WAR 04-16-2016-to-04-22-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
And the closing apology tour begins....

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...Obama-on-Riyadh-arrival-amid-growing-tensions

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/20/politics/obama-saudi-arabia-tensions/index.html

Saudis snub Obama on Riyadh arrival amid growing tensions

By Nicole Gaouette, Kevin Liptak and Nic Robertson, CNN
Updated 1:40 PM ET, Wed April 20, 2016

(CNN) — President Barack Obama received a chilly reception from Saudi Arabia's leaders as he landed in Riyadh Wednesday, a clear sign of the cooling relations between once-close allies amid regional upheaval and dropping oil prices.

When Obama touched down in Riyadh shortly after 1 p.m. local time, there were no kisses with the kingdom's ruler as President George W. Bush once exchanged. The Saudi government dispatched the governor of Riyadh rather than a senior-level royal to shake Obama's hand, a departure from the scene at the airport earlier in the day when King Salman was shown on state television greeting the leaders of other Gulf nations on the tarmac.

Social media users quickly termed the reception, which was not carried live on state TV, a snub and a sign that a relationship long lubricated by barrels of oil is now facing deep questions on both sides.

For all the frostiness seemingly on diplay, though, analysts and former officials say the two countries aren't at the end of a love affair so much as in an unhappy marriage in which both sides, for better or worse, are stuck with each other.

"Despite all these differences, Saudi Arabia and America are not getting divorced," said Bruce Riedel, director of the Intelligence Project at the Brookings Institution and a former CIA official. "We need each other."

It's tough going, though. The Saudis have little confidence in Obama's commitment to their security and fear he's shifting U.S. attentions to its rival, Iran; Obama has described the Saudis as "so-called allies" and has complained their policies fuel anti-U.S. terror and regional chaos.

In the U.S. Congress, a growing drumbeat of criticism about Saudi Arabia is finding expression in efforts to restrict arms sales to Riyadh, expose alleged Saudi involvement in the September 11 terror attacks and allow it to be sued for that day's destruction and death.

The clamor coincides with increasing domestic energy resources that lessen the U.S. need for foreign oil. Moreover, the allies are divided by a slew of issues including the approach to the wars in Syria and Yemen, the Iranian nuclear deal and the influence Tehran wields in Iraq.

These regional issues are topping Obama's agenda during his visit this week as he looks for backing for the fight against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. And they are dynamics that are set to persist and color the U.S.-Saudi relationship for the next occupant of the Oval Office as well.

A U.S. official said Salman's absence upon arrival was not taken as a snub and noted that Obama rarely greets foreign leaders when they land in the U.S. for meetings.

Shortly after his arrival, Obama headed immediately to the Erga Palace in the capital for discussions with Salman, the 80-year-old monarch he hopes he can convince to take a stepped-up role battling ISIS.

The leaders exchanged pleasantries during a brief photo opportunity at the start of the meeting, which lasted roughly two hours. Through a translator, Salman told Obama that he was "very pleased" to host him in the kingdom, while the American leader told the monarch that he was grateful for his hospitality. Neither made statements afterward.

'Estrangement,' not divorce

As unlikely as the union between a rigidly conservative Islamic monarchy with a questionable human rights record and a secular democratic republic may seem, neither will be able to cut the ties the bind them.

The two countries are bound by military links and sales, a shared fight against terrorism, the need to leverage each other's diplomatic clout and, for the U.S., the necessity of ensuring that world oil supplies flow freely.

Fawaz Gerges, a professor studying Islamic-Western relations at the London School of Economics, called their current dynamic "an estrangement" that wouldn't end U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

READ: Cheap oil isn't Saudi Arabia's only big risk

Though the U.S. imports fewer barrels of Saudi crude and petroleum than it did on the day of Obama's first inauguration, the energy needs of its allies -- particularly in Asia -- are crucial to global and U.S. economic health.

"U.S. energy independence doesn't really change the equation that much because of the global strategic importance of the oil supplies," said Hussein Ibish, a senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington.

Saudi Arabia also carries diplomatic weight in the region that the U.S. has used to serve its interests.

The "Saudis are such an influential actor in the Middle East and broader Muslim world that no secretary of state or president has truly wanted to go it without them," said David Weinberg, a Saudi Arabia expert at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

As the Arab Spring has devolved into chaotic violence, Saudi Arabia has provided funds that have stabilized key U.S. allies, including Egypt, Bahrain and Jordan, and it has developed stronger ties with one of its longtime enemies, Israel, the closest U.S. ally in the region.

READ: Yemen ceasefire goes into effect

War on Terror: Offering Arab cover

On the most kinetic level, the two countries are linked by counterterrorism efforts that will go on for years.

It was reported in 2013 that the U.S. operates an unacknowledged drone base out of Saudi Arabia and is relying on the country to fight al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the Yemen-based group that the Obama administration has called the most serious threat to the American homeland.

Separately, the U.S. "needs Saudi Arabia to provide Arab cover for the American-led coalition fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria," said David Ottaway, a Wilson Center expert on the kingdom. "The overall U.S. war on terrorism in the Middle East cannot be won without Saudi help."

The militaries of both countries are linked in nuts-and-bolts ways, too. Saudi Arabia "is by far the world's largest purchaser of U.S. weaponry," said Nawaf Obaid, a visiting fellow at Harvard University who estimated that it has is over $100 billion worth of equipment on order from U.S. defense contractors.

READ: McConnell, Ryan decline to back 9/11 lawsuit bill

Not only does that translate into jobs for U.S. workers, but the equipment also comes with support from the Pentagon in the form of training that creates deep ties between the two militaries.

The Saudis, for all their frustration with the U.S., "just don't have alternatives to the U.S.," said Ibish. "They can talk about Europe and China and Russia all they like, but in the end, its military is structured around the United States and only the United States can provide the leadership they're looking for."

READ: Nine Guantanamo detainees transferred to Saudi Arabia

Uncertain times for the House of Saud

The tensions are compounding an already uncertain time for the House of Saud. A transition in 2015 introduced a new and largely untested group of leaders at a time when the falling price of oil has saddled Saudi Arabia with its first budget deficits.

And it has embarked on a protracted war in Yemen that is earning it U.S. condemnation even though the Saudis see themselves as shouldering their region's security challenges just as the White House has asked.

Saudi Arabia, feeling threatened by the overthrow of a friendly government on its border, has intervened against the Iran-backed Houthi rebels while also trying to strike al Qaeda there.

"Obama was encouraging them to take responsibility for their own security and that's what the Saudis are doing," Ottaway said. "But when your allies decide they're going to act on their own, they don't necessarily do what you want them to do."

The administration has quietly criticized the humanitarian cost of the Yemen conflict, for which it is providing intelligence, weapons and ammunition as the region's strongest al Qaeda affiliate exploits the conflict.

"Al Qaeda's most dangerous branch is seeing this Saudi-led war as a godsend," Weinberg said. "That's something the Saudis haven't treated as a priority."

WATCH: Saudi Arabia prepares for post-oil economy

Saudis recoil from U.S. criticism

The criticism is another sore point for Saudi Arabia, which has long had fraught relations with Obama.

Even before he became President, Obama referred to the Saudis as "our so-called allies" at a 2002 rally. After he took office, Riyadh saw his decision to support the 2011 ouster of long-time Egyptian leader and U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak as a betrayal of the established order.

That was compounded when the U.S. announced it had been secretly meeting with Saudi Arabia's regional arch-rival Iran for talks that led to the 2015 nuclear agreement with Tehran.

Saudi fears that Obama's so-called pivot to Asia meant he was pulling away from the Middle East deepened in 2012, when the President set a red line for taking military action against the Syrian regime -- a government backed by Iran and opposed by Riyadh -- and then changed his mind once Damascus crossed it.

When Obama told The Atlantic Magazine this year that he was aggravated by "free riders" -- "people who push us to act but then showing an unwillingness to put any skin in the game" -- he earned a rare public rebuttal from the Saudis.

Though Obama hadn't named any country, a senior Saudi prince asked him in an open letter whether it was "because you have pivoted to Iran so much" that he had forgotten "the Kingdom's 80 years of constant friendship."


The 28 pages

After the years of increasing distance, many in Saudi Arabia have adopted a mantra that Weinberg of the FDD said boils down to "wait until the next administration."

But that may be a mistake, he warned, as there is increasingly vocal anti-Saudi sentiment in Congress and the growing gaps between the two nations are dependent on circumstance rather than individual leaders.

A bipartisan group of current and former lawmakers are pushing for the release of 28 classified pages from the 9/11 Commission that reportedly include evidence that Saudi officials in the U.S. at the time lent support to some of the 15 Saudis who were among the 19 terrorists who conducted that attack.

A large bipartisan group of Senate and House lawmakers has backed a bill that would allow families of the 9/11 victims to sue foreign states if they helped fund or support a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. While the White House is lobbying against the bill, the Saudis have reacted by warning they would sell off $750 billion in U.S. assets if it becomes law.

The veto threat led families of 9/11 victims to write Obama on Tuesday to say they "view the disregard and dismissal of our loved ones' deaths implicit in both these threats and their acceptance as disrespectful and improper."

OPINION: Obama is wrong about the terrorism act

The bill has drawn the backing of Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and is co-sponsored by GOP candidate Ted Cruz. And Republican front-runner Donald Trump has said that Saudi Arabia should pay for more of its own defense.

Meanwhile, another group of Republican and Democratic senators banded together last week to propose a bill to limit arms sales to Saudi Arabia to protest the way it's conducting the war in Yemen.

Along with sentiment in Congress, the dynamic points to continued tension after Obama leaves office.

There are areas where the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are in conflict, and political elites across the board "reflect those feelings," according to Weinberg.

"This is not something that can be personalized down to the views of the commander in chief," he said.

 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kurds-regime-deadly-clashes-northeast-syria-190019093.html?nhp=1

Kurds, regime in deadly clashes in northeast Syria

AFP
April 20, 2016

Qamishli (Syria) (AFP) - Deadly clashes between Syrian pro-government fighters and Kurdish forces raged on Wednesday in the northeastern city of Qamishli, an AFP reporter at the scene said.

Loud blasts from rocket fire and heavy machineguns could be heard throughout the city into the evening as warplanes screeched above, the reporter said.

Qamishli is under the shared control of the Syrian regime and Kurdish authorities, who have declared zones of "autonomous administration" across parts of north and northeast Syria.

The clashes broke out between government forces and the local Kurdish police force, known as the Asayish, at a checkpoint earlier on Wednesday, a Kurdish security source told AFP.

"Then, the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) joined on behalf of the Asayish and the pro-government National Defence Forces joined on the side of the regime," the source said.

He said "a number of our comrades" had died but would not give a specific number.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said four NDF fighters were killed and another 20 were arrested by Kurdish forces.

The Britain-based monitor said three Asayish members were also killed in the fighting and several others were wounded.

Syrian troops and seasoned Kurdish fighters have coordinated on security in Hasakeh province where Islamic State group jihadists have tried to advance.

But tensions have built up between the sometimes-rival authorities, often over their individual military conscription services.

Two NDF militiamen were killed in similar clashes in December.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
:popcorn1::boohoo::crtmn::popcorn3:

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-politics-idUSKCN0XH20L

World | Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:36pm EDT
Related: World, United Nations, Brazil

Brazil's Rousseff going to U.N. over impeachment; cabinet in crisis

BRASILIA | By Lisandra Paraguassu and Anthony Boadle


Beleaguered Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff will travel to New York in a bid to rally international support against her impeachment, leaving behind a Cabinet paralyzed by political crisis as another minister defected on Wednesday.

Rousseff aides said the leftist leader will attend a United Nations event on Friday in New York where she will denounce as illegal the attempt to impeach her, a process that could see her forced from office within weeks in a process she calls a "coup d'état without weapons."

Energy Minister Eduardo Braga said he was quitting her government following orders from his centrist PMDB party, Rousseff's main coalition partner until it abandoned her last month to back her ouster. Rousseff's impeachment would end 13 years of rule by the leftist Workers Party.

Nine ministers in Rousseff's 31-member cabinet have now resigned, leaving important portfolios without politically appointed heads, including the Tourism and Sports ministries only four months before Brazil hosts the Olympic Games. Rousseff may not even be president by the time the Games start.

Vice President Michel Temer, who would take over if Rousseff is impeached, met with close advisors in Sao Paulo to study plans for a new government that, aides said, would move quickly to restore economic confidence and growth.

The crisis has paralyzed Brazil's ability to revive the economy from its worst recession in decades in the midst of a massive corruption scandal involving state-run oil firm Petrobras (PETR4.SA).

Murilo Portugal, the head of Brazil's most powerful banking industry lobby, has emerged as a strong candidate to become finance minister if Temer takes power, a source familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.

Rousseff lost a crucial vote in the lower house of Congress on Sunday and now faces impeachment by the Senate on charges of breaking budget laws.


Related Coverage
› Brazil energy minister to quit Rousseff government, return to Senate

With the prospect of the Senate suspending her in three weeks, Rousseff canceled her trip to attend the signing of the Paris Agreement on climate change on Friday to focus on her political survival.

Two presidential aides said Rousseff would use her visit to New York to defend herself in interviews with international media.


"A RATHER UNUSUAL COUP"

Rousseff says the accounting manipulation her administration used, putting off the transfer of funds to state banks, was a practice employed by previous governments. Her opponents say it allowed her to unfairly expand public spending and boost her re-election campaign in 2014.

Her government's legal appeals for injunctions to stop the impeachment process have been rejected by the Supreme Court.

Rousseff on Tuesday said the impeachment process was started by lower chamber Speaker Eduardo Cunha, who is charged with corruption and money laundering, out of revenge for her government not shielding him from ethics committee hearings.

She accused Temer, leader of the PMDB party, of plotting against her. During her trip to New York, Temer will temporarily assume the presidency, an irony not lost on his aides.

"This is a rather unusual coup," said Temer's spokesman Marcio de Freitas. "She is going to the U.N. to denounce a coup but handing over power during her trip to the man she says is trying to overthrow her."

The longest serving justice on Brazil's Supreme Court weighed in on the debate on Wednesday, telling reporters the motion to impeach Rousseff was not a coup, despite her claim.

"This is totally mistaken. Congress and the Supreme Court have made it quite clear the impeachment process has complied with the Constitution up to now," Justice Celso de Mello said.

Her opponents have also traveled to the United States to defend the impeachment. Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Aloysio Nunes, of the opposition PSDB party, was in Washington this week to explain to U.S. government officials why the process is constitutional.

Nunes met his counterpart, Republican U.S. Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, on Tuesday and was due to meet with the State Department's Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Tom Shannon, on Wednesday.


(Reporting by Lisandra Paraguassú and Antony Boadle; Additional reporting by Eduardo Simoes; Editing by Daniel Flynn, Jeffrey Benkoe and Andrew Hay)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/19/biden-slams-netanyahu-hours-after-jerusalem-attack.html

Middle East

Biden slams Netanyahu hours after Jerusalem attack

Published April 19, 2016 · FoxNews.com
Comments 10996

Vice President Joe Biden said Monday night that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government was leading the country "in the wrong direction" hours after a bus bombing in Jerusalem wounded at least 21 people.

In a speech to the Israel advocacy group J Street, Biden criticized Palestinian leaders, but saved his harshest words for Israeli officials.

"I firmly believe that the actions that Israel's government has taken over the past several years -- the steady and systematic expansion of settlements, the legalization of outposts, land seizures -- they're moving us, and, more importantly, they're moving Israel in the wrong direction," Biden said.

Biden did single out Palestinian leaders, including Mahmoud Abbas, for declining to condemn specific acts of terrorism carried out against Israelis. The vice president said he didn't know whether Monday's explosion was a terrorist attack, but added that the U.S. condemns "misguided cowards" who resort to violence.

Israeli officials have called the bombing of an empty bus parked near other vehicles a terror attack, with Netanyahu linking it to the ongoing wave of attacks in which Palestinians have targeted Israelis in Jerusalem.

"We will settle accounts with these terrorists," Netanyahu said in a speech following the bombing. "We are in a protracted struggle against terror -- knife terror, shooting terror, bomb terror and also tunnel terror."

The fact that the bulk of Biden's criticism was reserved for Netanyahu reflected diminishing patience within the White House as President Obama's term nears an end. Tension between the longtime allies has been compounded by deep disagreements over Iran and a strained relationship between the two leaders.

Biden, who met in March with both Netanyahu and Abbas, said he came away from that trip discouraged about prospects for peace anytime soon. Still, he said the U.S. is obliged to guarantee Israel's security and to "push them as hard as we can" toward a two-state solution despite "our sometimes overwhelming frustration with the Israeli government."


"There is at the moment no political will that I observed from either Israelis or Palestinians to go forward with serious negotiations," Biden said.

As if to underscore the point, Israeli and Palestinian officials had a testy exchange at the United Nations Monday at a Security Council open meeting on the Middle East.

“Are you ready right now to denounce terror against innocent Israelis?” Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon demanded of his Palestinian counterpart, Riyad Mansour.


Mansour refused, shooting back, “Shame on you! You are the occupier.”

"Shame on you!" Danon replied. "Instead of denouncing terror, you are encouraging it!"

Biden's remarks to J Street, a dovish group that frequently criticizes Netanyahu, came at the height of a campaign season in which candidates have been scrutinized over their adherence to traditionally stalwart U.S. support for Israel.

Ahead of Tuesday's primary in New York, Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders has sparked controversy by saying the U.S. should be even-handed and mustn't always say that Netanyahu is right.

In another dig at Netanyahu and his Likud Party, Biden singled out for praise Stav Shaffir, a young member of Israel's parliament and a Netanyahu critic from the left wing of Israeli politics.


"May your views begin to once again become the majority opinion in the Knesset," Biden said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-bus-idUSKCN0XH2KU

World | Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:46pm EDT
Related: World, Israel

Palestinian wounded in Jerusalem bus bombing dies, Hamas claims him

A Palestinian militant from the occupied West Bank who was wounded when his bomb exploded on an Israeli commuter bus in Jerusalem on Monday has died, an Israeli hospital spokeswoman and a pro-Hamas website said on Wednesday.

A spokeswoman for the Jerusalem hospital where the wounded man was treated confirmed he had succumbed to his injuries. Israeli authorities have placed a gag order on the investigation and declined to release any details.

The pro-Hamas Palestinian Information Centre identified him as Abdel-Hamid Abu Srour from the Ayda refugee camp near Bethlehem and said he was a member of the Izz el-Deen Al-Qassam brigades, the armed wing of the Hamas militant Islamist group.

The explosion blew up a bus, wounding 16 people, and caused a fire on a nearby bus. In a speech hours afterwards, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu linked the attack to a six-month-old wave of Palestinian street violence.

Israeli medical sources said six people wounded by the blast were still being treated in hospital, the rest had been released by late Wednesday.

Suicide bombings on Israeli buses were a hallmark of the Palestinian revolt of 2000-2005 but have been rare since. With Palestinians carrying out less organized stabbing, car-ramming and gun attacks since October, Israel has been braced for an escalation.

In the last half year, Palestinian attacks have killed 28 Israelis and two visiting U.S. citizens. Israeli forces have killed at least 191 Palestinians, 130 of whom Israel says were assailants. Many others were shot dead in clashes and protests.

Factors driving the violence include Palestinian bitterness over stalled statehood negotiations and the growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, increased Jewish access to a disputed Jerusalem shrine and Islamist-led calls for Israel's destruction.


(Additional reporting by Nidal al-Mughrabi in Gaza; Writing by Ori Lewis; Editing by Tom Heneghan)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-idUSKCN0XH27H

World | Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:49pm EDT
Related: World, Libya

Islamic State on retreat around east Libyan city: military

BENGHAZI, Libya | By By Ayman al-Warfalli

Islamic State fighters retreated from long-held positions around the port city of Derna on Wednesday, military forces in eastern Libya said, as troops loyal to the government in the region pressed on with an offensive in Benghazi.

If the retreat around Derna is confirmed, it could mark a significant shift in the alignment of forces in the area.

Islamic State gained territory in Libya as two rival governments and a range of armed factions battled to control the country in the last two years. But it has also faced resistance from other local armed groups on the ground.

Derna has a history of Islamism and was an early bastion for Islamic State. The militant group lost control of the city in June last year to rival armed Islamists grouped under the Derna Mujahideen Shura Council, but retained positions round the outskirts.

Derna and its suburbs had been "completely liberated from the apostates", the Council said in a statement.

Eastern security forces, which are allied to a government based in the east, have carried out occasional strikes against Islamic State around Derna over recent months.

Military spokesman Abdulkarim Sabra said Islamic State had retreated from Derna's 400 neighborhood and al-Fatayeh, 20 km (12 miles) south of the city, and its forces were trying to head towards the militant group's Libyan stronghold of Sirte when they were intercepted.

The military was providing air support for troops, he said. There were no immediate reports of casualties.

Pictures circulating on social media showed some Derna residents celebrating and waving Libyan flags on the streets.

Eastern military forces have also been involved in heavy fighting around 250km (155 miles) to the west in Benghazi, where they have taken several neighborhoods from fighters loyal to Islamic State and other groups.

Clashes continued there on Wednesday, and the military said it had nearly full control of the southern district of Guwarsha. It said one commander had been killed in the fighting and four soldiers were wounded.

The eastern government was set up after armed opponents took control of the capital, Tripoli, in 2014, and installed a rival administration. Both are backed by alliances of former rebels who once fought together to oust Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 but have slowly turned against each other.

Last month a U.N.-backed unity government arrived in Tripoli, where it has been trying to establish its authority. The West sees the new government as the best chance of ending Libya's political divisions and uniting its armed factions to take on Islamic State.

But the government has yet to win approval from Libya's eastern parliament, which received international recognition and has repeatedly failed to hold a vote on the issue.

Lawmakers in the east who support the new government say they have been threatened and physically impeded from holding a vote, including when they tried to convene on Monday.

They have been opposed by allies of eastern military commander Khalifa Haftar, who are concerned about losing control of military appointments if the unity government takes full power.

In an apparent attempt to break the ice with the eastern military the unity government's leadership released a statement on Wednesday congratulating it on its advances in Benghazi.

The Presidential Council said it would "provide all necessary support to Benghazi and other affected cities for reconstruction," and that it was committed to "supporting the institution of the army".


(Additional reporting by Ahmed Elumami in Tripoli; Writing by Aidan Lewis; editing by Richard Balmforth and John Stonestreet)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKCN0XH1S5

World | Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:58pm EDT
Related: World, United Nations, Syria

Syrian peace talks in quagmire as rebels prepare for more war

GENEVA/BEIRUT | By John Irish, Stephanie Nebehay and Tom Perry


Syria's fragile peace talks might not resume for at least a year if they are abandoned now, a senior Western diplomat warned on Wednesday, as the opposition urged more military support for rebels after declaring a truce was over.

Intense fighting has left Syria's partial ceasefire in tatters. The truce was brokered by the United States and Russia to pave the way for the first peace talks attended by rebel factions since the crisis began five years ago.

Those talks, taking place under U.N. auspices in Geneva, also appear to have collapsed this week. The opposition says it has called a "pause" to negotiations, although it is reluctant to accept blame for the collapse by walking out altogether.

"If this ends now, it will be over for at least a year ... The Russians will steamroll -- taking advantage of a U.S. vacuum," the Western diplomat said, referring to fears Washington will be preoccupied by November's U.S. presidential election.

"There will be three million more refugees and thousands more dead," said the diplomat, who declined to be identified while describing a scenario world powers still hope to avoid. "If we all leave Geneva, I don’t see the process continuing.”

Damascus negotiators say the presidency of Bashar al-Assad is non-negotiable while the opposition sees removal of the president as a prerequisite and complains of no progress on an end to violence, humanitarian access and political detainees.

The Geneva talks aim to end a war that has killed more than 250,000 people, created the world's worst refugee crisis, allowed for the rise of the Islamic State group and drawn in regional and major powers. Russia's intervention in the conflict beginning late last year has swayed the war in Assad's favor.

The already widely violated truce began fraying more quickly some two weeks ago near Aleppo, where the Syrian army accused rebel groups of taking part in assaults by Islamists who are not covered by the ceasefire. Rebels say they were defending themselves from attacks by the army and its Shi'ite militia allies.

A total collapse of the Geneva talks would leave a diplomatic vacuum that could allow a further escalation of the war that is being fueled by rivalries between foreign powers including oil producers Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Seeking to ease that rivalry, U.S. President Barack Obama met Saudi Arabia's King Salman on a visit to Riyadh on Wednesday and discussed the need to reinforce the partial truce in Syria and support a transition from Assad's rule.

France said it would consider with other European powers and the United States on Monday the idea of convening a ministerial meeting of major powers in the next two weeks to work out the next steps for Syria.



Related Coverage
› U.S. rejects Syrian government remarks on opposition walkout

GIRDING FOR MORE BATTLE

As fighting raged and air strikes on rebel-held areas intensified, the opposition urged foreign states to supply them with the means to defend themselves, a thinly veiled reference to the anti-aircraft weapons long sought by insurgents.

Air strikes killed around 40 people in a crowded market on Tuesday in what may have been the worst incident of its kind since the cessation of hostilities took effect in February.

France said the government was rushing "headlong" into violence and showing its refusal to negotiate a political solution. Syrian state TV cited a military source denying any air force raids on residential areas.

Anas Al Abde, president of the Turkey-based opposition Syrian National Coalition, said the Geneva talks were "futile" and there was no hope in discussing political transition.

Speaking in Istanbul, he urged "qualitative support" for rebel groups, and said the solution must be a "political-military" one.

U.N. envoy Staffan de Mistura has come closer than any mediator so far in bringing the warring sides to peace talks which began last month, after the implementation of the partial truce brokered by the Washington and Moscow.

But the sides have yet to narrow their differences on issues like the fate of Assad, and it will be difficult to lure the opposition back to the table if fighting resumes unchecked, with the government taking advantage of Russia's firepower.

On Wednesday experts were meeting in Geneva but the opposition's Riad Hijab, chief coordinator of the Saudi-backed High Negotiations Committee (HNC), had quit the talks with senior delegates while de Mistura had left for personal reasons. About half of the HNC delegation remained.

The Syrian government negotiator Bashar Ja'afari poured contempt on the opposition for its partial walkout, accusing it of sulking and political immaturity.

"By leaving they may be taking away a major obstacle that will allow us to reach a solution," he told reporters.

The U.S. State department rejected that view. "We do not believe that the way forward is any removal by the opposition from these talks. In fact, quite the opposite," spokesman John Kirby said in Washington.

Russia said the opposition was incapable of reaching a deal. "By issuing ultimatums, the Riyadh group, it seems, is trying to mask the fact it has no concrete and realistic proposals," the foreign ministry said.

Kirby called on the government delegation to explain what it meant by its proposed broad-based government of national unity.

Randa Kassis, who heads up a Moscow-backed opposition group, said both sides wanted to impose their view. "The solution will have to come from outside: Russia, the U.S. and the Security Council," she said. "It will take a lot more time."


Related Coverage
› Humanitarian evacuations under way from besieged Syrian towns
› Syrian government says serious in talks, opposition walkout may ease solution

Western-backed rebel armed groups appear to be girding for more war. Fares al-Bayoush, a colonel who heads the Northern Division told Reuters: "Our situation on the frontlines is acceptable, but we await the increase of the support, or as the states promised ... so we can force it (the regime) to resort to the political solution."

He said there would be no return to negotiations "soon".

States opposed to Assad have been channeling military support to vetted rebel groups via both Turkey and Jordan, in a program that has included military training overseen by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.


GRAVE CONCERNS AT NEW REFUGEE EXODUS

The United Nations expressed deep concern on Wednesday over the fate of Syrians who have fled fighting near the northern city of Aleppo.

More than 40,000 people in camps, residential areas and settlements have been displaced due to fighting in recent days, mostly pushed eastwards towards the strategically vital border town of Azaz, as well as the Bab al-Salam and Sijjou camps for internally-displaced, the United Nations said.

"Taking into account the previous influx of over 75,000 internally displaced people into the Azaz sub-district in January and February, humanitarian needs are expected to rise exponentially," the U.N. Office for Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said in an overnight update.

Previous rebel losses in the area near the Turkish border have made it difficult for international aid agencies to reach civilians, making it one of the areas of greatest concern for those trying to protect Syria's civilians from harm.

The opposition accuses the government of violating the cessation of hostilities to capture Aleppo, Syria's most populous city before the war, which has been divided between government-controlled and rebel-held zones for years.

The medical charity Medecins Sans Frontiers said there were now more than 100,000 people trapped on the Syrian side of the Turkish border, with 35,000 having fled in the past week from camps that had been taken over by Islamic State fighters or had become too close to the front line.


(Additional reporting by Lisa Barrington; writing by Peter Millership; editing by Peter Graff and Philippa Fletcher)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.marinelink.com/news/britains-comments-angered408447.aspx

China Angered by Britain's Comments on South China Sea

Posted by Eric Haun
Wednesday, April 20, 2016, 10:18 AM

China expressed anger on Wednesday after a senior British official said a ruling expected within a few months in an international arbitration case the Philippines has brought against China's South China Sea claims must be binding.

Hugo Swire, British minister of state responsible for East Asia, also said Britain saw the ruling, by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague, as an opportunity for China and the Philippines to renew dialogue over their territorial disputes.

China claims virtually all of the South China Sea and rejects the court's authority in the case, which is widely expected to go in favour of the Philippines, significantly raising tension in the strategic waterway.

"The comments by Mr Swire neglect the facts and are very discriminatory and one-sided and seriously go against Britain's promise not to take sides," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told a daily news briefing.

"We are extremely dissatisfied."

Tension in the South China Sea is the fault of the United States and the Philippines, not China, with U.S. ships and aircraft increasingly appearing in the region, she added.

"The facts prove that if the South China Sea is tense then it's the US which is the biggest pusher of this," Hua said.

She repeated that China would neither accept nor participate in the arbitration case and it was an abuse of international law.

The court is expected to rule in late May or early June.

In February, the United States and the European Union, of which Britain is a part, warned China it should respect the ruling from the Hague. The court has no powers of enforcement and its rulings have been ignored before.

Britain has prioritised developing economic ties with China and welcomed Chinese President Xi Jinping on a state visit in October, leading critics to accuse it of placing short-term financial gain above human rights and security interests.

It also upset the U.S. administration when it became the first non-Asian country and the first member of the Group of Seven advanced economies to join a China-backed development bank for Asia seen by Washington as an unwelcome rival to Western-led institutions such as the World Bank.

More than $5 trillion of world trade is shipped through the South China Sea every year. Apart from China's territorial claims there, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam have rival claims.


(Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pentagon-sends-legendary-b-52-bomber-action-against-182402057.html

US ups pressure on IS with first B-52 bomber strike

Thomas Watkins
April 20, 2016
Comments 32

Washington (AFP) - The US Air Force for the first time deployed a B-52 bomber against the Islamic State, the Pentagon said Wednesday as it ramps up a 20-month campaign to smash the jihadists.

The bombing mission, in which a hulking B-52 destroyed a weapons storage facility south of Mosul, comes the same week that Defense Secretary Ash Carter visited Baghdad and announced extra US troops, cash and equipment for the anti-IS campaign in Iraq.

In other signs of an increasing tempo, US commandos working with Kurdish troops conducted a raid targeting a senior IS group figure and the Pentagon said it has changed how air strikes risking civilian deaths are approved.

Under the new rules, authority now comes from the commanding three-star US general in Baghdad, instead of going through a four-star at the US Central Command's headquarters in Florida.

Baghdad-based military spokesman Colonel Steve Warren insisted the changes do not lessen oversight standards in determining when civilian losses are an acceptable risk.

"This does not translate to more civilian casualties, this translates to a more rapid execution of strikes," Warren said.

The Pentagon has acknowledged 26 civilian deaths due to US-led coalition strikes since the campaign began in August 2014 in Iraq, and credits the use of guided missiles in keeping the number relatively low -- though independent observers say the figure is far higher.

- More US troops -

Carter this week announced an additional 217 US forces would be deployed to Iraq as advisors, pushing the official count there past 4,000.

The Pentagon has also offered Apache attack helicopters for use in an eventual push on Mosul, Iraq's second city and which is under control of the IS group.

Separately, Danish lawmakers have approved a plan to commit seven F-16 warplanes, a transport aircraft and 400 military personnel to expand its fight against the extremists.

Monday's strike by a B-52 Stratofortress blew up an IS weapons storage facility in the town of Qayyarah, about 35 miles (60 kilometers) south of Mosul.

The enormous planes, originally designed in the 1950s, became a symbol of US might during the Cold War and the aircraft was used to conduct carpet bombing in Vietnam.

Warren said the B-52s are only being armed with guided bombs.

"There are memories in the collective unconscious of B-52s, decades ago, doing... arguably indiscriminate bombing," Warren said.

"Those days are long gone. The B-52 is a precision-strike weapons platform and it will conduct the same type of precision strikes that we have seen for the last 20 months."

Several B-52s arrived in Qatar earlier this month to replace a contingent of newer B-1 bombers that had been working in Iraq and Syria for about a year.

Warren also announced that US commandos in northern Iraq had targeted Suleiman Abd Shabib al-Jabouri, "one of ISIL's military emirs and an ISIL war council member."

The Kurdish regional security council said Jabouri was killed in the raid, conducted jointly with Kurdish fighters.

- 'Shoving match' -

The US military has since 2014 led an international coalition against the IS group in Iraq and Syria after the jihadists captured vast areas of territory across the two countries.

Despite major gains, including the recapture of the Iraqi city of Ramadi, the coalition has still not chased IS fighters from Raqa in Syria or Mosul, as well as several other important towns.

In Syria, vetted Syrian opposition fighters are clashing with IS fighters in the north, especially around the Manbij region, but have recently lost some ground to the jihadists.

It "has developed into a shoving match," Warren said. "We will continue to pressure ISIL but we expect them to fight hard to hold their ground."

Additionally, the IS group has tightened the noose on a regime-held enclave in eastern Syria, overrunning part of the city of Deir Ezzor, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

Elsewhere in Syria, a Russian- and US-brokered ceasefire grew ever more fragile as violence continued to flare up around Aleppo. IS and other jihadist groups are not party to the February "cessation of hostilities."
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/20...r-beijing-philippines-japan-taiwan-aftermath/

Tea Leaf Nation

Forecasting the Aftermath of a Ruling on China’s Nine-Dash Line

A tribunal is likely to rule on China's hazy claims to South China Sea sovereignty. How Beijing and others react isn't set in stone.

By Jerome A. Cohen
April 20, 2016

The arbitration tribunal of five impartial experts that has been considering the Philippines suit against China under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) will soon hand down its final decision. Although the tribunal will not decide territorial sovereignty questions or set maritime boundaries, it may well determine, among many other issues, whether there is a legal basis for China’s notorious “Nine-Dash Line” that ambiguously claims over 85 percent of the South China Sea and whether any of the islands in dispute are entitled to a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone.

If, as it promises, Beijing rejects the outcome, it will harm the UNCLOS system that Beijing, which has ratified the agreement, played a significant role in negotiating. It will also hurt Beijing’s own interests by reinforcing the image of lawlessness that it has acquired by its expansive territorial claims and assertive maritime actions — including a relentless drive to convert disputed submerged features, low-tide elevations, and rocks into islands, airfields, and ports. There is still hope that Beijing might change course, but it will require a recommitment to UNCLOS principles from affected Asian nations, and from the United States. It will also require other major countries increasing pressure on China, such as the G-7’s surprisingly strong April 11 statement of support for the arbitration.

In January 2013, the Philippines’ stunning initiation of UNCLOS arbitration against China brought the system of third-party dispute resolution into the world of Beijing’s maritime disputes. China insisted then that the UNCLOS tribunal lacked jurisdiction, but refused to submit its jurisdictional objections for the tribunal’s impartial decision. In October 2015, the tribunal ruled that it did have jurisdiction over certain issues and postponed determination of its jurisdiction over other issues until it issued its decision on the merits of the Philippines’ claims. That decision is now imminent.

But this is preeminently about politics, not only law. Beijing’s opposition reflects the current primacy of highly nationalistic elements within China’s military and political leadership over those Chinese international law experts, both within and outside government, who believe that China should test its challenges to the tribunal’s jurisdiction and to the Philippine claims before the tribunal itself — regardless of whether or not it’s legally obligated to do so. Under the fear-inspiring command of President Xi Jinping, it requires an act of courage for any international law or foreign relations specialist within the government to contradict prevailing policy, although academic debate continues to be allowed.

What will Beijing do in response to the tribunal’s impending final award? Ignoring it in silence does not appear to be a feasible option. Some have speculated that a largely adverse decision might lead China to dramatize its protest by withdrawing from the UNCLOS system, as permitted upon one year’s notice. Yet denunciation of the treaty could not occur in time to relieve China of its obligation to comply with the arbitration award, and such an extreme reaction to a judgment of the world community would cause China even more long-lasting damage to its reputation than failure to comply. China would also be surrendering its future opportunities to influence the development of UNCLOS as it relates to many other issues important to Beijing.

It seems more likely that Beijing will continue to disparage the decision through official and unofficial statements, contesting its validity on both jurisdiction and the merits. Also, although Beijing chose not to participate in organizing the proceedings, it has already sought to discredit the process by which the tribunal was constituted, even attacking the independence and impartiality of the arbitrators. Its Foreign Ministry recently condemned the arbitration as “a political provocation in the guise of law.” Such attempts, of course, only further harm China’s quest for so-called soft power.

Yet the situation is not hopeless. Experience has shown that China’s foreign policies and legal positions are not written in stone. An increasingly vigorous effort by those nations that have their own maritime disputes with China to promote their settlement through diplomacy that includes resort to international legal institutions may ultimately prove effective. If all affected nations in the East China Sea and the South China Sea “bombard the headquarters” in Beijing by taking their international law disputes with China to international legal institutions — rather than relying exclusively on endless, fruitless, and unequal bilateral negotiations or American military gestures — there is hope for a turnabout.

Surprisingly, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, usually regarded as a nationalistic leader, provided an encouraging example of how a big power should respond to a disappointing result in UNCLOS arbitration with a weaker neighbor. Despite the fact that India’s claims against Bangladesh over jurisdiction in the Bay of Bengal were generally not vindicated, Modi calmly accepted the July 2014 decision rather than inciting xenophobic popular protests against alleged foreign unfairness. Modi emphasized that the arbitration, by putting hoary divisive issues behind the parties, had established the basis for future cooperation.

Other players in the South China Sea should follow the Philippine example and bring UNCLOS dispute resolution proceedings, not only against China but against each other, as necessary, in order to stimulate and inform successful negotiations. After threatening to pursue China on several occasions, Vietnam decided that awaiting the outcome of the Philippine case was the safer political course, although it did make its support of the Philippines known to the tribunal. Recent events suggest that perhaps Malaysia and even Indonesia may be tempted by UNCLOS dispute resolution if reported Chinese provocations persist.

Japan’s choice is the most interesting to contemplate. If the Philippines arbitration does not invalidate China’s “nine dash line,” which contains its claims to the South China Sea, then Japan, as an UNCLOS member that supports freedom of navigation, may be able to craft a claim that justifies its own compulsory dispute resolution proceedings against China regarding the South China Sea. (This is true even though Japan is not a South China Sea littoral state.) Yet, like other affected states, Japan has been cautiously awaiting the outcome of the Philippine case. However, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party recently stated that if Tokyo’s negotiations with China over maritime issues in the East China Sea continue to flounder, Japan would consider resorting to third-party determination.

The Philippine arbitration also highlights an international law challenge for the United States. More than three decades since the completion of the UNCLOS treaty, Washington has yet to ratify it, although in practice the U.S. complies with most of the treaty provisions as customary international law. Despite strong support for ratification from previous American presidents, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cabinet officers, and leading diplomats and experts from both major political parties, U.S. President Barack Obama decided not to launch a vigorous campaign to obtain a very hostile U.S. Senate’s consent to ratification.

Yet American national security increasingly involves law of the sea issues, and the U.S. endorses resort to arbitration against China by other states. Sadly, failure to ratify leaves Washington in the pathetic position of “do as I say, not as I do.” American refusal to ratify denies the United States the opportunity to avail itself of UNCLOS dispute resolution possibilities, both as they relate to China, and to other countries that do not accept U.S. maritime claims. This creates the false impression that, in the South China Sea, potentially risky military posturing, which may be necessary but is not sufficient to meet the crisis, is the sole American option for responding to China’s law of the sea challenges.

Taiwan, a self-governing island of 23 million, is in the most delicate situation, given that mainland China claims Taiwan as its own, while Taiwan itself purports on occasion to speak for all of China. On the one hand, despite its mistrust of the mainland, the new administration of President-elect Tsai Ing-wen, slated to take office May 20, is unlikely to abandon the claims that Taiwan has made to the South China Sea under the banner of “China.” On the other hand, Taiwan, eager to eliminate the barriers to its formal participation in the diplomatic world that stem from its status as a quasi-state, is increasingly careful to portray itself as a loyal supporter of the UNCLOS system from which it is barred. How Taiwan copes with this dilemma may depend on the substance of the tribunal’s decision. If the tribunal decides that Taiping Island, occupied by Taiwan and the largest of the Spratly island group, is entitled to a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone, then Taiwan may gracefully acquiesce in and even explicitly rely on the tribunal’s views.

There are, to be sure, many possibilities for sensible compromises to emerge from sincere negotiations based on authoritative interpretations of UNCLOS rather than overbearing unilateral power. The impressive 2013 fisheries agreement between Japan and Taiwan, as well as Vietnam’s 2000 Gulf of Tonkin agreement with China, illustrate the virtues of compromise. Persistent and imaginative horse-trading, informed by relevant international law decisions, can settle territorial disputes, delimit maritime boundaries, provide for the sharing of economic resources, and even convert to exclusively peaceful uses the artificial islands on which Beijing and other powers have constructed potential military facilities. Skilled negotiators can spare China the loss of face it might suffer if explicit reference were made to the arbitration that stimulated any settlement with the Philippines and other countries.

China has been touting its peaceful rise for over a decade, and it has been trying to convince the international community that it is a responsible great power adhering to the rule of law. In these circumstances, it would be statesmanlike and conducive to Asian peace if Beijing were to accept the arbitration’s outcome and adopt the decision as a platform for negotiations that seek a sensible compromise. In the meantime, the more other interested states engage with international law of the sea, the better. This might stimulate both China and the United States to reconsider their postures and act in their different ways to strengthen — not weaken — the UNCLOS system. Given the sensitivity of the seas around China, world peace may depend upon it.

This article is based on an April 14, 2016, speech in Taipei at Soochow University. It has been edited for style and length.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/20/asia/afghanistan-escalation-analysis/

Analysis: Afghanistan must recognize Taliban are winning

By Nick Paton Walsh, CNN
Updated 7:33 PM ET, Wed April 20, 2016

(CNN) — It is a war of perception, you repeatedly hear: that the perception the Taliban are winning means the Taliban are winning.

There is some logic to this thesis, which is often heard from government and other Afghanistan officials in Kabul, in that those on the fence head to the winning side of the insurgency. Yet it begins to fall apart when the mantra overtakes the grasp on reality.

The Taliban do look a lot like they are winning. It is a grotesque slow grind, their pursuit of victory. Tuesday it claimed dozens of women and children as casualties in Kabul when a suicide truck bomb, so eager to attack a government VIP bodyguard service, detonated in a parking lot just behind its target. The death toll was stated at around 30 that day, and now, on Wednesday, it has reached 64, likely the deadliest attack the capital has seen since the Taliban were dislodged in 2001.

Other somber figures explain how bad the problems are: 5,500 Afghan security forces dead in just 2015, say U.S. officials, far more than NATO lost in a decade of war; 3,500 Afghan civilians dead in the same period, mostly at the hands of the Taliban, says the United Nations. Two-thirds of the personnel absences in the security forces are not down to injury, but instead desertion, U.S. officials say. More of the country is in Taliban hands than at any time since 2001, U.S. officials say.

The attributions to U.S. officials are important, because it was this same source of information that constantly assured reporters, the world and Afghans that once NATO drew down in 2014, Afghan security forces would be more than capable of holding back the Taliban. It is now woefully apparent that is tragically untrue.

There are no simple culprits here. The government -- in which President Ashraf Ghani shares power with the man he fought an election against, Abdullah Abdullah -- was hamstrung, many argue, by this communal rivalry from the start. The Afghan economy tanked as soon as NATO support ebbed. NATO's departure meant an unavoidable collapse in security.

Little of this could have been avoided, but much of it was predictable. The West simply ran out of funds and appetite for the battle, and left Afghanistan to come to its own devices.

So what is left? The key plank of the U.S. and Afghan strategy remains a simple and likely idea that could have worked well if the Taliban were evenly matched on the battlefield: a negotiated settlement. The United States has sought this, through proxies, for years. But the Taliban's current gains mean they are unlikely to imminently change their current disinterest in talks. Their ties to al Qaeda also make a long-term settlement that renounces "international terror," as the United States and Kabul say it must, less likely.

Tuesday's attack was met with U.S. and Afghan presidential assurances the Taliban were only picking a soft civilian target as they could not successfully face the Afghan army on the battlefield, and were thus "weak." It was designed to remind the world of the callous choice by the Taliban of its victims, yet still a curious message, given the gains the insurgency has made in just such open battle. It is also the same message we heard about four years ago, when it was true U.S. airpower had guaranteed Afghan forces a measure of superiority in open battle. Yet the war has changed, and perhaps the message has not.

A perhaps apocryphal tale about Gen. David Petraeus speaks how on his arrival in Baghdad to take over the campaign, an embassy aide remarked the U.S. campaign had a "messaging problem." His retort was simple: It wasn't a messaging problem, but a results problem. Granted, Petraeus went on in his stint in Kabul as commander to be very keen on the message, but the truth still holds. There is a sense that the government in Kabul is losing, yet does not accept it is losing. It has little other choice.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Well this got lost in all the confusion of this week.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-conducts-space-launch/

Iran Conducts Space Launch

Simorgh launcher part of long-range missile program

BY: Bill Gertz
April 20, 2016 6:10 pm

Iran this week conducted the first launch of a new rocket that the Pentagon views as a key element of Tehran’s effort to build long-range missiles.

The launch of the Simorgh space launch vehicle on Tuesday was judged by U.S. intelligence agencies to be partly successful but did not reach orbit, said defense officials familiar with reports of the test.

“It was either an unsuccessful launch, or a test of third stage” not meant to place a satellite in orbit, said a U.S. defense official familiar with reports of the test.

No other details of the test launch could be learned.

At the State Department, spokesman John Kirby said he could not confirm the missile launch.

“Obviously we’re watching this as best we can,” Kirby said. “Certainly if it’s true and we’re talking about a ballistic missile launch or the testing of ballistic missile technologies, that’s obviously of concern to us. It’s not consistent, as we said before, with the Security Council resolution…”

The large liquid-fueled rocket has been under close surveillance by U.S. satellites and other intelligence assets at a launch pad at Iran’s Semnan satellite launch center, located about 125 miles east of Tehran.

The Simorgh launch had been anticipated since March and comes amid growing worries about Iran’s development of long-range missiles.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) said he is concerned about the latest Iranian missile development.

“An Iranian Simorgh space launch vehicle test would be a provocation of the highest order and shows Iran’s true intentions,” Cotton told the Washington Free Beacon.

“The intelligence community has said publicly that this [space launch vehicle] technology would aid an Iranian [intercontinental ballistic missile] program. And the only reason one develops ICBMs is the delivery of nuclear weapons,” Cotton added.

The Simorgh is believed to be based on North Korean missile technology, used extensively in Iran’s medium-range Shahab-3 missiles. U.S. intelligence agencies believe North Korea supplied Iran with design data, stage separation technology, and booster equipment for the Simorgh and other rockets.

During negotiations on the Iran nuclear deal, U.S. intelligence agencies detected two shipments of large diameter rocket engines from North Korea to Iran.

The Simorgh also is assessed as having enough lift to carry a nuclear warhead, a throw-weight greater than the 220-pound payload capacity claimed by Iranian officials.

Senior U.S. military officials have voiced concerns about the Simorgh in recent congressional testimony and other public statements.

Adm. Bill Gortney, commander of the U.S. Northern Command, told a House hearing last week that Iran is continuing development of long-range missiles.

“Iran’s continuing pursuit of long-range missile capabilities and ballistic missile and space launch programs, in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions, remains a serious concern,” Gortney said in prepared testimony.

“Iran has successfully orbited satellites using a first-generation space launch vehicle and announced plans to orbit a larger satellite using its ICBM-class booster as early as this year. In light of these advances, we assess Iran may be able to deploy an operational ICBM by 2020 if the regime choses to do so.”

Air Force Lt. Gen. Jay Raymond, deputy chief of staff for operations, told reporters last month the Iranian space launcher is a “dual-use” system with applications for missiles.

“The concerning part to me is that the rocket that they use, that launch satellite, could … [have] a dual-use purpose,” Raymond said March 24. “The ability to put a satellite into orbit is the same capability … as a harmful missile.”

Vice Adm. James Syring, director of the Missile Defense Agency, also said the Simorgh could be used as a long-range missile.

“Iran has successfully orbited satellites and announced plans to orbit a larger satellite using a space launch vehicle, the Simorgh, that could be capable of intercontinental ballistic missile ranges if configured as such,” Syring told the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces last week.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Ala.), the subcommittee chairman, mentioned the Simorgh last week as an ICBM ready for launch.

Criticizing President Obama’s cuts in missile defenses for years, Rogers said: “America’s enemies know an opportunity when they see one; our allies see they are on their own. And the president proposed a nearly 10 percent reduction in missile defense compared to last year’s budget request. What does he think, the Iranians have a Simorgh ICBM on the launch pad because the mullahs want to go to the moon? My subcommittee will continue to fight the president’s priorities and policies until we get some relief next year.”

The Simorgh was identified by defense officials as a covert missile that has been developed as a space launcher to mask the development.

Iran’s space program has included the launch of four satellites that were placed in orbit between 2009 and last year.

Based on a mockup displayed by the Iranians, the Simorgh appears to be a two-stage space launcher,

Laura Grego, a defense analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the first Simorgh was slated for launch in March. “As far as I can tell, Iran does not tend to acknowledge failures,” she said of the lack of official Iranian acknowledgement of Tuesday’s failed launch.

Grego disagrees with military officials about the missile capabilities of the Simorgh.

“The Simorgh appears designed specifically as a satellite launcher, not as a ballistic missile, although some of the technology used in it could be used for a ballistic missile,” she said, adding that it would take significant time to convert the satellite launcher to a ballistic missile.

Iran also lacks nuclear weapons and has not tested a heat-shielding re-entry vehicle, a necessary element of a reliable nuclear missile, she said.

However, Iran has cooperated in the past with North Korea, which recently demonstrated a heat shield for a warhead and showed off what appeared to be a small nuclear warhead that could be placed on a missile.

Rogers asked both Gortney and Syring last week about Iran’s missile programs and whether the recently concluded nuclear agreement with Iran had limited missile development.

Gortney said Iran’s nuclear program may be limited by the international agreement but there has been no change in its missile program.

“We see them continue to develop their propellant, the rocket motor, and we assume they’re continuing to develop a reentry vehicle,” Gortney said.

“So we see of the three pieces that they need, a nuclear weapon miniaturized to put on it, a delivery capable booster, and reentry vehicle. We don’t see the latter two being slowed.”

Syring added: “I agree. I do not see it slowing in any way.”

The attempted launch of the Simorgh also appears to have violated the United Nations resolution on the Iran nuclear agreement, which calls on Tehran not to conduct nuclear missile tests for eight years.

Officials said in February the pending Simorgh launch was being watched closely.

A State Department official said at the time that any launch of long-range missiles or space launchers by Iran would be raised in nuclear consultative meetings.

Recent Iranian ballistic missile tests prompted U.N. diplomats from the United States, Britain, France, and Germany to write in March that the launches defied U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231 prohibiting Iran from conducting launches of nuclear-capable missiles.

President Obama, during a recent television interview, defended the Iran nuclear agreement despite the apparent missile launches.

“We are continually concerned about the ballistic missile tests and other military actions that they may take,” Obama said on PBS. “But the fact that there is that argument and that there is a channel between the United States and Iran for the first time since 1979, I think that is significant. It provides a possibility of additional changes in behavior.”

The launch failure in Iran followed a failed launch of a North Korean intermediate-range ballistic missile last week.

However, in February North Korea conducted a satellite launch that the U.S. Strategic Command described as a long-range missile test.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/iran-rocket-test-long-range-missiles/2016/04/20/id/725020/

Iran Tests Space Rocket Amid Long-Range Missile Rumors

By Jason Devaney | Wednesday, 20 Apr 2016 10:04 PM

Iran reportedly conducted a launch of a space rocket this week that could eventually be used to power long-range missiles.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, Iran launched its Simorgh space launch vehicle on Tuesday.

A U.S. defense official told the news outlet the test "was either an unsuccessful launch, or a test of third stage."

The Simorgh did not reach orbit, according to the report.

State Department spokesman John Kirby would not confirm the launch had taken place, but said U.S. officials have been keeping an eye on the situation.

"Obviously we're watching this as best we can," Kirby said, reports the Free Beacon. "Certainly if it's true and we're talking about a ballistic missile launch or the testing of ballistic missile technologies, that's obviously of concern to us. It's not consistent, as we said before, with the Security Council resolution...."

Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas told the Free Beacon the launch is a "provocation."

"An Iranian Simorgh space launch vehicle test would be a provocation of the highest order and shows Iran’s true intentions," Cotton said.

Lt. Gen. Jay Raymond, Air Force deputy chief of staff for operations, said last month he believes Iran's rocket program has ill intentions.

"The concerning part to me is that the rocket that they use, that launch satellite, could … [have] a dual-use purpose," Raymond said, reports National Defense Magazine. "The ability to put a satellite into orbit is the same capability ... as a harmful missile."
 

vestige

Deceased
Lt. Gen. Jay Raymond, Air Force deputy chief of staff for operations, said last month he believes Iran's rocket program has ill intentions.

"The concerning part to me is that the rocket that they use, that launch satellite, could … [have] a dual-use purpose," Raymond said, reports National Defense Magazine. "The ability to put a satellite into orbit is the same capability ... as a harmful missile."


This feller is really sharp.

Maybe he can get 1/2 star for this observation making him a 3.5 star general.

Dayum
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-warns-u-over-baltic-maneuvers-ready-necessary-140704706.html
(fair use applies)

Russia warns U.S. over naval incident as NATO tensions laid bare

By Robin Emmott
April 20, 2016


BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Russia accused the United States on Wednesday of intimidation by sailing a U.S. naval destroyer close to Russia's border in the Baltics and warned that the Russian military would respond with "all necessary measures" to any future incidents.

Speaking after a meeting between NATO envoys and Russia, their first in almost two years, Moscow's ambassador to NATO said the April 11 maritime incident showed there could be no improvement in ties until the U.S.-led alliance withdrew from Russia's borders.

"This is about attempts to exercise military pressure on Russia," the envoy, Alexander Grushko, said. "We will take all necessary measures, precautions, to compensate for these attempts to use military force," he told reporters.

U.S. Ambassador to NATO Douglas Lute pressed Russia about the incident, warning it had been dangerous. The United States has said the guided missile destroyer USS Cook was on routine business near Poland when it was harassed by Russian jets.

"We were in international waters," a NATO diplomat reported Lute as telling Grushko during the NATO-Russia council meeting.

Despite what officials said was a calm and professional meeting, the public comments highlighted the state of tension that persists between the sides since Moscow's annexation of Ukraine's Crimea in March 2014 and its support for separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the NATO member states had, during the meeting, rejected Grushko's account of the crisis in eastern Ukraine, where 9,000 people have died since April 2014.

Stoltenberg said while there were "profound disagreements" over how to handle Europe's security, each side urgently needed to talk more and to use existing rules to reduce military risk.

Stoltenberg suggested revamping a Cold War-era treaty known as the Vienna document, which sets out the rules for large-scale exercises and other military activity, as well as telephone hotlines and other military communication channels.

"We have to use our lines of communication," he said.

Russia's chief concern is NATO's biggest modernization since the Cold War, which is likely to include a military build-up in eastern Europe with a rotating, multinational force in Poland and the Baltics.

NATO says the plans are a proportionate response to Russian aggression following Moscow's annexation of Crimea, and the alliance had no forces in eastern Europe before the Ukraine crisis.

Poland and other NATO members in the Baltics worry about an increase in the Russian military presence in its Kaliningrad enclave, where Russia is positioning longer-range surface-to-air missiles.

NO AGREEMENT ON UKRAINE

The session of the NATO-Russia Council, which last met in June 2014, had been called in part to assuage Russia's concerns that it feels threatened by NATO. But core differences clearly remained afterwards.

NATO envoys had expressed concern about Russia's so-called snap exercises, where thousands of Russian troops carry out war games without any prior warning. "That is clearly destabilizing," a NATO diplomat said.

Stoltenberg said NATO members had rejected Grushko's description of the crisis in eastern Ukraine as a civil war.

"In the meeting, it was re-confirmed that we disagree on the facts, on the narrative and the responsibilities in and around Ukraine," Stoltenberg said after the meeting.

"Many allies disagree when Russia tries to portray this as a civil war. This is Russia destabilizing eastern Ukraine, providing support for the separatists, munitions, funding, equipment and also command and control," he said.

"So there were profound disagreements," he said.

Russia denies any direct involvement in eastern Ukraine.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/w...ine-fleet-and-tensions-with-us-rise.html?_r=1
(fair use applies)

Russia Bolsters Its Submarine Fleet, and Tensions With U.S. Rise
By ERIC SCHMITT
APRIL 20, 2016

NAPLES, Italy — Russian attack submarines, the most in two decades, are prowling the coastlines of Scandinavia and Scotland, the Mediterranean Sea and the North Atlantic in what Western military officials say is a significantly increased presence aimed at contesting American and NATO undersea dominance.

Adm. Mark Ferguson, the United States Navy’s top commander in Europe, said last fall that the intensity of Russian submarine patrols had risen by almost 50 percent over the past year, citing public remarks by the Russian Navy chief, Adm. Viktor Chirkov. Analysts say that tempo has not changed since then.

The patrols are the most visible sign of a renewed interest in submarine warfare by President Vladimir V. Putin, whose government has spent billions of dollars for new classes of diesel and nuclear-powered attack submarines that are quieter, better armed and operated by more proficient crews than in the past.

The tensions are part of an expanding rivalry and military buildup, with echoes of the Cold War, between the United States and Russia. Moscow is projecting force not only in the North Atlantic but also in Syria and Ukraine and building up its nuclear arsenal and cyberwarfare capacities in what American military officials say is an attempt to prove its relevance after years of economic decline and retrenchment.

Independent American military analysts see the increased Russian submarine patrols as a legitimate challenge to the United States and NATO. Even short of tensions, there is the possibility of accidents and miscalculations. But whatever the threat, the Pentagon is also using the stepped-up Russian patrols as another argument for bigger budgets for submarines and anti-submarine warfare.

American naval officials say that in the short term, the growing number of Russian submarines, with their ability to shadow Western vessels and European coastlines, will require more ships, planes and subs to monitor them. In the long term, the Defense Department has proposed $8.1 billion over the next five years for “undersea capabilities,” including nine new Virginia-class attack submarines that can carry up to 40 Tomahawk cruise missiles, more than triple the capacity now.

“We’re back to the great powers competition,” Adm. John M. Richardson, the chief of naval operations, said in an interview.
Continue reading the main story

Last week, unarmed Russian warplanes repeatedly buzzed a Navy destroyer in the Baltic Sea and at one point came within 30 feet of the warship, American officials said. Last year some of Russia’s new diesel submarines launched four cruise missiles at targets in Syria.

Mr. Putin’s military modernization program also includes new intercontinental ballistic missiles as well as aircraft, tanks and air defense systems.

To be sure, there is hardly parity between the Russian and American submarine fleets. Russia has about 45 attack submarines — about two dozen are nuclear-powered and 20 are diesel — which are designed to sink other submarines or ships, collect intelligence and conduct patrols. But Western naval analysts say that only about half of those are able to deploy at any given time. Most stay closer to home and maintain an operational tempo far below a Cold War peak.

The United States has 53 attack submarines, all nuclear-powered, as well as four other nuclear-powered submarines that carry cruise missiles and Special Operations forces. At any given time, roughly a third of America’s attack submarines are at sea, either on patrols or training, with the others undergoing maintenance. American Navy officials and Western analysts say that American attack submarines, which are made for speed, endurance and stealth to deploy far from American shores, remain superior to their Russian counterparts.

The Pentagon is also developing sophisticated technology to monitor encrypted communications from Russian submarines and new kinds of remotely controlled or autonomous vessels. Members of the NATO alliance, including Britain, Germany and Norway, are at the same time buying or considering buying new submarines in response to the Kremlin’s projection of force in the Baltic and Arctic.

But Moscow’s recently revised national security and maritime strategies emphasize the need for Russian maritime forces to project power and to have access to the broader Atlantic Ocean as well as the Arctic.


Russian submarines and spy ships now operate near the vital undersea cables that carry almost all global Internet communications, raising concerns among some American military and intelligence officials that the Russians could attack those lines in times of tension or conflict. Russia is also building an undersea unmanned drone capable of carrying a small, tactical nuclear weapon to use against harbors or coastal areas, American military and intelligence analysts said.

And, like the United States, Russia operates larger nuclear-powered submarines that carry long-range nuclear missiles and spend months at a time hiding in the depths of the ocean. Those submarines, although lethal, do not patrol like the attack submarines do, and do not pose the same degree of concern to American Naval officials.

Analysts say that Moscow’s continued investment in attack submarines is in contrast to the quality of many of Russia’s land and air forces that frayed in the post-Cold War era.

“In the Russian naval structure, submarines are the crown jewels for naval combat power,” said Magnus Nordenman, director of the Atlantic Council’s trans-Atlantic security initiative in Washington. “The U.S. and NATO haven’t focused on anti-submarine operations lately, and they’ve let that skill deteriorate.”

That has allowed for a rapid Russian resurgence, Western and American officials say, partly in response to what they say is Russia’s fear of being hemmed in.

“I don’t think many people understand the visceral way Russia views NATO and the European Union as an existential threat,” Admiral Ferguson said in an interview.

In Naples, at the headquarters of the United States Navy’s European operations, including the Sixth Fleet, commanders for the first time in decades are having to closely monitor Russian submarine movements through the maritime choke points separating Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom, the G.I.U.K. Gap, which during the Cold War were crucial to the defense of Europe.

That stretch of ocean, hundreds of miles wide, represented the line that Soviet naval forces would have had to cross to reach the Atlantic and to stop United States forces heading across the sea to reinforce America’s European allies in time of conflict.

American anti-submarine aircraft were stationed for decades at the Naval Air Station Keflavik in Iceland — in the middle of the gap — but they withdrew in 2006, years after the Cold War. The Navy after that relied on P-3 sub-hunter planes rotating periodically through the base.

Now, the Navy is poised to spend about $20 million to upgrade hangars and support sites at Keflavik to handle its new, more advanced P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft. That money is part of the Pentagon’s new $3.4 billion European Reassurance Initiative, a quadrupling of funds from last year to deploy heavy weapons, armored vehicles and other equipment to NATO countries in Central and Eastern Europe, to deter Russian aggression.

Navy officials express concern that more Russian submarine patrols will push out beyond the Atlantic into the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Russia has one Mediterranean port now, in Tartus, Syria, but Navy officials here say Moscow wants to establish others, perhaps in Cyprus, Egypt or even Libya.

“If you have a Russian nuclear attack submarine wandering around the Med, you want to track it,” said Dmitry Gorenburg, a Russian military specialist at the Center for Naval Analyses in Washington.

This month, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency christened a 132-foot prototype drone sea craft packed with sensors, the Sea Hunter, which is made with the intention of hunting autonomously for submarines and mines for up to three months at a time.

The allies are also holding half a dozen anti-submarine exercises this year, including a large drill scheduled later this spring called Dynamic Mongoose in the North Sea. The exercise is to include warships and submarines from Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland and the United States.

“We are not quite back in a Cold War,” said James G. Stavridis, a retired admiral and the former supreme allied commander of NATO, who is now dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. “But I sure can see one from where we are standing.”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://moderntokyotimes.com/?p=4672

Posted on April 21, 2016 by Lee Jay

Turkey and US in Dispute over ISIS and Kurds in Syria: NATO and Rogue State

Ramazan Khalidov, Michiyo Tanabe, and Lee Jay Walker
Modern Tokyo Times

President Erdogan of Turkey is going against the international grain because he and the current ruling party of this nation are focused on containing the Kurds at any cost. Initially, Erdogan – and several Gulf and Western powers – believed that the government of Syria would collapse. However, the Ottoman and Gulf sectarian dream is an utter failure and now Turkey is firmly focused on the Kurdish issue after ISIS (Islamic State – IS) failed to dislodge the Kurds along the border of Turkey. Therefore, the initial objective of Turkey is now being replaced by the Kurdish issue while several Gulf states are now being unnerved by ISIS attacks in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Since the outset of the crisis in Syria, it became clear that several Gulf and NATO powers believed that they could destabilize the government of this nation. Indeed, from the outset sectarian forces and al-Qaeda affiliates entered the fray based on the meddling of outside powers. Not surprisingly, it some became apparent that Syrian government held areas represented the religious mosaic.

This was in stark comparison with various terrorist and sectarian forces that cleansed Christian and Muslim minorities like the Alawites. At the same time, indigenous Sunni Islam became a prime target for various Sunni Takfiri forces. After all, ISIS and other takfiri forces desire to destroy indigenous Sunni Islam, in order to replicate it with sinister Gulf versions emanating from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Despite this, various Gulf and NATO powers continued to support the destabilization of Syria. However, with the domino reality of undermining Iraq and Libya – and other nations – then suddenly America and others now seek to contain the forces they helped to unleash because the situation is out of control.

Yet while the world is in shock by the utter depravity of ISIS and other sectarian forces unleashed on Syria and Iraq, the same doesn’t apply to President Erdogan and the ruling elites in Turkey. This reality means that despite America and Turkey appearing to be moving closer together in recent weeks, in truth, both nations are still at loggerheads. Alas, Erdogan’s hopes of containing the Kurds in northern Syria and overthrowing the government of Syria now appears to be out of step with fellow NATO powers that are now firmly focused on ISIS.

Al Monitor reports “Turkey and the United States may have agreed on the use of the Incirlik Air Base near the southern city of Adana against the Islamic State in Syria, but the deal appears to have some snags, especially with regard to US assistance to Syrian Kurds fighting IS. This unresolved problem is considered one of the reasons why Incirlik has not been used yet in active operations by the US-led coalition, despite the urgency of the fight against IS and other groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra.”

According to the government of Turkey, the Incirlik agreement doesn’t allow America to give support to the YPG (People’s Protection Units). After all, Turkey deems the containment of the Kurds to be of more importance than ISIS and other takfiri groups like al-Nusra (al-Nusrah). However, for America, the main focus is ISIS and assisting various Kurdish groups in Iraq and Syria respectively. Indeed, even the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) is viewed differently under the prevailing conditions because the PKK have assisted Kurdish forces that are being supported by America.

The Independent reports about the dangerous fiasco between America and Turkey by stating “Even if this dispute is ultimately resolved, it highlights the contradiction at the heart of US policy: Washington is teaming up with a Turkish government whose prime objective in Syria is to prevent the further expansion of PYD/YPG territory which already extends along 250 miles of the 550-mile-long Syrian-Turkish border. In brief, Ankara’s objective is the precise opposite of Washington’s and little different from that of ISIS, which has been battling on the ground to hold back the PYD/YPG advance.”

Since America and Turkey announced their alleged agreement then clearly the Kurds are suffering and not ISIS. In Iraq military warplanes of Turkey are busying themselves with bombing the PKK in the Qandil Mountains and in other areas of northern Iraq. On top of this, internal security forces in Turkey have mainly arrested Kurds and socialists in comparison with clamping down on ISIS. Similarly, democratic politicians within the HDP (Kurdish People’s Democratic Party) in Turkey face growing hostility based on the intrigues of Erdogan and the ruling party.

In places ranging from Armenia (Nagorno-Karabakh), northern Cyprus, Egypt, Libya and Syria – and in other nations in relation to international jihadists and militant Chechens aimed at southern Russia and Syria – then the real international pariah is Turkey. However, the significance of Turkey within NATO and the old Cold War meant that blind eyes were a done deal in the past. Yet times are changing because Turkey is now coming under closer scrutiny. Therefore, even if fellow NATO powers loathe to speak out openly against Turkey the Kurdish issue will further lead to growing schisms with political elites in Ankara.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-pursues-ties-with-kurds-to-keep-foothold-in-region-1461239887

World

Russia Pursues Ties With Kurds to Keep Foothold in Region

Kremlin says it has sent troops to fight with Kurdish units in Syria and is providing weapons to Kurds in Iraq


By Thomas Grove in Moscow and Ben Kesling in Sulaymaniyah, Iraq
April 21, 2016 7:58 a.m. ET
37 COMMENTS

The Russian government says it has sent troops to fight alongside Kurdish units in northwestern Syria and is providing weapons to Iraqi Kurds in a tactic that could upstage a long-standing U.S. alliance with the stateless ethnic group and increase Moscow’s influence in the region.

Russian and Kurdish officials say the Kremlin intends to keep a foothold in the area by cultivating ties with some Kurdish groups through weapons, ammunition and oil deals, building on its presence established through its relationship with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Russia’s support appears to be focused on one group in western Syria, the Afrin Kurds, an American defense official said.

The Afrin Kurds have not been backed by the U.S., which has supported an umbrella group of Syrian Kurdish fighters, known as the People’s Defense Units, or YPG.

The U.S. relies on Kurdish militants in Syria as one of its most effective allies in the fight against Islamic State. That support has angered Turkey, which sees the YPG as a threat for its close ties with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK.

The PKK is considered a terrorist group by the U.S., Turkey and the European Union.

The Kremlin’s maneuver comes amid U.S. concerns that Russia is redeploying troops and weapons in Syria in preparation for a return to full-scale fighting in the near future.

Russian President Vladimir Putin last week said Russian soldiers have been fighting alongside Syrian Kurds around the strategic battleground of Aleppo, although American intelligence officials questioned whether those troops were on the front lines.

BN-NR045_backgr_4_20160421131328.jpg

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-NR045_backgr_4_20160421131328.jpg

The American officials said Mr. Putin’s announcement was likely a provocation against the U.S. and Turkey.

Russia maintains two bases in Syria, and an unknown number of troops and aircraft, and officials say the country’s forces still provide some air support and targeting information on the ground to allies there.

Russia and the U.S. are also both supporting Kurdish fighters battling Islamic State in Iraq. The Pentagon announced Monday it would be increasing its presence in Iraq and providing an additional $415 million in aid to the Iraqi Kurdish fighters, known as Peshmerga. The U.S. currently has an advising and training mission with the Peshmerga and occasionally partners with them on special operations missions, according to Col. Steve Warren, spokesman for the Pentagon in Iraq.

Russian officials have disclosed recently that they are supplying more weapons to Iraqi Kurds as that group prepares to step up its fight against Islamic State and help in the eventual battle for Mosul.

The Pentagon remains unruffled by Russian overtures to the Kurds in Iraq and isn’t scrambling to counter them, Col. Warren said. “The Russians have been selling arms to various players in Iraq for 50 years,” Col. Warren said.

Mark Katz, a professor at George Mason University who focuses on Russian foreign policy affairs, said, however, that Moscow’s move might goad the Americans into stepping up arms supplies to prevent Russia from gaining the upper hand.

“Even if the U.S. hasn’t been forthcoming,” Mr. Katz said, “maybe a little competition from Russia can get the U.S. to do so.”

Russian outreach to the Kurds follows friction with Turkey. After Turkey downed a Russian Su-24 warplane late last year, Russia quickly pressed Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to demand Kurdish participation in Syrian peace talks, a move seen as a direct swipe at Ankara.

Before Russia’s intervention, the Kurds had no champion and no substantial claim to be part of the peace talks. Last month, Mr. Erdogan warned Russia it was risking its own security by aligning itself with the Syrian Kurds.

Turkey is embroiled in a multi-front battle with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party—the PKK—and Ankara has watched with alarm as the U.S. has deepened its ties with the Syrian affiliate of the PKK.

In political circles, Russia’s outreach to Kurds in Iraq is raising concern about more tension between Moscow and Washington, which wants to keep Iraq a unitary state.

“Russia will take on any opportunity it can to undermine U.S. interests globally, but they don’t always think through the consequences,” said Rep. Seth Moulton (D., Mass.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee. “We’re concerned about the long-term stability of Iraq and I don’t think they are.”

Russian officials say their most recent arms package to the Iraqi Kurds, mostly small arms, arrived in mid-March; a delegation from Kurdistan visited Moscow this month to discuss the matter. A Kurdish delegation will also travel to St. Petersburg in June, according to the Russian ambassador to Iraq.

Authorities in Erbil, Iraqi Kurdistan’s capital, said they are expecting another delivery of more advanced weapons in May.

The arms deliveries are a potentially sensitive point for the Iraqi government. The Kurdish Regional Government in Erbil enjoys a high degree of autonomy, but controlling arms distribution has been a key way for Baghdad to keep the Kurds tied to the federal government.

Other weapons shipments may not have to be agreed to with Baghdad, said two officials, one with knowledge of Russia’s diplomatic efforts with the Kurds and another one with close to the Russian Defense Ministry.

“There are several levels of arms deliveries,” said the official close to the Defense Ministry. “On one level, we deliver weapons only through the capital, but with an order from the president we can also bypass the capitals involved or deliver through more covert means, like a special operation.”

The Iraqi ministry of defense didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.

Last month , during a conference in the Kurdish town of Sulaymaniyah, Staff Gen. Araz Abdul Qadir, a Peshmerga brigade commander, said the Kurds support bypassing Baghdad to get arms. “It’s a long way from Baghdad,” he said. “Make it shorter, we have an airport in Erbil.”

At the same conference, Amb. Ilya Margonov, Russia’s ambassador to Iraq, said in an interview that Moscow continues to honor its agreement to send all Kurdish armaments through the central government, but that he expected top Kurdish officials for direct talks in Moscow over the summer. He also said Moscow will likely be willing to supply weapons that require advanced training.

“If the Kurds express some desire to receive more advanced weapons we will discuss that with Baghdad,” he said.

For decades Russia, has struck a delicate balance between supporting the Kurds, and the governments of the countries they live in: Iran, Syria, Turkey and Iraq.

During the Soviet era, Moscow hosted Kurds fleeing violence in the region, notably hosting a young Masoud Barzani, Iraqi Kurdistan’s current president, after his father escaped the fall of a Soviet-backed Kurdish republic in Iran in 1946.

Kurdish fighters’ well-publicized successes against Islamic State, and a perception in the region that Americans haven’t given full-bore support, have given Moscow new reason to boost ties with a group likely to play a strong role in a new Syria.

“There is no doubt that the Kurdish factors will be one of the most important factors in the Middle East transformation in years to come,“ said Fyodor Lukyanov, head of a Kremlin advisory body known as Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy.

Write to Thomas Grove at thomas.grove@wsj.com and Ben Kesling at benjamin.kesling@wsj.com
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/chinas-xi-moves-direct-command-military-38559622

China's Xi Moves to Take More Direct Command Over Military

By Christopher Bodeen, Associated Press ·BEIJING — Apr 21, 2016, 10:22 AM ET

Chinese President Xi Jinping has assumed a more direct role over the country's powerful armed forces as head of its increasingly important joint operations, displaying both his strong personal authority and China's determination to defend its interests.

The move to make Xi commander in chief of the military's Joint Operations Command Center bolsters his status as China's most powerful leader in decades and comes at a time when Beijing is becoming increasingly bold in its territorial assertions, despite a growing pushback from Washington and others.

Xi already enjoys special influence with the armed forces, largely because his muscular foreign policy is popular among Chinese nationalists and the defense establishment.

That's especially true in the disputed South China Sea, which China claims virtually in its entirety and where it has constructed airfields on former coral reefs and sought to limit the U.S. Navy's ability to operate in the area.

Xi has remained resolute in that approach, although it has been blamed for raising tensions with China's Southeast Asian neighbors and has prompted the U.S. to devote more resources to Asia and strengthen its cooperation with traditional allies and even former foe Vietnam.

Xi visited the Joint Operations Command Center — reportedly located underground in the western outskirts of Beijing — on Wednesday and said officers need to prepare for conflicts and effectively handle "all sorts of emergencies," state media reported Thursday.

Xi was shown publicly for the first time in camouflage battle dress with the joint center's insignia, rather than the featureless olive drab attire he usually wears when acting in his capacity as chairman of the Communist Party commission that oversees the 2.3 million-member People's Liberation Army , the world's largest standing armed forces.

Xi's choice of apparel "indicates that he not only controls the military, but also does it in an absolute manner, and that in wartime, he is ready to command personally," said Ni Lexiong, a military affairs expert at Shanghai's University of Political Science and Law.

"The most important message he meant to send to the world is that he will not make a concession on the issue of territory even at the cost of a war," Ni said.

The joint center is under the direct supervision of the Central Military Commission, whose two vice chairmen, Gen. Fan Changlong and Gen. Xu Qiliang, accompanied Xi on his visit.

Xi's new title and appearance in battle dress may also be a deliberate message to China's chief rivals, including the U.S., Japan, the Philippines and the self-governing island of Taiwan that China has vowed to conquer by force if necessary.

"The combat uniform is not only to show he is in charge of the military, but also shows that China is ready for a fight amid a tense external situation. It is a bit like telling China's opponents that he is ready for combat," Ni said.

Three years since taking on the presidency, Xi is widely seen as having accumulated more power and authority than any Chinese leader since Deng Xiaoping in the late 1980s. A cult of personality has also sprung up around him rivaling that of the founder of the Communist state, Mao Zedong, with Xi's slogans, sayings and signature political themes widely disseminated in the media.

Xi's cachet with the armed forces is enhanced further by the reputation of his late father, who was a military commander during China's revolution, as well as by Xi's own brief service as an aide to a former defense minister.

Among his other titles, Xi is also leader of the ruling Communist Party and chairman of a recently created National Security Council, which gives him greater control over the domestic security services.

As head of the military, Xi has overseen a reorganization of the PLA's command structure into five theater commands aimed at better integrating the different services. He has ordered a 300,000-person reduction in forces that will see the elimination of many outdated and non-combat units, and shift the emphasis further from ground forces to the navy, air force and missile corps.

Xi has highlighted the PLA's importance with frequent, highly publicized visits to military bases and a massive parade last September in which the army's latest equipment was wheeled through the center of Beijing while warplanes and helicopters roared overhead.

Yet his reputation has also been called into question by anonymous letters, allegedly from Communist Party members, calling for his resignation. Revelations in the international media about vast wealth accumulated by members of his extended family have flown in the face of his relentless campaign against corruption in the party, military and state industries.

Xi's new title is "more political than military" in significance and doesn't imply he will take charge of the day-to-day running of the PLA, said Andrei Chang, Hong Kong-based editor of the magazine Kanwa Asian Defense and a close observer of Chinese military affairs.

"Throughout Chinese history, political power has always been founded on control of the military," Chang said. "This was a visit to show off his muscle to his potential enemies and show that he is tough and in charge."
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-russia-israel-idUSKCN0XJ14O

World | Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:49am EDT
Related: World, Russia, Syria, Israel

Russian forces in Syria fired on Israeli aircraft: Israeli newspaper

Russian forces in Syria have fired at least twice on Israeli military aircraft, prompting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to seek improved operational coordination with Moscow, Israel's top-selling newspaper said on Friday.

Asked about the alleged incidents, however, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said: "In this case, Israeli press reports are far from reality."

But Netanyahu, in remarks published by Israeli reporters whom he briefed by phone on his talks on Thursday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, said "there have been problems" regarding Israeli military freedom of operation in Syria.

He gave no details, but said: "If you don't deal with the friction, it could develop into something more serious."

The unsourced report in Yedioth Ahronoth made no mention of dates or locations for the two reported incidents, nor did it give any indication of whether the Israeli planes were hit.

Russia mounted its military intervention in Syria in September to shore Damascus up amid a now 5-year-old rebellion.

Separately, Israel's Channel 10 TV said a Russian warplane approached an Israeli warplane off the Mediterranean coast of Syria last week but that there was no contact between them.

An Israeli military spokesman declined comment. Netanyahu's office and the Russian embassy in Israel did not immediately respond.

Israel, which says it has carried out dozens of bombings in Syria to foil suspected arms handovers to Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas, was quick to set up an operational hotline with Moscow designed to avoid accidentally trading fire with Russian interventionary forces.

In Moscow on Thursday, Netanyahu told Putin in televised remarks: "I came here with one main goal - to strengthen the security coordination between us so as to avoid mishaps, misunderstandings and unnecessary confrontations."

In an apparent allusion to Syria, Putin said: "I think there are understandable reasons for these intensive contacts (with Israel), given the complicated situation in the region."

According to Yedioth, the reported Russian fire on Israeli planes was first raised with Putin by Israeli President Reuven Rivlin, who visited Moscow on March 15. At the time, Putin responded that he was unaware of the incidents, Yedioth said.


(Writing by Dan Williams and Jeffrey Heller; Additional reporting by Maria Tsvetkova in Moscow; Editing by Hugh Lawson)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-china-nuclearpower-idUSKCN0XJ075

World | Fri Apr 22, 2016 4:54am EDT
Related: World, China, Nuclear Power, South China Sea

China could build nuclear plants for South China Sea, paper says

BEIJING | By Ben Blanchard

China is getting closer to building maritime nuclear power platforms that could one day be used to support projects in the disputed South China Sea, a state-run newspaper said on Friday, but the foreign ministry said it had not heard of the plans.

China has rattled nerves with its military and construction activities on the islands it occupies in the South China Sea, including building runways, though Beijing says most of the construction is meant for civilian purposes, like lighthouses.

The Global Times, an influential tabloid published by the ruling Communist Party's official People's Daily, said the nuclear power platforms could "sail" to remote areas and provide a stable power supply.

China Shipbuilding Industry Corp, the company in charge of designing and building the platforms, is "pushing forward the work", said Liu Zhengguo, the head of its general office.

"The development of nuclear power platforms is a burgeoning trend," Liu told the paper. "The exact number of plants to be built by the company depends on the market demand."

Demand is "pretty strong", he added, without elaborating.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying played down the story as a media report, however.

"I've not heard here of the relevant situation," Hua told a daily news briefing, without elaborating.

In January, two Chinese state-owned energy companies, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) and China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN), signed a strategic cooperation framework pact on offshore oil and nuclear power.

CGN has been developing a small modular nuclear reactor for maritime use, called the ACPR50S, to provide power for offshore oil and gas exploration and production. It expects to begin building a demonstration project in 2017.

Xu Dazhe, head of China's atomic safety commission, told reporters in January the floating platforms were in the planning stage and must undergo "strict and scientific demonstrations".

Chinese naval expert Li Jie told the Global Times the platforms could power lighthouses, defense facilities, airports and harbors in the South China Sea. "Normally we have to burn oil or coal for power," Li said.

It was important to develop a maritime nuclear power platform as changing weather and ocean conditions presented a challenge in transporting fuel to the distant Spratlys, he added.

China claims almost the entire South China Sea, believed to have huge deposits of oil and gas, and is building islands on reefs to bolster its claims. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have claims to parts of the waters, through which about $5 trillion in trade is shipped every year.


(Additional reporting by David Stanway; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...lerated-in-Nordic-asylum-centers-despite-bans

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-brides-idUSKCN0XI1MZ

World | Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:05am EDT
Related: World

Child brides sometimes tolerated in Nordic asylum centers despite bans

OSLO | By Alister Doyle


Some child brides are living with older husbands in asylum centers in Scandinavia, triggering a furor about lapses in protection for girls in nations that ban child marriage.

Authorities have in some cases let girls stay with their partners, believing it is less traumatic for them than forced separation after fleeing wars in nations such as Afghanistan or Syria.

Some girls have also passed themselves off as adults.

Both these issues have caused unease in Scandinavia, where critics say that the authorities risk complicity in child abuse.

Of 31,000 asylum seekers who arrived in Norway in the past year or so, 10 of those aged under 16 -- the minimum local age for sex or marriage -- were married and four had children, the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration (UDI) said.

Of the 10 "some live in adult asylum centers, some in their own rooms and some with their partners," it said in emailed replies to Reuters questions.

"Minors seeking asylum are in a difficult situation where they have left their homeland, family and friends, and the partner they have traveled with can be the only person they know and trust in Norway," said Heidi Vibeke Pedersen, a senior UDI official.

A subsequent tightening of rules means such couples arriving now are separated, she said, and child protection authorities were reviewing all cases from 2015.

Some child protection agencies say any bride aged under 18 should be placed in a special center for children.

"To place them with their partner in facilities rigged for adults is not acceptable," said Camilla Kayed, of the Ombudsman for Children Norway, an official watchdog for children's rights.


COUNCIL OF EUROPE

She said there were no clear European rules for separating child brides and that Oslo had "unfortunately not ratified" conventions by the Council of Europe mapping out ways to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse.

And similar problems have occurred elsewhere.

In February, Danish Integration Minister Inger Stojberg said that she would "stop housing child brides in asylum centers" after a review found dozens of cases of girls living with older men.

Couples younger than 18 would not be allowed to live together without "exceptional reasons", said Sarah Andersen, spokeswoman for the Integration Ministry.

"There will never be exceptions in cases where one side is below the age of 15," she said.

In Denmark, 15 is the minimum age for sex and for marrying with a special permit. Denmark took in 20,000 asylum seekers last year.

In January, after reports by Swedish Radio, authorities said that at least 70 girls under 18 were married in asylum centers run by municipalities including Stockholm and Malmo.

"This is worrying," Sweden's Ombudsman for Children Fredrik Malmberg wrote in a blog, urging better child protection.

"We know that children fleeing are very vulnerable both for human trafficking and to become targets of forced marriage."

In Sweden, the lowest age for sex is 15 and marriage 18.

PLAN, a non-governmental organization which helps children in developing nations, believes there are 15 million child marriages every year and says developed nations should never approve.

"If the girl is aged under 16, the minimum age for sexual intercourse in Norway, the child bride refugee should be separated from her husband even if they have children together and even if they say they want to stay together," said Kjell Erik Oie, head of PLAN Norway.

Poor parents in developing nations sometimes marry off their daughters when times get hard to reduce food and other bills.

In the north Norwegian county of Finnmark, authorities are investigating circumstances surrounding a Syrian girl, now aged 16 who already has one child and is pregnant again, police lawyer Jens Herstad said.

"We still have to hear the husband's account," he said.


(Editing by Alistair Scrutton and Tony Jimenez)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
:dot5::siren::dot5:

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-denies-reports-massing-troops-north-korea-border-090255421.html

China denies reports of massing troops at North Korea border

Reuters
April 22, 2016
Comments 30

BEIJING (Reuters) - China's Defense Ministry on Friday denied reports that Chinese troops were massing on the North Korean border, ahead of a possible fifth North Korean nuclear test, saying its deployments there were normal.

The Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy said earlier this week that China had sent 2,000 troops to the border, a story picked up by Russian and Iranian news outlets, among others.

The decision was made ahead of the expected testing of North Korea's fifth nuclear device, the report said, in violation of U.N. sanctions.

"The relevant report does not accord with the facts," the Defense Ministry said in a short statement. "The Chinese military maintains normal combat readiness and training on the China-North Korea border."

It did not elaborate.

Reports periodically surface about unusual troops movements on the border, which are hard to verify independently and generally quickly denied by the Chinese government.

North Korea has vowed to conduct further nuclear tests, despite stepped up international sanctions.

Some experts expect North Korea to conduct a fifth nuclear test in the near future, possibly before a ruling party congress in early May, following an embarrassing failure of a test of an intermediate-range missile earlier this month.

China is North Korea's most important economic and diplomatic backer, but has been infuriated by North Korea's nuclear and missile tests and has signed on for tough U.N. sanctions.

North Korea and the rich, democratic South are still technically at war after the 1950-53 conflict ended in an armistice, not a treaty. China and North Korea fought side-by-side against a U.S.-backed South Korea, which joined forces under the U.N. flag.

The North routinely threatens to destroy South Korea and the United States.

(Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Editing by Nick Macfie)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/permanen...er-deter-russia-172059642--finance.html?nhp=1

Permanent US armored force in Europe would better deter Russia: U.S. general

April 21, 2016

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An armored U.S. military brigade permanently stationed in Europe would be more effective at deterring Russian aggression in the region than the current rotational presence, the Army general nominated to lead U.S. forces in Europe said on Thursday.

General Curtis Scaparrotti, President Barack Obama's choice to lead U.S. European Command and become the next NATO supreme allied commander, said he agreed with other military leaders that Russia posed the greatest threat to the United States and Washington should be firm in asserting its rights.

"From a military perspective, we should sail and fly wherever we are allowed to by international law, and we should be strong, clear and consistent in our message in that regard," Scaparrotti told his nomination hearing when asked about a recent incident in which Russian jets buzzed a U.S. warship.

Scaparrotti told the Senate Armed Services Committee he thought Washington should supply Ukraine with the arms it needs to defend itself against Russian-backed forces, including an anti-tank missile like the Javelin. He also said he was "concerned" about the threat Russian submarines pose to U.S. shipping routes.

Scaparrotti and Air Force General Lori Robinson, Obama's nominee to become the next leader of U.S. Northern Command, both identified Russia as the top U.S. military threat.

Scaparrotti told lawmakers a resurgent Russia was displaying "increasingly aggressive behavior that challenges the international norms, often in violation of international law."

Asked about U.S. forces in Europe, he said a permanent U.S. armored brigade would be better at deterring Russia than the current rotational presence.

The United States began reducing its presence in the region several years ago due to big cuts in defense spending, replacing permanent units with rotations of troops that traveled to Europe for training.

But Russia's seizure of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula led the U.S. military to increase its presence again. In March, it said it would deploy rotations of U.S.-based armored brigade combat teams to Europe. A typical U.S. Army armored brigade has about 4,500 soldiers.

The teams would be on nine-month rotations starting in February 2017, and would conduct military exercises across Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary. Scaparrotti told lawmakers a permanent presence would be better.

"A permanent brigade ... establishes relationships with the supporting elements of all forces from the United States as well as a more permanent relationship ... with all of our allies," he said. It "gives you a little more substance, a little more strength in relationship building."

(Reporting by Idrees Ali and David Alexander; Editing by James Dalgleish)

View Comments (60)
 

vestige

Deceased
April 21, 2016

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An armored U.S. military brigade permanently stationed in Europe would be more effective at deterring Russian aggression in the region than the current rotational presence, the Army general nominated to lead U.S. forces in Europe said on Thursday.

Deja Vu all over again.

Back to the Chicken Farm.

The food was good.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Deja Vu all over again.

Back to the Chicken Farm.

The food was good.

Yeah. Too many amateurs and people wearing blinders involved between the EU and in DC for way too long both in terms of handling defense and pushing policies that are counterproductive with regards to Russia and security in Eurasia in general.
 

vestige

Deceased
Yeah. Too many amateurs and people wearing blinders involved between the EU and in DC for way too long both in terms of handling defense and pushing policies that are counterproductive with regards to Russia and security in Eurasia in general.

Warthogs, Rockeyes and tactical nukes kept the gap relatively safe years ago.

M-60s.... not so much.

I doubt the M-1 Abrams will make much difference.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Problem is that ISIS is reportedly using blister agents, that means you don't just need gas masks, but full MOPP gear...


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/22...pons-against-the-kurds-why-wont-the-u-s-help/

Report

ISIS Is Using Chemical Weapons Against the Kurds. Why Won’t the U.S. Help?

With ISIS launching chemical attacks, Kurdish leaders in Iraq have issued an appeal to the West for gas masks. But they are still waiting for the gear.

By Dan De Luce
April 22, 2016
Dan.DeLuce@dandeluce

After Islamic State militants fired mortars this week at Kurdish military posts in northern Iraq, the Peshmerga fighters complained of nausea, vomiting, and a burning sensation in their eyes. Their symptoms reflected telltale reactions to sulfur mustard gas, a blistering agent that the Islamic State has been employing with increasing and alarming frequency on the battlefield.

The rise in chemical attacks by the Islamic State has prompted the Kurdish regional government to issue an urgent request to Washington and other Western capitals for thousands of gas masks. But Erbil is still waiting for most of the protective masks to arrive.

As America’s most effective ally in the campaign against the Islamic State group, Kurdish officials say privately they are puzzled by the delay, especially given the Kurdish people’s tragic experience as victims of chemical weapons.

On March 16, 1988, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s military targeted the Kurdish town of Halabja near the Iranian border with the deadly nerve agent sarin and mustard gas, killing about 5,000 people and injuring thousands more. It remains the single worst chemical weapons attack on a civilian population in history.

Over the past year, Kurds have become reaquainted with the acrid smell of mustard gas. Hundreds of Kurdish troops and civilians have been injured in chemical attacks by the Islamic State and one 3-year-old child was killed in Taza in March, according to regional authorities.

Kurdish leaders and military officers say they need tens of thousands of gas masks for the 65,000 troops that are deployed in the fight against the Islamic State. So far, the Kurdish forces have 6,000 gas masks, including about 4,000 from the United States for two brigades being trained by American military advisers, said Brig. Gen. Hazhar Ismail of the Kurdish Peshmerga forces.

But the United States has promised an additional 5,000 masks and it’s not clear when those will be delivered, the general told Foreign Policy in an email.

Kurdish leaders believe the threat is mounting, especially as the U.S.-led coalition and the Iraqi government draws up plans for a crucial offensive this year to recapture the city of Mosul, where they fear the Islamic State could be prepared to launch larger-scale chemical weapons attacks.

“We are very concerned about ISIS using chemical weapons,” Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, the representative for the Kurdish Regional Government in Washington, told Foreign Policy.

“They’re using them with increasing frequency, and increasing sophistication,” she said. The rising number of attacks represents “a clear warning that they intend to use them in the fight to liberate Mosul.”

The Kurdistan regional government’s deputy prime minister, Qubad Talabani, led a delegation to Washington last week and raised the issue in talks with Pentagon and State Department officials.

“We have been asking for the gas masks for some time,” Rahman said.

But she said it was not a case of Kurdish requests being ignored: “The United States is definitely listening and very much engaging with us on all these issues.”

The pending request for gas masks has reinforced concerns for some U.S. lawmakers that Washington needs to be doing more to help the Kurds, and to ship weapons and other aid directly to the Kurdish region instead of through the central government in Baghdad, which is wracked by political instability that threatens the future of the American-backed prime minister, Haider al-Abadi.

“Even as the Peshmerga have successfully fought, retaken, and hold the most territory from ISIS, their ground forces remain woefully under-equipped,” Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) told FP.

“Specifically, the lack of chemical protective equipment, given the history of chemical weapons attacks against the Kurds and ISIS now using those weapons, is deeply concerning.”

Officials in President Barack Obama’s administration said they were not sure how many gas masks were supposed to be provided to the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) or why the delivery had been delayed for months.

The Pentagon said it has supplied the Kurds with 4,000 gas masks to the brigades it was training. “We are in discussions with the KRG on any additional needs they may have,” spokesman Peter Cook told FP.

The Kurdish authorities are asking for donated equipment because plunging oil prices and an influx of refugees have created a budget deficit crisis of about $100 million a month for the regional government. Responding to an appeal from Kurdish leaders, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced this week that Washington would provide $415 million to help the Kurds cover the costs of military operations and to feed and pay its Peshmerga soldiers whose salaries are three months in arrears. But it was unclear if the assistance could cover the costs of gas masks.

The Islamic State has resorted to chemical weapons as it has come under mounting pressure on the battlefield, losing control of about 40 percent of its territory in Iraq, suffering damage to its oil smuggling operations, and having a number of senior figures captured or killed by U.S. forces. This month Iraqi forces backed by U.S. warplanes forced the Islamic State out of the city of Hit.

In its chemical weapons assaults with mortars and rockets, the group has used mustard gas, a yellowish vapor that can form potentially lethal blisters on the skin and lungs, and chlorine, another chemical that induces choking. The international body that oversees the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), has confirmed that mustard gas has been used in some previous attacks in northern Iraq and has offered to help Baghdad document and verify the latest chemical assaults.

“The OPCW has taken serious note of these disturbing reports against the background of confirmed use of chemical weapons in Iraq. Any use of chemical weapons is abhorrent and a violation of universally accepted international norms,” the organization’s director-general, Ambassador Ahmet Üzümc, said in a statement last month.

Although outside governments, rights organizations, and the OPCW have closely monitored reports of chemical weapons attacks and voiced concern, U.S. and Western officials have not heavily focused on the issue in public statements.

“It’s not a high threat. We’re not, frankly, losing too much sleep over it,” Col. Steven Warren, spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, told reporters last month when asked about the mustard gas attacks.

The chemical weapons assaults, which have injured significant numbers of Peshmerga troops but not proved lethal so far, have been overshadowed by other atrocities and barbaric massacres committed by the Islamic State that have produced high death tolls and grisly video clips.

“Burning a pilot inside a cage. That leaves an image. But if somebody has blistered and reddened skin, it just doesn’t have the same psychological effect,” said John Gilbert, a retired U.S. Air Force military intelligence officer and a chemical weapons expert with the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

Unlike some governments, such as the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, the Islamic State group makes no effort to conceal its war crimes and cannot be coerced into halting the use of chemical weapons through the threat of sanctions or military action, Gilbert said.

Since the 1988 massacre at Halabja, the most significant chemical weapons attack against civilians was carried out by Assad’s forces in a suburb of Damascus in August 2013, when hundreds of civilians were killed in an assault using rockets filled with sarin. Afterward, the Assad regime, seeking to avert possible U.S. military intervention, agreed to have its stockpile of chemical weapons removed under international supervision.

However, Syrian regime forces have continued to launch attacks against rebels using chlorine, a toxic industrial gas, which was not included on a list of chemical weapons it submitted for removal.

The latest chemical attack by the Islamic State was carried out on Tuesday in Makhmour, where Iraqi and Kurdish troops are gathering before an eventual offensive on Mosul, the country’s second-largest city. The group appears to have concentrated a number of mustard gas attacks on Makhmour, perhaps in a bid to spread terror among the Kurdish and Iraqi fighters there. To support local forces with artillery fire, the U.S. military recently set up a base in the area with 200 Marines. An Islamic State rocket attack last month killed one of the Marines stationed there.

Despite concerns about the chemical attacks and shortage of protective masks, homemade bombs from the Islamic State have caused most of the casualties among Kurdish forces in the war. And the chemicals being deployed by the Islamic State have not included lethal nerve agents such as sarin or VX.

The first confirmation that the Islamic State was using mustard gas on the battlefield came in August 2015, based on lab tests of samples taken from 35 Kurdish fighters.

In February, after a six-month period of relative quiet, the Islamic State launched three separate chemical weapons attacks on Kurdish forces in the area around Sinjar, which had been recaptured from the Islamic State the previous November. On Feb. 11, a barrage of mortars injured more than 150 fighters, according to the Peshmerga. On Feb. 25, more than a dozen rockets armed with chemicals — suspected to be chlorine in this case — induced nausea and vomiting in nearly 200 fighters and civilians. A third attack occurred two days later.

The extremists kept up the attacks into the next month, causing three civilians to be hospitalized on March 2 in Sinjar and injuring a dozen on March 3 at a strategic juncture north of Mosul. Days later, the Islamic State used rockets to disperse a haze of mustard gas over a third Iraqi village, injuring as many as 670 civilians, according to Peshmerga spokesman Gen. Ismail.

Experts believe the Islamic State is able to make the mustard gas in Mosul, using precursors available from captured oil facilities. But U.S. officials say the group’s chemical weapons ambitions suffered a serious blow when American special operations forces captured Sleiman Daoud al-Afari in a village near Mosul in February. Afari was a chemical and biological weapons expert in Saddam Hussein’s regime and believed to be the mastermind behind the Islamic State group’s chemical weapons production.

U.S. officials have gained insights into the chemical program through interrogations of Afari, who explained how the mustard was weaponized for artillery shells. The intelligence collected reportedly led to airstrikes against a production facility and a unit related to the program.

Although mustard gas can be lethal, the weapon has caused a relatively small percentage of battlefield deaths since it was introduced in World War I. The gas can kill victims who are near a shell or mortar round when it explodes, as the mustard can cause choking or damage lung tissue. And research from previous wars, including the Iran-Iraq war, has shown that injuries from mustard gas can last a lifetime.

But the destructive effect of the mustard gas and chlorine pales in comparison with its enduring psychological impact, said Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former British army officer and chemical weapons specialist who has urged supplying the Kurds with gas masks.

“It is the fear of chemical weapons that is the real killer, rather than the toxicity of the agents,” he wrote in a commentary in the Daily Telegraph.

The World War I poet Wilfred Owen famously described the horrific sight of a fellow soldier writhing from the effects of mustard gas in Dulce et Decorum Est:

As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

FP‘s Henry Johnson contributed to this article.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Talk about something stupid this way comes.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/guatemala-deploys-3-000-troops-disputed-border-belize-164649727.html

Guatemala deploys 3,000 troops to disputed border with Belize

Henry Morales
AFP
April 22, 2016

Guatemala City (AFP) - Guatemala has deployed 3,000 troops to its disputed border with Belize following a shooting incident that killed a Guatemalan teen, Defense Minister Williams Mansilla said Friday.

"It is a preventive measure, it is not a declaration of war," Mansilla told AFP by telephone from northern Guatemala, where he was overseeing the deployment.

The United States expressed concerned over the sudden spike in tensions between the two Central American nations.

The State Department issued a statement to "urge calm and restraint by both sides."

Guatemala has made claims over more than half of Belize's territory dating back 150 years to when its small neighbor was a British colony known as British Honduras.

- Contesting accounts -

Tensions between the two have long been simmering despite agreement to try to resolve the territorial dispute in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) following separate referendums.

They ratcheted up dramatically on Wednesday, when a shooting incident occurred that each country said happened on its side of the border.

According to Guatemala, a Belize patrol shot and killed a 13-year-old Guatemalan boy walking home from field labor, and wounded his father and brother.

Belize rejected that version and said one of its patrols came under fire from Guatemalan civilians and responded in "justifiable self-defense."

Each side accuses the other of a preceding series of other acts of violence, and fears are rising over the militarization along the border.

The State Department said it was "deeply concerned" by the reports of the boy's death. It expressed condolences to his family.

"We urge calm and restraint by both sides, and we call for a full investigation of the facts surrounding this tragedy," the statement said.

- Test for new leader -

Guatemala's foreign ministry on Friday issued a statement saying that Belize's forces have killed 10 Guatemalan civilians since 1999.

"Far from investigating what happened and punishing those responsible to have used their weapons, they were decorated as heroes," the ministry said.

Belize's government on Thursday issued its own statement, saying the attack on its patrol "is part of a continued pattern of aggression by Guatemalan civilians engaged in illegal activities on Belize's side of the Adjacency Zone."

Although Belize became independent in 1981, Guatemala did not recognize it for another decade because of its territorial claims, prompting Britain to keep a small military presence in its former colony as a deterrent until five years ago.

The escalating border dispute is the first foreign policy challenge for Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales, a former TV comedian who took office in January after pulling off a surprise victory in an election to replace his predecessor felled by a corruption scandal.

In a recorded address to the nation Thursday, Morales accused Belize of "cowardice" over the killing, saying Guatemalan forces would assert "strict protection for the sovereignty" of the border river.

The Organization of American States and Britain both also voiced concern over the rising tensions and urged the two neighbors to leave the dispute in the ICJ's hands.

"The general secretariat of the OAS calls on the governments of Belize and Guatemala to avoid an escalation of tensions and redouble their efforts to establish a lasting peace in the Adjacency Zone between the two countries," the organization said.

Britain's minister of state for Latin American affairs, Hugo Swire, appealed for "moderation" from both nations and said the ICJ was "the best path" to settle the dispute.


Comments (24)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ending_u_s_troops_to_liberate_mosul_from.html

Military analysis.
April 22 2016 11:48 AM

We Are Going to War in Iraq Against ISIS

It’s a small-scale conflict, but big questions about a political solution linger.

By Fred Kaplan
Comments 654

Almost five years after President Obama withdrew the last American troops from Iraq, the tidal waves of the war in that country are pulling him back in.

Obama has been resisting those tides, at first restricting himself to mounting airstrikes against ISIS, then sending trainers, then special operations forces initially as “advisers,” but increasingly in roles that place them on the edge of combat—and, very soon now, in the thick of it.


Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced this week that, for the coming battle to liberate Mosul, another 217 troops will be sent to Iraq (bringing the total to 4,087, not counting the few-hundred special operations forces); that they’ll move to the front lines with Iraqi soldiers on the battalion level (before, American troops tended to stay on bases); that they and the Iraqis will be supported in the air not only by drones and fighter jets but also by Apache helicopters—and on the ground by the new High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, which can fire waves of rockets or missiles from long range with great accuracy. (One military source on the ground says that these advanced artillery rockets have been pounding ISIS targets for a couple of weeks now.)


In short, we are going to war in Iraq against ISIS. It’s not going to be like George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq: It will involve about 5,000 U.S. troops, not 150,000; and local forces—Iraqi soldiers, Kurdish peshmerga, and various militias—will be in the lead. But the United States will be directly involved in the fighting and quite possibly the dying. And although Carter and other senior officials say the U.S.’s mission isn’t changing it’s clear that, by any reasonable definition of “mission” and “changing,” it is.


What’s going on with U.S. forces in Iraq, in fact, is a living, looming case study in “mission creep.”


Several times in the past couple years, Obama has resisted the pressures of mission creep, saying that, yes, U.S. ground forces would push ISIS out of Mosul in reasonably short order, but then what? Unless Iraqi troops came in to restore order and keep ISIS out, we’ll be stuck there for years or decades.


The good news is that, over the past several months, a joint force of American special-ops officers and Italian carabinieri have been training Iraqi military-police units to do just that. They’ve done it, to some degree, after Iraqi troops and militias have retaken Tikrit and Ramadi. And they’re preparing to do it, on what would be a much larger scale, in Mosul (which is four to five times larger than those other cities).


So, at least in theory, that meets one of Obama’s conditions for dropping his resistance to getting U.S. troops more involved in an offensive military action.


But he’s also cited another reason for restraint: There’s no point in throwing American troops into this conflict without a decent prospect for a political solution. Specifically, as long as Iraq’s Shiite-led government doesn’t share power with the Sunnis, ISIS (or jihadist organizations like ISIS) can’t be crushed. The Baghdad government’s oppressive policies and corrupt practices might not have caused the rise of ISIS, but they’ve helped sustain it and legitimized the grievances that ISIS has exploited, encouraging even many moderate Sunnis to tolerate—or at least not rebel against—the presence of ISIS as the lesser of two evils.


Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has more inclusive inclinations than his predecessor, Nouri al-Maliki. And the American commanders in Iraq have done much to reinforce these tendencies, for instance paying the Kurdish peshmerga and the anti-ISIS Sunni tribal fighters through the Baghdad treasury—and thus building a sense of loyalty to and from the government—rather than giving them cash directly, as was done during the tribal co-optations of 2007 (as had to be done, since Maliki wasn’t willing to be the conduit). Another hopeful sign: The U.S. commander leading this tribal coordination is Lt. Gen. Sean MacFarland, who, as a colonel back in 2006, organized the Anbar Awakening, the first (and, for a while, pivotal) campaign in which Sunni militias cooperated with U.S. troops to beat back al-Qaida. When it comes to melding tribal politics and military entities in western Iraq, MacFarland has no equal.


Still, sectarian favoritism still dominates Iraqi politics; corruption is rife; and Sunnis have yet to be shown a compelling reason to turn against ISIS, and thus tilt in favor of the government, in large numbers.


The U.S. and its allies may succeed in pushing ISIS out of Mosul, and that’s a good thing on many levels. But as a report this week by the Soufan Group puts it, “Even the most decisive military victory in Mosul will be short-lived if the factors that gave rise to the current violence and turmoil remain unresolved. … Without true political and social reform, the battle against [ISIS] in Mosul will be repeated elsewhere in a few years.” The report adds: “Unfortunately, reform of this scale in a traumatized and divided nation is as unlikely as it is vital.”


This is what Obama and many of his top officials and generals have meant when they say (as they have repeatedly) that we can’t kill our way out of this crisis. Yet this is what they are preparing to do anyway, because, like a carpenter who tends to solve every problem with a hammer and some nails, it’s what they do best.


Which isn’t to deprecate hammers and nails; sometimes they’re precisely what’s needed to do the job. Obama has long realized this, but he has a tendency—often historically justified—to let others do the dangerous carpentry when America’s vital interests aren’t at stake. And so, when he first declared that ISIS must be destroyed, he tried to assemble a coalition of Muslim nations and militias to do the fighting on the ground, offering to support their effort with America’s combat specialties—precision airstrikes, intelligence, and logistical support. But it turned out there was no such coalition to be had, as its logical members—which included just about every nation and militia in the region—feared and loathed one another at least as much as they feared and loathed ISIS (a fact that ISIS has shrewdly exploited).


Yet Obama had declared, and has continued to declare, that ISIS must be destroyed—and so he stepped up the airstrikes (even though he knew that airstrikes alone can’t win a war), and he sought partners where he could find them, most notably the Kurds (even though he knew they would fight only to defend their own turf, not go chasing jihadists all over the country). And so he moved, incrementally but inextricably, toward deepening America’s involvement, widening its stake, heightening its risk.


Secretary Carter, who has long pushed for a more aggressive stance against ISIS, insisted in his speech that our new steps—the extra troops, the embedding with Iraqi battalions, the deployment of Apache helicopters and long-range accurate artillery pieces—don’t constitute a new strategy. Officials in the White House and the State Department say the same thing: What we’re about to do merely continues the strategy we’ve been pursuing all along.


This would be true only if the U.S. strategy were defined as “defeating and destroying ISIS,” in which case any action, along a continuum from Obama’s policies of the last two years to dropping tactical nuclear weapons, could be justified as part and parcel of the same strategy. But “strategy” isn’t such a broad term, and a military strategy must set down not only the goal of an operation but also the means to achieve the goal—the costs one is willing to bear and not bear, the risks one is willing to take and not take.


In that sense, the only meaningful sense, U.S. strategy in Iraq is on the verge of changing—and this is happening as a result of decisions that President Obama has made.


Whether Obama sees it this way is another matter. I suspect he does: This is a president who has something of an allergy to escalation, especially if it seems to be spiraling out of control. But I also suspect he thinks he can maintain his grip on the spiral. As I’ve written elsewhere, Obama has a keen legal mind, which serves him and his country well when he pokes holes in specious arguments for risky policies. But it also enables him to rationalize his own porous positions: for instance, that conducting joint raids falls in the category of “advise and assist,” or that special operations forces don’t constitute “boots on the ground.”


My guess is that Obama really won’t push U.S. ground forces beyond the scope and scale of Carter’s announcement. But he is president for only another nine months, and his successor may have less reticence in these matters. More than that, he has set the logic for his successor to escalate the fight and still think—or at least claim—that he or she is simply continuing Obama’s strategy under changing circumstances. In fact, if the campaign to retake Mosul begins, and the local forces—the Iraqi soldiers, the Kurdish peshmerga, and whatever sectarian militias can be drawn into the fight—are repelled, if they’re facing defeat despite the U.S. artillery and air support, would even Obama let them lose? Or would he give the green light to his generals’ plan (which they would no doubt recommend in this scenario) to let the American soldiers take a direct role in the fight, to drop the fig leaf of “advisers” and don the explicit tag of “combat troops,” which they’re coming close to resembling anyway?
 
Top