WAR 05-14-2016-to-05-20-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
(215) 04-23-2016-to-04-29-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...29-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(216) 04-30-2016-to-05-06-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...06-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(217) 05-07-2016-to-05-13-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...13-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

-----

If you thought Nigeria could be bad, if Bangladesh goes into a full blown Jihadi Insurgency it is going to be real bad.....


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bangladesh-crime-idUSKCN0Y506A

World | Sat May 14, 2016 2:25am EDT
Related: World

Buddhist monk hacked to death in Bangladesh


An elderly Buddhist monk was hacked to death on Saturday at a temple in Bangladesh, police said.

The body of Mongsowe U Chak, 75, was found at the isolated temple where he lived alone in Naikkhangchhari village, about 338 kilometers (211 miles) southeast of Dhaka, police said.

Police said they did not know the motive of the killing and no one had been arrested.

The Muslim-majority nation of 160 million people has seen a surge in violent attacks over the past few months in which liberal activists, members of minority Muslim sects and other religious groups have been targeted by Islamist extremists.

Islamic State has claimed responsibility for some of the killings although the government denies the Sunni militant group has a presence in the country, saying homegrown extremists are behind the attacks.


(Reporting by Serajul Quadir and Mohammad Nurul Islam; Editing by Stephen Coates)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
An interesting spin from them on this....


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-hezbollah-blast-idUSKCN0Y506R

World | Sat May 14, 2016 3:40am EDT
Related: World, Syria

Hezbollah blames insurgent shelling for death of top commander in Syria


Lebanese Shi'ite Muslim militant group Hezbollah said on Saturday its top military commander Mustafa Badreddine was killed by artillery shells fired by insurgents near Syria's Damascus airport.

Hezbollah announced Badreddine's death on Friday and held a military funeral for him on the same day in its stronghold in southern Beirut.

"Investigations have showed that the explosion, which targeted one of our bases near Damascus International Airport, and which led to the martyrdom of commander Mustafa Badreddine, was the result of artillery bombardment carried out by takfiri groups in the area," Hezbollah's statement said.

"Takfiri" is a word used by the group to refer to hard-line, armed, Sunni Muslim Islamist groups.

Hezbollah is fighting in Syria, backing the government of President Bashar al-Assad against a range of Sunni Muslim groups including Islamic State and the al Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front. Around 1,200 Hezbollah fighters are estimated to have been killed in the Syrian conflict.


Related Coverage
› Hezbollah says top commander died in shelling near Damascus airport

"The outcome of the investigation (into Badreddine's death) will increase our determination ... to continue the fight against these criminal gangs and defeat them," Hezbollah said.

The statement did not say when the attack took place or when Badreddine died.

Announcing his death on Friday, Hezbollah quoted Badreddine as having said he would return from Syria victorious or as a martyr.

Badreddine was sentenced to death in Kuwait for his role in bomb attacks there in 1983. He escaped from prison in Kuwait after Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, invaded the country in 1990.

His release from jail in Kuwait was one of the demands made by the hijackers of a TWA flight in 1985, and of the hijackers of a Kuwait Airways flight in 1988.

For years, Badreddine masterminded military operations against Israel from Lebanon and overseas and managed to escape capture by Arab and Western governments.

Badreddine was also one of five Hezbollah members indicted by the U.N.-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon in the 2005 killing of statesman Rafik al-Hariri, one of Lebanon's most prominent Sunni Muslim figures. Hezbollah denied any involvement and said the charges were politically motivated.


(Reporting by Lisa Barrington; Editing by Andrew Heavens)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm....Missed this DOT.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Se...ve-in-Egypt/3271463072491/?spt=mps&or=3&sn=si

U.S. MRAPs arrive in Egypt

Shipment meant to support Egypt's fight against terrorism, U.S. officials say.

By Geoff Ziezulewicz | May 12, 2016 at 3:52 PM

CAIRO, May 12 (UPI) -- The first shipment of U.S. Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles arrived in Egypt Thursday.

The 762 armored vehicles were provided to the Egyptian military at no cost as part of the Pentagon's Excess Defense Articles program, according to a statement from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.

Originally manufactured to protect U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan from roadside bombs, the vehicles will now be used to combat terrorism in the region, the embassy said.

The MRAP delivery constitutes the latest step involving military cooperation between the two countries, according to the embassy.


Related UPI Stories
•Oshkosh showcases JLTV at Special Ops exhibition
•U.S. Army issues initial order for Humvee replacement vehicles
•Egyptian shipyard cuts steel for navy corvette
•Algeria orders more Russian Mi-28NE Night Hunter helicopters
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-13/u-s-build-up-in-europe-serves-no-purpose

War

U.S. Build-Up in Europe Serves No Purpose

May 13, 2016 9:30 AM EDT
By Leonid Bershidsky
Comments 78

While showing off some new UAZ Patriot pickup trucks armed with machine guns and grenade launchers to Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday, a general couldn't open the door of one of the trucks and, in his desperate desire to please the commander-in-chief, ripped off the door handle. "Well done," Putin said, laughing.

Meanwhile, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is debating how most effectively to deter Russia from invading the Baltic States. The U.S. has already proposed quadrupling the budget of the so-called European Reassurance Initiative, to $3.4 billion in 2017. A billion dollars of that sum is to add another armored brigade combat team, 4,000 to 5,000 strong, to the 35,000 U.S. troops already present in Europe. Another $1.9 billion is earmarked for additional war-fighting equipment. Still, many U.S. analysts still believe that may not be enough for deterrence.

They should watch the door handle video and ask themselves if they aren't being hoodwinked.

RAND Corporation recently held a war game to see if the Baltic states were defensible against Russia and concluded that, with the current level of protection, the Russian military could get to Tallinn and Riga in as little as 60 hours. To prevent such an outcome, Rand concluded that NATO would need seven brigades, including three with heavy armor, "adequately supported by air power, land-based fires, and other enablers on the ground and ready to fight at the onset of hostilities."

Writing for the Atlantic Council, Franklin Cramer and Bantz Craddock proposed reinforcing the Baltic nations' defenses with additional air defense and anti-armor systems and setting up new multinational battalions former from Baltic, other European and U.S. soldiers.

On the defense analysis site War on the Rocks, Elbridge Colby and Jonathan Solomon declared the planned additional U.S. deployment insufficient, arguing that persuading the "increasingly capable Russians" to stand down would require "fielding a conventional military posture that includes substantial, potent forces permanently deployed forward in Central and Eastern Europe that can assuredly arrest any Russian military thrust into NATO member-state territory."

These experts all discuss Russia's resurgent military strength. RAND argues that forces in Russia's Western Military District are far more powerful, in terms of numerical strength and equipment, than what NATO deploys in and around the Baltics. Russia's air campaign in Syria has also impressed many.

Watching the door handle video or reading last year's reports from Debaltsevo in eastern Ukraine, where local rebels aided by Russian troops encircled and defeated the Ukrainian army after weeks of heavy fighting, should sow some doubts in the minds of military specialists as to the Russian army's readiness for a bold invasion of two or three NATO member states.

Although Russia is undergoing extensive rearmament, a program to which Putin pays lots of attention, it's plagued by typical modern Russian problems of inefficient, overly expensive procurement and shoddy quality. Demonstrating success to Putin is more important to the generals than actually achieving it and Putin, in turn, may well be more interested in showing off to the world in Victory Day parades on Red Square, than attacking NATO. He pursues domestic goals, too, whipping up a patriotic frenzy to maintain his support. The climate in today's Russia is one in which Kalashnikov, the assault rifle manufacturer, is having difficulty turning a profit from its main product -- but is hoping to make up for that by producing a line of military style clothing for patriots.

Russian troops can be effective against weak adversaries, such as the Ukrainian military or lightly armed Syrian rebels, but even then they do not achieve lightning-fast results. The invasion of Crimea was scary, because unbadged Russian soldiers there wore modern-looking gear and looked dangerous, but they did not meet with any resistance. As the Wilson Center's Michael Kofman argues on War on the Rocks, "the Russian army is simply not set up to occupy an invaded country, particularly one likely to resist. There are few permanent units based on NATO’s borders and no higher tier command structures to organize a fight using units pieced together from other districts."

More importantly, however, none of the alarmist proponents of an increased U.S. military presence in Eastern Europe can explain why Putin would want to invade the Baltics. Countries don't attack other countries simply because they don't like them, or because they can. There has to be some strategic benefit to the attack. In the premise for its war game, RAND takes a stab at locating one: "The strategic goal of the invasion was to demonstrate NATO’s inability to protect its most vulnerable members and divide the alliance, reducing the threat it presents from Moscow’s point of view."

It's not clear why Russia would risk an all-out war with the U.S., including the prospect of a nuclear conflict, just to prove NATO's vulnerability. The previous aggressive actions of Putin and his close circle suggest they do indeed consider NATO as a threat to Russia. But Putin backed separatists in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and went to war for them in 2008, to make a destabilized Georgia unacceptable to NATO as a potential member. It has been feeding the unrest in eastern Ukraine with the same purpose. Both wars are used by the alarmist experts as arguments for increased deterrence, but are really arguments against it: Russia fears NATO's closeness to its borders enough to launch these adventures at considerable cost to its international status, so it's unlikely to invite a direct conflict with the alliance. And it isn't the U.S. contingent stationed in Europe that scares Putin, but the full U.S. military might, including its nuclear arsenal.

Kofman doesn't rule out Russian military mischief in the Baltics, but he believes an all-out invasion of Riga and Tallinn would not be the most likely scenario. To test NATO's resolve in a less life-threatening way, Russia could seize a patch of disputed land. "A smarter approach for Moscow," Kofman wrote, "and one conceptually demonstrated in Crimea, is to create a crisis in which NATO’s credibility is tested on the choice of whether or not to attack Russia first."

A heightened U.S. military presence would only make that choice a tougher one for the U.S.: the safety of its personnel could become an added consideration that could give rise to rash decisions.

Increased budgets, more toys, more opportunities to hold exercises in various geographies are always attractive to generals. Strategically, however, in won't help to resolve any real-world problem. Russia has no reason to mount a massive invasion of the Baltics and Putin knows how much of the country's new might is window-dressing.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Leonid Bershidsky at lbershidsky@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Marc Champion at mchampion7@bloomberg.net
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...ners-hate-foreign-investment-so-you-shouldn-t

Middle East

Iran Hard-Liners Hate Foreign Investment, So You Shouldn't

May 13, 2016 11:58 AM EDT
By Marc Champion
Comments 4

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is making a lot of people in Washington even madder than usual. He's been encouraging European banks and companies to invest in Iran -- which certainly is weird, given the history between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic.

As the former George W. Bush administration official Elliott Abrams put it on Thursday: "There is simply no defensible reason for an American official, much less our top diplomat, to concern himself with how much investment and profit Iran can eke out of the nuclear deal."

Except that there is. Increasing foreign trade and investment for Iran was part of the mix in the 12-year negotiation over Iran's nuclear fuel program, from start to finish. It was resisted by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and other hard-line factions in the Tehran regime because they feared foreign influence that could undermine their control. So it's at least defensible to ask western treaty opponents why, if they think foreign investment would help the Revolutionary Guard conduct its military adventures, the Revolutionary Guard doesn't want it.

Twelve years ago, I went to Iran to figure out whether the incentives European negotiators were using -- with the backing of the Bush administration -- to persuade the regime in Tehran to stop manufacturing nuclear fuel could work. The answer was no.

That wasn't obvious at the time. The offer went roughly like this: The Iranians would permanently mothball their fuel program and, in exchange, get access to top-of-the line civilian nuclear technology, along with trade privileges and additional investment from the European Union, then Iran's biggest economic partner. Western diplomats were convinced that this would work. They pointed to the huge demographic bulge for which the regime needed to create jobs, or risk revolt. Investment and technology transfer would create those jobs.

But this was 2004, when Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was feeling decidedly insecure. The U.S. had declared Iran part of an "axis of evil" and then invaded Iraq, parking 150,000 troops on Iran's doorstep. Moreover, if reformist President Mohammad Khatami's engagement with the West and its investors delivered prosperity, Khamenei's revolutionary regime risked losing its credibility. At the same time, the price of oil was climbing, making foreign funding less vital.

As a result, the most powerful man in Iran didn't want foreign investment and was hardly going to trade much away for it. The big contracts Khatami's government signed with foreign investors were getting shut down and taken over by the Revolutionary Guard -- in one case, using tanks. Soon, Khatami would be replaced by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the nuclear talks would go into deep freeze.

That hasn't happened this time. Khamenei agreed to a nuclear deal and, for now at least, has reined in the hard-liners who oppose it. That's because he wants the investment.

"Everything is different," said Cyrus Razzaghi, President of the consultancy Ara Enterprise, whom I also met back in 2004. "This time there is no threat to Iran's security -- Iraq is now our biggest export market, and Iran and the U.S. even have a common enemy in Islamic State. Plus the oil price is low and the economy has taken a beating from sanctions. We have a real chance."

Just as important, says Razzaghi, is the difference between Khatami and today's president, Hassan Rouhani: "Khatami was a super nice guy, but a philosopher. Rouhani is the ultimate pol, the ultimate insider." As a result, Rouhani has been much more successful at keeping Khamenei on his side.

Now it is a substantial swath of the U.S. Congress and the Washington foreign policy community that doesn't want investment to flow into Iran. Khamenei is showing signs of impatience, because the economy still hasn't benefited much from the lifting of sanctions while Rouhani may be growing too strong politically after winning parliamentary elections in February. When Khamenei delivered his annual address to mark the Iranian new year, in late March, he lambasted the U.S. for keeping sanctions in effect and criticized Rouhani for working with the "arrogant" Americans.

Although Iranian oil production returned to pre-sanctions levels this week, European banks are still refusing to clear transactions. That's because they fear that the U.S. Treasury Department may fine them for transgressing U.S. sanctions that remain in place, even after the nuclear deal lifted international sanctions. The inability to clear large transactions has so far made most agreements on foreign investment projects moot.

Iran's irreconcilable conservatives are crowing, reminding Iranians that they'd always argued that the U.S. would never let Iran benefit from the lifting of sanctions and had dismissed the nuclear deal as a ruse. Their hope is that the nuclear deal unravels and a discredited Rouhani fails to get reelected next year, leaving the presidency open for one of their own.

This is why Kerry is trying to persuade Europe's big banks to go ahead and work in Iran -- as the nuclear deal envisaged they should be able to do. So far, they have not been convinced. The U.S. has hit many of them with large fines for clearing Iranian dollar transactions for Iran in the past, at a previous time when the U.S. had sanctions on Iran but European governments did not. Who knows what the next U.S. president might order the Treasury to do.

There is, of course, an element of good-cop-bad-cop theater to Iranian politics, but the tussle for power is genuine. Kerry's best defense of his advocacy for investment in Iran is that America's most implacable enemies in the regime want him to fail.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Marc Champion at mchampion7@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Jonathan Landman at jlandman4@bloomberg.net
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/...nch-will-make-things-worse-middle-east-peace/

Middle East

The French Will Make Things Worse

Jonathan S. Tobin / May 13, 2016

With the Middle East peace process lying dead in the water for two years, what harm could come from an effort led by France to revive talks between Israel and the Palestinians? The answer is that, whenever one thinks things can’t get worse, the reality of this conflict is always there to remind us that yes, things can always get worse. Moreover, they almost always do when even the best-intended people try to pretend that another conference or paper or the right negotiator can solve a problem that has nothing to do with forums, resolutions or even skillful diplomacy.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault will arrive in Israel this weekend to try to lay the groundwork for a new peace initiative. But Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu deserves no blame for rejecting the French formula. It’s not just that Paris’s plan smacks of international coercion that is both deeply unfair to Israel. Nor is the biggest problem here the fact that similar schemes with analogous formulas have already been tried and failed.

The real problem is that the French, like the Americans, the United Nations and the “Diplomatic Quartet” that have trod this path before, are focusing on form rather than confronting substance. Peace between Israelis and Palestinians will come the day the latter gives up their century-old war on Zionism and put to rest their opposition to a Jewish state.

If the goal is to get closer to that moment, the French plan is an absurd waste of time. Indeed, the fact that the Palestinians have welcomed the scheme illustrates what’s wrong with it. Having torpedoed the talks sponsored by Secretary of State John Kerry two years ago and refusing every entreaty to return to the table since then, it’s hardly surprising that the Palestinians would like a plan that starts with an international conclave convened by the French to where neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians will be present.

That sort of diplomacy smacks of an international diktat where nations that are either neutral or hostile to Israel will seek to impose terms on it that compromise both its security and rights. Instead of a negotiation in which the two sides will be forced to recognize each other’s legitimacy, such a process is a one-sided attempt merely to orchestrate another Israeli territorial retreat in which it will be asked to trade land for the hope of peace. Moreover, is there any reason for Israel to trust nations that, like France, voted for a recent UNESCO resolution that didn’t even recognize historic Jewish ties to holy sites in Jerusalem such as the Western Wall or the Temple Mount?

But even if we lay aside the obvious unsuitability of any plan that is so skewed against the Israelis even before it begins, Netanyahu’s rejection makes sense because the premise of the negotiation is false. The French and the international community that appears to be supporting their initiative act as if the last 23 years of history hadn’t happened. Must we remind them that Israel has already placed on the table the same terms that peace process advocates always speak of being the solution that “everyone knows” will be the way to end the conflict? Is it really necessary to point out that the Palestinians said no to those terms — independence and a state that includes almost all of the West Bank, Gaza, and a share of Jerusalem — in 2000, 2001, and 2008? Must we point out that since the last of those offers that sent Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas fleeing from the negotiating table, he has refused to negotiate seriously even when Netanyahu offered in the Kerry talks to leave the West Bank?

Obviously, the answer is yes to all three questions.

But even if anyone thought Abbas would give a different answer to peace than he has previously provided, no one in Paris or in any of the other foreign capitals where this proposal is being discussed is anyone taking into account the fact that Abbas doesn’t speak for all of the Palestinians. Two million of them live in Gaza from which Israel withdrew every soldier, settler and settlement in 2005, and which is now ruled as an independent Palestinian state in all but name by Hamas terrorists. How can even a theoretical deal that grants sovereignty to the PA make any sense so long as Hamas is in place in Gaza and might well expand their rule to the West Bank once Israel does the international community’s bidding?

The answer is that it doesn’t. The only answer that would make sense would be for Abbas to accept Netanyahu’s oft-stated offer of a resumption of direct negotiations that he repeated this week while, again, accepting the idea of two states for two peoples. But that can’t happen so long as Abbas refuses to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its boundaries would be drawn. And he won’t do that because Palestinian public opinion is unalterably opposed to such a formulation. Until a sea change in their political culture permits him or a successor to end the century-long war on Zionism and the Jewish presence in any part of the country that is inextricably tied to Palestinian national identity.

The French, President Obama and Netanyahu all ought to know that if the Palestinians were ever to accept peace on terms that end the conflict for all time, there is no Israeli leader that could successfully resist such a peace plan. The majority of Israelis would give up settlements and even perhaps some of their capital for peace. Building in Jerusalem and the settlement blocs that Israel would keep in the event of peace is no obstacle to a deal. Yet instead of dealing with Palestinian intransigence, the French, like President Obama, focus on their antagonism with Netanyahu.

That is problematic not just because it achieves nothing to get the region closer to peace. It’s foolish because it only encourages the Palestinians to think they won’t have to make the concessions they need to make if they really want two states instead of merely eliminating Israel. Every failed peace effort has led to a new round of violence, and this one won’t be an exception. It’s time for diplomats to realize that, like doctors, their primary responsibility is to do no harm. Unfortunately, that’s a lesson that no one tempted by the glory of making the ultimate deal (attention: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) ought to forget.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
An interesting spin from them on this....


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-hezbollah-blast-idUSKCN0Y506R

World | Sat May 14, 2016 3:40am EDT
Related: World, Syria

Hezbollah blames insurgent shelling for death of top commander in Syria


Lebanese Shi'ite Muslim militant group Hezbollah said on Saturday its top military commander Mustafa Badreddine was killed by artillery shells fired by insurgents near Syria's Damascus airport.

Hezbollah announced Badreddine's death on Friday and held a military funeral for him on the same day in its stronghold in southern Beirut.

"Investigations have showed that the explosion, which targeted one of our bases near Damascus International Airport, and which led to the martyrdom of commander Mustafa Badreddine, was the result of artillery bombardment carried out by takfiri groups in the area," Hezbollah's statement said.

"Takfiri" is a word used by the group to refer to hard-line, armed, Sunni Muslim Islamist groups.

Hezbollah is fighting in Syria, backing the government of President Bashar al-Assad against a range of Sunni Muslim groups including Islamic State and the al Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front. Around 1,200 Hezbollah fighters are estimated to have been killed in the Syrian conflict.


Related Coverage
› Hezbollah says top commander died in shelling near Damascus airport

"The outcome of the investigation (into Badreddine's death) will increase our determination ... to continue the fight against these criminal gangs and defeat them," Hezbollah said.

The statement did not say when the attack took place or when Badreddine died.

Announcing his death on Friday, Hezbollah quoted Badreddine as having said he would return from Syria victorious or as a martyr.

Badreddine was sentenced to death in Kuwait for his role in bomb attacks there in 1983. He escaped from prison in Kuwait after Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, invaded the country in 1990.

His release from jail in Kuwait was one of the demands made by the hijackers of a TWA flight in 1985, and of the hijackers of a Kuwait Airways flight in 1988.

For years, Badreddine masterminded military operations against Israel from Lebanon and overseas and managed to escape capture by Arab and Western governments.

Badreddine was also one of five Hezbollah members indicted by the U.N.-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon in the 2005 killing of statesman Rafik al-Hariri, one of Lebanon's most prominent Sunni Muslim figures. Hezbollah denied any involvement and said the charges were politically motivated.


(Reporting by Lisa Barrington; Editing by Andrew Heavens)


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/first-shot-new-hezbollah-war/

Middle East

First Shot of a New Hezbollah War?

Max Boot / May 13, 2016

Mustafa Amine Badreddine, Hezbollah’s military chief (i.e., chief terrorist), has died in a mysterious blast near the Damascus airport, which is widely suspected to have been a bomb dropped by an Israeli warplane. Whatever the exact circumstances of his demise, it can only be cheered for he was one of the deadliest terrorists in the world.

Badreddine had a great deal in common with his cousin and brother-in-law, the late Imad Mughniyeh, whose responsibilities he assumed after Mughniyeh was assassinated in a joint Israeli-American operation in 2008. Both were poor boys from the Shiite slums of Beirut, who got their start with the PLO and achieved their greatest notoriety as de facto Iranian operatives in Hezbollah.

As Omri Ceren of The Israel Project reminded us, both were involved in the massive October 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which killed 241 Americans. Just two months later, Badreddine masterminded another series of attacks in Kuwait, which killed six at targets including the U.S. Embassy. In the 1990s, he helped to establish Hezbollah’s Unit 1800, which helped to carry out terrorist attacks against Israel in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A decade later, he created Unit 3800 to carry out attacks against America and allied forces in Iraq, adding to the amount of American blood on his hands. In 2005, he masterminded the murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri with a massive car bomb. More recently, he has been supervising Hezbollah’s operations in Syria in support of the Assad regime, which has been responsible for killing the vast majority of the 400,000 plus dead in Syria’s civil war.

In short, Badreddine was one of the worst mass murderers in the world, and he got what was coming to him. But to say that justice was done is not the same thing as suggesting that it will make much of a difference. It won’t. Hezbollah has a deep bench with no doubt lots of other terrorists ready to step up and fill Badreddine’s spot as he himself stepped in for Mughniyeh.

Indeed, Hezbollah long ago completed the process of transforming itself from a ragtag terrorist organization into a quasi-state with a quasi-conventional army and, even more importantly, a vast missile and rocket force. Hezbollah has been flexing its muscles in Syria, where it has dispatched its fighters to keep Assad in power. Meanwhile in Lebanon, it forms a shadow government that is far more powerful than the nominal state and its army. Hezbollah has grown far more threatening than it was in 2006, when it fought its last war against Israel. Ceren reported that Hezbollah now has “roughly 150,000 rockets, allowing the group to saturation bomb Israeli population centers with 1,500 rockets and missiles per day for over three months.”

By killing Badreddine and occasionally bombing Hezbollah weapons convoys, Israel is doing no more than chipping around the edges of the Hezbollah empire — which is certain to grow even more powerful now that Iran, its sponsor, will have access to the world oil markets.

No one has any easy or obvious solution for defeating Hezbollah, but if the U.S. were serious about accomplishing that goal — and it clearly is not, at least not under the Obama administration — it would train and arm a capable Syrian military force that could defeat Hezbollah’s power grab in Syria. That would of course also mean defeating its ally, Bashar Assad. Syrian Sunnis are more than happy to fight against Hezbollah and Assad, but the U.S. has not provided the necessary support, thus allowing the rebel movement to be hijacked by Islamist extremist organizations such as the al-Nusra Front and ISIS.

If Hezbollah were to suffer defeat in Syria, where it has made such a big commitment, its aura of power would be damaged at home in Lebanon as well. The U.S. could then further reduce Hezbollah’s influence by aiding its numerous Lebanese foes, including many Shiites who are by no means happy to have their interests subordinated to those of Iran.

This strategy, alas, will never be implemented as long as the main focus of American policy is detente with revolutionary Iran, a state dedicated to “Death to America.” That detente policy has been the dominant theme of the Obama administration. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, comes next.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-islamic-state-idUSKCN0Y50IH

World | Sat May 14, 2016 9:51am EDT
Related: World, Syria

Islamic State storm Deir al-Zor hospital after dawn offensive: Amaq

Islamic State attacked a hospital in Deir al-Zor on Saturday and seized territory on the edge of the besieged eastern Syrian city still partly controlled by the government, the militant group said.

Islamic State's Amaq news agency said its fighters stormed the Assad Hospital and also took control of a check point, a fire station and university accommodation in the city close to Syria's eastern border with Iraq.

Islamic State controls most of Deir al-Zor province and has laid siege since March last year to the remaining government-held areas in the city of the same name.

Deir al-Zor province links Islamic State's de facto capital in the Syrian city of Raqqa with territory controlled by the militant group in neighboring Iraq.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said there were reports Islamic State had detained medical staff and taken some government soldiers prisoner in Deir al-Zor.

It said there were ongoing fierce clashes between government forces and Islamic State in the area after the militants attacked the southwestern edge of the city at dawn.

The fighting killed at least 20 members of the Syrian government forces and at least six Islamic State fighters, the Observatory said.

Amaq news agency also said the Islamist militants had taken territory near to the state-held military airport. Russia's RIA state news agency on Saturday reported a source within the airbase as saying an Islamic State attack had been repelled.

The Syrian government and its Russian allies make regular aid drops into the encircled city and there are frequent air strikes on Islamic State targets in and around Deir al-Zor.


(Reporting by Lisa Barrington in Beirut and Omar Fahmy in Cairo; editing by David Clarke)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
:dot5:

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-36292007

Boko Haram threat warning ahead of summit

35 minutes ago
From the section Africa

Nigeria's militant group Boko Haram remains a threat, French President Francois Hollande has warned ahead of a summit in Nigeria's capital, Abuja.

This was the case despite "impressive" gains against the group, Mr Hollande said after meeting his Nigerian host Muhammadu Buhari.

Leaders of countries making up a force against the Islamist group are among those attending Saturday's summit.

The group's seven-year insurgency has killed some 20,000 people.

More than two million have been displaced from their homes.

Boko Haram militants have been attacking civilian targets as the Nigerian military seeks to wrest territory from their control.

The group has established links with so-called Islamic State (IS), after pledging allegiance to it in 2015.

President Muhammadu Buhari is welcoming counterparts from Benin, Cameroon, Chad and Niger for the gathering in Abuja, along with French President Francois Hollande, UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond and US Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

Mr Blinken - who is already in Nigeria - said he was concerned by reports that Boko Haram militants were going to Libya, where IS influence has grown in recent months.

"We've seen that Boko Haram's ability to communicate has become more effective," he said.

"They seem to have benefited from assistance from Daesh [IS]."

At the same time, he declined to comment on whether the US would agree to a Nigerian request to sell it American war planes to fight Boko Haram.

After meeting President Buhari ahead of the summit, Mr Hollande praised his host and the regional countries for their co-ordination, adding that France provided "intelligence, information, training and equipment".

"It is this cohesion, this solidarity, this strategy which has enabled the success we are witnessing," he said.

The UK foreign secretary said Britain was training 1,000 Nigerian soldiers to attack Boko Haram strongholds in the north-east.

Mr Hammond said the Islamist group was being "degraded", adding: "We must maintain the momentum to win the war, and build the right conditions for post-conflict stability in the region".

--

Boko Haram at a glance

Boko Haram fightersImage copyright AFP ◾Founded in 2002, initially focused on opposing Western-style education - Boko Haram means "Western education is forbidden" in the Hausa language
◾Launched military operations in 2009
◾Thousands killed, mostly in north-eastern Nigeria, hundreds abducted, including at least 200 schoolgirls
◾Joined so-called Islamic State, now calls itself IS's "West African province"
◾Seized large area in north-east, where it declared caliphate
◾Regional force has retaken most territory this year

Who are Boko Haram?
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://gulftoday.ae/portal/7eb0a9e6-9928-4102-84ab-7f6ed316616d.aspx

US, Russia, India driving China’s nuclear modernisation: Pentagon

May 14, 2016

WASHINGTON: The defence capabilities possessed by the US, Russia and India are among the main factors driving China to modernise its nuclear force and bolster its strategic strike capabilities, the Pentagon has said.

In a report to Congress detailing China’s nuclear power, Pentagon on Saturday said the country was deploying new command, control and communications capabilities to its nuclear forces to improve control of multiple units in the field.

China, it said, insists that the new generation of mobile missiles, with warheads consisting of multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) and penetration aids, are intended to ensure the viability of its strategic deterrent in the face of continued advances in the US and, to a lesser extent, Russian strategic ISR (Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance), precision strike, and missile defence capabilities.

“Similarly, India’s nuclear force is additional driver behind China’s nuclear force modernisation,” the Pentagon said in its report.

Through the use of improved communication links, ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) units now have better access to battlefield information and uninterrupted communications connecting all command echelons, the report said.

According to the Pentagon, China is working on a range of technologies to attempt to counter the US and other countries’ ballistic missile defence systems, including manoeuvrable re-entry vehicles (MaRVs), MIRVs, decoys, chaff, jamming, and thermal shielding.

China has acknowledged that it tested a hypersonic glide vehicle in 2014. The country’s official media also cited numerous PLASAF (Peoples Liberation Army Second Artillery Force) training exercises featuring manoeuvre, camouflage, and launch operations under simulated combat conditions, which are intended to increase survivability, it said.

Together with the increased mobility and survivability of the new generation of missiles, these technologies and training enhancements strengthen China’s nuclear force and bolster its strategic strike capabilities.

Press Trust of India
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Air Force general is 1st woman at top-tier US combat command
Started by thompsoný, Yesterday 11:34 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...al-is-1st-woman-at-top-tier-US-combat-command


Russia to test-fire massive nuclear missile: Report
Started by China Connection‎, Today 04:19 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...a-to-test-fire-massive-nuclear-missile-Report

Also see last week's WoW thread....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defenseone.com/management/2016/05/threat-russian-missiles-rise-norad-looks-future/128297/

As Threat of Russian Missiles Rise, NORAD Looks to the Future

May 13, 2016 By Patrick Tucker

No longer a Cold War leftover, NORAD and its new leaders will have their work cut out for them.
Homeland
/ Defense Department
/ Personnel

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — Defense Secretary Ash Carter installed a new Air Force general atop the outfit that keeps the country safe from enemy air power: the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD.

NORAD, best known — in pop culture, at least — for tracking Santa and nearly ending life on Earth through poor software design and implementation in the 1983 Cold War movie WarGames, most recently made headlines in December when one of its missile-detecting aerostats (think: tethered blimp) became unmoored north of Washington, D.C., dragging its cable across a 160-mile stretch of the mid-Atlantic region, taking down power lines and causing other havoc.

So, you could be forgiven for thinking of NORAD as a relic of the Cold War. But Cold Wars don’t thaw quickly and the relevance of NORAD is on the rise. The change comes as Russia and China flex military muscles in their regions and increase spending on strategic missiles, and as North Korea pledges to develop its own missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to the continental United States. The U.S. has spent more than $108 billion on missile defense, so far, and is pressing ahead with a more modern and integrated missile defense. Last June, NORAD announced a new plan to bolster its ICBM defenses with new radars.

Commanding the effort is Air Force Gen. Lori J. Robinson, who will head up NORAD and U.S. Northern Command, or NORTHCOM. Robinson succeeds retiring Navy Adm. Bill Gortney and, in so doing, becomes the first woman to lead a combatant command, placing her in charge of one of the military’s nine chains of command, directly under the secretary of defense and commander in chief.

“As a strategic thinker and Joint Force leader, General Robinson has proven her ability to manage complex operations and work with partners across theaters and domains. These abilities will serve our nation well as NORAD and NORTHCOM continue their vital contributions to the counter-ISIL campaign and defense of the homeland,” Carter said.

Most recently, Robinson was commander of Pacific Air Forces, the top Air Force officer in Pacific Command. She previously was vice commander of Air Combat Command, and was deputy commander of U.S. Air Forces and of international air commands across the war zones of Central Command.

In 1982, Robinson entered the Air Force through the ROTC program at the University of New Hampshire. She’s run the command and control operations division at the Air Force Fighter Weapons School, was chief of tactics in the 965th Airborne Warning and Control Squadron, and deployed as vice commander of the 405th Air Expeditionary Wing to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Russia has been pouring money into new ICBMs and other missiles. Commander Sergey Karakayev, who leads Russia’s Strategic Missile Force, boasted this month of new missiles built to defeat U.S. missile shields.

The new weapons “reduce [the] ICBM’s acceleration section, introducing new types of warheads with the flight path that is difficult to predict and new means of overcoming the missile defense system,” Karakayev told Russian News Agency TASS.

He alluded to the U.S. decision to turn on an Aegis anti-missile base in Romania.

“This is conditioned by the fact that the United States is not stopping after what it has achieved and continues improving its missile defense system, including the deployment of its elements in Europe. That is why, special attention in the development of new missile complexes is paid to the issue of overcoming the missile shield,” Karakayev said.

The Russians are also adding mobile missile launchers; they plan to have as many mobile launchers as stationary ones by 2021, according to TASS. They claim their new SS-30 missile can destroy an area the size of Texas.

“Moscow approved development of the SS-30 in 2009 as a replacement for the Cold War-vintage SS-18. Seven years later, the first rockets are reportedly ready for testing,” The Daily Beast reported.

Carter pointed out Friday that the U.S. anti-missile weapons aren’t meant to stop Russian ICBMs.

“Our missile defenses are designed for Iran and North Korea,” he said. “They are not designed for nor are they capable of defending the United States from the Russian nuclear force. The United States hasn’t had the capability…for many decades. Our protection against attack from any nation is deterrence.”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
US to Activate European Missile Shield Today
Started by imaginative, 05-12-2016 04:34 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?491216-US-to-Activate-European-Missile-Shield-Today


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://moderntokyotimes.com/?p=4791

Posted on May 13, 2016 by Lee Jay

INF Treaty Increasingly in Danger, as Russia Balks at New Missile Defense Base in Romania

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor
By: Pavel Felgenhauer
The Jamestown Foundation

The United States missile defense (MD) base near the Romanian town of Deveselu, west of Bucharest, became operational this week, armed with 24 SM-3 Block IB interceptors, guided by a land-based version of the naval Aegis integrated combat system, using the SPY-1 radar. The US spent some $800 million to build and equip the base. Washington insists the MD base in Romania was built to counter a threat from Iran or other possible Middle Eastern rogue states and is not aimed at Russia. According to officials from the US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Romanian-based SM-3 missiles cannot intercept Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM). Moreover, assurances have been made that nuclear-armed attack missiles will not be deployed in Romania. The SM-3 do not carry any explosives; they are designed to destroy high-velocity targets by hitting them directly. These assurances apparently failed to assuage Moscow, which declared the Romanian MD base a threat and promised retaliation (TASS, May 12).

The fact that the MD base in Romania does not directly threaten the Russian strategic nuclear deterrent seems obvious. The commander of the Strategic Missile Force (RVSN), Colonel-General Sergei Karakayev, told journalists this week: “The European segment of the US MD may threaten the RVSN in a limited way but cannot critically affect its battle capabilities.” Karakayev boasted: “We are developing new ICBMs and new reentry vehicles able to negate existing or future global US MD capabilities. New warheads will be able to fly along unpredictable trajectories and attack targets from all directions” (Interfax, May 10). If so, why is Moscow seemingly obsessing about the Romanian base?

The director of the Russian foreign ministry’s arms control and nonproliferation department, Mikhail Ulyanov, accused the US of inventing a nonexistent Iranian missile threat as a pretext to deploy MD capabilities that are, in fact, aimed at Russia. The Iranian nuclear problem was eliminated last year by an agreement signed in Vienna, but “the US did not follow up its promises to abandon MD plans in Europe,” according to Ulyanov. “This is a major mistake that can undermine strategic stability.” Ulyanov continued: “The MD base may be used to launch cruise and ballistic missiles, and this is a violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty [INF]” (RIA Novosti, May 11).

Russian officials accuse Washington of essentially building a double-use missile base in Romania—one that can be employed for both MD and for destroying vital strategic targets. In particular, Moscow worries the base will purportedly allow the US to eliminate President Vladimir Putin and other top Russian military/political leaders in a surprise first nuclear strike. The geographical closeness of the Romanian MD base to Putin’s official residence in Sochi, where the Russian president spends almost half his time and which has been turned into a de facto second capital, is seen as part of a sinister plan. Indeed, Putin is in Sochi this week, where he is holding a series of meetings with top Russian defense officials—and just across the Black Sea, the US is deploying swift and accurate interceptors that could hit his dacha in only a couple of minutes. Such a decapitating first strike would throw Russian defenses into disarray, allowing massed US and NATO forces to move in for the kill and lay waste to the Russian Federation.

This nightmare scenario, apparently invented in the General Staff, has been dominating Russian strategic planning for more than a decade—since US plans to deploy MD interceptors in Europe were proposed. The chair of the Duma defense committee, Admiral Vladimir Komoyedov, and his counterpart in the Federation Council, Victor Ozerov, both insist the MD base in Romania and a similar base that will be constructed in Poland are aimed at Russia and have nothing to do with Iran. Ozerov quotes unnamed “specialists,” apparently from Russian military intelligence: “The US MD installations in Romania and Poland may be quickly rearmed to deliver nuclear weapons” (Interfax, May 12). If the MD base in Romania could target Putin’s Sochi residence, the one in Poland would presumably be able to hit Moscow—thus, the US would have a cocked gun pressed to Putin’s head at nearly all times. According to Alexander Grushko, Russia’s permanent representative to NATO, “the activation of the Romanian MD base must be taken in context of NATO deploying additional forces close to Russian borders: the deployment of SM-3 interceptors on Aegis ships in European waters and the development of the US Prompt Global Strike system [PGS], all of which threaten Russia.” Evidently, Moscow considers the PGS to be also targeting Putin directly. Grushko insists that MD deployments openly threaten the INF treaty (TASS, May 12).

In the Russian government’s mind, this assumed grave threat requires a strong response. The possibility of deploying Iskander-M missiles in Kaliningrad enclave has been discussed, but that would be aimed against the MD base in Poland, which has yet to be built (Interfax, May 12). According to the defense ministry’s Star TV channel, Iskander missiles deployed in Crimea can wipe out the US MD base in Romania, but there is a problem: the Tarkhankut Peninsula—the westernmost part of Crimea closest to the base in Deveselu—is still some 700 kilometers away, while the official range of the Iskander-M ballistic missile is 500 km, as mandated by the INF. Star TV explains: The range of the Iskander may be easily extended “to several thousand kilometers” by using long-range Kalibr cruise missiles (Tvzvezda.ru, November 14, 2014).

The defense ministry recently published footage of the launch of long-range land-based cruise missiles using the Iskander-M missile launcher (Tvzvezda.ru, April 23). To establish a credible capability to target Romania with nuclear warheads using the Iskander, and perhaps to force Bucharest to rescind the US MD deployment in Deveselu, Moscow will have to entirely back out of the INF treaty to be able to officially test the Iskander at longer ranges, possibly using both ballistic and cruise missiles. The INF, signed by Ronald Regan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, has been under a growing threat for some time, with both Washington and Moscow accusing each other of violations. In 2007, as Putin was dramatically turning Russia on a path of acute confrontation with the West, he repeatedly openly threatened to scrap the treaty, in direct connection with the presumed threat of US MD bases in Poland and Romania (see EDM, February 21, 2007). If the INF is scrapped, with it go the last vestiges of arms control, thus opening the door to a renewed arms race.

The Jamestown Foundation kindly allows Modern Tokyo Times to publish their highly esteemed articles. Please follow and check The Jamestown Foundation website at http://www.jamestown.org/

https://twitter.com/JamestownTweets The Jamestown Foundation

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=45425&tx_ttnews[backPid]=7&cHash=c88bd873e602c2e9554e02592e44e76c#.VzX2d9f6mC4

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 13 Issue: 93 – The Jamestown Foundation

Photo image not supplied by The Jamestown Foundation
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.businessinsider.com/here...us-new-missile-is-worth-worrying-about-2016-5

http://www.wearethemighty.com/artic...humongous-new-missile-is-worth-worrying-about

Here’s why Russia’s humongous new missile is worth worrying about

Paul Huard, We Are The Mighty
22h
Comments 29

Russia is testing an intercontinental ballistic missile that is so large and powerful it could hit any strategic target in the United States or NATO with independently targeted warheads possibly capable of penetrating ballistic missile defenses.

According to a TASS report on May 6, Col.-Gen. Sergei Karakayev, commander of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces, said Russia will move their new RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missiles to bases at Uzhurskogo and Dombarovsky.

The first location is near Krasnoyarsk in Siberia; the second is located in the Urals in the Orenburg Oblast and is a major ICBM base first built by the Soviets during the 1960s. In particular, Dombarovsky is a site associated with missile training exercises.

For example, in the early 2000s the SMF held as many as seven launches from the Dombarovsky site using decommissioned missiles that delivered commercial payloads.

The bases also are ideal for launching the new missile toward targets either in the United States or in NATO countries such as Germany, France, or the United Kingdom once it becomes operational.

In the report, Karakayev also said a “completed missile complex” will hold the Sarmat as a “silo-based heavy missile” intended to replace the venerable SS-18 ICBM.

The Soviets first deployed the SS-18 in 1977 – the missile in its Cold War SS-18 MOD 4 configuration carried 10 multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles each with up to a 750 kiloton yield. An individual warhead had more than 20 times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb.

It was specifically designed to attack and destroy American ICBM silos and other hardened targets.

Code named Satan by NATO, the SS-18 MOD 6 version of the ICBM currently deployed by Russia has a single 20-megaton warhead.

Russian sources say Sarmat will be operational by 2018.

However, not much else is known about Sarmat. Various Russian reports indicate that it is a two-stage liquid-fuel missile with an estimated operational range of 6,200 miles weighing about 220,000 pounds and capable of hefting perhaps a dozen heavy warheads, each individually steerable during reentry.

There is no information on the yield of each warhead. However, the hypersonic speed and increased maneuverability of the warheads apparently is an effort to thwart U.S. anti-ballistic missile systems.

On Thursday, the Kremlin said Russia is taking protective measures against the Aegis Ashore anti-missile systems deployed in Romania by the United States. Dmitri Peskov, spokesman for Russian Pres. Vladimir Putin, told reporters while commenting on the anti-missile system “the question is not whether measures will be taken or not; measures are being taken to maintain Russia’s security at the necessary level.”

“From the very outset we kept saying that in the opinion of our experts the deployment of an anti-missile defense poses a threat to Russia,” Peskov said.

Despite economic hardships and Western criticism, Russia has aggressively worked on improving its strategic missile inventory and the destructive power of its ICBMs. Recently, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said revamping the nation’s strategic missile forces is a No. 1 priority.

Last year, Gen. Valery Gerasimov, chief of the Russian Armed Forces general staff, said the United States and its NATO allies are developing the means to strike Russia precisely and effectively with strategic weapons. The Kremlin intends to introduce weapons that can penetrate the American missile defense shield and thwart this increased capability, Gerasimov said.

Russian writers for Sputnik, a Russian propaganda publication aligned with the Kremlin, have published reports touting the capabilities of the Sarmat. They claim the missile will “determine which direction nuclear deterrence will develop in the world.”

The story even claimed that Sarmat’s warheads could wipe out territory equivalent to a landmass the size of Texas.
 

Housecarl

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

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...nse-sites-rolling-back-the-russian-bear-16193

The Buzz

European Missile Defense Sites: Rolling Back the Russian Bear

It is a good thing when Washington refuses to be intimidated by the thugs in the Kremlin.

Dan Goure
May 13, 2016

Today marks the first significant setback for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s assault on Europe. For more than two years, Russia has been on the march in Europe and elsewhere, undermining the political and economic systems of neighboring countries, intimidating their legitimate governments, seizing their territory and alarming America’s allies and friends. This is a pattern we have seen over and over again from Central Asia and the Caucasus to Eastern Europe and most recently the Middle East. The Kremlin spent years preparing to seize the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, bribing local officials, penetrating that country’s services, and engaging in cyber espionage.

There was also a campaign of intimidation directed against Ukraine’s friends and potential allies in the West. The central feature of this campaign was the threat to use military force up to and including nuclear weapons if the EU and NATO did not accommodate Russian interests and even pressure the government in Kiev to accede to Russian demands. French President Hollande and German Prime Minister Merkel have done better than former British Prime Minister Chamberlain in selling the Central Europeans out.

Backing up Moscow’s threats is a modernized Russian military. Although significantly smaller than its Soviet era predecessor, the new Russian military is better organized, equipped and capable, as demonstrated in a host of exercises, of rapidly putting a combined arms force of over 100,000 in the field. Russia has significantly expanded its integrated air defense system to the point that now the Baltics, much of Poland, even parts of Germany and half the Black Sea would be denied access to NATO aircraft in the event of war. Russian aircraft routinely buzz NATO ships and planes in international waters in an attempt to force the West to accept that these areas are Russian controlled.

The key to the Russian campaign of intimidation and coercion is their nuclear arsenal. Russia is modernizing every part of its nuclear force posture. Just the other day it announced the deployment of a massive new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), a replacement for the aging SS-18. The RS-28 Sarmat is supposed to carry no more than ten warheads but has the power to throw many more halfway around the world. Russia is modernizing the rest of its ICBM force, deploying an advanced submarine that will carry a new ballistic missile and adding dual capable cruise and ballistic missiles to its theater land and sea forces. It is clear that Russia has violated the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty by developing cruise and ballistic missiles that exceed permissible ranges.

The West’s response to Russian aggression has been, to say the least, halfhearted. The U.S. is deploying a few thousand troops and a couple of hundred combat vehicles back to Europe. Germany is increasing the size of its military next year by 14,000. Defense spending among the NATO countries, with the notable exception of Poland, Greece, Estonia and the United Kingdom, is pitiful.

Given these negative trends, it is important to acknowledge when the West does stand up to Moscow. Today, the United States turned on its first operational ballistic missile defense site in Romania. Washington went ahead with this deployment, part of what is called the European Phased Adaptive Approach, despite persistent complaints by Moscow and even strident threats that it might respond by employing tactical nuclear weapons against any European missile defense capabilities. The Romanian site is the first of two planned deployments of the Aegis Ashore system which relies on the proven SPY-1 radar and advanced versions of the Standard Missile 3. While this system cannot interfere with the launch of Russian intercontinental or submarine-launched ballistic missiles, it can defend Europe against ballistic missiles coming out of the Middle East. This deployment on land complements the earlier stationing in a Spanish port of four Aegis destroyers with the Ballistic Missile Defense System and Standard Missile 3s.

Even though President Obama cancelled his predecessor’s plan for the deployment of a more capable missile defense system in Central Europe and even eliminated from his own plans the development of a Standard Missile variant capable of intercepting ICBMs, the Russians have been relentless in their criticism of the U.S. and European plans to deploy missile defenses. U.S. diplomats have talked themselves hoarse attempting to convince Russian officials that the planned sites pose no threat to the Russian strategic deterrent. But to no avail. The reason for this is that the Kremlin needs Europe to be defenseless in order to implement its strategy of political intimidation and nuclear coercion.

It is a good thing when Washington refuses to be intimidated by the thugs in the Kremlin. It is even better when the issue on which the U.S. government has chosen to take a stand is the deployment of missile defenses in Europe. Now if the administration could just get some of our allies to actually invest in their own missile defense capabilities, the message to Moscow would be clear.

Dr. Dan Goure is a Vice President of the Lexington Institute. He is involved in a wide range of issues as part of the institute’s national security program. This piece originally appeared in the LexNext blog. [4]
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/13...s-nuclear-arsenal-new-rs-28-satan-ii-missile/

Voice

Size Matters for Putin’s Nuclear Arsenal

Russia’s whipping out the biggest nuclear missile the world has ever seen and laying it on the table. Should we feel inferior -- or scared?

By Jeffrey Lewis
May 13, 2016
Comments 2

Let’s face it: Missiles are penises. You don’t have to be Diana Russell to admit it. You can pretend they are rockets all you want, but all I can think about is Robin Williams in Death To Smoochy. Sure, you can’t make a missile shaped like a vagina. But that’s the point. No one gets this excited about tanks. When the Committee on the Present Danger campaigned against the SALT II nuclear reduction treaty, they printed posters that showed the Soviet Union’s big, dark missiles set against our tiny little white ones. How’s that for Fear of a Black Planet?

The Soviet Union may be gone, but don’t tell that to Vladimir Putin. The Russian supremo is comically virile, the sort of guy who is willing to interrupt a meeting with George W. Bush to let him know that Barney, as presidential pets go, is sort of emasculating. It should go without saying that Putin’s Russia is also really into big missiles.

Exhibit A: Last week, a Russian “news” outlet ran a profile on Russia’s newest ICBM under development, known as RS-28. While Russian officials have been discussing the missile for several years, the coverage was still rather eye-popping. While the news story did not involve explicit images or details, it was clear that the Russian state would like you to know that the RS-28 is larger. Very, very large. Like, much larger than the missile it replaces. And much larger than anything in the American arsenal.

According to the Russian press, the missile is far more powerful than the missile it will replace. In the United States, we call this older missile the SS-18 Satan (it’s the “demon rod” smack dab in the middle *of the Committee on the Present Danger’s “penis poster.”) The new RS-28 is supposed to be bigger still. According to Russian officials, the RS-28 will have 10 tons of so-called throw-weight — the missile’s payload — much of which will be in the form of nuclear weapons. And the RS-28, again say the Russians, will be powerful enough to send these warheads to the United States over the South Pole, avoiding any pesky U.S. missile defenses — not a trivial factor given Moscow’s howling about new U.S. missile defenses in Poland and Romania.

And, in case you still can’t appreciate the humungousness of this missile, the Russian press has helpfully explained that the large number of high-yield warheads it carries could “destroy an area the size of Texas.” Say it in your best Yakov Smirnov voice: Texas is famous big state. Russian missile can destroy Texas. Russian missile is big.

Is any of this true?

Well, Russia can plainly build a giant missile. And the South Pole business isn’t out of the question. The Soviets were really interested in what are called “fractional orbital bombardment systems,” or FOBs, during the Cold War. There was a treaty that would have banned FOBs — the very same treaty that prompted the Committee on the Present Danger to publish the “penis poster.” As it happened, the U.S. Senate ultimately refused to ratify the treaty. And so, this idea is still around. A recent RAND study, for example, contains a description of the advantages and disadvantages of a FOBs-like approach for a new U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

And what of the Texas-killer Russian warheads? The SS-18 can carry 10 warheads, each with a yield of 750 kilotons. That’s plenty to reduce most of the Lone Star state to a post-apocalyptic wasteland, although I am not sure I would be able to see the difference. (Kidding, Texans, kidding! Please don’t shoot me!)

Of course, it isn’t clear that the new RS-28 will be big or potent as advertised. The other day, Putin toured a facility that makes military vehicles. When he tried to open the door to one of the trucks, it jammed. When an aide tried with a bit more force, the handle fell off. Things in Russia aren’t always what they seem.

So, while the RS-28 probably does represent an improvement to an existing Russian missile, it still replaces a comparable system. And that means the RS-28 isn’t a change in Russian nuclear posture, it’s a continuation. Russia has long placed a substantial fraction of its warheads on so-called heavy ICBMs. The RS-28 indicates that we shouldn’t expect that to change.

The love of heavy ICBMs is a Russian thing. Heavy ICBMs, particularly liquid-fueled ones like the RS-28, have advantages and disadvantages. Such a missile might be able to carry a large number of nuclear warheads, but it must be based in an underground silo. That makes all those warheads sitting in one spot an attractive target. Liquid fuel, too, is not easy to handle. And keeping the missiles on constant alert can be tricky, something that Bill Clinton learned when he was governor of Arkansas. There is no support in the United States Air Force for revisiting liquid-fueled missiles.

The Russian Strategic Rocket Forces, however, feel differently. To them, heavy ICBMs are Viagra mixed with vodka. The Russians want to keep a lot of nuclear warheads, and its gets very expensive building a missile for each and every warhead. Even when Russia was flush with oil revenue, there wasn’t enough money to fully replace Soviet systems. As a result, the Russians have built a smaller number of modern missiles and packed them with as many warheads as possible. The United States has taken the opposite approach — spreading warheads across a much larger number of missiles on land and at sea.

Most American analysts, including myself, think the Russians are crazy for putting so many eggs, so to speak, in so few baskets. It’s highly destabilizing, too. Consider the problem at hand: If one missile can destroy 10 targets, the Russians have an incentive to use nuclear weapons first. And if the U.S. president can protect those 10 targets by blowing up just one missile, then it gives Washington a further incentive to use nuclear weapons first. Multiple warheads favor the side that shoots first, which is the very definition of instability. That’s the view in the United States at least. In Moscow, I would probably be laughed out of the room as the kind of guy who has a tiny … dog.

So while the RS-28 is not, in itself, a dramatic change in the threat to the United States, it does represent a very dangerous Russian habit. It would be better if we could persuade the Russians not to do this.

Actually, we did, once. Back in the good old days, the Clinton administration persuaded Boris Yeltsin to agree to a nuclear arms control treaty called START II, which prohibited Russia and the United States from placing multiple warheads on land-based ballistic missiles. But START II was doomed. The Clinton people wanted Russia to hurry up and ratify START II so we could start to negotiate a third round of reductions, which would be called START III. The Russians, on the other hand, complained that they didn’t want to build a bunch of single-warhead missiles under one agreement just to eliminate them under another. Amazingly, the two sides couldn’t figure this out.

Ultimately the Duma ratified START II under the encouragement of Russia’s young, energetic president-elect: Vladimir Putin. But it did so with a series of poison pills that, in fact, killed the treaty. None of the arms control treaties we have negotiated since, either under Bush or President Barack Obama, prohibit Russia from putting multiple warheads on its missiles.

But they should. If the two sides are serious about arms control, eliminating multiple warheads on land-based ballistic missiles is a must. Unfortunately, as Russian statements make clear, their affection for large numbers of warheads is driven in part by a desire to overwhelm U.S. missile defenses — not only the ones we have now (which, truth be told, don’t threaten Russia), but the ones they are afraid we might build. Unfortunately, this puts us at an impasse: The conventional wisdom is that the United States Senate would never ratify a treaty that contained limitations on missile defense.

The Russians may have a weird Freudian thing going on with their giant missiles, but we do too. It is easy enough to notice, if you just look. Andrew Exum, now the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Middle East policy, saw it when he watched a video touting the need for U.S. missile defenses a few years ago, before he entered government. “The long-dormant literary critic in me has been watching this unintentionally hilarious Heritage video on missile defense and counting the number of phallic symbols,” he wrote. “Let’s see … missile, missile, missile launch, Maggie Thatcher, missile launch, missile, missile …”

The simple fact is, unpopular though it may be, there is a relationship in the ongoing Washington-Moscow arms race between offense and defense — between the sort of missiles being developed by both sides and the defenses being deployed to counter them. If we care about reducing the danger of nuclear war, we have to find a way to limit the most destabilizing nuclear weapons. And that means being able to talk honestly about all our strategic systems, including missile defense. If the RS-28 is just a giant phallus to Vladimir Putin, it’s the rest of us who are going to get screwed.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/05/beijing-setting-stage-war-south-china-sea/128292/

Beijing Is Setting the Stage for War in the South China Sea

May 13, 2016 By Steve Mollman Quartz

China is setting itself up to be repeatedly provoked in the disputed waters—it might even be counting on it.
China
/ Strategy
/ Asia-Pacific

All any nation needs to go to war is a good provocation, and China is no exception. With its sweeping territorial claims, island-building, militarization, patriotic fervor, and prickly rhetoric, Beijing is setting itself up to be repeatedly provoked in the South China Sea—it might even be counting on it.All any nation needs to go to war is a good provocation, and China is no exception. With its sweeping territorial claims, island-building, militarization, patriotic fervor, and prickly rhetoric, Beijing is setting itself up to be repeatedly provoked in the South China Sea—it might even be counting on it.

Consider the nation’s manmade, militarized island at Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratly archipelago. Though it didn’t even exist a few years ago, and for decades ships from other nations could routinely sail by it without disturbance, now Beijing feels provoked if anyone goes near it—and sends out warnings or makes aggressive gestures in response.

This week the USS William P. Lawrence, a guided missile destroyer from the US Navy, conducted a “freedom of navigation” operation near the island. It deliberately sailed within 12 nautical miles of Fiery Cross Reef. If the US recognized the reef as China’s territory to begin with—which it does not— that would be considered entering China’s territory.

The problem is China has claimed, outrageously, that nearly the entire sea is its own territory. Considering the fact that some $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes through the strategic waterway every year, that’s a problem not just for the US, but any number of countries participating in the global economy. The US Navy’s operation was a reminder to China that the sea is open waters, despite any impromptu islands that might have been constructed of late.

China bases its sea claim on a “nine-dash line” that it drew on a map after World War 2. Never mind that the line conflicts with international norms and overlapping claims by nearby nations, including the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia, nations whose coasts are much closer to the disputed sea than China’s.

Many observers feel it’s ridiculous to base real-world claims on such a map. Internet satire has ensued.

The problem is that China is actually serious, however surreal the claim may seem.

From a military strategy point of view, at least, it’s easy to see why.

The strategic waterway is “one of the most important oil and natural gas transport choke points in the world,” geopolitical analyst Tim Daiss wrote this week in Forbes. Passing through it each year, he noted, is almost 60% of Japan’s and Taiwan’s energy supplies, and 80% of China’s crude oil imports.

Were a conflict involving these or other nations to break out, control of the sea could give Beijing a distinct advantage in securing—or blocking—the energy needed to power a war machine. The most critical resource that Japan lacked in World War 2 was oil—a key history lesson surely not lost on China’s military strategists. (The sea is full of its own vast untapped reserves of oil and natural gas, too.)

To acquire the sea’s strategic advantage, though, China first needs to establish control over the waterway. That needs to be done step by step. The process might go something like this:

1.Make the sea claim.
2.Create outposts in the sea, and work toward turning them into military bases. At this stage, you might want to deny the military bit.
3.Express outrage if anyone goes near those outposts. Over time, establish a pattern of being repeatedly provoked, despite your patient warnings. Your outposts aren’t quite military bases yet anyway, so this is a good use of your time in the meantime.
4.As your outposts get closer to becoming real military bases, feel free to grow more strident in your responses to the “provocations.”
5.Once your military infrastructure is fully up to speed, you’re ready for war—you even have a track record of provocations to point to for justification! Of course you don’t have to start a conflict, but it’s nice to know you can at any time—and feel justified about it.

China isn’t just relying on its military. The country has a massive fishing fleet, and by far the world’s largest fish industry. For years Beijing has been paying fishing boats to operate near its disputed outposts in the sea, even if they don’t catch much in the area. It certainly helps appearances.

The fishing fleet needs to expand outward because through over-fishing it has nearly depleted the fishing stock near China’s own shores. So it increasingly needs to fish in the exclusive economic zones of other nations, as it is doing. By establishing outposts and more control over the sea, China’s military can better support the fleet’s forays into distant or contested waters.

Those fishing forays often involve confrontations with foreign coastguards or navies. (Hey, more potential provocations!) With other nations responding by beefing up their maritime forces and monitoring technologies—networked nano-satellites, in the case of Indonesia—more such confrontations can be expected in the future.

Beijing has also whipped up patriotic feelings in the Chinese population about the sea being the nation’s birthright. A warship recently took a song-and-dance troupe on a tour of various disputed outposts in the sea. It started at Fiery Cross Reef, where celebrity singer Song Zuying gave a stirring rendition of a song called “Ode to the South Sea Defenders.”

State media coverage of the event included an interview with a navy officer from the audience telling CCTV after the performance, “We’ll definitely not lose at our hands an inch of the territories our ancestors left us.”

The TV coverage offered glimpses into just how impressively far along the island construction has come in a short time. The island even has runways suitable for fighter jets. This suggests China is well into Step 4 above. And indeed, it’s grown increasingly stern in its responses to “provocations.”

When a US Navy warship passed by the Spratlys last October, China simply warned it against acting irresponsibly. But this week when another warship did the same thing, it sent fighter jets scrambling and shadowed the US ship with its own warships—thanks in part to the convenient military base nearby.

Even talking about China’s activities in the sea—in diplomatic settings—now draws ire from Beijing. In April it warned G7 leaders meeting in Japan to not discuss the matter at all, and then said it was “strongly dissatisfied” after they did anyway.

Last week, one Chinese diplomat warned that criticism of China’s actions in the sea would rebound like a coiled spring. If comments are “aimed at putting pressure on China or blackening its name, then you can view it like a spring, which has an applied force and a counterforce. The more the pressure, the greater the reaction,” said Ouyang Yujing, director-general of the foreign ministry’s department of boundary and ocean affairs.

In other words, Beijing is pressing its outrageous claims in the South China, and will take any opposition as a reason to press them even harder.

One US commander is having none of it. Admiral Harry B. Harris Jr., in charge of military operations in the Asia-Pacific region, says China is “clearly militarizing” (paywall) in the sea. “You’d have to believe in a flat earth to think otherwise,” he said in one appearance before Congress.

China knows it can’t go it alone, though, and it can muster some diplomatic chumminess when merited. It’s been attempting to enlist allies—including Gambia, of all nations—ahead of an international tribunal’s ruling on its sea claim that won’t likely go its way.

The Philippines brought a legal challenge against China’s claim in January 2013 to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in The Hague, under the United Nations’ Convention on the Law of the Sea. The court was established in 1899 and has settled numerous maritime disputes between nations. China has refused to recognize its authority—probably because it knows it doesn’t have much of a case for its claim. The court is widely expected to rule in the Philippines’ favor.

Meanwhile, in a neat bit of logic, China’s defense ministry used this week’s US freedom of navigation operation to justify its militarization of the Spratly—or what it calls the Nansha—islands. The operation “again proves that China’s construction of defensive facilities on the relevant reefs in the Nansha islands is completely reasonable and totally necessary,” its defense ministry said.

Thanks to its own actions, China has been provoked, and is building a case to respond even more outrageously—now or in the future.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Well it was only a matter of time.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-challenged-turkish-air-power-in-a-major-way/

Kurdish militants just challenged Turkish air power in a major way

By Erin Cunningham
May 14 at 10:21 AM

ISTANBUL ¡X They were used to stalk Russian helicopters in Afghanistan, and the United States has worked hard to keep them out of chaotic Syria. But now Kurdish guerrillas battling Turkey's security forces may now have shoulder-fired missiles ¡X an acquisition analysts say will seriously challenge Turkish air power and potentially intensify fighting in the region.

On Saturday, media affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), a leftist militant group battling the Turkish state, posted a video purporting to show a fighter downing a Cobra attack helicopter with a man-portable air-defense system ¡X or MANPADS ¡X in the mountains of southeastern Turkey on Friday morning. Arms observers said this is the first time they have seen PKK fighters successfully using MANPADS in their four-decade fight against the Turks.

About four minutes into the video, the fighter, clad in camouflage fatigues, crouches on a verdant hillside with the weapons system on his shoulder. When the launcher locks on its target ¡X a helicopter whirring noisily on the horizon ¡X the fighter stands to fire. The heat-seeking missile swoops through the air and strikes the Cobra's tail, sending the aircraft spinning and eventually crashing into the mountainside.

Turkish authorities on Friday had attributed the helicopter crash in Hakkari province to an unknown technical failure. The chopper had been dispatched, however, after the militants staged an attack that killed six Turkish soldiers in the area.

"There have been rumors of them having MANPADS in their arsenal, but nothing concrete," said Kyle Glen, co-founder of Conflict News, a website that collects information and images from conflict zones around the world.

"This is the first actual video evidence of their use inside Turkey that I have seen in several years," he said. "Turkey will have to escalate, which means the PKK will escalate in return. ¡K [It's a] bloody cycle."

Turkey and the PKK have been locked in conflict for more than 40 years over autonomy for the millions-strong Kurdish minority. The Turkish government has long seen the Kurds, who maintain a separate culture and speak a different language, as a threat to the ethnic purity of the Turkish state.

The PKK, however, has carried out a number of bombings against both civilians and security forces throughout the conflict. Last year, a two-year-old truce between the two sides broke down, and the war reignited. Since then, PKK and other Kurdish guerrillas have killed hundreds of Turkish soldiers in clashes and other attacks, including suicide bombings.

But the use of a surface-to-air missile ¡X which arms experts said is likely a Russian-made 9K38 Igla ¡X is a new and troubling development. It's unclear where the militants, who maintain bases in both Turkey and Iraq, would have obtained the weapon system. But former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was known to have acquired the same Russian-made system in the 1980s, as did Libyan strongman Moammar Gaddafi.

The successful attack "is a game changer" and "could lead to further escalation in the region," Aykan Erdemir, senior fellow at the D.C.-based Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, posted on Twitter.

Turkish officials did not respond to request for comment.


Erin Cunningham is an Egypt-based correspondent for The Post. She previously covered conflicts in the Middle East and Afghanistan for the Christian Science Monitor, GlobalPost and The National. „J Follow @erinmcunningham
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://moderndiplomacy.eu/index.php...-obama-and-clinton-s-forgotten-war&Itemid=566

May 13, 2016

The Libyan Failure: Obama and Clinton¡¦s Forgotten War

Luis Durani


On February 17th, 2011 the Arab Spring swept Libya. Within a couple of weeks, Tripoli had fallen and the National Transitional Council was established as a parallel government to the ruling Gaddafi regime. Shortly thereafter, France and other European nations began to recognize the new government.


As Libya began to descend into chaos, Gaddafi attempted to respond militarily to repel the uprising. By October 2011, Gaddafi had been killed, the rebels had succeeded taking most of the country and the civil war came to an end.

Libya overthrew its dictator and democracy was in the air or was it? As soon as the media shifted its focus elsewhere, everyone disregarded Libya but the war had just begun. Foreign intervention and support for the uprising helped turn a stable nation into a hornet¡¦s nest of chaos, discord, and terror. Today, despite the neglect by the media, Libya is engaged in an existential battle for its identity. With tribes fighting one another for power and ISIS using the disarray to expand its caliphate of terror, the future of Libya appears to be bleak at best.

Gadaffi¡¦s Libya

In order to understand the present-day situation in Libya and evaluate NATO¡¦s success, one must understand the pre-intervention history of the country. Early in the 20th century, Libya was an Italian colony. Typical of most European colonies, Libya was an artificial construct from three distinct areas; Cyrenaica, Fezzan, and Tripolitania. It is along these three areas that the country is now divided, more or less. After Italy's World War II defeat, the British and French administered Libya until 1951 when Libya declared independence under King Idris . Idris established a constitutional monarchy. With the discovery of major oil reserves, Libya became a wealthy state but unfortunately most of the wealth had been concentrated in the hands of the king and other elites. Around this time, many former colonial nations were swept by secular revolutions, Libya was no exception. Muammar Gaddafi and a group of fellow officers launched the Al-Fateh revolution in 1969.

Similar to other Arab revolutionaries, Gaddafi claimed to create a democratic system, only to disguise his dictatorial government. Using the massive wealth from petroleum sales and a relatively small population, Libya was able to become a wealthy nation in Africa. Gaddafi used the money to purchase arms to supply allies and terrorist groups around the world. But unlike King Idris or other Arab dictators, Gaddafi also modernized Libya. He developed Libya's education system, infrastructure, healthcare, etc. He achieved the highest human development index in Africa and surpassed nations in the Midd le East including Saudi Arabia in terms of development. The GDP rose leaps and bounds reaching the top five (5) in Africa, financial support for university education became universal, employment programs helped train people for skilled jobs, and freshwater was made readily available in a country overwhelmingly buried in a desert.

Despite being a dictator and making many enemies abroad including the US, Gaddafi had worked intently to develop his nation. The living standard was relatively great in Libya compared to other nations of the region. While lacking civil liberties, most Libyans did well in the oasis of stability the ostentatious Libyan dictator had created.

Gaddafi fell out of favor with the international community after his involvement in the bombing of Pan Am 103 and of a Berlin nightclub frequented by US service members. From the 1990s through early 2000s, the UN had sanctioned Libya. After witnessing the downfall of fellow dictator Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi gave up his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and began a rapprochement with the West. For a short while everything seemed to be going well. It was not until the Arab Spring and the Libyan uprising that everything turned upside down. Vowing to depose the uprising against his government, Gaddafi did not expect a NATO intervention. President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton claimed that it was imperative for the US and its allies to intervene on the grounds that a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions would occur.

Veni, Vidi, Vici

The basis for the intervention was that the world, especially the US, cannot sit idly by as a dictator massacred its own people. Under such pretenses, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973 with abstentions from Russia, Germany, Brazil, China, and India. The resolution established no-fly zones and authorized any necessary actions to protect Libyan civilians. NATO led the campaign to enforce the resolution with the US, France, and the UK being the largest proponent for it. The civil war ended with approximately 30,000 dead. Despite the request by Libya¡¦s interim government to extend NATO¡¦s mission for another year, NATO ceased its mission and declared victory.

After the withdrawal of NATO and the media, Libya had become a failed state. Different tribes battle one another for territory while Islamists attempt to carve out their fiefdom and on top of all this; ISIS has managed to establish a foothold in the country. Libya is another strategic territory for ISIS to expand its tentacles into. It is geographically situated at the doorstep of Europe and contains a vast amount of petroleum reserves that ISIS hopes to use as an asset to finance its campaign of terror. Simultaneously, Libya can become the safe haven that ISIS needs to expand its burgeoning ties with Boko Haram in Nigeria, potentially Al-Shabaab in Somalia, Islamists in Mali, and other groups on the continent. On top of all this travesty and strategic blunder, neither President Obama nor Secretary Clinton has ever totally owned up to one of their larger foreign policy disasters. Instead Secretary Clinton is famous for her saying ¡§We Came, we saw, he died.¡¨

The disaster in Libya, while neglected by most mainstream media outlets and characterized as a minuscule nuisance, can become the fuse that reduces the entire North African region into chaos, disarray, and war. To make matters worse, recently declassified emails by Secretary Clinton demonstrates that she was the one who spearheaded the campaign for Gaddafi's ouster. Furthermore, Secretary Clinton was the main catalyst in fomenting the chaos and extremism that currently exists in Libya due to the vacuum created by the ousting of Gaddafi. Recent emails outline that there was not any real threat to the Libyan civilian population from Gaddafi, instead the Secretary had hyped up the threat of mass murder and rape to get the UN resolution passed through the Security Council.

One of the main rationales behind the war appears to be revealed in an email exchange between Sidney Blumenthal, her top adviser, and Hilary Clinton. Blumenthal stresses the vitality of achieving a ¡§final win¡¨ by removing Gaddafi to help President Obama boost his low approval rating at the time. Moreover, Blumenthal discussed the necessity of removing Libya in terms of counterbalancing Iran and establishing security in North Africa but ignoring the potentially disastrous outcomes.

Outcome

With almost 5 years since the ouster of Gaddafi, Libya is a failed state with infighting, killing, and terror-related activities at an all-time high. While many in the media typically and understandably point to the failed Bush policies of Iraq as a leading cause of instability in the Middle East, the omission of the failed Obama/Clinton policies in Libya ignores the rise of extremism and chaos in North Africa. The consequence of Obama¡¦s failed war in Libya has not fully materialized, but with time the world will endure more problems as a result of this war. Thus far, the consequences have been:
-„äA Nation Destroyed ¡V Without a shadow of a doubt, Gaddafi was a dictator and a one-time supporter of terror organizations globally. But all was forgiven by the US and EU as they began to mend their ties and move to closer relations. Whatever one may think of Gaddafi, it cannot be denied he developed the tattered desert villages of Libya into a nation and provided services for the people. Nevertheless, today Libya is without any infrastructure thanks to infighting and foreign intervention.
-„äImmigration to Europe ¡V While Americans do not feel the consequences of their actions in Libya directly, Europe¡¦s participation in the war has affected them. The recent migration wave into Europe has people from Libya who are attempting to escape the dire and horrific scene in their nation thanks to the European intervention.
-„äISIS ¡V Aside from Donald Trump's recent acknowledgment of ISIS¡¦s growing capabilities in Libya, the media has largely been moot on the topic. Perhaps one of, if not worst, imminent consequences from this entire tragedy is the expansion of ISIS's territorial holdings into Libya. They have managed to find local support and solidify their influence. Libya will be used as a springboard for ISIS to garner more influence into Nigeria, Somalia, Chad, Mali, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, and eventually Europe itself.
-„äDisaffected Generations ¡V Something that is almost never discussed in most analyses of these wars is the effect of death, and mayhem on the younger generations. Any conflict always brings with it trauma, disillusion, hopelessness and an array of psychological issues. After these countries spiral into destruction, there are not any sorts of institutions to help these children and youth to cope with the death and destruction around them. As a result, they fall prey to extremist recruiters. As these children mature, what will begin to emerge are Taliban-style nations.

The removal of Gaddafi, for whatever reason, was an illogical misstep that resulted in a much more unstable world. Even though the failures in Iraq were a lesson for all, President Obama and Secretary Clinton appear to have neglected it in their preparation for war in Libya. Even worse, President Obama came to power on the basis of ending "useless" wars. As the world continues to be fixated on ISIS and Syria, the forgotten conflicts such as Libya will not always remain in the background, sometimes sooner than later it will rear its head in an unpleasant way. While the world neglects Libya, the cou ntry has become an inhumane dystopia thanks to the ¡§humanitarian¡¨ intervention.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
:dot5:

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-36292007

Boko Haram threat warning ahead of summit

35 minutes ago
From the section Africa

Nigeria's militant group Boko Haram remains a threat, French President Francois Hollande has warned ahead of a summit in Nigeria's capital, Abuja.

This was the case despite "impressive" gains against the group, Mr Hollande said after meeting his Nigerian host Muhammadu Buhari.

Leaders of countries making up a force against the Islamist group are among those attending Saturday's summit.

The group's seven-year insurgency has killed some 20,000 people.

More than two million have been displaced from their homes.

Boko Haram militants have been attacking civilian targets as the Nigerian military seeks to wrest territory from their control.

The group has established links with so-called Islamic State (IS), after pledging allegiance to it in 2015.

President Muhammadu Buhari is welcoming counterparts from Benin, Cameroon, Chad and Niger for the gathering in Abuja, along with French President Francois Hollande, UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond and US Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

Mr Blinken - who is already in Nigeria - said he was concerned by reports that Boko Haram militants were going to Libya, where IS influence has grown in recent months.

"We've seen that Boko Haram's ability to communicate has become more effective," he said.

"They seem to have benefited from assistance from Daesh [IS]."

At the same time, he declined to comment on whether the US would agree to a Nigerian request to sell it American war planes to fight Boko Haram.

After meeting President Buhari ahead of the summit, Mr Hollande praised his host and the regional countries for their co-ordination, adding that France provided "intelligence, information, training and equipment".

"It is this cohesion, this solidarity, this strategy which has enabled the success we are witnessing," he said.

The UK foreign secretary said Britain was training 1,000 Nigerian soldiers to attack Boko Haram strongholds in the north-east.

Mr Hammond said the Islamist group was being "degraded", adding: "We must maintain the momentum to win the war, and build the right conditions for post-conflict stability in the region".

--

Boko Haram at a glance

Boko Haram fightersImage copyright AFP ◾Founded in 2002, initially focused on opposing Western-style education - Boko Haram means "Western education is forbidden" in the Hausa language
◾Launched military operations in 2009
◾Thousands killed, mostly in north-eastern Nigeria, hundreds abducted, including at least 200 schoolgirls
◾Joined so-called Islamic State, now calls itself IS's "West African province"
◾Seized large area in north-east, where it declared caliphate
◾Regional force has retaken most territory this year

Who are Boko Haram?


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.ktvz.com/news/nigeria-hosts-security-summit-on-boko-haram/39550132

Nigeria hosts security summit on Boko Haram

POSTED: 1:53 PM PDT May 14, 2016

Video
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-15-01-04-48

May 15, 1:04 AM EDT

Maduro threatens to seize idle Venezuela plants, jail owners

By RICARDO NUNEZ and JUAN CAMILO HERNANDEZ
Associated Press

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- President Nicolas Maduro threatened Saturday to take over idle factories and jail their owners following a decree granting him expanded powers to act in the face of a deep economic crisis.

Maduro's remarks came as Venezuela's opposition warned the embattled leader that if he tries to block an attempt to hold a recall referendum, society could "explode."

Speaking to supporters in the capital, Caracas, the president ordered "all actions to recover the production apparatus, which is being paralyzed by the bourgeoisie."

He also said that businesspeople who "sabotage the country" by halting production at their plants risk being "put in handcuffs."

Last month the country's largest food and beverage distributor, Empresas Polar, shut down its last operating beer plant. It says it has been unable to access hard currency to buy raw materials.

Maduro accuses Polar and others of trying to destabilize the financially stricken country by exacerbating shortages of goods from foodstuffs to medicines to toilet paper.

Meanwhile dueling anti- and pro-government crowds demonstrated in Caracas on Saturday for and against a bid to recall the president. Maduro opponents demanded that the National Electoral Council rule on the validity of some 1.8 million signatures collected in favor of the referendum and allow it to move forward.

"If you obstruct the democratic way, we do not know what could happen in this country," opposition leader Henrique Capriles said at one rally. "Venezuela is a bomb that could explode at any moment."

Across town, Maduro ally Jorge Rodriguez vowed there would be no recall referendum.

"They got signatures from dead people, minors and undocumented foreigners," Rodriguez said.

Opposition leaders deny any fraud in the signature drive.

Friday's decree extended for 60 days Maduro's exceptional powers to address the crisis. Venezuela is suffering from multiple financial woes including rampant inflation and low prices for oil, the cornerstone of its economy.

Opposition leaders accuse Maduro and his predecessor, the late President Hugo Chavez, of mismanaging the economy. Maduro alleges that conservative political interests are waging what he calls an "economic war" seeking his ouster.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/647c...-militant-attack-north-baghdad-kills-least-11

Iraq: Militant attack north of Baghdad kills at least 14

By SINAN SALAHEDDIN
May. 15, 2016 8:18 AM EDT

BAGHDAD (AP) — The Islamic State group launched a coordinated assault Sunday on a natural gas plant north of Baghdad that killed at least 14 people, according to Iraqi officials.

The attack started at dawn with a suicide car bomber hitting the main gate of the plant in the town of Taji, about 20 kilometers (12 miles) north of Baghdad. Then several suicide bombers and militants broke into the plant and clashed with the security forces, an official said, adding that 27 troops were wounded.

The IS-affiliated Aamaq news agency credited a group of "Caliphate soldiers" for the attack.

In a statement, Deputy Oil Minister Hamid Younis said firefighters managed to control and extinguish a fire caused by the explosions. Younis said technicians were examining the damage.

Elsewhere in Baghdad, three separate bomb attacks targeted commercial areasm killing at least eight civilians and wounding 28 others, police added.

Medical officials confirmed the casualty figures. All officials spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to release information.

IS extremists still control significant areas in northern and western Iraq, including the second-largest city of Mosul. It has declared an Islamic caliphate on the territory it holds in Iraq and Syria.

The group has recently increased its attacks far from the front lines in a campaign that Iraqi officials say is an attempt to distract from their recent battlefield losses.

Since Wednesday, more than 100 people have been killed in a string of bombings in Baghdad and elsewhere.

___

Associated Press writers Murtada Faraj in Baghdad and Maamoun Youssef in Cairo contributed to this report.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Talk about pouring gasoline on the gasoline.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-politics-nationalists-idUSKCN0Y60DO

World | Sun May 15, 2016 8:57am EDT
Related: World, Turkey

Turkish police seal off hotel to halt dissident opposition congress

ANKARA | By Gulsen Solaker and Mert Ozkan


Police sealed off a hotel in Ankara on Sunday, preventing dissidents in Turkey's nationalist opposition from holding a party congress that could jeopardize President Tayyip Erdogan's plans for more power.

Several hundred members of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) have launched a bid to oust Devlet Bahceli, leader for much of the last two decades. To do so they need to change party rules at a special congress.

The AK Party needs the MHP's support to change the constitution to give Erdogan more powers. Bahceli loyalists seem willing to do this, but dissident leaders, including former interior minister Meral Aksener, have said they will oppose the plan.

Dissident leaders issued a statement on Sunday accusing Erdogan's AK Party of intervening to try to block the congress.

"The executive branch staged a coup against the judiciary branch. The constitution and law are being suspended. A change in the MHP became the AK Party government's nightmare," the dissidents said in their statement.


Related Coverage
› Turkish military says one soldier, six PKK militants killed in southeast

Around 5,000 people gathered at police barricades near the hotel where the congress was scheduled to take place. Police sealed off the road leading to the hotel with barricades and water canon. "Bahceli should resign," the crowd chanted.

"If the MHP gets stronger it will become an alternative to the AK Party," said Ibrahim Dizdar, previously the provincial head of Giresun, who was suspended by Bahceli.

"The government is trying to prevent us because they are seeing our excitement here today."

Bahceli's party won about 12 percent in last November's election, getting 40 seats in parliament, which the AK Party needs to call a referendum on changes to the constitution to grant the president greater power.

Aksener has vowed to defend Turkey's parliamentary system and oppose Erdogan's plan.

AK Party officials reject any suggestions that the MHP's leadership battle and their party's efforts to win its support on constitutional change are in any way linked.

Turkish courts on Friday gave conflicting rulings on whether the nationalist opposition can hold the congress.

Bahceli's faction sought an injunction to block the meeting but an Ankara court upheld the dissidents' countersuit. State broadcaster TRT reported verdicts from two other local courts that would halt the congress.

An appeals court ruling is expected this month and will have the final say on the dispute.


(Writing by Seda Sezer; Editing by Janet Lawrence)
 

Housecarl

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

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/majid...lear_b_9977768.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

THE BLOG

Iran Breaches the Nuclear Deal and UN Resolutions for Third Time

05/15/2016 02:09 am ET | Updated 8 hours ago

Iranian leaders have breached both the resolutions and the nuclear agreement for the third time since the nuclear deal went into effect in January 2016. Iran has repeatedly test-fired, long-range ballistic missiles and laser-guided surface-to-surface missiles.

In October and November, just after the nuclear deal was reached, Iran tested a new ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple warheads.

In March, Iran again test-fired two ballistic missiles.

More recently and for the third time, the Iranian government fired a test missile two weeks ago which was accurate to 25 feet, which is characterized as zero error, according to the Brigadier General Ali Abdollahi, the Iranian military’s deputy chief of staff, and Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency.

The range of existing Iranian ballistic missiles has grown from 500 miles to over 2,000 kilometers (roughly 1,250 miles), which can easily reach Eastern Europe as well as countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Yemen.

Iranian leaders dismiss the notion that the Revolutionary Guard Corps military activities are breaching the nuclear agreement as well as several of the UN Security Council resolutions. World powers appear to acquiesce to Iran’s stance as well.

But, the United Nations Security Council resolution (Paragraph 3 of Annex B of resolution 2231, 2015) is clear. The resolution “calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.”

The second UN Security Council resolution 1929 indicates “Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities”.

In addition, the Joint Plan of Action Agreement (JCPOA) of the nuclear agreement between P5+1 and Iran is crystal clear in stating that Iran should not undertake any ballistic missiles activity “until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.”

Global Powers’ reluctance

The five members of the UN Security Council have not reacted forcefully or taken appropriate measures to hold the Iranian government accountable for the violations. Generally speaking, China and Russia, which enjoy their strategic, geopolitical and economic alliance with Tehran and favor Iran’s counterbalance stance against the US and its allies, have used Iran’s line of argument for launching the ballistic missiles.

France, Britain and Germany, which are much to the left of the US, or sometimes follow in the footsteps of Washington’s policy towards Iran, have not taken these military maneuvers seriously.

Although according to a report obtained by AP, the launches are “destabilizing and provocative” and that the Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile and Qiam-1 short-range ballistic missile fired by Iran are “inherently capable of delivering nuclear weapons”. The US has been trivializing the issue, failing to hold Iran accountable, and only playing with rhetoric.

For example, even though Iranian generals have admitted launching ballistic missiles, the White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said this week “We’re still trying to get to the bottom of what exactly transpired.” This is an approach designed to dodge dealing with the real issue.

The US has stopped short of calling Iran’s actions as violations of UN Security Council resolutions. President Obama will continue to overlook Iran’s belligerent actions, including ballistic missile launches and the detention of US sailors by the Iranian forces, until he leaves office. He desires what he sees as his crowning foreign policy “achievement”, the nuclear agreement, to remain intact.

President Obama is concerned that holding Iran accountable for these violations might force the Iranian leaders to abandon the nuclear deal, thus causing its failure.

Furthermore, France, Britain and other European countries have less incentive to publicly hold Iran responsible, because of the increasing economic and trade ties with Tehran particularly in the energy sector (oil and gas).

For the Iranian government, advancing its ballistic missile program is a core pillar of its foreign policy after the nuclear program. Iran possesses the largest ballistic missile arsenal in the region. By launching ballistic missiles, Iran also seeks the opportunity to project its power in the region and reassert its hegemonic power.

Since Iran is certain that launching ballistic is not going to elicit robust reaction from the US and other members of the UN Security Council, the IRGC is more likely to continue its advancement and launching of ballistic missile activities more publicly.

_______________________


Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is an American political scientist, business advisor and the president of the International American Council on the Middle East. Harvard-educated, Rafizadeh serves on the advisory board of Harvard International Review. An American citizen, he is originally from Iran and Syria, lived most of his life in Iran and Syria till recently. He is a board member of several significant and influential international and governmental institutions, and he is native speaker of couple of languages including Arabic and Persian. He also speaks English and Dari, and can converse in French, Hebrew.
 

almost ready

Inactive
There is something about DeeCee newspeak that I just don't understand - from the OP


"For example, even though Iranian generals have admitted launching ballistic missiles, the White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said this week “We’re still trying to get to the bottom of what exactly transpired.” This is an approach designed to dodge dealing with the real issue.

The US has stopped short of calling Iran’s actions as violations of UN Security Council resolutions. President Obama will continue to overlook Iran’s belligerent actions, including ballistic missile launches and the detention of US sailors by the Iranian forces, until he leaves office. He desires what he sees as his crowning foreign policy “achievement”, the nuclear agreement, to remain intact.

President Obama is concerned that holding Iran accountable for these violations might force the Iranian leaders to abandon the nuclear deal, thus causing its failure."


Wait wait wait wait. The article clearly says that the Iranian Generals are proudly crowing that they are breaking the agreement, but the White House doesn't want to admit it cause they have to admit the agreement has failed?

You have to really do a belly crawl down the rabbit hole to try and understand this stuff.
 

Thinwater

Firearms Manufacturer
There is something about DeeCee newspeak that I just don't understand - from the OP


"For example, even though Iranian generals have admitted launching ballistic missiles, the White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said this week “We’re still trying to get to the bottom of what exactly transpired.” This is an approach designed to dodge dealing with the real issue.

The US has stopped short of calling Iran’s actions as violations of UN Security Council resolutions. President Obama will continue to overlook Iran’s belligerent actions, including ballistic missile launches and the detention of US sailors by the Iranian forces, until he leaves office. He desires what he sees as his crowning foreign policy “achievement”, the nuclear agreement, to remain intact.

President Obama is concerned that holding Iran accountable for these violations might force the Iranian leaders to abandon the nuclear deal, thus causing its failure."


Wait wait wait wait. The article clearly says that the Iranian Generals are proudly crowing that they are breaking the agreement, but the White House doesn't want to admit it cause they have to admit the agreement has failed?

You have to really do a belly crawl down the rabbit hole to try and understand this stuff.

No, it is very clear, if you don't admit that it is a failure, it is not a failure, and by proxy, your own administration.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted by Heliobas Disciple on the current Xi/PRC "dao rattling" thread.....http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...against-threatening-China’s-sovereignty/page5

China Says Pentagon Report ‘Severely Damaged’ Relations
1:36 p.m. EDT May 15, 2016
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...n-report-severely-damaged-relations/84414382/

The Pentagon's 2016 China Military Report: What You Need to Know
What does the Department of Defense really think about China's military?
Andrew S. Erickson
May 14, 2016
http://nationalinterest.org/feature...hina-military-report-what-you-need-know-16209

_____

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?491453-Will-Retrenchment-Make-America-Great-Again

The comments, including exchanges between the author and readers, are pretty good as well and IMHO deserve a look see too.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/will-retrenchment-make-america-great-again-16183

The Buzz

Will Retrenchment Make America Great Again?

Trump might have a point.

Albert B. Wolf
May 12, 2016
Comments 38

The words “coherent” and “worldview” don’t often appear in the same sentence when it comes to Donald Trump. (See last March’s interview in The New York Times [4].) But a recent piece by David Ignatius [5] points out the challenge Trump’s “neo-isolationist views” pose to Hillary Clinton on foreign policy in the 2016 campaign. The normally on-the-mark Ignatius has misunderstood the debate: Donald Trump is not an isolationist, and the Manhattan real estate developer-***-reality star-*** Republican standard-bearer may (gulp) have a point.

The slogan “Make America Great Again” taps into both the public’s insecurities about America’s status in the world as well as their personal economic maladies. However, Trump’s recent statements do not necessarily make him an isolationist. Second, Trump may be in the early stages of developing a revamped Nixon Doctrine, where America would foster greater burden-sharing with its allies. This is what should be debated in 2016, not a tired rehash of isolationism-versus-engagement.

In the interest of full disclosure, I served as an adviser on foreign policy to the campaigns of Sen. Lindsey Graham and Gov. John Kasich, two public servants who I feel would have made excellent presidents. I was also one of a handful of signatories to a letter to War on the Rocks [6] pointing out the potential disasters Trump would bring to both the Republican Party and America itself.

First, isolationism has been described as “…a policy that never existed in the first place [7].” It was proponents of internationalism, such as Henry Cabot Lodge [8], that defeated the Treaty of Versailles on the grounds it did not provide sufficient guarantees to postwar France. Prominent deans of American diplomatic history, from the late William Appleman Williams [9] to Michael Hogan [10], have shown that the interwar presidents were anything but proponents of Fortress America. Instead, they were at the forefront of the world’s first efforts at arms control and placed America at the center of the Merry-Go-Round system of international finance created after Versailles. (For examples of true isolationism see Tokugawa Japan, Hoxha’s Albania and modern-day North Korea.) Given the malleability of Mr. Trump’s views, he might best be described as a Smoot-Hawley Republican. (Today.)

More importantly, Trump’s arguments about burden-sharing among our allies should not be dismissed. The U.S. may be facing what’s known as the “Lippmann [11] Gap [11]”: with overextension and relative decline, the U.S. is opening itself to predation and potential insolvency. When facing the rise of other great powers such as China, a policy of retrenchment makes more sense than more confrontational approaches [12], such as preventive war.

Retrenchment is defined “as a policy of retracting grand strategic commitments in response to a decline in relative power [12].” States have a variety of options on the table, from raising taxes and reducing defense spending, cutting their commitments to the periphery, to shifting burdens to allies to avoiding temptations to engage in or escalate disputes. The Nixon administration and its eponymous doctrine allowed America to draw down on its commitments and forced our allies to take up a greater share of their defense burden while honoring our pledge to defend them against the Soviets. The Carter administration drew down the number of American troops along the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) with North Korea without instigating a Second Korean War.

One study [12] finds that since 1870, fifteen out of eighteen cases of relative decline resulted in retrenchment. In six of the fifteen cases, the states that pursued retrenchment managed a comeback on the international stage.

I do not agree with Donald Trump that America should pull out of NATO, for it will make it difficult to fight ISIS and restrain Putin’s Russia; I do not agree with Donald Trump that a wall along the Mexican-American border is the solution to the problem of illegal immigration; I do not agree with Donald Trump that Muslims should not be allowed to emigrate to the United States; I do not agree with Donald Trump’s solution for handling the national debt. But, to prevent America from becoming another Weary Titan, Donald Trump has a point: it is necessary to consider the merits of retrenchment and burden-sharing with our allies in order to avoid staggering under the orb of our own vast fate.

Albert B. Wolf is an Assistant Professor of International Relations at ADA University in Baku. He served as a foreign policy adviser to the presidential campaigns of Sen. Lindsey Graham and Gov. John Kasich. He can be followed @albertwolf82 [13].

Image [14]: Aeneas fleeing from Troy. Pompeo Batoni, 1753. Public domain.

Hide The Buzz

Publication

Tags
grand strategy [15]Donald Trump [16]foreign policy [17]retreat [18]
Topics
Security [19]
Regions
United States [20] [3]

Links:
[1] http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/will-retrenchment-make-america-great-again-16183
[2] http://nationalinterest.org/profile/albert-b-wolf
[3] http://twitter.com/share
[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/donald-trump-transcript.html?_r=0
[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...0fbcf8-12f8-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html
[6] http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/
[7] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...l+maintenance.Apologies+for+the+inconvenience.
[8] http://www.amazon.com/Woodrow-Wilso...id=1462931897&sr=1-1&keywords=lloyd+ambrosius
[9] https://www.jstor.org/stable/40400232?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
[10] http://www.amazon.com/Informal-Ente...lo-American/dp/1879176025/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
[11] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1988-02-01/coping-lippmann-gap
[12] http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ISEC_a_00034
[13] https://twitter.com/albertwolf82
[14] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pompeo_Batoni_-_Aeneas_fleeing_from_Troy,_1753.jpg
[15] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/grand-strategy
[16] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/donald-trump
[17] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/foreign-policy
[18] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/retreat
[19] http://nationalinterest.org/topic/security
[20] http://nationalinterest.org/region/americas/north-america/united-states
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-idUSKCN0Y501X

World | Mon May 16, 2016 1:16am EDT
Related: World

Venezuela opposition slams 'desperate' Maduro state of emergency

CARACAS | By Alexandra Ulmer and Corina Pons

Venezuela's opposition on Saturday slammed a state of emergency decreed by President Nicolas Maduro and vowed to press home efforts to remove the leftist leader this year amid a grim economic crisis.

Maduro on Friday night declared a 60-day state of emergency due to what he called plots from Venezuela and the United States to subvert him. He did not provide specifics.

The measure shows Maduro is panicking as a push for a recall referendum against him gains traction with tired, frustrated Venezuelans, opposition leaders said during a protest in Caracas.

"We're talking about a desperate president who is putting himself on the margin of legality and constitutionality," said Democratic Unity coalition leader Jesus Torrealba, adding Maduro was losing support within his own bloc.

"If this state of emergency is issued without consulting the National Assembly, we would technically be talking about a self-coup," he told hundreds of supporters who waved Venezuelan flags and chanted "he's going to fall."

The opposition won control of the National Assembly in a December election, propelled by voter anger over product shortages, raging inflation that has annihilated salaries, and rampant violent crime, but the legislature has been routinely undercut by the Supreme Court.


"A TIME BOMB"

Protests are on the rise and a key poll shows nearly 70 percent of Venezuelans now say Maduro must go this year.

Maduro has vowed to see his term through, however, blasting opposition politicians as coup-mongering elitists seeking to emulate the impeachment of fellow leftist Dilma Rousseff in Brazil.

Saying trouble-makers were fomenting violence to justify a foreign invasion, Maduro on Saturday ordered military exercises for next weekend.

"We're going to tell imperialism and the international right that the people are present, with their farm instruments in one hand and a gun in the other... to defend this sacred land," he boomed at a rally.

He added the government would take over idled factories, without providing details.

Critics of Maduro, a former union leader and bus driver, say he should instead focus on people's urgent needs.

"There will be a social explosion if Maduro doesn't let the recall referendum happen," said protester Marisol Dos Santos, 34, an office worker at a supermarket where she says some 800 people queue up daily.

But the opposition fear authorities are trying to delay a referendum until 2017, when the presidency would fall to the vice president, a post currently held by Socialist Party loyalist Aristobulo Isturiz.

"If you block this democratic path we don't know what might happen in this country," two-time presidential candidate Henrique Capriles said at the demonstration.

"Venezuela is a time bomb that can explode at any given moment."


(Writing by Alexandra Ulmer; Editing by Alistair Bell)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Germany to Spend 93.6 Billion Euros on Migrants – More Than Double Its Defense Budget
Started by thompsoný, Yesterday 07:44 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...igrants-–-More-Than-Double-Its-Defense-Budget

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/05/15/merkels-folly-most-germans-want-islam-out/

Trending

Merkel's Folly: Most Germans Want Islam Out

By Michael Walsh May 15, 2016
80 comments

The price of moral preening:

Chancellor Angela Merkel's public calls for tolerance and inclusivity are increasingly falling on deaf ears, a new survey into Germany's attitudes towards Islam shows.

A new poll shows almost two-thirds of Germans think Islam does not "belong" in their country. In a marked increase from a similar survey conducted six years ago in which a minority of Germans (47 per cent) thought Islam had no place in their nation, the latest poll shows the figure is now at 60 per cent.

That survey was provoked by then-President Christian Wulff's assertion that Islam was a part of the German nation, which sparked a furious backlash from social commentators.

Chancellor Angela Merkel has repeated Mr Wulff's line on several occasions, but she has been undermined by her own interior minister', who publically stated that Islam "does not belong" in Germany.


They're right, of course. Islam does not belong in Germany, or anywhere in the Christian West. Since Charles Martel, Christians have had to fend off invasions by these people, at Tours, Lepanto, the gates of Vienna and elsewhere. Unluckier civilizations, such as the Persians, have fallen victim to the Arabs, the Turks and their savage god, with what results we can see across the globe. Modern, post-Christian European politicians may think religion no longer matters -- because it no longer matters to them -- but our Islamic enemies know better.

Alternative for Germany (AfD) is an anti-immigration party, whose representatives recently refused to applaud Germany's first Muslim speaker of a state parliament. A portion of their manifesto is titled "Islam is not party of Germany", in a direct response to Chancellor Merkel's public stance.

They write: "An orthodox form of Islam that does not respect our laws or even resists them, and makes a claim to be the only valid religion, does not correspond to our legal system and culture." The document also calls for a ban on minarets, burkhas and other "Islamic symbols of power".

Ninety-four per cent of AfD supporters responding to the survey said Islam did not belong in Germany, an opinion shared by 76% of those who support the centre-right Free Democratic Party.

It's small wonder that the "far-right" parties -- the socialist Left's word for patriotic political movements -- are on the rise. But even after their coming victories at the polls, in France, Austria and, soon enough, Germany, the damage done by Merkel and her ilk will take a very long time to undo.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/tu...es-again-1463346285-lMyQjAxMTI2MDEzNTQxMTU2Wj

Turkish Military’s Influence Rises Again

A force that once ousted civilian leaders now shapes President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s moves in Syria and against Kurdish insurgents at home

By Dion Nissenbaum
Updated May 15, 2016 7:37 p.m. ET
4 COMMENTS

ISTANBUL—After 13 years of being methodically marginalized during Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s tenure atop Turkish politics, the army is regaining its clout as the president sidelines his political rivals.

Turkey’s military, which has forced four civilian governments from power since 1960, is re-emerging as a pivotal actor alongside Mr. Erdogan, who has long viewed the army as a potentially dangerous adversary.

Mr. Erdogan’s moves to sideline political opponents—he forced out his handpicked prime minister this month amid a power struggle—has cleared the way for Turkey’s generals to play a greater role in shaping Mr. Erdogan’s attempts to extend his global influence.

Turkish generals are tempering Mr. Erdogan’s push to send troops into Syria, managing a controversial military campaign against Kurdish insurgents, and protecting Turkey’s relations with Western allies who view the president with suspicion. By steering clear of politics, they re-emerged as a central player in national security decisions.

“The Turkish military is the only agent that wants to put on the brakes and create checks-and-balances against Erdogan,” said Metin Gurcan, a former Turkish military officer who now works as an Istanbul-based security analyst.

It is in Syria where the military is most clearly acting as a check on the president. When Mr. Erdogan last year debated sending Turkish forces into Syria to set up a safe zone for those fleeing the fighting, military leaders expressed strong reservations, former Turkish officials and allies of Mr. Erdogan said. That, they said, helped put the idea on hold.

The debate returned last week when Mr. Erdogan threatened to send Turkish troops into Syria to end weeks of Islamic State rocket attacks on a Turkish border town.

Sending large numbers of combat troops into Syria is still a hard sell for the military, allies of Mr. Erdogan and U.S. officials said. If Turkey were to act without the support of the U.S. and its other North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, the military fears its soldiers could be bombed by Russian jets and would face international condemnation.

“This is a very realistic headquarters. They know what Turkey’s armed forces are capable of. They’re not adventurous,” said Can Kasapoglu, a defense analyst with the Center for Economic and Foreign Policy Studies, a Turkish think tank.

The Turkish military and Mr. Erdogan’s press office both declined to discuss their relationship.

The restoration of the Turkish army’s influence has resurrected concerns all the way up to the presidential palace that generals might try to topple Mr. Erdogan, a polarizing figure whose extensive crackdown on domestic dissent has triggered alarm in Western capitals, according to people familiar with the matter.

As commander-in-chief, Mr. Erdogan oversees National Security Council meetings, appoints the head of the military, decides how to use the second-largest standing army in NATO, and is a pivotal player in shaping Turkey’s military decisions.

Speculation about a military coup reached a fever pitch in late March, when Turkish media reports suggested the Obama administration was trying to topple Mr. Erdogan. The rumors led to a terse exchange at the State Department, where a Turkish reporter asked spokesman John Kirby whether the U.S. was working to bring down Mr. Erdogan.

“Are we trying to overthrow the government of Turkey? Is that your question?” Mr. Kirby said. “It is such a ridiculous claim and charge that I am not going to dignify it with an answer.”

Mr. Kirby’s response did little to damp speculation. Allies of Mr. Erdogan privately wondered if the U.S. had a covert plan to topple the president, according to the people familiar with the matter.

Two days later, while Mr. Erdogan was in Washington, the Turkish military released an unusual statement rejecting “baseless” speculation about a coup.

“There can be no talk about any illegal action that is outside the command structure, or which compromises it,” the military said.

Many saw the statement as a clear sign that Turkey’s generals were trying to avoid being cast as a new generation of coup plotters—accusations that have sent hundreds of army officers to jail under Mr. Erdogan’s rule.

“They are trying to keep themselves away from military involvement in day-to-day Turkish politics,” said Mr. Kasapoglu, the defense analyst.

That wasn’t the case when Mr. Erdogan and his Islamist-oriented Justice and Development Party, or AKP, won a decisive parliamentary victory in 2002. His ascent delivered a blow to the secular and military elite that had dominated the predominantly Muslim country.

In 2007, the military threatened to intervene in a political dispute over appointing AKP co-founder Abdullah Gul to be president. A year later, Turkish investigators said they had uncovered a five-year-old coup plot led by soldiers, academics and politicians. Hundreds were arrested and sent to jail. Two years later, authorities said they had broken up another plot, this one led by current and former military officers. Hundreds of defendants were sentenced to long prison terms.

While critics denounced the cases as show-trials, the sentences effectively neutralized the Turkish military. “Turkey is no longer a country where whomever gets up early in the morning can deliver a coup d’état,” Mr. Erdogan proclaimed in 2012.

Last month, a Turkish appeals court threw out the convictions of 275 people, including top generals, who had been accused in the 2008 case.

As the next generation of Turkish military officers has moved to rebuild, it has established strong ties with the U.S. and NATO, which are working closely with Turkey in the fight against Islamic State.

“The military-military relationship is traditionally the strongest the U.S. government has with Turkey,” said one U.S. official. “Now perhaps more than ever.”

The Turkish military is playing an increasingly vital role fighting Islamic State. Mr. Erdogan and Turkey’s generals agreed last year to allow the U.S. and its allies to carry out airstrikes against the extremist group out of Incirlik Air Base, not far from the Syrian border. Turkey has sent thousands of troops to the border, where they are trying to shut down routes Islamic State is using to send terrorists to European capitals.

U.S. military and diplomatic officials credit Turkey’s top general, Hulusi Akar, with boosting the military’s influence. Mr. Akar, chief of the general staff, speaks English and served in various NATO posts where he established close ties with his military counterparts.

Mr. Akar, who took the post in August, also has a strong relationship with Mr. Erdogan, and served this past weekend as an official witness when a defense-industry scion married one of the president’s daughters.

After announcing his decision to step aside following the power struggle with Mr. Erdogan, former Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu met with Mr. Akar at Turkey’s military headquarters.

“One of the main reasons that Turkey looks to the future with confidence in a democratic system, despite lots of regions in crisis around it, is the Turkish General Staff,” Mr. Davutoglu said. “Whether it is the issue of terrorism within our borders or instabilities emerging out of Syria and Iraq, Turkish Armed Forces represented our country’s power and might.”

--

Change at the Top

Turkey’s military has forced out four civilian governments since 1960 and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has sidelined political rivals in recent years. Some political clashes have acquired names over the years

1960: The military seized power after an Islamist-leaning government declared martial law. Prime Minister Adnan Menderes was executed for treason

Coup By Memorandum,’ 1971: Amid protests and economic stagnation, Turkey’s top general issued a memorandum demanding changes that forced a center-right prime minister to resign. The military installed a caretaker government.

1980: In a period of political instability, Gen. Kenan Evren announced a coup on national television, and ruled as president for nine years.

‘Post-Modern Coup,’ 1997: After the establishment of an Islamist-leaning government, the military demanded changes to protect secular values. Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan ceded power

‘E-Coup,’ 2007: Then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his ruling party sought to elevate a co-founder of the Islamist-leaning party to the presidency. The military issued a statement—later dubbed the E-Coup—threatening to intervene if Turkey’s secular character was altered.

2010: Turkish police arrested hundreds of current and former military officials accused of plotting to overthrow Mr. Erdogan’s government. Hundreds were sent to jail, but the cases eventually crumbled

‘Palace Coup,’ 2016: After losing a power struggle with Mr. Erdogan, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu decided to step aside. Critics of Mr. Erdogan called it a “palace coup” that would let the president consolidate power.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Right out of the 1970s Red Brigades and others play book; I'm kind of surprised they weren't pushing this harder quite a while ago....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/15/al-qaedas-online-magazine-tells-terrorists-to-targ/

Al Qaeda’s online magazine tells terrorists to target U.S. business leaders in their homes

By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Sunday, May 15, 2016

Al Qaeda's Inspire online magazine is calling on jihadis to damage the American economy by killing business leaders and entrepreneurs in their homes.

Articles in the May 14 edition, its 15th, also urge radical Islamic terrorists to emulate the Palestinian street-killings of Jews by walking up to Americans and stabbing them to death.

Inspire's cover carries the headline "Professional Assassinations" and the subhead "Home Assassinations." It depicts the dark profile of a hooded killer stalking a victim who lives in an upscale American home.

A photo montage shows Microsoft founder Bill Gates, a pistol and spattered blood.

The kill list represents a different kind of target compared with the ultraviolent Islamic State, which has urged the killings of U.S. military personnel via assassination. Both Sunni extremist groups advocate mass killings.

The periodical is published by al Qaeda's main affiliate, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), whose priority from its base in Yemen is to attack the U.S. homeland.

With Inspire, al Qaeda was the first Islamic terrorist group to exploit the Internet's reach by publishing and distributing a sort of trade publication on the killing business. The Islamic State has taken use of the Internet to new heights with mass distribution of propaganda on social media and with terrorist communication hidden on encrypted apps. The Islamic State also sends out an online publication on savagery, called Dabiq.

The Middle East Media Research Institute quotes Inspire's editor, Yahya Ibrahim: "The prophet ordered the killing of many criminal leaders using this method ... And here we are, following the footsteps of the prophet on how he dealt with his enemies and friends."

"We will never put down our weapons until we fulfill what Allah wants from us. We are determined to keep fighting and striking Americans with operations by organized jihadi groups and by Lone Jihad, [and] pursuing America in its homeland — by the will of Allah," he is quoted as saying.

Said a MEMRI analysis: "The issue ... provides detailed information and instructions on preparing for and carrying out various targeted assassinations. It stresses that an assassin should possess different options to carry out an attack, which gives him or her a greater chance for success, and elevates the operation to a more 'professional' level."

Another magazine section is devoted to bomb-making, a AQAP specialty. The cell has been trying to develop bombs that a can defeat airport security screening.

There is a photo display of how to fit explosives inside a pipe joint and place it inside the cut-out of a book.

AQAP developed the "underwear bomb" carried by Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on a flight to Detroit. Passengers subdued him as he attempted to ignite the plastic explosive on Christmas Day 2009.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2016/05/16/a_us_strategy_beyond_the_cold_war_111854.html

A U.S. Strategy Beyond the Cold War

By George Friedman
May 16, 2016
Comments 13

This piece was created in collaboration with Geopolitical Futures. George Friedman is the Founder and Chairman of Geopolitical Futures. The views expressed are the author's own.


The United States became the only global power in 1991. In the 45 years prior, it had been locked in a swirling global struggle for primacy with the Soviet Union, and at many moments it did not look like the United States was going to win. Before that, since about the turn of the 20th century, the United States was an emerging power, finding its place in a violent world.

In 1991, the United States had to come to terms with a new role. The collapse of the Soviet Union took the U.S. by surprise. Washington’s strategy during the Cold War was to create a complex alliance structure for both military and economic affairs. It embedded its forces in military alliances, and it focused on the development of trading structures designed to entice other countries away from the Soviet Union and into the U.S.-led trading system. The United States was prepared to trade economic advantage for an enhanced alliance. It was also prepared for asymmetric military alliances in which the United States provided the bulk of the resources, and its allies provided far less than they could have.

Since the United States saw itself as caught in a global struggle with strategic and moral dimensions, this imbalance made sense. What also made sense was the use of U.S. forces not only to guarantee the security of the alliance, but to act in direct military operations with minimal support from allies. From the Korean and Vietnam wars to the crises in Lebanon in 1958 and Grenada in 1983, as well as endless covert operations, the United States waged a global war of varying intensity against Communism.

The United States was driven both by national interest and by its historical reading of the Munich Agreement, which was meant to appease the Germans by allowing them to annex parts of Czechoslovakia. The failure of Munich to prevent World War II was understood by the United States as the result of appeasement and of the failure of the United States to join the Anglo-French alliance sooner. Therefore, during the Cold War, America’s strategy was to constantly refuse to reach accommodation, while attempting to increase the number of its allies. The lessons of World War II became the strategy of the Cold War. It worked in the end. A nuclear war did not erupt, and that is the measure of a successful national strategy.

The True Asymmetry

Since the Cold War, the United States has been at a loss to define its national strategy. It attempted to respond to 9/11 as it did to Pearl Harbor, with a multi-theater campaign built on conventional force. It tried to create an alliance structure to support its efforts. It retained the Munich lesson as the core element of its strategy. But this approach has not worked. Transferring the lessons of World War II and the Cold War to the war against Islamist radicalism cannot succeed. Using the U.S. strategy developed from Dec. 7, 1941 to Dec. 31, 1991 to respond to Sept. 11, 2001 was the true asymmetry of the past 15 years.

The world that created NATO, the International Monetary Fund, and other multilateral structures collapsed 25 years ago. The United States has tried to make the artifacts of the past serve its present purpose, both out of habit and out of a fear that, in moving beyond these institutions, it will lapse back into what it sees as the worst possible strategy: isolationism. But it is important to bear in mind that the United States was never isolationist. This was a term of opprobrium used against those who wanted to avoid involvement in a second European conflict.

During the time it was debating isolationism, the United States was deeply involved in Asia, supporting China against Japan. It was hardly isolationist. There was a general sense in the United States after World War I that American intervention did nothing to solve the European problem, and that being drawn into another protracted and brutal European war did not serve the American interest. It was assumed that the European balance of power would block Germany and, in the event of war, lead to a repeat of the First World War and Germany’s defeat. Had France not collapsed in six weeks, but rather fought as it had in World War I, the American strategy would have been prudent. France's collapse created an outcome no one was prepared for. It also changed the strategic equation, and ultimately it changed American strategy.

The U.S. strategy had been to focus on Asia and allow the European balance to work itself out. This strategy has something to teach us today. The intrusion of a major American force is not the first step, but the final step, only to be taken when necessary. U.S. strategy in Asia and Europe during World War II depended on the interests of regional powers and their ability to limit each other. The United States provided aid, but it did not become the guarantor of Asia and Europe against Japan and Germany until this became necessary because the balance of power collapsed.

The United States is enormously powerful, but it is not omnipotent. It is not capable of leading the world through direct force. Neither the British nor the Romans used their own military force as the primary means of governing. Rather, they used the conflicts that raged within their future empires as the basis of their power. The British did not occupy India with a million troops. They used the conflicts among competing powers to increase British power by supporting certain factions against others. They used economic relations as incentives and raised native Indian armies, with British advisers and commanders, to achieve their ends. They did not use main force as their primary tool in pursuing their interests. Had they done so, they would have exhausted themselves far earlier than they did.

The question the United States has faced since 1991 is how to manage its power. The World War II/Cold War model has not worked in the Middle East, because the United States lacks sufficient force to pacify these countries after it destroys their conventional militaries. The alliances it developed during the Cold War also have no relevance in the new global model. These alliances lack the force and motivation to provide strategically significant strength in the new reality. The United States has proceeded as if the old strategy still serves its purposes. It does not.

Certainly, the United States has an interest in the Middle East, but it is not nearly as great as the interests of Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel -- countries distrustful of each other and unable to leave the region. Using this dynamic between the region's major powers to shape the Middle East is in keeping with traditional imperial strategy and is far more likely to work. Similarly, the Europeans have a growing interest in the region. The United States must make it clear that it will not be the prime force in the Middle East but that it might, at its discretion, support European efforts. And if the Europeans fail to build a force that can act, they will have to live with the consequences.

A Strategy for a Mature Power

Being the only global power means the United States is involved everywhere. But given the limits of power, it cannot be the primary actor everywhere. The breadth of interest requires an economy of force and attention. U.S. policy in the interwar period was appropriate for that period. The Cold War strategy was appropriate during the Cold War. But the interwar strategy could not be used during the Cold War, nor can the Cold War strategy be used now.

Therefore, Cold War institutions and concepts have to be re-examined. Chief among them is the assumption that a fixed alliance structure benefits the United States, and that commitment to complex multilateral trade and financial relations born of the Cold War benefits America. This isn't to say that alliances and trade and financial relations aren't necessary. But the necessity of such relationships, in general, does not mean that the arrangements that worked in the Cold War are the way those alliances and relationships should be structured.

The United States emerged from the Cold War in a state of surprise. It has never fully adapted to the post-Cold War world, and in particular to the need for a different strategy. The U.S. currently has a problem defining what issues matter to the country, and recognizing that many, if not most, don't matter. In this period, the core principle of U.S. strategy should be that the United States has few overriding interests, and when it shares these interests with others, those others must take the prime responsibility and risk in managing them.

The world's only global power cannot take responsibility for the stability of the world. To try is to fail. It can support and, in important matters, involve itself. But it does not have the power to manage the world, nor the interest. Thus, we need a new foreign policy based on the limits of American power and interest -- and a will to act when those interests are challenged. It is a strategy of subtlety and not of main force. It is a strategy for a mature power, which we are not yet, but which we must become.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435374/mary-beards-spqr-history-ancient-rome

Are We Going the Way of Rome?

SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, by Mary Beard (Liveright, 608 pp., $35) and Dynasty: The Rise and Fall of the House of Caesar, by Tom Holland (Doubleday, 512 pp., $30)
By Michael Auslin — May 14, 2016

The insatiable appetite of broadcast media for compelling images has elevated Americans’ brawling at political rallies to a central place in the 2016 campaign. Whenever adjudication of political differences happens in the streets — instead of inside the voting booth — or with fists (or appears likely to do so), democracy is imperiled. If elections are swayed by those who feel entitled to riot, or to threaten or silence their political opponents, as do some Black Lives Matter protesters and some Donald Trump supporters alike, then we might indeed be embarking on a path that will result in traumatic changes to the American political system.

Degradation of republican institutions is not a new phenomenon. A mirror to the coalescing upheavals in America today is provided by that all-too-familiar doppelgänger, Rome. Last decade, anguish over the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq spawned shelves of books and reams of articles on how America had become a new Rome, risking overstretch and blowback. This decade, it might well be the image of a crumbling republic that invites the most comparison with events of two millennia ago. Perhaps it is precisely because of the timeless fascination of decline and fall that Rome remains a topic of endless discussion after more than 20 centuries.

Two new scholarly, yet popular, treatments of Rome may resonate particularly in America’s current time of troubles. The Cambridge don and public intellectual Mary Beard, in her sweeping SPQR, and the classicist Tom Holland, in his highly dramatic Dynasty, delve into the wicked doings and unending drama of a civilization almost unsettlingly modern. Complementing other recent Roman histories, such as Adrian Goldsworthy’s Augustus (2014) and Barry Strauss’s The Death of Caesar (2015), they explore the crucial moments of transformation and reconstruction in the Roman sociopolitical sphere. What each reveals, in the reading that we should care most about in light of our looming election, is the eternal, yet banal, lesson that national elites can ignore deep social divisions while steadily rigging the system in their favor for only so long before the plebeians catch on. Once that happens, only the most ruthless, cunning, and daring will emerge when the dust settles.

Idiosyncratically, Beard begins her history with the conspiracy of Catiline in 63 b.c., the event that marked the high point of the orator Marcus Tullius Cicero’s career. If she were going to flout standard chronology, one might have expected her to begin in 44 b.c., with Julius Caesar’s assassination, or possibly with the murders of the people’s champions, the Gracchus brothers, in 133 and 121 b.c. But Beard’s work is not intended as a straightforward chronicle; it is, rather, a triumph of interpretation. More than with any treatment since, perhaps, Edith Hamilton’s classic The Roman Way (1932), Beard’s readers will understand Rome, but how much they will know about Rome is another question.

But first, back to Catiline. Beard is careful to note that we might not be able to learn much directly from Rome’s travails, but our engagement with them can nonetheless teach us a great deal. Thus, the Catilinarian conspiracy is a good fit for our current national mood, as it reflected the desperation of many ordinary citizens during yet another financial crisis in Rome and their apparent willingness to support the violent schemes of a flamboyant (though bankrupt) member of the Roman elite. Anger at the vast fortunes amassed by the top slice of society, and a lack of faith in the political system, spurred on Catiline and his supporters. Yet just as important as the political programs of both Catiline the rebel and Cicero the defender was the way in which the public debates were dominated by the idea of what Rome was supposed to be. It was both to Jupiter and to Rome’s mythical founder Romulus that Cicero appealed in his peroration against Catiline. This appeal to ideals and origins also drives much of America’s current political contest.

The continuing power of foundational images is striking in both the Roman and the American case. Few Britons refer today to King Arthur when arguing over Brexit, nor do Japanese often invoke the sun goddess Amaterasu when debating fiscal policy. Yet the appeal to the idea of Rome as defined by its origins recurred at moments of great national drama, as the similar idea of America still does in U.S. politics. In each, the founding myth (or calling) is based on a perilous journey and the dangers faced in establishing a divinely inspired land.

Consider, for example, the opening lines of the Aeneid (in Robert Fagles’s magnificent translation):


Wars and a man I sing — an exile
driven on by Fate,

. . .

before he could found a city,
bring his gods to Latium, source of the
Latin race,
the Alban lords and the high walls of
Rome.

Compare Virgil’s paean to the Augustan Roman spirit with the Puritan John Winthrop’s famous 1630 sermon, “A Modell of Christian Charity,” which he delivered onboard his ship crossing the Atlantic to what would become Massachusetts Bay:

Wee must Consider that wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill, the eies of all people are uppon us; soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our god in this worke wee have undertaken and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us, wee shall be made a story and a byword through the world.

The divine strain is strong in both — the presumption that it is the gods who will bless or curse the endeavor and thus the responsibility of the citizen to shoulder the unending burden.

That’s not the only way the two foundation stories rhyme: Beard reminds us that Rome was, from its start, a city of immigrants, invited by the mythical founder Romulus. She ends her story just as idiosyncratically as she began it: in a.d. 212, when the emperor Caracalla bestowed citizenship on every free male of the Roman Empire. In Rome’s granting of citizenship and its responsibilities to ever wider groups of foreigners, and in the attendant battles over the definition of just what it meant to be a Roman, a modern American will see more than a distant echo of his own country’s path to greatness, as well as of its current political disputes.

Beard does her best to bring to life the often invisible plebeians, women, and slaves of the empire. But the reader will come away with only a basic knowledge of how the Roman army evolved, though historians from H. H. Scullard to Adrian Goldsworthy have identified the military as perhaps the main element of Rome’s sociopolitical system. The centuries-long development of Rome’s distinctive political mechanisms is deftly sketched but not explored in detail. At the end, a sympathetic reader may well feel what it was like to be Roman but he will have little understanding of how it all came to be.

The focus of both Beard and Holland on how a city-state empire at its height succumbed to the machinations of selfish strongmen and the violent outbursts of citizens who no longer believed that the republican system looked out for their interests will resonate painfully with today’s readers. Roman politics throughout the first century b.c. descended into a battle among self-interested groups that were made cohesive by clan and patronage loyalty. It was only when the ideal of the republic had been fatally undermined by the clash of private armies led by Julius Caesar and Pompey, and when Rome was terrorized by politically active gangs of thugs, that all pretense could be dropped. Caesar, and even more so his successor Octavian (Augustus), gained popular support not only because of their military victories but also because they offered a new idea of Rome that was becoming apparent below the veneer of tradition.

In contrast to Beard’s impressionistic approach, Holland paints like a Dutch Master, meticulously detailing how one family monopolized power in the greatest empire in history and then precipitously lost it. The author of Rubicon, a fine popular work on the fall of the Roman republic, Holland here shows a family drama as a cautionary tale of what happens when personality takes over politics. As Rome suffered through a century of civil unrest and war, the new autocracy instituted by Augustus necessarily depended increasingly on the character of individual emperors. Such was the price paid by the former republic for stability after a century of increasing upheaval.

As Holland demonstrates in exquisite detail, while it took decades of civil war to destroy the republic, the intrusion of the image of the emperor into nearly every facet of daily life, from coinage to public statues, occurred in almost no time at all. The decisions that ruled the lives of the empire’s subjects were increasingly hidden from view, moved from the Forum to the imperial precincts on the Palatine Hill. A people that had prided itself for centuries on the public settlement of all questions affecting the republic quickly satisfied itself with a fictive political role at best, instead gorging on salacious stories and gossip about those who held absolute power and being entertained with the now proverbial bread and circuses. The enervation of the Roman spirit of liberty was complete by the time the Julio-Claudian dynasty died with the assassination of the abominable Nero in a.d. 68.

It is too easy to read into the past the roadmap of our future, and it would be unreasonable to contend that American politics is moving in the direction of imperial rule. No president yet has dared suggest he won’t pack up his suitcases at the end of his term. Yet an American public ignorant of public policy and how government works, following merely the most artfully packaged disinformation from leaders of both parties and a partisan press while more interested in sports and entertainment, is complicit in the attenuation of its freedom. At the same time, there are indeed worrying signs about the public veneration of our leaders: The beatification of Barack Obama severed popular opinion about a political leader from reality for perhaps the first time in American history (except, maybe, for JFK). The aggrandizement of the presidency has been occurring for decades, and this distorting trend is steadily chipping away at the Constitution.

The phenomenon of Trumpism is another step in the process of the triumph of personality over ability and experience, and the gutter battles now being fought over the candidates’ families is a sign of depravity among political “professionals” that the Romans would have known all too well. Should this not prove a temporary aberration in U.S. politics, a tale like Holland’s — of sanguinary plotting, brutal capriciousness, and the constant risk of upheaval — might gradually come to dominate the American political imagination. That alone would mark a tragic loss of the balance so carefully created by the Founding Fathers, a balance, ironically, based on the unwritten constitution of the Roman republic.

— Michael Auslin is the author of the forthcoming book The End of the Asian Century. This article originally appeared in the May 23, 2016, issue of National Review.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://geopoliticalfutures.com/power-and-ideology-chinas-cultural-revolution/

Power and Ideology: China’s Cultural Revolution

May 16, 2016 The Chinese Communist Party’s power does not stem from its ideology.

reality check-headerbar

By Jacob L. Shapiro

Fifty years ago, in May 1966, the Cultural Revolution began in China. Chairman Mao Zedong unleashed a decade of hell to purge the Chinese Communist Party of what he considered capitalist and traditionalist challenges to communist ideology and to his own power. However, 1966 was not the only year in Chinese history in which the month of May began a transformative revolution. On May 4, 1919, China erupted in protest at what it perceived as betrayal at Versailles. The May Fourth Movement, as it came to be called, is an amorphous term for the political, social and cultural developments that came as a result.

When Westerners think of the Treaty of Versailles, they often think of the harsh terms that were imposed on Germany that made World War II inevitable. But Versailles had ramifications in East Asia too. China had contributed large numbers of laborers and workers to the Allied cause in World War I and believed that an Allied victory would be an important step toward the end of imperialism and the beginning of Chinese national self-determination. Chinese delegates were greeted at Versailles with the announcement that Japan had entered into a secret agreement with Great Britain, France and Italy in 1917. In return for Japanese naval assistance against the Germans, Germany’s claims over Shandong were to be transferred to Japan. On April 30, 1919, the U.S., the U.K. and France recognized the Japanese claim.

To add insult to injury, Japan also revealed that China’s premier (read: chief warlord) from 1916 to 1918, Duan Qirui, had made a secret deal of his own with Japan, whereby Japan gained the right to station soldiers and police in two of Shandong’s cities and gained all of the income from two new Shandong railroads. The income from the railroads was given to Japan to help pay back the massive loans Duan Qirui had taken from Japan to enhance his military power. The Chinese citizens and students who poured into the streets on May 4 were boiling over with frustration about the imperial powers taking advantage of China yet again and the self-destructive political and military conflicts that prevented China from behaving in the interest of the nation, as opposed to the interest of whichever warlord could bring the most military force to bear at any given moment.

Three years later, in July 1921, the first plenary meeting of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was held in Shanghai. At the time, the CCP had fewer than 60 members spread throughout the country, and the leaders of the CCP could not attend the meeting, either because they didn’t think the meeting was important enough or because attending would have put them in physical danger. Karl Marx’s ideas had been translated into Chinese at the beginning of the 20th century and had met with some interest, and the newly constituted Soviet Union was hard at work in encouraging the development of the CCP. But the CCP was hardly a strong political force compared to the various warlords ruling different parts of China or Sun Yat-sen’s Guomindang (National Party of China).

Had we been writing in 1921, would we have forecast that 28 years later, after Japan invaded China, World War II and the Chinese Civil War, that the CCP would declare the creation of the People’s Republic of China and preside over one of the most unified periods of Chinese history? That China and Japan were on the road to military conflict was abundantly clear – they had just fought a war in 1894 and 1895 in which the Qing Dynasty had been humiliated and now Japan wanted China’s material wealth. World War II also would have been possible to predict, and many did at the time. Germany was the core of the problem, and the terms at Versailles didn’t fix the problem, they exacerbated it. And predicting civil war in China would have been just predicting the status quo would continue, which, when in doubt, is the easiest thing to predict. But could our methodology have seen that the 13 delegates of the CCP who met in 1921 set in motion a process that would change China and the world?

For better or for worse, this is not a question we will ever be able to answer definitively. However, it brings up a deeper question about the relationship between ideology and geopolitics. China, then as now, was a country with a massive population, where the majority of people lived as farmers or artisans in general poverty. (In 1920, the American Geographical Society estimated China’s population at roughly 316 million; Chinese historian Jonathan Spence puts the number above 400 million.) The backdrop of the CCP’s beginning was a massive influx of foreign investment and economic expansion in China, despite the instability that reigned in the country. The value of Chinese imports and exports tripled between 1912 and 1928, according to Spence. Production of coal, iron and steel also increased dramatically. And every year, hundreds of thousands of Chinese nationals were leaving the countryside to find opportunities in China’s industrializing cities.

The ideology of the CCP, and of Maoism later, gave voice to changes that were reshaping Chinese society. It was better than any other ideology or political program at the time at articulating an underlying reality that was already changing. For the hundreds of millions of Chinese peasants and workers who either hadn’t heard the news of the Allied betrayal or wouldn’t have cared, the CCP had a potent message. Back in 1919, in an essay titled “To the Glory of the Hans,” Mao wrote that “the greatest force is that of the union of the popular masses.” However, the previous line is arguably more telling: “What is the greatest question in the world? The greatest question is that of getting food to eat.” The CCP was telling these Chinese nationals that the power was theirs, and that if they would only exert it, the struggle to put food on the table could be overcome. Survival is a first order concern. Ideology takes advantage of it.

It may not have been possible to anticipate that the CCP would find the right timbre and tone in speaking to the Chinese people that would allow it to rapidly swell its ranks. The Guomindang for a time was stronger, with its own compelling message and organizational structure – the CCP and Guomindang oscillated between cooperation and fighting because both needed the other. It would have been possible, however, to see the changes that were reshaping China’s economy. It would have been possible to see the millions of Chinese workers who were coming from the countryside and had never encountered anything like the industrial jobs for which they were hoping to be hired – and to see the CCP at the ground level trying to organize them. It would have been possible to see that foreign companies – particularly British, American, German and Japanese companies – were reaping the benefits of China’s economic expansion, and that both political and military fighting was preventing China from claiming those benefits for itself. It also kept China from defending itself against foreign attacks, to disastrous effect in the Second Sino-Japanese War from 1937 to 1945, which would lead to the death of tens of millions of Chinese citizens and occupation of much of the country by Japan.

When thinking about ideology, it is possible to get trapped in a chicken-egg cycle. Which came first – the ideology or some fundamental change that altered the playing field entirely and necessitated a new way of making sense of the world? There are two ways out of this trap. The first is to realize that the changes that remake the world, for the most part, do not happen overnight. These changes are long processes, which can stretch hundreds of years, though they can develop intensely in the course of a few weeks and then move in barely perceptible gradations either forward or backward for decades. The second is to realize the importance of ideology without being seduced by its claim to be all-encompassing. Ideology can be immensely powerful. It helped the CCP grow into the over 85-million-member group it is today and gave China a shared vocabulary for unification. But ideology is meaningless if it cannot help large groups of people understand their situation and give them a view of how to improve it. Without a host, ideology is harmless. And more often than not, ideology is a symptom – not a cause.

So could we have predicted the rise of the CCP? The answer, I think, is no. No one could, and if someone had I would have called it luck (though it is sometimes better to be lucky than good). But could we have predicted the various international conflicts in which China was involved, and could we have predicted that the status quo in China was untenable – that eventually someone would rise to unite the fractured country and drive out the foreign influences that were taking advantage of China’s weakness?

The answer to that, I believe, is yes. An understanding of China’s interests in 1921 make it clear that China would unify. That same understanding allows us to say today that there are limits to China’s power. For hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens, the current path will lead not to personal gain but to hard economic times, and President Xi Jinping is attempting to reinvigorate the CCP’s ideological foundations because, in the last 30 years, they have become obsolete. Xi may be able to buy himself time by appealing to public virtue as he searches for new ideas. But the CCP knows better than anyone that the source of its power is not in its words or in its communist principles, but in its ability to protect China from harm and to put food on the table.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art..._insurance_policy_nuclear_weapons_109364.html

May 16, 2016

The Nation's Ultimate Insurance Policy: Nuclear Weapons

By Adam Lowther
Comments 3

Since its January 5 test of a thermonuclear weapon, North Korea has conducted additional tests of its ballistic missile delivery systems. According to South Korean media, it is believed that the Kim regime will conduct another underground nuclear test in the near future.

If this news were not concerning enough, China recently warned its neighbors against interfering with its militarization of a number of atolls in the South China Sea, which are being transformed into small islands unsettlingly close to the Philippines and Vietnam.

Simultaneously, Russia is sabre rattling in Eastern Europe with an increasingly aggressive posture that leads many within NATO to believe that the possibility for the use of tactical nuclear weapons is at a twenty year high.. For the United States, this is not good news because Russia maintains a clear superiority in tactical nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

As Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work noted in congressional testimony, “While we seek a world without nuclear weapons, we face the hard reality that Russia and China are rapidly modernizing their already-capable nuclear arsenals, and North Korea continues to develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them against the continental United States.”

This rather glum news only highlights the importance of the American nuclear arsenal at a time when many are calling for the President and Congress to allow the existing arsenal to decay into retirement. The problem with this thinking is that not a single adversary of the United States with the ability to threaten the nation with grave destruction seems to be willing to allow their own nuclear arsenals decay into retirement.

Secretary Work made this point clear, “The choice right now is modernizing or losing deterrent capability in the 2020s and 2030s.” He added, “That's the stark choice we're faced with.” For those familiar with the intelligence concerning the nuclear developments of our adversaries, unilateral reductions and further disarmament are a non-starter.

Unfortunately, the misleading ideas of those who advocate “a world free of nuclear weapons” are receiving serious contemplation despite the fact that dollar for dollar no weapon system the United States maintains in its arsenal provides the nation greater security.

Advocates of the nuclear arsenal do not help their own cause when they cede the moral high ground to nuclear abolitionists by lamenting the very creation of nuclear weapons. All too often even the staunchest of nuclear weapons proponent will say, “I wish nuclear weapons had never been invented.” This is followed with, “You can’t put the genie back in the bottle.”

For those who value human life and abhor war, the existence of nuclear weapons has done more to promote peace that anything else. They are likely the single greatest tool of peace man has ever invented.

Nuclear weapons are valuable in promoting peace and stability because they play a significant role in the approximately ninety percent reduction in conflict related fatalities that began in 1945 and continue to the present. Let me explain.

According to an analysis conducted by the U.S. Strategic Command, between 1600 and 1945 an average of 1-2% of the world’s population perished as a result of conflict every year—combatants and civilians. After the invention of the atomic bomb, that percentage declined to around one tenth to three tenths of one percent of the global population. While there are a number of variables that can affect conflict related fatalities, the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons is the single most important variable.

The simple fact is nuclear weapons deter their possessors from waging war against one another. They not only deter nuclear war, but conventional war as well. Since 1945 there has been a conspicuous absence of great power wars. This is no accident nor is it because mankind has become more pacific.

The deterrent effect of nuclear weapons does not end with nuclear powers. The United States and the Soviet Union, for example, often exerted a strong influence over their allies and client states, preventing smaller-scale conflicts from expanding or preventing them altogether. As a result, the past seven decades have seen a significant decline in interstate conflict.

In short, nuclear weapons give otherwise optimistic political leaders pause when it comes to waging any form of war. This point is often overlooked by those who argue that nuclear war is unlikely. Simply stated, the psychological effect nuclear weapons have causes nuclear powers to reconsider the costs and benefits of conflict. At the most basic level, nuclear weapons deter conflict and save lives.

They also have another positive effect. Nuclear weapons enable countries to spend less on defense and more on the welfare of their citizens—contrary to the assertions of nuclear abolitionists.

For example, during the Cold War, Europe’s NATO members were able to maintain a conventional force that was inferior to the Soviet Union’s. This was made possible by the American nuclear arsenal, which provided an umbrella of protection to member states. It effectively deterred the Soviet Union from using superior conventional forces for an invasion of Western Europe. Thus, Western Europe was able to focus on post-war recovery and improving the daily lives of average citizens. This was only possible because of nuclear weapons.

Had the atomic bomb never been invented, the nations of Western Europe would have spent far greater treasure on conventional military capabilities after World War II. This would have squeezed spending in areas such as education, healthcare, and housing. For Americans who value social welfare spending, nuclear weapons play a significant role at home and abroad in making additional funds available for the very programs they value.

The U.S. has unquestionably benefited from a cost-effective nuclear arsenal. With an annual cost of approximately $25-30 billion (2016), the entire nuclear enterprise costs a mere five percent of the defense budget, which is itself only seventeen percent of federal spending and less than eight percent of governmental spending. By preventing World War III for less than one tenth of one percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, the nuclear arsenal has allowed the United States to focus on economic growth and focus federal spending on education, national parks, roads, and elsewhere.

If we think of nuclear weapons as an insurance policy, which is really the purpose they serve, the average American car owner will spend $650-1150 per year on auto insurance, while that same person will spend approximately $221 on the nuclear arsenal—the ultimate sovereignty insurance. Similarly, the average American worker will spend—through employee and employer contributions—an estimated $6,025 in health insurance costs, all while still paying $221 for the very insurance that allows Americans to focus on more pleasant pursuits than a devastating attack on the United States.

Arguing that nuclear weapons are too expensive and that modernizing the force is unaffordable only makes sense in Beltway math. It does not make sense elsewhere in the United States. It is worth noting that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services reports that these two programs lose approximately twice as much money ($65 billion annually) each year to waste, fraud, and abuse as the nuclear arsenal costs American taxpayers. Yet articles are rarely written decrying this travesty.

While it may be unpleasant to view nuclear weapons in a positive light because of their ability to devastate entire nations, the simple truth is that this capability is what makes them such an effective insurance policy. Perhaps it is time the nation’s nuclear arsenal and those who operate it were given the credit they deserve for promoting the peace and stability that Americans have enjoyed for seventy years.


Dr. Adam B. Lowther is the Director of the School of Advanced Nuclear Deterrence Studies at Kirtland AFB.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/washingtons-imaginary-nuclear-arms-race-16190

The Buzz

Washington’s Imaginary Nuclear Arms Race

Today’s strategic environment is in fact much different than 30 years ago, though some of the actors and issues remain the same.

Matthew Costlow
May 13, 2016

The Cold War is back, if you believe some public commentators [4] at least. On one level, they are correct: current tensions between the United States and Russia over potential Russian territorial aggression in Europe, accusations of nuclear treaty violations, and whispers of a new nuclear arms race are certainly reminiscent of the Cold War of yesteryear.

But today’s strategic environment is in fact much different than 30 years ago, though some of the actors and issues remain the same. No longer is NATO worried about Soviet tanks pouring through the Fulda Gap into the heart of Europe; instead it now must plan for low intensity Russian aggression backed by a nuclear “first use [5]” strategy. Gone are the days of debating whether a Soviet radar [6] is allowable, replaced by concern that Russia is developing [7] a prohibited nuclear cruise missile.

And yet, one anachronism from the Cold War still remains in the public discourse, claims of Washington’s actions causing a nuclear arms race between the United States and Russia. This begs the questions, what constitutes an arms race and is the United States really about to start one?

Today Russia is leading in the expansion of all levels of its nuclear arsenal while U.S. nuclear weapon modernization plans, proposed and defended by the Obama administration, will keep the United States under the limit of 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads allowed by the New START Treaty. Following steep reductions in the number of deployed U.S. nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War, the United States has no plans to increase current numbers.

Yet some commentators who are stuck in a Cold War mindset claim that the Obama administration’s nuclear replacement programs are igniting a new nuclear arms race. President of Ploughshares Fund Joe Cirincione calls [8] on President Obama to stop nuclear modernization plans or “his nuclear policy legacy may be the launch of a terrifying arms race that threatens destruction far beyond the horrors committed by ISIS.” Others, like Tom Collina and Will Saetren, hold [9] that the United States is, “pursuing an excessive arsenal [that] runs the risk of igniting a new arms race with Russia that could needlessly undermine U.S. security.”

So are U.S. nuclear weapon programs to repair, replace, and modernize the nuclear triad of delivery systems (missiles, submarines, and bombers) and warheads really the opening salvo in an irrational game of nuclear one-upmanship? Recent history indicates otherwise.

In 1995, then-Secretary of Defense William Perry announced the findings of a Department of Defense review which determined [10] that “nuclear weapons are playing a smaller role in U.S. security than at any other time in the nuclear age.” The Nuclear Posture Reviews of the Bush administration (2002 [11]) and the Obama administration (2010 [12]) also stressed the reduced reliance on nuclear weapons in U.S. defense planning and policy.

But Russian officials moved their nuclear doctrine in the other direction, actually increasing reliance on their nuclear weapons, despite official U.S. policy. In the late 1990s, the CIA assessed [13] a shift in Russian nuclear doctrine that lowered the threshold of when nuclear weapons could be used in a conflict and allowed for Russian “first use” in order to “de-escalate” a conventional conflict. Today, these ideas are still central tenets of Russian nuclear strategy [5] as seen by Russian military exercises, which often end in simulated nuclear strikes, and nuclear threats against NATO members. Senior U.S. defense officials even speak openly about Russia’s “escalate to deescalate” approach saying [14] it “amounts to a reckless gamble for which the odds are incalculable and the outcome could prove catastrophic.”

Seeing no “arms race” in U.S. nuclear doctrine, what can we learn about the status of U.S and Russian nuclear weapon systems? There are five points to consider.

First, in terms of the number of warheads on each side, the only “arms racing” the United States and Russia have been doing since the end of the Cold War is in the downward direction, not upward. Since 1991, the United States [15] and Russia [16] have reportedly reduced their stockpiles by over 75% each.

Second, Russia clearly began [17] modernizing many of its nuclear weapon delivery systems in the late 1990s and into the 2000s, well before the United States even allocated serious funds to begin research and development on its own prospective systems. The most recent year the United States rolled out a new nuclear-delivery system was over 20 years ago [18] in 1994. The most recent year the Russia rolled out a new nuclear-delivery system was earlier this year [17] in 2016.

Third, U.S. nuclear modernization programs are explicitly designed and implemented in order to not start an arms race by staying under the limits [19] of the New START Treaty of 1,550 deployed warheads, which the United States is. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Russia which has actually built up its nuclear warhead numbers from its starting point below the treaty limits in 2011, when New START took effect, to well above treaty limits today. Russia has until February 2018 to get back below the treaty limits in the number of its deployed warheads, and it may indeed comply, but the trend lines [20] do not look good, and Russian cheating [7] on other nuclear treaties should not give the United States confidence.

Fourth, The United States has reduced the number of nonstrategic nuclear weapons it deployed in Europe from approximately [21] 7,000 in the 1970s to reportedly [18] about 180 today. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union maintained approximately [21] 20,000 nonstrategic nuclear weapons during the Cold War, and Russia today retains [22] between 2,000 and 4,000 nonstrategic nuclear weapons. Again, the United States has lead the way in nuclear reductions, but Russia does not appear to be following the U.S. example very closely.

Fifth, while U.S. officials report that Russia is pushing ahead to make smaller and more effective nuclear warheads each year, official U.S. policy is to not [12] design and build new nuclear warheads with new capabilities. Going even further, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and then-Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman wrote [23] nearly eight years ago that “…at present the United States does not have the ability to produce new nuclear weapons.” (Emphasis original) In the same report, the authors noted “The United States has not designed a new nuclear warhead since the 1980s and has not built a new warhead since the early 1990s.”

Russia on the other hand reportedly has little compunction about designing and building new nuclear warheads with variable yields and special effects. U.S. officials have stated [23] in this regard, “quite unlike the United States, Russia maintains a fully functional nuclear weapons design, development, test and manufacturing infrastructure capable of producing significant quantities of nuclear warheads per year.” One declassified CIA report [24] examined Russian development of “subkiloton nuclear warheads” after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russian officials have even openly discussed [5] developing precision-strike low-yield weapons, prospectively used as a “nuclear scalpel,” to deter Western military action. Clearly U.S. restraint in warhead design and development has not kept Russia from moving forward with its own warhead design programs.

To put all of this in perspective, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter recently responded to the idea that U.S. nuclear modernization programs are causing the Russians to act reflexively saying [25]:

But the Russians are also very rapidly modernizing their own nuclear arsenal. I don't associate that with what we're doing. I associate it with the dynamics of their own feelings that nuclear weapons are one of the only things that guarantee their status in the world… but they're fueling their own nuclear modernization. It's a mistake to think that we're fueling it.
In fact, Secretary Carter is echoing Secretary of Defense Harold Brown in 1979 speaking [26] about the Soviet nuclear program: “… when we build they build; when we cut they build.” It was true then and it is true now. So can it really be called a “nuclear arms race” if only one side is racing?

There may be an “action-reaction” dynamic in some aspects of international relations, but it is wrong to think that U.S. policies and programs are always the primary factors driving other nations’ nuclear policies.

Russia most-likely considers multiple factors when determining their nuclear force posture and size, including: fiscal constraints, future arms control commitments, perceived threat environment, adherence to international treaties, sensitivity to unknown future domestic and foreign developments, leadership desires, time constraints, regional and global goals, and adherence to grand strategy. While the U.S. nuclear force posture and policies may inform some of those considerations, it is clear that Russia makes its own calculations based on its own metrics, not just as a U.S.-induced knee-jerk reaction.

Instead of taking seriously the demonstrably false claims of a U.S.-instigated nuclear arms race, the United States should instead be focused on modernizing its nuclear forces to deter threats that are all too real, including Russia and China. As U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense Robert Scher testified [14] recently: “To be clear, our choice is not between keeping or modernizing the current forces. Rather, the choice is between modernizing those forces or watching a slow and unacceptable degradation in our ability to deter.” Analysts should let the newly rediscovered “arms race” rhetoric of the Cold War lie in the ash heap of history where it belongs.

Matthew R. Costlow is a policy analyst at the National Institute for Public Policy as well as a Nuclear Scholar with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. His work has previously appeared in the Journal of Comparative Strategy, The Wall Street Journal, Defense News, and The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Image: National Nuclear Security Administration via Wikimedia​ [27]



Hide The Buzz

Publication

Tags
United States [28]Russia [29]Cold War [30]Nuclear Arms Race [31]ICBM [32]SLBM [33]Nuclear [34]Nuclear weapons [35]war [36]Europe [37]NATO [38]Missile defense [39]
Topics
Nuclear Deterrence [40]
Regions
United States [41] [3]

Links:
[1] http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/washingtons-imaginary-nuclear-arms-race-16190
[2] http://nationalinterest.org/profile/matthew-costlow
[3] http://twitter.com/share
[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/science/atom-bomb-nuclear-weapons-hgv-arms-race-russia-china.html
[5] http://www.nipp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/FINAL-FOR-WEB-1.12.16.pdf
[6] http://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/25/w...-siberia-is-potentially-quite-vulnerable.html
[7] http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/rpt/2016/255651.htm
[8] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-cirincione/arms-race-us-russia-nuclear_b_8557526.html
[9] http://nationalinterest.org/feature/time-cut-americas-nuclear-triad-14650?page=show
[10] http://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/annual_reports/1995_DoD_AR.pdf
[11] http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/NCB/06-F-1586_Nuclear_Posture_Review.pdf
[12] http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/features/defenseReviews/NPR/2010_Nuclear_Posture_Review_Report.pdf
[13] http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0005460644.pdf
[14] http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Scher_02-09-16.pdf
[15] http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/241377.pdf
[16] http://bos.sagepub.com/content/69/5/75.full.pdf+html
[17] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1170359
[18] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1145901
[19] http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/rpt/2016/255651.htm#New START Treaty
[20] http://www.armscontrol.org/blog/Arm...an-to-Keep-New-START-Data-Exchange-Numbers-Up
[21] https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL32572.pdf
[22] http://fas.org/irp/congress/2011_hr/nw-posture.pdf
[23] http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/nuclearweaponspolicy.pdf
[24] http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0001260463.pdf
[25] http://www.vox.com/2016/4/13/11333276/ash-carter-transcript
[26] http://www.bartleby.com/73/400.html
[27] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Redwing_Apache.jpg
[28] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/united-states
[29] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/russia
[30] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/cold-war
[31] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/nuclear-arms-race
[32] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/icbm
[33] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/slbm
[34] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/nuclear
[35] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/nuclear-weapons
[36] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/war
[37] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/europe
[38] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/nato
[39] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/missile-defense
[40] http://nationalinterest.org/topic/nuclear-deterrence
[41] http://nationalinterest.org/region/americas/north-america/united-states
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
And the FUBAR continues.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eurozone-greece-bill-idUSKCN0Y71OD

Markets | Mon May 16, 2016 11:12am EDT
Related: World, Greece

Greek parliament to vote on bailout reforms on Sunday


Greece's parliament will vote on a new package of tax hikes and reforms demanded by its international lenders on Sunday, two days before euro zone finance ministers assess whether Athens qualifies for much-needed bailout loans.

The bill would increase value added tax by 1 percentage point to 24 percent, raise tax on fuel, tobacco and alcohol, liberalize the sale of banks' non-performing loans and detail the set-up a new privatization fund, government officials said.

It will also include details on a contingency mechanism to impose tighter austerity measures, which will be activated only if Greece misses its fiscal targets, the officials said on Monday.

The vote is expected to test Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras' left-led government, which has a thin majority of 153 lawmakers in the 300-seat parliament. Athens says that if activated, the contingency measures will not hurt the poor.

Passing the reforms before the Eurogroup meeting on May 24, is a demand of international lenders to wrap up the review which will unlock the next tranche of funds that Athens will use to pay IMF loans, state arrears and ECB bonds maturing in July.

Talks between Greece and the lenders -- the European Stability Mechanism, European Commission, European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund -- over the reforms have dragged on for months.

The delays have been mainly due to a rift between EU and IMF lenders over Greece's fiscal progress and the sustainability of its debt. The IMF believes that without debt relief or additional measures Athens will miss a bailout targets for 3.5 percent of GDP primary surplus in 2018.

Euro zone finance ministers have offered to grant Greece debt relief if the country delivers on all reforms agreed under its latest bailout.

Athens, which aims to tap markets in 2017, hopes that substantial debt relief will help attract investors and convince Greeks that their sacrifices are paying off after seven years of belt-tightening.

The conclusion of the review will also lead to the reinstatement of the European Central Bank's waiver for the country's banks. The ECB ditched its waiver on a minimum credit rating requirement on Greek debt last year, cutting off Greek banks from cheap lending.


(Reporting by Renee Maltezou and Lefteris Papadimas; Editing by Alison Williams)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.eurasiareview.com/150520...o-bolster-strategic-strike-capabilities-oped/

China Modernizes Nuclear Forces To Bolster Strategic Strike Capabilities – OpEd

By Dr. Abdul Ruff May 15, 2016

Maybe there has been a secret agenda to launch a nuclear war by US-led NATO. In a way as to beware of a possible strategic war by NATO powers by using strategic weapons, including nuke-abled missiles, China has launched modernization of its nuclear forces and keeping the nuclear and conventional arms in combat readiness.

In a report to Congress, the Pentagon informed that China is on its way to modernize its nuclear forces in order to and bolster its strategic strike capabilities. Detailing China’s nuclear power, Pentagon said the country was deploying new command, control and communications capabilities to its nuclear forces to improve control of multiple units in the field. According to the Pentagon, China is working on a range of technologies to attempt to counter the US and other countries’ ballistic missile defence systems, including maneuverable re-entry vehicles (MaRVs), MIRVs, decoys, chaff, jamming, and thermal shielding.

Obviously, the defence capabilities possessed by the big powers including USA and Russia are among the main factors driving China to modernize its nuclear force. Indian fast track in updating its nuke arsenals is yet another reason Beijing has decided to focus on it nukes as a priority.

China’s nuclear arsenal currently consists of approximately 75-100 ICBMs, including the silo-based CSS-4 Mod 2 (DF-5A) and Mod 3(DF-5B), the solid-fueled, road-mobile CSS-10 Mod 1 and Mod 2 (DF-31 and DF-31A), and the more-limited-range CSS-3 (DF-4). This force is complemented by road-mobile, solid-fueled CSS-5 Mod 6 (DF-21) MRBM for regional deterrence missions.

The Pentagon reported that China insists that the new generation of mobile missiles, with warheads consisting of multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) and penetration aids, are intended to ensure the viability of its strategic deterrent in the face of continued advances in the USA and, to a lesser extent, Russian strategic ISR (Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance), precision strike, and missile defence capabilities. “Similarly, India’s nuclear force is additional driver behind China’s nuclear force modernisation,” the Pentagon said in its report.

Through the use of improved communication links, ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) units now have better access to battlefield information and uninterrupted communications connecting all command echelons.

China has acknowledged that it tested a hypersonic glide vehicle in 2014. The country’s official media also cited numerous PLASAF (Peoples Liberation Army Second Artillery Force) training exercises featuring manoeuvre, camouflage, and launch operations under simulated combat conditions, which are intended to increase survivability. Together with the increased mobility and survivability of the new generation of missiles, these technologies and training enhancements strengthen China’s nuclear force and bolster its strategic strike capabilities.

The Pentagon said China’s nuclear weapons policy prioritizes maintaining a nuclear force able to survive an attack and to respond with sufficient strength to inflict unacceptable damage on an enemy. “Further increases in the number of mobile ICBMs and the beginning of SSBN deterrence patrols will force the PLA to implement more sophisticated C2 systems and processes that safeguard the integrity of nuclear release authority for a larger, more dispersed force,” it said.

The Pentagon said China continues to produce the JIN-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN), with four commissioned and another under construction.

The JIN will eventually carry the CSS-NX-14 (JL-2) SLBM (submarine-launched ballistic missile) with an estimated range of 7,200 km. Together these will give the PLAN its first credible long-range sea-based nuclear capability. JIN SSBNs based at Hainan Island in the South China Sea would then be able to conduct nuclear deterrence patrols.

Meanwhile, India and Pakistan have been seeking membership in the NSP (Nuclear Suppliers Group) while USA is supporting the Indian ‘case’ and has said it would actively support India as President Obama seeks votes of Indian origin Americans for the Democratic Party candidate. India opposes Pakistan’s bid for NSG. Defending its move to block India’s entry into the NSG, China claimed that several members of the 48-nation bloc shared its view that signing of the NPT was an “important” standard for the NSG’s expansion.

Last month, Pakistan Prime Minister’s Advisor on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz had said that China has helped Pakistan to stall India’s bid to get NSG membership. Amid reports that China and Pakistan are jointly opposing India’s bid for the Nuclear Suppliers Group membership, the USA has said India meets missile technology control regime requirements and is ready for entry into the exclusive club. State Department Spokesman John Kirby said that the US president during his visit to India in 2015 reaffirmed that the US view was that India meets missile technology control regime requirements and is ready for NSG membership. His remarks came in response to a question on reports that China and Pakistan have joined hands to oppose India becoming a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). “I’m going to refer you to the governments of China and Pakistan with respect to their positions on India’s membership,” Kirby said. “Deliberations about the prospects of new members joining the Nuclear Suppliers Group are an internal matter among current members,” he said.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said in Beijing that not only China but also a lot of other NSG members are of the view that Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the cornerstone for safeguarding the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.

Asked about reports that China is pushing Pakistan’s entry into NSG linking it to India’s admission into the bloc, Lu said the NSG is an important part of NPT, which has been the consensus of the international community for long. Although India is not part of the NSG, Indian side recognizes this consensus.

India, Pakistan, Israel and South Sudan were the four UN member states which have not signed the NPT, the international pact aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

-

Dr. Abdul Ruff

Dr. Abdul Ruff is a columnist contributing articles to many newspapers and journals on world politics. He is an expert on Mideast affairs, as well as a chronicler of foreign occupations and freedom movements (Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Xinjiang, Chechnya, etc.). Dr. Ruff is a specialist on state terrorism, the Chancellor-Founder of Center for International Affairs (CIA), commentator on world affairs and sport fixings, and a former university teacher. He is the author of various eBooks/books and editor for INTERNATIONAL OPINION and editor for FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES; Palestine Times.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
The Yars (SS-27) is solid fueled and is silo, mobile and rail based.

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160516/1039698974/russia-yars-missile-test.html

Russia to Test Upgraded Yars Ballistic Missile in Next Few Months

© Sputnik/ Vadim Savitskii
Russia
17:34 16.05.2016(updated 17:42 16.05.2016)

The chief designer of the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technologies said that Russia will carry out in the next few months a test launch of a modernized Yars intercontinental ballistic missile.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Russia will carry out in the next few months a test launch of a modernized Yars intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the chief designer of the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technologies said Monday.

The current version of the RS-24 Yars (NATO designation SS-27 Mod 2) can reportedly carry up to 10 MIRV warheads and has a range of 11,000 kilometers (some 6,800 miles).

Related:
Russia Successfully Launches Yars ICBM From Plesetsk to Kamchatka
Russia to Rearm Two More Missile Divisions With Yars ICBMs

___

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160514/1039617061/barguzin-nuclear-train-russia-nato.html

Why Russia's Reviving Its Nuke Trains

Politics
18:05 14.05.2016

Russian "Barguzin" strategic missile trains may become an asymmetric response to NATO's complex European Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system deployed in Romania and Poland, military experts believe.

Russian designers have begun to create new elements of "Barguzin" — Russia's combat railway missile complex (BZhRK) aimed at transporting and launching strategic nuclear missiles.

Citing a military source with the knowledge of the matter, Russian Regnum news agency wrote that the project's exact completion date would be announced in early 2018. Back in 2014, Strategic Missile Forces Commander Col. Gen. Sergei Karakayev told journalists that the sketches of Russia's future railway-based missile complex had been finalized.

It was reported that the Russian Army may receive five Barguzin railroad ICBM systems by 2020. In late February 2016 the head of the Strategic Missile Forces' military education department, Viktor Nesterov, informed Echo Moskvy (Echo of Moscow) Radio that a new generation of ICBM-launching trains would enter the Army service in 2020.

Russian military experts regard the system as a powerful counterbalance against NATO's European Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system deployed by the United States in Eastern Europe.

On Thursday, the Pentagon military officials inaugurated their missile defense base in Deveselu, Romania. The Deveselu base is one of the first major European elements of the US global missile shield. The cornerstone of the military site is an Aegis Ashore missile defense system equipped with an AN/SPY-1 radar and vertical launchers for 24 Standard SM-3 Block IB missiles.

A similar ground-based Aegis system is currently under construction in Poland. The Polish base is due to become operational in 2018.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stressed Thursday that the deployment of the elements of the US global missile shield in Europe undoubtedly poses a direct threat to the Russian Federation's security.

"From the very beginning we have said that, according to experts — and we are certain of this, undoubtedly — the deployment of missile defense systems indeed poses a threat to the security of the Russian Federation," Peskov told reporters.

The Pentagon and NATO war planners have been "encircling" Russia since the end of the Cold War seeking to nullify the country's nuclear deterrence capability. However, with Barguzin nuclear trains the threat would be seriously mitigated.

The crux of the matter is that the Russian BZhRK looks similar to any other ordinary cargo train and cannot be detected by an adversary. The elusive nuke complex also moves constantly across the system of the country's railroads. It is worth mentioning that the Russian railways are ranked second longest globally. In general, the combat railway missile complex can pass up to 1,000 kilometers daily.

The first BZhRKs entered the Soviet Army service in 1987 but were completely decommissioned in 2007 in accordance with the START II (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) treaty between the US and Russia.

However, the modernized BzhRK Barguzin system does not violate the provisions of the New START treaty signed by Moscow and Washington on April 8, 2010, in Prague.

Each Barguzin train will be armed with six ICBMs RS-24 Yars which could be brought into firing position within minutes. Furthermore, Barguzins will be also equipped with advanced electronic warfare systems and a sophisticated stealth technology.

Russian military expert Leonid Nersisyan notes in his article for Regnum, that Washington's unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in the early 2000s prompted serious concerns in Moscow and forced Russian military planners to seek new ways to counter potential threats.

The other destabilizing factor is the Pentagon's Prompt Global Strike (PGS) concept, Nersisyan underscores. The US is developing a system that can deliver a precision-guided conventional weapon airstrike at targets throughout the world within one hour using hypersonic weapons.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has repeatedly signaled that Washington's efforts at implementing the European BMD and creating Prompt Global Strike (PGS) weapon systems is dealing a blow to the ongoing talks on nuclear disarmament between the countries.

However, Nersisyan stresses that the Russian BZhRKs will nullify the challenge posed by the US Prompt Global Strike (PGS) concept.

Related:

NATO Air Defense Systems Near Russian Border 'Poses a Threat to Russia
'Choo, Choo! Russia Reviving Elusive ‘Nuke Trains' With 30 Yars ICBMs
US Anti-Missile Base Drives Poland Into 'New Phase' of Security Buildup
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/ne...ar-beach-in-troubled-mexican-resort-acapulco/

Three men gunned down in tourist-packed Mexican resort

Published May 16, 2016/
Fox News Latino

MEXICO CITY (AP) – Mexican authorities say three men were gunned down in a tourist-hotel quarter of the Pacific Coast resort city of Acapulco.

The Guerrero state prosecutors' office reports that two 21-year-olds and a 27-year-old were killed Saturday on a street just off the beach.

No further details were immediately available on the victims, and there was no word on possible motive.

Acapulco city and Guerrero state in general have experienced a wave of violence attributed to warring drug gangs.

Authorities say at least two rival groups are fighting for control in Acapulco, which for decades was famed as a favorite beach destination for Hollywood stars and other tourists.

The U.S. government recently banned its employees from traveling there for any reason due to the violence.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://asia.nikkei.com/Viewpoints/Viewpoints/Adm-James-Stavridis-Asia-s-arms-race-dives-underwater

May 16, 2016 3:20 pm JST
Commentary

Adm James Stavridis -- Asia's arms race dives underwater

The ocean depths of the Pacific are becoming crowded in the latest stage of Asia's arms race, as the region's military powers rapidly increase their submarine fleets and deploy the very latest technology.

Australia's decision to buy 12 highly advanced diesel-powered submarines from France's well-regarded defense contractor DCNS is the latest example. The 4,700-ton Shortfin Barracuda boats will cost nearly $40 billion, but will allow Canberra, a key U.S. ally, to double the size of its underwater fleet and add significant extra firepower.

The decision comes at an opportune moment; many of the most senior U.S. admirals in the Pacific Fleet are very concerned about the rapid improvement in Chinese subsurface capability and the United States Navy has taken steps in recent years to mitigate it.

The Americans have introduced advanced anti-submarine warfare systems, including integrated computer systems, highly sensitive sensors towed behind ships which can "hear" the acoustic signature of submarines over hundreds of miles, and P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, commercial jets with very long range that can listen for submarines across huge expanses of the ocean.

Whether or not these measures will enable the U.S. to retain its edge in undersea combat over China remains to be seen. As a senior U.S. Navy official said: "We know they are out experimenting and looking at operating, and clearly want to be in this world of advanced submarines."

At present, the United States, with its all-nuclear powered submarine fleet, remains the undisputed king of the underwater seas.

Fourteen of its submarines are ballistic missile boats capable of launching long-range nuclear weapons; four are guided missile boats, which can launch long-range conventional Tomahawk cruise missiles; and 53 are attack submarines, which can find and kill other submarines and surface ships. Some 60% of the underwater fleet is routinely deployed in the Pacific, but all of the boats can be moved there via the Panama Canal if needed.

Russia has roughly the same numbers of submarines (13 ballistic missile and 50 attack boats) while China has only 4 of the ballistic missile boats and around 50 mostly diesel-powered attack boats.

The important question, of course, is not numbers but quality. In the intricate cat-and-mouse game of submarine operations, the technological edge and the skill of the crew are more important than raw numbers.

China, for example, does not have a long tradition of subsurface operations at a high level of competence, but is improving rapidly. Given that its key objective would be finding and killing U.S. aircraft carriers in the event of a dispute over Taiwan, it needs to improve the broad area targeting and reach of its force. Beijing also has its ballistic missile boats as a strategic nuclear deterrent.

Russian military plans up to 2020 include a strong focus on the navy, with plans to purchase eight nuclear submarines. Russia has also started work on designing fifth-generation non-nuclear and nuclear-powered submarines, which are far quieter and can operate at greater depths.

As well as putting an increasing percentage of its defense budget into submarine operations, Russia is also returning them to Cold War deployment patterns. It is sending its boats deeper into the Atlantic Ocean and into the Arctic and is making more aggressive patrols around the Pacific, especially in the north. Moscow's technology is second only to that of the U.S., and its experience is top-notch.

Japan operates a smaller number of diesel-only submarines (14), but given its superb training programs and long history of effective submarine operations, it belongs in the top tier. Japan has considerable indigenous construction capability and can be expected to increase the size of its diesel fleet by at least 50% over the next decade.

Both the Japanese and Australians appear determined to maintain strong diesel submarine forces, and appear unafraid to deploy them at range from home waters.

This benefits the U.S.-led coalition in the region and provides significant opportunities for joint exercises. One key skill for any subsurface force is the ability to find opposing submarines and destroy them, and such operations are typically conducted along with surface ships (destroyers, frigates, and cruisers), short-range helicopters and long-range maritime patrol aircraft.

Anti-submarine warfare is the ultimate team pursuit, and by working together, the subsurface forces of the U.S., Japan, Australia and a fourth key ally, South Korea, will be very strong. This will be particularly true as the new Australian submarines come on line.

For South Korea, with 13 high-tech diesel-powered boats, the obvious challenge is the sheer size of the opposing North Korean submarine force - 86-strong, though many are very small and have a range of less than a couple of hundred miles; their main "payload" is special forces teams and relatively crude torpedoes. Some could be used on suicide missions, loaded with explosives and blown up at the entrance to harbors or alongside high-value tankers. Thus far, Kim Jong Un has used them principally to deliver special forces to the south and to occasionally attack South Korean surface ships with torpedoes.

In the local waters of the Korean peninsula, Pyongyang's boats already present a significant threat to both South Korean and U.S. warships. Ominously, the North Koreans are developing a submarine-launched ballistic missile which could eventually be coupled with a nuclear warhead - a very dangerous potential threat.

The remaining Pacific nations possess a handful of boats that are not operated with particular skill or experience, generally diesels with missile-launching capability: Vietnam has six, Singapore five, Taiwan four, and Indonesia and Malaysia two each.

Over time, both Vietnam and Singapore can be expected to operate reasonably capable diesel submarine forces in the range of 6-12 boats each. Singapore is a reliable and well regarded defense partner for the United States, and it seems likely that Vietnam will become one as well, given its need to maintain independence from an assertive China.

Overall, it seems clear that the accelerating arms race in Asia will mean increasingly powerful submarine fleets; military competition on the surface will be dangerously reflected in the deep waters of the Pacific.


Admiral James Stavridis was the 16th Supreme Allied Commander of NATO (2009-2013) and spent over half his naval career in the Pacific. He is now Dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
 
Top