coronavirus-related aid.

Russia has provided 1,500 test kits to North Korea at its request in February, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry.

Professor Zhu said while there had been no public report about Chinese aid yet, he would not be surprised if China had already sent medical supplies to North Korea.

"Very likely, the coronavirus is spreading on a limited scale in North Korea, but the North Korean Government does not want to create a public panic by openly acknowledging it," he said.

"The drastic measures it has taken so far (such as being the first to shut borders with China in late January and quarantining all diplomats), the requests for aid, and the recent party congress all suggest that the North Korean Government is taking this very seriously and is determined to contain the virus before it breaks out across the country."

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Terrorism in the era of Covid-19 | The Strategist

French counterterrorism police are investigating a stabbing attack in southeast France in which two people were killed and five injured. The attack was a reminder that while the media focus is mainly on Covid-19, terrorism ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Terrorism in the era of Covid-19

15 Apr 2020 | Clive Williams

French counterterrorism police are investigating a stabbing attack in southeast France in which two people were killed and five injured. The attack was a reminder that while the media focus is mainly on Covid-19, terrorism remains an enduring threat.

While Islamic State and al-Qaeda recognise that the Covid-19 pandemic is a danger to their followers, they also see it as an opportunity to win over more supporters and strike their Western enemies while they are weakened and distracted.

In its al-Naba newsletter on 19 March, Islamic State announced a new strategic plan under the title ‘Crusaders’ biggest nightmare’ urging lone actors to capitalise on the paralysis and fear overtaking ‘crusader’ countries amid the pandemic, to show no mercy and to launch attacks in this time of crisis.

Both organisations have observed that arch-enemy America is being punished by Allah for its actions against Muslims. In recent propaganda communiqués, Islamic State and al-Qaeda have both claimed that the coronavirus is Allah’s wrath upon the West, and the virus is a ‘soldier of Allah’.

Al-Qaeda was no doubt pleased to learn that Judge Kevin Duffy, who presided over three major New York terrorism trials in the 1990s, has been killed by the coronavirus.

The ‘Allah’s revenge’ narrative has been reinforced by the relatively small number of victims so far in regions where Islamist extremist groups are well established—such as in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Sahel region of northern Africa.

Al-Qaeda lauded the economic impact of Covid-19 in bringing America’s surging economy to an abrupt halt—leading to the filing of millions of unemployment claims and a $2 trillion bailout package. Bleeding the American economy was always an aim of al-Qaeda; the financial cost of 9/11 and its aftermath was something Osama Bin Laden cited as one of his great successes.

Meanwhile, the International Crisis Group warned that the pandemic threatens global solidarity in fighting extremists—‘allowing the jihadists to better prepare spectacular terror attacks’.

But it’s not only Sunni extremists that pose an existential terrorism threat to the West. The extreme right also sees it as an opportunity to advance its agendas.

Joshua Fisher-Birch, a researcher for the Counter Extremism Project, says that groups like the ‘Nordic Resistance’ and ‘Hundred Handers’ have sought to increase their membership by capitalising on the pandemic, and ‘Generation Identity’ has used the crisis to promote European ethno-nationalism.

British anti-extremist group ‘Hope Not Hate’ claims that far-right extremist groups are seeking to use the pandemic to drive recruitment, spread racist propaganda and plan attacks. According to Fisher-Birch, ‘These groups understand that a pandemic and economic downturn provide them with opportunities to promote conspiracy theories, assign blame and offer their ideology as a solution.’

Having a ‘captive’ audience in lockdown in many Western countries has provided both Islamist and extreme right-wing groups with new online opportunities to contact potential members through a variety of social platforms. A particular target is young people who are now learning online and are more accessible than they would be if they were in school.

Al-Qaeda suggested on 1 April that non-Muslims in the West should use their quarantine (self-isolation) time to study and embrace Islam.

Extreme right-wing groups in Australia are well positioned to use fake news to drive a wedge between ethnic communities, such as by demonising Asians for spreading the Covid-19 virus from China.

Crowds are no longer an available target for Islamist extremists in Australia due to social-distancing and self-isolation measures, but the kinds of low-tech, high-impact attacks that Islamic State favours—vehicle rammings and knife attacks—are still a practical option for terrorists.

In addition, an extremist infected with Covid-19 could use it as a weapon to deliberately infect target groups. Far-right extremists are encouraging each other to seize the moment online, using platforms like Telegram to discuss how to purposely infect members of minority groups.

The most recent terrorism-related incident in Australia was the arrest in March of a 21-year-old with neo-Nazi interests from Sanctuary Point in New South Wales. He was allegedly planning to disrupt an electrical substation and obtain material to construct an explosive device. A second man was later also charged.

While that alleged plot was interdicted at an early stage, police in all states and territories are now distracted and weakened by Covid-19-related policing demands. This could allow extremist community-based activities that would normally attract police attention to go undetected—such as early indications of preparation for an attack.

This in turn will put more pressure on Australia’s intelligence agencies, which are probably also operating under resource constraints due to Covid-19.

Author
Clive Williams is a visiting professor at the Centre for Military and Security Law at the Australian National University. Image: Fabien Pallueau/NurPhoto via Getty Images.

 

[energy_wave]

Maybe the Corona virus is actually the North Korean virus. Remember, Kim was in that propaganda video back in November on a white (pale) horse on the sacred mountain and he was trying to decide on a Christmas gift to Trump. Remember?

The Corona virus came out right around Christmas. Remember when Kim had his relative ( Kim Jong Nam)
assassinated in another country with the two women each carrying one component of the lethal nerve agent?

 

[energy_wave]

Kim rides horse on sacred peak, vows to fight U.S. sanctions
The pictures led to speculation the North Korean leader may be considering a new strategy in his dealings with the U.S.

Kim rides horse on sacred peak, vows to fight U.S. sanctions

The pictures led to speculation the North Korean leader may be considering a new strategy in his dealings with the U.S.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Military Daily News

Daily updates of everything that you need know about what is going on in the military community and abroad including military gear and equipment, breaking news, international news and more.

www.military.com

Germany Arrests 4 Islamic State Suspects Planning Attack on US Bases

15 Apr 2020
The Associated Press | By The Associated Press

BERLIN -- German authorities say police have arrested four suspected members of the Islamic State group alleged to be planning an attack on American military facilities.

Federal prosecutors said the suspects were arrested by tactical police units early Wednesday at various locations in the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia.

They identified the men as Azizjon B., Muhammadali G., Farhodshoh K. and Sunatullokh K. -- all citizens of Tajikistan. The suspects' surnames weren't released for privacy reasons.

The men's alleged leader, a 30-year-old Tajik man identified only as Ravsan B., has been in jail since March 2019 on unspecified charges.

All suspects will be charged with membership in a terrorist organization.

Prosecutors said the men joined ISIS in January 2019 and were instructed to form a cell in Germany. They reportedly first planned to carry out an attack in Tajikistan but later shifted their target to Germany, including U.S. Air Force bases in the country and a person they deemed critical of Islam.

Throughout, they are alleged to have been in contact with two high-ranking ISIS figures in Syria and Afghanistan.

Prosecutors said the group had already obtained firearms and ammunition to carry out their attacks, while Ravsan B. had ordered materials to build an explosive device.

In order to pay for their plans, Ravsan B. allegedly accepted a $40,000 contract to assassinate someone in Albania, but the contract slaying failed.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Preparing for a Dark Future: Biological Warfare in the 21st Century

News of the spread of COVID-19 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt and the subsequent relief of its Commanding Officer has highlighted the tension that exists between maintaining milita

www.realcleardefense.com

Preparing for a Dark Future: Biological Warfare in the 21st Century

By Thomas G. Mahnken
April 16, 2020

News of the spread of COVID-19 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt and the subsequent relief of its Commanding Officer has highlighted the tension that exists between maintaining military readiness and the need to safeguard the health of members of the armed forces in the face of a pandemic.

The disease has been a feature of war for the vast majority of human history – from the plague that ravaged Athens early in the Peloponnesian War, killing the Athenian strategos Pericles; to the diseases that European settlers brought with them to the New World, devastating local populations; to the host of tropical diseases that caused appalling casualties in the China-Burma-India and Southwest Pacific theaters in World War II. The fact that we were surprised by the emergence, growth, and spread of COVID-19 reflects the false conceit of 21st century life that we have “conquered” disease.

In fact, pandemics are but one class of low-probability but high-impact contingencies that we could face in the coming years, including an earthquake or other natural disaster in a major urban area, regime change in an important state, and the collapse of financial markets leading to a global depression. When I served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy Planning between 2006 and 2009, we explored a series of such “shocks” as well as the role the Defense Department could play in responding to them as a way of helping the Department’s leaders address such contingencies. During my time in the Pentagon, we also held a series of wargames with members of Congress and their staff, governors of several states and their cabinets, and the government of Mexico, to explore in depth the consequences of a pandemic. Much of what we found then resonates with what we are experiencing now. On the one hand, the measures that individuals need to take to protect themselves against a virus such as COVID-19 are relatively straightforward. On the other hand, group dynamics, bureaucratic behavior, public policy, and economic forces make it difficult to implement measures that make sense on an individual level across a society, let along across countries. It was, and is, also clear that the Defense Department possesses medical, logistical, and command and control assets that are helpful in dealing with a disaster such as a pandemic. Even if not a surprise, the fact that pandemics of this scale are rare events has hindered preparation and response.

The current pandemic foreshadows an even darker future, one for which we need to prepare. Although it appears that COVID-19 is of natural rather than man-made origin, that may not be the case the next time around. Indeed, our reaction to COVID-19 shows just how vulnerable we are to the hostile use of biological agents, and just how disruptive such an attack could be. Whereas the Defense Department has justifiably devoted a lot of attention to developments in the hard sciences, those at the intersection of biology, genomics, and big data portend the development of increasingly sophisticated biological weapons. For example, the advent of gene-editing techniques could allow states to develop new or modified pathogens that would be more lethal, difficult to detect and treat, and more targeted in their effects.

States such as Russia continue to devote attention to biological warfare, and Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed interest in developing weapons based on new principles, including genetics. The Russian government possesses stockpiled biological weapons as well as production capabilities. Indeed, less than a year ago there was an explosion at Russia’s State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology, a Soviet-era bioweapons laboratory that now researches and houses Ebola, Smallpox, and Anthrax. In contrast to the U.S. armed forces, the Russian military maintains high readiness to protect itself against chemical and biological weapons. We need to ensure that U.S. forces are capable of fighting through such advanced threats. This includes not only protecting operational forces, but also the logistical support and facilities upon which they depend. Ensuring the operation of the defense industrial base in the face of such threats also deserves attention. The last time the topic received scrutiny was more than two decades ago, and even then, efforts to address the challenge were partial.

A related area where we could be surprised is the use of biology, chemistry, or technology to enhance human performance. A 2012 study by the National Research Council found that “the sheer breadth of the scope of inquiry [into human performance modification] is staggering, from nanotechnology to genetic engineering to manipulating normal human processes (such as healing or fatigue). Predicting where each will go is difficult, predicting or even imagining the interactions, cross-applications, and unintended consequences borders on the impossible." Whereas the barriers to human performance modification in the United States and elsewhere in the West are high, other states face an easier path. For example, Russia, China, and others have long used performance-enhancing drugs to aid their international athletes. Indeed, the International Olympic Committee has sanctioned Russian athletes for the use of such drugs. In the future, the United States could face soldiers on the battlefield who use chemical, biological, or computational means to enhance their performance by, perhaps, increasing their strength, improving their cognitive capabilities, or reducing their need for rest. We also need to figure out types of human performance modification comports with our values.

Planning and preparation today can reduce the impact of future shocks. The experience of the current pandemic can give us insight into future biological warfare challenges. Similarly, measures we take today to prepare for future biological warfare can also enhance our readiness to meet future pandemics.


Thomas G. Mahnken is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and a Senior Research Professor at the Merrill Center for Strategic Studies at Johns Hopkins SAIS. He served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy Planning between 2006 and 2009.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

The known unknowns of China’s defence budget | The Strategist

The Chinese Communist Party is notorious for obscuring how it runs the government of the People’s Republic of China. Its defence budget is particularly murky, earning a measly 1.5 (on a 12-point scale) from Transparency ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

The known unknowns of China’s defence budget

14 Apr 2020 | Frederico Bartels

The Chinese Communist Party is notorious for obscuring how it runs the government of the People’s Republic of China. Its defence budget is particularly murky, earning a measly 1.5 (on a 12-point scale) from Transparency International UK. For reference, New Zealand’s defence budget was assessed at 12 and the US’s at 11.

There are only two sources of information on the PRC’s military expenditure: the United Nations’ military spending database and the PRC’s most recent defence white paper. The former presents reported expenditures from 2006 to 2013. The latter covers the same information from 2010 to 2017. These are big-picture numbers only. Unlike, for example, the United States defence budget, which anyone with a computer can bore down 10 layers into and find the unit price for an M-4 carbine, no similar information exists for China’s expenditure.

The defence budget data available from Beijing, reproduced in the table below, suffer from three distinct problems: lack of transparency, known omissions and unreliability.

Source: State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, China’s national defense in the new era, Foreign Languages Press, 2019, p. 39, accessed 12 February 2020.
The data are not very revealing. There are only three big accounts: personnel; training and sustainment; and equipment. And none of the resources are allocated according to service branch, so we can’t see how much of the personnel funds are devoted to the People’s Liberation Army ground forces versus the PLA Rocket Force.

There are also no reported resources dedicated to research and development. This is the largest known omission in the reported budget. The PLA frequently deploys and parades new weapons. They had to be researched and developed somewhere. Adding to the murkiness is Beijing’s embrace of military–civil fusion, which makes it extremely challenging to separate civilian from military R&D.

Other glaring omissions in the PRC’s defence budget are allocations needed to support the People’s Armed Police (now under control of the CCP’s Central Military Commission), foreign weapons procurement, and the subsidies given to state-owned enterprises performing military work.

Neither the UN reporting website nor the white paper has a lot of historical data, starting in 2006 and 2010 respectively. And neither data series is updated to the present, much less able to provide insight as to future plans. Projections based on such limited and unreliable data are but little better than guesswork.

Here’s another problem: the data are reported in billions of yuan, since UN reports are filed with local currency. Distortions arise in any currency conversion, adding to the challenge of understanding what the Chinese numbers mean in nation-to-nation comparisons or in the global context.

The West and its academic community must find a way to overcome all of these challenges if we are to get a clear understanding of PLA military expenditures. There were substantial efforts earlier in the decade, but they have largely dried up.

I have taken a shot at comparing how the PRC’s defence budget compares with that of the US. When comparing the two, my goal was to put the US budget in the level of fidelity of the PLA’s. For example, I removed US R&D costs and moved its civilian personnel costs to the personnel account. After those adjustments, the main task was to properly adjust the yuan values to US dollars.

On equipment, training and sustainment values, I used purchasing power parity to give a more equitable comparison. To adjust personnel costs, I compared salaries of all US government workers with those in the PRC to get a multiplier that would make personnel costs equitable.

With those adjustments made to data from the 2017 budgets (the most recent available from the PRC), the PRC’s defence budget accounts for 87.45% of the American purchasing power. This comparison excludes research and development costs. Moreover, because my methodology emphasises the differences in labour costs, it necessarily favours the PRC’s market. The results are displayed in the chart below.

Sources: Author’s calculations based on data accessed on 24 January 2020 from World Bank, ‘PPP conversion factor, GDP (LCU per international $)—China’, 1990–2018; National Bureau of Statistics of China, ‘Indicators: employment and wages: average wage of employed persons in state-owned units (yuan)’, 2009–2018; US Bureau of Economic Analysis, ‘Wages and salaries per full-time equivalent employee by industry’, 2011 to 2018; State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, China’s national defense in the new era, Foreign Languages Press, 2019, p. 39; Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), National defense budget estimates for FY2020, US Department of Defense, May 2019.

Despite its limitations, this comparison should at least draw attention to the gaps in our knowledge of PRC military expenditures. During the Cold War, the US had divisions in multiple intelligence organisations dedicated to understanding the Soviet Union’s military expenditures. That’s not happening with China. Today, Washington’s two authoritative sources on this topic, the US–China Economic and Security Review Commission’s 2019 annual report and the Defense Intelligence Agency’s China military power, dedicated a combined total of five pages to the PRC’s defence budget. Neither report provides any methodological justification for the independent estimates.

The 2017 US national security strategy acknowledges that we have returned to an era of great-power competition. In such an era, understanding what your competitors are doing is essential. Knowing how much your competitors are dedicating to defence is one small part of the puzzle—but it’s an important piece, and one that is currently severely neglected.

We must dedicate more to this discussion if we are to fully understand what the CCP is doing internationally and how the PLA is evolving.

Author
Frederico Bartels is a policy analyst specialising in defence budgeting in the Heritage Foundation, an American think tank based in Washington. Image: Alert5/Wikimedia Commons.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

Posted for fair use.....

Unconventional Deterrence in Europe: The Role of Army Special Operations in Competition Today

The Problem: Russian New Generation Warfare Russia’s aggressive actions in Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine highlight its ability to quickly achieve escalation dominance along its frontier through t

www.realcleardefense.com

Unconventional Deterrence in Europe: The Role of Army Special Operations in Competition Today

By Bryan Groves & Steve Ferenzi
April 16, 2020

U.S. Army photo by SGT Patrik Orcutt
The Problem: Russian New Generation Warfare
Russia’s aggressive actions in Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine highlight its ability to quickly achieve escalation dominance along its frontier through the employment of new generation warfare and reflexive control. Russia occupied sovereign Georgian territory, quickly annexed Crimea, and supports proxy separatists in the Donbass region of Eastern Ukraine—subverting Western interests without triggering a war with NATO.

This Russian way of war involves a combination of early planning, mobilization of special forces and proxy elements (“little green men”), and political warfare. Under the guise of protecting “compatriots,” Russia utilizes indigenous populations to justify humanitarian intervention and then maintains “frozen conflicts” to create new facts on the ground that cement favorable political outcomes, such as thwarting Georgia’s accession into NATO. Russian faits accomplis against neighbors demonstrate its ability to separate the U.S. and its partners politically. Russian speed and unity of action exploit the West’s uncertainty about the extent of what is happening, its permanence, and an inability or unwillingness to respond quickly and assertively.

In competition, Russia stays below the threshold of armed conflict by paralyzing political decision-making processes through the use of information operations and unconventional warfare. On select battlefields of its choosing and in support of its broader campaign of competition, Russia dominates in short periods of armed conflict utilizing advanced weaponry and employing anti-access/area denial systems. Through this hybrid operational construct, Russia has proven its ability to separate its foes’ armed forces in time, space, and function through the application of non-military, indirect, asymmetric, and traditional military methods. Furthermore, allied war games have demonstrated that Russian forces could accomplish even more. They could reach the Estonian and Latvian capitals of Tallinn and Riga within 60 hours, while the recent Russian Zapad 17 exercise further demonstrates the vital nature of speed for the NATO alliance.

Russia’s new generation warfare presents two critical challenges to traditional deterrence. 1) Evasion mechanisms characterized by “salami tactics” avoid triggers for a NATO Article V response. 2) Advanced anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities constrain options to punish the offender. Traditional deterrence, backed by large military formations and nuclear weapons, relies on the power to hurt an adversary if they cross a line. Deterring hybrid threats requires a different approach. It must address the vulnerabilities the adversary exploits in the target nation and augment capabilities to asymmetrically nullify the adversary’s military advantages. Army Special Operations Forces offer unconventional ways to achieve such deterrence.

Confronting the Challenge: Unconventional Deterrence in Europe
"It is precisely to send a message to Russia -- don't do it –we are ready and will not be hoodwinked like Ukrainians." - Karolis Aleksa, Lithuanian Ministry of Defense
In recognition that conventional force preparation alone is inadequate, the Baltics and other European nations have adopted a whole-of-society “Total Defense” approach consisting of civilian and military elements with the populations serving as the primary actor.

Comparing Traditional Defense (military-focused) to Total Defense (population-focused)
Army Special Operations Forces (ARSOF) play a critical role in preparing the European population to fulfill its Total Defense responsibilities – defending national sovereignty through resilience to adversary aggression and regaining national sovereignty through resistance to enemy occupation. Deterrence is the aim, preventing adversaries from taking malign actions in the first place. Deterrence requires both military capability and political commitment to use it. One without the other is insufficient. Moreover, America must demonstrate its capability and signal its intention to act early to establish its credibility and influence Russian foreign policy.

Image Sources: Resistance Operating Concept
American commitment increases partner resilience and resistance within the affected country. However, conventional deterrence postures, such as large exercises and troop mobilization, can be viewed as offensive—despite efforts to signal defensive intentions. Unconventional deterrence is typically less provocative because it involves a smaller military footprint and less overt show of force. Yet it still communicates to the would-be adversary, such as Russia, “If you invade, don't expect our people to make it easy for you.”

As an element of allied support, ARSOF contributes to both resilience and resistance through foreign internal defense (FID) and preparation of the environment. Working with partner forces, this unconventional application of security force assistance asymmetrically sets the theater to shape the operational environment, deter aggression, and establish the conditions to win in large-scale combat operations (LSCO).

Resilience – FID, executed by Army Special Forces, Special Operations Civil Affairs, and Psychological Operations units, contributes to resilience by supporting partner nations’ internal defense and development programs. These pre-conflict activities bolster the nations’ institutions prior to the employment of resistance and address societal vulnerabilities that Russia exploits.

Civil Affairs - Civil-Military Support Elements (CMSE) from the 92nd Civil Affairs Battalion, 95th Civil Affairs Brigade maintain a persistent presence 365 days a year in Europe. CMSEs map the human terrain, allowing Special Operations Command Europe (SOCEUR) to better understand the ground truth in the countries where the teams operate while also supporting partner nations’ civil administration. Civil Affairs units are also uniquely capable of advising and assisting the partner nation on the development of a parallel or shadow civil government to govern during resistance while supporting its ability to achieve a high level of political mobilization, and assisting in the facilitation of civil unrest.

Psychological Operations - The 6th Psychological Operations Battalion, 4th Psychological Operations Group shapes, disrupts, and influences behaviors of foreign audiences through precision messaging. Psychologically hardening populations against adversary influence operations is a form of cognitive access denial. Exercises such as Gallant Sentry, which focused on the ethnically Russian region of Narva in northeastern Estonia, demonstrate the power of messaging to communicate U.S. and NATO protection of marginalized communities, assure partners, and deter Russian aggression, rendering Estonians and other Europeans less vulnerable.

Resistance – In preparation for resistance activities to regain national sovereignty post-invasion, Special Forces groups enable European allies to harden civilian populations and develop local insurgencies. This resistance capacity serves as a persistent deterrent in support of resilience by signaling to an adversary that the target of aggression would be too difficult to take and hold – a form of physical access denial. Those capabilities may be exercised as flexible deterrent options (FDO) in lieu of, or in conjunction with, conventional FDOs. If deterrence fails, ARSOF could support existing resistance capabilities through unconventional warfare (UW) activities in a blunt layer transition to slow enemy momentum and enable combat forces to surge into the theater of war. ARSOF could also leverage the insurgency to create windows of opportunity for the Joint Force to exploit in the close and deep areas during LSCO. Security cooperation exercises in support of resistance include:

Trojan Footprint– This SOCEUR-led exercise rapidly deployed SOF from America, Canada, and across Europe into Poland and the Baltics on short notice to support the region’s indigenous territorial defense forces’ resistance activities. Trojan Footprint demonstrated ARSOF’s ability to shape the battlespace for decisive action by conventional forces while clearly sending the message that the U.S. is ready to go to war to protect its NATO allies.

Flaming Sword – This annual Lithuanian SOF-led multinational exercise, linked directly to Trojan Footprint, focused on Lithuanian SOF’s ability to command and control SOF from multiple nations, and integration with their conventional and irregular forces, the Ministry of Interior, and other agencies to neutralize asymmetric threats, conduct resistance activities, and support conventional forces in countering hybrid aggression.

Allied Spirit– Allied Spirit is a U.S. Army Europe-directed multinational exercise designed to enhance NATO and key partners’ interoperability and readiness. This exercise allowed ARSOF to build capacity with partner SOF and territorial defense forces while improving integration and interoperability with the U.S. Army’s 2nd Cavalry Regiment, the 1st Infantry Division, and the 4th Infantry Division Mission Command Element. As part of a contingent representing 10 nations, Texas Army National Guardsmen from 19th Special Forces Group (Airborne) mentored Albanian SOF and the Lithuanian National Defense Force Volunteers (KASP), Lithuania’s primary irregular defense unit.

Unconventionally Expanding the Competitive Space
Army Special Operations Forces play a critical role in building the resilience and resistance capacity to support Europe’s "Total Defense" programs. This demonstrates U.S. resolve to NATO while signaling the costs of Russian aggression without requiring a significant military footprint. Conventional force preparation alone is inadequate to deter Russia’s hybrid threats because of Russia’s significant economic, materiel, and military advantages. No realistic amount of American-provided lethal aid can tip the balance against Russia.

Conventional deterrence, then, is insufficient. It is also more costly. Conventional deterrence in Europe runs $1.875 billion for a conventional rotational presence versus $55.8 million for SOF partnerships to build capacity. At a fraction of the cost, unconventional deterrence supplements conventional deterrence by hardening an entire society to adversary attempts to subjugate them and by providing means to resist before, during, and after large-scale combat operations.

These contributions are an advancement of ARSOF’s Cold War forward presence in Europe and mission to conduct UW should war break out between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. This forgotten history should serve as a mental model for operations today. ARSOF’s cost-effective expansion of options allows the Joint Force and policymakers to capitalize on limited resources and Conventional Forces-SOF synergy to prevail in great power competition with Russia.
LTC Bryan Groves is an Army Strategist and Special Forces officer serving as the Director of the United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) G-5 Strategic Planning Division.
MAJ Steve Ferenzi is an Army Strategist and Special Forces officer serving in the USASOC G-5 Strategic Planning Division.
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

Posted for fair use.....

Toward a New Theory of Power Projection - War on the Rocks

Now that the pandemic crisis is hammering America’s finances, U.S. strategy risks veering even further into permanent insolvency. Even before the crisis,

warontherocks.com

Toward a New Theory of Power Projection

Michael J. Mazarr

April 15, 2020

Commentary

Now that the pandemic crisis is hammering America’s finances, U.S. strategy risks veering even further into permanent insolvency. Even before the crisis, the military demands of an intense global competition with China, Russia, and secondary competitors like Iran and North Korea were becoming financially untenable. Now, the costs of the current crisis — in both the short and long term — are likely to lead to further cuts from the defense budget and may call into question the sustainability of major U.S. commitments. The United States is likely to soon be engaged in a painful exercise: undertaking a truly fundamental prioritization, identifying defense capabilities and commitments that can be abandoned, or pursued in more efficient ways, without undue risk. One item that needs to be on that list of priorities is expeditionary power projection.

Long-distance power projection — the ability to transport overwhelming air, sea, and land power to far-off places like Taiwan, Korea, or the Baltics and win decisively in major combat — exercises a predominant influence on U.S. defense policy. It generates the most demanding requirements for military capacity and capabilities, determines many systems the services buy, and shapes the concepts the services develop. It is no exaggeration to say that the U.S. military of today is largely built to project power in this way.

Yet, even before the current crisis, several powerful trends called for a fundamental reassessment of the way in which the United States projects power. The conventional method could be termed “expeditionary power projection” — the strategy of stationing the bulk of the joint force in the United States and deploying them to distant locales to decisively defeat aggression. This approach is rapidly becoming obsolete. Picking up thousands of tons of mass and carrying it to a location on the other side of the world where an opponent has decisive operational advantages proved successful against second-tier powers like Iraq; it will not be effective against either near-peer militaries like Russia and China or even a nuclear-armed North Korea. But that approach is only one way of solving the problem of long-distance deterrence and defense, and it is time for the United States to seek other ways of doing so. This essay briefly outlines several powerful and interconnected flaws in expeditionary power projectionand then articulates principles of a possible alternative concept.

We’ll Lose When We Get There

The most well-known and widely discussed operational flaw in expeditionary power projection is the so-called “anti-access/area denial problem” — the idea that Russian and Chinese anti-access and area denial capabilities can blunt the effects of U.S. military operations. Dozens of studies have argued that U.S. forces will be hard-pressed to operate effectively anywhere near the forward edge of the battle and will sustain significant losses in the attempt to get there. Meanwhile, North Korea has its own version of anti-access and area denial capabilities — an increasingly sophisticated missile force and nuclear deterrent. This situation is partly a function of new precision strike and sensing technologies being deployed by U.S. competitors but also of basic physics: Potential adversaries will be fighting very close to home and have decisive geographic advantages in any of these contingencies.

To be sure, America’s view of the anti-access/area denial problem may be disconnected from the actual strategy of U.S. rivals. Some analyses have questioned how effective some of these denial capabilities would be in practice. There are at least partial remedies to the anti-access/area denial challenge in terms of posture, concepts, and capabilities. If the anti-access/area denial problem poses the sole barrier to U.S. expeditionary power projection ambitions, the United States just might be able to surmount it. But it does not.

We Don’t Have the Lift to Get There

A second challenge is that the United States does not have nearly enough strategic lift to transport land forces — and the sustainment foundation for air units — to far-off fights in a timely manner. Airlift cannot haul enough weight while and most major sealift ships are in a reserve status and generally old, short of spare parts, and potentially unreliable. Without major recapitalization investments, sealift capacity will sharply decline after 2020. A devastating analysis contended that the U.S. sealift fleet could be a “single point of failure” for power projection missions.

In theory, the United States could buy itself out of this shortcoming. But, given increasing fiscal constraints, massive new investments in strategic lift seem unlikely. The United States will need months, therefore, to build up necessary forces in any threatened theater — and potential adversaries, who have closely studied U.S. operations in the Gulf and Iraq Wars, now aim to achieve their local objectives as quickly as possible. Lift shortfalls alone mean that an expeditionary approach to power projection, which assumes a long period of amassing forces in the region, is no longer a credible way of threatening responses to many cases of major aggression.

Forces in Transit Will Be Stymied or Wrecked

Units in transit to a distant war will also face an increasingly devastating gauntlet of attacks, fueled in part by the emerging revolution in unmanned and swarming systems, pervasive sensing, and artificial intelligence. The full maturation of the precision-weapons revolution — alongside the emergence of related technologies such as autonomy and artificial intelligence — is creating an unprecedentedly lethal battlefield environment. These trends apply to movement across oceans and even airways: As James Lacey recently argued in War on the Rocks, “The oceans, never a hospitable environment, are increasingly deadly, to the point where the survivability of independently operating naval task forces are in question.”

In a future regional conflict as U.S. forces steam or fly toward a battle, an adversary could employ semi-autonomous unmanned aircraft, drone submersibles, small vessels, and smart mines to hammer the air and sea convoys. Attack submarines could decimate them with torpedoes and cruise missiles while bombers shoot long-range fire-and-forget weapons from hundreds of miles away. Clouds of swarming, tiny unmanned aerial systems could emerge from surfaced submarines or passing aircraft and descend on transport ships and their escorts — or even intercept slow-moving transport aircraft. Cyber operations will scramble the information systems and controls of U.S. vessels and create logistical chaos in ports. An aggressor could use direct attacks on space assets and cyber operations to disrupt communications and navigation, including GPS guidance. Forces that make it to their destination will then face crippling logistics shortfalls and disruptive attacks within theaters. Meanwhile, aggressors will surely threaten allies and partners with economic, cyber, or military attacks to ensure that they deny U.S. forces access to critical bases, staging facilities, and even airspace.

In the perpetual contest between offense and defense, the United States will develop answers to some of these risks. Directed energy weapons, for example, are being investigated as a possible answer to drone swarms. But, the emerging era of massed strikes will inescapably boost an aggressor’s ability to degrade U.S. forces in transit.

Meddling in the U.S. Homeland Will Disrupt Mobilization

Those flaws in power projection are joined by a newer challenge associated with emerging information tools and technologies that have the potential to stymie the domestic foundation for projecting power — a danger partly embodied by what a new RAND report calls “virtual societal warfare.” As advanced societies become increasingly dependent on information networks, algorithmic decision-making and a super-integrated “Internet of Things,” and as the ability to manipulate truth becomes more prevalent and powerful, the potential for an outside actor to create mischief will be very great. An aggressor could generate widespread confusion and chaos in ways that would be especially problematic for strategies of expeditionary power projection, including targeting mobilization and logistics systems in the United States.

Such a campaign might begin with an effort to prevent power projection from happening in the first place. Over social media and via “deep fake” video and audio, aggressors will seek to muddy the facts at issue and weaken the basis for a response. The resulting ambiguity could create a window of uncertainty — from a few days to a week or more — in which the United States and others might hesitate to respond. Such hesitation is especially problematic regarding expeditionary forms of power projection that demand that the United States start and sustain force flow in a timely manner.

If the United States goes ahead with plans to deploy forces, the aggressor could then undertake more hostile forms of disruption. The aggressor could launch ransomware attacks on U.S. municipalities like the attack that recently caused New Orleans to declare a state of emergency, dislocating the delivery of public services. It could use social media tools to foment protests and opposition to the war.

Continued.....

 

[Housecarl]

Continued.....

If those efforts failed to deter a U.S. president from beginning force flow, escalating attacks could focus more precisely on U.S. mobilization and logistics capabilities, including the disruption of military units as they leave a garrison or base. Some of these attacks would focus on traditional critical infrastructure targets such as energy and telecommunications networks. However, in a new era of more personalized and generalized virtual societal warfare, an aggressor could become more precise, emptying the bank accounts of service members and their families, issuing fake warrants for the arrest of their children, bringing havoc to the “Internet of Things” in their homes, and broadcasting verbal warnings from their Alexa or Siri speakers.

We cannot know in advance just how crippling these virtual attacks would be. Societies and militaries are resilient. Even today, in the midst of the pandemic, the United States military could — with significant risk — undertake large-scale power projection missions. But, even partly effective homeland-disrupting campaigns pose challenges for expeditionary models of power projection: The time, domestic logistical effort, and political will needed to gather forces and deploy them thousands of miles all provide time for an aggressor to weaken the national consensus behind such a response as well as the physical processes needed to accomplish it.

In fact, the risk of such attacks extends beyond the direct adversary in any future conflict. Multiple U.S. rivals could gang up in a crisis or war to impose even greater levels of disruption. In a war with China, for example, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and others — even individuals or non-governmental networks — might see a golden opportunity to unleash cyber and information warriors to impede the U.S. response and deal a decisive blow to the U.S. reputation for military primacy. The primary aggressor could also employ such actors as surrogates. A future U.S. effort to dispatch a classic expeditionary power projection effort could trigger a whole range of disruptive attacks.

Toward a New Approach

These threats to expeditionary power projection are not new. In fact, U.S. military services and other parts of the U.S. government are working on ways to mitigate them. Yet, given the unavoidable geographic asymmetry and current trends in precision weaponry, unmanned systems, and information networks, it seems increasingly dangerous to assume that the United States can credibly threaten to project expeditionary power over trans-oceanic distances to the doorstep of other major powers and “win” extended, large-scale conflicts at an acceptable cost. The question of what promises the United States continues to make in the most demanding power projection cases is beyond the scope of this essay. But, if it does intend to continue serving as a backstop deterrent to major aggression in far-off contingencies, it will need a new approach. Such an alternative could have three primary elements: forward-deployed or long-distance strike capabilities to degrade invading forces; concepts for creating the prospect of a prolonged resistance even if the aggression achieves some goals; and ways of imposing costs on an aggressor across multiple domains beyond military operations.

An initial step would be to threaten credible local military effects without transporting large U.S. forces to the battle area. This step could include helping potential targets of aggression make themselves less vulnerable in part by taking advantage of the same sorts of emerging technologies that threaten expeditionary models of power projection. The United States could help partners and allies develop autonomous swarming systems, smart mines, and cheap, anti-armor and anti-ship missiles to disrupt and wear down an invasion force. T.X. Hammes has made a compelling argument for the value of such technologies in the hands of U.S. allies and partners. The United States could also conduct train-and-advise missions to help build effective reserve forces capable of operating these systems. Additionally, it could aid allies and partners in developing powerful cyber capabilities to disrupt the homeland of an aggressor and its own power projection activities — including the sort of comprehensive virtual societal warfare attacks discussed above.

In terms of its own military role in the initial fight, the United States could focus on ways to impose costs on an initial attack without relying on the long-distance deployment of major combat elements. This path would not presume an ability to forward-deploy a significant number of additional heavy combat units — which is both politically infeasible and strategically provocative in most cases— but would, instead, mark an effort to use innovative approaches to dispersed firepower to achieve deterrent effects. The sinews of such a revised approach are emerging in embryonic form in a range of widely-discussed concepts that envision resilient networks of somewhat self-organizing nodes of mostly forward-deployed fighting power to bring firepower to bear on aggressive forces. Such a network could be supported by select types of long-range strike systems, including cyber, space, long-range bombers and missiles, and limited, stealthy maritime and air assets.

In support of this emerging vision of distributed firepower, a modified U.S. approach to power projection would invest in larger numbers of various precision weapons capable of penetrating contested airspace. It would accelerate the research and deployment of swarming and unmanned systems that do not rely on airfields for operation. In a maritime theater like the Pacific, it would focus in part on stealthy and submersible platforms on regular local patrol. It would experiment with multiple new force designs similar to but well beyond what the Army is beginning to do with its Multi-Domain Task Forces.

Having laid the groundwork to be able to impose costs on aggression without large-scale force movement, the United States would then work with allies and partners on the second element of a revised approach: ensuring that any resistance would be prolonged, confronting an aggressor with the potential of an extended fight. The United States could help partner nations build the capabilities for long-term resistance, including well-equipped reserves trained for insurgency; large magazines of cheap, simple rockets and missiles as well as hidden 3D printing facilities to churn more out; stealthy underground reservoirs capable of releasing swarms of attacking drones on time-delayed schedules; and cyber units based around the world that are capable of launching crippling attacks even if their homeland was overrun. The United States could also pre-set, and then directly support, a potent civil resistance to complement a military insurgency.

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the United States declared the attack illegitimate and sought to reverse it — in part with economic and political penalties but without any military “power projection” beyond aid to the Afghan resistance. The analogy is not exact, but a new approach could search for supercharged versions of a very similar strategy — one that threatens an aggressor with a long and debilitating campaign rather than a quick and painless fait accompli.

Finally, the third component of a revised strategy for power projection would involve a comprehensive global campaign to harass an aggressor’s world-wide interests. This third component — a cross-domain, holistic, non-kinetic, or “unrestricted” approach to power projection — would not involve U.S. attacks on aggressor military forces far from the area of aggression, but would employ non-military, often non-kinetic means to impose economic, political, and social costs. The aggressor state’s companies would see their activities embargoed or disrupted with electronic or regulatory means; movements protesting or launching political harassment of the aggressor’s local activities could be funded and empowered. More ambitiously, the United States could threaten forms of economic strangulation, employing elements of what T.X. Hammes has called “offshore control” and Mike Pietrucha has termed a “strategic interdiction strategy” — taking advantage of an aggressor’s dependence on important exports of materials, energy, and supply chains to interdict its maritime shipping and potentially other sources of trade. Such large-scale interdiction efforts would have to be planned in advance, including agreements from other nations to play roles in the effort, but neither the threats nor the agreements would need to be made public.

Such a campaign would also incorporate a multilateral effort to wreck the aggressor’s geopolitical legitimacy and influence. This effort could comprise everything from U.N. resolutions to expelling ambassadors to a coordinated multilateral campaign to encourage nations to clamp down on its political and cultural influence tools to global bans on broadcasting by the attacker’s state media. On its own, such reputational punishment cannot be expected to deter military action. Yet, Russia and especially China care deeply about being accepted as legitimate great powers, and the prospect of a far more fundamental expulsion from the world community would not be treated lightly.

Taken together, these three components would add up to a new concept of projecting power and, by extension, achieving deterrence in distant locations. Its objective would be to demonstrate to a potential attacker that large-scale aggression would be ruinously costly to their society as well as indirectly threatening to the stability of their regime. This perspective would have clear implications for defense policy and investment — for example, encouraging a partial shift in the balance between emphasis on heavy, contiguous U.S.-based joint forces and more dispersed, forward-based, cutting-edge technologies and unit types as well as funds to support allied and partner acquisition of capabilities central to this approach. The U.S. Marine Corps’ new force design guidance provides a good example of the scale of rethinking that will be required.

The era of expeditionary power projection dominance is gone, at least as assumed by the traditional model. Pretending otherwise will continue to waste resources, skew the investments and concepts of the services, and, if war does occur, risk early defeat and/or catastrophic escalation. The U.S. effort to support the deterrence of a major war has played an important role in sustaining peace since 1945 and can continue to do so — but it is time for a major shift in how the United States plans to fulfill this critical military mission.

Michael J. Mazarr is a senior political scientist at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation. The views expressed here are his own.