WAR 04-22-2017-to-04-28-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

(264) 04-01-2017-to-04-07-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...07-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(265) 04-08-2017-to-04-14-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...14-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(266) 04-15-2017-to-04-21-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...21-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-attack-idUSKBN17O04C

WORLD NEWS | Sat Apr 22, 2017 | 4:06pm EDT

Mourning declared after scores of troops die in Afghan base attack

By Abdul Matin and Hamid Shalizi | MAZAR-I-SHARIF/KABUL, AFGHANISTAN
President Ashraf Ghani declared a national day of mourning after scores of soldiers were killed by Taliban fighters disguised as fellow soldiers, in the deadliest attack of its kind on an Afghan military base.

The defense ministry has said more than 100 died or were injured in the Friday attack in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif, but no exact numbers have been released.

One official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters at least 140 soldiers were killed and many others wounded. Other officials said the toll was likely to be even higher.

The attack starkly highlighted the difficulty of the long struggle by the Afghan government and its international backers to defeat the Taliban insurgency.

After arriving in Mazar-i-Sharif to visit the base on Saturday, Ghani ordered that flags be flown at half mast on Sunday in memory of the troops who died.

Ghani held an emergency meeting with senior security officials and called for a "serious" investigation into the attack.

In a statement online, he condemned the attack as "cowardly" and the work of "infidels".

As many as 10 Taliban fighters, dressed in Afghan army uniforms and driving military vehicles, made their way into the base and opened fire on mostly unarmed soldiers eating and leaving a mosque after Friday prayers, according to officials.

They used rocket-propelled grenades and rifles, and several detonated suicide vests packed with explosives, officials said.

Witnesses described a scene of confusion as soldiers were uncertain about the attackers' true identity.

"It was a chaotic scene and I didn't know what to do," said one army officer wounded in the attack. "There was gunfire and explosions everywhere."

The base is the headquarters of the Afghan National Army's 209th Corps, responsible for much of northern Afghanistan, including Kunduz, a province which has seen heavy fighting.

TALIBAN "RETRIBUTION"

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said on Saturday the attack on the base was retribution for the recent killing of several senior Taliban leaders in northern Afghanistan.

The U.S. military command in Kabul said an American air strike had killed a commander, Quari Tayib, and eight other Taliban on April 17.

Mujahid said the attack on the base killed as many as 500 soldiers, including senior commanders.

Four of the attackers were Taliban sympathizers who had infiltrated the army and served for some time, Mujahid said. The Afghan army did not confirm that.

RELATED COVERAGE

Confusion, chaos after Taliban breach Afghan base in deadly attack
The NATO-led military coalition deploys advisers to the base to train and assist Afghan forces but coalition officials said no foreign troops had been hurt.

U.S. Navy Captain Bill Salvin, spokesperson for the NATO-led Resolute Support mission, said there were a small number of coalition force advisers on the base at the time of the attack.

"They sheltered in place during the incident. The Afghan Special Forces brought the attack to an end," Salvin said.

The commander of coalition forces, U.S. General John Nicholson, said in a statement on Friday that the attack "shows the barbaric nature of the Taliban."

German forces have long led the international mission in northern Afghanistan.

In Berlin, military officials said the work of the mission on the base would be on hold for one or two days while the Afghan army investigated the attack, but would resume.

"The situation shows that we cannot stop supporting, training and advising our Afghan partners," a German Operations Command spokesman said.

(Additional reporting by Sabine Siebold in Berlin and Phil Stewart in Washington D.C.; Writing by Josh Smith; Editing by Andrew Roche and Mary Milliken)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.njherald.com/article/20170421/AP/304219921

China tries to drive away planes with top Filipino officials

By BULLIT MARQUEZ
Posted: Apr. 21, 2017 8:00 am Updated: Apr. 21, 2017 11:24 am

PAG-ASA ISLAND, South China Sea (AP) — Chinese forces tried to drive away two Philippine planes carrying Manila's defense and military chiefs Friday near a Chinese man-made island, officials said, adding they admired seeing up close the stunning city-like features, including buildings, roads and a runway in the South China Sea's hotly contested region.

Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said the aircraft continued uninterrupted after Filipino pilots messaged back to the Chinese that they were flying over Philippine territory. The Chinese warned the Philippine aircraft they were entering the periphery of Chinese installations and told to avoid miscalculation.

The aircraft that took Lorenzana, military chief of staff Gen. Eduardo Ano and about 40 journalists to Philippine-occupied Pag-asa Island were "challenged" by China as they flew in the vicinity of Chinese-held Subi Reef, just 25 kilometers (15 miles) away.

"Those were just exchanges and no untoward incident happened," Lorenzana told reporters, adding that those normally transpire amid the unresolved territorial conflicts.

The Chinese navy has similarly warned U.S. ships and aircraft to leave what Beijing claims as its territory, messages which the Americans also ignored.

On Pag-asa, known internationally as Thitu, Lorenzana announced that the Philippines would start to develop the island, the second-largest in the Spratly archipelago, with plans for a wharf and reinforcing and extending the partly-eroded dirt airstrip. China may protest the planned constructions, but Lorenzana said he did not expect it to worsen into a confrontation.

Asked what he thought of China's rapidly developed Subi Reef near Pag-asa, Lorenzana he was awed.

"A grudging admiration to the Chinese for their resolve and single-mindedness to bolster their claims," Lorenzana said in a text message to The Associated Press. "I wished we had the same."

China claims virtually the entire sea and has aggressively tried to fortify its foothold by transforming in recent years seven mostly submerged reefs into island outposts, some with runways and radars and more recently weapons systems, to the consternation of other claimants and the United States, which insists on freedom of navigation in international waters.

Philippine security officials also said they were checking reports that Filipino fishermen were harassed by the Chinese coast guard near Union Bank in the South China Sea few days ago. Lorenzana said authorities have yet to get the fishermen's statements, but if true, the Philippines would file a diplomatic protest with China.

China's radio warnings to the Philippine military planes took place despite the improved relations between the Asian neighbors after President Rodrigo Duterte, who took office in June, reached out to Beijing.

Duterte himself had planned to fly to Pag-asa to raise his country's flag when the Philippines celebrates its Independence Day on June 12, but dropped the plan after China raised concerns.

After a flag-raising ceremony on Pag-asa, Lorenzana told troops that Duterte had ordered him to inspect the island and ensure facilities are built there as soon as possible.

About 1.6 billion pesos ($32 million) has been earmarked for the construction, including a fish port, solar power, water desalination plant, improved housing for soldiers, and facilities for marine research and tourists.

The government also plans to fortify small buildings on eight much smaller reefs and atolls occupied by Filipino forces.

The latest visit may highlight the territorial disputes when Duterte hosts an annual summit of Southeast Asian leaders in Manila next week. The 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which the Philippines currently chairs, expects to conclude talks with China this year on the framework of a regional code of conduct that aims to prevent the long-simmering disputes from escalating into a shooting war.

___

Associated Press writers Jim Gomez and Teresa Cerojano in Manila, Philippines, contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/3512928...ralia-julie-bishop-with-nuclear-strike/#page1

North Korea threatens Australia, Julie Bishop with nuclear strike

North Korea has bluntly warned Australia of a possible nuclear strike if Canberra persists in "blindly and zealously toeing the US line".

AAP on April 23, 2017, 6:22 am

North Korea's state new agency (KCNA) on Saturday quoted a foreign ministry spokesman castigating Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop after she "spouted a string of rubbish" against the the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (DPRK).

"If Australia persists in following the US moves to isolate and stifle the DPRK and remains a shock brigade of the US master, this will be a suicidal act of coming within the range of the nuclear strike of the strategic force of the DPRK," the report said.

"The Australian foreign minister had better think twice about the consequences to be entailed by her reckless tongue-lashing before flattering the US."

Ms Bishop said on Thursday that the sanctions were to send "the clearest possible message to North Korea, that its behaviour will not be tolerated, that a nuclear-armed North Korea is not acceptable to our region".

She also urged China to step up pressure on North Korea to stamp out its belligerent and illegal behaviour.

In the report from Pyongyang, the North Korean ministry spokesman accused the Australian government of "blindly and zealously toeing the US line" and said Ms Bishop had "better think twice" about the consequences of her "reckless tongue-lashing".

US Vice-President Mike Pence is in Australia and the threat of North Korea's nuclear weapons and missiles programs were high on the agenda in talks with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-fata...st-venezuelan-capital-official-130549578.html

Death toll jumps to 20 in Venezuela protests

AFP
Maria Isabel SANCHEZ
April 21, 2017

Caracas (AFP) - The death toll in three weeks of violence at anti-government protests in Venezuela jumped to 20 people after a night of clashes and pillaging left 12 people dead in Caracas.

Riot police and pro-government vigilantes fought running battles with protesters demanding the ouster of President Nicolas Maduro on the capital's east, west and south sides, witnesses said.

"It was like a war," said 33-year-old construction worker Carlos Yanez, a resident of the southwestern district of El Valle.

"The police were firing tear gas, armed civilians were shooting guns at buildings. My family and I threw ourselves to the floor. It was horrible," he told AFP.

Eleven people were killed in the neighborhood, according to officials.

Eight of them were reportedly electrocuted while trying to loot a bakery amid the chaos. The rest were shot.

At nightfall on Friday, more protests and pockets of unrest were reported in eastern Caracas, and in Macuto in the neighboring state of Vargas. There was a heavy security presence in the city.

Police fired teargas to disperse crowds in the Caracas district of Palo Verde, where burning barricades of trash were set up. Armed men on motorbikes also sparked panic, witnesses told AFP.

- Hospital evacuated -

The opposition accuses the government of sending gangs of armed thugs to attack them.

Videos shot by El Valle residents on Thursday night showed people throwing bottles and other objects out their windows at the gunmen in the streets below, shouting "Murderers!"

At one point, street protesters hurling Molotov cocktails managed to set fire to one of the armored police trucks firing tear gas at them, lighting up the night sky.

Fifty-four people, including newborn babies, were evacuated from a maternity hospital in the neighborhood.

There were conflicting explanations about the reason.

The government said "armed gangs hired by the opposition" had attacked the hospital. The opposition rejected the allegation, saying the children had to be evacuated because of tear gas fired by Maduro's "dictatorship."

The hospital's director, Rosalinda Prieto, told AFP the evacuation was prompted by the stench of burning trash set on fire by protesters.

A man was shot dead in protests in the eastern neighborhood of Petare, the local mayor said. Prosecutors said they had opened an investigation.

Opposition leaders have called new protests for Saturday and Monday.

On Saturday, they plan to march in silence to the Catholic Church's episcopal seats nationwide. They plan to erect roadblocks on Monday to grind the country to a halt.

- Maduro sees US plot -

Protesters blame Maduro -- heir of the leftist "Bolivarian revolution" launched by the late Hugo Chavez in 1999 -- for an economic crisis marked by severe shortages of food, medicine and basic goods.

Maduro says the protests against him are part of a US-backed coup plot.

On Thursday, he said the opposition had agreed to new talks. But his opponents denied the claim, saying the only way forward was to call elections.

Senior opposition leader Henrique Capriles slammed Maduro as a "dictator" and "mythomaniac."

Pressure on Maduro has been mounting since 2014, as falling prices for Venezuela's crucial oil exports have sent the once-booming economy into a tailspin.

The crisis escalated on March 30, when the Supreme Court moved to seize the powers of the legislature, the only lever of state authority not controlled by Maduro and his allies.

The court partly backtracked after an international outcry, but tension only increased when the authorities slapped a political ban on Capriles two weeks ago.

According to pollster Venebarometro, seven in 10 Venezuelans disapprove of Maduro, whose term does not end until 2019.


View Reactions (109)

 

[Housecarl]

Hummmm........

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-04-22-06-25-50

Apr 22, 6:25 AM EDT

CHINESE JIHADIS' RISE IN SYRIA RAISES CONCERNS AT HOME

BY BASSEM MROUE AND GERRY SHIH
ASSOCIATED PRESS

BEIRUT (AP) -- Many don't speak Arabic and their role in Syria is little known to the outside world, but the Chinese fighters of the Turkistan Islamic Party in Syria are organized, battled-hardened and have been instrumental in ground offensives against President Bashar Assad's forces in the country's northern regions.

Thousands of Chinese jihadis have come to Syria since the country's civil war began in March 2011 to fight against government forces and their allies. Some have joined the al-Qaida's branch in the country previously known as Nusra Front. Others paid allegiance to the Islamic State group and a smaller number joined factions such as the ultraconservative Ahrar al-Sham.

But the majority of Chinese jihadis are with the Turkistan Islamic Party in Syria, whose vast majority are Chinese Muslims, particularly those from the Turkic-speaking Uighur majority native to Xinjiang in China. Their growing role in Syria has resulted in increased cooperation between Syrian and Chinese intelligence agencies who fear those same jihadis could one day return home and cause trouble there.

The Turkistan Islamic Party is the other name for the East Turkistan Islamic Movement that considers China's Xinjiang to be East Turkistan.

Like most jihadi groups in Syria, their aim is to remove Assad's secular government from power and replace it with strict Islamic rule. Their participation in the war, which has left nearly 400,000 people dead, comes at a time when the Chinese government is one of Assad's strongest international backers. Along with Russia, China has used its veto power at the U.N. Security Council on several occasions to prevent the imposition of international sanctions against its Arab ally.

Beijing has blamed violence back at home and against Chinese targets around the world on Islamic militants with foreign connections seeking an independent state in Xinjiang. The government says some of them are fleeing the country to join the Jihad, although critics say the Uighurs are discriminated against and economically marginalized in their homeland and are merely seeking to escape repressive rule by the majority Han Chinese.

Abu Dardaa al-Shami, a member of the now-defunct extremist Jund al-Aqsa group, said the TIP has the best "Inghemasiyoun," Arabic for "those who immerse themselves." The Inghemasiyoun have been used by extremist groups such as IS and al-Qaida's affiliate now known as Fatah al-Sham Front. Their role is to infiltrate their targets, unleash mayhem and fight to the death before a major ground offensive begins.

"They are the lions of ground offensives," said al-Shami, who fought on several occasions alongside TIP fighters in northern Syria.

Xie Xiaoyuan, China's envoy to Syria, told reporters in November that the two countries have had normal military exchanges focused on humanitarian issues, although Chinese officials have repeatedly rejected the possibility of sending troops or weapons.

In the last year, however, Chinese and Syrian officials have begun holding regular, once-a-month high-level meetings to share intelligence o militant movements in Syria, according to a person familiar with the matter. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not allowed to reveal military secrets.

"These people not only fight alongside international terrorist forces in Syria, but also they will possibly return to China posing threat to China's national security," said Li Wei, terrorism expert at China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations and Director of the CICIR Institute of Security and Arms Control Studies.

Rami Abdurrahman who heads the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said there are about 5,000 Chinese fighters in Syria, most of them with the TIP fighters in northern Syria who along with their families make about 20,000. Li, the terrorism expert, said Abdurrahman's numbers are way too high, adding that he believes the number are about 300 Chinese fighters in Syria who brought with them about 700 family members.

"As the control of the passage along the borders between Turkey and Syria is being tightened, it is becoming more difficult for them to smuggle into Syria," Li said.

Syrian opposition activists and pro-government media outlets say dozens of TIP fighters have carried out suicide attacks against government forces and their allies and for the past two years have led battles mostly in the north of the country.

The suicide attackers include one known as Shahid Allah al-Turkistani. He was shown in a video released by TIP taken from a drone of an attack in which he blew himself up in the vehicle he was driving near Aleppo late last year, allegedly killing dozens of pro-government gunmen.

In 2015, members of the group spearheaded an attack on the northwestern province of Idlib and captured the strategic town of Jisr al-Shughour on the edge of Assad's stronghold of Latakia region. They reportedly damaged a church in the town and raised their black flag on top of it.

In late 2016, TIP was a main force to briefly break a government siege on the then rebel-held eastern parts of the northern city of Aleppo.

The role of the Chinese jihadis in Syria was a topic that Assad spoke about last month in an interview with Chinese PHOENIX TV, saying "they know your country more than the others, so they can do more harm in your country than others."

Unlike other rebel groups, TIP is a very secretive organization and they live among themselves, according to activists in northern Syria. They are active in parts of Idlib and in the strategic town of Jisr al-Shughour, as well as the Kurdish Mountains in the western province of Latakia.

Abdul-Hakim Ramadan, a doctor who was active in Idlib province, said one of his teams was trying to enter a northwestern village to vaccinate children when TIP fighters prevented them from entering, saying only Chinese can go into the area.

Ramadan said unlike other fighters who have come to Syria, the Chinese have not merged into local communities and the language has been a major barrier.

----

Shih reported from Beijing.

 

[Lilbitsnana]

James Pearson‏Verified account @pearswick 24m24 minutes ago

North Korea says ready to strike U.S. aircraft carrier


posted for fair use and discussion
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa-japan-idUSKBN17P01Y

Sun Apr 23, 2017 | 1:59am EDT
North Korea says ready to strike U.S. aircraft carrier


By James Pearson and Ju-min Park | SEOUL

North Korea said on Sunday it was ready to sink a U.S. aircraft carrier to demonstrate its military might, as two Japanese navy ships joined a U.S. carrier group for exercises in the western Pacific.

U.S. President Donald Trump ordered the USS Carl Vinson carrier strike group to sail to waters off the Korean peninsula in response to rising tension over the North's nuclear and missile tests, and its threats to attack the United States and its Asian allies.

The United States has not specified where the carrier strike group is as it approaches the area. U.S. Vice President Mike Pence said on Saturday it would arrive "within days" but gave no other details.

North Korea remained defiant.

"Our revolutionary forces are combat-ready to sink a U.S. nuclear powered aircraft carrier with a single strike," the Rodong Sinmun, the newspaper of the North's ruling Workers' Party, said in a commentary.

The paper likened the aircraft carrier to a "gross animal" and said a strike on it would be "an actual example to show our military's force".

The commentary was carried on page three of the newspaper, after a two-page feature about leader Kim Jong Un inspecting a pig farm.

North Korea will mark the 85th anniversary of the foundation of its Korean People's Army on Tuesday.

It has in the past marked important anniversaries with tests of its weapons.

North Korea has conducted five nuclear tests, two of them last year, and is working to develop nuclear-tipped missiles that can reach the United States.

It has also carried out a series of ballistic missile tests in defiance of United Nations sanctions.

North Korea's growing nuclear and missile threat is perhaps the most serious security challenge confronting Trump.

He has vowed to prevent the North from being able to hit the United States with a nuclear missile and has said all options are on the table, including a military strike.

WORRY IN JAPAN

North Korea says its nuclear program is for self-defense and has warned the United States of a nuclear attack in response to any aggression. It has also threatened to lay waste to South Korea and Japan.

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Friday North Korea's recent statements were provocative but had proven to be hollow in the past and should not be trusted.

"We've all come to hear their words repeatedly, their word has not proven honest," Mattis told a news conference in Tel Aviv, before the latest threat to the aircraft carrier.

Japan's show of naval force reflects growing concern that North Korea could strike it with nuclear or chemical warheads.

Some Japanese ruling party lawmakers are urging Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to acquire strike weapons that could hit North Korean missile forces before any imminent attack.

Japan's navy, which is mostly a destroyer fleet, is the second largest in Asia after China's.

The two Japanese warships, the Samidare and Ashigara, left western Japan on Friday to join the Carl Vinson and will "practice a variety of tactics" with the U.S. strike group, the Japan Maritime Self Defence Force said in a statement.

The Japanese force did not specify where the exercises were taking place but by Sunday the destroyers could have reached an area 2,500 km (1,500 miles) south of Japan, which would be waters east of the Philippines.

From there, it could take three days to reach waters off the Korean peninsula. Japan's ships would accompany the Carl Vinson north at least into the East China Sea, a source with knowledge of the plan said.

U.S. and South Korean officials have been saying for weeks that the North could soon stage another nuclear test, something the United States, China and others have warned against.

South Korea has put is forces on heightened alert.

China, North Korea's sole major ally which nevertheless opposes Pyongyang's weapons programs and belligerence, has appealed for calm. The United States has called on China to do more to help defuse the tension.

Last Thursday, Trump praised Chinese efforts to rein in "the menace of North Korea", after North Korean state media warned the United States of a "super-mighty preemptive strike".

(Additional reporting by Tim Kelly in TOKYO; Editing by Robert Birsel)

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Alex Luck‏ @AlexLuck9 39m39 minutes ago

Alex Luck Retweeted Web Sorber

Looks like sth along lines of Noor AShM, which of course are simply copied Chinese C802 series missiles.

Alex Luck added,
Web Sorber @WebSorber

Web Sorber‏ @WebSorber 10h10 hours ago

#IRGC Navy Equipped with New Anti-Ship Cruise #Missiles
http://ow.ly/olyM30b5fW4
#iran @IIIWWediting @Missilito @inbarspace @defense_news

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-C58vPXcAMW3So.jpg

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...fficials/ar-BBAe49n?li=AA4Zpp&ocid=spartanntp

At least 35 killed in drug violence across Mexico - officials

Reuters
3 hrs ago

MEXICO CITY, April 23 (Reuters) - At least 35 people were killed over the weekend in Mexico, according to local officials, amid a widespread surge in drug gang violence that has driven murders to a level not seen since 2011.

In Sinaloa state, 12 people were killed in different incidents since the early hours of Sunday, according to local officials.

Battles between gangs have increased in the area following the arrest last year of Sinaloa cartel boss Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, who was extradited in January to the United States.

Nine people were killed in what prosecutors said on Sunday was a gun battle between rival drug gangs in the mountains of Mexico's west coast state of Michoacan.

The shootout took place Saturday in an isolated village of the municipality of Churumuco, which borders on Guerrero state, where eight bodies were found on the main street and another in the nearby sierra, the state prosecutor's office said in a statement.

In January 2014, the federal government effectively took over control of Michoacan for more than a year in a bid to curb violence between drug gangs and community militias that had risen up to fight extortion and kidnappings.

The region, especially Guerrero state, is the site of the worst violence in Mexico as gangs battle over fields of opium poppies, which are used to make heroin. A surge in U.S. demand for heroin has fed the violence.

Eight bodies were found in different sites around Guerrero on Sunday while another six bodies were found in Veracruz state on the Gulf of Mexico, according to local officials.

Violence in Mexico has risen to its worst since 2011. In March, there were 2020 recorded murders, the highest for any month since June 2011, according to government data.

President Enrique Pena Nieto is facing rising criticism over his handling of the spike in bloodshed.

Murders had fallen from their 2011 peak but killings began climbing again during the last two years. Guerrero is the bloodiest state while Michoacan, Sinaloa and Veracruz are in the top six states for firearms murders.

(Reporting by Lizbeth Diaz in Mexico City, Uriel Sanchez in Guerrero, Jesus Bustamante in Sinaloa, Tamara Corro in Veracruz,; Editing by Michael O'Boyle, Grant McCool and Chris Reese)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...overnor-in-afghanistan-sought-since-2011.html

Afghanistan

US airstrike kills Taliban shadow governor in Afghanistan sought since 2011

Published April 23, 2017
FoxNews.com

U.S. officials said Saturday that a Taliban “shadow governor” was killed in an airstrike in Afghanistan as part of the effort to deny “Taliban freedom-of-movement” in the region.

U.S. forces in Afghanistan said Quari Tayib was known as the “shadow governor” of Takhar province. He was killed in a strike in Archi District in the Kunduz province on April 17, the statement said.

Tayib had been a target of interest in 2011 and was directly responsible for the deaths of U.S. servicemen in Afghanistan, officials said.

According to The Guardian, Taliban shadow governors are responsible for directing insurgents fighting in Afghanistan. They work with more freedom in areas where Kabul does not have control. Two other Taliban shadow governors were killed in separate U.S. airstrikes earlier this year.

The U.S. said no other casualties were reported in the strike.

The announcement of the airstrike comes after Taliban militants killed more than 100 Afghanistan soldiers in a brazen attack Saturday. The gunmen dressed as soldiers and stormed a military compound. The attackers, in two separate military vehicles, had told guards at the gates that they were carrying wounded soldiers and therefore immediately needed to enter the site, according to Reuters.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/dod-watchdog-targets-red-tape-for-iraqi-training

DoD watchdog targets red tape for Iraqi training

By: Joe Gould, April 21, 2017 (Photo Credit: Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Dominique A. Pineiro)

WASHINGTON — There are warehouses full of weapons and equipment to train Iraqi counterterror troops fighting the Islamic State group, but Iraqi red tape is keeping it locked up, according to a Pentagon watchdog agency.

Tight controls on first‑aid kits,*ammunition, body armor, vehicles and weapon‑cleaning supplies was hindering American trainers, and the likely performance in combat for Iraq Counterterrorism Service trainees. This was just one of the problems with their training that the Department of Defense Inspector General advised fixes for, according to a report released Friday.

Inspectors on a warehouse tour found that weapons-cleaning oil was sitting stockpiled, and not reaching trainers and the field, where it was in short supply. Warehouses were so tightly controlled that a U.S. special operations advisor told inspectors he needed the approval of a two-star Iraqi general to get a can of lubricant for training use.


Defense News
Lawmakers say Trump needs Congress' OK to wage war on ISIS


Inspectors also found at the Iraqi Counterterrorism Service’s training center, which is run with help from Special Operations Training Command–Iraq, offered no live‑fire training on the weapons*—*the AT‑4, M‑72 and SPG‑9*—*the*Counterterrorism Service*trainees would use in combat.

“The lack of training and familiarity with those weapons could produce soldiers*who are not able to accurately and effectively employ their weapons,” the report reads. “In addition to limiting CTS soldier’s combat effectiveness, this may increase the risk of friendly fire casualties and other collateral damage to nearby facilities and equipment, due to the firing characteristics of those weapons.”

Special Operations Training Command–Iraq told inspectors that the Iraqis never identified live-fire training as a requirement — and that they use dry‑fire, simulated firing and weapons manipulation drills as a work-around. The school has neither the appropriate space nor the ability to transport trainees to such a space, U.S. trainers reportedly said.*


Defense News
State OKs Humvees, howitzers for Iraqi peshmerga in ISIS fight


Iraqi counterterrorism forces led operations to clear the Islamic State group from Ramadi in 2015, and — with U.S. led airstrikes — seized back Hit, Fallujah, and Qayyarah. They are involved in ongoing operations to retake Mosul.

Congress has authorized more than $2 billion for the Iraq Train and Equip Fund, which dovetails with U.S. and Coalition advise‑and‑assist teams working to improve operational planning, communication, intelligence coordination, and targeting — all in support of Iraqi‑led ground operations.*

Email:** jgould@defensenews.com*****************

Twitter:** @reporterjoe

Comment 1

Harold Kouns
Either Iraqi leadership gets with the program and stops the corruption and regal power plays...or we stop paying. Leave them on their own. It's all or nothing. Times up.
Like · Reply · Apr 21, 2017 4:31pm

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://jamestown.org/program/chinas-power-projection-western-indian-ocean/

China’s Power Projection in the Western Indian Ocean

Publication: China Brief Volume: 17 Issue: 6
By: David Shinn
April 20, 2017 09:58 AM Age: 4 days

The People’s Liberation Army Navy’s (PLAN) recently participated in an operation to free the Tuvalu-flagged OS 35 bulk carrier with help from the Indian Navy in the Gulf of Aden (The Hindu, April 9). The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) 24th task force in the Gulf of Aden anti-piracy operation returned in March to its homeport of Qingdao following port calls in four Persian Gulf states (Chinamil.com, March 9, 2017). Since 2008, China has significantly increased its naval presence in the Indian Ocean, giving rise to Indian concerns of potential military encirclement and raising questions in American strategic thinking about China’s ultimate objectives. Both the United States and India maintain a much stronger naval presence than China in the Indian Ocean, but the balance is beginning to shift. Chinese President Xi Jinping introduced in 2013 the strategic “One Belt, One Road” and “21st Century Maritime Silk Road” that stretches from the South China Sea across the Indian Ocean to the eastern Mediterranean. This initiative guarantees China will increase its economic and military engagement along Indian Ocean maritime routes. [1] The PLAN’s continuing participation in the anti-piracy operation long after most pirate attacks had ended and the construction of a military base at Djibouti are tangible indications of China’s power projection.

China’s 2015 Military Strategy white paper states clearly that the PLAN will protect the security of strategic sea lines of communication (SLOCs) and overseas interests, and participate in international maritime cooperation so as to build itself “into a maritime power.” The white paper adds that the PLAN will continue to carry out anti-piracy escort missions in the Gulf of Aden and gradually intensify its participation in international peacekeeping. The PLAN will also gradually shift to a combination of “offshore waters defense” together with “open seas protection” (Defense White Paper, May 2015).

China’s Naval Expansion in the Western Indian Ocean

The PLAN made its first visit to the Western Indian Ocean in 2000 with port calls in Tanzania and South Africa. In 2002, the PLAN made a round-the-world cruise with two ships passing through the Suez Canal, including a port call in Alexandria, Egypt. Six years passed without any PLAN port calls in the Western Indian Ocean until China began in 2008 participation in the Gulf of Aden anti-piracy operation. [2] Since 2008, twenty-five PLAN task forces comprised usually of two combat ships and an oiler have patrolled the Gulf of Aden. [3] These ships have made more than sixty port calls in Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Kenya, Kuwait, Morocco, Mozambique, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. [4]

The initial goal of the PLAN task forces was to protect Chinese shipping from pirate attacks in the Gulf of Aden. Coordinated suppression of piracy by a number of international navies was successful, and until March 2017, the last successful pirate attack against any commercial vessel occurred in 2012 (Xinhua, March 15, 2017). Pirates did capture a Comoros-flagged fuel tanker off the coast of Somalia in March of this year. In April, a lone Somali gunman boarded and captured an Indian-registered dhow off the Somali coast (Xinhua, April 5, 2017).* Although piracy could return as a serious threat to international (and Chinese) shipping interests, China’s primary goals now are to provide naval support for all Chinese security interests in the region. These include its peacekeeping forces, evacuation of its nationals from conflict zones as it has done in Yemen and Libya, and gaining experience for naval personnel far from China’s shores. China currently has 235 military personnel assigned to nearby UN peacekeeping missions in Darfur in Sudan and 1,063 personnel, including a combat battalion, in South Sudan (UN peacekeeping statistics, February 2017).

In 2014, China deployed for the first time a submarine with the anti-piracy task force and, in 2015 it sent a nuclear-powered submarine to the Gulf of Aden operation. Submarines are not well suited to combat piracy; the operation gave China an opportunity to test its submarines and train its personnel (The Diplomat, April 12, 2015). In 2016, China began construction of a permanent “logistical facility” in Djibouti for the stated purpose of supporting its anti-piracy, humanitarian, and regional peacekeeping efforts. Most non-Chinese observers, including the commander of the U.S. Africa Command, describe the facility as a military base, the first such overseas base for China, and view the decision as part of China’s long-distance power projection strategy (China Brief, January 25, 2016; BreakingDefense.com, March 27, 2017). China also reportedly plans to expand its “Marine Corps” from about 20,000 to 100,000 personnel to protect China’s maritime lifelines and its interests overseas. Some of these personnel are expected to be assigned to China’s facility in Djibouti and at Gwadar in Pakistan (South China Morning Post, March 13, 2017; China Brief, December 3, 2010).

China’s only aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, has been operating in the South China Sea and has not yet entered the Indian Ocean. Interviewed recently on Indian television, Admiral Harry Harris Jr., Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, said there is nothing to prevent the Chinese aircraft carrier battle group from operating in the Indian Ocean. He noted that the Liaoning is unable to maintain the operational tempo of larger U.S. aircraft carriers that conduct operations day and night. Harris added that the Indian Navy has far more expertise in operating aircraft carriers than does the PLAN (NDTV, January 19, 2017). Because of its operational limitations, the Liaoning may be used primarily to show the Chinese flag and project power.

China has been building major commercial ports in Myanmar, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Djibouti, and Tanzania. U.S. and Indian experts are debating whether China is pursuing a strategy of building commercial port facilities along the rim of the Indian Ocean that will one day be used for military purposes. [5] Indian Ocean expert David Brewster, argues, however, there is little evidence that China is pursuing a strategy of sea control although it appears to be developing sea denial capabilities. Brewster points to the increasing deployment of submarines in the Indian Ocean and the potential for land-based sea denial capabilities in the region. [6] While China is expanding its naval capacity in the Western Indian Ocean, it is important to understand that the PLAN’s highest priorities remain along China’s coast, the South China Sea, Strait of Malacca, and Western Pacific.

China’s Interests in the Indian Ocean

Currently the world’s largest oil importer, China obtains about 52 percent of its imported crude from the Middle East and 22 percent from Africa. About 82 percent of China’s imported oil transits the Strait of Malacca and 40 percent travels through the Strait of Hormuz at the entrance of the Persian Gulf. [7] Almost 40 percent of China’s foreign trade crosses the Indian Ocean. [8]

Zhou Bo, a fellow at the People’s Liberation Army’s Academy of Military Science, wrote in 2014, before China began constructing a military facility in Djibouti, that “China has only two purposes in the Indian Ocean: economic gains and the security of sea lines of communication” (China-US Focus, February 11, 2014). He added that China is interested in access—and not bases—in the Indian Ocean. However, the facility under construction at Djibouti begs a discussion of wider Chinese military engagement in the region. Jérôme Henry, lieutenant commander in the French Navy, argues that China’s naval deployments in the Gulf of Aden are motivated by “power-projection capability, acquiring operational experience in a real operational environment, protecting Chinese interests abroad, and improving China’s image on the international stage.” [9]

Senior Colonel Xu Qiyu, deputy director of the Institute for Strategic Studies at China’s National Defense University, said China’s principal security interests in the Indian Ocean are access to SLOCs, good relations with nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, general stability in the region, and protecting Chinese interests and citizens. Xu Qiyu added that protecting these interests requires that China counter the threat of piracy and terrorism, take into account Indian and American influence, and be prepared for threats from other major powers. [10]

State-owned COSCO, China’s largest shipping company, invested $186 million in a joint venture to operate and manage the Suez Canal Container Terminal in Port Said at the northern end of the canal. The state-owned China Harbor Engineering Company subsequently invested $219 million to construct a quay there and another $1 billion to build a quay in al-Adabiya at the southern entrance to the canal. The goal is to secure reliable access for Chinese commercial shipping from the Indian Ocean and Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea (China Brief, October 10, 2014; China Policy Institute: Analysis, February 2016). This includes access to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor; COSCO ships already call at Gwadar port (Xinhua, November 16, 2016).

China has an additional interest in the Western Indian Ocean that is seldom mentioned. In 2011, it signed a 15-year contract with the International Seabed Authority to prospect for seabed polymetallic sulfides in a 10,000 square kilometer zone just south of Madagascar. In 2015, China’s deep-sea manned submersible Jiaolong and research vessel Dayang Yihao both conducted missions in the Indian Ocean, underscoring China’s interest in the underwater resources (China Daily, May 7, 2015; South China Morning Post, October 6, 2016).

Other Naval Actors in the Western Indian Ocean

The U.S. Navy projects more power in the Indian Ocean than any other country. The 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain and monitors the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, and Arabian Sea. Elements of the Pacific-based 7th Fleet routinely visit the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is a major U.S. naval and air support base in the middle of the Indian Ocean. The United States has a counterterrorism facility at Djibouti with more than 4,000 personnel and a variety of land-based forces operating in the Gulf States and northeast Africa.

India, due to its geographical proximity, has the largest number of mostly coastal combatant ships that could be arrayed on short notice and has a huge naval advantage over China in the Indian Ocean. India has expanded its antisubmarine warfare facilities in the Andaman Islands to monitor Chinese submarines passing through the Strait of Malacca. France has a modest naval facility on Réunion, a French départment southwest of Mauritius, ground forces on Mayotte, another départment in the Mozambique Channel, and forces at Djibouti and Abu Dhabi. Japan has significant shipping interests in the Indian Ocean, and it established a modest military base in Djibouti in 2011.

Naval Competition or Cooperation in the Western Indian Ocean?

Both the United States and India want to ensure that China does not pursue hegemonic goals in the region. In addition, India, Pakistan, and China are developing naval nuclear forces and they all have nuclear weapons. China is assisting Pakistan in this effort. All three may eventually deploy nuclear weapons in the Indian Ocean. [11] This development would contribute to greater regional instability and would not be in the interest of the United States.

There seems little doubt that China is strengthening its ability to protect Chinese interests in the Western Indian Ocean region and setting the stage for power projection even further into the Mediterranean and around South Africa. So far, China’s policy has not raised serious concerns in Western Indian Ocean littoral states with the important exception of India. But China’s strategy is raising increasing questions among U.S. analysts in addition to those from India.

A strong case can be made for maximizing U.S. cooperation with India in the Indian Ocean region while, at the same time, identifying areas where Washington and New Delhi can bring China into the picture in an effort to minimize future conflict among the three parties and enhance regional stability. [12] Potential areas for cooperation include joint training exercises, intelligence sharing, coordinating humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, counter-piracy and, conceivably, more sensitive ones such as counterterrorism, combatting drug and arms trafficking, preventing illegal fishing, and minimizing seaborne environmental threats. [13]
*
David H. Shinn is an adjunct professor in the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University. He served for 37 years in the U.S. Foreign Service, including as ambassador to Ethiopia and Burkina Faso. He is co-author of China and Africa: A Century of Engagement.
Notes
Morgan Clemens, The Maritime Silk Road and the PLA, paper delivered at a China as a “Maritime Power” conference in Arlington Virginia, July 28-29, 2015. Available at https://www.cna.org/cna_files/pdf/maritime-silk-road.pdf.
David H. Shinn and Joshua Eisenman, China and Africa: A Century of Engagement (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), p. 189.
Jérôme Henry, “China’s Military Deployments in the Gulf of Aden: Anti-Piracy and Beyond,” Asie. Visions 89 (November 2016): p. 6.
Andrew S. Erickson and Austin M. Strange, “China’s Blue Soft Power: Antipiracy, Engagement, and Image Enhancement,” Naval War College Review 68, no. 1 (2015): pp. 81-82.
Abhijit Singh, “China’s ‘Maritime Bases’ in the IOR: A Chronicle of Dominance Foretold,” Strategic Analysis 39 (3), 2015: pp. 296-97.
Australia India Institute, China and India at Sea: A Contest of Status and Legitimacy in the Indian Ocean (September 2015): pp. 11-12. Available at http://www.aii.unimelb.edu.au/publi...ea-contest-status-and-legitimacy-indian-ocean.
Ibid., p. 6.
Xu Qiyu, “National Security Interests and India Ocean: China’s Perspective,” research paper no. 16-11 published by Adelaide Law School January 12, 2016), p. 3. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2726377.
Henry, p. 24.
Xu Qiyu, p. 4.
Iskander Rehman, Murky Waters: Naval Nuclear Dynamics in the Indian Ocean, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2015: pp. 41-45. Available at http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/0...al-nuclear-dynamics-in-indian-ocean-pub-59279.
Chunhao Lou, China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, seems to share this view: “US-India-China Relations in the Indian Ocean: A Chinese Perspective,” Strategic Analysis 36 (4), 2012: pp. 633-36. Antara Ghosal Singh, “India, China and the US: Strategic Convergence in the Indo-Pacific,” Journal of the Indian Ocean Region 12 (2), 2016: pp. 172-73.
Several of these areas for cooperation are urged in the U.S. Defense Department’s 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review. See also Eleanor Albert, Competition in the Indian Ocean, Council on Foreign Relations backgrounder, May 19, 2016. Available at http://www.cfr.org/regional-security/competition-indian-ocean/p37201.
CB_17_6.pdf

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://chinapower.csis.org/china-aircraft-carrier-type-001a/

What do we know (so far) about China's new aircraft carrier?

Five years after commissioning its first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, China is now primed to launch its second carrier – the Type 001A. Unlike its Soviet-built predecessor, the Type 001A is China’s first domestically built carrier. Both carriers are similar in size and use a STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) system for the launch and recovery of aircraft. Although similar to the Liaoning, the Type 001A features some notable enhancements and represents an important step in China’s developing aircraft carrier program.
*
Key Facts
The control tower island of the Type 001A is expected to be 10 percent smaller than that of the Liaoning.
It will displace roughly 65,000 – 70,000 tons, a few thousand more tons than the Liaoning.
It will feature the advanced Type 346 S-band AESA radar system.
Its airwing will be slightly larger than that of the Liaoning, featuring around 8 additional aircraft.
The Type 001A may have an internal arrangement that is better*optimized than the*Liaoning’s.
It is expected to be commissioned around 2020.

Comparing the Type 001A and the Liaoning
Outlines derived from satellite photos demonstrate the similarities between the carriers.

http://chinapower.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/Liaoning-vs-Type001A-outlines2.jpg
*
Key Characteristics of the Type 001A


Liaoning
Shandong (TBC)
Pennant Number
CV-16
CV-17
Carrier Type
Type 001
Type 001A
Length

Beam
304.5m

75m
The dimensions of the Type 001A are expected to be nearly identical to those of the Liaoning, however, some reports have suggested it may be up to 10 meters longer.
*Displacement
*60,000 – 65,000 tons
65,000 – 70,000 tons
*Launch Type
*STOBAR
STOBAR
*Ski-jump inclination
14 Degrees
TBD. Some reports indicate a 12 degrees*inclination, but this is yet to be confirmed.
*Airwing
*18-24 J-15 fighters
17 Ka-28/Ka-31/Z-8S/Z-8JH/Z-8AEW helicopters
TBD. It is expected that the Type 001A will feature a handful, perhaps around 8, more aircraft than the Liaoning.
*Complement
1,960 crew; 626 air group
TBD
*Armament
3 × Type 1130 CIWS; 3 × HQ-10 SAM (18-Cell); 2 RBU-6000 ASW rocket launchers and flare/chaff rocket launchers
*TBD. Likely similar to the Liaoning
*Radar
*Type 346 S-band AESA
Type 346A S-band AESA
*Propulsion
Conventional steam turbines with diesel generators
Conventional steam turbines with diesel generators
*Cruising Speed
32 knots
32 knots (expected)
*Launch Date
*December 4,1988 (by Soviet Union)
TBD
*Sea Trials
*2011
2018 – 2019 (expected)
Commissioned
September 25, 2012
2020 (expected)
All information is subject to change. Figures for the Type 001A*are likely to change as more information becomes available. Details of the Liaoning sourced from The Military Balance. Feel free to contact us at chinapower@csis.org with any relevant information.*

Explore the Liaoning
The Type 001A shares several similarities with*the*Liaoning. Explore our 3D model of the*Liaoning below, or read more on our feature page.
Video

Follow us
For more updates, follow us on Twitter, subscribe to our podcast, or click on one of our related features below.

Learn More.
How does China's first aircraft carrier stack up?


Learn More.
What does China really spend on its military?


Learn More.
Are maritime law enforcement forces destabilizing Asia?

 

[Housecarl]

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?515719-The-Tar-Pits-Abroad-Victor-Davis-Hanson

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.hoover.org/research/tar-pits-abroad

The Tar Pits Abroad

by Victor Davis Hanson
Friday, April 21, 2017
Comments 57

As missiles fall on Syria in retaliation for Bashar Assad’s medieval use of chemical weapons—and as voices call for the use of some American ground troops to expedite his removal—we might reflect upon American military interventions in the post-Vietnam era.

America’s major interventions include Iraq in 1991, the Balkans in 1995 and 1999, Afghanistan in 2002, Iraq from 2003 to 2011, and, Libya in 2011. More minor interventions occurred in places like Lebanon, Grenada, and Panama—and there were occasional bombings in Africa and the Middle East. Although awful dictators were often removed—Maurice Bishop, Manuel Noriega, Slobodan Milosevic, Mullah Omar, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi—nothing quite turned out as expected.
*
The first Gulf War forced the genocidal Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, but left him in power in Iraq, where he continued to murder thousands. Hussein’s reign prompted 12 years of UN-sanctioned no-fly-zones, “oil for food” graft, on-off American bombing against his regime—and, of course, another war. Twelve years later, and after the disaster of 9/11, George W. Bush finally got rid of Saddam. But the cost was steep. America lost 4,516 soldiers to achieve a peace and consensual government by 2008—only to have Obama effectively relinquish control of the country to Iran and ISIS in 2011.

Afghanistan is now a 16-year effort. The evolving aims and strategic objectives of the intervention are still not clear. It started simply enough: find Osama bin Laden and punish the Taliban regime that harbored him. But before too long, mission-creep set in; the objectives became nation-building and protecting reformist Afghans from the Islamists. Ever since the times of Alexander the Great, Afghanistan has been an elusive conquest. In the eyes of the embittered Macedonians, the British, and the modern Soviets, the landlocked, resource-poor, and factional country was never worth the blood and treasure necessary to secure anything outside a few major cities.

Bill Clinton’s two rounds of bombing in the Balkans is often said to have achieved its purpose of forcing Milosevic out of power and stopping mass killings. Some argue sanctions or Russian pressure more likely prompted the collapse of Milosevic’s government. Either way, it’s interesting that neither the UN Security Council nor Congress approved the intervention before the bombs fell.

The Hillary Clinton/Susan Rice/Samantha Power triad engineered the 2011 bombing of Libya that took out the monstrous Gaddafi, who was, it should be said, warming to the West, having given up his WMD projects and terrorist sponsorship. The intervention avoided American losses and an occupation. Yet the needlessly punitive bombing attack turned Libya into a wasteland and a terrorist recruiting ground. Its logical denouement was the lethal Benghazi fiasco. Obama bombed without congressional approval and by subverting UN resolutions that limited action to no-fly-zones and humanitarian assistance. Given Obama’s performance in Libya it is probably understandable why he did not enforce his red line in Syria.

Of these recent interventions, the one in the Balkans was ostensibly the most viable. For all the cumulative Serbian atrocities and wreckage inflicted by NATO, it involved our NATO allies in a shared European enterprise inside Europe against a European military with no direct American combat fatalities.

The removal of Saddam was professionally accomplished. Yet the goal to leave behind a better regime failed until the surge. The Bush administration wrongly obsessed over the WMD threat when Congress had passed a wide spectrum of 23 writs sanctioning intervention (and were unfortunately not subsequently emphasized as causae belli). This misplaced focus allowed former supporters to bolt when sizable inventories of WMD were not found—and it facilitated critics to create the fake news of “Bush lied; thousands died.”

The dismissal of the Iraqi army served little purpose other than to force thousands of Iraqis with military training into the streets without jobs and into the hands of terrorists. The initial rules of engagement and flawed strategies of occupation allowed terrorists and Baathists to recalibrate. Elections in the U.S. turned the entire enterprise into a political quagmire.

All these concerns should ostensibly be arguments for keeping clear of tribal and factional strife, especially in the Middle East.

But, then again, non-intervention has costs. Bill Clinton was blamed for the humanitarian tragedy in Rwanda, when a hands-off policy greenlighted a genocide. Clinton’s reluctance to intervene, remember, came one year after being burned in the Black Hawk Down fiasco in Mogadishu.

What are some general contours, then, that might guide future debates over venturing into tar pits abroad—other than assuming from the outset that any intervention would likely end badly, make things worse, and get our citizens killed?

1. Democratic presidents have a greater margin of error, given their loud anti-war credentials that suggest they bomb or invade reluctantly rather than eagerly. There was no anti-war movement against Clinton or Obama concerning either the Balkans or Libya, despite lots of collateral damage.
   
2. Casualties govern all such interventions when progress stalls. Obama escaped a Libyan disaster only because he was willing to sacrifice Libya rather than a brigade of marines. There was a reason Trump, in Bill Clinton fashion, sent missiles rather than pilots over Syria. Obama is castigated for permitting the Syrian holocaust, but not so much as Bush was for ending Saddam’s holocaust—again, largely because not one American died in Syria, and over 4,500 perished in Iraq.
   
3. Early domestic political unity about intervening means little, at least in comparison to the perceived pulse of the battlefield. The loudest voice that demands intervention is just as likely to be the first to demand a withdrawal when war proves less than predictable. The old Korean War axiom that “the only thing worse than a poorly conducted war is a lost war” is now inoperative. Many of those who signed the 1998 Project for the New American Century letter to Bill Clinton to lobby him (successfully) to legislate preemptive regime change in Iraq, and later did the same with George W. Bush after 9/11, bailed when the war went badly in 2005-2006.
   
4. Fighting against Westerners is far easier. In the Balkans, Clinton was supposedly defending Europeans and killing like kind who for the most part fought back conventionally. Bombing rightwing European Orthodox Serbians did not earn the sort of moral outrage from the Left as did doing the same to rightwing fundamentalist Muslims, mass murderers, and dictators in the Middle East. The vast majority of America’s recent interventions have involved the Middle East, Islam, and asymmetrical warfare, in which enemies quickly became indistinguishable from friends. To “win” a non-Western peace still requires taking casualties and sinking into a morass of tribal politics. Losing through bombing without causalities (e.g. Libya) is deemed preferable to achieving a costly and limited stalemate (e.g. Afghanistan).
   
5. Postmodern rules of the 21st century have redefined war—no longer seen as an existential conflict—to America’s disadvantage. Killing too many of the enemy (especially on television) can be as injurious as killing too few.

“Proportionality” demands that retaliation be no more savage than the provocation that began the war. In today’s utopian mindset, there are no “good” dictators who might replace “bad” dictators: a good and valuable leader like General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt was found unacceptable because he did not endorse Western-style constitutionalism. *

None of this pessimism is to say that the U.S. cannot intervene to eliminate thugs like Milosevic and Saddam, or to neutralize more conventional powers like North Korea and Iran, or to play Whac-A-Mole with Bashar al-Assad on the premise that he will run out of air bases before we run out of cruise missiles.

It is just a reminder that the next time we dare contemplate such a mess, we must be prepared for the following:

—that many of the most zealous hawks soon become the greatest “I told you so” critics of an unpopular war;
—that the men in battle, if deployed on the ground and without rapid progress toward victory, will often be left to fend for themselves without public attention in dirty alleyways figuring out who wants to blow them up;
—that the war will certainly end up being a political football in the next election;
—that Congressional approval, UN resolutions, NATO participation, and EU support are all well and good, but mean nothing in comparison to a decisive and quick American victory at little cost;
—that voters have no great interest in foreign affairs, but they gravitate to perceived inexpensive victory and loathe, as they should, costly defeat.

The U.S. military can ultimately accomplish any mission it is asked. But increasingly, if deployed on the ground in tribal fighting, with legalistic and politically correct rules of engagement, in haphazard fashion or for political abstractions, and concerned more with global than U.S. interests, it will pay a cost that is more than Americans are willing to pay, and for a cause the public deems not worth the effort.*

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1203064/nuclear-learning/

Nuclear Learning

by Michael Krepon | April 23, 2017 | No Comments

Quote of the week:
“The [U.S. Strategic Bombing] survey’s task was to measure as precisely as possible the exact effects of the two [Hiroshima and Nagasaki] bombs – in other words, to put calipers on the problem so that people back home would have a factual frame of reference within which to draw conclusions about the bomb’s true capabilities as well as its limitations.”
—Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost

How do decision makers in nuclear-armed states learn about the Bomb? Coming after the first entrants into this exclusive club can have its advantages. There is a wealth of information to draw from on the public record, and nuclear weapon-related practices can be studied over time. Existing models can be followed, rejected, or adapted depending on national circumstances. And in all cases, there is learning by doing.

The United States and the Soviet Union went all out in their nuclear competition; no one else has had the inclination to go down this path. This competition has been down-sized, but keeps on going. The United States is trying to figure out how to pay for a trillion dollar-plus bill to replace the old with the new, while Russia still follows the Soviet Union’s playbook on nuclear issues, knowing or trusting no other way.

North Korea’s young leader – the one who seems so uneasy on the reviewing stand watching missile after missile parade by amidst maximum pomp and circumstance – has no other cards to play. Unless and until there is one more major diplomatic push to stop this compulsion, he will do what he can afford, on the assumption that more capability equals more deterrence. Great Britain and France eventually settled for the most part on survivable sea-based deterrents, satisfied with assured destruction capabilities. Israel remains a purposeful riddle. Projections of the “Samson option” suit its purposes, but how much is enough when a state that is growing stronger relative to its neighbors feels increasingly besieged?

China has presented the most interesting case of nuclear learning. Beijing decided early on to reject the U.S. and Soviet model, seeking instead a minimal deterrent and the pursuit of economic growth as its primary access card to greater international standing. Beijing placed no stock in nuclear war-fighting strategies to strengthen deterrence. India, too, shared China’s instinct to gain standing through economic growth, as well as its ambivalence about the Bomb. No other nuclear-armed state has waited 24 years in between testing nuclear devices.

These views by Asia’s two rising powers have served as a much needed support structure for the global nuclear order. Now this stanchion is eroding. Beijing cannot stand idly by amid Washington’s discourse and plans to add new national and regional missile defenses, and can respond with MIRVs and advanced cruise missiles. New Delhi is also challenged to pick up the pace as Rawalpindi embraces “full spectrum deterrence.” India, too, has the resources and technological capabilities to compete much harder.

Why is Pakistan competing so hard? The answers are straightforward: India has split the country in two on the battlefield. Grievances over Partition remain raw, especially when Kashmir is again on the boil. Pakistan’s military runs the nuclear program and takes military requirements seriously – especially when Indian officials hint at beefing up their nuclear posture. While New Delhi ruminates and hesitates to empower military leaders who take operational requirements seriously, Rawalpindi acts. The Bomb is Pakistan’s ace in the hole when India enjoys growing conventional military advantages. And while Pakistan’s military is reorienting toward China, its approach to nuclear weapons remains rooted in western precepts.

For more on Pakistan’s nuclear learning, check out Naeem Salik’s*Learning to Live with the Bomb: 1998-2016. Naeem is a retired officer from Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division who has received his Ph.D. from the University of Western Australia and who is now based at the Center for International Strategic Studies in Islamabad.

Naeem’s book is a more judicious treatment of hot-button issues than his earlier one, The Genesis of South Asian Nuclear Deterrence: Pakistan’s Perspective, published in 2009. Back then, the author offered stout rebuttals to outsider accounts that, in his view, unfairly maligned Pakistan for events such as the A.Q. Khan affair and the “myth of technological collaboration” between Pakistan and China. The passage of time has produced a more nuanced, less defensive narrative by the author –*one that, on occasion, strays from the orthodoxy of the SPD. But make no mistake: this book constitutes a thorough vote of confidence for Pakistan’s nuclear stewardship. His focus is on the lessons, adaptations, and evolutions that have occurred since the 1998 tests.

What have these lessons been? The topmost lesson – which seems equally directed toward internal and external audiences – is that with the right leadership, “single minded determination, national resolve, and across the board national consensus, even the apparently insurmountable challenges can be overcome.” Second, Western opposition to Pakistan’s nuclear program has reaffirmed a national sense of victimization. And third, major powers will bend the rules governing non-proliferation for commercial and geopolitical gain. Pakistan’s nuclear program, as well as India’s, has benefitted from such convenient flexibility. Afghanistan is truly a thorn in Pakistan’s side, but twice – in 1979 and 2001 – events there relieved Pakistan of outside pressure, first against covert, and later overt nuclear developments.

Pakistan has not published its nuclear doctrine, making it hard to discern lessons. Nonetheless, its trajectory is clear: the modest, minimum deterrence doctrines that Pakistan strategists presumed to be eminently feasible after testing nuclear devices in 1998 has given way to a three-digit sized arsenal, with no signs of future restraint.

The early, high hopes of Pakistani and Indian strategists in minimal deterrence were, of course, qualified; there could be no “fixity” in nuclear requirements (to use Jaswant Singh’s term) when political relations deteriorate and technology advances. Nonetheless, optimism reigned at the dawn of an overtly nuclearized subcontinent. Pessimism has subsequently taken hold with the “gradual maturing of ideas,” to use Naeem’s choice of words.

The contestants on the subcontinent are now hip deep in the Big Muddy of open-ended nuclear requirements. They offer familiar justifications: Deterrence is relative, not absolute; more credibility is needed to deter adventurism or, if deterrence fails, to avoid being placed at a disadvantage in the event of nuclear exchanges.

From here on, the currents become more dangerous, with the advent of multiple warheads atop certain missiles, advanced cruise missiles, and sea-based deterrents without the safeguards available on land. To which have already been added battlefield nuclear weapons by Pakistan and the possibility of limited ballistic missile defenses by India.

The destruction of cities, or “countervalue” targeting, requires relatively few warheads. These requirements were met long ago. Larger stockpiles invite placing military targets at risk, known as “counterforce” targeting in the trade. The plethora of military targets means that arsenals can easily double in size, prompting fears of surprise attack, requiring high readiness levels to counter pre-emption. With higher readiness levels, the likelihood of accidents and the demands on command and control increase markedly.

Sadder but wiser Western strategic analysts saw this coming, but their warnings were discounted as patronizing. Outsiders were told that Pakistan and India would not be so unwise as to repeat the excesses of the Cold War nuclear competition. But sure enough, familiar dynamics are now playing out on a regional scale. They are harder to defuse because a third party is directly involved. China, too, is placing multiple warheads atop missiles, adding cruise missiles, and modernizing its sea-based deterrent.

As Naeem writes, Pakistan has learned crucial lessons since the 1998 tests, but significant challenges remain. The hardest among them is figuring out integrated command and control arrangements for conventional and nuclear forces that operate separately – even though they may be commingled –*in the field. This invites breakdowns in command and control in the heat of battle, as mushroom clouds do not lend themselves to an orderly battlefield. Not one high priest of nuclear deterrence theory, including Henry Kissinger, James Schlesinger, and Paul Nitze, ever addressed how to maintain a chain of command once the nuclear threshold has been crossed.

As Naeem notes, Pakistan has taken important steps to improve personnel reliability, nuclear security, and peacetime command and control. Pakistan has tightened up its export controls and has improved regulatory practices over civilian nuclear facilities. Institutional memory has been gained and process has been routinized within the SPD – the rationale offered for not having proper staff turnover there, as in other military assignments. Perhaps at some point in a fifteen-year-plus program, institutionalized learning been inculcated sufficiently to allow for the regular practice of baton passing.

While important, Pakistan’s nuclear learning has been intramural and, as Naeem notes, institutional learning has a way of blocking out external learning that is at odds with routinized practices. The author acknowledges that the downside of institutional memory “is the danger of succumbing to group thinking that can curb fresh ideas and diversity of opinion.”

In his thoughtful concluding chapter, Naeem writes that Pakistan’s nuclear learning has been “factual, inferential, experiential, perceptual, crisis, and imitative.” In the author’s view, this learning hasn’t always been linear, and has been “simple” rather than “complex” or multi-dimensional. As yet, he notes, there has been no stepping back from daily routines and challenges to think through whether a “comprehensive policy overhaul” is warranted, or to re-evaluate the “means-ends relationship” between nuclear requirements and national security objectives.

Nor is there evidence that Pakistan’s civilian leaders have any interest in doing so. Indeed, the present government hasn’t even filled its allotted seats at National Command Authority meetings. The author concludes on a somber note: that “it is unrealistic to expect any significant advance along the complex learning curve in the near future.”

Learning to Live with the Bomb is based largely on secondary sources and Naeem’s personal experiences at the SPD. His account can serve quite well as a textbook for college students alongside Manpreet Sethi’s India’s March Towards Credible Deterrence. For graduate students willing to drill down deeper into the roots of Pakistani and Indian nuclear programs, two denser accounts that rely heavily on interviews – Feroz Hassan Khan’s Eating Grass and George Perkovich’s India’s Nuclear Bomb – are must reading.

Much is left unsaid in this book. Pakistan, like other nuclear-armed states, has found it easy to learn to live with the Bomb. The subtext here is that Pakistan had no choice but to engage in a nuclear competition with India, so it was not possible to avoid getting sucked into an open-ended, regional arms race. The truly hard part of learning to live with the Bomb is having the resolve to slow down or get off this treadmill, either by means of diplomacy or unilateral action. As long as Pakistan’s decision makers deem it essential to engage in a nuclear competition with India, this build up will continue to drain resources away from usable weapons of national defense and from domestic needs.

Note to readers: A shorter version of this essay appeared in*Herald and Dawn in Pakistan.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorent...-the-u-s-militarys-long-decline/#7697e7c0280c

APR 24, 2017 @ 10:07 AM 3,973 views

Five Reasons Trump Won't Reverse The U.S. Military's Long Decline

Loren Thompson , CONTRIBUTOR
I write about national security, especially its business dimensions.

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Politicians of both parties frequently laud the prowess of America's warfighters. However, the reality is that the U.S. military has been gradually losing its edge over other countries in training and technology for many years.

The Air Force's fleet is the oldest it has ever been. The Navy is at least 80 warships short of what it needs to meet overseas responsibilities. The Army's vice chief of staff says his service is "outranged, outgunned and outdated;" he warns of sending "under-trained and poorly equipped soldiers into harm's way."

Donald Trump recognized the military's decay, and made reversing it a central focus of his presidential campaign. But barely 100 days into his administration, it is already clear he will not be able to halt the erosion. Although there are some bright spots such as the debut of the F-35 fighter, the military will continue losing ground.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis has repeatedly told Congress the president's proposed spending increase for the military isn't enough to restore lost capabilities. What Mattis himself may not grasp is that even the modest rise the White House has proposed -- 3% above what President Obama would have sought for next year -- isn't going to happen.

Here are the top five reasons why rebuilding America's military is shaping up to be a campaign promise not kept during the Trump era.

Decay has been spreading for two decades. The military's decline didn't begin during the Obama years. It started when defense secretary Dick Cheney decided a quarter-century ago that the Soviet Union's collapse warranted killing a hundred major weapons programs. President Clinton was more than willing to accept this "peace dividend," because it enabled him to balance the budget. His successor, George W. Bush, took office thinking the world was in a "strategic pause," and therefore called for skipping a generation of weapons while the military transformed itself for the digital age.

After the 9-11 attacks occurred, military transformation and investment in cutting-edge technology withered. The terrorists didn't have air forces or navies, so the Pentagon's aging arsenal was adequate to defeat them. President Obama added his own round of weapons cuts in 2009, and then became embroiled in a fiscal standoff with Republicans that resulted in a law capping military spending for ten years. That law is still in effect, and it has crippled military investment plans. President Trump isn't likely to reverse 20 years of decay in two terms.

The White House can't deliver spending increases. The White House has proposed increasing the military budget $54 billion above the legislated spending caps for 2018. However, that is illegal unless both chambers of Congress vote to repeal the law imposing the caps. Any such legislative change requires a "super majority" of 60 votes in the Senate. Since there are only 52 Republicans in the upper chamber, at least eight Democrats have to go along.

Democrats have said all along they wanted "parity" for defense and domestic spending -- if defense goes up, domestic must too. But what the White House budget office has proposed instead is that the $54 billion in defense increases be funded by cutting domestic programs a corresponding amount. No Democrat will support that tradeoff, and thus the spending caps will likely remain in place. The military may get a little more money from supplemental warfighting accounts -- which aren't covered by the caps -- but it isn't getting the increase Trump promised.

Trump has other priorities. Candidate Trump didn't just promise to rebuild America's military. He also pledged to reform the healthcare system; cut taxes for corporations and the middle class; restore the nation's crumbling infrastructure; and contain the deficit. This is arithmetically impossible. The Congressional Budget Office was already projecting a deficit of $540 billion for 2018 before he was elected, and according to the conservative Tax Foundation, Trump's tax cuts alone could add $260 billion or more to each year's deficit.

So even if Congress could overcome its partisan paralysis to repeal current spending caps, the fiscal fallout from the president's plans will be unpalatable to both parties. Many GOP legislators are warning that the nation's accumulated debt of $20 trillion will cause budget calculations to go haywire if interest rates for servicing the debt return to historic averages, and Trump's plans would increase the debt by roughly $3 billion per day during his tenure. Raising military outlays against this fiscal backdrop would require a mighty big threat.

Neither party is truly pro-military. Although members of Congress invariably support military spending in their home districts or states, support for spending levels that match the nation's global strategy is hard to find outside the authorizing committees. There isn't a true military expert in the leadership of either party in either chamber, and only one in five legislators has actually served in the armed forces (compared to three in five a generation ago). So to put it bluntly, many of the members don't know much about warfighting.

What they do know is that they will probably not be reelected if they try to trim entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, which are the real drivers of deficits (military spending claims only one in seven federal dollars). GOP members are not willing to raise taxes in order to meet military needs, and as I have already noted, Democrats are not willing to cut domestic outlays for the military's sake. Thus, while members on both sides of the aisle are eager to voice support for our warfighters, the support wanes when sacrifices are required.

Threats have become diverse and confusing. The United States sustained an unusually robust level of peacetime military spending for 40 years during the Cold War, because the threat was unambiguous. At one point, the Soviet Union had 10,000 nuclear weapons aimed at America, and Moscow's rhetoric was often bellicose. So support for military preparedness was widespread on Capitol Hill and in the political culture.

It isn't like that anymore. Many of the nation's recent overseas interventions have not gone well, and there is a lack of clarity about which dangers should be of greatest concern. Some legislators think that fiscal insolvency or climate change are a bigger danger than military attack. Even among those who grasp the profound dangers of modern warfare, there is doubt as to whether nuclear war or cyber attacks or global terrorism should be the greatest concern. So building political consensus behind a coherent military posture is difficult.

The bottom line here is that Pentagon planners should probably be preparing for a level of funding next year that does not exceed the $524 billion permitted by current law. To paraphrase the late Les Aspin, it's not that our leaders can't provide the military with more money or shouldn't, just that they probably won't. Which means the long decay of the U.S. military, which began amidst the ashes of the Soviet empire, is likely to persist until something really horrible happens to focus the minds of Americans on the consequences of being unprepared.

 

[brudog]

Thanks for the updates, Housecarl..

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Steve Herman‏Verified account @W7VOA 2h2 hours ago

Steve Herman Retweeted Ayaz Gul

The reported death toll keeps climbing higher. #Afghanistan

Steve Herman added,

Ayaz Gul @AyazGul64
Attack on Afghan Army Base Reportedly Killed Over 250 Soldiers http://www.voanews.com/a/3825261.html

posted for fair use
http://www.voanews.com/a/afghanistan-army-base-attack-taliban-death-toll/3825261.html
pics at each link in article



Attack on Afghan Army Base Reportedly Killed Over 250 Soldiers
April 25, 2017 3:17 PM

Ayaz Gul

http://gdb.voanews.com/4E379BB8-E57A-414E-8689-7DF8FD06E619_cx0_cy8_cw0_w1023_r1_s.jpg
Bullet holes are seen on the wall of a mosque at an Afghan military base where Taliban attackers last week killed scores of soldiers in Mazar-i-Sharif, northern Afghanistan, April 25, 2017.
ISLAMABAD —


Afghanistan’s largest television station has reported last Friday’s deadliest-ever assault by the Taliban on a major military base in northern Balkh province left more than 250 soldiers dead and accused authorities of “hiding the truth.”

The government has been under fire for refusing to reveal the number of casualties several days after the attack targeting the Afghan National Army’s 209th Shaheen Corps in the provincial capital of Mazar-i-Sharif.

The deputy chairman of the Afghan Senate, the upper house of the parliament, informed lawmakers on Sunday that security officials told him the death toll stood at around 131, while provincial politicians had put it at more than 150 from the outset.

“Based on information gathered from different sources, so far, the identity of 256 soldiers from 10 provinces have been confirmed,” TOLOnews reported Tuesday, quoting “credible” sources.

http://gdb.voanews.com/98FF3E47-21A5-4856-9E15-59E8282DAD88_w650_r0_s.jpg
Coffins containing the bodies of Afghan national Army (ANA) soldiers killed in April 21's attack on an army headquarters are lined up in Mazar-i-Sharif, northern Afghanistan, April 22, 2017.

The TV station also named the provinces to which the bodies of the victims have been dispatched for burials.

Possible impact on morale cited

Government officials privately have insisted that releasing the death toll could undermine the morale of the Afghan army battling a resurgent Taliban. But critics assert the government was disrespecting the slain soldiers by withholding the number of casualties.

Officials and insurgents say a group of 10 heavily-armed Taliban fighters wearing army uniforms, and accompanying an allegedly wounded soldier, stormed the base and carried out the massacre. The attack mainly targeted a dining hall and mosque deep inside the facility where hundreds of Afghan soldiers were offering special Friday prayers.


http://gdb.voanews.com/FE563753-FF78-450E-AC31-BAA9363CA87E_w650_r0_s.jpg
Afghan soldiers stand guard at the gate of a military base in Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghanistan, April 21, 2017, after an attack by Taliban suicide bombers and gunmen who entered the compound wearing Afghan army uniforms.

Witnesses and security sources said that Taliban assailants drove up to the base in two army vehicles mounted with machine guns, waving fake identification cards and claiming they were bringing back a seriously injured soldier from the frontline. Some of the attackers detonated explosives strapped to their bodies while others were gunned down by Afghan commandos before the hours-long siege ended.

Raid renews criticism

The brazen raid has renewed criticism of Afghan security institutions’ ability to stabilize the country. The carnage prompted the defense minister and the army chief to step down on Monday. President Ashraf Ghani has also removed several corps commanders, including that of the Shaheen Corps, following the attack.

A high-level investigation is underway to determine how the attackers managed to enter the highly-fortified military facility in Mazar-i-Sharif and whether they had received “inside help.”

http://gdb.voanews.com/26CF4FF2-01A4-4D7E-A9F2-458BCD08E846_w650_r0_s.jpg
The Afghan Taliban released to the media this photo which it said shows the suicide bombers and gunmen who attacked the army base in Mazar-i-Sharif, April 21, 2017.


At least four Afghan soldiers are suspected of having helped the attackers but they remain at large, according to officials.

American military advisors and trainers were also present at a different location inside the regional military headquarters.

The Taliban, while claiming responsibility for Friday’s attack, said more than 500 soldiers were killed or wounded. It went on to say the assault on the army base was a prelude to its coming “spring offensive” in Afghanistan.

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, during his day-long visit to Kabul on Monday, also warned “2017's going to be another tough year for the valiant Afghan security forces and the international troops.”

 

[Housecarl]

More Disturbing Revelations on Obama’s Disastrous Nuclear Deal with Iran
Started by*thompsoný,*Today*01:27 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-on-Obama’s-Disastrous-Nuclear-Deal-with-Iran

China Launches First Domestically-Built Aircraft Carrier
Started by*LYKURGOSý,*Yesterday*08:21 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...hes-First-Domestically-Built-Aircraft-Carrier

Turkish jets bomb US-backed forces in Iraq, Syria, US officials say
Started by*Dennis Olsoný,*Yesterday*07:25 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-backed-forces-in-Iraq-Syria-US-officials-say

US Navy destroyer has close encounter with Iran vessel in Persian Gulf
Started by*TidesofTruthý,*Yesterday*10:34 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...se-encounter-with-Iran-vessel-in-Persian-Gulf

Navy destroyer has close encounter with Iran vessel in Persian Gulf
Started by*Dennis Olson‎,*Yesterday*07:09 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...se-encounter-with-Iran-vessel-in-Persian-Gulf

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...-post-in-syria-has-moved-commandant-says.html

Marine Corps Artillery Post in Syria Has Moved, Commandant Says

Military.com | 25 Apr 2017 | by Hope Hodge Seck

A Marine Corps-controlled howitzer position in northern Syria supporting the assault on the Islamic State stronghold of Raqqa is mobile, and has moved at least once since it was established, Marine Commandant Gen. Robert Neller said.

In a brief interview with Military.com, Neller said the outpost of several hundred Marines equipped with M777 155mm howitzers could change positions in order to best aid the ongoing fight. The cannons have an effective range of 15 to 25 miles, depending on the round being fired.

"The fight evolves, so they're moving to where they can best provide support based on the capability of the weapons system," he said. "The commanders there understand the capability and they'll reposition them as required in order to provide the fire support and other effects they need to do to make the campaign successful, ultimately."

In late February, a small element quietly detached from the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit to establish the fire position, which contains multiple artillery batteries and includes infantry and support personnel. The Marines arrived as local anti-Islamic State forces intensified their siege of Raqqa, at the time the capital for ISIS militants in Syria.

The establishment of a mobile artillery outpost contrasts with the fixed artillery position set up by Marines last year near the city of Makhmour to aid the ongoing coalition assault on Mosul, another major ISIS stronghold in Iraq. That position, known initially as Firebase Bell and renamed the Kara Soar Counterfire Complex, was first manned by members of the deployed 26th MEU.

On March 9, 2016, one of the Marines, Staff Sgt. Louis Cardin, was killed in a rocket attack on the complex, becoming the first American service member to fall in Iraq since 2011.

The fire base is now manned by Army personnel as the battle for Mosul continues.

Neller said support of the fight for Raqqa continued in the wake of a U.S. Tomahawk cruise missile attack on Shayrat airfield April 7 -- a deterrent measure in response to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's reported use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilians.

"They're always concerned about security; they're always concerned about unmanned aircraft, but they're being well protected, just like all the American forces there," Neller said of the Marines manning the mobile artillery support position. "So they're working through all that stuff."

Neller declined to cite specifics about what the artillery Marines had been able to accomplish in Syria, but said they had had significant effect on the fight and had stayed busy, working in "extreme conditions" as they supported the battle.

"I think by all accounts, everybody's satisfied with what they've provided, and we'll see what the next iteration of this looks like," Neller said. "... Hopefully, we'll secure the area in and around Raqqa."

-- Hope Hodge Seck can be reached at hope.seck@military.com. Follow her on Twitter at@HopeSeck.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...launches-unarmed-missile-test-california.html

Air Force Launches Unarmed Missile for Test in California

Associated Press | 26 Apr 2017

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. — An unarmed Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missile has been launched from a U.S. Air Force Base in California on a flight to a target in the Pacific Ocean.

The missile lifted off at 12:03 a.m. Wednesday from Vandenberg Air Force Base, 130 miles northwest of Los Angeles.

An Air Force statement said the mission was part of a program to test the effectiveness, readiness, and accuracy of the weapon system.

The 30th Space Wing commander, Col. John Moss, said Minuteman launches are essential to verify the status of the U.S. nuclear force and to demonstrate the national nuclear capabilities.

In a Minuteman test, a so-called re-entry vehicle travels more than 4,000 miles downrange to a target at Kwajalein Atoll near the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands.

"Team V is once again ready to work with Air Force Global Strike Command to successfully launch another Minuteman III missile," Moss said. "These Minuteman launches are essential to verify the status of our national nuclear force and to demonstrate our national nuclear capabilities. We are proud of our long history in partnering with the men and women of the 576th Flight Test Squadron to execute these missions for the nation."

The 576th Flight Test Squadron will be responsible for installed tracking, telemetry, and command destruct systems on the missile.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...?utm_source=sec&utm_campaign=sl&utm_medium=16

China launches naval fleet to tour 20 nations, conduct training exercises

By Elizabeth Shim **|** April 24, 2017 at 1:44 PM

April 24 (UPI) -- The Chinese navy has launched a fleet to tour more than 20 countries in the next six months, China News Service reported.

One of the People's Liberation Army Navy's new generation of guided missile destroyers, the Changchun, the frigate ship Xingzhou and a supply ship departed from Shanghai as China marked the 68th anniversary of the navy, the report stated Sunday.

For the next 180 days, the group will travel to more than 20 countries in Asia, Europe, Africa and Oceania.

The naval ships are expected to conduct exercises that include escorting other ships, training and patrolling.

The report did not clarify which navies would jointly train with the Chinese fleet, but pointed out it is the longest tour of any Chinese fleet in history.

Li Jie, a Chinese military expert, said the deployment of the fleet is aligned with Chinese President Xi Jinping's "Belt and Road" initiative: an international trade and infrastructure project that will connect China's coastal regions to Africa, Asia and the Middle East through a maritime route.

China's second aircraft carrier, the Shandong, also known as the Type 001A, was ready for launch, but experts said tidal conditions were "not conducive" for a launch to commemorate the navy's birthday, the South China Morning Post reported.

The new carrier is bigger than the Liaoning, China's first aircraft carrier. The latter was refurbished from the half-finished Soviet carrier Varyag, which Beijing acquired from a Ukrainian shipyard in 1998, according to the Post.

China recently restructured the military into 84 corps-level units, which are under the command of the 15 main departments of the PLA.

Xi has been cracking down on corruption in the military, a policy that has led to the ouster of top military officers.

 

[Lilbitsnana]

April 24 (UPI) -- The Chinese navy has launched a fleet to tour more than 20 countries in the next six months, China News Service reported.

It's a good way to save some of you navy too (or even take some pot shots at your enemy while they are distracted), just in case things go really wonky.

 

[Housecarl]

It's a good way to save some of you navy too (or even take some pot shots at your enemy while they are distracted), just in case things go really wonky.

True.

 

[Housecarl]

Well that wasn't long from the "vote"....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-security-arrests-idUSKBN17S0JD

World News | Wed Apr 26, 2017 | 5:43am EDT

Turkey says detains 1,000 'secret imams' in police purge

By Ece Toksabay | ANKARA

Turkish authorities arrested more than 1,000 people on Wednesday they said had secretly infiltrated police forces across the country on behalf of a U.S.-based cleric blamed by the government for a failed coup attempt last July.

The nationwide sweep was one of the largest operations in months against suspected supporters of the cleric, Fethullah Gulen, a former ally of President Tayyip Erdogan who is now accused by the government of trying to topple him by force.

Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu said the overnight crackdown targeted a Gulen network "that infiltrated our police force, called 'secret imams'.

"One thousand and nine secret imams have been detained so far in 72 provinces, and the operation is ongoing," he told reporters in Ankara.

In the aftermath of the failed July coup, authorities arrested 40,000 people and sacked or suspended 120,000 from a wide range of professions including soldiers, police, teachers and public servants, over alleged links with terrorist groups.

The latest detentions came 10 days after voters narrowly backed plans to expand Erdogan's already wide powers in a referendum which opposition parties and European election observers said was marred by irregularities.

The referendum bitterly divided Turkey. Erdogan's critics fear further drift into authoritarianism, with a leader they see as bent on eroding modern Turkey's democracy and secular foundations.

Erdogan argues that strengthening the presidency will avert instability associated with coalition governments, at a time when Turkey faces multiple challenges including security threats from Islamist and Kurdish militants.

"In Turkey, there was an attempted coup with a goal of toppling the government and destroying the state," he told Reuters in an interview late on Tuesday.

"We are trying to cleanse members of FETO inside the armed forces, inside the judiciary and inside the police," he said, using an acronym for the label, Gulenist Terrorist Organisation, which the government has given to Gulen's supporters.

Related Coverage
Turkey issues warrants for 3,224 people over alleged links to failed coup: TV channels

The president compared the struggle against Gulen with the state's battle against Islamic State and Kurdish PKK militants, who are designated terrorist organizations by Turkey, the European Union and the United States.

"We are going to keep up the fight in terms of democracy, fundamental rights and liberties, but at the same time we are going to keep up the fight against PKK, FETO and other terrorist organizations such as Daesh (Islamic State)," he said. "We will continue down this path in a very committed fashion."

Mass detentions immediately after the attempted coup were supported by many Turks, who agreed with Erdogan when he blamed Gulen for orchestrating the putsch which killed 240 people, mostly civilians. But criticism mounted as the arrests widened.

Many relatives of those detained or sacked since July say they have nothing to do with the armed attempt to overthrow the government, and are victims of a purge designed to solidify Erdogan's control.

(Editing by Dominic Evans and Angus MacSwan)

 

[Possible Impact]

Russian Embassy, UK‏ Verified account @RussianEmbassy 6h
.@MailOnline If the message is SOS,
Russian Navy always ready to help out.

^^^

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Interesting and Israel just asked the White House to cooperate in finding a way to stop Iran from having a permanent foothold in Syria. (a bit too late for that....)


FOX59 News‏Verified account @FOX59 28s29 seconds ago

President Trump is giving the Pentagon more flexibility to determine the number of troops in Iraq and Syria


Reuters World‏Verified account @ReutersWorld 5h5 hours ago

Israel seeks U.S. backing to avert permanent Iran foothold in Syria

Idrees Ali‏Verified account @idreesali114 4h4 hours ago

Israel seeks U.S. backing to avert permanent Iran foothold in Syria http://reut.rs/2pArh1i



posted for fair use and discussion
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-israel-intelligence-idUKKBN17S2XT?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews


World News | Wed Apr 26, 2017 | 10:19pm BST
Israel seeks U.S. backing to avert permanent Iran foothold in Syria

By Matt Spetalnick and Mark Hosenball | WASHINGTON

Israel is seeking an "understanding" with the Trump administration that Iran must not be allowed to establish a permanent military foothold in Syria, Israel's intelligence minister told Reuters on Wednesday.

In an interview, visiting Intelligence Minister Yisrael Katz said he was also using his meetings with White House officials and key lawmakers to press for further U.S. sanctions on Iran and the Iranian-backed Lebanese militia Hezbollah, which is supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

"I want to achieve an understanding, an agreement between the U.S. and Israel ... not to let Iran have permanent military forces in Syria, by air, by land, by sea," Katz told Reuters, saying this should be part of any future international accord on ending Syria's six-year-old civil war.

Katz, a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing Likud party, insisted, however, that Israel was not asking Washington to commit more forces to Syria, but to "achieve this by talking to the Russians, by threatening Iran, by sanctions and other things."

There was no immediate comment from the White House. Katz was due to meet President Donald Trump's Middle East envoy, Jason Greenblatt.

For its part, Israel has stayed mostly on the sidelines in the Syrian conflict and has shown no sign of significantly altering that posture. It has carried out only occasional air strikes when its has felt threatened, including by the delivery of weapons to Hezbollah militants.

Israeli officials have estimated that Iran - Israel's regional archfoe, but also that of Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab states - commands at least 25,000 fighters in Syria, including members of its own Revolutionary Guard, Shi'ite militants from Iraq and recruits from Afghanistan and Pakistan.

ALARMING PROVOCATIONS

Katz's visit came just a week after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson accused Iran of "alarming ongoing provocations" to destabilise countries in the Middle East as the Trump administration launched a review of its policy toward Tehran.

Tillerson said the review would look not only at Tehran's compliance with a 2015 nuclear deal, but also its behaviour in the region.

Trump, who may visit Israel as early as next month, has adopted a tougher stance against Assad. He ordered cruise missile strikes on a Syrian air base this month after blaming Assad for a chemical weapons attack that killed at least 70 people, many of them children.

"It was important morally and strategically," Katz said of the U.S. strikes. The Syrian government has denied it was behind the gas attack.

Israeli officials want Russia, which they see as holding the balance of power among Assad's supporters, to use its influence to help rein in Iran's activities in Syria.

Though Russia has shown no willingness to restrain Iran, Israeli officials say there are indications that Moscow may see any long-term Iranian military presence in Syria as potentially destabilising.

Katz reiterated Israel's vow to continue launching occasional air strikes in Syria against Hezbollah forces detected transporting rockets or other weapons toward the Lebanese border, which he described as a "red line."

(Writing by Matt Spetalnick; Editing by John Walcott and Jonathan Oatis)

 

[Housecarl]

North Korea Main Thread - All things Korea April 20th - 26th
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-Main-Thread-All-things-Korea-April-20th-26th

NORTH KOREA CARRIES OUT MASSIVE ARTILLERY DRILL
Started by iboya‎, Yesterday 06:20 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?515866-NORTH-KOREA-CARRIES-OUT-MASSIVE-ARTILLERY-DRILL

Entire Senate being called to White House for North Korea briefing
Started by Dennis Olson‎, 04-24-2017 11:29 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...alled-to-White-House-for-North-Korea-briefing

-----

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-northkorea-usa-idUKKBN17T0BZ

WORLD NEWS | Thu Apr 27, 2017 | 9:33am BST

China welcomes U.S. saying it's open to talks on North Korea

By Michael Martina and Ju-min Park | BEIJING/SEOUL

China on Thursday welcomed an apparently softer tone by the United States on the North Korean nuclear and missile crisis but stressed its opposition to a U.S. missile defence system being deployed in South Korea.

China has long promoted dialogue to resolve the "Korean nuclear issue" as North Korea has repeatedly threatened to destroy the United States which in turn has warned that "all options are on the table" in ending North Korean provocations.

The Trump administration said on Wednesday it aimed to push North Korea into dismantling its nuclear and missile programmes, which are in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, through tougher international sanctions and diplomatic pressure.

"The United States seeks stability and the peaceful denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. We remain open to negotiations towards that goal. However, we remain prepared to defend ourselves and our allies," it said in a statement.

Asked about the U.S. comments, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said China had noted that many U.S. officials had recently made such remarks.

"We have noted these expressions, and have noted the message conveyed in these expressions hoping to resolve the Korean nuclear issue peacefully through dialogue and consultation," he said.

"We believe this message is positive and should be affirmed."

South Korea and the United States agreed on Thursday on "swift punitive measures" against North Korea in the event of further provocation. The South also said the deployment of a U.S. anti-missile defence system was moving ahead effectively a day after angry protests against the battery and fierce opposition from China.

South Korea on Wednesday moved parts of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to its deployment site on a golf course about 250 km (155 miles) south of the capital, Seoul, signalling a faster installation of the system.

Several hundred South Korean villagers protested near the site, hurling water bottles at vehicles moving the parts in.

CHINA AGAIN DENOUNCES THAAD

The top U.S. Commander in the Pacific, Admiral Harry Harris, said on Wednesday the THAAD system would be operational "in coming days" bolstering the ability to defend the U.S. ally and the 28,500 U.S. troops stationed there.

A photograph taken of the site showed a THAAD interceptor on the back of a mobile launcher erected and pointed skywards on green lawn as a military transport helicopter hovered nearby.

China says the system's advanced radar can penetrate deep into its territory and undermine its security. It is adamant in its opposition.

"The deployment of the THAAD anti-missile system in South Korea damages the regional strategic balance and stability. The Chinese side is resolutely opposed to this," Defence Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun told reporters.

"China’s military will continue to carry out live-fire military exercises and test new military equipment in order to firmly safeguard national security and regional peace and stability."

ALSO IN WORLD NEWS

Israel strikes Iran-supplied arms depot near Damascus airport - sources
UK could join U.S. action in event of new Syria chemical attack - Johnson


U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats described North Korea on Wednesday as "an urgent national security threat and top foreign policy priority".

The U.S. signal of a willingness to exhaust non-military avenues came as the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier group approached Korean waters, where it will join the USS Michigan nuclear submarine.

North Korea, which conducted its biggest ever artillery exercise to mark the 85th anniversary of its military's creation on Tuesday, says it needs to develop weapons to defend itself from U.S. aggression.

A North Korean official speaking on CNN said the country would not be influenced by outside events.

"As long as America continues its hostile acts of aggression, we will never stop nuclear and missile tests," said Sok Chol Won, director of the North's Institute of Human Rights at the Academy of Social Sciences.

Moon Jae-in, the front-runner in South Korea's May 9 presidential election, has called for a delay in THAAD deployment, saying a decision should be made after gathering public opinion and more talks with Washington.

(Additional reporting by Phil Stewart in WASHINGTON and Ben Blanchard in BEIJING; Writing by Jack Kim and Nick Macfie; Editing by Robert Birsel)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/2...cific-suggests-missile-defense-in-hawaii.html

North Korea threat: Top admiral calls on more missile interceptors in Hawaii

By Ryan Gaydos Published April 27, 2017 Fox News

Video

A top U.S. commander in the Pacific on Wednesday said he believes Hawaii needs more missile interceptors in response to the growing threat on North Korea and Pyongyang’s capability to launch a rocket.

Adm. Harry Harris told the House Armed Services Committee that Hawaii’s defenses were sufficient for now, but could one day be overwhelmed in an onslaught.

"I don't share your confidence that North Korea is not going to attack either South Korea, or Japan, or the United States ... once they have the capability," Harris said.

He could not comment on the precise capability of the U.S.' defenses, but he said, "I do believe that the numbers could be improved. In other words, we need more interceptors."

Hawaii lawmakers have already been scrambling to come up with emergency plans in event of a North Korean attack. The Hawaii House Public Safety Committee called for the state’s defense agency to repair its hundreds of Cold War-era fallout shelters. They were tasked with restocking them with medical supplies, food and water. The state’s emergency plans have not been updated since the 1980s.

The admiral’s comments came shortly before the Trump administration held a closed-door briefing with senators on North Korea. President Trump's secretary of state, defense secretary, top general and national intelligence director were on hand to lay out the North’s escalating nuclear capabilities.

“Past efforts have failed to halt North Korea's unlawful weapons programs and nuclear and ballistic missile tests,” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said in a joint statement. “With each provocation, North Korea jeopardizes stability in Northeast Asia and poses a growing threat to our allies and the U.S. homeland.”

Click for more from Reuters.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...limits-of-their-power/?utm_term=.122d146b1137

WorldViews Analysis

In Venezuela and Turkey, strongmen fear the limits of their power

By Ishaan Tharoor April 27 at 1:00 AM

The entrenched and embattled presidents of Venezuela and Turkey may live worlds apart, but their tenures in office are acquiring striking similarities.

Both see foreign plots aimed against them and whip up their supporters by warning of coups. Both preside over deeply divided countries and seem to benefit from stoking polarization. And both are clinging to power even as their nations drift into crisis and deeper economic turmoil.

To be sure, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro's grip is weaker than that of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Maduro's government has been buffeted by weeks of mass protests, launched after the country's Supreme Court stripped the opposition-dominated National Assembly of its powers last month. The decision was reversed days later but not before unleashing widespread outrage.

“That, on its own, is enough to bring people into the streets,” said my colleague Amanda Erickson. “But many Venezuelans are already at the breaking point. Food shortages have left much of the country hungry, and access to basic goods and medicine is intermittent at best. Inflation is spiraling out of control, and crime is a daily reality. Corruption and mismanagement have squandered the country's vast oil reserves.”

The sprawling economic crisis has had real and shocking effects: Three-quarters of respondents to a national survey reported an average loss of 19 pounds in body weight between 2015 and 2016, a result of chronic food shortages. In that same time frame, the rate of Venezuelans eating two or fewer meals a day tripled, making up as many as 10 million of the country's 30 million people. Blackouts are increasingly common, medical facilities are collapsing, and rates of infant mortality and infectious diseases are rising.

Maduro has pinned the blame for Venezuela's woes on a meddling opposition guided by a foreign (read: American) hand, and mobilized counter protests as well as pro-government militias known as “colectivos.” The opposition is demanding that these groups be disarmed, political prisoners be released and a fresh presidential election be held — and they say they won't stop protesting until those demands are met. The unrest has led to 28 deaths this month, with both sides blaming the other for the violence.

The opposition, as my colleague Nick Miroff wrote, may hope their “ability to summon huge crowds also sends a message to Venezuela’s armed forces” and raises the stakes for Maduro, whose hold on power is increasingly dependent on the loyalty of security services. Opposition figures have been issuing public calls to soldiers to defy Maduro's orders to crackdown on the protests.

“By putting thousand and thousands of people in the streets almost every day, they’re trying to keep the cost of supporting Maduro very high for the armed forces,” said political analyst Margarita López Maya to my colleagues. “And the government is in a slide that looks irreversible.”

Maduro lacks the charisma of his predecessor, the late Hugo Chávez, whose populist revolution was tethered to global oil prices and has now foundered amid mismanagement and cronyism. But Maduro is showing few signs of listening to his critics at all, let alone allowing new elections.

So why the comparison to Erdogan? For one, the Turkish leader is similarly unwilling to brook dissent.

After a failed coup attempt against his rule last July, Erdogan and his government conducted an astonishing purge of state institutions and civil society, arresting and sidelining tens of thousands of people — including many who likely had little or no connection to the coup plotters. On Wednesday, Turkish authorities announced the detention of 1,000 more people.

And, indeed, Maduro has found inspiration in Erdogan's crackdown. “Did you see what happened in Turkey?” said Maduro, in a televised public event last August. “Erdogan will seem like a nursing baby compared to what the Bolivarian revolution will do if the right wing steps over the line with a coup.”

The two leaders also share a pugnacious style. Earlier this month, Erdogan narrowly won a referendum that will scrap Turkey's parliamentary system and bestow vast new and mostly unchecked powers upon his presidency. When European election monitors raised questions about the fairness of the vote, Erdogan rounded on them, advising that they should “know their place.”

The buildup to the referendum saw Erdogan locked in various rhetorical battles with foreign governments, particularly a few in Western Europe, and constant allusions at home to the threat posed to Turkey's interests by “crusaders” and “Nazi” Europeans. His repeated tactic is to rally a nationalist base against enemies, imagined and real, elsewhere. This is also a common theme in the populism of the regime that Chavez built and Maduro now seeks to preserve.

“We tend to think of Erdogan on the right and the Venezuelan revolution on the left, but the approach to how you do politics is just so familiar,” said Francisco Toro, editor of the Caracas Chronicles news website, in a recent (and interesting) podcast.

But despite their majoritarian rule, the political reality for both Maduro and Erdogan is one of profound uncertainty. Mounting international pressure, never mind sustained dissent on the streets, may leave Maduro with few cards to play.

And while Erdogan is in a far stronger position, the referendum may yet prove to be a Pyrrhic victory. The slender margin of his camp's win — and the taint of irregularities — deprives Erodgan of the unifying mandate he hoped to win. He may have fewer scapegoats to blame as Turkey's accumulating security and economic troubles, including the cratering of its tourism industry, add up. Observers also now see an opportunity for Turkey's long-splintered opposition to find a new unity ahead of 2019 elections.

For Erdogan and Maduro, both seemingly bent on staying in power, there may be many sleepless nights ahead.

-

Ishaan Tharoor writes about foreign affairs for The Washington Post. He previously was a senior editor at TIME, based first in Hong Kong and later in New York. Follow @ishaantharoor

 

[Housecarl]

BREAKING: EXPLOSIONS AT DAMASCUS AIRPORT - Thought to be Israeli
Started by TidesofTruth‎, Yesterday 06:38 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ONS-AT-DAMASCUS-AIRPORT-Thought-to-be-Israeli

Russia Ready To Send Ground Troops To Syria: FARS
Started by marsh‎, Yesterday 01:35 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...sia-Ready-To-Send-Ground-Troops-To-Syria-FARS

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-04-26-23-11-15

Apr 26, 11:11 PM EDT

TRUMP GIVES PENTAGON MORE FLEXIBILITY ON IRAQ, SYRIA TROOPS

BY LOLITA C. BALDOR
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House is giving the Pentagon greater flexibility to determine the number of U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria, in another move by President Donald Trump to shift greater power to his military leaders.

The decision will give Defense Secretary Jim Mattis the authority to send more forces into Syria, to assist U.S.-backed local troops as they move to retake Raqqa from the Islamic State group, which has used the city as a de facto capital.

It will also let him adjust the force numbers in Iraq, in the ongoing fight to oust IS from Mosul and stabilize it as the rebuilding begins.

The Pentagon has already been making quiet, incremental additions to the troop levels in both countries in recent months, adding hundreds of Marines in Syria to provide artillery support, and sending more advisers into Iraq to work with units closer to the fight in Mosul. Those moves were done with White House approval, but without any formal adjustment to the longstanding troop caps that had been set by the Obama administration.

Dana White, chief spokesperson for the Pentagon, said Wednesday that Mattis has not made any changes yet to the current authorized force levels.

Under the Obama White House, military leaders chafed about micromanagement that forced commanders to get approvals for routine tactical decisions and personnel moves, and provide justification for any troops sent into war zones. Commanders have argued that they should be able to determine troop deployments based on the military capabilities they believe are needed at any given time.

The new authority will provide greater transparency about the actual number of U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria after several years of public confusion about the accurate totals. Under the Obama-mandated caps, the U.S. was limited to 503 officially deployed troops in Syria, and 5,262 in Iraq. The Pentagon, however, has closer to 7,000 in Iraq, and hundreds more than the cap in Syria, but doesn't count them because they are on temporary duty or not counted under specific personnel rules.

The change, however, could trigger concerns - particularly in Iraq, where there are political sensitivities about the footprint of American and coalition troops and fears about occupation forces. Officials worry that if they publicly acknowledge there are thousands more troops there, it could fuel opposition and problems for the Iraqi government.

Trump's decision applies only to the two countries, and so far does not affect Afghanistan, although that change has also been discussed.

"This does not represent a change in our mission in Iraq and Syria to defeat ISIS," said White, using another name for the Islamic State group. She said the U.S. will continue to work through and with local forces, but giving Mattis the authority to make troop-level decisions will allow commanders to be "more agile, adaptive and efficient in supporting our partners, and enables decisions that benefit unit readiness, cohesion and lethality."

She added that the change will allow the Pentagon be more open with Congress and the public.

 

[Lilbitsnana]

While this isn't "war", so many things have been happening lately that considering the nuts surrounding Israel, it should be mentioned here.



Steve Herman‏Verified account @W7VOA 57m57 minutes ago

Steve Herman Retweeted Ynetnews

This is unofficial but a precise date is being reported for @POTUS #Israel trip.

Steve Herman added,

YnetnewsVerified account @ynetnews
President Trump to arrive in Israel in May 22 - http://ift.tt/2oMwzlt

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news...raeli-strike-on-nearby-military-compound.html

4 Cargo Planes From Iran Landed In Syria Just Before ‘Israeli Strike’ On Nearby Military Compound

April 27, 2017 1:45 pm

According to a report by Haaretz, as many as four cargo planes from iran landed at an airport near Damascus a short while before an alleged Israeli air strike hit a military compound nearby.

Hours before the blasts, which took place at 3:25 A.M., two Iranian 747 cargo planes, an Iranian Ilyushin il-76 and a Syrian Ilyushin il-76 landed in Damascus, according to the flight radar tracking site Flightradar24.com.

(Dov Gefen – YWN)

 

[Lilbitsnana]

ack, it really belongs on the next one, but you haven't started it yet, so sticking it here.


The Intel Crab Retweeted
Raveen Aujmaya‏ @raveenaujmaya 33m33 minutes ago

BREAKING #Israeli fighter jets launch massive airstrikes against #Syrian army positions in #Quneitra, SW of #Syria..


The Intel Crab‏ @IntelCrab 37m37 minutes ago

The Intel Crab Retweeted Kurdistan24 English

#Breaking:

The Intel Crab added,

Kurdistan24 EnglishVerified account @K24English
#BREAKING: Israeli warplanes launch airstrikes against Syrian army positions in Quneitra, south-western #Syria.

 

[mzkitty]

They also fired another 3-4,000 people who held administrative positions:


Nick Falco‏ @Nick_Falco 13m13 minutes ago

#BREAKING TURKEY BANS DATING PROGRAMS ON TV AND RADIO: OFFICIAL GAZETTE

Is Sharia Law on the way in Turkey? Mass purges now no dating shows


Robert W. Neill, Jr.‏ @rwneilljr 2m2 minutes ago

http://robwire.com Turkey blocks Wikipedia http://dlvr.it/P1XjBt #breaking #news

 

[Lilbitsnana]

ack, it really belongs on the next one, but you haven't started it yet, so sticking it here.


The Intel Crab Retweeted
Raveen Aujmaya‏ @raveenaujmaya 33m33 minutes ago

BREAKING #Israeli fighter jets launch massive airstrikes against #Syrian army positions in #Quneitra, SW of #Syria..


The Intel Crab‏ @IntelCrab 37m37 minutes ago

The Intel Crab Retweeted Kurdistan24 English

#Breaking:

The Intel Crab added,

Or not....Syria denies it, or at least no base hit. Interesting.


Haaretz.com‏Verified account @haaretzcom 12m12 minutes ago

UPDATE: Syria denies reports of attack on #Quneitra


Haaretz.com‏Verified account @haaretzcom 23m23 minutes ago

Syrian military sources were quoted as denying the attack, saying the Syrian Army's 90th Brigade was not hit

 

[mzkitty]

Goes with Post #34 above:


AOC‏ @AOC_Security 7m7 minutes ago

#BREAKING signs are #Turkey about to crack down on the #internet. If you must #travel there, use a #vpn. #Istanbul #Erdogan #wikipedia

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Steve Herman‏Verified account @W7VOA 1h1 hour ago

A US service member has been killed by an IED outside of Mosul, according to @DeptofDefense. #Iraq

 

[mzkitty]

Woo!! Overkill !! It's really getting cray cray in Turkey today. I know this has to be related somehow:




arash choupani‏ @northlyman 3m3 minutes ago

#Breaking: Sayeed Karimian, head of an outlawed #Iranian satellite channel, has been murdered in #Istanbul.


KavehTaheri‏ @TaheriKaveh 7m7 minutes ago
KavehTaheri Retweeted ManotoNews

#Breaking: CEO of GEM TV was allegedly shot by at least 27 bullets in #Turkey, Persian news agencies reported.

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Rami al-Lolah‏ @RamiAILoIah 10m10 minutes ago

#BREAKING #Russia|n army Special Forces troops and army heavy vehicles deployed in Afrin near #Turkey borders northwest of #Syria

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Rami al-Lolah‏ @RamiAILoIah 12m12 minutes ago
Replying to @RamiAILoIah

Rami al-Lolah Retweeted Rami al-Lolah

#BREAKING #Russia|n troops with YPG terror group now patrolling #Syria|n #Turkey borders from Janders to Bulbul..

Rami al-Lolah added,

Rami al-Lolah @RamiAILoIah
#BREAKING #Russia|n army Special Forces troops and army heavy vehicles deployed in Afrin near #Turkey borders northwest of #Syria