WAR 06-11-2016-to-06-17-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

(My little voice is telling me to get the new thread started early....)

(219) 05-21-2016-to-05-27-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...27-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(220) 05-28-2016-to-06-03-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...03-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(221) 06-04-2016-to-06-10-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...10-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

-----

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/opinions/tel-aviv-attack-implications-miller/

The unhappy new normal in the Middle East

By Aaron David Miller
Updated 9:16 PM ET, Fri June 10, 2016


Aaron David Miller is a vice president and distinguished scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and author of "The End of Greatness: Why America Can't Have (and Doesn't Want) Another Great President." Miller was a Middle East negotiator in Democratic and Republican administrations. Follow him on Twitter @aarondmiller2. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.


(CNN) — The deadly attack in Tel Aviv on Wednesday, which claimed the lives of four Israelis and wounded several others, presages what could be a long hot summer between Israelis and Palestinians.

But the challenge goes deeper than just the immediate threat of summer violence. Indeed, a number of factors are emerging to create what could be the new Israeli-Palestinian normal -- one in which a highly functional Israeli state interacts with two separate, highly dysfunctional and weak Palestinian polities in the West Bank and Gaza.

This new status quo will be marked at times by competition and violence and at others by cooperation and coordination. Sadly, it is a road that at least for now promises not a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but to a series of pretty unhappy outcomes.

Several new factors define the new normal.

First, the attack in Tel Aviv appears to have been intended as a mass casualty assault with firearms, and could signal the beginning of a new trend in Palestinian terror. Of the attacks since September 2015, more than half -- 151 -- were knifings, according to the Israeli government. There were also 92 attacks using firearms, and 43 using vehicles.

Although Hamas praised the attack, it did not claim responsibility. But it many respects that may not matter. The bloodiest terror attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 -- the killings in San Bernardino -- was inspired but not directed by ISIS.

In the Tel Aviv attack, two people identified as Palestinians in their 20s from a village in the southern West Bank opened fire in the Sarona Market. Both Israeli Defense Forces and Shin Bet sources say they are concerned that new terror cells along these lines may be forming in the West Bank to carry out similar attacks.

Second, the recent addition to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government of Avigdor Liberman as defense minister will create additional pressures on what is now arguably the most right-wing government in Israel's history. Netanyahu will still make the final decisions, but the motivation to get tougher -- particularly in the face of new terror attacks -- will inevitably rise.

The Israeli response so far has already been tough, but could easily become much harsher. The West Bank has been sealed off for the next several days; 83,000 Ramadan and family visit travel permits have been suspended; and the West Bank city of Yatta has been blocked off.

Liberman, meanwhile, will have to balance his own need to be tough (he was a bitter critic of what he believed was the weak response to the Gaza conflict in 2014) with his desire not to overact and make the situation on the ground worse by undermining Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation.

Third, the Palestinian Authority has no good options and is drifting. Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has an interest in maintaining security cooperation. But not at the expense being perceived as Israel's policeman on the West Bank. The harsher Israel's security measures become the more tenuous his position will become. The truth is, though, his condemnation of the Tel Aviv attack -- quite detached and general -- will satisfy nobody, particularly compared with Hamas' praise for the operation.

Meanwhile, Abbas' international campaign to gain recognition for Palestinian statehood has stalled and he is reportedly suspicious about new contacts between Israel and the Arabs states. So reports that he will be meeting with Hamas political leader Khalid Meshaal in Qatar soon do not come as any surprise. Real unity between Fatah and Hamas is magical thinking. But it plays well for Abbas domestically.

Fourth, the other potential flashpoint, of course, is the possibility of another serious escalation between Israel and Hamas over Gaza. Three such confrontations in the past eight years -- 2008/09; 2012; 2014 -- do not inspire confidence regarding the various sides' ability to avoid another. Indeed, Hamas's dedication to resistance against Israel; a deteriorating economic situation in Gaza; Israel's blockade of the strip; more Hamas tunneling along the border into Israel; and no prospect of Hamas buying into diplomacy -- all make another confrontation seemingly inevitable.

Defense Minister Liberman has, for his part, talked tough about destroying Hamas. Yet for now, it's unclear what benefits a confrontation would have for Israel or Hamas at the moment.

Ultimately, the latest incident has taken place against the backdrop of this stark reality -- rarely, has there been a period in the past decade or more where the prospects of a credible peace process, let alone a solution, have seemed so gloomy.

The Americans are caught up in their election; the French initiative has fizzled in Paris; the Arabs are preoccupied with their own internal problems and with Iran and Sunni jihadis. And while Egypt has flirted with some sort of regional meeting involving Netanyahu and Abbas, it's hard to see where such a meeting would lead, given the enormous gaps on the big issues between Israelis and Palestinians.

With no possibility of a political solution, and with a distracted international community, Israelis and Palestinians will be left to cope with the new normal by themselves. And if history is any guide, the outcome is certain to be an unhappy one.


Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.
Read CNNOpinion's Flipboard magazine.

Aaron David Miller is a vice president and distinguished scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and author of "The End of Greatness: Why America Can't Have (and Doesn't Want) Another Great President." Miller was a Middle East negotiator in Democratic and Republican administrations. Follow him on Twitter @aarondmiller2. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-36505935

Libyan forces 're-take Sirte port from IS militants'

1 hour ago
From the section Africa

Libyan forces say they have re-taken control of the port in the city of Sirte, after fierce fighting against militants from so-called Islamic State.

Sirte is the most significant IS stronghold outside Iraq and Syria.

Earlier this week warplanes bombed IS positions in Sirte while naval forces fired missiles into the port, officials said. The offensive continues.

The forces, aligned to the UN-backed unity government in Tripoli, began the battle to re-take the city last month.

Their spokesman, General Muhammad al-Ghusri, said senior IS leaders had fled into the desert to the south, but that many militants were still under siege in the city centre.

Why is Libya so lawless?

Life in Libya under IS

Clashes centred on the Ougadougou conference centre, which was once a venue for international summits but has now become an IS command centre.

Forces loyal to the government targeted the conference centre with heavy artillery fire, backed by warplanes.

IS fighters responded using sniper fire, machine guns and mortar rounds.

The government said two soldiers were killed and eight were wounded.

Sirte was the hometown of ousted ruler Muammar Gadaffi.

The unity government was formed in Tripoli more than two months ago.

The US said the unity government should be allowed to arm itself against IS. Secretary of State John Kerry has said this would be "the only way to generate the cohesion necessary" to defeat the militants.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160611/1041163997/manbij-turkey-route.html

Syrian Forces Sever Main Daesh Route Into Turkey

© REUTERS/ Rodi Said

Middle East
03:00 11.06.2016(updated 05:08 11.06.2016) Get short URL

In the fight against Daesh, also known as IS/Islamic State, Syrian forces have cut off a major road that the terrorists group used to access Turkey.

The Syrian city of Manbij has been a stronghold for Daesh in the region along the Turkish border. On Thursday, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) encircled the city, effectively cutting off supply roads.

"We have reached the road that links Manbij and Aleppo, from the west," said Sharfan Darwish, a spokesman for the Manbij Military Council.

But the city is also a key juncture on the terrorist group’s oil smuggling route. With Manbij cutoff, Daesh militants will be forced to take more difficult and dangerous routes into Turkey to sell their oil.

The city itself remains occupied by Daesh, but SDF forces are slowly closing in.

Since the Manbij offensive began, 130 Daesh militants have been killed, as well as 20 SDF fighters. Nearly 20,000 civilians are still living inside the city, though many have fled due to the fighting.

The SDF is comprised of Kurdish, Arab, Assyrian, Armenian, and Turkmen fighters, and are backed by the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG).

Earlier on Friday, a source told Sputnik that the Syrian Army gained control of an oil-pumping station and the Al-Tabka power plant in Raqqa province. Located near the city of Ar-Rusafa, several Daesh extremists were killed during the operation.

The army was backed by both Syrian and Russian airstrikes.

Syria has been mired in a civil war since 2011, with numerous opposition factions and Islamic extremist groups fighting government forces seeking to topple the government of President Bashar Assad. The Daesh terrorist organization is outlawed in the United States, Russia and several other countries.


Related:

US Encouraged by Reports Daesh is Losing Ground in Libya - Pentagon

Russia, Syria Lead Fight to Free Raqqa from Daesh, US-Backed Forces Retreat

Russia on the Right Way, Planning to Blow Daesh Oil Facilities in Raqqa

Catfight: Pentagon and CIA at Odds Over Syria

 

[Housecarl]

A while back, similar to this there was/is a company in Arizona per similar request making STANAG grade (as much as they can be made that way) RPG-7s and launchers....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-looks-to-u-s-companies-for-homemade-ak-47s/

Checkpoint

Special Operations Command looks to U.S. companies for homemade AK-47s

By Thomas Gibbons-Neff June 10 at 12:44 PM

U.S. Special Operations Command, which oversees some of America’s most elite forces, is exploring the possibility of having American companies manufacture Russian-designed weapons, such as the AK-47, that are ubiquitous in war zones.

First reported by the Tampa Bay Times, Special Operations Command, or SOCOM, posted a “sources sought” solicitation for non-standard weapons on a federal contracting site early last month. In April, the command posted a similar notice for non-standard weapon ammunition. The term “non standard” is used for weapons not frequently employed by the United States or its NATO allies.

[Report: U.S. contractor tried to arm Syrian rebels with defective grenades By]

“For this solicitation, we are exploring capabilities and capacity within [the United States’] industrial base to build the types of weapons many of our foreign partners use,” Navy Cmdr. Matt Allen, a SOCOM spokesman, said in an email.

SOCOM’s solicitation includes weapons such as the iconic “AK-47″ rifle, a catchall designator for Kalashnikov-variant rifles designed to fire a certain type of ammunition and often identified by their distinctive curved magazines. Other weapons include the SVD, a unique looking sniper rifle that has likely killed thousands of U.S. troops since it was first introduced in the years leading up to the Vietnam War. Additionally, Russian medium and heavy machine guns as well as 14.5mm aircraft guns are included in the notice.

While the United States has sent American-made weapons to the Afghan military and Iraqi security forces, the presence of U.S. equipment in foreign hands can be problematic. Recently, U.S.-backed groups in Syria have been spotted with American equipment, including heavy machine guns and sniper rifles. Although likely more accurate than their Soviet-style counterparts, U.S. weapons can make the fighters carrying them targets for other factions.

Aside from standing out, U.S. weapons can also be difficult to maintain, prompting Special Operations Command and the CIA to procure and supply weapons that their allies are used to fighting with, such as Kalashnikovs. To do this, the U.S. government often contracts with smaller companies to buy and ship the weapons.

In 2015, Buzzfeed chronicled a $28 million contract given to a company called Purple Shovel to send weapons to U.S.-backed Syrian rebels. The contract ran into a myriad of problems after a Bulgarian company shipped faulty rocket-propelled grenades through Purple Shovel to SOCOM, Buzzfeed reported.

According to Allen, an American source for the weapons would be a “good use of taxpayer funds, while also delivering the weapons our partners not only need to fight extremists, but also the ones they know how to use, know how to fix and have the supplies to maintain.”

Producing the weapons in the United States would also allow the government to enforce greater control over their manufacture and distribution.

[Administration searches for new approach to aiding rebels in Syria]

“Building them here would normalize transfers, make oversight easier, and prevent ad-hoc type arrangements like we’ve seen in the past” said Matt Schroeder, a senior researcher with Small Arms Survey, a Geneva-based research group that tracks weapons.

However, it still might be cheaper to buy them elsewhere. Weapons based on Mikhail Kalashnikov’s iconic design have been built and exported by dozens of countries during and after the Cold War. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the rifle’s design was distributed to Eastern-bloc countries for manufacture, and only in recent years has Russia’s main arms exporter attempted to clamp down on copyright infringements.

Read more:

This is the tiny camera that might change the future of warfare

U.S. Special Operations units are using faulty rifle sights

Why the U.S. military turned a hipster tattoo parlor into a Special Operations lab


259 Comments

Thomas Gibbons-Neff is a staff writer and a former Marine infantryman.  Follow @Tmgneff

 

[Housecarl]

Moscow Warns Of Prompt Response After US Sends Destroyer To Black Sea
Started by Possible Impactý, Yesterday 06:51 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...esponse-After-US-Sends-Destroyer-To-Black-Sea

Main Russia/Ukraine invasion thread - NATO: Russian Tanks and Artillery Enter Ukraine
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ian-Tanks-and-Artillery-Enter-Ukraine/page442

NATO Announces War Policy Against Russia
Started by Possible Impactý, 05-18-2016 07:04 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?491611-NATO-Announces-War-Policy-Against-Russia/page2

EUROPE IS IN DENIAL ABOUT PUTIN’S THREAT OF WAR
Started by northern watchý, 06-04-2016 08:01 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...S-IN-DENIAL-ABOUT-PUTIN’S-THREAT-OF-WAR/page3

EU Referendum: Massive swing to Brexit – with just 13 days to go
Started by thompsoný, Yesterday 04:40 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ive-swing-to-Brexit-–-with-just-13-days-to-go

REPORT: Germany ‘Annexing’ Dutch Military As Secretive EU Army Begins To Take Shape
Started by Intestinal Fortitudeý, 04-21-2016 10:03 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ary-As-Secretive-EU-Army-Begins-To-Take-Shape

If it walks like a duck.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.politico.eu/article/wagi...-an-eu-army-referendum-britain-brexit-debate/

Opinion

Waging war on the myth of an EU army

The debate has been hijacked by Euroskeptics to stoke fears of EU overreach into national sovereignty.

By Sophia Besch | 6/7/16, 5:34 AM CET | Updated 6/8/16, 3:46 PM CET
Comments 12

As the referendum nears and Britain’s EU debate becomes less evidence-based every day, Brexiteers are tapping into deep-rooted tropes of Euroskepticism guaranteed to alarm the British public. Recent “revelations” in the British media focused on plans to create an EU military headquarters, and stoked fears of further overreach into one of the most sensitive areas of national sovereignty — defense.

And yet Brexit campaigners’ outrage is little more than a storm in a Euroskeptic’s tea cup. There are no imminent plans to create an EU army. The creation of EU headquarters would integrate national operational headquarters and command-and-control centers, facilitate planning and enhance coordination of civilian and military EU missions.

Many member countries support the plan to make existing — and often counter-intuitive — arrangements more efficient. But Britain has always vetoed the project, and plans to use the “permanent structured defense cooperation” (PESCO) mechanism to forego the U.K. veto have gone nowhere. Member countries know that operational headquarters without British participation would lack credibility.

A Brussels-controlled army itself is a pipe dream. And yet, it is easy for British Euroskeptics to raise the specter of the threat. In March 2015, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker advocated a common European army as a way to increase the EU’s standing on the world stage, not least in the eyes of Russia. Recent reports on a forthcoming defense white paper from Germany and EU High representative Federica Mogherini’s EU Global Strategy stoked scaremongering too.

The reality is there is not enough political will in Europe’s key member countries. David Cameron is not alone in his staunch rejection of the idea. Ireland guards its neutrality zealously and secured a protocol stating explicitly that the Lisbon Treaty did not provide for the creation of such a force. France would rather get the rest of Europe to support French operations in Mali and the Sahel.

In Germany, it’s considered “good form” to reaffirm the commitment to a European army, but it remains a long-term aspiration — nobody in Berlin is preparing for its implementation. Finally, Central and East European states see U.S. capabilities as a vital hedge against an aggressive Russia, and fear that a European army would remove the raison d’être for U.S. forces in Europe. They have expressed their strong preference for NATO, and discarded the idea of a European army.

In practice the lack of a shared vision on how to use EU forces would be an enormous problem in a crisis.

Europeans have learned this the hard way, through the EU Battle Groups. Created in 2007, these consist of rotating troop contingents from member countries, in theory ready to deploy at 10 days’ notice. The Battle Groups are not controlled from Brussels, however, and rely on member countries to provide boots on the ground. There is no common budget; instead, an unattractive system of cost distribution places the brunt of an operation’s financial burden on the deploying country. Differing national military strategies and threat assessments have deterred EU members from volunteering soldiers for these operations — the Battle Groups have, in fact, never been used.


Also On Politico

Opinion polls put Brexit ahead of Remain
Cynthia Kroet


These problems would not go away with a centralized EU force — and even its staunchest supporters cannot conceive of a supranational defense authority that could overrule decisions by national parliaments.

If expeditionary operations are not an option, an EU army would presumably be designed to take on territorial defense tasks. But this would signal a qualitative shift in EU policy, far beyond its current mandate for humanitarian and rescue tasks, crisis management, and peacekeeping.

Collective defense of European territory is still NATO’s mandate. These days the Alliance’s problem is not that Europeans might take too much in their own hands, but rather that Americans may tire of European “free riders.” Washington has repeatedly signaled that it wants Europeans to take their own defense more seriously.

The EU can add real value by integrating European defense markets or coordinating multinational procurement projects. European leaders should not allow debates over the creation of an unrealistic European pipe dream distract them from decisions on how best to meet Europe’s defense needs.

The upcoming EU Global Strategy could lay the groundwork for another attempt to revive the EU’s defense role, and it may well feature the creation of permanent military headquarters. But it will remain a “strategic reflection,” not a call for an EU army. EU leaders will no doubt endorse it — but only after a unanimous vote. Ironically, if the U.K. is serious about preventing a stronger EU defense role, it will have to stay in the Union to veto its creation.

Sophia Besch is a research fellow at the Centre for European Reform.

 

[Housecarl]

Tel Aviv: 4 dead, 5 wounded in terror shooting attack.
Started by mzkitty‎, 06-08-2016 11:59 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ad-5-wounded-in-terror-shooting-attack./page2

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/06/gaza-children-summer-activities-unrwa-hamas.html

How Gaza's summer camps teach youth more than just sports
Author: Ahmad Abu Amer
Posted: June 8, 2016
Translator: Pascale Menassa

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — Tens of thousands of children are signing up for the annual summer games in the Gaza Strip, sponsored by a variety of groups that sometimes have more in mind than entertainment.

Some parents are convinced that some camps are recruiting grounds for groups seeking to instill ideas in their children’s minds in the hope of attracting them to their ranks in the future. Some groups openly admit their agendas.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad attract the largest number of Palestinian children in Gaza. Enrollment in summer activities has been underway since early May.

Just a little more than a month remains before the activities begin. Associations and organizations are engaging in a heated competition to lure elementary and secondary school-age children. Each group has its own objective for the activities, which last for weeks.

Youssef Moussa, manager of the UNRWA Summer Games Program, told Al-Monitor that the games will begin July 23. "More than 170,000 students from different age groups have registered" so far, he said. Registration will close a few weeks before the programs begin.

Moussa expects about 120,000 of those registered will actually participate. He noted that in addition to conventional activities such as soccer, gymnastics and cultural events, new activities are being introduced this year, such as a special entertainment program for each of the five provinces in the Gaza Strip.

UNRWA will host a program in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip that will include cultural competitions and tutorials mainly in English. Another program will be dedicated to reviving Palestinian heritage, as participants will be wearing traditional costumes and dance the Palestinian Dabke. This event will be held in Khan Yunis. UNRWA will also provide activities and programs about democracy and accepting others in the Deir el-Balah province.

In Gaza City, activities will focus on the use and recycling of plastic and cardboard. The northern part of the Gaza Strip will feature programs focused on psychological support, since that area was the most devastated during the Israeli war on Gaza in 2014. There will also be conventional and traditional activities such as soccer, hurdling and long jumps.

Moussa estimates the activities will create 2,200 temporary job opportunities for educators and people to monitor activities. The aim of these events, he said, is to make up for the extra-curricular activities the students missed during the school year because of the lack of schools and the shortage of funds to build new ones. Time is also a factor, since school hours are divided into two shifts, morning and evening classes, which does not leave any space for extracurricular activities.

Dozens of places across Gaza have also been readied to host summer activities carried out by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other movements. These facilities include 108 schools, nine centers for the disabled and three sports clubs.

Hamas activities, which this year will be called "Jerusalem Intifada," are designed to introduce the new generation to the Palestinian cause, said Mohammad al-Jamal, head of the media unit at Hamas' Popular Action Department.

Jamal told Al-Monitor, "We have opened the doors to registration for summer activities in mosques. We will launch them on July 10." He expects 50,000 to 80,000 participants from various age groups, as was the case in 2015. Hamas just started accepting registration a few days ago and so far has received about 5,000 to 7,000 applications, he added.

A variety of programs will include scouting activities, beach games, media and administrative courses, and some primary military training sessions. He noted that the activities last six hours a day, and the event will continue until Aug. 10.

Ahmed al-Mudallal, Islamic Jihad leader in charge of that movement's summer activities program, said their events are essential to reshape and educate the new generation about their moral, behavioral and revolutionary backgrounds so they can carry the torch of the Palestinian cause in the future. The movement also wants to provide fun recreational activities, such as swimming and soccer. Mudallal told Al-Monitor he expects at least 10,000 people to participate.

In a statement to Al-Monitor, Mahmoud Baroud, director general of Gaza's Ministry of Youth and Sports, said the ministry is no longer involved with any of the camps or their services. The ministry stopped holding summer activities several years ago given the lack of financial support.

The ministry used to allocate $200,000 every year to organize such activities, but the consensus government refused to transfer funds to the ministries in Gaza because of the split between Hamas and Fatah in 2007, Baroud said. However, he stressed the importance of such events for the young generation, regardless of the goals of their sponsors.

Parents seem divided about the events. Suhad Nassar, the mother of three children ages 8 to 14, told Al-Monitor she is willing to enroll her children in nonpartisan summer activities that could benefit them and she considers UNRWA's programs to be the safest environment for her children. She said she has been pressured by some Palestinian factions to enroll her children in their programs, but she declined to name the groups.

Mohammad Nofal, on the other hand, the father of a 10-year-old, told Al-Monitor that the Hamas summer camps are the best destination for his son. "I want my son to grow up knowing the reality of the Israeli occupation of our land. He needs to learn military combat to grow up and take part in liberating our land," Nofal said.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://abcnews.go.com/International...-1600-suspected-radicals-end-attacks-39775389

Bangladesh Detains 1,600 in Drive Against Islamist Radicals

By The Associated Press·DHAKA, Bangladesh — Jun 11, 2016, 6:44 AM ET

Authorities have rounded up about 1,600 criminal suspects, including a few dozen believed to be Islamist radicals, in a nationwide crackdown aimed at halting a wave of brutal attacks on minorities and activists in Bangladesh, police said Saturday.

The attacks — including two Hindus in the last week — have alarmed the international community and raised questions about whether Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's secular government can maintain security for minorities in the Sunni Muslim-majority country.

Police and paramilitary soldiers fanned out across the country Thursday night, raiding suspected militant hideouts and detaining about 1,600 people by Friday night, police said.

The majority of those detained, however, are described as petty criminals. Only 37 of them are suspected to be radical Islamist militants, according to police spokesman Kamrul Islam. Those include three charged with alleged membership in the banned militant outfit Jama'atul Mujahideen Bangladesh.

None of those arrested is believed to be a high-level operator who might have organized or ordered attacks, police said. All the detainees are being held in jail.

Hasina's government has faced criticism for failing to prosecute suspects for at least 18 killings carried out over the past two years. Victims include atheist bloggers, foreign aid workers, university professors, gay rights activists and religious minorities including Hindus, Christians and Shiite Muslims.

Hasina had announced the anti-militancy campaign after the wife of a police superintendent was shot and stabbed to death on June 5 as she was waiting with her son at a bus stop. The victim had been an ardent campaigner against Islamist militants, and her murder stunned the country's establishment, many of whom considered the victim as one of their own.

Speaking to Parliament on Wednesday, Hasina vowed to root out radicals bent on spreading terror and violence in a bid to restore the country to Islamic rule.

"If they think they could turn Bangladesh upside down, they are wrong," she said. "They will be exposed to justice in the soil of Bangladesh and their patrons will also not be spared."

The attacks have followed a pattern: A group of young men wielding knives or machetes approach their victim as his or her guard is down, perhaps while strolling down the street or relaxing at home. The attackers spew hateful language, then hack and stab at the victim before disappearing, often without a trace. Many victims are killed with a machete blow to the back of the neck.

Authorities have arrested some suspects in some of the 18 attacks, mostly low-level operatives accused of following orders to carry out attacks, but none has been prosecuted. Police have said they are waiting until investigations are complete before taking any suspects to court.

Amnesty International has criticized the government for inaction, saying it is creating a culture of impunity. It also said authorities are failing to address increasing numbers of reports of people receiving threats.

"The brazen announcement by violent groups that they will continue targeting those they perceive as 'insulting Islam' should shake the Bangladeshi authorities out of their complacency," Champa Patel, the right's group's director in South Asia, said in a statement. "Ignoring the problem is not a solution. The authorities must categorically condemn these killings, carry out a prompt, thorough, impartial and transparent investigation, deliver justice for the victims, hold the perpetrators accountable, and protect those still under threat."

Nearly all the attacks have been claimed by transnational Islamist extremist groups, including the Islamic State group and various affiliates of al-Qaida. The killing Friday morning of a Hindu ashram worker in northern Bangladesh was also claimed by the IS group, according to the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadist activity online and cited the Amaq News Agency.

Hasina's government, however, says transnational terror groups have no presence in the South Asian nation of 160 million. It blames the attacks on domestic groups aligned with political opposition parties, though it has presented no evidence of such a campaign and the opposition denies the allegations.

On Friday, the opposition BNP party said it was worried the government campaign against extremists would lead to efforts to suppress opposition parties.

"The crackdown is a strategy which the government earlier used to suppress the people's movement. We fear that they will again oppress the opposition in the name of conducting a crackdown," BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir said.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/silent-crisis-boko-haram-hit-cameroon-un-150228080.html?nhp=1

'Silent crisis' in Boko Haram-hit Cameroon: UN

June 10, 2016

Geneva (AFP) - Unabated attacks by Boko Haram in Cameroon have sparked soaring food insecurity and driven 190,000 people from their homes, creating fertile ground for recruitment by the jihadists, the UN warned.

Nigeria-based Boko Haram fighters have in recent months carried out fewer spectacular attacks and suicide bombings in neighbouring Cameroon.

But the UN humanitarian coordinator for the country Najat Rochdi said the jihadists were attacking villages and burning homes and fields across northern Cameroon on a daily basis.

"The impact of the violence by Boko Haram is not over, and we have to remain vigilant," she told AFP this week.

While the current attacks are less eye-catching, they have a more devastating effect, Rochdi said.

She said that in the last six months alone, the number of Cameroonians displaced within their own country had jumped from 60,000 to 190,000.

In addition, Cameroon is hosting 60,000 refugees from Nigeria and another 312,000 from the Central African Republic, amounting to more than 500,000 displaced people in all.

The number at risk of going hungry, she said, has meanwhile soared from 900,000 to 2.4 million since January, as Boko Haram fighters have continued to attack fields and food supply routes.

"It is a kind of silent crisis, which is really the danger," Rochdi said, warning that if humanitarian needs are not addressed in Cameroon, "we will see a radicalisation" of young people in the country.

"If people are not left with some hope, the only alternative for them is Boko Haram," she cautioned.

She said the problem was communicating what truly is at stake to international donors, with only 30 percent of the requested $280 million (248-million-euro) humanitarian aid budget for Cameroon this year funded so far.

"The gap in terms of humanitarian assistance is just dramatic," she said, insisting that providing desperately need assistance in the country was not just about saving lives.

"It is also about making sure that there is no fertile ground for recruitment by Boko Haram."

Boko Haram's insurgency is one of the world's most brutal conflicts, leaving at least 20,000 people dead since it began in 2009, with more than 2.6 million others displaced.

A multinational force from Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Benin and Cameroon has since last year significantly weakened the group but have been unable to vanquish the Islamists entirely.

Rochdi acknowledged that Boko Haram had been more successful in recruiting inside Cameroon last year, but said that could quickly change.

Some 250 children recruited or abducted by Boko Haram have meanwhile managed to escape over the past nine months or so, she said, adding most of them were "in very bad shape".

"Some of them were little girls who came with their babies. They were raped every day," she said.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmo...-a-regional-not-a-global-player/#4c936acb6eca

Jun 11, 2016 @ 02:20 PM 35 views

America Should Treat China As A Regional, Not A Global Player

Panos Mourdoukoutas ,
Contributor
I cover global markets, business and investment strategy Full Bio 
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.


In dealing with China, American leaders are making a big strategic mistake: they are treating China as a global rather than a regional player. That’s what China really is.

China has been making a great deal of noise lately. Over the South China Sea, that is, building artificial islands, urging US to stay away from the region, enlisting a couple of African countries on its side, even goingso far as to say that it doesn’t fear trouble in the region.

Still Washington has been very nice to China — too nice some would think — keeping American markets wide open to Chinese products, and holding annual bilateral summits on the global economy — like the one held in Beijing this week.

To be fair, I am not suggesting that Washington shouldn’t talk to China on global issues. But it should do so within multilateral rather than bilateral forums (e.g., WTO and UN).Bilateral forums upgrade China from a regional player to a global player, and give Beijing the false impression that China is turning into a superpower.

That’s a dangerous precedent for the future of globalization in the Asia-Pacific region.

True, China is the world’s second largest economy soon closing in on the US economy, but so was Japan back in the 1980s. Where’s Japan now? Floundering in the swamp of stagnation, counting the one lost decade after the other.

To be fair, Japan is a special case, as a host of problems crippled its growth… from the bursting of multiple asset bubbles to negative demographics. Besides, Japan’s military is still controlled by the US, which wrote the country’s constitution back during the Occupation.

But even if it is assumed that China doesn’t share the fate of Japan, and its economy continue to grow to eventually bypass that of the US in size, it won’t match America’s military might.

For a reason: fast economic growth doesn’t lead to military supremacy these days, unless it is supported and reinforced by technological supremacy.

That’s not the case with China. In fact, China lags badly behind the US, as is nicely argued by Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth in “The Once and Future Superpower: Why China Won’t Overtake the United States,” published in Foreign Affairs (May/June 2016 issue).

“Economic growth no longer translates as directly into military power as it did in the past, which means that it is now harder than ever for rising powers to rise, and established ones to fall. And China — the only country with the raw potential to become a true global peer of the United States — also faces a more daunting challenge than previous rising states because of how far it lags behind technologically.”

China’s technological gap vis-à-vis the US is the country’s Achilles heel, according to the authors.

“China’s true Achilles heel on the world stage is something else: its low level of technological expertise compared to the United States’. Relative to past rising powers, China has a much wider technological gap to close with the leading power.”

Much more than that of Japan back in the 1980s. That’s why China’s role will be confined to that of a regional payer within the Asian-Pacific region rather than a global player. “China’s relative technological backwardness today, however, means that even if its economy continues to gain ground, it won’t be easy for it to catch up militarily and become a true global strategic peer, as opposed to a merely a major player in its own neighborhood.”

Simply put, China doesn’t have what it takes to be a military superpower.

That’s why America should begin treating China as what it is. A regional, not a global player.

 

[Housecarl]

Notice that this was originally published by the Washington Post....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...-emergence-of-isis/ar-AAgVEyS?ocid=spartandhp

In Albania — NATO member and U.S. ally — worries about the emergence of ISIS

The Washington Post
Joby Warrick
5 hrs ago

TIRANA, Albania — Ask Bujar Hysa about the charges that landed him in Tirana’s cramped No. 302 Prison, and he spits furious denials. “I never encouraged terrorism!” declared the Muslim cleric, convicted last month of recruiting young Albanians for the Islamic State.

But press further and Hysa readily admits to supporting a kind of Islamic state — not in Syria, but at home, in Albania, a NATO member and close U.S. ally on Europe’s southern flank. Reflecting on his country’s future from the prison’s tiny visitor’s room, he predicted that Albanians would inevitably replace Western-style governance with sharia, or Islamic law. Indeed, younger members of his flock were clamoring for it, he said.

“Islam can coexist with other religions, but with democracy? No!” the bearded imam told a reporter as a guard kept an anxious watch just outside the door. “Anyone who says that sharia can coexist with democracy is a hypocrite.”

It is precisely this sentiment that has officials on a war footing in tiny Albania, a country with 2.8 million people, but an outsize problem trickling in from across its rugged eastern border.

The Balkan enclave, nestled between the shimmering Adriatic and the high peaks of the Dinaric Alps, has a majority-Muslim population but a centuries-old tradition of religious tolerance and moderation. Yet even here, 1,200 miles from the fighting in Syria, the Islamic State has found a small but devoted following.

More than 100 Albanians have traveled to the Middle East to join the terrorist group, and a few have gained prominence, using the Internet to beckon their countrymen. Their call to Islamist militancy has been echoed by a handful of ultra-

conservative mosques that have sprung up in Albania in recent years, some of them built with help from Islamic charities and missionaries from Turkey and the Persian Gulf region.

Albania’s government is aggressively pushing back. The parliament recently passed laws forbidding participation in the Islamic State, and the security services have cracked down on recruits making the trek to Iraq and Syria. Bujar Hysa, the imprisoned imam, was one of three clerics and six others sentenced last month to prison terms of up to 18 years for allegedly encouraging young Albanians to embrace violent jihad.

But these efforts are facing strong headwinds, including a current of radicalism welling up from the Levant and spilling through a Balkan neighborhood still scarred from the sectarian warfare of the 1990s. Extremist messages are finding fertile ground in poorer neighborhoods and villages, where official corruption is high and unemployment among young adults often exceeds 40 percent.

Border police are stepping up patrols for Islamist fighters traveling north to central Europe with Syrian refugees, though few of the migrants have dared to attempt Albania’s dangerous alpine passes so far. “We have high mountains to serve as partial barriers to their entry,” Albanian parliament speaker Ilir Meta said during a Washington visit last month, “but even mountains cannot stop this tide.”

Albanian officials acknowledge that their most potent weapon against extremism — economic development — continues to fall short, as do Western promises of increased trade and investment with a country still mired in poverty 25 years after the end of communist rule.

“Religion has never been the problem here; it’s education. It’s the lack of a developed civil society. And it’s poverty, especially in the remote areas,” Ylli Manjani, the country’s justice minister, said in an interview. “When you have a situation where people feel hopeless, extremists can fish in that pool.”

Rise of Wahhabi mosques

The very idea of radical Islam still sits uneasily in a country that has always worn its religion lightly.

For centuries, Albanians were an amicable mix of Sunni Muslims, Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics, with a significant minority of Bektashis, a moderate Sufi Muslim sect that has its global headquarters in Albania. For nearly 50 years until the collapse of communism in 1990, the country’s Marxist leaders proclaimed Albania to be the world’s first atheist state, officially banning religious observances and persecuting imams and priests.

Among the persecuted was the Muslim grandfather of Ylli Gurra, a moderate Sunni cleric who today presides over a prominent mosque in Tirana, not far from statues honoring Skanderbeg, Albania’s national hero and a 15th-century convert to Christianity.

Gurra, wearing a tailored suit and sipping coffee in one of Tirana’s fashionable outdoor cafes, credited his grandfather not only for his faith but also for his belief in embracing neighbors from different religions. Such acceptance, he said, has always been a staple of Albanian Islam — at least, until recently.

“We have always been proud of being a country where you can practice your beliefs as you see fit,” Gurra said. “But the people who grew up under communism had little understanding of their religion. And now, after 25 years of democracy and freedom, some have trouble understanding the boundaries.”

Foreign groups have been only too eager to assist in the country’s religious education. Starting in the early 1990s, Islamic charities, some with the backing of oil-rich gulf kingdoms, jetted into Tirana to begin building mosques and madrassas, or religious schools. The most promising young students were offered scholarships to study theology under the tutelage of fundamentalist clerics in Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

In the past decade, Albania’s larger cities have witnessed a proliferation of independent mosques, unaffiliated with the Muslim Community of Albania, the organization that presides over the country’s moderate-Sunni worship centers. New evangelical Christian congregations had cropped up, as well, reinforcing a growing sectarian consciousness that many Albanians say is alien to their culture.

Today, one of the biggest construction projects in Tirana is a huge, $34 million mosque funded in large part by the Turkish government. While few officials would publicly question Turkey’s largesse, some privately expressed exasperation. Why a lavish new mosque in a country with so many critical needs, including schools, highways and infrastructure for Albania’s promising but underdeveloped tourism industry?

“Please,” implored one senior official, “we have needs other than mosques.”

Trial of the clerics

Lately, it is not the mosques themselves that worry Albanian security officials. It is the messages, communicated by a small number of independent imams, many of them trained outside the country.

Fears about radicalization began building two years ago when the first waves of Islamic State volunteers began leaving for Syria, urged onward in some cases by local clerics. In some remote villages in southeastern Albania, young Muslims in their teens and 20s left home in clusters, sending word later that they had arrived in Iraq or Syria. Some joined up with all-Balkan combat units made up of Albanian and Kosovar nationals.

One Albanian fighter, Ebu Belkisa, a 32-year-old imam from the tiny eastern village of Leshnica, was promoted to a leadership post and then to Internet stardom, appearing in Islamic State videos under the nom de guerre Almir Daci to urge his countrymen to carry out terrorist attacks at home. Belkisa was later killed in fighting, but his widely circulated videos helped spur an unprecedented crackdown by Albanian officials on real and perceived radicals across the country.

Some of the most notorious mosques were closed or forced to change leadership, and many of the more outspoken Islamists were arrested. Among those caught up in the initial sweeps were Bujar Hysa and the eight other Islamists accused of encouraging congregants to support the Islamic State.

The trial of clerics became a public sensation, as the defendants shouted insults at the judge and accused the prosecutor of being a puppet of the United States. Still, Albanian officials, sensitive to accusations of religious persecution in a former communist country, have allowed the defendants to air their grievances in unfiltered interviews with journalists.

In an interview with The Washington Post in their Tirana prison, Hysa and two other defendants asserted that they had been railroaded by an Albanian government eager to burnish its terrorist-fighting credentials. Hysa recounted being arrested by an assault force of dozens of officers who burst into his house while he and young children were sleeping. His only offense, he said, was urging Albanians to come to the aid of Syrian war victims.

“I made a public appeal for people to help Syrians against Assad — at a time when all the world was against Assad, including [President] Obama,” Hysa said. “But because it was coming from a religious person, they say I am a terrorist.”

Moments later, Hysa acknowledged that it was not just his views on Syria that got him into trouble, but rather, a more fundamental conflict with the pluralistic society that Albanian officials are trying to build. Hysa claimed that a growing number of the country’s Muslims see Albania’s system of government as irreconcilably at odds with their religion. Eventually, he said, Albania’s experiment with democracy would be scrapped in favor of a benign Muslim governance that would allow other religions to continue to exist — as long as they agreed to submit to Islamic law.

“We don’t accept their democratic system,” he said of Albania’s government. “We don’t accept their [morality], such as their belief in marriage between women and women, men and men. We oppose action by NATO anywhere in the Arab world.”

“These,” he said, are the main reasons we were arrested.”

‘We have our own traditions’

Exactly how many of the country’s Muslims share such views is unclear. Government officials and leaders of more traditional Muslim organizations insist that the number is quite small. Along Tirana’s broad avenues, and in the sun-drenched tourist resorts on the Mediterranean coast, Muslim prayer caps and headscarves are rarely seen. Restaurants serve wine and traditional Albanian raki, or fruit brandy.

Manjani, the justice minister, says the country turned a corner with its quick action to stop Islamist recruiting. But he also acknowledges that the root causes of radicalism — poverty and foreign proselytizing — remain serious problems. And, despite assurances of help from U.S. and European officials, Albanians still are having to confront such challenges without significant assistance.

“The real challenge is economic development,” he said. “We have to give these people jobs, because if we fail to fight poverty and ignorance, things will only get worse. Meanwhile, what we get from the [West] is the same promises for more training and more ‘capacity-building.’ What does that even mean?”

Gurra, the moderate imam, said members of his mosque still prefer the Albanian tradition of embracing the country’s religious diversity, sometimes even joining in the religious celebrations of their Orthodox and Catholic neighbors.

But lately, some of his members are asking difficult questions, he said, and Muslims from other communities have criticized him for publicly advocating religious tolerance. After the Islamic State’s terrorist attacks in Paris, Gurra joined clerics from Orthodox Christian, Catholic and Bektashi congregations in condemning the violence in a show of religious solidarity. But afterward, he received anonymous threats. “Why were you with those people?” one caller demanded to know.

“Fortunately, there aren’t many people who hold such views, and they’re not going to win,” Gurra said. “I tell our people, ‘We have our own traditions,’ and they’re Albanian traditions, not Arab traditions. We are all part of Europe, not just geographically, but culturally.”

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/colombia/article83077277.html

June 10, 2016 5:03 PM

Colombia's latest ally in the fight against cocaine: FARC guerrillas

Highlights
- The pilot program will begin in 10 villages next month

- The announcement comes as hopes for a definitive peace deal run high

- Colombia remains world's largest producer of cocaine

By Jim Wyss
jwyss@miamiherald.com

HAVANA, Cuba — The Colombian government and the country’s largest guerrilla group on Friday agreed to roll out a crop-substitution program aimed at weaning tens of thousands of farmers off of coca — the raw ingredient of cocaine.

The Andean nation has spent more than two decades and hundreds of millions of dollars on alternative development and crop substitution programs, but remains the world’s top cocaine producer.

This, however, is the first time that the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, will be partners in the process.

The deal comes as government and guerrilla negotiators have been meeting in Havana for more than three years in hopes of hammering out a peace deal that would allow them to end Latin America’s longest-running and bloodiest civil conflict.

“This is the beginning of the end of this tragedy."

Eduardo Díaz, Colombia’s anti-drug czar

The guerrilla’s chief negotiator, Iván Márquez, called the pilot project, which will begin next month in 10 villages near the town of Briceño, Antioquia, “transcendental” and “new.”

“We can proclaim loudly from Havana,” Márquez said, reading from a communiqué, “that this project — the voluntary substitution program for illicit crops, which is beginning in Colombia — will be a spark that will expand to the four cardinal points.”

The pilot project will be taking place near El Orejón, a community where the army and guerrillas have been working together for months removing landmines.

Eduardo Díaz, Colombia’s anti-drug czar, said the mine-removal project had laid the groundwork for the government and the guerrillas to work together to tackle the thorny drug issue.

Asked what made this effort different from those that have failed in the past, Díaz said this time the pilot project was taking place in the heart of Colombia’s coca country.

Almost 70 percent of the areas that are most impacted by coca-growing have never had access to alternative-development projects, he said.

“This is the beginning of the end of this tragedy,” he said.

Colombia is the world’s largest cocaine producer, and some 60,000 families are thought to make their living off the trade. Díaz said that some 120,000 to 150,000 people depend economically on coca.

But the vast majority are subsistence farmers who are open to viable alternatives, he said.

“Introduce me to a farmer who has gotten rich growing coca and it will be the first one I’ve ever met,” he said.

The International Office for Migration, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will be providing support and verification for the project.

The pilot program includes some promising elements, like economic assistance during the transition period, and the buy-in from a wide-array of actors, said Kyle Johnson, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group, a U.S. based nonprofit that has been, following the conflict.

“Coca growers have clamored for years for this kind of design, ‘I will get rid of coca on my own but you have to provide me with something until I have my first harvest,’” he said. “This will be the closest thing to piloting that kind of design.”

However, the voluntary nature of the program could also be a test for the guerrillas, who will have to convince farmers to abandon the trade.

“The challenge for the FARC will be to show how much influence they will have in these communities that they claim to represent,” Johnson said.

The FARC have long been accused of using the drug trade to finance their war. As part of the peace talks, the group agreed to be part of the solution in eradicating the trade, but details have been scarce.

Friday's news comes amid growing indications that the two parties are on the verge of inking a peace deal. Márquez said he expected there would be more announcements that “will place us very close to peace.”

But there are still difficult issues to tackle, including how the FARC — thought to number between 7,000 and 9,000 fighters — might turn over their weapons. And how the government will protect guerrillas-turned-civilians.

On Friday, Màrquez blamed past administrations for treating coca farmers like criminals. “Their solution was repression, jail and the criminal use” of aerial eradication.

“We ask the international community to help as much as possible,” he said. “That way they can add their valuable grain of sand in helping make this anti-drug policy a success.”

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/06/11/weekly_recon_11jun2016_109439.html

June 11, 2016

Weekly Recon 11JUN2016

By Blake Baiers


Good Saturday morning and welcome to Weekly Recon. On this day in 1918, a USMC assault following artillery bombardment succeeded in capturing two-thirds of Belleau Wood, but with heavy casualties. A battalion commander, Lt. Col. Frederick Wise erroneously reported his men were in control of the woods, but had misread his maps and position. Brigade Commander James Harbord request relief for his men reporting their near physical exhaustion. And in 1944, the USS Missouri (BB-63), the last battleship built by the United States Navy and future site of the signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, was commissioned.

“You go go War With the Army you Have” - Donald Rumsfeld’s notoriously tone-deaf quote in response to troops’ dissatisfaction with underperforming gear during the Iraq war must be on the minds of those involved in Marine Corps acquisition. Hope Hodge Seck at Military.com reports that this summer, at the Jungle Warfare Training Center in Okinawa, USMC units will be fielding new specialized combat boots designed for harsh jungle conditions. After years at war in sandy, arid climates the Marines need footwear that can handle the mud and humidity they will face in jungle environments. Will the addition of these boots make the Marines a global fighting force, or is there and objective in mind?

U.S. Names Yarmouk Martyrs’ Brigade Terror Group, but Does That Matter? - The Yarmouk Martyrs’ Brigade (YMP) of Southern Syria has been a topic of interest in Weekly Recon in the past. The group is located in the Deraa province in southern Syria bordering Israeli claims in the Golan Heights, as well Jordan. The group has alleged ties to the so-called Islamic State (ISIS), but thus far the group has not produced a formal proclamation of allegiance to ISIS. The group began as a band of local rebels, but in March leadership shifted to an individual of Saudi descent, alluding to ISIS machinations.

On Thursday the State Department listed the YMP a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) entity under Executive Order (E.O.) 13224,” which means the group is now target of a litany of previously inapplicable sanctions. This is fine and well, except the YMB no longer exists; at least not as the YMB.

In late May the YMB merged with another local group, Harakat Al Muthanna, and both rebranded under the name Jaysh Khaled ibn al-Waleed, or “The Army of Khaled ibn al-Waleed.” Both groups had dismissed reports that they are linked to ISIS, but espouse similar ideologies and often fly the ISIS flag. This could be ISIS cover in an effort to keep coalition airstrikes from targeting Deraa.

That being said, will the change in name effect the utility of the State Department’s SDGT designation of the YMB? Nevertheless, it appears that the State Department has been unable to keep pace with the fast changing realties on the ground in Syria.

No Plans for U.S. Base at Cam Ranh Bay - The U.S. and Vietnam have been engaged in a cool and steady courtship for some time, easing into warmer relations as would be expected of old adversaries. The recent lift of the decades old arms embargo is a sure sign that the rise of China is making the two nations reconsider their stance toward one another, but that shift will not be rushed. This is evident in the recent by statements by U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam Ted Osius at CSIS admonishing reports in the press that Vietnam would open the restricted naval base at Cam Ranh Bay to a U.S. presence:

“There’s been a lot of fulminating in the press about Cam Ranh Bay, and some of the fulminating has no basis in reality. Some of the articles I’ve looked at, I’ve had to wonder what planet people are living on. There is zero expectation that we would have access to that restricted naval base. Zero expectation that we would have a rotating presence in Cam Ranh Bay or a base in Cam Ranh Bay. Zero.”

Prashanth Parameswaran, who has been tracking the thawing ties between the U.S. and Vietnam closely, reports at The Diplomat that Osius did expect to see U.S. ships in the open, International Sea Port at Cam Ranh Bay.

On the prospects of arms sales to Vietnam following last months lift of the arms embargo, Osius stresses that it will follow the same trajectory as recent advancements in U.S.-Vietnam relations—slow and steady.



SEND RCD YOUR INPUT: Please send your tips, suggestions and feedback to bbaiers@realcleardefense.com or on Twitter at @BlakeBaiers. Make sure to follow us on Twitter at @RCDefense.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/06/11/world/americas/ap-lt-guatemala-corruption.html?_r=0

Americas

Guatemala Arrests 3 Ex-Cabinet Ministers, Hunts for 2 More

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
JUNE 11, 2016, 9:39 P.M. E.D.T.

GUATEMALA CITY — Three senior Guatemalan cabinet ministers were arrested Saturday on corruption charges and authorities said they were seeking to detain two more as part of a continuing crackdown that has already seen a former president jailed.

All of the former officials served under ex-President Otto Perez Molina, who faces charges of money laundering and conspiracy. He denies wrongdoing.

Former Defense Ministers Ulises Anzuelo and Manuel Lopez Ambrosio were arrested, as was ex-Interior Minister Mauricio Lopez Bonilla.

Chief prosecutor Thelma Aldana said they were part of a group that used about $4.3 million in state funds to buy gifts, including houses, boats and a helicopter, for Perez Molina. They face charges of money laundering and conspiracy.

Perez Molina's former Vice President Roxana Baldetti also is jailed on corruption charges, and also denies wrongdoing.

Aldana said a group of officials organized a collection each year to buy gifts for the president on his birthday.

Aldana said the money was handled by Juan Carlos Monzon, then secretary to Baldetti. Monzon has been collaborating with prosecutors investigating the case.

Interior Minister Francisco Rivas said authorities also have sought international arrest orders for former Energy Minister Erick Archila and former Communications Minister Alejandro Sinibaldi.

Lopez Ambrosio and Lopez Bonilla were arrested at their homes, while Anzueto turned himself in after learning he faced an arrest warrant.

Arriving at court offices, Lopez Bonilla said he did not know why he'd been detained, but expressed confidence in the country's judicial system.

"I believe that at the end of the day, things will be cleared up. I can't say more than that I am proud of the work I did," he said.

About 2,000 people gathered for a demonstration in the center of Guatemala City on Saturday to support the prosecutors and the crackdown on corruption.

 

[Housecarl]

Orlando: Mass shooting at night club.
Started by mzkitty‎, Today 12:34 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?493096-Orlando-Mass-shooting-at-night-club.
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?493096-Orlando-Mass-shooting-at-night-club./page5

_________

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-offensive-idUSKCN0YY07K

World | Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:56am EDT
Related: World, Iraq

Iraqi forces gain ground against Islamic State south of Mosul

Iraqi troops advanced against Islamic State south of Mosul on Sunday as the U.S.-led coalition intensifies its campaign against the militants on multiple fronts across their self-proclaimed caliphate.

Officers involved in the operation said Iraqi forces had moved toward the village of Haj Ali in tanks and armored vehicles under cover of coalition air strikes and artillery fire, capturing another village on the way.

"In the beginning they resisted but when they saw the force they withdrew," said an Iraqi officer speaking from the newly recaptured village of Kharaib Jabr, adjacent to Haj Ali.

Haj Ali sits on the eastern bank of the Tigris river, opposite the Islamic State hub of Qayara, where there is an airfield that is set to serve as a staging ground for future operations to recapture Mosul, about 60 km (40 miles) north.

Islamic State overran Mosul two years ago and went on to proclaim a caliphate straddling Iraq and Syria but has come under increasing pressure in recent months, losing ground to an array of forces.


Related Coverage
› Iraq army says secures first safe exit route for civilians in Falluja

Iraqi forces are also advancing on the edge of the Islamic State bastion of Falluja further south, while in Syria U.S.-backed forces are encircling the militant-held town of Manbij.

Iraqi troops were deployed to the northern Makhmour area earlier this year and launched an operation in March touting it as the beginning of a bigger campaign to retake Mosul - the largest city under militant control.

Since then, Iraqi forces have made modest gains, capturing a handful of villages on the eastern bank of the river Tigris.

The commander of the operation blamed the slow pace on a lack of tanks and said he did not have enough men to hold ground after it was retaken from the militants.

Last week, Iraq deployed an armored division along with boats and bridges to cross the river to Qayara, control of which would also isolate Mosul from territory the militants control further south and east.


(Reporting by Isabel Coles; Editing by Andrew Heavens and Elaine Hardcastle)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.newsweek.com/how-and-why-russia-moving-war-footing-putin-nato-469090

Opinion

How and Why Russia Is Moving to a War Footing

By Andrew Monaghan On 6/11/16 at 4:00 AM

As NATO’s Warsaw summit looms, the rivalry between the alliance and Russia is intensifying. The summit’s agenda includes a lengthy list of points of tension, including NATO enlargement, ballistic missile defence, positioning of NATO equipment and forces in Eastern European member states and NATO’s partnerships with states such as Georgia. At the same time, NATO is conducting a series of substantial military exercises in Eastern Europe, such as Anakonda-2016, the largest such exercises since the end of the Cold War.

The Russian leadership has responded with a mix of vocal criticism threatening retaliatory measures, most notably President Putin’s statements that Romania would be targeted as a result of its hosting elements of the missile defence shield. Other officials have stated that Russia will also increase military and security exercises and other activities in response.

These moves are in addition to others already announced, such as the reconstitution of the 1st Guards Tank army, this year’s strategic exercise Kavkaz 2016, and statements that the Admiral Kuznetsov would be deployed to the naval task force in the eastern Mediterranean and Borei class nuclear powered submarines would conduct test launches of Bulava ballistic missiles, an important part of Russia’s nuclear triad.

These additional moves by the Russian leadership are the tip of a much larger iceberg, and are not so much responses to what NATO is currently doing but rather reflections of what would have taken place anyway. Indeed, the Russian leadership is in the middle of a major transition period during which it is implementing emergency measures to move Russia onto a war footing—in effect, state mobilization.

To understand the scale of this transformation, the reasons behind it and the trajectory it is likely to take, it is necessary to step back to see the bigger strategic picture. What we are seeing today are the results of a series of policies and reforms that were instigated initially in the wake of the Russo-Georgia war in 2008 and subsequently accelerated in the wake of the so-called Arab Spring.

These policies were intended to reinvigorate the defense industry and revamp the armed forces. In 2010, the Russian leadership committed $640 billion to a decade-long transformation process that would result in recruiting half a million contract soldiers and ensuring that at least 70 percent of military equipment is modern, including the procurement of thousands of pieces of high performance and heavy equipment, such as tanks, artillery, military aircraft and naval vessels.

At the same time, the Russian armed forces and internal security services have taken part in thousands of tactical, operational and strategic exercises. Over the last five years, these exercises have become significantly larger and more sophisticated, designed to test the system in place, particularly coordination between ministries and federal, regional and local authorities.

These are impressive figures. But they also represent emergency measures. On one hand, they reflect Moscow’s concern about Russia’s ability to cope with an increasingly unstable and threatening environment. In the government’s view, Russia is surrounded by an arc of crisis, stretching almost all the way around Russia, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. At the same time, the Russian authorities are concerned by threats of international terrorism, the spread of regional instability as a result of the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, and particularly by the prospect of US-led color revolutions not only in the former Soviet space, but even in Russia itself.

Such concerns are compounded by Moscow’s view that the 21 st century will become increasingly unstable as major powers compete for resources, particularly in Eurasia. Thus the Russian leadership often speaks of the need to protect Russian territorial integrity and sovereignty, and to insulate Russia against external threats by consolidating state institutions and civil society.

What we see today, therefore, is just part of a bigger picture, in which Russia is halfway through a sustained transformation process. It is not without problems. Exercises have revealed ongoing shortcomings within the system, particularly in terms of coordinating military and civilian authorities. There are also problems in procurement, leading to postponements and delays in equipment supply and in ongoing reforms to optimal force structure.

There is little that the West and NATO can do to alter or reduce this mobilization transformation in Russia, partly because it is intended to meet what the Kremlin sees as Russian domestic problems and weaknesses, and partly because to mitigate Russian concerns would mean implementing policies that would be unpalatable to Western leaders, such as ‘retiring’ NATO. What is does mean, however, is that NATO’s leadership should be beginning to think about what this transformation will mean for Russia over the next three years, a Russia that is more muscular and more alert to potential threats.

Andrew Monaghan is senior research fellow in the Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House, and the author of The New Politics of Russia: Interpreting Change, to be published by Manchester University Press in July 2016.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/ar...s-paradigm-of-“reassurance-through-readiness”

The A2/AD Predicament Challenges NATO’s Paradigm of “Reassurance Through Readiness”

by Octavian Manea
Journal Article | June 9, 2016 - 6:03pm

Small Wars Journal interview with Luis Simón, Research Professor at the Institute for European Studies (Vrije Universiteit Brussel), Director of the Brussels Office of the Elcano Royal Institute, and Associate Fellow of the Baltic Defense College. He specializes in geopolitical and strategic affairs.

It is important to clarify the danger that the proliferation of A2/AD capabilities poses to Europe and especially the Eastern Flank. In your opinion how do these capabilities challenge traditional security paradigms, the ways NATO used to reassure and deter and what is the impact for the most exposed allies? What role do A2/AD capabilities play in Russian strategy?

The global proliferation of Anti-Access and Area Denial (A2/AD) capabilities is indeed a very important problem for Europeans, and I would say that this seems to be getting increasing attention in NATO circles. Anti-access capabilities are used to prevent or constrain the deployment of opposing forces into a theater of operations, whereas area-denial capabilities are used to reduce their freedom of maneuver once in a theater. Over the last two decades, countries like China and Russia have successfully leveraged the kind of precision-guided systems once solely possessed by the U.S. and its allies to develop A2/AD capabilities, by way of precision-guided anti-ship, anti-aircraft, land-attack, anti-satellite cruise and ballistic missiles as well as cyber and electronic warfare capabilities. In addition to that, the application of precision-guided systems to rockets, artillery rounds, mortars, missiles, anti-tank munitions or shoulder-fired surface-to-air-missiles can significantly augment the military potential of unsophisticated militaries and terrorist groups. A2/AD capabilities are also (slowly) finding their way into Europe’s extended southern neighborhood, a geographical space running from the Gulf of Guinea, through the Sahel, the Mediterranean and Red Sea into the Western Indian Ocean – as far as the Persian Gulf.

I would say that the development and proliferation of A2/AD capabilities in and around Europe poses two kinds of challenges to NATO, and to the European allies in particular. The first is a defense and deterrence challenge in the so-called Eastern European Flank. Russia’s inroads in precision-guided, network-centric warfare have resulted in a significant improvement in its A2/AD capabilities, i.e. by way of overlapping air and missile defenses, dense concentrations of surface-to-surface ballistic missiles and land-, air-, and sea-launched cruise missiles, as well as layered anti-submarine warfare capabilities. Moscow’s ability to deny the use of the airspace of border countries, and even constrain the movement of ships and land forces in a crisis or conflict, appears to have improved significantly in recent years. For instance, through 2014 and early 2015, Russia’s use of artillery and large-scale electronic jamming complicated substantially the communications of Ukraine’s armed forces, as well as its ability to access the Donbas region (within its own country) and move safely there.

NATO member states bordering Russia are increasingly vulnerable to A2/AD. Russia’s integrated air-defense system and short-range land-attack missiles already cover the Baltic States in their entirety, as well as large swathes of Polish territory. This problem is further compounded by the presence of Russian S400 missiles in Kaliningrad, which could endanger NATO operations deeper into Europe. In addition to that, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe General Philip M. Breedlove has warned that Russia’s militarization of Sevastopol is leading to the emergence of an A2/AD ‘bubble’ in the Black Sea area, one extending as far as the eastern Mediterranean and the Levant. Last but not least, the rapid buildup of Russia’s military arsenal in Murmansk has translated into an A2/AD bubble covering parts of Norway and parts of the Barents and Norwegian seas.

The second challenge relates to power projection. The present and future proliferation of A2/AD bubbles in Europe’s southern neighborhood challenges the assumption that European militaries can safely access most operational theaters in Africa and the broader Middle East, and move freely within those theaters. This assumption has guided most European thinking on expeditionary concepts and capabilities since the end of the Cold War, having led to much emphasis on military transport aircraft and vessels; air tankers for air-to-air refueling; satellites for military communications; as well as helicopters, both for transport in theater and tactical strike missions. All of these platforms are distinctively non-stealthy, and therefore increasingly vulnerable in maturing A2/AD environments.

Anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities (deployed in Kaliningrad and increasingly in Crimea) are questioning most of the assumptions of the reinforcement based security recipe at the core of NATO Russia Founding Act. I am wondering what options does NATO have in order to boost the credibility of deterrence in face of the A2/AD challenge? This should be a core concern at the NATO’s forthcoming summit in Warsaw.

A good question indeed. Russia’s growing A2/AD capabilities pose a very concrete operational problem for NATO. In the case of a conflict or crisis, it might be risky for the Alliance to try to move aircraft and ships into the frontline states, whether in northeastern Europe, southeastern Europe or the High North. As acknowledged by NATO Deputy Secretary General Alexander Vershbow, any allied aircraft and vessels that head into the frontline states are highly vulnerable to Russian surface-to-air, anti-ship and land-attack missiles. In some ways, it could be argued that this challenges the paradigm of “reassurance through readiness” that came out of the 2014 NATO Wales Summit, i.e. the notion that you can guarantee the security of frontline allies simply by signaling that you have forces that are in a high state of readiness and, in the event of a crisis, can move easily into theater from Western and Central Europe (where most of NATO’s manpower and resources are). This is challenged by A2/AD.

As the Alliance gears up for its July 2016 Summit in Warsaw, you hear more and more officials arguing that a more permanent, larger and heavier U.S. and NATO military presence in Eastern Europe may well be the only way to offset Russia’s A2/AD challenge and restore deterrence in eastern Europe. And I would say that the narrative shift from “reassurance” to “deterrence” signals a progressive “hardening” of U.S. and NATO policy in Europe, i.e. an intent to go beyond readiness and emphasise the need for more presence. A good example of that is President Obama’s request to quadruple the funds for the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI) in fiscal year 2017, which is aimed at supporting a more persistent U.S. military presence in Central and Eastern Europe, i.e. through larger and longer rotational deployments and infrastructure development to support the pre-positioning of equipment.

Europe is catching up with the whole A2/AD operational reality, but is somehow far behind the “offset strategy” discussion. Deterrence played a key part during the overall containment posture that the U.S. and NATO adopted during the Cold War. What role did the previous offset strategies play in bolstering NATO’s deterrence credibility? What lessons do they provide for today’s strategic context?

A word on the third U.S. offset strategy. In order to overcome or, at least, mitigate the impending global A2/AD challenge, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel tasked Deputy Secretary Work in late 2014 to develop a “game changing offset strategy,” by leveraging U.S. advantages in technologies like big data, stealth, advanced manufacturing (e.g. 3-D printing), robotics, directed energy and so on.

Many discussions on offset have revolved around new technologies, but I think it is important to situate the Pentagon’s third offset strategy within its broader context. Because what matters is not so much technology itself, but its ability to generate concrete operational and strategic effects. New strategic and operational challenges call for innovative concepts of operations, which in turn require new capabilities as well as doctrinal and organizational reforms within the armed forces. I would call that the first “leg” of offset, so to speak. The second leg relates to technological, organizational and industrial innovation. In this regard, much emphasis is being placed on how to ensure the Pentagon can better exploit cutting-edge technologies and research available in the global commercial sector, whose investment in research and development currently dwarfs that of the defense sector. What does all this mean for Europe?

In Europe, pretty much every discussion about U.S. military innovation is followed by questions about the growing transatlantic capability gap. In this regard, the Pentagon’s third offset strategy could be seen as just another iteration in the long-running drama of European disinvestment in defense, and the aversion of most Western European countries to all things military (Britain and France being exceptions). But this time may be even worse. Previous waves of U.S. military innovation during the Cold War were followed by sustained efforts to channel emerging cutting-edge capabilities and technologies into the armed forces and defense companies of America’s main European allies. This was facilitated by the fact that Americans and Europeans held similar perceptions about the nature of the strategic threat posed by the Soviet Union – and about the need to use military power to counter such a threat. In other words, the political, military-strategic and technological foundations of transatlantic cohesion went hand in glove.

I would say that the third offset strategy must be set against the backdrop of Washington’s intention to ‘rebalance’ its attention to the Asia-Pacific region, and against the need to overcome a very concrete operational challenge there: the one posed by China’s A2/AD capabilities. In this regard, the fact that most European countries (bare the usual exceptions!) are uninterested in strategic developments in the Asia-Pacific may pose a systemic challenge to transatlantic cohesion. However, as I was saying, Europeans face their own set of A2/AD challenges, both in the context of defense and deterrence in Eastern Europe, as well as when it comes to projecting power into their ‘extended southern neighborhood’. Each of these geographical areas presents its own strategic and operational challenges, which are in turn different from those the U.S. faces in the Asia-Pacific. However, the fundamental problems concerning how to overcome or mitigate A2/AD are essentially the same – and many of the capabilities required are fungible.

Most U.S. discussions on offset revolve around the need to strike the right balance between operational concepts aimed at defeating the A2/AD challenge and those aimed at hedging against it. Defeating strategies require both preemptive strikes against the enemy’s A2/AD capabilities (i.e. missile launchers and command and control systems) as well as more effective (missile) defenses. They are technologically intensive, in that they emphasize capabilities such as stealth, long-range strike, cyber and electronic warfare and advanced missile defense systems. In contrast to that, hedging strategies seek to ‘turn the anti-access tables’ on the enemy or competitor, in order to raise the costs of potential aggression. Hedging strategies are less technologically intensive and more asymmetric in nature.

I think that in confronting their own A2/AD challenges, Europeans must grapple with the same conceptual puzzle as the U.S., i.e. how to strike the right balance between defeating and hedging. However, in addressing that question Europeans must consider the geographical features of the eastern flank and southern neighborhood, the level of technological maturity of Europe’s A2/AD challenges and their own military-technological prowess and political limitations. This suggests a somewhat different approach to offsetting A2/AD than that adopted by the U.S. An important difference has to do with geography, and range. Insofar as both Eastern Europe and the broader Middle East are geographically close to Europe, Europeans should perhaps prioritize short- and medium-range strike capabilities, in contrast with Washington’s emphasis on long-range strike capabilities in an Asia-Pacific context. It is also important to distinguish between Europe’s eastern ‘flank’ and its ‘extended southern neighborhood’, because different levels of A2/AD maturity require different balances between defeating and hedging and different sets of capabilities.

What role can the BMD capabilities as well as what Bob Work has emphasized in his speeches as Raid Breaker capability (a potential mix between Patriots, Paladins and THAAD) play in counter-balancing A2/AD capabilities?

If I understood it correctly, the concept of Raid Breaker, as expressed by Deputy U.S. Secretary of Defense Bob Work, revolves around the need to demonstrate if someone throws a salvo of a hundred guided munitions, the U.S. should be able to ride it out. To do that, the U.S. would rely on a missile defense ecosystem of sorts that would use different kinetic and non-kinetic solutions, and include lasers and electromagnetic guns, but also electronic warfare. All these operational concepts, capabilities and technologies are being discussed in the context of the third U.S. offset strategy. And I would say they are all highly relevant for Europeans, especially in an eastern flank context, which presents an increasingly pressing missile challenge. I think that is something that applies to the Baltic space as much as it applies to the Black Sea Basin.

Russia is emphasizing a comprehensive type of warfare. Are we forgetting that integrating A2/AD umbrellas with hybrid tactics is a potential tool of choice for a revisionist power like Russia?

I think there is indeed a risk that we may be overlooking that A2/AD-hybrid connection. It seems to me that many of our discussions about the Russian challenge in Eastern Europe tend to focus focused on so-called ‘hybrid’, ‘ambiguous’ or ‘non-linear’ ways of warfare, such as the use of intelligence and special operations operatives for destabilization purposes; the threat of cutting off energy supplies; financial, political and cyber penetration; the waging of information warfare, etc. And we can challenge the concept of hybrid warfare in many ways, and say that it’s as old as warfare and so on – although I would say that “hybrid” has become a buzzword in policy circles, and has acquired a life of its own. But that’s not even the point. To go back to your question, I would say that we may not be paying enough attention to how ‘hybrid’ and A2/AD tactics reinforce each other in the context of Russian strategy. I would say A2/AD and ‘hybrid’ can reinforce each other in at least two ways. On the one hand, they create a sort of “double deterrent” to NATO intervention in a military crisis, i.e. by first generating a blurred or non-military cause that may negate the legitimacy of an imperiled ally’s invocation of Article 5, and then by raising the specter of a defeat for any NATO force that would be dispatched, thus strengthening the sense of a geopolitical fait accompli in the minds of risk-averse (Western) European. Secondly, and relatedly, by raising the military (and political) costs to western reinforcements, Russian A2/AD capabilities can serve to undermine NATO’s credibility in frontline countries. This could, in turn, strengthen the voices of those stakeholders claiming for accommodation with Russia, and thus make frontline countries more vulnerable to hybrid means of penetration.

What role did the 2nd offset strategy (mid-1970s and 1980s), with its technological, doctrinal and organizational innovations, play in changing the Russian perception on their battlefield competitive advantages within the European theater of operations? How did the 2nd offset strategy help deter Russia?

I think it played a very important role, but let me perhaps say a few words about the 1st offset strategy before getting into the 2nd. Because I think they are intimately related. What most people are now referring to as the 1st offset strategy dates back to the 1950s. When Dwight D. Eisenhower came into office in 1953, he understood that it would take too many U.S. and allied army divisions to balance against Soviet conventional power in Europe. Such a strong conventional effort was not realistic either politically or economically. Therefore, President Eisenhower came up with his New Look strategy, which identified Washington’s edge in nuclear weaponry and long-range missiles and bombers as the most efficient and cheapest way to offset the Soviet Union's conventional military superiority in Central Europe.

Eisenhower’s New Look would spark greater emphasis on nuclear weapons and delivery systems throughout the 1950s and 1960s, thus creating the conditions for credible deterrence in Europe. That, in a nutshell, was the first offset strategy. The problem is that while the U.S. and NATO turned their attention towards nuclear weapons and delivery systems, the Soviet Union did not stand still. Throughout the 1960s, the Soviets devoted increasing resources to building up their own tactical and strategic nuclear arsenals, expanding the destructive potential of their bombs, and improving their means of delivery and propulsion.

I would perhaps emphasize the importance of Europe and the European allies in the context of the 1st offset strategy. On the one hand, Europe was the epicenter of U.S.-Soviet global geopolitical and military competition. On the other, the success of the 1st offset strategy would largely depend upon the cooperation of the European allies. Britain and France stood out, by virtue of their increasing investment in nuclear weaponry. But beyond those two countries, NATO as a whole came to increasingly rely on (tactical) U.S. nuclear weapons from the mid-1960s onwards.

I would say that the 2nd offset strategy arose out of the realization that by the mid-1970s, the Soviet Union had reached parity with the U.S. in nuclear weapons and enjoyed about a 3-fold advantage in conventional weapons. That constituted a threat to the European balance, and something had to be done. It was in that context when, during the tenure of Secretary Harold Brown (1977-1981), the Pentagon set in motion what was then called the offset strategy, and which we have come to know today as the “second” offset strategy. Thus, the 1978 Assault Breaker program of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration (DARPA) concentrated on electronics, computers, the global positioning system, and stealth. Advances in these technologies and their effective integration into a “reconnaissance-strike” operational complex would allow the U.S. to “see deep” and “strike deep” into Soviet territory.

Upon arriving in office in 1981, President Ronald Reagan became even more interested in leveraging U.S. technological advantages to throw the Soviet Union off balance, and devoted ever more resources to that enterprise. By the late 1980s, further advances in precision-strike, coupled with significant increases in U.S. defense spending, led the Soviet Union to come to the realization that it was on the losing side of a military competition.

When we talk about the second offset, I think it is also important to look past technology, and look at its geostrategic application, and its ability to generate concrete operational effects. Once again, it was developments in the European theater of operations that propelled the 2nd U.S. offset strategy and informed its development. And once again, the European allies played an important part throughout the process. The U.S. had a vested strategic (and economic) interest in transferring new concepts and technologies to its European allies, because their contribution was deemed to be critical to the preservation of a balance of power in Europe. And NATO was at the center of this process.

From 1982 onwards, Air Land Battle (a U.S. Army operational concept) and the Alliance’s Follow-on Forces Attack worked hand in glove, emphasizing close coordination between (U.S.) precision-guided attacks against Soviet rear forces and supply lines and aggressive moves on the part of NATO land forces. Air Land Battle called for U.S. and NATO forces to “hold the line” against the initial wave of Warsaw Pact forces while engaging the second wave coming from Eastern Europe and the western Soviet Union through precision-strikes.

And let me also perhaps end with a few words to link this historical discussion to the current A2/AD challenge and the 3rd offset strategy.

I would say that advances in precision-strike weaponry certainly played an important part in accelerating the Soviet Union's strategic decline, but it was the end of the Cold War itself that actually opened the path for the U.S. and its European allies to claim the geopolitical dividends of the military-technological paradigm embodied by the 2nd offset strategy. Because, ever since the end of the Cold War, Americans (and Europeans) have sought to draw on their advantages in communications, navigation, and precision-guided munitions to assert their strategic ownership over the “global commons”, i.e. the world's oceans and seas, air, space and cyber-space. This has allowed them to move with a relatively high degree of freedom around the globe, and transit in and out of different operational theaters pretty much at their will. Since the end of the Cold War, the benefits afforded by the revolution in precision-guided weaponry have very largely informed U.S. and European perceptions of the military instrument around expeditionary operational concepts, whereby ‘free access’ and ‘free movement’ were seen as givens in the West.

However, I would say that the Pentagon’s interests in a 3rd offset strategy represents an acknowledgement that the assumption of unhindered global operational access and movement (a product of the 2nd offset strategy) may be reaching the end of its cycle. And this is probably explained by multiple reasons, but I would say it very much related with the fact that, over the last two decades or so, we have witnessed the proliferation of the sort of precision-guided weaponry and systems associated with the 2nd offset strategy, which have given the U.S. and its allies a global military-technological edge. This includes both precision-guided munitions (PGMs) and the supporting capabilities that underpin them, including commercial sources of imagery, precision navigation and timing and upgraded command and control systems. In this regard, a number of countries (most notably China and Russia) have begun to leverage precision-strike systems to develop anti-ship, anti-air, anti-satellite, cyber and electronic warfare capabilities designed to undermine U.S. military access to their respective vicinities. This is at the root of the A2/AD challenge we are discussing today. And the purpose of the 3rd offset strategy is to overcome or mitigate that challenge, through innovative operational concepts and technologies, as well as doctrinal and organizational innovation.

For additional info see Luis Simón’s latest article, “The ‘Third’ U.S. Offset Strategy and Europe’s ‘Anti-access’ Challenge”, just published in the Journal of Strategic Studies.

About the Author »
Octavian Manea


Octavian Manea was a Fulbright Junior Scholar at Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs (Syracuse University) where he received an MA in International Relations and a Certificate of Advanced Studies in Security Studies.

-

Comments

Add New Comment

by Outlaw 09 | June 10, 2016 - 2:00am Login or register to post comments


This is actually a very timely interview for a number of reasons.

Right now Russia via Putin's FP has in effect "surrounded" NATO airspace with FIVE distinct A2/AD "bubbles" and it applies not only just to the Baltic region and runs down into the southern flank and into Israel.

The big difference to the Cold Days is that in those days the SU now Russia had a AD in depth built around SAM belts consisting of SA5/6/8s AND the really big difference is the USAF had specifically trained SEAD air units which knew their loses could well exceed 80% but they knew in the end they could break the belts. AND those air units were forward based in Europe and where is the USAF forward based today??

These "bubbles" now extend from extreme low level to the upper height limits of most of the USAF AC flown today. In the Cold War days this was not always a given and a single point of failure in those days for the SU.

In about 2008/2010 the very last USAF SEAD unit that was actually in the Air Reserve was converted and certified to drop bombs in a CAS mode as the USAF felt no further need for SEAD units and the pilots wanted to deploy to Iraq and AFG and not sit at home.

Another big difference is that these current Russian A2/AD bubbles actually project rather deep into NATO border air space which was confirmed recently in a comment coming out of Moscow..."there is no such thing as NATO air space" AND these "bubbles" when turned on actually threaten commercial air travel as well and can be used as political leverage against any country bordering them.

Regardless of what NATO and others say...this has not been addressed in any meaningful way as I think they really do not have an answer yet outside of combat drones.

 

[thompson]

http://time.com/4366011/nato-chief-4-battalions-baltic-poland/?xid=homepage

NATO to Bulk Up Eastern European Defenses Against Russia

Associated Press

8:37 AM ET

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announces battalions to be sent to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland

BRUSSELS — NATO’s chief said Monday the alliance will agree this week to send four multinational battalions to the Baltic states and Poland to boost their defenses against Russia.

Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO secretary-general, said alliance defense ministers will formally approve the deployment plan drafted by NATO military planners at a meeting that begins Tuesday in Brussels.

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, four of NATO’s members that feel most threatened by Russia, will each be reinforced by “a robust multinational battalion,” Stoltenberg told a news conference.

“This will send a clear signal that NATO stands ready to defend any ally,” the NATO chief said.

Stoltenberg said the battalions will be commanded by NATO military leaders, and deployed on a rotational basis rather than being based permanently in the host countries.

The United States, Britain and Germany have already committed to acting as so-called framework nations for three of the battalions. It was not immediately clear which NATO member country would agree to furnish the core forces for the fourth battalion.

 

[Housecarl]

^^^^
"Task Force Smith" and the term "tripwire" come to mind.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/content/pakistan-afghanistan-observe-cease-fire/3373469.html

Border Clashes Between Pakistan and Afghanistan Resume After Brief Cease-Fire

Ayaz Gul
June 13, 2016 6:46 AM

ISLAMABAD — Border clashes have resumed between security forces of Pakistan and Afghanistan after a short-lived ceasefire on Monday, officials said.

Overnight skirmishes killed at least one person wounded 18 others, according to officials, forcing around 200 Pakistani families to relocate to safer areas.

"Pakistan wanted to build new installations and Afghan border forces didn't allow it. Pakistan went further and fired towards Afghan forces,” Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah told a meeting of ministers in Kabul.

http://gdb.voanews.com/0DE1DB92-88A6-43FB-A169-E85964EEDBEA_w640_s.png

He confirmed the exchange of fire, which lasted seven hours, left one Afghan soldier dead and six others wounded. The Pakistani side also suffered casualties at the Torkham crossing clash.

Abdullah insists bilateral understandings bind the two countries to seek mutual consent before constructing new installations near the border.

“The Afghan security and defense forces retaliated to safeguard the territorial integrity and defend the country and its people ... armed forces are always ready to defend their country and people and to react against any kind of threats,” the Afghan Foreign Ministry said in a separate statement.

But officials in Pakistan rejected Afghan assertions the construction activity was illegal and blamed Afghan security forces for resorting to “unprovoked firing” that wounded 12 people, including a Pakistani border guard.

Pakistani security forces responded to Afghan firing effectively, according to the military’s media wing. It noted Torkham is the most frequented crossing point between the two countries and terrorists have also been found using this gate for entry.

“In order to check movement of terrorists through Torkham, Pakistan is constructing a gate on its own side of the border as a necessity to check unwanted and illegal movement,” the statement noted.

Porous, disputed border

Pakistan and Afghanistan share a more than 2,500-kilometer porous frontier, but Kabul disputes the border and has opposed repeated fencing attempts by Islamabad.

Both sides say militants use the border to conduct anti-state acts in their respective countries.

“We consider these unprovoked attacks unhelpful in Pakistan-Afghan relations and expect from the Afghan government to investigate this incident immediately,” said a spokesman for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s office in a separate statement, expressing Pakistan’s “deep concerns” over the incident.

Pakistan also Monday summoned the Afghan Charge d’Affaires in Islamabad to convey its “strong protest” over what it called the unprovoked firing by the Afghan forces it said wounded two soldiers and nine civilians, including women and children.

“It was further emphasized that all steps should be taken for avoiding recurrence of such incidents in the future,” the Foreign Ministry said.

Afghanistan also summoned the Pakistani ambassador in Kabul to protest the firing incident.

 

[Housecarl]

Another "frozen conflict".....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-eritrea-attacks-idUSKCN0YZ0IL

World | Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:18am EDT
Related: World, Africa

Eritrea, Ethiopia trade blame for border clashes

ADDIS ABABA | By Aaron Maasho


Eritrea and Ethiopia accused each other of starting clashes on Sunday between their soldiers in a border region, highlighting persistent tension over a boundary dispute that triggered war in 1998-2000.

Ethiopia said the situation was calm on Monday, after a resident on the Ethiopian side reported the sound of explosions all day on Sunday and lasting into the early morning of Monday.

Eritrea, a Horn of Africa country that won independence from Ethiopia in 1991, fought border wars with its larger neighbor in 1998-2000 that killed about 70,000 people.

Eritrea's Information Ministry said in a statement late on Sunday night that the Ethiopian government had "unleashed an attack against Eritrea on the Tsorona Central Front."

Tsorona is a town south of the Eritrean capital Asmara and close to the frontier. The area saw intense fighting during the earlier border war.

"The purpose and ramifications of this attack are not clear," the Eritrean statement said.

Ethiopia disputed this account, saying Eritrea started the fight. "Their forces were promptly repulsed. They were given a proper response," government spokesman Getachew Reda said, adding that the situation was quiet on Monday.

Eritrea and Ethiopia routinely accuse each other of backing rebels trying to destabilize and topple the other's government, a legacy from the earlier war.

A resident in the Ethiopian town of Zalambessa, across the border from Tsorona, told Reuters by telephone that he had heard the sound of shelling on Sunday and into the night.

"It did not stop until this morning around 9 a.m. (2.00 a.m. ET)," he said, asking not to be identified. He added that he had seen Ethiopian military vehicles and troops moving along the central stretch of the militarized border.

Eritrean Information Minister Yemane Ghebremeskel had no immediate additional comment when asked about casualties or other details of the attack. Ethiopian government officials also did not say if there were any casualties.

Charlotte King, senior Africa analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit, said it was unusual for Eritrea to comment on flare-ups but said the statement may have been prompted by U.N. criticism Eritrea has faced over its prolonged national service.

The U.N. accuses Eritrea of rights abuses for indefinite national service, where Eritreans can spend many years in low-paid work under conscription. Asmara says an ongoing threat from Ethiopia makes extended national service essential.

Eritrea's "critics will argue that it is trying to divert international attention away from the alleged crimes against humanity, and justifying its need for an enormous military and compulsory conscription," King said in a brief commentary.

Eritrea, which is under U.N. sanctions, says world powers have failed to push Ethiopia to accept an international arbitration ruling demarcating the boundary. Ethiopia's government has said it wants talks on implementation.


(Writing by George Obulutsa and Edmund Blair; Editing by Mark Heinrich)

 

[Housecarl]

I know the take on this article is definitely from the Left, but considering the prevalence of this political view point in Europe I figured I'd post it anyways.....HC

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-return-of-german-militarism-to-eastern-europe/5530548

The Return of German Militarism to Eastern Europe

By Johannes Stern
Global Research, June 13, 2016
World Socialist Web Site 11 June 2016

Germany’s Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) is playing an increasingly prominent role in the NATO deployment in Eastern Europe, which is openly preparing for war against Russia.

As part of the current Anakonda 2016 manoeuvres, the largest NATO military exercise since the end of the Cold War, German combat engineers, along with British soldiers, built a 300-plus metre amphibious bridge over the Vistula on Thursday. A short time later, heavily armoured NATO tanks rolled over the bridge on their way east, towards the Russian border.

For days, the Bundeswehr web site has carried propaganda articles and videos documenting the move of German troops into Eastern Europe. They have titles such as, “Exercise Anakonda 2016—Minden Pioneers on the way to the Vistula”; “On the final straights to the NATO summit”; “Dragoon Ride II—Dragoons ride into the Baltic”; “By convoy into the Baltic—Advance to the Saber Strike exercise” and “Howitzers into the Baltic—The transfer begins”.

The reports provide an overview of the growing German contingent in the east. As part of the “Persistent Presence” manoeuvre, on May 30, “the 3rd Battery of Artillery Battalion 295, under the command of Captain P., left for exercises and training in Lithuania”. In the current naval exercise “BALTOPS” in the Baltic Sea, which includes a total of 45 vessels, 60 aircraft and 4,000 troops from 14 countries, the German Navy is involved with nine units, including the combat support ship “Berlin”, the frigate “Sachsen” and the P-3C “Orion”, a maritime patrol aircraft designed for hunting submarines.

The “march diary” of a certain Captain Bumüller of the 12th armoured brigade in Amberg provides an insight into the provocative “Dragoon Ride II”, described as a “massive land march via Poland” to Estonia, where the Bundeswehr is participating with 16 vehicles. According to media reports, the Bundeswehr is dispatching a total of 5,000 soldiers to Eastern Europe this year alone.

The historical and political significance of the German deployment cannot be exaggerated. June 22 marks the 75th anniversary of Operation Barbarossa, the attack by Nazi Germany on the Soviet Union that claimed the lives of 40 million Soviet citizens and was conducted throughout Eastern Europe as a war of extermination. Every square metre over which German tanks and soldiers are once again trampling recalls dark memories of the past crimes of German imperialism. The Nazis initially used occupied Poland as a staging area for the invasion of the Soviet Union. Later, they constructed their extermination camps there.

Following the defeat of Nazi Germany, and after the full scope of the Holocaust became known, Germany was forced to observe military restraint for a long time. This began to change with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and German reunification twenty-five years ago. In the last two years, the German ruling class has completely dropped its flowery post-war pacifist phrases. It has returned to an aggressive foreign policy with ominous parallels to that of 1941.

According to a report in Die Welt, a new Defence White Paper, which provides for the deployment of the Bundeswehr domestically and for other missions abroad, no longer describes Russia as a “partner”, but rather as a “rival”. Of particular concern to the German government is the increasing use “of hybrid instruments for the targeted blurring of the boundary between war and peace”, and the “subversive undermining of other states”.

This narrative has nothing to do with reality. Moscow’s militaristic behaviour is not progressive and increases the danger of war. But in Eastern Europe, it is not Russia that is the aggressor and that “undermines states” and “blurs the boundary between war and peace”, but the Western powers. In Ukraine, Washington and Berlin organized a coup against the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in early 2014, working closely with fascist forces. Since then, Germany has used the predominantly defensive reaction of Russia in order to systematically beef up its military and go on the offensive.

The decisions of the last few weeks to increase defence spending by 130 billion euros and the army by at least 7,000 soldiers are just the beginning. The stated goal of the German government is to gradually increase military spending to two percent of gross domestic product, as required by NATO.

News weekly Der Spiegel anticipated that Germany’s defence budget would have to “increase by five and a half billion euros year on year, by the 2024 target date”. The magazine concluded, “In the end, Germany would be the largest military power on the continent by far. Not all European neighbours will like that”.

At present, the German offensive is supported by the United States. Only last weekend, the New York Times published an ode to the return of German militarism. It wrote:


“It has taken decades since the horrors of World War II, but Berlin’s modern-day allies and, it seems, German leaders themselves are finally growing more comfortable with the notion that Germany’s role as the European Union’s de facto leader requires a military dimension”. All this comes “perhaps none too soon”, according to the Times. “The United States and others—including many of Germany’s own defense experts—want Germany to do even more for Continental security and to broaden deployments overseas”.

Although Berlin is presently stepping up its defence spending within the framework of NATO, and is deploying its troops to the East as part of the US-led offensive against Russia, there can be no doubt that the future struggle for control of Eurasia, as well as the Middle East and Africa, will lead to violent tensions and conflicts between the imperialist powers, as happened before in the First and Second World War.

A current strategy paper of the German Council on Foreign Relations by Joseph Braml, published in business daily Handelsblatt on May 17, accuses the US of following the “motto of the Roman Empire ( divide et impera )”, dividing the world into blocs “in order to better control them”. The editorial culminates with the demand: “Europe, especially the leading European power Germany, should in its own interest, prepare for the United States’ ever clearer concept of the enemy”.

At the end of May, writing in Die Zeit under the headline “What unites Obama and Trump”, Theo Sommer railed against American forces in Europe. “The main purpose of their continued presence” is “hardly the defence of Europe”, he complained. “Only the smallest part of their deployment serves the deterrence of Russia”, with the rest aimed at “the protection or assertion of American interests elsewhere in the world”.

Sommer added:


“Without their upstream positions in Europe, without the ports, air bases, hospitals and command centres in Italy, Spain, Germany and Turkey, the Americans would be as good as operationally incapable in the Middle East, in the Mediterranean, in the Arctic”. The same applies to Africa, he added, and one could also “ask why America’s Africa Command was based in Stuttgart”.

Sommer, the long-time editor of the liberal weekly Die Zeit, and Braml, formerly a legislative adviser in the US House of Representatives, have traditionally held a more transatlantic orientation. Their editorials are an indication of the ferocious tensions that are developing below the surface again between the post-war allies, as the imperialist redivision of the world enters a new and dangerous phase.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7329eeb6-3091-11e6-bda0-04585c31b153.html#axzz4BTUnrFPj

June 12, 2016 3:07 pm

Poland and Baltic states explore anti-aircraft shield

By Sam Jones in Vilnius
Comments 54

The Baltic states and Poland are in discussions with defence contractors to create a regional anti-aircraft missile shield to protect against Russian aircraft.

Fearful of the build-up of Russian troops on their borders and in the Baltic Sea enclave of Kaliningrad, the four countries believe they must develop capabilities to restrict the Kremlin’s military manoeuvrability and tip the military balance of power in the region back in their favour.

“We are in discussions now with the Estonians, the Latvians and the Poles over how we can create some kind of regional air defence system,” Lithuanian defence minister Juozas Olekas told the Financial Times on Friday. It is hoped the system will be operational within two or three years. The quartet of countries is “evaluating procurement options”, Mr Olekas said.

The speed with which Russian forces could overrun regional military powers, aided by its overwhelming air superiority, will be one of the most pressing issues discussed by Nato at its biennial summit in Warsaw in July.

Nato will announce plans for four new battalions of troops to be permanently deployed to the region at the summit, but hawks in the alliance believe the measures may not be enough to deter Russian action.

“The [battalions] are a strong step forward,” said Mr Olekas “But we need to discuss how we can refine and continue this process.”

Estonia’s defence chief Lieutenant-General Riho Terras told the Financial Times last month that US patriot missiles — or a similar system — were urgently needed to give regional forces a “credible” chance against Russia, and to deter any provocative action by the Kremlin.

The move to acquire anti-aircraft missile systems is part of a broader push by regional powers to increase their air defences.

The Baltic states are also lobbying for Nato to recalibrate its Baltic air policing mission. They want a fully-fledged aerial defence mission, which would require the deployment of dozens of Nato jets.

“We are discussing very actively with SACEUR [Nato’s supreme allied commander] how to create an air defence system over the Baltic states — not only anti aircraft rockets but an air defence mission here, too,” said Lieutenant-General Vytautas Zukas, Lithuanian chief of defence. “This is a big problem right now.”

“We need to count how many aeroplanes we need, how many anti-aircraft rockets and which systems. We need to think about an air-based component, a ground-based component, having more fighters, having new rules of engagement, and command and control.”

http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/66fbaaa4-2334-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d.img

Those changes are unlikely to be agreed by Nato allies swiftly. Lt Gen Zukas believes it is part of a process that will unfold over the coming years and would need political sanction from the North Atlantic Council, Nato’s principal political decision-making body.

That may prove difficult. Many within Nato are wavering at the prospect of triggering an escalation in hostilities with Russia, and fear eastern European alliance members are paranoid.

France and Germany, in particular, have pushed in recent alliance meetings for a more conciliatory tone towards the Kremlin.

Nato defence ministers are due to meet in Brussels this week to finalise the agenda for the July summit.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://38north.org/2016/06/gmclennan061316/

Needle in a Haystack: How North Korea Could Fight a Nuclear War

By Garth McLennan
13 June 2016

Since its January 6 test of what was claimed to be a hydrogen bomb and a follow-up satellite launch on February 7, North Korea’s nuclear weapons program has received a considerable amount of attention. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) unanimously passed Resolution 2270 at the beginning of March[1] in what has been widely viewed as one of the most sweeping sets of economic sanctions on Pyongyang to date. In addition, American officials have pressed their reluctant Chinese counterparts for greater cooperation in checking Pyongyang, South Korea closed down the Kaesong Industrial Zone it operates with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), and Washington has refocused attention on the possibility of deploying the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to the Republic of Korea (ROK).

Much less coverage and attention has been paid to how the North Korean leadership might actually use nuclear weapons in a live, operational setting. The avoidance of discussion on this issue is hardly surprising; analysis of nuclear combat theory and doctrine is somewhat of a taboo in the strategic community,[2] almost certainly borne of the ideas of mutually-assured-destruction (MAD) and measurements in megadeaths (a morbid metric defining nuclear combat deaths of at least one million) that were derived from the conclusions reached by Cold War thinkers and analysts.

However, this avoidance needs to change. Undoubtedly it is uncomfortable to contemplate scenarios involving violence on such a grand scale, but the reality is that the global nuclear weapons landscape has fundamentally changed in the quarter century since the Soviet Union crumbled, and has brought about a strategic environment in which it can no longer be assumed that such weapons will never be used. Topics of discussion related to nuclear weapons need to extend beyond nonproliferation or attempts at containing burgeoning powers on the hunt for the bomb.

More than a decade of punishing sanctions have thus far not had the desired effect on North Korean behavior and the new ones implemented in accordance with UNSCR Resolution 2270 are unlikely to be more effective. Kim Jong Un’s regime, like its predecessor, sees nuclear weapons as the ultimate guarantor of state survival. Taken from the perspective of a dictator, it isn’t difficult to imagine the Kim regime looking to the fate of toppled Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi, who cooperated with the United States on the surrender of his own WMD stockpiles yet was deposed and ultimately killed by opposition rebels backed by Washington in 2011, and opting for another course.[3]

This is just one example that helps explain the North Korean calculus. Since the imposition of the new Security Council sanctions and amid the near global condemnation that has followed its latest round of nuclear testing, Pyongyang has issued a steady stream of increasingly volatile and threatening statements, including a threat to launch nuclear strikes at New York.[4] After the additional sanctions were levied, the DPRK publicized that Kim had given the order for the nation’s nuclear forces to be put on high alert.[5] While such language is often treated as something of a joke among western audiences, talk of the sort emanating out of Pyongyang may signify that the DPRK leadership views its nuclear weapons as “inherently usable.”[6] At the Workers’ Party of Korea’s 7th Congress last month, Kim shed greater light on what sort of scenario could trigger a DPRK nuclear strike. He stated that North Korean sovereignty would have to be threatened by “invasive hostile forces with nuclear weapons.” Given the regime’s behavior, however, this should hardly be taken as gospel. Just what exactly would constitute a violation of DPRK sovereignty is unclear, as is how Pyongyang might classify the terms “hostile” and “invasive.”

In a sense, this is reminiscent of Russia’s “escalate to deescalate” concept – the nuclear posture Moscow adopted in the wake of NATO’s 1999 intervention in Yugoslavia. The doctrine essentially revolves around the premise that Russia reserves the option to execute a first-strike nuclear attack in a limited fashion against an opponent that has overwhelmed its conventional capacities, but it does not specify the kind of live setting that would fall within the doctrine’s framework. Unlike Russia, however, the North Korean nuclear posture is not particularly diversified. Asymmetric escalation options for the DPRK leadership are somewhat limited; North Korea has not concentrated on advanced tactical nuclear weapons and that in turn limits how it might actually fight a nuclear war.

At the same time, and against the backdrop of the largest ever joint US-ROK military exercises that took place throughout March, which were said to focus on Special Forces-led decapitation strikes aimed at the DPRK leadership,[7] North Korea also unveiled its new multiple launch rocket system (MLRS), not seen since Pyongyang’s military parade last October.[8] Although Pyongyang has not released any information pertaining to the system’s capabilities other than photos it is believed to be able to fire a number of rockets at one time, presenting challenging obstacles for anti-missile systems. Jeffrey Lewis has pointed out the similarities North Korea’s new MLRS’s rocket bears to the Pakistani Hatf-IX/Nasr 300mm rocket,[9] which Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division has publicly said has the capability to be armed with nuclear warheads.[10]

Pyongyang has also made the notable shift to solid-fuelled submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) testing from its previous liquid-fuel designs. The last test, conducted in April, featured a range of just 30 km, after four failed tests.[11] This, along with an examination of the DPRK’s offensive nuclear posture, quite possibly sheds some light on North Korean strategy should conflict ever escalate to the nuclear sphere.

While the North has conducted four nuclear tests since 2006, the exact size of its arsenal is largely unknown, and it has not been yet proven to have a secure, second-strike retaliatory capability of the kind that acts as a lynchpin for larger nuclear powers. It does, however, possess large quantities of ballistic missiles, something the regime has been anything but shy in displaying of late. On March 9, Kim visited an unnamed factory, believed to be Chamjin Missile Factory near Pyongyang, where he posed behind what appeared to be a globe model of a miniaturized nuclear device.[12] Also included in the photograph were two KN-08 ballistic missiles, the as-yet-untested intercontinental-ballistic missile (ICBM) feared by some as being able to reach US shores. The accompanying release issued from North Korean state news agencies claimed that the DPRK had succeeded in mating miniaturized nuclear warheads to its ballistic missiles, which, if accurate, would represent a major breakthrough. On March 14, Kim publicly pondered future nuclear and missile tests, saying that North Korean scientists had deciphered how to shield a warhead mounted on a ballistic missile from the heat of re-entry.[13]

While the speed of North Korean nuclear advancements, and the persistent absence of independent or outside verification of such achievements, is certainly a cause for concern, a very large ballistic missile inventory of varying ranges, along with a much smaller but growing nuclear arsenal estimated to contain between 10-16 weapons[14] today appears likely. This raises the frightening possibility of so-called haystacking in the event of actual nuclear war.

In this scenario, Pyongyang would attempt to saturate a given battlefield with conventionally armed ballistic missiles; the catch comes in that a small number of these missiles would be armed with nuclear warheads. Such a strategy would greatly challenge American and South Korean missile defense networks while also comporting with the DPRK’s wider nuclear posture; in lieu of reliable intelligence as to which incoming missiles have nuclear capabilities and which do not, anti-missile batteries would be forced to shoot down as many as possible, greatly lowering the efficiency and effectiveness of any possible defense.

Such a dispersed strategy would address the serious deficiencies North Korea faces in opposition to advanced American and allied missile defense systems, but it would also result in efforts to stiffen those systems. Indeed, the near-constant talk surrounding the possible deployment of THAAD anti-missile batteries to South Korea already suggests such an endeavour is being openly contemplated, to the great annoyance of Beijing.[15] The THAAD system is built to defend against short and intermediate-ranged ballistic missiles.[16] And while the ROK already has formidable missile defense capabilities, including a large arsenal of Patriot-2 short-range missiles that are to be upgraded to the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3s, the same kind recently installed on the home isles by Japan) interceptor sometime in the next year or two,[17] the addition of one or more THAAD units would no doubt provide South Korea with a more layered defensive posture.

THAAD would not, however, serve as an effective tool in countering a North Korean nuclear strike if such an attack were haystacked among a barrage of conventional warheads. The THAAD system is a powerful anti-missile tool, one that forms a central part of defending America’s military base in Guam, but in this case, it would not serve as a bulletproof measure against a North Korean nuclear attack. At present, such a system does not exist.

If THAAD were deployed to the Korean peninsula, it would hardly be a stretch for Pyongyang to immediately and aggressively increase their production of ballistic missiles and their assorted delivery systems. THAAD, for all it can do, has limits that can be overcome by high volume missile stockpiles and SLBM capabilities.[18]

The ROK’s current ability to counter a saturation-based ballistic missile attack from the DPRK is limited. The Patriot radars currently employed by South Korea have the ability to track between 40-50 incoming projectiles. The doctrine attached to missile interception calls for a two-to-one ratio for every missile fired; if Pyongyang were to launch a haystacked barrage, it would almost immediately tax Seoul’s capacity to repel it. At the same time, nuclear-armed ballistic missiles would almost certainly confront the ROK with the problem of leakage in any attempt to intercept them.

An unorthodox nuclear doctrine like haystacking may be the most suitable doctrinal framework for Pyongyang, but such an approach would greatly increase the risks of nuclear combat becoming a reality considering the close geographic proximity of Pyongyang to all of its likely enemies and the forward-deployed missile posture that results from that, it would not take too much of a stretch of the imagination to see that the number of nuclear-related crises could rise. Such an absence of distance could, as the DPRK has already alluded to, lead to higher states of alert and warning, less time to fully discern the nature of an incoming projectile and develop an appropriate response, and more devolved structures of command-and-control.[19]

The biggest takeaway from this developing scenario is a lowering of the nuclear threshold, where the chances of a triggering incident escalate dramatically. It also stands in stark contrast to the accepted strategic balance that existed throughout much of the Cold War. While truly terrifying moments in which both Washington and Moscow were pushed to the nuclear brink have occurred, they were relatively few and far between. Even if command of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal remains tightly controlled by the central leadership, the danger of a lowered threshold will increase. If command-and-control of nuclear assets are given to North Korean generals at or near the battlefield because of fears of decapitation, every incident of dispute could see its stakes raised immediately.

With a stated North Korean doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that hardly inspires confidence for stability, an escalatory scenario could arise quickly if tensions ratchet up. This should not be viewed as impossible. Moreover, the expected continued growth of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, both in terms of numbers and possibly sophistication, along with the possible expansion of its ballistic missile delivery force, will only heighten the danger. The contemplation of how Pyongyang could put its nuclear arsenal into action requires the realization that there is no magic-bullet solution to the problem while also thinking beyond early air-atomic theory and the horrors of MAD through scenario-based analysis that is fully cognizant of the above factors.

__________

[1] “Adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2270 on North Korea,” U.S. Department of State, March 2, 2016, accessed June 13, 2016, http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2016/03/253877.htm.

[2] Jeffrey Lewis, “Donald Trump Is an Idiot Savant on Nuclear Policy,” Foreign Policy, March 7, 2016, accessed June 13, 2016, http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/07/donald-trump-is-an-idiot-savant-on-nuclear-policy/.

[3] Rodger Baker, “North Korea, the Outlier in U.S. Policy,” Stratfor Global Intelligence, January 19, 2016, accessed June 13, 2016, https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/north-korea-outlier-us-policy.

[4] Anna Fifield, “North Korea claims it could wipe out Manhattan with a hydrogen bomb,” The Washington Post, March 13, 2016, accessed June 13, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...34cd54-e919-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html.

[5] Ankit Panda, “Yes, North Korea’s Very Upset About New UN Security Council Sanctions,” The Diplomat, March 4, 2016, accessed June 13, 2016, http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/yes-north-koreas-very-upset-about-new-un-security-council-sanctions/.

[6] Van Jackson, “Nukes They Can Use? The Danger of North Korea Going Tactical,” 38 North, March 15, 2016, accessed June 13, 2016, http://38north.org/2016/03/vjackson031516/.

[7] Franz-Stefan Gady, “Largest Ever US-Korea Military Drill Focuses on Striking North Korea’s Leadership”, The Diplomat, March 8, 2016, accessed June 13, 2016, http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/larg...-focuses-on-striking-north-koreas-leadership/.

[8] Ankit Panda, “Meet North Korea’s New Multiple Launch Rocket System,” The Diplomat, March 7, 2015, accessed June 13, 2016, http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/meet-north-koreas-new-multiple-launch-rocket-system/

[9] Jeffrey Lewis, Twitter post, March 5, 2016, 7:38 p.m., https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/706323004557373440.

[10] Strategic Plans Division Pakistan, Facebook post, August 24, 2015, 11:54 a.m., https://www.facebook.com/StrategicPlansDivisionPakistan/posts/487320088103190.

[11] John Schilling, “A New Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile for North Korea,” 38 North, April 25, 2016, accessed June 13, 2016, http://38north.org/2016/04/jschilling042516/

[12] Jeffrey Lewis, “Five Things You Need to Know about Kim Jong Un’s Photo Op with the Bomb,” 38 North, March 11, 2016, accessed June 13, 2016, http://38north.org/2016/03/jlewis031116/.

[13] Alastair Gale, “North Korea Threatens Nuclear Warhead, Ballistic Missile Tests,” The Wall Street Journal, March 14, 2016, accessed June 13, 2016, http://www.wsj.com/articles/north-korea-threatens-nuclear-warhead-ballistic-missile-tests-1458002582.

[14] Joel S. Wit & Sun Young Ahn, “North Korea’s Nuclear Futures: Technology and Strategy,” February, 2015, accessed June 13, 2016, 38 North, http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/NKNF_NK-Nuclear-Futures.pdf

[15] Shannon Tiezzi, “It’s Official: US, South Korea Begin Talks on THAAD,” The Diplomat, March 5, 2016, accessed June 13, 2016, http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/its-official-us-south-korea-begin-talks-on-thaad/

[16] “THAAD: Terminal High Altitude Area Defense,” Lockheed Martin, accessed June 13, 2016, http://www.lockheedmartin.com.au/us/products/thaad.html.

[17] Rod Lyon, “The Hard Truth About THAAD, South Korea and China,” The National Interest, February 23, 2016, accessed June 13, 2016, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[18] Michael Elleman & Michael J. Zagurek Jr., “THAAD: What It Can and Can’t Do,” 38 North, March 10, 2016, http://38north.org/2016/03/thaad031016/

[19] Andrew Krepinevich & Jacob Cohn, “Rethinking the Apocalypse: Time for Bold Thinking About the Second Nuclear Age,” War on the Rocks, March 1, 2016, accessed June 13, 2016, http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/re...r-bold-thinking-about-the-second-nuclear-age/

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...h-civilians-police/ar-AAgZ28t?ocid=spartanntp

Iraq arrests 500 IS suspects fleeing with civilians: police

AFP
1 hr ago

Iraqi forces have detained more than 500 suspected Islamic State group members trying to sneak out of the city of Fallujah by blending in with fleeing civilians, police said Monday.

"We have arrested 546 suspected terrorists who had fled by taking advantage of the movements of displaced families over the past two weeks," said Hadi Rzayej, the police chief for Anbar province in which Fallujah is located.

"Many of them were using fake IDs," he told AFP from the southern edge of Fallujah, where Iraqi forces are pressing a three-week-old offensive to retake the city from IS.

When civilians reach government forces, teenage boys and adult men are screened separately. Some are released after a few hours while others undergo more thorough interrogation.

Until last week, an estimated 50,000 civilians were still trapped in the centre of the city, which is one of the jihadist group's last bastions in Iraq and lies only 50 kilometres (30 miles) west of Baghdad.

The Iraqi army on Saturday opened a corridor to the southwest of the city that has allowed thousands of civilians to escape IS rule and reach government-run displacement camps.

Estimates for the number of IS fighters holed up in Fallujah vary from 1,000 to 2,500.

IS has been expected to put up a tougher fight in Fallujah, which looms large in jihadist mythology, than for any of the other cities it lost in Iraq over the past two years.

Iraqi forces have been making slow but steady progress over the past two weeks, with elite troops dodging suicide car bombs and picking their way through thousands of explosive devices to work their way up from the south of the city.

 

[vestige]

In spite of all the attention to the affairs stateside....

we must not forget that there are millions across the pond also planning our demise.

bump

 

[Housecarl]

In spite of all the attention to the affairs stateside....

we must not forget that there are millions across the pond also planning our demise.

bump

Both ponds.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-navy-ships-idUSKCN0YZ285

Business | Mon Jun 13, 2016 3:00pm EDT
Related: World, Russia, Aerospace & Defense

Second U.S. aircraft carrier enters Mediterranean: U.S. Navy

BERLIN | By Andrea Shalal


The U.S. aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower entered the Mediterranean late on Monday, the U.S. Navy said, at a time when U.S. officials are raising alarm over Russia's maritime expansion.

The Eisenhower, also known as the "Ike," will relieve the USS Harry S. Truman carrier strike group which later this month heads back to the United States after an extended eight-month deployment.

The Eisenhower, which also leads a strike group of cruisers, destroyers and warplanes, is scheduled to continue on to the Gulf to participate in U.S. air strikes on Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria. Exact details of its deployment have not been released.

Fighter jets based on the Truman have been carrying out air strikes against Islamic State from the Mediterranean since June 3.

The Eisenhower's deployment is part of a rotation of U.S. forces supporting maritime security operations around the globe, the Navy said. Its strike group includes two guided-missile cruisers, four guided-missile destroyers and nine air squadrons.

The Navy said the presence of two carrier strike groups in the Mediterranean showed the U.S. commitment to safety and security, while sending "a strong message of support to our allies and partners in Europe."

The move coincides with NATO military exercises across eastern Europe and Turkey that may raise tensions with Russia.

U.S. officials say Russia is operating warships and submarines in the Mediterranean and plans its own military exercises in coming weeks.

Vice Admiral James Foggo, who heads the U.S. Navy's fleet in the Mediterranean, and naval analyst Alarik Fritz last week said Russia was aggressively expanding its surface and submarine maritime capabilities from the Arctic to the Black Sea.

"Combined with extensive and frequent submarine patrols throughout the North Atlantic and Norwegian Sea, and forward-deployed forces in Syria, Russia has the capability to hold nearly all NATO maritime forces at risk," they wrote in the naval journal Proceedings.

They said it was critical to leverage allied navies to work with NATO partners so they could respond to emergencies and protect maritime infrastructure.

Russia last week said it would respond to a U.S. destroyer's entry into the Black Sea with unspecified measures, saying it and other deployments were designed to ratchet up tensions ahead of a NATO summit in Warsaw next month.


(Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Richard Balmforth)

 

[Housecarl]

Missed this one.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-army-procurement-idUSKCN0YV2ID?il=0

World | Thu Jun 9, 2016 5:05pm EDT
Related: World

German army chiefs eye large purchases of tanks, radios


The German army needs billions of euros worth of new radios, tanks and other equipment in the coming years, Lieutenant General Joerg Vollmer, the inspector general of the German land forces, told reporters on Thursday.

"The biggest issue we have is communication," Vollmer said, noting that starting in 2020 manufacturers will no longer be required to maintain spare parts for the existing radios and other communications equipment.

Vollmer said the new equipment was needed given huge increases in the amount of data being transmitted, including maps. Germany recently announced plans to increase military spending as part of an overall drive by NATO to shore up its defenses in the wake of Russia's intervention in Ukraine in 2014.

The army also needed to rebuild its ability to lay down mine barriers, and build bridges, Vollmer said. He cited a need for 31 of the LEGUAN bridge-laying tanks built by Krauss Maffei Wegmann, a privately-held German firm.

"A brigade that has tanks, but no LEGUAN bridge-layers is clearly at a disadvantage," Vollmer said.

Vollmer said detailed planning and a formal acquisition process would begin now that the defense ministry had approved the requirement for the new equipment. He gave no financial details, but said it would take many years to rebuild Germany's capabilities to the required level.


(Reporting by Sabine Siebold; Writing by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Toby Chopra)

 

[Housecarl]

Canadian hostage kidnapped by Islamic militants in the Philippines 'killed by captors'
Started by Shacknasty Shagrat‎, Today 07:47 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ilitants-in-the-Philippines-killed-by-captors

Hostages Taken In Paris Suburb After Police Officer Killed
Started by eXeý, Today 02:46 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...n-In-Paris-Suburb-After-Police-Officer-Killed


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.independent.ie/world-new...french-police-couple-near-paris-34798995.html

'Islamic State fighter' murders French police couple near Paris

Published
14/06/2016 | 00:41

A knife-wielding attacker has stabbed a senior police officer to death outside his home in a suburb of Paris.

The attacker and a female companion of the police commander were later found dead after police commandos stormed the home and rescued the couple's three-year-old son.

French officials said anti-terrorism prosecutors were investigating the attack.

The Islamic State's Amaq news agency cited an unnamed "source" as saying an IS fighter carried out the attack, but the extremist jihadist group has not officially claimed responsibility.

The off-duty police commander was attacked outside his home in Magnanville, about 35 miles west of Paris, interior ministry spokesman Pierre-Henry Brandet told reporters at the scene.

The attacker then retreated indoors and elite police commandos laid siege to the residence, eventually storming it after a three-hour stand-off. Mr Brandet said the woman, the commander's companion and a fellow police worker, was found dead, as was the attacker. The police couple's son was unharmed.

Although officials said the attacker was killed by police when they stormed the residence, it was unclear how the woman was killed.

"The toll is a heavy one," Mr Brandet told reporters, his voice heavy with emotion. "This commander, this police officer, was killed by the individual ... (and) we discovered the body of a woman. The assailant, the criminal, was killed. Thankfully, a little boy was saved. He was in the house. He's safe and sound. He was saved by police officers."

The Paris prosecutor's office said anti-terrorism investigators had been brought in to the case given the target, the method behind the attack, and what the attacker said to police during the ensuing stand-off.

The office did not elaborate, but French media, some of them citing unnamed neighbours, reported that the attacker was heard shouting "Allahu Akbar" - Arabic for "God is Great" - during the attack.

French prosecutor Vincent Lesclous - who said he knew the murdered police commander - told reporters the boy was found "shocked but unharmed". He said the assailant's identity was unknown.

If the crime was organised or inspired by IS, it would fit in with a long-established pattern of jihadist violence. France has seen a series of stabbings aimed at police officers or soldiers carried out by Muslim radicals. IS has encouraged its supporters to stage such attacks.

Tensions have been particularly high since IS extremists claimed responsibility for the November 13 Paris attacks that killed 130 people.

President Francois Hollande condemned what he described as an "odious act", saying he would hold a meeting at his Elysee Palace office later.

"Light will be shed on the circumstances of this abominable drama whose investigation, under the authority of justice, will determine the exact nature," he said.

Press Association

 

[TammyinWI]

Your little voice was correct, Housecarl. Thanks for the thread and content.

 

[Housecarl]

Your little voice was correct, Housecarl. Thanks for the thread and content.

You're welcome....I hate it when I'm correct.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.rferl.org/content/apache...e-iraq-defense-secretary-carter/27796259.html

Iraq

Apache Helicopter Used For First Time To Hit Islamic State In Iraq

June 14, 2016

U.S. Apache helicopters have struck an Islamic State target for the first time in Iraq, the Pentagon said on June 13.
.
The sophisticated attack choppers destroyed an IS car bomb near Qayyarah, which is about 50 miles south of Mosul, the group's main stronghold in Iraq.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter, speaking in Brussels, said the strike was in support of a campaign by Iraqi forces to encircle and eventually retake Mosul.

"The government of Iraq approved the use of Apaches in support of [Iraqi Security Forces] operations," Defense Department spokesman Christopher Sherwood said.

Carter has since early December made it clear to the Iraqi government that the U.S. military is willing to use its Apaches based in Iraq to support local forces.

But the government had until now declined. U.S. officials say this is because Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi didn't want to anger Shi'ite militias, who oppose the ramping up of U.S. combat operations in Iraq.

Coalition warplanes and drones have since August 2014 been regularly bombing IS targets in Iraq and Syria.

Based on reporting by AP and AFP

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/china-commissions-new-submarine-killer-warship-for-south-china-sea/

China Commissions New ‘Submarine Killer’ Warship for South China Sea

The new ship’s main area of responsibility will be the disputed Paracel Islands in the South China Sea.

By Franz-Stefan Gady
June 14, 2016

The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has commissioned a new Type 056A Jiangdao-class corvette at Yulin naval base in the port city of Sanya on Hainan Island on June 8, China Military Online reports. The new Jiangdao-class corvette Qujing (pennant number 508) will join the PLAN’s South Sea Fleet and is expected to be deployed to the disputed Paracel Islands, according to Chinese military sources.

“The Type 056A frigate Qujing, with a full displacement of over 1,300 tons, is developed and built by China independently. It has a good stealth performance and is capable of attacking aircrafts, surface ships and submarines independently or in coordination with other naval forces,” China Military Online states.

The Jiangdao-class corvette will likely be assigned to the 26th light frigate squadron operating out of Yangpu naval base near the Gulf of Tonkin, IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly reports. The squadron already operates two other Type 056 Jiangdao-class corvettes. Given its Type 056A (rather than Type 056) designation, the Qujing appears to be an anti-submarine warfare variant of the ship class featuring enhanced ASW capabilities.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Next to four YJ-83 anti-ship missiles (two launchers with two missiles each) and a 76-millimeter main gun, the ASW variant is also equipped with two 324 millimeter triple torpedo launchers, as well as variable depth and towed sonars. The ship’s flight deck also allows operation of a Harbin Z-9 military helicopter, specifically equipped for ASW missions.

The Qujing is the 26th Type 056A Jiangdao-class corvette to enter service with the PLAN, and the 10th Type 056A ship assigned to the South Sea Fleet. Overall, the PLAN plans to add an additional five corvettes—designate light missile frigates by the PLAN—in 2016 to replace older vessels. “The Type 056 corvettes are believed to be replacing patrol boats of the Type 037 class, and it was reported in May that a further three of these (pennant numbers 746, 748 and 786) have been withdrawn from service,” according to IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly.

Last week, the PLAN also launched the 25th 4,000-ton Type 054A Jiangkai II-class guided-missile frigate at the Hudong-Zhonghua shipyard in Shanghai. (The 24th Type 054A was launched the previous week at the Huangpu shipyard in Guangzhou.) I explained previously:


Type 054A Jiangkai II-class frigates are multirole warships and have been deployed for anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden since 2009, and also participated in Sino-Russian maritime exercises in 2015. There are currently 20 Type 054A Jiangkai II-class frigates in service with the PLAN (with five under construction).

The China Coast Guard (CCG) has apparently also been converting Type 054A ships into CCG white-hull cutters (See: “Is China’s Coast Guard About to Field a Modified PLA Warship?”).

 

[Housecarl]

WTF?!?!?

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...fering-libya-military-aid-oust-isil/85834826/

U.S. isn't offering Libya military aid to oust Islamic State

Jim Michaels, USA TODAY 3:15 p.m. EDT June 14, 2016

The Pentagon says it is encouraged by progress Libyan militias are making in driving the Islamic State from its stronghold in the oil-rich country, but is not offering new military assistance for a unity government that still lacks allegiance from some of the militias.

“Our focus is to be prepared to support the (new government) as they strive to assume responsibility for the security for all Libyan people,” said Lt. Col. Michelle Baldanza, a Pentagon spokeswoman. “At this time, we have not been asked to provide support.”

The Islamic State had expanded to as many as 6,000 fighters in Libya over the past year, capitalizing on disarray that followed the collapse of the Moammar Gadhafi regime in 2011. Gadhafi's government was overthrown by opposition forces within his country with the backing of a NATO-led coalition air campaign.

Militias from the western city of Misrata launched a surprise offensive in recent days to retake the militants' stronghold, the coastal city of Sirte, driving them from parts of the city.

The offensive comes as a U.N.-backed unity government attempts to establish control over rival factions based primarily in the capital, Tripoli, and the eastern city of Benghazi, site of the lethal 2012 attack on a U.S. compound.

The Pentagon has launched airstrikes against militants in Libya and sent teams of Special Forces into the country to establish links with militias there. But two years ago, the United States and its allies suspended plans to train Libyan forces at bases outside the country as the security situation deteriorated and the government split into rival factions.

Airstrikes and raids are not sufficient to defeat the Islamic State without a ground force to establish long-term security, according to the Pentagon.

The Pentagon has not decided yet whether to restart the training program or provide other support to the unity government.

“We’re obviously watching it very closely and very encouraged by what we see,” Peter Cook, the Pentagon press secretary, said last week.

The approach in Libya is a key test for President Obama’s strategy for defeating the Islamic State in Iraq. It provides support to local ground forces, who carry out the brunt of fighting.


USA TODAY

Why driving Islamic State from Fallujah is critical to Iraq and U.S.


In Libya, local militias are showing a willingness to fight the militants, but the new government has not established control over the country and has not requested American or other foreign help. The United States wants to avoid backing a single militia over others and wants to be invited in by a government with broad support.

“What they’re afraid of is undermining the national unity government by an unauthorized foreign intervention,” said Daniel Serwer, a scholar at the Middle East Institute. “It might look like hesitation to some,” Serwer said. “It looks like wisdom to others.”

There have been some favorable signs. The Misrata militias leading the fight in Sirte have announced support for the new government. But a key leader in the east, Gen. Khalifa Haftar, has not announced his support for the new government.

Serwer said the new government wants to win support from factions in the east before requesting U.S. and international support.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-usa-china-idUSKCN0Z02UN

World | Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:31am EDT
Related: World, Japan

U.S. Third Fleet expands East Asia role as tensions rise with China

WASHINGTON | By Idrees Ali and David Brunnstrom


The U.S. Navy's Third Fleet will send more ships to East Asia to operate outside its normal theater alongside the Japan-based Seventh Fleet, a U.S. official said on Tuesday, a move that comes at a time of heightened tensions with China.

The Third Fleet's Pacific Surface Action Group, which includes the guided-missile destroyers USS Spruance and USS Momsen, was deployed to East Asia in April.

More Third Fleet vessels will be deployed in the region in the future, said a U.S. official who requested anonymity. He and a second official said the vessels would conduct a range of operations, but gave no details.

China claims most of the South China Sea, through which $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei have overlapping claims, as well as close military ties with the United States.

China has been angered by what it views as provocative U.S. military patrols close to islands that China controls in the South China Sea. The United States says the patrols are to protect freedom of navigation.

On Wednesday, a spokesman for China's Foreign Ministry said if U.S. actions had a destructive impact on regional peace and stability and the interests of countries in the region, then China would "definitely be opposed and concerned".

"How the U.S. military uses its taxpayers' dollars to carry out deployments is its own affair," ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a regular briefing. "I'm not concerned about it. What I'm concerned about is regional peace, security and stability."

The Third Fleet, based in San Diego, California, traditionally has confined its operations to the eastern side of the Pacific Ocean's international dateline.

Japan's Nikkei Asian Review quoted the commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Admiral Scott Swift, as saying on Tuesday that the move came in the "context of uncertainty and angst in the region," an apparent reference to China's behavior.

Swift argued that the Navy should utilize the "total combined power" of the 140,000 sailors, over 200 ships and 1,200 aircraft that make up the Pacific Fleet.

The Seventh Fleet consists of an aircraft carrier strike group, 80 other vessels and 140 aircraft. The Third Fleet has more than 100 vessels, including four aircraft carriers.

Chinese officials have blamed the rising tension on the United States. "I think before Americans' so-called ‘rebalancing in Asia-Pacific,’ the South China Sea was very quiet, very peaceful," Liu Xiaoming, China's ambassador to Britain, told Reuters in an interview last week.

"China was talking to the neighboring countries. We had a Declaration of Conduct. And the Philippines was talking to us. Once the Americans came in, so-called `rebalancing,' things changed dramatically.""They want to find an excuse to have their strong military presence in the South China Sea and in the Asia Pacific. If it is so quiet, what is the reason for them to be there?" he asked.

Greg Poling, director of Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, said on Tuesday that the move appears to be part of President Barack Obama's plan to shift 60 percent of U.S. naval assets in Asia as part of his rebalance of resources to the region in the face of China's rise.


(Reporting by Idrees Ali and David Brunnstrom, additional reporting by Michael Martina; Editing by John Walcott and Leslie Adler)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://warontherocks.com/2016/06/xi-is-the-man-but-just-the-man-of-the-party/

Xi is The Man, But Just The Man of the Party

Lauren Dickey
June 15, 2016

Xi¡¯s the man. Or so the deluge of Xi-centric coverage would lead one to believe. Where many China watchers once examined history to understand strategy, some have become ¡°Xi watchers,¡± scrutinizing music videos, paraphernalia, and social media accounts on Xi for clues of what he may be thinking. This undertaking, aimed at tracing and explaining Chinese behavior, has led to an obsession with Xi¡¯s personality, endless comparisons between Xi and Mao Zedong (and even Chiang Kai-shek), and a singular emphasis upon Xi¡¯s position at the apex of China¡¯s political system akin to the ¡°great helmsman¡± or as the ¡°core leader.¡± But a singular focus on his personality and background misses the forest for the trees by mistakenly ascribing strategic behavior to highly subjective interpretations of Xi¡¯s life story and overlooking the preeminence of the Communist Party¡¯s (CCP) mandate. While Xi¡¯s background makes for compelling prose, a preoccupation with the personalities of Chinese leadership ¡ª be it Mao, Xi, or leaders yet to come ¡ª risks elevating less meaningful correlations between personages and strategy at the expense of understanding the Party¡¯s agenda.

Under Xi, the argument goes, collective leadership has been pushed aside for personalized rule. The political ranks are less reflective of interests across the spectrum and rather increasingly encompass those that support Xi¡¯s strategic vision. To be sure, Xi has competently and confidently filled his role as President and General Secretary of the Communist Party since 2013. The Third Plenum, held in November 2013, effectively set out the agenda and priorities for Xi in its communiqu¨¦: economic reforms, political stability, and greater coordination of China¡¯s security strategy as focal points. To these ends, Xi has created new leading small groups to spearhead economic reform efforts and lead the anti-corruption crackdown. A new National Security Commission (ÖÐÑë¹ú¼Ò°²È«Î¯Ô±»á) has also emerged, a mechanism that David Lampton interprets as a way to manage the flow of information and decision-making processes from the central government outward. More recently, Xi emerged in military green as he assumed his new title as commander-in-chief, a role that symbolizes his command and control of the People¡¯s Liberation Army (PLA) amid ongoing overhauls to expand and transform the Chinese fighting force, linking the realm of politics to the PLA¡¯s military sphere of influence.

Where the comparisons to Mao run particularly strong is the shift to personalized rule ¡ª leadership, in other words, that has cult-like undertones. But the Chinese political system is explicitly structured to avoid another Mao. The collective leadership model that emerged under Deng Xiaoping intentionally preserves the centrality of CCP norms and prevents the emergence of an all-powerful strongman. Xi¡¯s job as the ¡°core¡± leader (Áìµ¼ºËÐÄ) is to ensure reliability and stability within the ranks of Party leadership while spearheading consensus-driven decisions with input from the CCP Secretariat, the Politburo, and its Standing Committee. His selection as the ¡°core¡± of the current leadership cohort is but another facet of political power, allowing Xi to construct the government bureaucracy in service of the Party¡¯s strategic objectives and less in pursuit of a personal agenda or vision.

From other perspectives, Xi¡¯s emergence as the new core or as some sort of ¡°Mao 2.0¡± is often weighed retrospectively, detailing his childhood as the son of Xi Zhongxun ¡ª one of the first generation of Chinese leaders, who was imprisoned and purged several times. Equally pervasive are references to Xi¡¯s formative experiences in Shaanxi during the Cultural Revolution or even the start of his career in the lower ranks of the Party, rising through the ranks in Fujian, Zhejiang, and Shanghai while navigating both marriage and divorce. Some accounts laud his time in Fujian as fostering a receptivity to the cross-Strait issue or a particular attentiveness to taishang, Taiwanese businessmen operating in mainland China; still others point to the seven months he spent in Shanghai as a window of opportunity Xi seized to push aside then-rising star (and now Premier) Li Keqiang.

Xi¡¯s back story may explain much about his personal psychology, but it would be a mistake to attribute his grasp on political power as President and CCP General Secretary to his personage alone. Nor is Xi¡¯s centralization of power through new bureaucratic apparatuses and recognition as a ¡°core¡± leader simply an attempt to reform the governance system and economy. While Xi is stronger than his predecessors, he is no Mao, and there is very little about Xi that is Maoist. If he was Maoist, Xi would be actively evading the CCP¡¯s dictums rather than endeavoring to save and preserve the Party as his existing and planned reform packages suggest. Maoism would further require a return to class struggle, a guiding point of Stalinism that Mao cited in crafting violence to induce social change. And while Maoism still exists, it has yet to take root in Xi¡¯s approach to statecraft. Rather, what can be seen in Xi¡¯s life story and references to Mao is an homage to the founding father of the People¡¯s Republic of China. Without Mao, there would be neither a CCP nor Xi Jinping.

So that leaves us with the question of where Xi¡¯s political power comes from in the ¡°post-strongman era.¡± The answer is the CCP. His power ¡ª to change the political system, oversee huge reform plans and an increasingly assertive politico-military strategy ¡ª comes from the Party and the political mandate set for the Xi era, beginning with the 18th Party Congress in 2012 and trickling down ever since. To a certain extent, the work report of the 18th Party Congress was the legacy of Xi¡¯s predecessor, Hu Jintao. It is a document that reflects the highest level of consensus within the Chinese political system and sets the agenda for the five-year period until the next Congress. Xi assumed the presidency at a time when China was starting to feel the ripple effects of a slowing economy, with inequality growing and manufacturing declining. The work report thus offered a guideline for what Xi¡¯s priorities needed to be and what his boss ¡ª the CCP ¡ª expected of him.

While the political mandate handed down from the CCP to Chinese leaders has changed over the years, as has the ability of different administrations to operationalize the Party¡¯s mandate, what has not changed is the underlying goal such a mandate serves: preserving the legitimacy and legacy of the one-Party Chinese state. As seen in the text of the 18th Party Congress work report, the mandate for the Xi era is to ¡°build a moderately prosperous society and achieve the renewal of the Chinese nation.¡± His task as President and General Secretary is actually, on the surface, no simpler than to ensure a single-mindedness permeates all levels of Party cadre. It is a task that demands of Xi unwavering loyalty to the Party. Xi wields power to establish new arms of the Chinese political apparatus out of the blue, only made possible through the Party¡¯s mandate. Without the Party, it is difficult to conceive of Xi bestowing new titles and affiliations upon himself or others or tightening the screws on those officials ensnared in corruption. It is the same political mandate that shapes his strategic outlook and his ability to turn concepts and resources into actual, measurable progress on issues at the core of contemporary Chinese strategy.

Taking the party mandate as the lens through which to examine continuity and change in China entirely reorients an understanding of China¡¯s trajectory on numerous issues. It is the CCP ¡ª not Xi ¡ª that should be held accountable and responsible for the changes seen in Chinese defense and foreign policy. Taking this approach, Chinese strategy thus becomes less about what Xi¡¯s personal vision for Chinese strategy is and instead evolves into a more nuanced appreciation for strategy as rooted in terms of the Party¡¯s own priorities. For instance, under the mandate Xi has been handed, Taiwan is less a policy problem with an indefinite timeline and more an important piece of renewing the Chinese nation through reunification. Other issues at the forefront of this summer¡¯s policymaking agenda, such as last week¡¯s U.S.-China Strategic & Economic Dialogue and tensions in the South China Sea over China¡¯s island reclamation efforts are no different. Each serves a purpose in support of the Party¡¯s mandate and, by corollary, for Xi¡¯s efforts as ¡°core¡± leader and president.

Efforts by senior U.S. government officials to understand how Xi may see the world in comparison to his peers or predecessors are worthwhile, but only to a point. Instead, focus can and should remain upon how Xi¡¯s actions are made in service to the CCP¡¯s political mandate. Absent an overhaul to the highest echelons of political power at the 19th Party Congress in 2017, it is likely that Xi¡¯s hawkish strategy and accompanying behaviors will continue, for both are ultimately in service of the Party¡¯s agenda of building a prosperous society and achieving national renewal. In other words, without Xi, the structure of opportunities and incentives would be similarly shaped by the Party¡¯s priorities and driven by a wide range of domestic reforms and assertive foreign and defense policy.

There is hardly anything unique about Xi¡¯s background that makes him a stronger, more capable leader than his predecessors. What is different ¡ª and what policymakers and academics alike must not lose sight of ¡ª is Xi¡¯s wholehearted devotion to the Party¡¯s mission. For it is through such a commitment that strategy is formulated, policy implemented, and decisions made that may well leave the Party under Xi¡¯s tutelage at odds with the United States and its allies.


Lauren Dickey is a PhD candidate in War Studies at King¡¯s College London and the National University of Singapore, where she focuses on relations between China and Taiwan. She is also a member of the Pacific Forum Young Leaders program at CSIS.

 

[Housecarl]

I can see the "fail" and "yo yo effect" on this as plain as day....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2215

6/13/2016

Analysts: It’s Time for a Reexamination of Nuclear Weapons Requirements

By Sandra I. Erwin


The $350 billion price tag for modernizing the United States’ nuclear arsenal has been a topic of endless debate in Washington. The funds would be spent over the coming decade to bring the nation’s nuclear triad up to date — the bombers, the submarines, the ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and the warheads.

Little to no discussion has focused on the larger issue of how many weapons and what technologies are needed to support the nation’s strategic nuclear deterrence, analysts said. The Obama administration for a time was interested in pushing that conversation to the fore, but clashes with Congress over federal spending and the passage of the Budget Control Act in 2011 completely shifted the course of the nuclear weapons debate.

“Now the discussion is that we can’t afford the weapons,” said Amy Woolf, nuclear weapons policy specialist at the Congressional Research Service. “The conversation of requirements, roles and missions was replaced by a budget conversation,” she said in a presentation at an Arms Control Association conference. Woolf said her views are her own and was not speaking on behalf of CRS.

Obama, like other U.S. presidents before him, talked about how the world would be better off with fewer atomic weapons. In a 2009 speech in Prague, he called for “concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons.” The soaring rhetoric later gave way to the political realities of a hostile U.S. Congress and a defiant Russia.

If there were any serious plans to engage in an arms control debate, they were permanently sidelined when Congress passed the BCA, said Woolf. Even though nuclear weapons make up just 5 percent of the defense budget, the spending cuts imposed by Congress set off a scramble at the Pentagon to identify programs that may have to be delayed or terminated. The costs associated with the nuclear triad became a bone of contention, as Pentagon officials and lawmakers warned about the financial burden this places on the Defense Department at a time when the military is trying to modernize its aging conventional weapon systems.

The next administration may want to turn the attention back to requirements, Woolf said. “If you continue the discussion to be about the cost, there will not be any progress in nuclear reductions.”

The U.S. nuclear modernization plan as it stands today will not break the Pentagon, said Andrew Weber, who served as assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs during the Obama administration. These expenses could reasonably be absorbed with some minor adjustments to quantities and schedules, he said at the Arms Control Association conference.

But Weber said Obama in his final months in office has an opportunity to leave his mark by slowing down or terminating the more destabilizing portions of the nuclear modernization program such as a new cruise missile.

“Our deterrence is on a good path,” he said. Under Obama, the “neglect of the previous decade has been reversed.”

The Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration is producing an upgraded W76-1 warhead to be deployed on Navy submarines, to replace the Cold War era W76-0. The new warhead is in full production and will be finished by 2019. “The heart of our deterrence, the sea leg, will be in very good shape,” said Weber.

The NNSA also is refurbishing the W88 warhead for sea launched ballistic missiles, and making significant upgrades to command and control systems, Weber said.

The Pentagon is on a path to start buying the new B-21 stealth bomber and a modern submarine to replace the Ohio class. There are still questions about how many are needed, but the programs are funded, and the Pentagon may have to make some tradeoffs to fit them under the spending limits set by Congress. “Do we need 60 bombers, 100 bombers?” Weber asked. “That’s a discussion worth having.” If the Pentagon had bought 60 B-2s in the 1990s — instead of truncating the program at 21 — the Air Force would have been able to retire the B-52 and the nuclear-tipped cruise missile known as ALCM. In hindsight, Weber said, it may have been wiser to build more B-2s as the START II force structure calls for 60 nuclear capable bombers.

Weber has joined former Defense Secretary Bill Perry as a vocal opponent of the ALCM and its planned replacement — known as the long-range strike option, or LRSO — a weapon that they argue is unnecessary for deterrence and more likely than any other to set off a nuclear Armageddon.

Perry warned that newer weapons that have lower yields and higher accuracies create “dangerous assumptions.” There is a growing risk of nuclear escalation, Perry said in a recent interview with Vice News. “The danger of nuclear catastrophe is bigger now than during the Cold War and the public is blissfully unaware.”

Ending the LRSO program would be “low hanging fruit” in the nuclear requirements debate, said Weber. Nuclear-armed cruise missiles are destabilizing and viewed around the world as disasters waiting to happen, he added.

Once the B-21 starts replacing B-52 bombers in about 15 years, the ALCM would be taken out of the inventory as it only flies on the B-52. If the LRSO is produced, the United States would have a penetrating nuclear missile combined with a penetrating bomber, Weber said. “It’s more than we need, frankly.” If Obama allows the LRSO to reach milestone A in the Pentagon procurement process and become a program of record, it will be “very hard to stop,” he said. “The president should put a one-year delay on the program and leave it for the next administration to consider in the next nuclear posture review.”

There are other options to fill the LRSO standoff delivery mission, Weber said. The new B61-12 gravity bomb “gives our air leg a formidable part of the deterrent without replacing the ALCM,” said Weber. He cautioned that this would not be a “disarmament step, but investing in what we need to have a sustainable air leg.” The B61-12 has a smaller warhead but has guidance electronics to target more accurately. “This is accuracy our nuclear bombs have never had,” Weber said.

The president should cancel the LRSO program and work with other countries on a treaty to prohibit nuclear-armed cruse missiles, said Weber. The Pentagon’s mission would not be affected, he suggested, because the Air Force is procuring a conventional air-launched standoff cruise missile called JASSM ER.

The Obama administration is “trying to determine what capabilities we have to maintain in the stockpile and delivery systems so we can maintain a credible deterrence that can sustain itself in the coming decades,” said the president’s deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes in remarks at the Arms Control Association conference.

“We are looking at ways to reduce the risk of an inadvertent catastrophe,” Rhodes said. But he acknowledged that a treaty to ban nuclear-armed cruise missiles would be difficult, as those weapons are the ones “other nuclear states are least inclined to accept restrictions.”

Weber said Obama or his successor could retire weapons nobody talks about, like the B83 gravity bomb. “It has a yield of over one megaton. It has no legitimate use today,” he said. And keeping the aging bombs around costs $30 million to $40 million a year. Over time “it adds up to real money,” said Weber. “We don’t need nuclear weapons in the megaton plus range of yield.”

The ICBM piece of the force would be relatively easy to streamline, he said. “We’ve already done the work. We know we can retire a wing, go down to 300 without having to impact our nuclear deterrent.” Like other decisions related to nuclear forces, this one would a political hard sell, but not impossible. “I would close the wing at Minot Air Force Base” in North Dakota, he said. That would not require closing the base because B-52s in active service are stationed there.

One of two warheads in the ICBM could be eliminated, Weber added. The W87 is in “good shape,” and an argument could be made to not replace the W78.

Woolf said these are tough calls in a deeply divided government and in the face of an aggressive Russia. Nonetheless, the nuclear debate can’t be solely about the cost, she said. The nuclear forces have to be modernized even if that requires some compromises over other Pentagon programs. “In the nuclear program, things are getting old. Old stuff will introduce risk. Upgrading 30-year old missiles is costly,” she said. “If you delay, you introduce risk. We don’t structure nuclear forces according to budget arithmetic. Maintaining deterrence requirements is the key.”

If the verdict is that the current nuclear program is unaffordable, then the president should revisit the requirements, and then change the budget, Woolf said.

Defense analyst Evan Montgomery, of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the world is now in the midst of a “second nuclear age,” one that is arguably more complex and potentially more volatile than the bipolar U.S.–Soviet struggle of the Cold War. In a recent CSBA study, Montgomery explained: “Not only does the United States still need to worry about maintaining strategic stability with a nuclear peer, albeit one possessing far fewer weapons than it did in the past, but it must also manage a number of other existing and emerging challenges: the proliferation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems to fragile nations, the expansion of nuclear arsenals by minor powers and aspiring major powers, and the pursuit of capabilities that are lowering the barriers to nuclear use and eroding the ‘firebreak’ between conventional and nuclear conflict.”


The Congressional Budget Office estimated that from 2015 to 2024, the administration’s plans for nuclear forces would cost $348 billion. Of that, $299 billion would be budgeted by the Defense and Energy Departments for strategic nuclear delivery systems and weapons ($160 billion), tactical nuclear delivery systems and weapons ($8 billion), nuclear weapons laboratories and their supporting activities ($79 billion) and nuclear-related command, control, communications, and early-warning systems ($52 billion). The remaining $49 billion is for additional costs that would be incurred over the coming decade if the growth rates for the nuclear program’s costs are similar to the average growth rates for similar programs in the past.

CBO said the costs of nuclear forces represent roughly 5 percent to 6 percent of the total costs of the administration’s plans for national defense for the next 10 years.

Like Obama, the next president will face a tough balancing act. The world appears to not want to denuclearize, according to the latest data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. “While the overall number of nuclear weapons in the world continues to decline, none of the nuclear weapon-possessing states are prepared to give up their nuclear arsenals for the foreseeable future,” said a new SIPRI report.

Nine states — the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea — possess approximately 4,120 operationally deployed nuclear weapons. If all nuclear warheads are counted, these states combined have a total of approximately 15,395 nuclear weapons.

The United States and Russia account for more than 93 percent of all nuclear weapons. “Despite the implementation of the bilateral Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START) since 2011, the pace of their reductions remains slow,” the report said. Both the United States and Russia have extensive nuclear modernization programs under way. “The ambitious U.S. modernization plan presented by the Obama administration is in stark contrast to President Barack Obama’s pledge to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and the role they play in U.S. national security strategy,” said SIPRI analyst Hans Kristensen.

The report said China appears to be gradually increasing its nuclear forces, India and Pakistan are both expanding their stockpiles and missile delivery capabilities. North Korea is estimated to have enough fissile material for approximately 10 nuclear warheads.

“Despite the ongoing reduction in the number of weapons, the prospects for genuine progress towards nuclear disarmament remain gloomy,” said Shannon Kile, head of the SIPRI nuclear weapons project. “All the nuclear weapon-possessing states continue to prioritize nuclear deterrence as the cornerstone of their national security strategies.”

Photo: Defense Dept.

Posted at 9:00 AM by Sandra Erwin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (1)


Comments

Re: Analysts: It’s Time for a Reexamination of Nuclear Weapons Requirements

Just how are we going to get North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, and perhaps even France to seriously reduce their inventories or not produce nuclear-armed cruise missiles? Only the United Kingdom would be interested in reductions. They have been steadily reducing their inventory of warheads and deliver systems for decades with no agreements at all, for economic reasons.

David Flandry at 6/14/2016 1:21 PM

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2218

6/13/2016

Army May Have to Limit Distribution of Best Equipment

By Jon Harper

As modernization budgets are squeezed, the Army might have to be more selective about which units receive the most advanced equipment, a top officer said June 13.

Personnel and readiness costs are eating up the vast majority of the service’s topline, leaving only 18 percent for modernization, noted Gen. Daniel Allyn, vice chief of staff of the Army, during a talk at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C. think tank.

“Fundamentally it’s a math problem,” he said. “We have begun to look at … how do we prioritize delivery of capability to a smaller number of units rather than trying to spread the peanut butter” across the force.

That could lead to trouble down the road if the United States comes into conflict with a high-tech adversary, the combat veteran and Silver Star recipient acknowledged.

“Should we get into a scenario where it’s a near peer or a competitor that requires a massive response from the United States military … you’re going to stand a chance that some of those forces will not be as adequately prepared and equipped as they should be,” Allyn said.

The service’s number two officer said the upside of such an equipping strategy is that the Army would not be as committed to gear that could have a relatively short shelf life.

“Technology is changing so fast that we think by the time you field a smaller set you’re going to be going after newer, more modern capability anyway, so [buying lower quantities] is less of problem then it may have been in the past,” he said.

The budget situation, which Allyn doesn’t expect to change in the foreseeable future, is also forcing the Army to target its limited modernization dollars.

“When you look at the 700 to 800 portfolios that we currently have for equipping our Army, that gets spread very, very thin,” he said. “We have been forced to prioritize our modernization efforts to address the emerging demands, particularly in high-intensity combat.”

The service is also focused on divesting itself of obsolete or redundant systems so that funding can be redirected toward areas of greatest need, Allyn said.

Among the highest acquisition priorities are “active protection systems” for combat vehicles and aircraft, he said. Such technologies enable troops to identify and destroy incoming warheads or other threats before they strike U.S. military platforms, as opposed to more traditional protection systems such as armor that absorb enemy fire.

Modernizing the service’s aviation portfolio and beefing up cybersecurity are other key needs, he noted.

Although the Army is prioritizing readiness at the expense of modernization, leaders are trying to retain flexibility to adapt to future threats, Allyn said.

“Despite all the cuts that we took in modernization, we preserved our [science and technology] portfolio so that as emerging demands come out there we’ve got a focused investment strategy,” he said. “My expectation is as we continue to look at peer competitors out there, there’s going to continue to be gaps that we have to prioritize and get after, and that’s the critical focus as we move forward as well.”

The service is partnering with the Defense Department’s Strategic Capabilities Office to look at long-term challenges and emerging technologies.

“We know particularly in the area of integrated air defense and long-range precision fires that there are very, very specific capabilities that hold promise,” Allyn said without identifying them. “We are working very carefully with [SCO Director William Roper] and his team to address gaps that we have.”

Photo: A soldier observes as a Stryker armored combat vehicle fires its M2 machine gun during a combined arms live-fire exercise in Washington. (Army)


Posted at 4:00 PM by Brian Taylor | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

 

[fairbanksb]

NATO Begins Encirclement Of Russia

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-14/nato-begins-encirclement-russia

Via German Economic News, translated by Eric Zuesse,

NATO prepares a veritable military buildup in Eastern Europe: German soldiers are operating in Lithuania, the British take over Estonia, and US soldiers move in to protect Latvia. The Canadians will be in Poland. Also in the Mediterranean, combat units are being increased. Russia perceives the activity as a threat, but hasn’t yet announced any countermeasures.

Source: RiskAdvisory

At the NATO summit during July 8th-9th in Warsaw, the Alliance will adopt a massive military presence along Russia’s border. Russia is classified by NATO as a threat. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently said in Washington that the US and the EU have the right in the form of NATO to defend its territories on foreign soil. Critics of this strategy believe that it’s possible this upgrade will increase significantly the danger of a conflict between the superpowers. Wednesday in Brussels, the defense ministers want the military alliance to take decisions which will then be sealed by the leaders in Poland. NATO wants to strengthen its military presence on its eastern borders significantly, and to position foreign combat troops battalions in Poland and the three Baltic states. Germany is the core of the Association in Lithuania, the British in Estonia, and the United States is expected to be that in Latvia. What remains unclear, however, is who will be sending troops to Poland.

Maybe Canada will take on this task, it was last reported from Polish diplomatic sources as quoted by Reuters. “’The summit in Warsaw will be President Obama’s last (NATO summit) and the U.S. wants it to be a success. It will ensure that the fourth framework country is found, possibly by leaning on Canada,’ the source said. ‘Washington will bend over backwards here.’”

Germany wants to send at least 600 soldiers to Lithuania, which will constitute the core of the local battalion there with about 1,200 soldiers.

The battalions are to include around 1,000 soldiers each, and are not permanently stationed in the eastern countries, but replaced regularly. By means of this rotation, the military alliance wants to avoid a formal breach of the NATO-Russia Founding Act 1997, which prohibits the permanent stationing of a “substantial” number of combat troops in the east. What specifically “substantial” means, however, is controversial. [In other words: Obama wants to be more aggressive than the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997 might allow; he wants to violate the treaty in such a way that he’ll be able to say he’s not really breaking the treaty.]

Poland and the Baltic countries want to push NATO to be even more aggressive. They demand among other things, increased aerial surveillance by fighter jets of the alliance partners on the Baltic. Poland had in the past also repeatedly demanded the permanent stationing of NATO combat troops [which would clearly violate the NATO-Russia Founding Act]. The Baltic States and Poland have been feeling threatened since Russia’s March 2014 annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea.

NATO defense ministers will also discuss a new mission in the Mediterranean. What exactly is planned there, is difficult to judge. Officially the rise of extremist ISIS militias and the refugee crisis are given as reasons for that expansion of NATO. ISIS is financed and otherwise supported by Saudi Arabia, the closest ally of the West in the Middle East. A good reason why NATO, the most powerful fighting force in all of the world’s military, have not coped with that group of more or less random ragtag mercenaries, is not known. Russia is fighting on the side of Syria against ISIS and against previously officially the US-backed al-Nusra Front [Al Qaeda in Syria — the Syrian affiliate of the group that did 9/11].

The NATO alliance is looking for a new combat mission in the Mediterranean, as the 11 September 2001 NATO response “Active Endeavor” patrolling the Mediterranean to stop terrorists there, has actually become obsolete. The ministers therefore want to consider whether the mission should be transformed into a more general one to strengthen security in the Mediterranean. Also being considered is to transform that mission to a closer cooperation with the European Union, which maintains its own naval deployment off the Libyan coast against human traffickers and the rescue of refugees in distress under the name “Sophia”. At dinner on Tuesday therefore also the EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and government representatives from the non-NATO countries Finland and Sweden will also be in NATO headquarters.

The agenda on Wednesday also includes the future of the NATO mission in Afghanistan. According to current plans, the US wants to reduce the number of its troops in Afghanistan from its current 9800 to 5500. Whether Obama will hold to that objective despite the poor security situation in Afghanistan isn’t yet clear.
Tags

 

[thompson]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...state-afghan-plans-next-month/article/2593934

NATO likely to announce Islamic State, Afghan plans next month


By Jacqueline Klimas
6/15/16 6:34 AM

BRUSSELS — NATO is looking at stepping up its involvement in the fight against the Islamic State, including sending trainers to Iraq and providing aerial surveillance, following a request for more capabilities from Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Abadi, a senior NATO diplomat said Wednesday.

As the second and final day of the NATO defense ministerial nearly wrapped up, the diplomat said officials are "within reach of getting agreement" on the unanimous vote required among members to launch NATO operations against the Islamic State.

"This is a pretty well-coordinated effort, that's why I have confidence in just three weeks that we'll get to a 28-0 vote and we'll probably unveil these decisions at Warsaw," the diplomat said, speaking on background and referencing NATO's summit next month in Poland.

Abadi asked for increased capabilities, including counter-explosives training, ministerial advisers, and support for logistics and medical care, the diplomat said. The prime minister also asked for Iraqi-troop training, which is done in Jordan, to be moved inside Iraq to avoid hassles with visas and taking troops too far out of the fight.

No final decision has been made yet on where NATO trainers would be located inside Iraq, the number of personnel, and exactly which tasks NATO would do, the diplomat said. The increase in the overall number of trainers would "scale up" the training and relieve pressure on coalition trainers.

The diplomat also said NATO is looking at providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support to the coalition using an airborne warning and control system, or AWACS aircraft. NATO has 16 planes and officials are looking at how they could fill gaps left by the coalition.

NATO had been looking at a plan that would allow the alliance's planes to fly surveillance missions in other parts of the world to alleviate pressure on allies and allow them to focus on the Middle East. But the diplomat said many commanders said there was no need, and that the capability was most needed against the Islamic State.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter told reporters before the ministerial that he intended to ask allies to boost their participation in the anti-Islamic State coalition.

"I'm always asking for more. We'll continue to ask for more from everybody, including ourselves," Carter said.

The diplomat also talked about progress in other NATO efforts in the Middle East, including the Resolute Support mission in Afghanistan. By the Warsaw Summit in early July, the diplomat said NATO will have collected the $5 billion it needs to support the Afghan National Security Forces through 2020, which provides predictability for Afghan President Ashraf Ghani.

Officials are also expected to announce at Warsaw that, even with the expected drawdown in U.S. forces, NATO will be able to maintain its current base force structure through 2017, which includes a central "hub" in Kabul and Bagram, as well as four spokes, two of which in Kandahar and Jalalabad are run by the U.S.

Officials are looking at aligning how the capabilities available can best help the coalition reach its goals in Afghanistan.

"What I'm forecasting is that three weeks from now, that process will result, and we will still be in the hub and four spokes. I believe we'll have sufficient resources," the diplomat said. "Now, how much we do and how we do it, we'll have to adjust to the troops available."

Asked about war weariness among NATO allies, who have been in Afghanistan for 15 years, the diplomat said he has been "pleasantly reassured" by their commitment to stay there and follow through on the mission.