WAR 05-06-2017-to-05-12-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

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

(267) 04-22-2017-to-04-28-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...28-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(268) 04-29-2017-to-05-05-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...05-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

----

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-taliban-idUSKBN182075

World News | Sat May 6, 2017 | 3:45am EDT

Afghan Taliban take district near northern Kunduz in spring offensive

Taliban militants captured a district just outside the northern Afghan city of Kunduz on Saturday, officials said, pointing to renewed pickup in fighting after the insurgents announced their annual spring offensive last week.

Mahfouz Akbari, a police spokesman for eastern Afghanistan, said security forces had pulled out of Qala-i-Zal district, west of Kunduz city, on Saturday to avoid further civilian and military casualties after more than 24 hours of heavy fighting.

In a statement, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said the insurgents had taken police headquarters, the governor's compound and all security checkpoints. He said several police and soldiers had been killed and wounded.

Over the past 18 months, Taliban insurgents have twice succeeded in seizing the town center of Kunduz for brief periods and the latest fighting underscores warnings that Afghan forces face another grueling year of fighting.

A shopkeeper, whose name is also Zabihullah, said the situation was now reminiscent of the position in October last year when Taliban forces entered the city before being driven back after days of fighting and air strikes.

"I am extremely worried. There are security forces everywhere," he said. "Everyone in my family is worried and if the situation gets worse, we'll have to leave."

According to U.S. estimates, government fighters control only around 60 percent of the country, with the rest either controlled or contested by the insurgents, who are seeking to reimpose Islamic law after their 2001 ouster.

Although the Taliban made a formal announcement of their spring offensive only last week, there has already been heavy fighting from the northern province of Badakhshan to the Taliban heartlands of Helmand and Kandahar in the south.

There have also been several operations against Islamic State militants in the eastern province of Nangarhar, which have also involved U.S. special forces and air strikes.

Also In World News
France fights to keep Macron email hack from distorting election
Syria fighting eases as Russian deal takes effect

More than 1,000 members of Afghan security forces have been killed since the start of the year, according to Afghan officials and figures cited by U.S. Congressional watchdog SIGAR, along with over 700 civilians.

Some 75,000 people have also been forced to flee their homes in the first four months of the year, according to United Nations figures.

Earlier this year, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Nicholson, said he needed a few thousand more international troops to boost the Resolute Support training and advisory mission and break a "stalemate" with the Taliban.

The U.S. military is due to make its formal recommendations to President Donald Trump within the next week, a senior official told a Senate committee last week.

(Reporting by Sardar Razmal and Mirwais Harooni, writing by James Mackenzie, editing by Nick Macfie)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-taiwan-idUSKBN1820D6

China | Sat May 6, 2017 | 7:49am EDT

China demands Taiwan free injured fishermen

China on Saturday demanded that Taiwan release two mainland fishermen who have been detained after the island's coastguard fired rubber bullets at them amid simmering tensions between the rivals.

The shooting put a new strain on ties between Beijing and Taipei which have cooled since Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen of the independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party took power last year, because she refuses to concede the self-ruled island is part of China.

Taiwan's coastguard said in a statement a Chinese fishing vessel trespassed into Taiwan waters, refused to stop and resisted inspection.

The Chinese fishermen ignored radio warnings, the statement said, adding that Taiwan coastguard fired rubber bullets, hitting some of the fishermen in the legs, but did not cause major injuries.

China's Taiwan Affairs Office said two Chinese fishermen were injured in the incident near Penghu, also known as the Pescadores, on Saturday morning, state news agency Xinhua said.

"This morning's shooting incident which injured mainland fishermen arouses indignation," Xinhua quoted An Fengshan, spokesman for the Taiwan Affairs Office, as saying.

"We demand the Taiwan side solemnly deal with this matter and immediately release the fishermen and (their) boat" An said.

Also In China
Japan, China to boost financial ties amid protectionist, North Korean tensions
With maiden jet flight, China enters dog-fight with Boeing, Airbus

Taiwan "must stop the practice of detaining mainland fishing boats for no reason at all," he said, urging Taiwan to "respect the rights of mainland fishermen."

Beijing has not ruled out resorting to military means to force the democratic island back to the fold if it formally declares independence.

Beijing and Taipei have been rivals since the Communists won the civil war on the mainland and defeated Nationalist forces who fled to the island.


(Reporting by Meng Meng and Benjamin Kang Lim in Beijing and JR Wu in Taipei; editing by Clelia Oziel)

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-arms-exclusive-idUSKBN18124K

Middle East & North Africa | Fri May 5, 2017 | 7:15pm EDT

Exclusive: Saudi Arabia, U.S. in talks on billions in arms sales - U.S. sources

By Mike Stone | WASHINGTON

Washington is working to push through contracts for tens of billions of dollars in arms sales to Saudi Arabia, some new, others in the pipeline, ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump's trip to the kingdom this month, people familiar with the talks told Reuters this week.

Saudi Arabia is Trump's first stop on his maiden international trip, a sign of his intent to reinforce ties with a top regional ally.

The United States has been the main supplier for most Saudi military needs, from F-15 fighter jets to command and control systems worth tens of billions of dollars in recent years. Trump has vowed to stimulate the U.S. economy by boosting manufacturing jobs.

Washington and Riyadh are eager to improve relations strained under President Barack Obama in part because of his championing of a nuclear deal with Saudi foe Iran.

Lockheed Martin Co (LMT.N) programs in the package include a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system with several batteries, the sources said. The THAAD system, like the one being made operational in South Korea, costs about $1 billion. Also being negotiated is a C2BMC software system for battle command and control and communications as well as a package of satellite capabilities, both provided by Lockheed.

Combat vehicles made by BAE Systems PLC (BAES.L), including the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and M109 artillery vehicle, are also under consideration as part of the Saudi package, people familiar with the talks said. Both vehicles are in the Saudi inventory. British defense company BAE has 29,000 employees in the United States.

The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the negotiations, which also include previously reported contracts or items under discussion for years. One such deal, an $11.5 billion package of four multi-mission surface combatant ships and accompanying services and spares, was approved by the State Department in 2015. Talks followed to hammer out capabilities, configuration and design for the complex warships but the deal has never gone to final contract.

The next step for the ships is likely a letter of agreement between the two countries, the sources said.

Versions of the ship used by the U.S. Navy, the Littoral Combat Ship, are built by Bethesda, Maryland-based weapons maker Lockheed Martin and Australia's Austal Ltd (ASB.AX). If a deal goes through, it would be the first sale of a new small surface warship to a foreign power in decades. Any major foreign weapons sale is subject to oversight by Congress. Lawmakers must take into consideration a legal requirement that Israel must maintain its qualitative military edge over its neighbors.

Also, more than $1 billion worth of munitions including armor-piercing Penetrator Warheads and Paveway laser-guided bombs made by Raytheon Co (RTN.N) are in the package, the sources said. The Obama administration suspended the planned sale because of concerns over the Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen and civilian casualties.

A U.S. administration official said the proposed Raytheon sale was still undergoing interagency review. Representatives for BAE and Raytheon declined to comment on the sales. A Lockheed representative said such sales are government-to-government decisions and the status of any potential discussions can be best addressed by the U.S. government.

A representative for the Saudi embassy in Washington declined to comment.

Shares of both Raytheon and Lockheed closed up 0.9 percent. Both stocks hit session highs following the Reuters report

FLURRY OF ACTIVITY

One of the people with knowledge of the sales said that as planning for Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia intensified in recent weeks, the arms negotiations also accelerated. Two U.S. officials said a U.S.-Saudi working group met at the White House Monday and Tuesday to negotiate the trip, as well as financing for military equipment sales and stopping terrorist financing.

Saudi foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir and other Saudi officials met with lawmakers at the Capitol on Thursday, including Senators Bob Corker and Ben Cardin on the foreign relations committee.

The Pentagon declined to comment. White House and State Department officials said it was U.S. policy not to comment on proposed U.S. defense sales until they had been formally notified to Congress.

The Obama administration had offered Saudi Arabia more than $115 billion in weapons. Most of the Obama-era offers, which are reported to Congress, became formal agreements though some were abandoned or amended.

Washington also provides maintenance and training to Saudi security forces.

(Reporting by Mike Stone in Washington; Additional reporting by Arshad Mohammed, John Walcott, Warren Strobel, Patricia Zengerle and Jonathan Landay; Editing by Yara Bayoumy and James Dalgleish)

Also In Middle East & North Africa
Syria fighting eases as Russian deal takes effect
Russia, Iran, Turkey set up Syria de-escalation zones for at least six months: memorandum

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

http://armscontrolwonk.libsyn.com/the-greener-bee

Wed, 3 May 2017
THE GREENER BEE

Do you remember THE GREEN BEE? Where we talked about a mysterious Taiwanese ballistic missile that looked a lot like the Lance? Well the research continues and new data has come to light putting the Green Bee firmly on the Israeli Jericho arc, not the U.S. Lance arc.*

Jeffrey and Scott continue to discuss Taiwan's understudied ballistic missile program, dive through declassified documents, and discuss Taiwan's strange connections to Israel, Iran, and the Jericho missile.

Direct download: 34.mp3
Category:general -- posted at: 8:38pm EDT

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/6/3/1/631...94077484&hwt=21c0193e7ad99f187c83c727165c1f06

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKBN1812BV

Russia | Sat May 6, 2017 | 7:30am EDT

Syria fighting eases as Russian deal takes effect

By Lisa Barrington | BEIRUT
Fighting between Syrian rebel and government forces eased on Saturday as a Russian-led effort to shore up a ceasefire took effect, although battles continued on an important frontline near Hama, a rebel commander and war monitor said.

The deal to create "de-escalation" zones in the major areas of conflict in western Syria took effect at midnight. The initiative was proposed by Russia, President Bashar al-Assad's most powerful ally, with the support of Turkey, which backs the opposition. Iran, Assad's other major ally, also backed it.

Political and armed opposition groups have rejected the proposal, saying Russia has been unwilling or unable to get Assad and his Iranian-backed militia allies to respect past ceasefires. The Syrian government said it backed the proposal but said it would continue to fight what it called terrorist groups across the country.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said there had been a reduction in fighting across Syria since the deal came into force, but warned it was too early to say whether it would last.

"The reduction in violence must be clear and lasting," Observatory Director Rami Abdulrahman told Reuters.

The rebel commander said the general level of violence was reduced, but added: "Regime attempts (to advance) in the Hama countryside continue."

With the help of Russia and Iranian-backed militias, the Syrian government has gained the military upper hand in the six-year conflict. The wide array of rebel groups include some supported by Turkey, the United States and Gulf monarchies.

The Observatory said it had not recorded any deaths as a result of fighting in the four zones since midnight, but there had been some violations.

Breaches were seen mainly in northern Hama province, where Syrian government and allied forces have taken territory from rebels in recent weeks.

Fighter jets fired at the rebel-held village of al-Zalakiyat and nearby positions in the northern Hama countryside, where the combatants exchanged shelling, the Britain-based war monitoring group said.

The Observatory said government forces shelled the nearby towns of Kafr Zita and Latamneh. There was no immediate comment from the Syrian army.

Mohammed Rasheed, a spokesman for the Jaish al-Nasr rebel group based in Hama, confirmed that fighting had broken out after midnight.

Rasheed said rebel-held Idlib province to the north of Hama was almost completely quiet, but the attacks, which included barrel bombs, were focused on the northern Hama frontline area.

"The bombardment has not stopped, it is no different from before," he told Reuters.

THE DEAL
Iran and Turkey agreed on Thursday to a Russian proposal for de-escalation zones in Syria. The text of the memorandum was published by the Russian foreign ministry on Saturday.

The agreement said four de-escalation zones would be established in Syria for a period of six months which could be extended if the three signatory countries agree. Weaponry and air strikes were not to be used in those zones by combatants, the text said.

The agreement also included creating conditions for humanitarian access, medical assistance and the return of displaced civilians to their homes.

This initiative is the most serious effort to reduce violence and shore up a ceasefire first declared in December since western states accused Damascus of a chemical attack in early April on rebel-held Idlib province.

The chemical incident prompted the U.S. to fire dozens of cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase from which it said the attack had been launched, increasing tensions between the U.S. and Russia.

The de-escalation zones appear intended to halt conflict in specific areas between government forces and rebels, and would potentially be policed by foreign troops.
The deal was negotiated at Russian-brokered talks in Astana which have taken place this year outside of United Nations-sponsored peace talks in Geneva.

Also In Russia
French candidate Macron claims massive hack as emails leaked
Russia, Iran, Turkey set up Syria de-escalation zones for at least six months: memorandum

U.N. Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura hailed the plan as a step in the right direction towards a real cessation of hostilities. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he was encouraged by the agreement.

The U.S. State Department voiced concerns about the deal, saying it was skeptical of Iran's involvement as a guarantor of the accord and Damascus' track record on previous agreements.

"We continue to have concerns about the Astana agreement, including the involvement of Iran as a so-called 'guarantor'," the State Department said in a statement on Thursday. "Iran's activities in Syria have only contributed to the violence, not stopped it."

THE ZONES
The Russian defense ministry had said the agreement would come into force as of midnight Damascus time on Friday and encompass four zones.

The largest zone, in northern Syria, includes Idlib province and adjoining districts of Hama, Aleppo and Latakia with a population of over 1 million, the memorandum text said.

The other three zones are in northern Homs province, the Eastern Ghouta region east of Damascus and along the Jordanian border in southern Syria.

But one part of the Eastern Ghouta zone, Qaboun, is exempt from the deal, Defence Ministry official Lieutenant-General Sergei Rudskoi said on Friday. He said this was because Qaboun contained the al-Qaeda-linked group formerly known as the Nusra Front.

On Saturday the Observatory said rockets hit Qaboun where the government has been pressing an offensive for several weeks.


(Additional reporting by Ellen Francis in Beirut and Maria Kiselyova in Moscow; Editing by Tom Perry and Keith Weir)

 

[Possible Impact]

Tidbits


Abdullah Bozkurt‏ @abdbozkurt May 4
Erdogan's chief military aide Adnan Tanrıverdi
says West & major powers declared a war against Islamic world,
arms factions & ethnic groups

Abdullah Bozkurt‏ @abdbozkurt May 4
Adnan Tanrıverdi, Erdogan's chief military aide
who set up paramilitary forces SADAT,
says Turkish army to engage in overseas ops now.



Abdullah Bozkurt‏ @abdbozkurt May 5
Erdogan's chief military aide Adnan Tanrıverdi
claims US power to decline fast
once Turkey consolidates its power in Islamic world.




Ankaralı Jan‏ @06JAnk 55m
Justice Minister Bozdağ outlines the purpose of Erdoğan's US trip
as bringing back Gülen for trial in Turkey.


ANADOLU AGENCY (ENG)‏ Verified account @anadoluagency 5h
Turkish justice minister to visit US for Gulen's arrest
http://v.aa.com.tr/812590

Ankaralı Jan‏ @06JAnk 6h
Turkish Petroleum survey vessel responds to trespass warning by Cypriot authorities
by blasting Ottoman military march through the speakers.

ANADOLU AGENCY (ENG)‏ Verified account @anadoluagency 6h
UN envoy warns of 'crucial times' for Cyprus peace deal
http://v.aa.com.tr/812531

 

[Housecarl]

Once Erdogan's got everything tied up, things are definitely going to get a lot more interesting to put it mildly.

If I were the Saudis I'd start getting nervous and the Iranians are definitely already taking them seriously.

 

[Possible Impact]

Once Erdogan's got everything tied up, things are definitely going to get a lot more interesting to put it mildly.

If I were the Saudis I'd start getting nervous and the Iranians are definitely already taking them seriously.

Holy Cowabunga, look at this!


Abdullah Bozkurt‏ @abdbozkurt 2h
Turkey's Caliph-wannabe Erdogan
offers a new mechanism for Mecca, Medina,
set his eyes to replace King Salman, Custodian of 2 Holy Mosques



https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/860901861213261825/pu/vid/372x180/_gMe9enSiYiBau05.mp4


Abdullah Bozkurt‏ @abdbozkurt 2h
Speaking at Conference of Sacred Relics of Islamic Prophet Muhammed,
Turkey's Erdogan offers resumption Ottoman tradition for Holy cities.




Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custodian_of_the_Two_Holy_Mosques

Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques
(Arabic: خادم الحرمين الشريفين‎‎ Khādim al-Ḥaramayn aš-Šarīfayn;
Turkish: İki Kutsal Cami'nin Hizmetkârı),
sometimes translated as Servant of the Two Noble Sanctuaries
or Protector of the Two Holy Cities, is a royal style that has been used by
many Islamic rulers including the Ayyubids, the Mamluk Sultans of Egypt,
the Ottoman Sultans, and the modern Saudi kings.

The title refers to the ruler taking the responsibility of guarding and maintaining
the two holiest mosques in Islam, Al-Masjid al-Haram (the Sacred Mosque) in Mecca
and Al-Masjid an-Nabawi (the Prophet's Mosque) in Medina.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custodian_of_the_Two_Holy_Mosques#cite_note-emjap-2

History


Saladin
The inaugural holder of the title


Selim I
Sultan of the Ottoman Empire


Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud
King of Saudi Arabia


It is believed that the first person to use the title was Saladin.

After defeating the Mamluks and gaining control of the two Muslim holy cities,
Mecca and Medina in 1517, the Ottoman Sultan Selim I adopted the title.

Rather than style himself the Ḥākimü'l-Ḥaremeyn (as The Ruler of The Two Holy Cities),
he accepted the more pious title Ḫādimü'l-Ḥaremeyn (as The Servant of The Two Holy Cities).

This title was used by all subsequent Ottoman Caliph Sultans until Mehmed VI, the last.

The first King of Saudi Arabia to assume the title was Fahd bin Abdul Aziz in 1986.

He replaced the term "His Majesty" with "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques".
The reigning king, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, took the same title after the death
of King Abdullah, his half brother, on 23 January 2015.

 

[Be Well]

Anyone who thinks that (a) Islamic jihad is only a reaction to evil US foreign policy and/or that (b) Islamic jihad is "over there" and won't affect us, is due for a VERY rude awakening.

 

[Housecarl]

Holy Cowabunga, look at this!


Abdullah Bozkurt‏ @abdbozkurt 2h
Turkey's Caliph-wannabe Erdogan
offers a new mechanism for Mecca, Medina,
set his eyes to replace King Salman, Custodian of 2 Holy Mosques



https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/860901861213261825/pu/vid/372x180/_gMe9enSiYiBau05.mp4


Abdullah Bozkurt‏ @abdbozkurt 2h
Speaking at Conference of Sacred Relics of Islamic Prophet Muhammed,
Turkey's Erdogan offers resumption Ottoman tradition for Holy cities.




Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custodian_of_the_Two_Holy_Mosques

Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques
(Arabic: خادم الحرمين الشريفين‎‎ Khādim al-Ḥaramayn aš-Šarīfayn;
Turkish: İki Kutsal Cami'nin Hizmetkârı),
sometimes translated as Servant of the Two Noble Sanctuaries
or Protector of the Two Holy Cities, is a royal style that has been used by
many Islamic rulers including the Ayyubids, the Mamluk Sultans of Egypt,
the Ottoman Sultans, and the modern Saudi kings.

The title refers to the ruler taking the responsibility of guarding and maintaining
the two holiest mosques in Islam, Al-Masjid al-Haram (the Sacred Mosque) in Mecca
and Al-Masjid an-Nabawi (the Prophet's Mosque) in Medina.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custodian_of_the_Two_Holy_Mosques#cite_note-emjap-2

History


Saladin
The inaugural holder of the title


Selim I
Sultan of the Ottoman Empire


Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud
King of Saudi Arabia


It is believed that the first person to use the title was Saladin.

After defeating the Mamluks and gaining control of the two Muslim holy cities,
Mecca and Medina in 1517, the Ottoman Sultan Selim I adopted the title.

Rather than style himself the Ḥākimü'l-Ḥaremeyn (as The Ruler of The Two Holy Cities),
he accepted the more pious title Ḫādimü'l-Ḥaremeyn (as The Servant of The Two Holy Cities).

This title was used by all subsequent Ottoman Caliph Sultans until Mehmed VI, the last.

The first King of Saudi Arabia to assume the title was Fahd bin Abdul Aziz in 1986.

He replaced the term "His Majesty" with "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques".
The reigning king, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, took the same title after the death
of King Abdullah, his half brother, on 23 January 2015.

Man I hate it when I call it like that!...

 

[Housecarl]

Anyone who thinks that (a) Islamic jihad is only a reaction to evil US foreign policy and/or that (b) Islamic jihad is "over there" and won't affect us, is due for a VERY rude awakening.

Everyone forgets we started fighting these "adam henries" back with the Barbary Wars...

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...rn-heaping-pressure-north-korea/#.WQ3TL1LMyRs

ASIA PACIFIC

China urged U.S. to fire Pacific Command chief Harris in return for pressure on North Korea

KYODO
MAY 6, 2017
ARTICLE HISTORY

BEIJING – China urged the United States to sack the head of the U.S. Pacific Command in return for exerting more pressure on North Korea amid concerns over its growing nuclear and missile threats, a source close to U.S.-China ties said Saturday.

The Chinese leadership headed by President Xi Jinping made the request, through its ambassador in the United States, to dismiss Adm. Harry Harris, known as a hard-liner on China, including with respect to the South China Sea issue, the source said.

China’s envoy to the United States, Cui Tiankai, conveyed the request to the U.S. side, to coincide with the first face-to-face, two-day meeting between President Donald Trump and Xi in Florida from April 6, but the Trump administration likely rejected it, the source said.

China is a longtime economic and diplomatic benefactor of North Korea.

As the head of Pacific Command, Harris, who was born in Japan and raised in the United States, plays a vital role in the security of the region.

He was responsible in ordering last month the dispatch of the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier to waters near off the Korean Peninsula in a show of force amid signs the North was preparing to test-fire another ballistic missile or conduct a sixth nuclear test.

The Trump administration has called for exerting “maximum pressure” on North Korea to prod it to give up its nuclear and missile programs. The administration has said all options — including a military strikes — remain on the table.

Harris has pushed for the U.S. deployment of the advanced Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system to South Korea. China has opposed the deployment, saying it could undermine its security interests and the strategic balance of the region.

He has also called for continuing U.S. “freedom of navigation” operations in the contested South China Sea. Overlapping territorial claims, as well as land construction and militarization of outposts in disputed areas in the sea, remain a source of tension in the region.

According to the source, Cui also asked the Trump administration not to label China as a currency manipulator. As per the request, the United States did not label China as such, in light of Beijing’s role in helping Washington deal with the North Korean issue.

 

[Housecarl]

The author is assuming that such strike capabilities would remain "conventional" on the part of the Japanese....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2017/05/should-america-share-the-spear-with-japan/

Should America Share the 'Spear' With Japan?

The Japanese debate over acquiring missile strike capability needs to consider the broader alliance framework.

By James L. Schoff and David Song
May 05, 2017

With North Korea continuing to ramp up ballistic missile tests in 2017, American and Japanese policy actors face new pressure to address the growing North Korean nuclear missile threat. In fact, former Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) spent the May (Golden Week) holiday in Washington explaining his LDP study group recommendation for Japan to consider acquiring for the first time counterattack capabilities against enemy targets, in addition to expanding missile defenses.

This could be a major step for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe — who has been seeking to reinterpret and revise Japan’s post-war pacifist constitution — as well as a boon for U.S. policymakers looking for new avenues to pressure North Korea. But is it worth the potentially high political and fiscal costs for the Japanese government to pursue missile strike capabilities and enabling infrastructure?

Both U.S. and Japanese policymakers should realize that while Japan’s acquisition of long-range strike capabilities is not a silver bullet to deter North Korean aggression, such acquisition can play a positive role when considered within the larger context of the U.S.-Japan security alliance. With this in mind, the question must go beyond the North Korea issue and be reframed as part of a broader discussion on Japan’s security role in the Asia-Pacific.

The Strike Capability Debate in Japan

Although the U.S.-Japan alliance traditionally delegated the “spear” role of offensive capability to the United States and the “shield” role of self-defense to Japan, the nuclear threat from North Korea is causing Tokyo to consider some adjustments to this division of labor.

Since the 1950s, some Japanese politicians and bureaucrats have argued that offensive strikes are constitutional as long as they were for self-defense and there was no other way to defend against an attack. From this perspective (especially after years of missile defense investments), Japan must wait to be attacked before it could strike back in an effort to limit additional enemy launches.

While this theoretical strike capability gained support from nationalists and those who sought ways to hedge against U.S. disengagement, Japan’s government never deemed it necessary — instead investing heavily in ballistic missile defense (BMD) and a stronger U.S.-Japan alliance. But as recent advances in North Korean missile technology could potentially overwhelm any Japanese BMD, some policymakers in Tokyo are seeking a more comprehensive deterrent.

Domestic opponents of acquiring strike capabilities have argued that such technologies could exacerbate regional tensions and will not be an effective deterrent anyway, due to North Korean missile technology improvements and insufficient Japanese intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. North Korea has made progress fielding mobile missile launchers, solid fuel technology, and submarine launch capabilities, which will make attempts to completely destroy North Korean attack capabilities via a quick-reaction strike increasingly difficult and improbable. North Korea’s elaborate network of tunnels and underground facilities further complicate the challenge, suggesting a truly indigenous and comprehensive Japanese counterattack capability would be exceedingly expensive.

Bringing in the U.S.-Japan Alliance Perspective

But the value of a Japanese strike capability acquisition lies less in the ability to prevent any harm to Japan via pinpoint strikes, and more with the broader picture of U.S. and Japanese security cooperation for a wide range of contingencies. Japanese acquisition of some offensive capabilities can lead to a more integrated security partnership that better synergizes the two nations’ different strengths and technologies. Such a combination could bolster the general deterrence effect of the alliance in the Asia-Pacific if it improves alliance readiness, interoperability, and mutual confidence. It can also improve allied combat effectiveness if deterrence fails. North Korea would be the primary focus, but it could bolster deterrence in the East China Sea as well.

Still, the downsides to strike capability acquisition — including cost and regional concerns — are notable. Even with Abe’s announcement last month lifting Japan’s defense spending restrictions, the high cost of acquiring a functional missile strike system raises the question about whether such systems are worth the opportunity cost. With the potential for duplicate ISR capabilities and other redundancies between American and Japanese forces, limited funding meant for strike acquisition could possibly be better spent in other defense areas including BMD, space, cyber, and maritime security. Additionally, any Japanese military acquisition must consider whether the strategic gains from any offensive capabilities outweigh the increasing worries of neighbors such as China and South Korea, who are historically wary of any Japanese remilitarization.

While the United States should be open to sharing the “spear” with Japan as a next step for the alliance, the allies need a thoughtful conversation about how Japanese missile strike or other offensive technologies can complement existing alliance capabilities. This was also a part of Onodera’s message in Washington. In light of the fiscal and geopolitical costs, Japan should move toward a measured investment in strike capabilities within the existing alliance framework to ensure the systems’ costs do not outweigh its gains, complemented by other practical military acquisitions.

James L. Schoff is a Senior Fellow in the Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former Senior Advisor for East Asia Policy at the U.S. Department of Defense. David Song is a Jr. Fellow in the Asia Program at Carnegie.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/05/opinion/robert-kaplan-european-union-balkans.html?_r=0

The Opinion Pages | OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

The Necessary Empire

By ROBERT D. KAPLAN
MAY 5, 2017

LJUBLJANA, Slovenia — Elections in the Netherlands, France and Germany this year have brought much drama to the old Carolingian core, where Charlemagne founded his empire in the ninth century. This has always been the richest and most strongly institutionalized part of Europe. But should the European Union continue to weaken, the most profound repercussions will be felt farther east and south.

There, along the fault line of the Austrian Hapsburg and Ottoman Turkish empires, former Communist countries lack the sturdy middle-class base of core Europe, and in many cases are still distracted by ethnic and territorial disputes 25 years after the siege of Sarajevo. They depend on pro-European Union governments as never before.

Here in Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, a country squeezed between Central Europe and the Balkans, officials and experts talk about a so-called phantom frontier that still exercises people’s imagination. This is the “Antemurale Christianitatis,” the “Bulwark of Christianity,” proclaimed in 1519 by Pope Leo X, in a reference to the Roman Catholic Slavs considered the front line against the Ottoman Empire. Croatia was the first line of defense against the Muslim Sultanate, and Slovenia the second. “When Yugoslavia collapsed, it was assumed that none of this earlier history was important,” one official said to me recently. “But a quarter-century after the disintegration of Tito’s Yugoslavia, we find that we are back to late-medieval and early-modern history.”

The Slovenes, governed for hundreds of years by the Austrian Hapsburgs, had in 2016 a per-capita income of $32,000. The Croats, with their mixed history of being heirs in part to the Austro-Hungarian tradition and in part to Ottoman and Venetian traditions, had a per-capita income of $22,400. But then comes the rest of the former Yugoslavia, which fell almost completely within the Ottoman Empire. Here we have Montenegro with a per-capita income of $17,000, Serbia with $14,000 and Macedonia, Kosovo and the former Ottoman parts of Bosnia with similarly low numbers. The economic and social distinctions from older, imperial divisions remain.

This is not ethnic or racial determinism, since the Slavs of southeastern Europe have been shaped politically and economically more by the agency of foreign imperialism than by their own blood and language. The former Byzantine and Ottoman part of Europe — the part closest to the Middle East — is still the poorest, least stable and most in need of support and guidance from the European Union. Whether Europe remains a secure and prosperous continent, or fractures along traditional east-west fault lines — with authoritarians in Russia and Turkey carving out zones of interest — will play out most vividly in the Balkans. Thus, political developments in Paris, Berlin and Brussels have repercussions far afield.

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has been active throughout Central and Eastern Europe, and particularly in the Balkans, using various forms of subversion, from running organized crime rings to financing nationalist-populist movements to influencing local news media. Montenegro may be close to joining NATO, but it is often viewed as a veritable colony of Russian oligarchs and crime groups, where by some accounts Russia tried to stage a coup last year. Serbia and Bulgaria are seen as beachheads of Russian regional influence, even as neo-authoritarian governments farther north in Hungary and Poland increasingly bear similarities to the Russian regime. The effort by the Hungarian government to end the freedom of Central European University, founded in Budapest by the Hungarian-American billionaire George Soros after the fall of the Berlin Wall, has to be seen in this geopolitical context.

As for Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan won a referendum granting him near-dictatorial powers last month. The next day, he visited the tomb not of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, modern Turkey’s founder, but the tomb of Mehmed II, known as the Conqueror, the 15th-century Ottoman sultan whose imperial armies marched westward from Constantinople as far as Bosnia. Whether it is in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Kosovo or elsewhere in the region, Mr. Erdogan is determined to fill the void opened by a declining European Union. Lawlessness in Macedonia, including violence in the Parliament itself over a contested government transition, demonstrates the political fragility of southeastern Europe.

Yet it is only the European Union that can stabilize the Balkans. Only if Serbia, Albania and Kosovo all become members of the union can the ethnic dispute between Serbs and Albanians truly be solved. Within the European Union, Albania and Kosovo will have no need of unifying on their own. But if they were to attempt unification, it could become a casus belli for the Serbs. A similar dynamic holds for the continuing contest between Croatia and Serbia for influence in Bosnia-Herzegovina. There is peace for everyone in the former Yugoslavia within the framework of the European Union. There is only protracted conflict without it. Indeed, the European Union offers a world of legal states instead of ethnic nations, governed by impersonal laws rather than fiat, where individuals are protected over the group.

The European Union, in other words, is the necessary empire.

I use the word “empire” advisedly. The European Union has been such an ambitious enterprise mainly because it has sought a union over the former Carolingian, Prussian, Hapsburg, Byzantine and Ottoman domains, all with starkly different histories and economic development patterns. To accomplish that, the European Union has had, in effect, to replace the functionality of those former empires. Even inside the open borders of the Schengen Area, within which European Union citizens are guaranteed free movement, the union represents a sprawling territory, governed to a significant degree by a remote and only partially democratic bureaucracy, with many of its people demanding more direct representation. Isn’t this a form of late and declining empire?

Yet, it must be saved — and improved. Jan Zielonka of St. Antony’s College, Oxford, writes optimistically of a vibrant “neo-medievalism” in Europe: a dynamic overlapping of identities and sovereignties — supranational, national and local — as cities and regions vie with a revitalized European Union for a claim on people’s loyalties. Unless there is a credible European Union, none of the other layers of identity are possible without conflict.

I recently visited the Croatian port city of Rijeka, close to the Slovenian and Italian borders, when the two-headed eagle was put back atop the bell tower. “It is a Hapsburg emblem, not a Croat, Hungarian or Italian one,” a local ethnic-Italian writer, Giacomo Scotti, explained to me. “It was taken down by the Fascists and symbolizes the local freedom and autonomy that this city enjoyed under the Hapsburgs.” Mainly because Croatia is a sovereign state within the European Union, and working toward entry into the Schengen and euro zones, do the circumstances exist for such a nonthreatening display of local pride.

Here it is wise to consider what Yugoslavia was ultimately about. The great Italian scholar of Central Europe, Claudio Magris, refers to Tito in his epic travel book, “Danube,” as the last of the Hapsburg emperors, resembling Franz Joseph “because of his awareness of inheriting a supranational, Danubian legacy.” Like Franz Joseph, Tito held Yugoslavia together through a mixture of repression and, compared with other Communist states, benevolence. Now the states that were once part of Yugoslavia will find peace and security only through a new, far more benign imperial system: the European Union. So what happens next in the core of Europe — whether, for instance, France joins Britain in seeking to exit the European Union — is crucial to the rest of the continent.

Robert D. Kaplan is the author of “Balkan Ghosts” and “In Europe’s Shadow.” He is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a senior adviser at the Eurasia Group.

 

[L.A.B.]

Man I hate it when I call it like that!...

TDC Brother! Top Dead Center!

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.defense.gov/News/Articl...es-start-of-ballistic-missile-defense-review/

Pentagon Announces Start of Ballistic Missile Defense Review

DoD News, Defense Media Activity
10
PRINT | E-MAIL | CONTACT AUTHOR

WASHINGTON, May 5, 2017 — Defense Secretary Jim Mattis today directed the start of the department’s Ballistic Missile Defense Review, chief Pentagon spokesperson Dana W. White said in a statement.

The review is conducted to identify ways to strengthen missile-defense capabilities, rebalance homeland and theater defense priorities and provide the necessary policy and strategy framework for the nation's missile defense systems, White said.

Defending the nation and U.S. interests abroad from ballistic missiles is one of the department's highest priorities, she added.

The review, running concurrent to the Nuclear Posture Review, will be led by the deputy secretary of defense and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and include interagency partners, White said.

The process will culminate in a final report and will be delivered to the president by the end of the year, she said.


Related Biographies
Jim Mattis
10
Jim Mattis Nuclear SecDef

 

[Housecarl]

Not just Pakistan but Egypt and the rest of the "Islamic World" as well...

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/a/pakistan-e...outh-gravitate-to-radicalization/3840686.html

EXTREMISM WATCH

Pakistan’s Emerging Threat: Highly Educated Youth Gravitate to Radicalization

May 06, 2017 1:18 PM
Madeeha Anwar

WASHINGTON —
The on-campus mob slaying of a journalism student and the arrest of a female medical student for allegedly planning a suicide attack underscore concerns that some of Pakistan’s highly educated youth are gravitating toward violent extremism and radicalization.

Security experts say the unrelated incidents show that religious militancy isn’t limited to the disenfranchised and uneducated poor. They contend the government has to wake up to a problem that may be getting worse as the country’s conservative streak growing deeper.

On April 13, a crowd in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa almost casually carried wooden planks and guns to fatally beat and shoot Mashal Khan, a 23-year-old journalism student who had been accused — falsely, as investigation later showed — of spreading blasphemy on social media.

Then Naureen Laghari, a bright, 20-year-old medical student from a well-educated family in Sindh province, was arrested for allegedly planning an Easter suicide attack on Lahore’s Christian community. She had pledged allegiance to Islamic State and had traveled to Syria, where she took military training.

“Laghari is not the first example of radicalized youth to become a foot soldier for a terror outfit,” security and defense analyst Aisha Siddiqa told VOA. “She’s certainly not the last one. When there’s no place in the country where you can engage in an open debate on religion, then the only way forward is in the form of radicalization.”

Confused youth, an easy target

Youth dominates Pakistan’s population of 200 million people, so its most important demographic group is also the most impressionable. A recent report in the Dawn newspaper indicates that education doesn’t prevent militancy: Sindh’s Counter Terrorism Department said that out of 500 militants currently held in Sindh’s jails, 64 hold a master’s degree and 70 have a bachelor’s.

Analysts believe deprived and confused youth, particularly those who can’t find answers to their problems, are most vulnerable to fall into the hands of extremist groups, such as IS, which is highly tech-savvy and relies heavily on cyberspace to provide hardline narratives that glorify terrorism.

Other factors include political disillusionment, increasing militancy in the country, and poor security measures.

“I think they’re [youth] being attracted to extremism because there is so much religious ambiguity and no one to talk to,” Ayesha Ghaffar, a media sciences university student in Karachi told VOA. “I have a lot of questions but there's no one to answer them.”

Most of the current university students grew up in the ‘80s, when young men were openly recruited from universities for jihad as Pakistan and the U.S. joined to fight the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan, then in Indian-controlled Kashmir in the ‘90s.

Experts believe the result was radicalization in youth on a national level, leaving them malleable as new causes emerged. That is bolstered by well-organized religious groups at most universities whose mission is to spread Islam among fellow students through prayer meetings, charities and other activities.

Deradicalization & counter-narrative

“Now is the time to make changes to the blunders we’ve made in the past, or we’ll pay the price forever,” Khadim Hussain, a security analyst, told VOA.

Education experts say it’s important to build a counter-narrative and cultivate an environment where youth can openly engage in conversations on issues considered taboo in Pakistan.

They believe outdated teaching methods, lack of development of new skills, and absence of sports and extracurricular activities lead to frustration allow youth to gravitate toward violent terrorism.

“The education system of Pakistan does not train a student in logical/scientific inference or critical thinking. So he’s unable to critically dissect the indoctrinating patterns,” Naureen Zehra, an education expert, told VOA.

Mughees ud Din Shaikh, dean of the Mass Communication department at the Superior University Lahore, added, “Social change takes decades. We need to change the curriculum and come up with a counter-narrative on an emergency basis. Everyone has to play a role towards deradicalization: teachers, religious scholars, mosques, state, security forces – everyone.”

Many see an urgent need to bring fast-spreading religious seminaries (madrasas) into the national education system. Once focused on the lower middle class, they have become prevalent in posh neighborhoods, too.

“As far as education is concerned, forget about universities and colleges, look at the religious schools in very elite neighborhoods in whole of Pakistan,” said Aisha Siddiqa.

Government’s challenges

Security experts say the government has been avoiding tough decisions.

“Organizations like IS are active on cyberspace and have sleeper cells, but the government doesn’t pay attention because they fear for their perception in the world,” Khadim Hussain said. “This fear has impacted the society and state badly.”

Abdul Qayyum, a lawmaker and prominent member of the ruling PML-N party, denied that, telling VOA that government is aware of the gravity of the matter and is taking measures to prevent radicalization.

“The government is keeping an eye on curriculum, schools, universities and religious seminaries, as well. Through continuous and vigilant monitoring, we were able to catch terrorists like Naureen Laghari before they could carry out any atrocity.”

VOA’s Faiz Rehman contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.economist.com/news/middl...nging-patriarchy-comfort-sorry-state-arab-men

Down and out in Cairo and Beirut
The sorry state of Arab men

They are clinging to the patriarchy for comfort

Print edition | Middle East and Africa
May 4th 2017 | CAIRO

AHMED, who lives in Cairo, allows his wife to work. “At first, I insisted she stay at home, but she was able to raise the kids and care for the house and still have time to go to work,” he says. Still, he doesn’t seem too impressed. “Of course, as a man, I’m the main provider for the family. I believe women just cannot do that.”

Ahmed’s outlook is widely shared throughout the region, where men dominate households, parliaments and offices. Chauvinist attitudes are reflected in laws that treat women as second-class citizens. A new survey by the UN and Promundo, an advocacy group, examines Arab men’s views on male-female relations. (One of the authors, Shereen El Feki, used to write for The Economist.) It finds that around 90% of men in Egypt believe that they should have the final say on household decisions, and that women should do most of the chores.


Latest updates
On the “hipster election” in Schleswig-Holstein
KAFFEEKLATSCH
A DAY AGO
In “Sense8” an empathetic outlook is an advanced form of humanity
PROSPERO
A DAY AGO
The Conservatives’ Andy Street wins the West Midlands
BRITAIN
A DAY AGO
Who best protects megafauna?
GRAPHIC DETAIL
A DAY AGO
A new religious liberty order disappoints conservative Christians
DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA
A DAY AGO
An agreement to halt fighting in four zones of Syria
MIDDLE EAST AND AFRICA
A DAY AGO
See all updates


So far, so predictable. But the survey sheds new light on the struggles of Arab men in the four countries studied (Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco and Palestine) and how they hinder progress towards equality. At least two-thirds of these men report high levels of fear for the safety and well-being of their families. In Egypt and Palestine most men say they are stressed or depressed because of a lack of work or income. Women feel even worse, but for Arab men the result is a “crisis of masculinity”, the study finds.

Far from relaxing their patriarchal attitudes, Arab men are clinging to them. In every country except Lebanon, younger men’s views on gender roles do not differ substantially from those of older men. There may be several reasons for this, but the study suggests that the struggle of young Arab men to find work, afford marriage and achieve the status of financial provider may be producing a backlash against assertive women. In other words, male chauvinism may be fuelled by a sense of weakness, not strength.

Another explanation is that a general climate of religious conservatism makes men suspicious of newfangled liberties. Muslim legal scholars promote a notion of qiwamah (guardianship) that gives men authority over women. In conservative countries, such as Saudi Arabia, this is official policy. But the attitude persists even in relatively liberal parts of the Arab world, such as Morocco, where 77% of men believe it is their duty to exercise guardianship over female relatives (see chart).

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20170506_MAC397.png

In such an atmosphere, violence and harassment are common. In the four countries surveyed, 10% to 45% of men who have ever been married admitted to having beaten their wives. Between 31% and 64% of men admitted that they had harassed women in the street. Fewer than half of Moroccan men think marital rape should be criminalised; most expect their wives to have sex on demand. Some 70% of Egyptian men still approve of female genital mutilation (FGM).

Well over half of Egyptian women also say they approve of FGM. In fact, Arab women espouse many of the same views as men. In Egypt and Palestine, over half of men and women say that if a woman is raped, she should marry her rapist. In at least three of the countries, more women than men say that women who dress provocatively deserve to be harassed. Most of the women surveyed say they support the idea of male guardianship.

Activists have tried hard to encourage Arab women to assert themselves. They have made little effort, however, to soften men’s attitudes. This is changing. ABAAD in Lebanon is one of several NGOs in the region confronting the rigid norms of manhood; it uses awareness campaigns and psychological counselling. The study’s authors see an opening in men’s relatively liberal attitudes towards fatherhood and women in the workplace. They also want to stop the thrashing of boys at home and in schools, which makes them more likely to harm women later on.

Studies suggest that greater equality would make Arab countries richer as well as fairer—liberated women earn more. Yet although some biased laws have changed, official support has been grudging. “We don’t have a Justin Trudeau in the Arab region yet,” says Dr El Feki, referring to Canada’s hunky feminist prime minister. But Lebanon recently appointed its first-ever women’s affairs minister—a man.

This article appeared in the Middle East and Africa section of the print edition under the headline "Down and out in Cairo and Beirut"

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion...g-threats-secularism-bangladesh/#.WRF-FlXyvIV

COMMENTARY | COUNTERPOINT

Escalating threats to secularism in Bangladesh

BY JEFF KINGSTON
MAY 6, 2017
ARTICLE HISTORY

Prior to a recent trip to Bangladesh, I read the online Dhaka Tribune to get a feel for what is going on there, and I couldn’t help but notice a fairly high degree of violence involving state security forces and Islamic militants, including airport suicide bombings and a siege of an extremist group’s hideout that resulted in significant casualties. But none of this mayhem made it onto the prominent Western media’s radar screen, except for The Economist.

There was no shortage of reporting about Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Turkey, Rohingya refugees in Myanmar and the defeat of the Christian ethnic Chinese incumbent in the Jakarta gubernatorial elections by an opponent who shamelessly played the Islamic card, all of which demonstrates that troubles in the Islamic world occupy a very competitive space that suffers from a limited media attention span.

Dial back to last July 1, when the world suddenly discovered with a vengeance the seriousness of the threat from Islamic extremism in Bangladesh. The Holey Artisan Bakery terrorist attack left 29 dead altogether, including 20 hostages, of which seven were Japanese engaged with development projects under the auspices of the Japan International Cooperation Agency. It was a grisly incident that shocked Dhaka society because it occurred in an upscale neighborhood where the wealthy and expats gather, and three of the five youthful terrorists were disaffected men from relatively privileged backgrounds. This discovery sent shudders up the collective spine of the nation’s elite because it meant “they” are now “us.”

Knowing that most militants are from deprived backgrounds is not especially reassuring when that constitutes the vast majority of this nation’s nearly 170 million population, which is packed into a land area smaller than Florida, but it is somehow more alarming when even the scions of the upper crust are joining the fray.

I spoke with one local counterterrorist expert who said that recruiters target troubled sons of the elite precisely because they have a much higher PR value. The media pays more attention than they would to a suicide bomber hailing from one of the thousands of madrassa (Islamic schools) where the less privileged and destitute study. Initially, there was much speculation that the so-called Islamic State orchestrated the Holey Artisan Bakery attack, while the government drew criticism for asserting this was homegrown extremism, pointing the finger at a splinter organization from the local Islamic extremist group Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen. One of the privileged attackers was a Twitter follower of a Bangalore-based IS propagandist, affirming experts’ assessment that social media is the most prevalent means of radicalization.

But just as with the Jemaah Islamiyah attacks in Bali and Jakarta in Indonesia in the 2000s, strong international pressure to pin it on the enemy of the hour — in that case, al-Qaida — proved unwarranted. Like in Indonesia with AQ, Bangladeshi terrorists might be inspired by IS, and may receive limited external assistance and training, but it is essentially a domestic movement that manifests wider trends in the Islamic world. Returnee jihadists who fought in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria provide expertise while the influx of donations from the Middle East and remittances from overseas workers funds mosque-building and supports clerics who tout a Wahhabist hard line.

I spoke with Mohammed Anwar Hossen, professor of sociology at Dhaka University who has written about “hydro-nationalism” and conducted fieldwork in the nation’s Ganges River Basin region. He links climate change-induced droughts and water diversion due to dams built upstream by India to the rise in religious extremism, pointing out how the lack of water has hammered the livelihoods of over 40 million Bangladeshis in this basin who depend on farming. The state doesn’t provide much support for affected households, leaving the already destitute even more desperate. In his view, the environmental crisis feeding extremism will only intensify with plans afoot in China and India that will divert water from the Brahmaputra River, the other main water supply, potentially affecting 70 percent of the population.

God is the only help on offer, as Islamic groups provide food, medicine and education in addition to spiritual support and guidance. Hossen believes that the resulting sense of obligation inspires blind devotion to local clerics and their fundamentalist message of purification and egalitarianism, one that targets the secular state. He confides that fieldwork there is hazardous as outsiders like him are distrusted and closely monitored in a region where militants administer frontier-style justice.

There was a mass demonstration in front of the country’s Supreme Court on April 21 demanding the removal of a statue of the goddess of justice that was installed there last December. Apparently the statue is visible from the mosque across the street and is seen as an affront to Islamic values because it is female and thus distracting, and because it represents Western jurisprudence, the target of Islamists who advocate adoption of Islamic law (Shariah). This is a hot political issue pitting secularists against religious fundamentalists in a nation where it is open season on free thinkers.

In response to this surge in militancy, security forces have killed the alleged mastermind of the Holey Artisan Bakery attack and at least 50 other militants since that atrocity. They have also nabbed some of the murderers implicated in the so-called blogger killings of 2015, in which those expressing liberal views — including advocates of LGBT rights — were hacked to death by machete-wielding militants.

These attempts to silence secularists were preceded in 2013 by bloody protests, in which 27 died, demanding the state institute a blasphemy law with provision for a death penalty, a tool often used by Islamists in other Muslim-majority nations to persecute political opponents and critics. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina rejected this demand, arguing that there are already laws in place that enable the government to prosecute anyone harming religious sentiments.

Hifazat-e-Islam, the Islamic group that orchestrated the blasphemy demonstrations, is also involved with the current statue rift and has pressed the government to make religious education mandatory and to abandon gender equality initiatives it calls anti-Islamic.

In Bangladesh’s constitution, Islam is the national religion but secularism is one of the four founding principles of the nation. Islamists have ignited contemporary identity wars in Bangladesh because they can’t abide secularism, with hard-line clerics inciting violence to overturn constitutional principles and the rule of law. Failures of the state have no doubt put wind in the militants’ sails, but for secularists, such flaws pale in comparison to what might ensue under the Islamist opposition.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://warontherocks.com/2017/05/c...ming-but-india-should-keep-calm-and-carry-on/

CHINA’S AIRCRAFT CARRIERS ARE COMING, BUT INDIA SHOULD KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON

ABHIJIT SINGH
MAY 9, 2017

Recently, two developments concerning China caused a sensation in the media. One of them was about a Chinese humanoid robot named Jia Jia who gave her first interview in English online in an event that got much attention and press coverage around the world. The other was the launch of the China’s second indigenous aircraft carrier, the CV-17 / 001A (also known as the Shandong),to commemorate the 68th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN).

Other than fanfare and hype that characterizes such occasions, there was something else the two events had in common: Both involved glitches that upset Chinese viewers. In the case of Jia Jia, the female humanoid fared poorly in her first live “interview,” stumbling over basic queries and speaking only after long, labored pauses.

In the case of the carrier, a photo-shopped image of the Liaoning showed a Russian MiG 35 and land basedJ-10 fighter jets taking off from the deck of the aircraft carrier. To the horror of many Chinese viewers, ships accompanying the Chinese carrier in the doctored picture were discovered to be U.S. amphibious assault ships rather than PLAN vessels. Embarrassed by the serious nature of the publicity bumble, the Chinese Defense Ministry quickly issued a public apology.

It is no secret that aircraft operations from the Liaoning haven’t been entirely satisfactory. After a fatal crash of a J-15 (China’s only carrier-borne fighter) in July 2016, an investigation concluded that pilots and aircraft systems onboard the Liaoning were still not ready for carrier-borne operations. Beijing tried to censor revealing bits of the inquiry, but skeptics called the incident a blow to the development of China’s aircraft carrier program. Fortunately for Chinese naval planners, the media largely ignored such reports. After the Liaoning’s much-vaunted debut in December last year, the PLAN worked hard to cultivate the image of a word-class navy on the threshold of acquiring carrier aviation skills.

In India, the launch of this carrier evoked particular interest. A majority of Indian analysts saw the development in largely geopolitical terms—an announcement of China’s maritime ambition in the Indian Ocean. For three reasons, they noted, the Shandong’s launch is a strategically consequential event for India. First, China’s new aircraft carrier is of a size and type that puts India’s naval aviation capability in the shade. At 70,000 tons loaded displacement, the Type 001A is a big carrier armed with a potent set of strategic assets, including 24 J-15 fighter aircraft, an advanced point defense weapons (HQ-10 batteries), and a modern S-band radar. In comparison, India’s INS Vikramaditya is not only smaller, but also — following trouble with its integral fleet of MiG-29K fighter jets — less capable.

Delhi’s strategic community also took note of the symbolism of a Chinese aircraft carrier built and launched in a fraction of the time the Indian navy is likely to take to get its own indigenous flat-top on-line. Most strikingly, Indian analysts pointed to the sharp rhetoric from senior Chinese leaders accompanying the launch of the new carrier, emphasizing China’s maritime rights and interests in the Indian Ocean. Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s remark that the PLAN intended to produce a total of six aircraft carriers — with two deployed in the Indian Ocean—seemed particularly distressing to Indian observers, suggesting “open designs” in India’s maritime neighborhood.

Yet, India’s maritime watchers would do well to stay calm. For all the hyperbole surrounding the Shandong, there is little evidence China’s aircraft carriers will cross the operational threshold for sustained far-seas deployment in the near future. Indeed, China’s carriers may not be able to project any meaningful power in the Indian Ocean any time soon. The Liaoning — China’s only functional aircraft carrier —has a small and underdeveloped air-wing with little capacity for coordinated missions in the far littorals. The J-15 aircraft — China’s only seaborne fighter aircraft — remains limited in terms of payload and fuel capacity, and the Liaoning can carry only 12 of the aircraft.

Shandong is bigger, with a capacity for 24 J-15 fighter jets, but it will likely take a few years for it to become fully operational and start supporting fleet operations in the IOR. While China’s naval constructors and engineers deserve much credit for setting the 001A afloat in record time, their real “test” of installing sensor, weapons, and equipment lies ahead. Like the U.S. Navy, which struggled for years to ready the Gerald Ford class carrier for sea-trails, the PLAN might soon realize aircraft carrier construction is grueling, painstaking business.

Even if Beijing completes the fitment of sensor suite and weaponry on time, there may be more teething trouble for its flattops. With carrier operations, it is important to integrate the air-wing with fleet operations. This entails coordinating fighter operations with electronic attack aircraft, sea-based anti-air defense, anti-submarine warfare helicopters, etc. The aim is to have an integrated command and control network that can enable simultaneous operations of diverse platforms and deployment of multiple capabilities for maximum combat effectiveness. For two reasons, however, China’s carriers are unlikely to be able to support distance seas airborne missions any time soon. First, both Liaoning and Shandong are Short Take-off and Barrier Assisted Landing (STOBAR) carriers, which do not operate heavy fixed-wing airborne early warning and control aircraft, needing catapult assisted take-off. Second, in the absence of any credible data to critically assess its operational performance, the J-15—a Russian Su-33 clone—remains unproven in its abilities as a combat fighter.

Training of pilots is another big factor likely to delay the eventual deployment of Chinese aircraft carriers in the IOR. Liaoning has been devoted to full-time training operations because the PLAN needs to groom its naval aviators in technical and tactical skills such as aircraft navigation, communications, over-the-horizon targeting, assisted and coordinated operations, and integrated and joint missions.

While Chinese pilots will take time to reach a high level of proficiency in carrier-borne aircraft operations, deck crew training is likely to pose another challenge. Aircraft carrier operations also involve traditional aviation tasks such as refueling and rearming in cramped conditions — well in close proximity to other aircraft — for which flight deck crews will need to train long hours to learn and choreograph all movements. Moreover, Chinese carrier command-teams will have to learn to work with the highly regimented and rigidly structured Chinese air force through technological and service-culture innovations. PLAN air exercises over the littoral seas will need to be less carefully scripted than usual to develop interoperability and inter-service coordination with the air force. Inevitably, this is likely to contribute to a further delay in aircraft carrier deployments in the Indian Ocean.

All of these are important reasons for India not to fret too much about a Chinese carrier threat, but there is one reason that looms even larger: logistics. While China does possess a token logistical flotilla, it consists of several semi-submersible ships for mainly commercial use and only limited military purposes. Their naval usage has been confined largely to the South China Sea, used only occasionally to facilitate PLAN anti-piracy operations off the Gulf of Aden. Tellingly, two years after sea trials, the Liaoning has yet to undertake a voyage far from the Chinese coast, limiting its forays to the Western Pacific. An operational tour in December 2016 saw the Liaoning venture only as far as the South China Sea. Not surprisingly, a U.S. Department of Defense report concluded last year that“[l]imited logistical support remains a key obstacle preventing the PLAN from operating more extensively beyond East Asia.”

To be sure, China’s logistical hub in Djibouti is a significant advancement. Beijing is reportedly keen to develop the facility and has even setup a Joint Logistic Support Force at the site. In order to protect its maritime lifelines and its growing interests overseas, Beijing has also announced plans for the deployment of marines in Djibouti and Gwadar, a Chinese constructed port on Pakistan’s Makran coast.

India’s real problem in the Indian Ocean -, in fact, isn’t Chinese aircraft carriers but PLAN submarines — whose constant deployments in the Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea since 2012 has been a source of deep anxiety. Last month, the Indian navy apprised defense ministry officials of Chinese submarine activity in India’s maritime neighborhood that had grown to a steady, all-year-round presence. Apparently, there is evidence to suggest China could be using the development of maritime facilities in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh as cover for advancing undersea operations in South Asia seas. India’s fretfulness over China’s aircraft carrier plans serves to distract attention from this more serious and immediate issue, particularly since India is left with just 13 operational submarines.

And yet, Indian analysts must realize that to acquire real maritime influence around India’s maritime periphery, China will need more than submarines in the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal. To materially influence the power dynamics of South Asia, the PLAN will also need aircraft carriers and sustained fleet operations for conspicuous naval power projection. This, in turn, will require supply, storage, and repair centers in the Central and Eastern Indian Ocean, without which the PLAN may find it hard to deploy its carrier battle groups in South Asian littorals for prolonged durations.

It appears then that in the short run, China’s aircraft carriers will be used more for peacetime signaling and soft power projection in the Indian Ocean. While this may in itself be a troubling prospect for India, it is unlikely to erode New Delhi’s operational and political leverage in the Indian Ocean. China knows its access agreements and commercial facilities will not be able to provide the materiel support to engage in large scale naval combat with India. But even if Beijing does setup a military logistics infrastructure chain in the Indian Ocean, its sites are all likely to be within the range of Indian strike aircraft and missiles.

New Delhi’s fear of a Chinese takeover of maritime South Asia is unlikely to come to pass in a way imagined by commentators. Indian maritime planners and policymakers must breathe easy and calmly plan for the future. The PLAN may have arrived in the Indian Ocean, but it unlikely to be an expeditionary presence in South Asia any time soon.


Abhijit Singh is a Senior Fellow and Head, Maritime Policy initiative at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/a/huge-explosion-reported-outside-mogadishu-restaurant/3842830.html

AFRICA

Mogadishu Blast Kills 6 Including General

Last Updated: May 08, 2017 1:29 PM
Harun Maruf

At least six people have been killed in a car bombing outside a Mogadishu restaurant, including a senior Somali military general.

Government officials have told VOA's Somali Service that General Abdi Bashir Aden was among those killed in the Monday bombing.

Ten others were injured when the bomb went off shortly before 6 p.m. local time, next to a popular eatery and coffee shop known as the Italian Cafe. Witnesses said they believe the explosion was timed for an hour when many customers sit outside the shop to enjoy afternoon tea and coffee.

The coffee shop is across the street from the headquarters of Somalia's immigration directorate, and is adjacent to the Sunrise Hotel.

Militant group al-Shabab claimed responsbility for the attack, saying they were targeting officials for national security and immigration. The coffee shop is across the street from the headquarters of Somalia's immigration directorate, and is adjacent to the Sunrise Hotel..

Meanwhile, four government soldiers were killed Monday in a roadside explosion in Kabtanlas village near the town of Qoryoley, in the Lower Shabelle region.

The soldiers were traveling on a military vehicle when the explosion occurred, officials said.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.csis.org/analysis/afgha...il&utm_term=0_f326fc46b6-21f62e830f-141829597

The Afghan War: Creating An Afghan Capability to Win
By Anthony H. Cordesman
May 1, 2017

The Burke Chair at CSIS has updated its reporting on the Afghan War, and issued a major new report entitled The Afghan War: Creating An Afghan Capability to Win . The updated report is available on the CSIS web site at: https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/...1_Afghanistan_War_Creating_Capability_Win.pdf.

This report addresses the key causes of the problems that the Afghan government and security forces now face, as well as the fact that the “enemy” is only part of the threat. Enabling Afghan military forces to defeat their enemies at the tactical level is only part of any meaningful form of victory. Today, Afghanistan faces the following eight threats:


A mix of enemies that now includes the Taliban, Haqqani network, ISIS, other elements linked to Pakistan, and has little incentive to seek a real peace as distinguished from trying to exploit peace negotiations as a form of war by other means .
A U.S. ally that failed to properly resource the development of Afghan forces until 2011, attempted to rush force development to meet an arbitrary withdrawal date of end-2014, and has since never properly sized its security or civil aid to meet the real world conditions on the ground, but rather slowed its withdrawal of an already inadequate military and train and assist effort.
A U.S.-led military aid effort that focused on tactical victories rather than “hearts and minds” and the political realities of the insurgency. This effort consistently understated the reemergence of the Taliban and other enemy forces, lacked realism in reporting on the true pace of Afghan force development, never came firmly to grips with Afghan corruption, and accepted a withdrawal schedule that was clearly too quick.
A U.S.-led civil aid effort that was never properly linked to the security and stability needs of Afghanistan, and failed to create an effective integrated civil-military effort . The civil aid effort made even more exaggerated claims of progress, did not deal with Afghan and outside corruption, put far too many resources into project aid and the use of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) to buy temporary support, and did not realistically plan for the impact of post-2014 cuts in military and aid spending on the Afghan civil sector.
Afghan national security forces that remain unready to fight and divided on many levels , weakened by corruption at every level, lacking in air power and mobility, sharply affected by the number of missing or ghost soldiers, and focused on tactical victory.

Afghan national security forces that remain unready to fight and divided on many levels , weakened by corruption at every level, lacking in air power and mobility, sharply affected by the number of missing or ghost soldiers, and focused on tactical victory.

Afghan national security forces that remain divided into military, police, and local forces where the military forces are largely the only elements capable of directly fighting the Taliban, Haqqani network, ISIS and other factions . The police and local forces cannot “win,” but also lack the capability to hold and deal with the ability to enforce security and justice—in part because of the corruption and failures of the civil government from the central to the district level.

A divided and deeply corrupt Afghan civil government whose limited reforms have not met its people’s needs or expectations, where rule is still largely by power brokers rather than from “Kabulistan,” and which is steadily losing the confidence and support of its people .

A de facto threat from Pakistan —a supposed ally—from Iranian and Pakistani expulsion of refugees, and from Russian support of the Taliban.

The updated report provides a detailed analysis of these threats and the problems caused by the failures of past U.S. Administrations to properly structure and resource U.S. combat support forces, and military and civil aid missions necessary to support Afghanistan. It also addresses critical failures in the Afghan government that threaten its survival and military success.

It includes a detailed analysis of key weaknesses in U.S. allied train and assist, counterterrorism, and combat air support missions, and in the security efforts of the Afghan government. It also addresses key problems in the Afghan civil sector, in politics, governance, corruption, the economy and winning Afghan popular support.

The report suggests significant changes to the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan that shift from a deadline-driven withdrawal strategy to a conditions-based strategy that provide the resources needed to help Afghan forces until they are truly ready for transition. Many of these changes have also been proposed by Gen. John Nicholson, commander of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and some have evidently been endorsed by Secretary of Defense, James Mattis during his recent visit to Afghanistan.

The report also suggests major shifts in the U.S. civil efforts from one focused on development to one focused on addressing the key weaknesses in Afghan politics and governance, and meeting critical Afghan civil needs and winning popular support.

At the same time, the report suggests that any such U.S. and allied effort must be made firmly conditional on actual Afghan reforms and performance, and that continued Afghan failure should lead the United States and other outside states to seriously consider ending aid and withdrawing from Afghanistan.

The Table of Contents of the Report include:

https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/170501_toc.jpg?.Bbg5pNHkXP7dRO6v_CLLjjXQzuPrt5u
Photo credit: John Moore/Getty Images
DOWNLOADS
Download PDF file of "The Afghan War: Creating An Afghan Capability to Win"
WRITTEN BY

Anthony H. Cordesman
Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy
MEDIA QUERIES
Contact H. Andrew Schwartz
Chief Communications Officer
Tel: 202.775.3242
RELATED
Afghanistan, Asia, Burke Chair in Strategy, Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, Defense Strategy and Capabilities, Defense and Security, Geopolitics and International Security, Lessons of War, MENA Stability Reports and Studies, Middle East, Terrorism and Counterinsurgency, U.S. Strategic and Defense Efforts
MOST RECENT FROM ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/arti...il&utm_term=0_b02a5f1344-b07e80ac31-122460921

South Korea Elects Candidate for Change

May 9, 2017 | Will Edwards

Liberal candidate Moon Jae-in won South Korea’s presidential election on Tuesday. Moon’s decisive win, with approximately 40 percent of the vote and a 14 percent lead over the next closest candidate, signifies the South Korean electorate’s desire for change after 10 years of conservative rule and a political corruption controversy that had former President Park Geun-hye removed from office.

Moon ran on a campaign emphasizing reform that would restore the South Korean people’s faith in their government, pursue economic policies to revitalize a slowing economy and reduce the power of conglomerates, and take a more conciliatory approach to North Korea.

Before entering politics, Moon served in the army’s special forces and then became a human rights lawyer. He was chief of staff in the administration of Roh Mu-hyun, South Korea’s last liberal president but did not run for political office until 2012. Soon after winning a seat in the National Assembly, Moon ran for president in the 2012 election and came in second to Park.

Many observers believe Moon’s conciliatory approach to both North Korea and China may strain South Korea’s alliance with the United States. Moon advocates open dialogue with Pyongyang and reopening a joint economic zone known as the Kaesong Industrial Complex to improve relations.

He has called for a review of the United States’ deployment of the controversial Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system. Beijing opposes the system, which is meant to defend South Korea against North Korean missiles, on the grounds that its sensors can be used for surveillance of China. Relations between China and South Korea have been strained since the THAAD deployment, and many believe Moon will try to improve relations with South Korea’s second most lucrative trade partner.

In the past, the U.S.-South Korean alliance has seen the most strain under a conservative U.S. president and a liberal South Korean president. With a similar dynamic now in place, it remains to be seen if this pattern will continue between the Trump and Moon administrations.

For more analysis on what Moon Jae-in’s election win means for South Korean and U.S. interests, look for The Cipher Brief’s Friday feature on the South Korean election.

Will Edwards is an Asia-Pacific and defense analyst at The Cipher Brief. Follow him on Twitter*@_wedwards.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/germany-beefs-up-tank-fleet-with-832m-acquisition

Germany beefs up tank fleet with $832M acquisition

By: Sebastian Sprenger, May 9, 2017 (Photo Credit: Alexander Koerner/Getty Images)

COLOGNE, Germany*—*The German Army is in line for an upgrade of its tanks, based on the expectation that future conflicts will rely heavily on ground warfare with armored vehicles.

All told, the Bundeswehr stands to get 104 used Leopard 2 battle tanks out of storage that manufacturer Krauss-Maffei Wegmann will upgrade under a contract with the German Defence Ministry from the A4 configuration to the newest A7V standard. The latest package includes improvements in the areas of information technology, armaments and armor.

The tanks*—*13 of them previously operated by Germany's own armed forces*—*hail from multiple NATO allies, who returned them to KMW sometime after the fall of the Soviet Union, when tank warfare in Europe was thought to be an unthinkable relic of the Cold War. Until recently, the company had planned to use the tanks for parts or experiments, according to a spokesman.


C4ISRNET
RCO: Electronic warfare capability hits European soil


But times have changed, as a May 8 statement from the acquisition arm of the German Defence Ministry noted.
“The geopolitical developments of the past years have emphasized to us the importance of tank technology for our defense capabilities,” officials wrote.

Also part of the €760 million (U.S. $832.7 million) contract with KMW is the delivery of 32 tank chassis frames that can later be turned into additional vehicles of the Leopard 2 series, such as variants capable of launching bridges across rivers and other chokepoints.

The German Army is slated to receive the upgraded tanks beginning in 2019, with deliveries finished by 2023. The new tank deal will bring the number of German tanks to 328, in line with a goal set by Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen.

The possibility of tank warfare has seen something of a resurgence in recent years within U.S. defense circles and, to a lesser extent, in Europe, as officials on both sides of the Atlantic believe that Russian capabilities in such tactics outmatch those of the West.

3 Comments

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/articles..._term=Editorial - Military - Early Bird Brief

Satellite images reveal Chinese expansion in South China Sea

By: Barbara Opall-Rome, May 8, 2017 (Photo Credit: ImageSat International)

TEL AVIV, Israel*—*Imagery captured Monday from an ImageSat International (ISI) Eros B satellite indicates Chinese preparations for new land-based missile installations on an increasingly strategic island base in the South China Sea.

The high-resolution imagery, shown here for the first time, reveals recent changes in the layout of the People’s Liberation Army’s Yulin Naval Base at the tip of Hainan Island in the*disputed*South China Sea. In less than two months, the PLA deployed multiple missile launchers on the western side of the base, deployments that* ISI imagery analyst Amit Gur has concluded are anti-ship missiles.

“The direction in which the launchers are facing leads us to believe these are shore-to-ship missiles,” Gur told Defense News.

He said that similar systems had shown up in satellite data about two years ago, but had been removed in recent months to accommodate infrastructure upgrades at the site. ISI's imagery from March 15 shows an empty plateau, but by May 8 the firm’s Eros B captured a clear image of newly paved infrastructure and multiple launch sites.

“They must have concluded renovation work, as the systems are clearly visible,” Gur said. “We just don’t know if they are new systems, or a [redeployment] of the ones that were stored during the renovation.”


Defense News
Satellite imagery shows Russian AWACS back in Syria


Perhaps even more interesting, according to ISI, is progress taking place on Yulin’s eastern side. “We’re seeing the building of infrastructure that wasn’t there before and what looks like preparations for shore-to-ship missiles, just like on the western side,” company spokesman Gil Or said.

Gur noted that expansion of the Yulin base fortifies Beijing’s strategic triangle of forward bases with which to quickly project its power well beyond neighboring Vietnam and the Philippines.

Twitter: @opallrome

11 Comments

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-election-idUSKBN1852LI

World News | Wed May 10, 2017 | 9:36am EDT

New South Korea president vows to address North Korea, broader tensions

By Ju-min Park and Christine Kim | SEOUL

South Korea's new liberal President Moon Jae-in was sworn in on Wednesday and vowed to immediately tackle the difficult tasks of addressing North Korea's advancing nuclear ambitions and soothing tensions with the United States and China.

Moon said in his first speech as president he would begin efforts to defuse security tensions on the Korean peninsula and negotiate with Washington and Beijing to ease a row over a U.S. missile defense system being deployed in the South.

In his first key appointments, Moon named two liberal veterans with ties to the "Sunshine Policy" of engagement with North Korea from the 2000s to the posts of prime minister and spy chief.

Moon named Suh Hoon, a career spy agency official and a veteran of inter-Korea ties, as the head of the National Intelligence Service. Suh was instrumental in setting up two previous summits between the North and South.

Veteran liberal politician Lee Nak-yon was nominated to serve as prime minister. Now a regional governor, Lee was a political ally of the two former presidents who held the summits with the North in 2000 and 2007, Lee's appointment requires parliamentary approval.

Moon was expected to fill the remaining cabinet and presidential staff appointments swiftly to bring an end to a power vacuum left by the removal of Park Geun-hye in March in a corruption scandal that rocked South Korea's business and political elite.

"I will urgently try to solve the security crisis," Moon said in the domed rotunda hall of the parliament building. "If needed, I will fly straight to Washington. I will go to Beijing and Tokyo and, if the conditions are right, to Pyongyang also."

Spy chief nominee Suh said Moon could go to Pyongyang if it was clear the visit would help resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis and ease military tension on the Korean peninsula.

North Korea is likely to welcome Moon's election but its state media made no mention of his victory on Wednesday.

The deployment of the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) in the South has angered China, Seoul's major trading partner, which sees the system's powerful radar as a threat to its security.

The issue has clouded efforts to rein in North Korea's nuclear and missile programs, and also led to recriminations by Beijing against South Korean companies.

Moon, 64, also pledged to sever what he described as the collusive ties between business and government that have plagued many of South Korea's family-run conglomerates, known as chaebol, and vowed to be incorruptible.

"I take this office empty-handed, and I will leave the office empty-handed," Moon said.

Moon met leaders of opposition parties before his simple swearing-in ceremony at parliament and promised to coordinate with them on national security.

Office workers and passersby lined the streets as Moon's motorcade passed through central Seoul en route to the presidential Blue House.

Moon waved to well-wishers through the sunroof of his limousine, which was flanked by police motorbikes.

TRUST, UNDERSTANDING
Chinese President Xi Jinping and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe both congratulated Moon on Wednesday. Xi said China was willing to handle disputes with South Korea "appropriately" on the basis of mutual trust and understanding.

Abe said in a statement he looked forward to working with Moon to improve relations, describing South Korea as one of Japan's most important neighbors.

The decision by the ousted Park's government to host the THAAD system has already proved a headache for Moon as Seoul tries to walk a fine line between Washington, its closest security ally, and Beijing.

Moon has said the decision had been made hastily and his government should have the final say on whether to deploy it.

China hoped South Korea "pays attention to China's security concerns" and deals "appropriately" with the THAAD issue, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman told a briefing in Beijing.

As president, Moon must find a way to coax an increasingly belligerent North Korea to ease its nuclear and missile threats. It has conducted its fifth nuclear test and a series of missile launches since the start of last year, ratcheting up tension.

Washington wants to increase pressure on Pyongyang through further isolation and sanctions, in contrast to Moon's advocacy for greater engagement with the reclusive North.

In one of his first acts as president, Moon spoke by telephone with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lee Sun-jin. Moon's Democratic Party said he was briefed on the status of the North Korean military and South Korea's military readiness.

Moon's election could add volatility to relations with Washington, given his questioning of the THAAD deployment, but it was not expected to change the alliance significantly, a U.S. official said.

The White House also congratulated Moon, saying it looked forward to working with him to strengthen their longstanding alliance.

Moon must also try to mend a society badly bruised by the corruption scandal that doomed Park's administration.

His party lacks a majority in a divided parliament. To push through major initiatives, including creating 500,000 jobs annually and reforming the chaebol, he will need to forge partnerships with some of those he fought on his path to the presidency.

Moon won with 41.1 percent of the votes but that seemingly comfortable margin belied an ideological and generational divide in the country of 51 million people.

Data from an exit poll conducted by South Korea's top three television networks showed that, while Moon won the majority of votes cast by those under the age of 50, conservative rival Hong Joon-pyo found strong support among voters in their 60s and 70s.

(For a graphic on South Korea presidential election, click tmsnrt.rs/2p8kyHn)

(Additional reporting by Joyce Lee, Jack Kim, Se Young Lee, Cynthia Kim and James Pearson in SEOUL, Matt Spetalnick and David Brunnstrom in WASHINGTON, Ben Blanchard in BEIJING, and Elaine Lies in TOKYO, Editing by Soyoung Kim and Paul Tait)

Related Coverage
Moon's aim to move South Korean presidential office a security 'headache'
South Korea's Moon names inter-Korean talks veteran as spy chief
Incoming South Korea spy chief says too early to talk about summit with North Korea
South Korean business groups say will work with new president on job creation

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-mosul-idUSKBN1861QY

Middle East & North Africa | Wed May 10, 2017 | 10:33am EDT

Families pour out of Mosul as Iraqi troops push into last militant-held areas

By Isabel Coles | HAMMAM AL-ALIL CAMP, Iraq

Thousands more people are fleeing Mosul every day since Iraqi troops began their push into the last Islamic State-held areas of the city last week, with food and water running out and the fighting killing increasing numbers of civilians.

More than 22,000 people have fled Mosul since the U.S.-backed forces opened a new front in the northwest of the city on May 4 to try to finally dislodge the militants, the United Nations said on Wednesday, citing Iraqi government figures.

In the past two days alone, more than 11,000 people have passed through a screening site at the Hammam al-Alil camp south of Mosul.

Islamic State fighters are shooting people who try to escape, although some men have been allowed to go in exchange for taking militants' families with them, said 40-year-old Umm Abdul Rahman, who fled the Musherfa district on Tuesday night.

One man waiting to be checked by security at Hammam al Alil had streaks of blood on his clothes from carrying a woman hit by an Islamic State sniper.

They join an exodus from Mosul of more than 600,000 people in the seven months since Iraqi forces began their offensive there. Roughly 400,000 of those are from the western side of the city which is bisected by the River Tigris.

The militants are now besieged in the northwestern corner, which includes the historic Old City center, the medieval Grand al-Nuri Mosque, and its landmark leaning minaret where their black flag has been flying since June 2014.

About ten families, some forced out of other areas of Mosul as Iraqi forces advanced, were now crammed into every house in the northwest, Abdul Rahman said.

"There is no water, no food. The bombardment is continuous," she said, and the militants were setting civilian cars and trucks on fire to create smokescreens.

People are surviving on ground wheat boiled in water, 31-year-old Qatra al-Nada Abdullah said, because Islamic State fighters were keeping any food or water that is left for themselves.

"Even wheat is scarce," she said.

Islamic State fighters are forcing people from their homes to use them as fighting positions, 62-year-old Umm Mohammed said as she clutched a packet of cigarettes forbidden under the militants' rule.

Also In Middle East & North Africa
Pakistan's army assures commitment to democracy after row with government
Turkey warns U.S. of blowback from decision to arm Kurdish fighters in Syria

She and her family had burned everything, even their own shoes, to cook over after fuel ran out.

"We saw fear and hunger and death. I am an old woman and I have never seen anything like this."

The Sunni Muslim militants seized Mosul in a shock offensive across northern and western Iraq in 2014 but have lost much of that territory to resurgent government forces in the past year. The campaign to recapture the city, Iraq's second largest, began last October.

Defeat in Mosul, the militants' last urban stronghold in the country, would still leave Islamic State in control of swathes of Syria and Iraqi territory near the Syrian border.

(Reporting by Isabel Coles; Additional reporting by Ahmed Rasheed in Baghdad; Writing by Ahmed Aboulenein; Editing by Louise Ireland)

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles


Next In Middle East & North Africa

NATO assessing request for more troops to Afghanistan
LONDON NATO is assessing a request from the alliance's military authorities to send more troops to Afghanistan and will make a decision on the scale and scope of the mission within weeks, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said on Wednesday.

Iran's Supreme Leader warns against disrupting presidential vote
BEIRUT Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned on Wednesday that any attempts to disrupt the presidential election on May 19 would be dealt with harshly.

Oil rises after U.S. inventories drop, signals of OPEC cut extension
LONDON Oil prices rose on Wednesday after Iraq and Algeria joined Saudi Arabia in supporting an extension to OPEC supply cuts and U.S. crude inventories fell more than expected.



MORE FROM REUTERS
*
Iran minister warns Saudi Arabia after 'battle' comments: Tasnim
Billions saved because FDA didn't rush approval of Alzheimer's drug
Trump's pick for Army secretary drops out: official
U.S. charges four Chinese nationals in college entrance exam scam
Tennessee 'natural meaning' law raises fears in LGBT community

 

[Housecarl]

I thought this may be of some interest....HC

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1203127/nuclear-south-asia/

Nuclear South Asia

by Michael Krepon | May 9, 2017 | No Comments

Quotes of the week:
“Learning is ever in the freshness of its youth, even for the old.”
–Aeschylus

“Education consists mainly in what we have unlearned.”
–Mark Twain

When you find yourself in a hole, recovery is a multi-step process. The first step is to stop digging. The second step is to figure out how you got in so deep. The third step is to figure out how to get out. And the fourth step is to head for daylight.

India, Pakistan and China are at a significant juncture in their interactive nuclear competition. In a down-scaled way, they are where the Soviet Union and the United States were in the late 1960s. The lure and pitfalls of MIRVs and ballistic missile defenses beckon. Counterforce capabilities will then entice, along with attendant concerns of preemption. All of this –*plus cruise missiles and the revolution in conventional counterforce capabilities – is playing out in a far more compressed timeline in South Asia than was the case for the superpower competition.

The Stimson Center is offering a free online course to help assess this state of play, what choices lay ahead, and how to avoid the mistakes that Washington and Moscow have made. Our course is Nuclear South Asia: A Guide to India, Pakistan, and the Bomb. Sameer Lalwani and I are the co-instructors. Travis Wheeler, Gillian Gayner, and Shane Mason spent many long hours pulling this course together – seven course sections, eight and one-half hours of tape, resource pages, graphics, charts, time lines, quizzes, and links to more information. Students who pass the final exam will gain accreditation.

This course is made possible by the generous grant support of the MacArthur Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the National Nuclear Security Administration, and the Stanton Foundation. It’s also made possible by the generous gift of time by the following scholars, practitioners, analysts, and researchers who have lent their expertise to help those who want to learn more about the nuclear competition in South Asia. Sameer and I are grateful to each and every one of them, who believe in learning and in classrooms without borders:

Rizwana Abbasi, Assistant Professor, Department of Strategic and Nuclear Studies, National Defence University
James Acton, Co-Director, Nuclear Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Mansoor Ahmed, Stanton Nuclear Security Junior Faculty Fellow, Belfer Center, Harvard University
Rabia Akhtar, Director, Centre for Security, Strategy, and Policy Research, University of Lahore
Zamir Akram, Former Pakistani Ambassador
Linton Brooks, Chief U.S. Negotiator, Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
Ahsan Butt, Assistant Professor of Government and Politics, Department of Public and International Affairs, George Mason University
Stephen Cohen, Senior Fellow, The India Project, Foreign Policy Program, Brookings Institution
Raj Chengappa, Group Editorial Director (Publishing), India Today Group
Christopher Clary, Assistant Professor, University at Albany
Lisa Curtis, Former Senior Adviser to the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs
Toby Dalton, Co-Director, Nuclear Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Robert Einhorn, Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation
Thomas Fingar, Former Chairman, U.S. Intelligence Council
Mark Fitzpatrick, Executive Director, IISS-Americas
Francis Gavin, Frank Stanton Chair in Nuclear Security Policy Studies and Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Jack Gill, Former South Asia Foreign Area Officer, U.S. Army
Charles Glaser, Director, Institute for Security and Conflict Studies, George Washington University
Anish Goel, Senior Fellow, International Security Program, New America Foundation
Devin Hagerty, Professor of Political Science, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Syed Azmat Hassan, Former Pakistani Ambassador
Siegfried Hecker, Former Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Pervez Hoodbhoy, Distinguished Professor of Physics and Mathematics, Forman Christian College
Touqir Hussain, Former Pakistani Ambassador
Zahid Imroz, Former Visiting Research Fellow, George Washington University
Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, Visiting Fellow, Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies
Neil Joeck, Research Scholar, Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley
Manoj Joshi, Distinguished Fellow, Observer Research Foundation
Sharad Joshi, Assistant Professor of Nonproliferation and Terrorism Studies, Middle Institute of International Studies at Monterey
S. Paul Kapur, Professor, Department of National Security Affairs, U.S. Naval Postgraduate School
Reshmi Kazi, Associate Fellow, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
Feroz Khan, Former Director, Arms Control and Disarmament Affairs, Strategic Plans Division, Pakistan Army
Riaz Khan, Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary
Michael Krepon, Co-founder, Stimson Center
Walter Ladwig, Assistant Professor, International Relations, King’s College London
Sameer Lalwani, Deputy Director, South Asia Program, Stimson Center
Jeffrey Lewis, Adjunct Professor and Director of East Asia Nonproliferation Program, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Thomas Lynch, Distinguished Research Fellow for South Asia and the Near East, Center for Strategic Research, Institute of National Strategic Studies, National Defense University
Julia Macdonald, Post-Doctoral Fellow, University of Pennsylvania, Perry World House
Salma Malik, Professor, Quaid-i-Azam University
Daniel Markey, Former Member, U.S. Secretary of State’s Policy Planning Staff
Nicholas Miller, Dean’s Assistant Professor of Nuclear Security and Policy, Watson Institute, Brown University
Sitakanta Mishra, Assistant Professor, School of Liberal Studies, Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University
C. Raja Mohan, Director, Carnegie India
Vipin Narang, Mitsui Career Development Associate Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Ruhee Neog, Assistant Director, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies
George Perkovich, Vice President for Studies, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Steven Pifer, Director, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative, Brookings Institution
Barry Posen, Ford International Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Shaukat Qadir, Pakistani Army (ret.)
Rajesh Rajagopalan, Professor in International Politics, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Rajeswari Rajagopalan, Senior Fellow and Head of the Nuclear and Space Policy Initiative, Observer Research Foundation
Robin Raphel, Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs
Hasan Askari Rizvi, Professor Emeritus, Punjab University
Scott Sagan, The Caroline S.G. Munro Professor of Political Science, Stanford University
Naeem Salik, Senior Fellow, Centre for International Strategic Studies
Nilanthi Samaranayake, Strategic Studies Analyst, Center for Naval Analyses
Amy Sands, Executive Director, Research Centers and Initiatives, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey
Jaganath Sankaran, Research Scholar, Center for International Security Studies at ththe University of Maryland
Shyam Saran, Former Foreign Secretary of India
Jayita Sarkar, Associate, Belfer Center, Harvard University
Teresita Schaffer, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East and South Asia, U.S. Department of State
Deborah Schneider, Staff Director, Nuclear Risk Reduction Center, U.S. Department of State
Manpreet Sethi, Senior Fellow, Centre for Air Power Studies
Sheel Kant Sharma, Former Indian Ambassador
Swaran Singh, Professor of Diplomacy and Disarmament, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Andrew Small, Senior Transatlantic Fellow, Asia Program, German Marshall Fund
David Smith, Former U.S. Army Attaché to Pakistan
Rakesh Sood, Former Indian Ambassador
Leonard Spector, Executive Director, Washington Office, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Yun Sun, Senior Associate, East Asia Program, Stimson Center
Mushahid Hussain Syed, Chairman, Committee on Defence, Pakistani Senate
Nina Tannenwald, Director, International Relations Program, Watson Institute, Brown University
Sadia Tasleem, Lecturer, Quaid-i-Azam University
Ashley Tellis, Former Senior Adviser to the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
Cindy Vestergaard, Senior Associate, Nuclear Safeguards Program, Stimson Center
Marvin Weinbaum, Former Analyst for Pakistan and Afghanistan, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, U.S. Department of State
Amy Woolf, Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy, Foreign Afairs, Defense, and Trade Division, Congressional Research Service
Diana Wueger, Faculty Associate for Research, Center on Contemporary Conflict, Naval Postgraduate School
Moeed Yusuf, Associate Vice President, Asia Center, U.S. Institute of Peace

With guest lecturers like these, Nuclear South Asia: A Guide to India, Pakistan, and the Bomb provides a unique learning experience for those of all ages and of all nationalities with access to a computer or cell phone. Our course offers diverse viewpoints and doesn’t reach conclusions. It will take enrollees beyond talking points and national nuclear narratives. We constructed this course for all those who cannot find a course on nuclear South Asia in their classrooms, who do not believe that rote memorization constitutes learning, and who wish to think for themselves.*Enroll in Nuclear South Asia by navigating to www.nuclearlearning.org*and clicking the “Enroll for free” button.

We previewed the course by offering the first three sections in July 2016. So, far, we have attracted more than 1,200 enrollees from 81 countries. Now that the full course is available, along with accreditation, we expect many more enrollees. We hope that professors will utilize sections of this course in their syllabi, and that students that do not have a course like this in their curriculum can sign in to Stimson’s first open, on line course –*or SOOC, for short. All are welcome to our marketplace of ideas.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-security-raids-idUSKBN186132

World News | Wed May 10, 2017 | 5:30am EDT

Police carry out anti-IS raids across Germany

Police carried out anti-terrorism raids in four German states on Wednesday morning, targeting Islamic State sympathizers, prosecutors said in a statement, but said no arrests had been made, contradicting earlier media reports.

The raids targeted the homes of suspects as well as other properties in the states of Bavaria, Berlin, Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt, prosecutors said. Two of the individuals were suspected of belonging to IS, one of supporting it, and two of firearms offenses.

(Reporting By Thomas Escritt, editing by Madeline Chambers)

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...saved-millions-of-lives-but-that-could-easily

Nuclear weapons have saved millions of lives, but that could easily change

BY PETER PRY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 05/10/17 07:00 AM EDT 6 Comments

Americans hate nuclear weapons, and those who think about them. This I know from a professional lifetime as one who thinks about nuclear weapons, strategy, and warfare.

Philosophically, weapons of mass destruction are antithetical to the ethos of democratic societies deriving their legitimacy from the people, where government exists to serve the people, where the most precious jewel is the lives of the people. Nuclear weapons, that threaten mass destruction of the people, is so noxious in our society that almost no one wants to think about them—and very few do.

In contrast, totalitarian and authoritarian states are proud of their nuclear firepower and celebrate nuclear weapons. Russia, China, and North Korea parade nuclear missiles in their streets. They broadcast TV documentaries about winning nuclear wars, almost always against the United States.

Military dictatorships and societies ruled by iron-fisted elites, where the dictators or their ideology is the most precious jewel, where the people are considered expendable—such societies love nuclear weapons. Even their peoples love The Bomb. They never seem to tire of nuclear missile parades and civil defense drills.

Refusing to think about nuclear weapons and warfare will not make the threat go away. Pretending to abolish nuclear weapons through arms control, as the West has been trying to do since 1945, is just another way of not thinking.

We should have learned by now nuclear weapons are here to stay, a permanent fact of international life. The bad guys do not want to ban their bomb. They will encourage us to ban our bombs, but keep theirs.

Pretending that nuclear strategy is Strangelovian, an evil necessity to be tolerated among a small group of bespectacled weirdos like myself—but not central to national security and real statesmanship—is yet another way of not thinking.

In fact, nuclear weapons are the most formidable military technology existing in the modern world. They are the most powerful piece on the geopolitical chess board.

Nuclear weapons are central to, and the foundation of, our national security.

Colin S. Gray correctly observed, during the height of the Cold War, that nuclear weapons are so important they overshadow everything in war, peace, and diplomacy. Gray understood then, as we must now, that nuclear weapons are so powerful they shape the mental geography of international relations, and influence war, diplomacy, and peace—merely by existing.

Thus, since 1945, every war fought involving a nuclear-armed power or their allies has been a nuclear war. All diplomacy involving nuclear-armed powers or their allies has been nuclear diplomacy. Since 1945, when there has been peace, it has been nuclear peace.

Since 1945, the greatest U.S. victories and greatest U.S. defeats have been nuclear victories, and nuclear defeats:

Nuclear victory looks like the 200,000 casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But also like Japan surrendering on the deck of the USS Missouri, sparing over 1,000,000 casualties expected from invading their home islands, and ending World War II.

Nuclear victory looks like President Dwight Eisenhower threatening to use the U.S. advantage in tactical nuclear weapons to end the Korean War with an Armistice.

Nuclear victory looks like President John F. Kennedy, armed with a 5-to-1 advantage in ICBMs, going eyeball to eyeball with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, forcing the USSR into a humiliating retreat during the Cuban missile crisis.

Nuclear defeat looks like President Nixon’s retreat from South Vietnam. According to presidential advisor Rodger Swearingen, President Lyndon Johnson was afraid to invade, occupy, and liberate North Vietnam—the only way to win the conflict—fearing a nuclear war with China.

Nuclear victory looks like deterring a Soviet invasion of Western Europe—despite the USSR’s vast numerical advantages in tanks, aircraft, artillery, and troops—and keeping the peace for 45 years.

Nuclear victory looks like winning the Cold War with the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the USSR without a thermonuclear World War III, defeating the most powerful totalitarian empire in history—peacefully.

Nuclear defeat looks like Russia annexing the Crimea without firing a shot and torturing Ukraine for three years to undermine NATO. Under President Clinton’s Bucharest Agreement, Ukraine surrendered hundreds of nuclear weapons on its territory to Moscow, in exchange for security guarantees from Washington and London, that have proven worthless.

Nuclear defeat looks like President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, and eight years of appeasement of Iranian aggression against U.S. allies in the Middle East.

Nuclear defeat will look like a North Korean electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack that blacks-out America and ends our civilization. Or terrorists nuking a city. Or Russian or China rolling the dice on a nuclear first strike.

These or other nuclear nightmares are more likely to happen if we do not think—and act.

Vice Admiral Robert Monroe has called for reviving the U.S. Defense Nuclear Agency to resume serious work on understanding and mitigating nuclear weapon effects.

The Congressional EMP Commission has called for hardening the U.S. electric grid and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures against EMP and cyber-attack.

President Trump wants to modernize the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

Do it.

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry is chief of staff of the Congressional EMP Commission, and served in the House Armed Services Committee and the CIA.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.investors.com/politics/c...e-department-lacks-nuclear-weapons-expertise/

COMMENTARY

Today's Defense Department Lacks Nuclear Weapons Expertise

ROBERT R. MONROE
5/08/2017

One of the precepts of leadership — in all walks of life — is that there's nothing much worse than a person in charge who won't take charge.

That's where America has been for the past quarter-century as regards the Department of Defense (DOD) and nuclear weapons

During World War II and the Cold War, the military took charge of nuclear weapons. Over that half-century we won both wars. Since then DOD has refused to take charge of nuclear weapons, and we're in deep trouble.

That last broad statement, of course, does not apply to our strategic deterrent. This single element has been acceptably maintained (except for delivery-system modernization, where a full-court press is finally ongoing).

But that is the only thing that remains of an immense universe of nuclear weapons expertise and capability that America maintained for two generations. Everything else is gone.

When FDR understood the import of Einstein's message, to whom did he turn to create America's nuclear weapons capability? An Army general. Leslie Groves managed every aspect of the Manhattan Project, from start to finish (personnel, sites, facilities, raw materials, industrial base, science and technology, testing, security, wartime use).

Military officers were in critical positions throughout the Manhattan Project, and the top-level decision-maker was military. In today's terms, that huge effort was a DOD project.

We had learned that successful long-term management of nuclear weapons requires two joined-at-the-hip organizations: a military one to establish what weapons are needed to deter (or fight) nuclear wars, and a scientific one, doing advanced research to learn what's possible in weaponry.

Thus when the Manhattan Project was disestablished in 1947, its successors were the military Armed Forces Special Weapons Project (AFSWP) and the civilian Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). Top-level decisions about nuclear weapons were still military. Reactors and atomic energy were civilian. Military requirements for nuclear weapons were established by DOD, and these were sent to DOD's industrial base (the AEC and its successors) for development and production.

We won the 45-year Cold War because: (1) DOD was the nation's nuclear weapons decision-maker; (2) DOD's industrial base was composed of world-class scientists, engineers, testers and production experts; and (3) the two organizations worked as one. They were incredibly close. Military officers served all over the labs as research associates.

AFSWP — now become the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) — managed thousands of military nuclear weapons specialists and subspecialists, uniformed and civilian, a great many with Ph.D.s in nuclear physics, nuclear weapons effects and nuclear engineering. They were spread throughout the services, agencies, commands and nuclear forces. All were focused on the military use of nuclear weapons (offensive and defensive).

Throughout the Cold War, from the top levels on down, DOD made sure its industrial base (by now part of the Department of Energy) got whatever it needed, and the labs in turn supported DOD in every way. Each organization had its own highly expert underground nuclear testing team, closely integrated with each other and with the Nevada Test Site. The countless advances in nuclear weapons science, made weekly and monthly, were shared intimately.

When the Cold War ended in 1991, peace broke out. No enemies were in sight. All nuclear weapons activities were stopped, and a peace dividend was declared.

DOD's focus, personnel and budgets were shifted to the "irregular" wars America was fighting in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan. The military's top nuclear weapons leadership was wiped out when the Defense Nuclear Agency was shut in 1997; and DOD's denuclearization (except for our aging strategic deterrent) was completed during President Obama's eight years, to achieve his goal of a world without nuclear weapons. DOE's nuclear paralysis paralleled DOD's.

Look at the results. Credible deterrence no longer exists in our foreign policy. Our nonproliferation policies are so ill-conceived that we have just triggered a global cascade of nuclear proliferation. We have no coherent nuclear weapons strategy. Our current stockpile is composed of weapons well past the end of their design life; and their condition ranges somewhere between deteriorated and unknown.

Worse, they are irrelevant to most of today's principal threats.

Our deplorable no-test policy defies reason. Our prohibition of design and production of new nukes has brought the technical expertise of our scientists, engineers, designers, production teams and testing experts into serious question. They haven't been allowed to even think about new weapons, and exploratory work has ceased to exist.

Our near-total restriction on nuclear weapons research has opened wide our vulnerabilities to technological surprise. Key nuclear facilities are antiquated or nonexistent. Their agreed-to modernization funding has been slashed. The grave electromagnetic pulse threat continues unanswered.

The DOD Cold Warriors would never have let this happen. They understood that nuclear weapons aren't going away — ever! And nukes are going to be used. Every American looks to DOD — the nation's "warrior class" — to protect them from this threat. DOD is doing that with regard to global thermonuclear war.

But the much more likely threats are down-and-dirty use of small nukes in regional wars by aggressors, rogue states, failed and failing states, and terrorist organizations. These are threats that DOD must prevent, or fights DOD must get into and prevail. There's no time to lose … we're already a generation behind our adversaries. If nukes are used, DOD must be able to fight and win on any type of advanced nuclear battlefield.

To use two examples — of hundreds — why haven't the Joint Chiefs of Staff insisted that both DOE and DOD resume underground nuclear testing, and why hasn't the JCS sent DOE a requirement for very low-yield weapons (tons), with as near a pure fusion output as possible (little or no residual radiation)?

The answer is, because DOD has disassembled its former dedicated, powerful, organization of nuclear weapons scientists and thinkers, who focus on the military aspect of nuclear weapons, and who would have alerted DOD's leadership to the urgent need.

Hopefully, today's new national leadership will reverse the nation's nuclear weapons policies, and re-nuclearize DOD before it's too late. Since our Cold Warriors have retired or passed on, few or none in DOD even know what needs to be done.

We must move fast. In my judgment, the vital first step is to re-establish the Defense Nuclear Agency, and have them guide the recovery in the services, agencies, commands and nuclear forces.

Monroe is a retired vice admiral with the U.S. Navy and former director of the Defense Nuclear Agency.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.newyorker.com.linkis.com/AdGZx

NEWS DESK

THE GANG MS-13 IS A REAL PROBLEM, BUT DOES TRUMP HAVE ANY ANSWERS?

By Jonathan Blitzer May 9, 2017

"You know about MS-13?” President Trump asked a crowd at an N.R.A. rally last month in Atlanta. He was talking about the Salvadoran street gang notorious for its violence and brutality in Central America and the U.S. “Get them the hell out of here, right? Get them out,” he said, as the crowd roared.

For a politician eager to sound tough on immigrants who commit crimes, MS-13 makes a powerful talking point. There are roughly six thousand MS-13 gangsters in the U.S., operating in more than forty states, according to estimates by the Justice Department, and they have a reputation for committing horrific acts of violence. Their organizational ambitions, though, are limited: they are less concerned with running illicit businesses, like drug smuggling, than they are with asserting power over their local turf. Historically, the gang’s presence has been strongest on the West Coast, but in recent years its chapters, known as cliques, have cropped up along the Eastern Seaboard as well. It is notably active in Suffolk County, New York, where, since last fall, members of the gang have been blamed for about a dozen murders, including the brutal killing of two teen-age girls—ages fifteen and sixteen—with baseball bats and machetes. Situated just east of New York City, Suffolk County has a significant population of immigrants, both documented and not. The Suffolk County Police Department estimates that there are about four hundred and fifty MS-13 members in the area, most of them concentrated in two predominantly working-class towns, Brentwood and Central Islip. The gang’s numbers are minuscule in relation to the total immigrant population on Long Island (roughly half a million, over-all) and to the Salvadoran population in Suffolk County (about sixty thousand). But, in the past two years, gang crime has risen in the area, and the threat posed by MS-13 is both alarming and undeniable.

The Trump Administration has made MS-13 a central part of its case for harsh immigration policies. Late last month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions travelled to Central Islip to confer with law-enforcement officials about the gang, which he has called “one of the gravest threats to American public safety.” He held a press conference at a federal courthouse, where he vowed to curb crime, restrict immigration, and staunch the flow of drugs. “The President made a promise to make America safe again,” he said. “He is very aware, personally, of the violence and murders here.” Federal law enforcement would identify criminal networks and dismantle them by deporting their members. “Restoring a lawful system of immigration,” he said, was “an essential part of our strategy.”

Suffolk County was one of the largest suburban areas in the country to flip from solidly blue in 2012 (Obama won the county by four points) to red in 2016 (Trump took it by seven points). Still, Sessions’s appearance there wasn’t welcomed by everybody. Toward the end of the press conference, a reporter mentioned that anti-Trump protesters were gathered outside the courthouse. “I don’t know if you saw them when you came in, but they are claiming this is merely an attempt to advance an anti-immigrant agenda,” she said. Peter King, the cantankerous Republican congressman from the district, who had invited Sessions and was standing alongside him during the event, interjected to call the protesters “shameful.” Didn’t they understand that the federal government was finally paying attention to Suffolk County?

Among the assembled press and local officials in the room was Timothy Sini, the thirty-six-year-old commissioner of the Suffolk County Police. A former Assistant U.S. Attorney, Sini took command of the department in the fall of 2015. The previous year, a Suffolk County Police sergeant had been arrested for stealing from Latino drivers during traffic stops. (He was later convicted.) And the sergeant’s arrest was just the latest point of tension between police and local immigrants. In 2008, a gruesome murder of an Ecuadorian immigrant by a group of teen-agers exposed the degree to which local officials had failed to address mounting anti-Latino violence, and prompted a Justice Department investigation into discriminatory policing and an agreement, in 2013, to reform police practices.* Sini saw his task as repairing trust with immigrant communities in the area, especially since their coöperation would be essential in rooting out MS-13 gangsters.

I spoke to Sini a few days after the Sessions event, and he told me that the political climate since Trump’s election has complicated his outreach efforts. With constant news of immigration raids and arrests, residents are reluctant to come forward and report crimes. “The undocumented community, on top of fearing MS-13, is fearful that if they interact with law enforcement they’ll get deported, or a loved one will,” Sini said. He was cautious when answering questions, and was careful not to criticize the new Administration. But he also made an effort to distinguish his department from other law-enforcement bodies. “We have to compete now with concerns and anxieties created by other government agencies,” he said. “We have to compete with that noise.”

A terrible irony of the MS-13 problem—and what makes Sessions’s threats of mass deportations so concerning—is that the U.S.’s own immigration policies are largely responsible for fuelling the gang’s rise. It was formed in the late nineteen-seventies as a Los Angeles street gang, but it cemented its power and reputation in the nineteen-nineties, after its members were deported to El Salvador, where they were able to overrun local authorities. The gang spread throughout Central America, contributing to a surge in violence that drove tens of thousands of people to flee to the U.S.

Trying to stem the bloodshed and crime that was spurring the mass migration north, the Obama Administration partnered with governments in Central America to combat MS-13 and other gangs—but with mixed results. Migrants from Central America continued crossing U.S. borders, and the arrival of large numbers of unaccompanied children, in particular, became a full-blown humanitarian crisis. Since 2014, more than a hundred and fifty thousand such children have been granted asylum as refugees. The federal government has tried to find them homes, placing many of them with relatives and family sponsors around the country. More than eight thousand minors were placed in homes on Long Island, mostly in Suffolk County. There, some became targets for recruitment by MS-13. “An organization that preys on the most vulnerable has figured out who the most vulnerable people are,” Steven Bellone, the county executive, told me. Local officials say that the Obama Administration didn’t do enough to equip the community to deal with the influx of child refugees, and they resent what they see as federal action taken at their expense.

Often, these children barely knew the relatives with whom they were sent to live, and they arrived with little command of English. They were also often bewildered to find that the very gang violence they were fleeing in their home countries was present in the U.S., too. “There’s no question that the unaccompanied-children program has contributed to the gang problems,” Sini said. “But it’s a complex problem. The vast majority of these kids are law-abiding. The highly vulnerable ones need case managers, people who are directly involved in their lives. Our school districts need to receive additional funding.” Local advocates have long been making this argument. They say that gang prevention and humanitarian relief should be considered one and the same but often aren’t. “If you say, ‘We should help these kids,’ nothing would happen,” Patrick Young, a lawyer at an immigrant-aid organization called carecen, told me. “If you say, ‘We want to invest in gang prevention,’ everyone would say, ‘Sure.’ ”

Sini firmly believes that law enforcement, alone, can do only so much to eradicate the gangs. “Taking dangerous people off the street,” he told me, was just the beginning. He is trying to bring a different philosophy to policing in Suffolk County, one that prioritizes coöperation over intimidation, so that his officers can connect with the immigrants who bear the brunt of the gang’s violence. The department has enlisted teachers and religious leaders to become neighborhood “ambassadors,” and officers have been hosting monthly information sessions to respond to community members’ questions and concerns. “We solve crimes based on people coming to us,” Sini has said. “It’s that simple. If people think they’re going to get deported every time they speak to a police officer, it’s not helpful.”

On Monday afternoon, a few days after Sessions left town, five officers from the Third Precinct of the Suffolk County Police Department arrived at the modest offices of carecen, in Brentwood. They were visiting an English class with thirteen students—eleven women and two men, who ranged in age from their late twenties to their mid-fifties. The officers asked how the students were doing, and one woman, pointing to their badges, replied, “Very worried.” Everyone laughed. An officer told the group, “We’re not here for anything to do with immigration. We’ll never ask you for your papers. If we do, you can actually fill out a complaint with our office.” The conversation was wide-ranging—at one point, the officers distributed a pamphlet titled “what to do when a police officer stops you”—but the subject of MS-13 and gangs eventually came up. “The community needs our help with this, and we need your help,” one of the officers said. “If you have kids you’re worried about, tell us and we can help.” The students listened but said nothing, and the officers left it at that.

*An earlier version of this post misidentified the victim’s nationality.


Jonathan Blitzer is a contributing writer to newyorker.com. He has written for the magazine since 2014, and was a finalist for a 2016 Livingston Award. More

 

[almost ready]

Bizarre tweet by zerohedge this morning but no link. Not deleted, either. Seems it would be all over the place if true... has been on twitter 9 hours under the "North Korea" search term. Went to ZH site and didn't see a story.

zerohedge‏ @zerohedge

and now this: NORTH KOREA POISED FOR FIRST ICBM FLIGHT TEST THIS YEAR: REPORT



7:02 AM - 11 May 2017
4 replies 82 retweets 48 likes
https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/862669291262537728

 

[Housecarl]

Bizarre tweet by zerohedge this morning but no link. Not deleted, either. Seems it would be all over the place if true... has been on twitter 9 hours under the "North Korea" search term. Went to ZH site and didn't see a story.

zerohedgeþ @zerohedge

and now this: NORTH KOREA POISED FOR FIRST ICBM FLIGHT TEST THIS YEAR: REPORT



7:02 AM - 11 May 2017
4 replies 82 retweets 48 likes
https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/862669291262537728

I'm assuming from this they don't mean a repurposed/emergency capability Unha-3 SLV...

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/north-korea-test-nuclear-missile-could-strike-america-year-20609

The Buzz

North Korea to Test a Nuclear Missile That Could Strike America This Year

Dave Majumdar
May 11, 2017

The U.S. Intelligence Community believes that North Korea will test a long-range intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) this year in an attempt to prove that Kim Jong-un has the capability to strike directly at the American homeland. The North Korean regime has been preparing its new missile for the past several years and has developed miniaturized nuclear warhead designs to fit atop such a weapon.

“North Korea is poised to conduct its first ICBM flight test in 2017 based on public comments that preparations to do so are almost complete and would serve as a milestone toward a more reliable threat to the U.S. mainland,” reads congressional testimony from Daniel Coats, director of National Intelligence. “Pyongyang’s enshrinement of the possession of nuclear weapons in its constitution, while repeatedly stating that nuclear weapons are the basis for its survival, suggests that Kim does not intend to negotiate them away at any price.”

Jeffrey Lewis, Director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey told The National Interest that he concurs with Coates’ assessment. “They could flight test anytime,” Lewis said. “The first few tests will probably fail, but I would think somewhere between two to eight tests [is what it will probably take for North Korea to succeed in developing a operational ICBM].”

According to Coats’s testimony, North Korean missile tests in 2016 were an indication that Kim is intent on proving his ability to strike directly at the United States. “North Korea’s unprecedented level of testing and displays of strategic weapons in 2016 indicate that Kim is intent on proving he has the capability to strike the U.S. mainland with nuclear weapons,” Coats told the Congress. “In 2016, the regime conducted two nuclear tests—including one that was claimed to be of a standardized warhead design—and an unprecedented number of missile launches, including a space launch that put a satellite into orbit.”

As might be expected, North Korea has likely learned lessons from its missile tests that will eventually pave the way towards a reliable weapon that could achieve the regime’s goal of hitting the U.S. homeland. “These ballistic missile tests probably shortened North Korea’s pathway toward a reliable ICBM, which largely uses the same technology,” Coats’s testimony states. “Kim was also photographed beside a nuclear warhead design and missile airframes to show that North Korea has warheads small enough to fit on a missile, examining a reentry-vehicle nosecone after a simulated reentry, and overseeing launches from a submarine and from mobile launchers in the field, purportedly simulating nuclear use in warfighting scenarios.”

Meanwhile, the Kim regime is expanding its ability to strike conventionally at South Korea, Japan and U.S. forces stationed in the region. “North Korea possesses a substantial number of proven mobile ballistic missiles, capable of striking a variety of targets in both countries, as demonstrated in successful launches in 2016,” Coates told Congress. “Kim has further expanded the regime’s conventional strike options in recent years, with more realistic training, artillery upgrades, and new close-range ballistic missiles that enable precision fire at ranges that can reach more US and allied targets in South Korea.”

Thus, the Kim regime continues to be a growing irritant for the United States in the Western Pacific with no clear solution in sight.

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.

 

[Housecarl]

Mexico was second deadliest country in 2016/BORDER WALL!!!!
Started by*Medical Mavený,*Yesterday*06:32 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-second-deadliest-country-in-2016-BORDER-WALL!!!!

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-activist-idUSKBN188015

World News | Thu May 11, 2017 | 8:23pm EDT

Gunmen kill activist who searched for Mexico's disappeared: authorities

By Anahi Rama | MEXICO CITY

Armed gunmen shot and killed a prominent Mexican activist dedicated to searching for "disappeared" persons in the violent northern state of Tamaulipas, authorities said on Thursday.

Miriam Rodriguez died en route to the hospital after being shot multiple times on Wednesday - Mother's Day in Mexico - at her home in drug gang-ravaged Tamaulipas.

Mexico's National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) condemned the murder, saying it underscored the government's failure to keep the public safe and prevent rights violations of people working as human rights advocates.

After her daughter went missing in 2014, Rodriguez began a search and eventually found her remains in the Tamaulipas town of San Fernando, according to the Comunidad Ciudadana en Busqueda de Desaparecidos en Tamaulipas, a local civic society group committed to searching for the disappeared.

Months later she warned authorities about the perpetrators of the crime, the group said in a statement.

Tamaulipas Attorney General Irving Barrios said the state had been protecting Rodriguez, sending police patrols three times a day to her house. Barrios also said nine people had been put on trial for her daughter's kidnapping and murder.

The number of people in Mexico disappearing under suspicious circumstances, often related to drug violence, rose to 30,000 by the end of 2016, with Tamaulipas registering 5,563 missing, the highest state total, according to the CNDH.

Comunidad Ciudadana called on the United Nations and the InterAmerican Human Rights Commission to come to the aid of activists and human rights defenders in Tamaulipas as the state and federal government had been unable to protect them.


Also In World News
South Korea urges 'parallel' talks, sanctions to rein in North
U.S. airlines meet with Homeland Security on expanding laptop ban


Well over 100,000 people have died in drug-related violence in Mexico in the past decade.

"Mexico has become a very dangerous place for those who have the courage to devote their lives to search for missing persons," Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty International director for the Americas, said in response to Rodriguez's murder.

"The nightmare they face not knowing the fate or whereabouts of their relatives and the dangers they face in their work, which they perform given the negligent response from the authorities, is alarming," Guevara said.

(Writing by Anthony Esposito; Editing by Bill Trott)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2017/05/chinas-aircraft-carriers-and-nuclear-bastion-defense/

China's Aircraft Carriers and Nuclear Bastion Defense

The Chinese Navy’s first-generation carriers may find suitable missions yet as the carrier force grows and evolves.

By Robert Farley
May 11, 2017

Last week,*I suggested that the future of Liaoning may, with the construction of newer Chinese carriers, lay primarily in a training role. This was the role played by HIJMS Hosho in the early years of the Japanese naval aviation program, and by USS Langley in the first years of the U.S. program. But it’s also possible that the PLAN has more definite plans for Liaoning and her half-sister, Shandong. Specifically, it’s worth considering whether the PLAN intends to use Liaoning and Shandong as part of a system of nuclear bastion defense.

The design concept for the first Soviet aircraft carriers differed considerably from that of their U.S. Navy counterparts. Instead of supporting expeditionary operations, or carrying out strikes against high value targets, Soviet carriers were designed to deter or defeat Western forays into protected bastions for ballistic missile submarines. This included flying air defense against U.S. anti-submarine warfare aircraft (whether carrier or land-based), as well as having the capability of destroying invading U.S. surface ships and submarines (through SSMs and ASW helicopters). The VSTOL Kievs and the STOBAR Kuznetsovs could only launch short-range fighters, but this was all they needed in order to maintain a defensive perimeter.

This concept animated the design of the Kiev-class carriers, and of the Kuznetsov-class carriers that succeeded them. The Ulyanovsk-class, cancelled during the collapse of the Soviet Union, would have been the first true fleet carriers in the U.S. sense of the term, able to conduct long-range deployments with a multi-faceted airgroup capable of sustained strike operations.

In the event, you make do with what you have. When Putin needed a propaganda victory in Syria, he ordered the curmudgeonly Kuznetsov around Europe and into the Mediterranean, where it grudgingly pretended to be a strike carrier for a few days before heading home for a nice, long refit. And like Kuznetsov, Liaoning and Shandong may at some point to pushed into uncomfortable operations; thus is the flexibility of a large, flat-decked aircraft-carrying ship.

China has now developed its own boomers, which have technical capabilities making them more apt for a bastion strategy than for an isolated, deep sea hiding role. And while the Chinese have used Liaoning thus far primarily in a training role, as its pilot cadre matures, the actual operational role for she and her sister may become that which they were designed for; defensive carriers. The availability of two such ships, especially when operating at fairly short range from base, would make it easier for China to keep one carrier continuously in operation, supporting SSBN deterrent patrols.

All intelligence suggests that the next generation of Chinese carriers will, like the stillborn Ulyanovsks, be genuine long-range strike carriers in the U.S. Navy mold. But it appears possible that the PLAN may be thinking about the future of their fleet in evolutionary terms; each developmental plateau can contribute on its own, within specific strategic constraints. Fortunately for the PLAN, China has the resources to make such a diverse force work successfully.

 

[Housecarl]

WTF?!?!

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-hand-over-would-be-assassins-of-kim-jong-un/

WorldViews Analysis

North Korea demands that the U.S. hand over would-be assassins of Kim Jong Un

By Amanda Erickson May 11 at 12:51 PM
87 Comments

Last week, North Korea made a fairly sensational*allegation: that in 2014, the CIA and South Korea's National Intelligence Service conspired to assassinate Kim Jong Un with a biochemical weapon.

In vivid detail, the North Korean Ministry of State Security described how U.S.*and South Korean officials “ideologically corrupted and bribed” a North Korean citizen working in Russia. The plan was as follows: The alleged agent would return home to North Korea, wait for a public event, then use some kind of poisonous substance on top regime*officials. Pyongyang suggested that South Korean agents provided*satellite communication equipment and money to this alleged would-be killer. The United States, according to this account, provided a biochemical substance — a delayed-action radioactive or “nano poisonous” gas.

[North Korea accuses CIA and South Korea of plotting to assassinate Kim Jong Un]

Video

North Korea did not*offer any evidence or specifics on how the alleged plot was foiled.*The suspect was identified only by his last name —*Kim, which is a fairly common last name*on the Korean Peninsula.

South Korean officials called the claim “groundless.”*The CIA declined to comment, as is customary.

But North Korea isn't letting it go. Last week, it said the United States and South Korea should “execute”*those involved in the purported plot. On Thursday,*it*demanded that the United States and South Korea hand over the “terror suspects.”

“The Central Prosecutor's Office will ask for the handover of those criminals and prosecute them under the relevant laws,” North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Han Song Ryol told foreign diplomats and reporters in Pyongyang, according to*China's Xinhua*News Agency.

No details were included about who the suspects are and how many are on the run.
Without this information, it's hard to evaluate Pyongyang's allegations — or even take them very seriously. But it's worth noting that North Korea*has a long history of its own ripped-from-a-bad-movie assassination plots.*Or, as the Associated Press put it,*“In the paranoid universe of North Korea, the feverish accusations it makes against its sworn enemies bear a creepy resemblance to its own misdeeds.”

[North Korea puts out video showing the White House in crosshairs and carriers exploding]

There was, for example,*the 1968 attempt to kill South Korea's president. North Korea sent a 31-person commando team over the border to execute a siege on the leader's residence. The team was discovered by some teenage brothers and never completed the mission.

In 1983, North Korean agents detonated a powerful bomb by remote control during a wreath-laying ceremony attended by a visiting South Korean presidential delegation in Rangoon, Burma. South Korea's then-president, Chun Doo-hwan, escaped unharmed, but the blast killed 21 other people —*including 17 South Koreans, four of them cabinet ministers.

In 1997, a member of Kim Jong Un's extended family who defected was fatally shot on a South Korean*street by assailants from the North.

In 2009, Pyongyang allegedly paid about $40,000 to*have dissident Hwang Jang-yop, secretary of North Korea’s ruling Workers’ Party until he defected in 1997, killed. The attempt*was unsuccessful.

In 2011,*a*defector to South Korea suspected of being a North Korean secret agent was arrested on suspicion of attempting*to assassinate Park Sang-Hak, an outspoken critic of the Pyongyang regime. South Korean authorities said the suspected agent had set up a meeting with Park in a subway station in Seoul*and planned to kill him with a poison pen.

And, most recently,*the North Korean regime has been widely blamed for*the*death of Kim Jong Nam, the estranged older half brother of Kim Jong Un. Malaysian authorities said he was attacked by two women at the Kuala Lumpur airport; one grabbed him and the other covered his face with a cloth doused in a liquid, which Malaysian investigators later identified as VX nerve agent, a banned chemical weapon.

He died on the way to the hospital.

Read more:*
This hostel in Berlin is a clandestine cash cow for North Korea
Worried about North Korea? Spare a thought for Otto Warmbier’s family.
Twenty-five million reasons the U.S. hasn’t struck North Korea

Amanda Erickson writes about foreign affairs for The Washington Post. Previously, she worked as an editor for Outlook and PostEverything. Follow @AmandaWaPo

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/ar...firebreak-crossed-criminal-group-utilizes-wom

Mexican Cartel Tactical Note #33: Terrorist TTP Firebreak Crossed - Criminal Group Utilizes Women and Children as Human Shields in Palmarito, Puebla

by Robert Bunker and John P. Sullivan
Journal Article | May 11, 2017 - 7:22am

Key Information: Alberto Melchor, “Ataque en Palmarito deja dos militares y tres civiles muertos.” Periódico e-consulta. 3 May 2017, http://www.e-consulta.com/nota/2017...to-deja-dos-militares-y-tres-civiles-muertos:

Un saldo preliminar de dos militares y tres presuntos huachicoleros muertos dejó una refriega ocurrida la noche de este miércoles en la junta auxiliar de Palmarito Tochapan, en el municipio de Quecholac.

De acuerdo con los primeros reportes, el enfrentamiento se suscitó poco después de las 21 horas cuando elementos de la Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional(Sedena) recorrían la comunidad. En ese momento fueron agredidos por los pobladores.

La violencia creció cuando los presuntos ladrones de combustible comenzaron a disparar en contra de los elementos del Ejército y de la Policía Estatal, quienes intentaron repeler la agresión.

En medio de la afrenta se reportó el fallecimiento de dos soldados, así como de tres presuntos huachicoleros, sin embargo, otras versiones arrojan que podrían ser hasta tres militares los que perdieron la vida.

Además se reportó que un elemento de la Secretaría de Seguridad Pública (SSP) de Puebla, identificado como Juan Carlos Valencia, de 27 años de edad, resultó lesionado de un tiro en la espalda y tuvo que ser trasladado a bordo de una patrulla de la corporación hasta el Hospital General de Tepeaca.

Sin embargo, tras ser estabilizado, elementos de la Policía Estatal lo llevaron de urgencia a un nosocomio en la ciudad de Puebla.

El operativo de las fuerzas de seguridad en la zona al parecer formaba parte de un plan de búsqueda de dos militares y un civil que fueron reportados como desaparecidos desde el pasado viernes por la noche.

Confirma SEDENA dos soldados muertos y un herido

La Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional (SEDENA) confirmó el deceso de dos de sus elementos y un tercero con lesiones por arma de fuego luego del enfrentamiento contra presuntos huachicoleros que de dio la noche de este miércoles en el municipio de Quecholac.

A través de un comunicado, la SEDENA aseguró que fue a las 20:15 horas cuando personal militar jurisdiccionado en la XXV Zona Militar recibió un alertamiento de una toma clandestina de combustible en el poblado Palmarito Tochapan.

Al arribar al lugar con el objeto de confirmar la información, fueron agredidos a distancia por un grupo de individuos que se ocultaban atrás de un grupo de mujeres y niños.

Ante este hecho, el personal militar decidió no responder la agresión, en virtud de que las mujeres y los menores fueron empleados como escudo por los agresores.

Derivado del incidente, fallecieron dos soldados y uno más resultó herido, mismo que fue evacuado al Hospital Militar Regional de Puebla para recibir la atención médica correspondiente.

De este modo personal de Generales, Jefes, Oficiales y Tropa del Ejército y Fuerza Aérea Mexicanos, expresó sus condolencias a los familiares de los soldados quienes fallecieron en el cumplimiento de su deber.

Key Information: “Ataque a Ejército en Puebla déjà 10 muertos; 4 son militares.” Milenio. 4 May 2017, http://www.milenio.com/policia/mili...-tomas_clandestinas-milenio_0_950305151.html:

La Sedena informó que anoche se dieron dos ataques en el mismo lugar.

El promero sucedió alrededor de la 20:14 horas, cuando elementos del ejército acudieron a un llamado de emergencia sobre una toma clandestina de combustable y fueron recibidos a balazos, ataque el que no pudieron responder pues los presuntos criminals se ocultaban detrás de un grupo de mujeres y niños. En este primer ataque murieron dos sodados.

La segunda agresión sucedió alrededor de las 22:00 horas, cuando personel del Ejército volvió al lugar. En esta occasion, los soldados sí respondieron al ataque pues no habia menores ni mujares presentes.

En la segunda agresión murieron dos soldados.

Key Information: “Gunmen use human shields to kill four Mexican soldiers probing pipeline theft.” Japan Times (Associated Press). 4 May 2017, http://www.japantimes.co.jp.linkis.com/bdtZU:

Gunmen using local residents as human shields opened fire on a Mexican army patrol investigating fuel pipeline thefts, killing two soldiers and wounding a third, the military said Thursday.

Hours later, the gunmen again attacked the patrol with armored cars and high-powered rifles, killing two more soldiers and wounding nine, while three attackers were killed, the army said.

The confrontation late Wednesday in the central state of Puebla marked an escalation of recent conflicts in which fuel thieves have largely taken control of some towns in the so-called Red Triangle area east of Mexico City.

The Defense Department said the patrol was dispatched to the town of Palmarito to investigate reports of an illegal pipeline tap. When soldiers arrived, they came under fire from assailants who took cover behind a group of women and children.

“In light of this situation, the soldiers decided not to return fire because the attackers were using women and children as a human shield,” the department said in a statement.

Key Information: Gabriel Stargardter, “Mexico oil theft clash leaves at least 10 dead, including four soldiers.” Reuters. 4 May 2017, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-violence-idUSKBN1802KY:

At least four soldiers and six suspected oil thieves died in a battle in the central Mexican state of Puebla, authorities said on Thursday, as the army launched a major operation against organized criminals who siphon fuel from pipelines.

Some 600 soldiers were involved in the initial operation, the state government said, with another 400 backed by helicopters and truck-mounted weapons joining them.

The troops were called in to investigate a report of an oil pipeline theft at around 8:15 p.m. local time (0115 GMT) on Wednesday, near the village of Palmarito, when they were shot at by a group using women and children as human shields, the army said in a statement.

The soldiers decided not to return fire, but two of them died in the attack and another was wounded.

A few hours later in the same location, armed men in five sport-utility vehicles opened fire on a different group of soldiers, the army said in a statement on Thursday.

Two more soldiers died in the ensuing firefight and nine were wounded, the army said. Six suspected fuel thieves were killed, while one was wounded, it added. The army said soldiers also arrested at least 12 people, including two minors….

Who: Mexican Army (SEDENA) forces, armed huachicoleros (gasoline thieves), and unarmed women and children.

What: Two soldiers were killed and one wounded by the armed gang of gasoline thieves who were not fired upon by the Army forces over concern of injuring or killing the unarmed human shields.

When: Wednesday night, following the PEMEX fuel pipeline theft reported at 8:15 PM.

Where: Palmarito Tochapan, Puebla state, about 180 km East of Mexico City.

Why: The human shields were utilized for the tactical advantage that they provided the armed huachicoleros (gasoline thieves) against the responding Mexican Army (SEDENA) forces.

Analysis: This appears to be the first known incident in the Mexican criminal insurgency in which the TTP (tactic, technique and procedure) of utilizing women and children as human shields has taken place. While allegations that a former Mexican beauty queen was used as a human shield in a November 2012 firefight between cartel members and Army forces exists, she was holding an assault rifle and appears to have been a willing participant in the tactical action.[1] While cartel blockades (bloqueos) (also known as narcoblqueos)[2] are a common cartel tactic, deliberate use of human shields is a new feature.

The use of human shields is a TTP by irregular forces that has occurred worldwide (e.g., in the Rwandan Genocide) and is commonplace in the Middle East and in other regions of the world in which radical Islamist terrorist groups—such as Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, Al-Shabaab, and Boko Haram—are active. The huachicoleros (gasoline thieves) fired upon the Army personnel knowing that, if the authorities returned fire and injured or killed the unarmed women and children, they could be considered engaging in a homicide (under domestic law) and/or a war crime (under international humanitarian law—IHL).[3] Not only would this subject them to possible prosecution but it would also result in immense negative media coverage for SEDENA and the current presidential administration. Of concern is that this TTP may be utilized by other gangs and cartels active in the Mexican criminal insurgency now that this firebreak has been crossed.

Significance: Blockades (Bloqueos), Human Shields, Insurgent & Terrorist Tactics, Oil Theft (Tomas Clandestinas), PEMEX, Petro-targeting, SEDENA

Notes:

[1]. “Killed Mexican Beauty Queen Had Gun, Used as Human Shield by Drug Gang.” Fox News. 28 November 2012, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/11/28/soldiers-mexico-beauty-queen-had-gun-in-her-hands.html.

[2] See, for example, recent reportage of bloqueos (blockades) deployed by criminal groups against police and military forces in Tamaulipas: “Reportan bloqueos en Matamoros.” El Mañana. 5 May 2017, http://www.elmanana.com/reportanbloqueosenmatamoros-3727942.html and “Enfrentamientos y bloqueos en Reynosa dejan 12 muertos.” El Economista. 5 May 2017, http://elconomista.com.mx/seguridad...entamientos-bloqueos-reynosa-dejan-12-muertos.

[3] Use of humans shield by irregular forces is considered a violation of Customary IHL. See Robert Black, “Shields,” in Roy Gutman, David Rieff, and Anthony Dworkin (Eds.), Crimes of War 2.0, New York: Norton, 2007, http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/shields/ and Rule 97, Human Shields, Customary IHL, Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross; found at https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule97.

For Additional Reading:

John P. Sullivan and Adam Elkus, “Open Veins of Mexico: The Strategic Logic of Cartel Resource Extraction and Petro-Targeting.” Small Wars Journal. 3 November 2011, http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/open-veins-of-mexico.

Average:
0
Your rating: None
Tags: criminal insurgency El Centro human shields Mexican Cartel Note Mexico
About the Authors


Robert Bunker
Dr. Robert J. Bunker is an Adjunct Research Professor, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College and Adjunct Faculty, Division of Politics and Economics, Claremont Graduate University. He holds university degrees in political science, government, social science, anthropology-geography, behavioral science, and history and has undertaken hundreds of hours of counterterrorism training. Past professional associations include Distinguished Visiting Professor and Minerva Chair at the Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College; Futurist in Residence, Training and Development Division, Behavioral Science Unit, Federal Bureau of Investigation Academy, Quantico, VA; Staff Member (Consultant), Counter-OPFOR Program, National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center-West; and Adjunct Faculty, National Security Studies M.A. Program and Political Science Department, California State University, San Bernardino, CA. Dr. Bunker has hundreds of publications including Studies in Gangs and Cartels, with John Sullivan (Routledge, 2013), Red Teams and Counterterrorism Training, with Stephen Sloan (University of Oklahoma, 2011), and edited works, including Global Criminal and Sovereign Free Economies and the Demise of the Western Democracies: Dark Renaissance (Routledge, 2014), co-edited with Pamela Ligouri Bunker; Criminal Insurgencies in Mexico and the Americas: The Gangs and Cartels Wage War (Routledge, 2012); Narcos Over the Border: Gangs, Cartels and Mercenaries (Routledge, 2011); Criminal-States and Criminal-Soldiers (Routledge, 2008); Networks, Terrorism and Global Insurgency (Routledge, 2005); and Non-State Threats and Future Wars (Routledge, 2002).


John P. Sullivan
John P. Sullivan is a career police officer. He currently serves as a lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. He is also an adjunct researcher at the Vortex Foundation in Bogotá, Colombia; a senior research fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies on Terrorism (CAST); and a senior fellow at Small Wars Journal-El Centro. He is co-editor of Countering Terrorism and WMD: Creating a Global Counter-Terrorism Network (Routledge, 2006) and Global Biosecurity: Threats and Responses (Routledge, 2010) and co-author of Mexico’s Criminal Insurgency: A Small Wars Journal-El Centro Anthology (iUniverse, 2011) and Studies in Gangs and Cartels (Routledge, 2013). He completed the CREATE Executive Program in Counter-Terrorism at the University of Southern California and holds a Bachelor of Arts in Government form the College of William and Mary, a Master of Arts in Urban Affairs and Policy Analysis from the New School for Social Research, and a PhD, doctorate in Information and Knowledge Society, from the Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3) at the Open University of Catalonia (Universitat Oberta de Catalunya) in Barcelona. His doctoral thesis was ‘Mexico’s Drug War: Cartels, Gangs, Sovereignty and the Network State.” His current research focus is the impact of transnational organized crime on sovereignty in Mexico and other countries.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2017/05/11/the_iranian_clergys_political_irrelevance.html

The Iranian Clergy's Political Irrelevance

By Mehdi Khalaji
May 11, 2017

The clergy's decreasing role in Iranian politics is becoming more visible than ever in the current presidential campaign. Two major clerical institutions issued their candidate endorsements much later than expected this year, and the relevance of their advocacy is questionable. The Association of Qom Seminary Teachers, a political organization based in the center of Shiite learning, endorsed hardliner Ebrahim Raisi, as did the Association of Militant Clerics in Tehran, which is supervised by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's Paydari Front and closely linked with powerful conservative ayatollah Muhammad Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi. Since 1997, however, all of the presidential candidates endorsed by these associations have lost, including to current incumbent Hassan Rouhani in 2013. Furthermore, they appear to have only limited influence over the regime's most committed hardliners, while other key religious authorities tend to refrain from public endorsements altogether.

De-Clericalized But Still Islamic

The Islamic Republic's constitution and political practice give unique privileges to clerics. They are not bound by the country's compulsory military service, and both they and their institutions are exempt from taxes. In addition, ayatollahs have an exclusive claim on most of the regime's top positions, including Supreme Leader, minister of intelligence, judiciary chief, the Assembly of Experts, and half of the powerful Guardian Council.

These privileges have helped transform the clerical establishment from a traditional organization relying on religious resources to a gigantic entity with modernized bureaucracy, unlimited access to national resources, and the ability to rival the private sector on all fronts. Yet this growth has been a double-edged sword for the establishment -- although they gained a windfall of personal wealth and top posts in various regime organs, they have lost much of their independence, popularity, and actual power to other regime institutions or social groups.

The emergence of former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- a lay politician who rose to prominence with the military's backing and defeated Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani at the polls -- was a landmark moment in the Islamic Republic's shift from a clergy-led government to a regime led by "lay Islamists" who use the clergy solely to maintain their legitimacy. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has been the main driver behind this change -- today, it is difficult to find any facet of public or private life, from the economy to foreign policy to the nuclear program, that is not controlled by the IRGC.

During his first widely broadcast campaign speech on April 27, President Rouhani asked IRGC-affiliated companies and intelligence agencies to stop weakening the private sector: "In the economy, competition should be healthy. Private companies cannot compete in the market if other corporations benefit from political and intelligence support." He offered similar criticisms in 2014, arguing that if Iran's money, military capabilities, media outlets, and cyberspace all become subject to the unmatched power of a single institution (i.e., the IRGC), then that institution will necessarily be corrupted.

Likewise, in August 2015, deputy speaker of parliament Ali Motahhari called the Guards "the people's rival" in the economy. And in 2009, the IRGC's increasing role in Iranian decisionmaking, economics, and electoral manipulation spurred the late Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri to note, "Iranian leaders should be brave enough to declare that the existing government is neither a republic nor Islamic." This indictment was particularly damning given his legacy as the theoretician of velayat-e faqih, the doctrine granting the Supreme Leader his authority.

The military's overwhelming presence can also be measured by the public's loss of interest in discussing the regime's religious legitimacy. In the 1980s and '90s, velayat-e faqih was a matter of hot debate in the media and other public forums, with many secular intellectuals and religious figures criticizing the theory inside and outside Iran. Since then, however, most observers have seemingly concluded that such discussions are irrelevant, at least in terms of swaying regime supporters or mobilizing the anti-regime camp. The decline in debate is also related to the inertial power of the status quo -- the regime's "legitimacy" stems at least in part from the fact that it is entrenched in all aspects of Iranian life and would be difficult to change rapidly (not to mention the likely personal costs of even trying to do so).

Decline of Social Authority

Despite expanding their social network and using more government resources to guide public thinking, Iran's clerics have lost their formerly paramount social authority. Their irrelevance in Iranian political campaigns is only one of many examples. In the past, the regime relied heavily on clerics to influence citizens into following its directives, but now it uses movie stars and sports figures to speak to the people on politics and even morality. Despite its sky-high wealth, the clergy has seen its role in managing religious rituals and ceremonies decrease significantly over the past two decades, with maddahs (lay religious singers) taking over many such duties.

The clergy's concern about this deteriorating influence has become serious enough to go public. In 2016, the Office for Islamic Outreach, a colossal regime clerical organization supervised by Khamenei, held a seminar titled "Sociopolitical Prestige of the Clergy in the Islamic Republic's Fourth Decade." Speakers examined the reasons behind their declining political and social stature and admitted that the problem had reached a critical point.

In reaction to the clergy's over-politicization, a new generation of seminarians has been trying to depoliticize itself. This trend worries Khamenei so much that he has tightened control over management of the clerical establishment. As Mesbah-Yazdi disciple Ayatollah Mohsen Gharavian stated last month, "The erudite seminarians are increasingly keeping their distance from politics and government...We see fewer clerics interested in dealing with political issues in their courses. For instance, in the seminary, they do not raise Imam Khomeini's thought in their courses and textbooks."

Conclusion

Paradoxically, the theory of velayat-e faqih has undermined fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) since the 1979 revolution. Shiite clerics at all levels have found that there is little point to studying fiqh and becoming faqihs (Islamic jurists) when the Supreme Leader treats them like anyone else, forcing them to obey his rulings alone on all religious and non-religious matters. Indeed, velayat-e faqih gives the Supreme Leader unique authority to overrule Islamic law whenever it contradicts the regime's interests. As the clergy become less and less relevant, the regime will need to double down on its current strategy, relying more on security measures than spiritual authorities to ensure its survival.

Mehdi Khalaji is the Libitzky Family Fellow at The Washington Institute and author of its recent study The Future of Leadership in the Shiite Community. Republished with permission.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/erdoğan-playing-keeps-northern-syria-20602

Erdogan Is Playing for Keeps in Northern Syria

America can continue to insist on its commitment to the Kurds, but that will not stop Turkey from taking what shots it can.

Nicholas W. Norberg
May 10, 2017

Erdoğan’s seizure of enhanced powers through the recent constitutional referendum elicited justified concern from observers—but the vote only makes official Turkey’s reality for the last decade. The vote undermines, if not destroys, democracy in Turkey. Yet the real change will occur in Turkish foreign policy. We have watched Erdoğan lay the groundwork for this change in his growing relationship with Vladimir Putin, most recently in Astana. The increased control his referendum bought him is, crucially, control over Turkey’s arguably most important institution—the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK). Its operations in northern Syria ostensibly target Kurdish fighters linked to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a separatist insurgency in southeastern Turkey. In Erdoğan’s newly fortified hands, these operations are becoming the vehicle to achieve his personal ambitions to outdo Mustafa Kemal’s legacy and establish himself as the lord of a resurgent Ottoman state. The international community, especially NATO, needs to handle Erdoğan carefully to avoid this outcome—certainly more carefully than placing heavy weaponry in his backyard.

Since the referendum result, Turkey has undertaken several actions to improve its position in Syria. Major airstrikes in Derik and Sinjar targeted Kurdish fighters and strayed dangerously close to American personnel embedded there, sparking ground skirmishes with YPG forces around Tel Abyad. On the diplomatic front, the Astana agreement establishing safe zones in Syria names Turkey as the guarantor of Idlib Governate’s integrity. Flare-ups are frequent in Idlib Province because sections are in the hands of rebel groups, Free Syrian Army fighters and regime troops. Escalation would provide an excuse for the TSK to deploy en masse in Idlib, allowing them to extend their current foothold in Syria and close the gap with Turkmen fighters concentrated around regime-held Latakia. It would also allow Turkish forces to close off the western Kurdish front, boxing YPG territory between Turkish troops and the regime line.

With his new powers, Erdoğan is eager to distract from the circumstances of his victory. Annexing northern Syria would do just that, but it would also satisfy a number of Erdoğan’s ambitions and those of the TSK to boot. The Turkish military seeks to encompass Kurdish militia territory, which they see as key sanctuaries for PKK affiliates; enveloping that territory would allow them to combat this perceived threat with impunity. Erdoğan’s goals are more personal. Capturing the swath of land stretching from Aleppo to Raqqa would finally allow him to claim an achievement Mustafa Kemal could not. Indeed, Ataturk wisely cut his losses in Syria and Iraq through the Treaty of Lausanne to secure what borders he did have without overextending. Erdoğan has built his political career both implicitly and overtly on the claim to Ataturk’s mantle. Incorporating northern Syria would represent a victory of Erdoğan over Ataturk, and it would support the neo-Ottoman narrative he has espoused throughout his time on the national stage. It is also important to note that seizing this land could support his efforts to court Turkey’s growing Syrian Arab demographic, well on its way to becoming a powerful voting bloc. Having already styled himself the guardian of Syrian Sunnis through carefully timed photo shoots with prominent migrants and promises of post-referendum voting rights, Erdoğan could spin northern Syria’s absorption into a gift to his new Syrian voters.

The international community, and especially NATO, must not underestimate the scope of Erdoğan’s ambition. He is the picture of political pragmatism, and his feud with Fethullah Gülen demonstrates that no ally, no matter how loyal, can share his spotlight. He also understands his political base, most clearly displayed in his live broadcast rally in Trabzon before the referendum vote during which he extolled his parents’ working class, Black Sea region roots. That political base, fired by his promises of strong leadership and restored Turkish primacy, will support military action in Syria, particularly out of a desire to recapture lost Ottoman lands and protect Turkic minorities living there. Armed with such justification, and remembering Assad’s refusal to heed his diplomatic overtures at the outset of the Syrian civil war, Erdoğan is not likely to pass up an opportunity to cement his legacy in Turkish history while degrading his foe in Damascus. The recent thaw between Erdoğan and Assad reflects Russia’s influence more than Ankara’s interests. Annexing northern Syria does not run directly contrary to Putin’s aims in Syria so long as Erdoğan does not run afoul of his staunch support for the Assad regime. So long as Assad sits in Damascus, Erdoğan may exercise latitude in northern Syria, with Putin’s permission.

The greatest impediment to Erdoğan’s advance on northern Syria remains the American commitment to the PYD fighters it has fostered over the years. Already a point of contention with Ankara, the TSK appears more content to strike first and fend off American ire later. The United States can continue to insist on its commitment to Kurdish fighters, but that will not stop Turkish soldiers from taking what shots they can, even at the risk of injuring American service members. Ultimately, Turkey is confident in the superiority of its position as a NATO member and its possession of Incirlik Air Base. Turkey remains critical to U.S. military operations in the Middle East and beyond, despite the undemocratic referendum result. Secure in that knowledge, Erdoğan will push the envelope as far as he can—all the way to Raqqa, perhaps.

Erdoğan will not be intimidated from his path. Placing more sophisticated arms in the hands of Syrian Kurds might support the narrow goal of defeating Daesh, but it will also provoke Turkey’s justified concern that the United States will lose track of those weapons after Raqqa falls. That uncertainty is more than enough to prompt Turkish escalation against Syrian Kurds, in an effort to avert transferal of those heavy weapons to PKK affiliates. The Trump administration may have warned Turkish military and intelligence officials in a high-level meeting on May 6, but they will need to work harder to dissuade those same officials from their anti-Kurdish mandate in Syria.

If NATO and the United States want to protect their interests in northern Syria and rein in Erdoğan’s ambition, they must find leverage proportionate to the value Turkey assigns its Syrian involvement. The Turkish president will visit Washington, DC next week, giving Mr. Trump a rare opportunity to appeal to him face to face. He must make full use of that chance, for the sake of the United States’ Kurdish partners as much as its own service members embedded with them. Erdoğan’s good graces will not come cheap, but they pale in comparison to the cost of allowing him to outmaneuver NATO interests in Syria.

Nicholas W. Norberg is a graduate of Georgetown University with a career specializing in the Middle East and Turkey. The views expressed in this article are personal and do not reflect those of any employer or academic institutions.

--
2 Comments
The National Interest
Login
1
Recommend
Share
Sort by Best
Avatar
Join the discussion…

Avatar
R. Arandas • 8 hours ago
Isn't he trying to build a strong relationship with Putin's Russia? Why not continue on with that then, why is he still looking to the U.S. and the West for support?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Omerli • 20 hours ago
Not quite clear that NATO's interests dovetail so neatly with the U.S. and it's current alliance with the PYD. That argument is not convincingly made or even engaged with here. indeed, the Turks know their value to the alliance and also know how the U.S. Stance on a NATO ally of 72 years is seen by many in the alliance. Erdogan will not be around forever but the damage to perceptions of US reliability is likely to outlast him by decades. Turkey will be given a freer rein to go after the PKK in Iraq but even that only underlines how the U.S. Stance is determined by internal politics in the States and not some thought-out strategy. Washington shortsightedly goes after Raqqa and Mosul with nary a thought to how one deals with Sunni Arab grievances in the longer term. Any thoughtful reflection on that will require reining in the PYD and getting it to not only give up on governing Raqqa but also Manbij and many other areas where the Kurds are a minority. We will see how they will take to that. At the end of the day, there is no military solution to the Kurdish issue in Syria and the U.S. Would do well to push for a political resolution while both sides still listen to Washington. As Turkey's close ties to the KRG attest, this is doable and the U.S. would do well to go down that path and invest in understanding the PYD, the various political groups in Syria's Kurdish population while also bringing in NATO as needed. For once, rather than playing on divisions in the region and blithely ignoring decades old alliances the U.S. could be a bridge builder. Wouldn't that be something?