WAR 06-17-2017-to-06-23-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

(273) 05-27-2017-to-06-02-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...02-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(274) 06-03-2017-to-06-09-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...09-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(275) 06-10-2017-to-06-16-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...16-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

-----
Main Russia/Ukraine invasion thread - 8/11/16 Ukraine Military On "Combat" Alert
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ne-Military-On-quot-Combat-quot-Alert/page468

Zapad 2017 Cometh
Started by*northern watch‎,*11-06-2016*07:39 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?504641-Zapad-2017-Cometh

A Giant Russian Exercise Will Soon Put 100,000 Troops on NATO’s Border. Then What?
Started by*China Connectioný,*Yesterday*04:49 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ut-100-000-Troops-on-NATO’s-Border.-Then-What

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20140329_EUM944.png

http://belizeprayernetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Baltic-Sea-map-by-NormanEinstein-2.png

http://belarusdigest.com/sites/default/files/map_sivicki__1.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmwTFZ2WgAA-oPr.jpg

http://index.heritage.org/military/...11/2017_Index_of_Military_Strength_MAP_04.png

https://img.rt.com/files/2016.07/original/577fdd6fc46188023f8b4573.jpg

------

For link see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.voanews.com/a/us-concer...-forthcoming-russian-war-crimes-/3904327.html

Europe

US Concerned About Baltic Incidents in Upcoming Russian War Games

June 16, 2017 9:45 PM
Reuters

ORZYSZ MILITARY BASE, POLAND —*

The United States is concerned about possible Russian incursions along NATO's Baltic borders during large Russian military exercises in September and will send more troops to the area, the commander of U.S. troops in Europe said on Friday.

Russia has denied Western concerns that its Zapad 2017 war games will threaten stability in eastern Europe. NATO officials believe the exercises could involve more than 100,000 troops, the biggest such Russian maneuvers since 2013.

"When [Russia] went into Crimea, that was against the backdrop of an exercise. When they went into Georgia - that was an exercise," Lieutenant General Ben Hodges told Reuters.

"Their history is full of examples where they don't live up to any treaties ... They routinely violate those things," he said during a NATO exercise in Poland.

Russia annexed Ukraine's Black Sea peninsula of Crimea in 2014 and in August 2008 it sent troops into Georgia, saying it was protecting civilians in Georgia's South Ossetia region.

The Crimea annexation has plunged East-West ties to their lowest levels since the Cold War, with Western governments imposing economic sanctions on Russia. NATO has sent troops to the Baltics and Poland to deter any possible Crimea-style land grab.

Replying to a question, Hodges said he, like Lithuania, was concerned that the Russian exercises could lead to provocative action on Baltic borders.

He said the United States would deploy three units of up to 600 airborne troops across the Baltic States for the duration of Zapad 2017.

"We are all working hard to be at the highest levels of readiness during exercises like this," Hodges said.

Previous Russian large-scale exercises in 2013 employed special forces training, longer-range missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that were later used in Russia's annexation of Crimea, its support for separatists in eastern Ukraine and in its intervention in Syria, NATO diplomats said.

Officials expect the exercise, in which Russian ally Belarus will also take part, could involve nuclear weapons training.

Nuclear-capable mid-range modern Iskander missiles will be again deployed in the Russian Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad during the exercise, the officials said.

Estonia's defense minister said in April that Russia may use Zapad to move troops permanently into Belarus later this year in a warning to NATO. Russia's defense ministry did not immediately reply to a Reuters request for comment on the subject.

Three U.S. exercises will be underway at the same time as Zapad, in Sweden, Poland and Ukraine, and a U.S. armored brigade team is already deployed in Europe.

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis called the forthcoming Russian build-up "destabilizing" last month, and officials suggested the U.S. Army will be deploying a battery of Patriot missiles to Lithuania for two weeks in July.

---

Related

US Sees Russia's 'Humanitarian Center' in Serbia as Spy Outpost

US, Partners Plan European Military Exercise with 25,000 Troops

Mattis: No Indication Russia Wants Positive Relationship With US

Russian Fighter Intercepts US Bomber Over Baltic Sea

Bracing for Russian Military Exercise, Lithuania Puts Up Border Fence

In Balkans, Russia Dismisses Macedonian Meddling Charges

NATO, Partners Hold Land, Sea Exercises in Eastern Europe

 

[Housecarl]

For link see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.janes.com/article/71491/china-launches-fifth-lpd-for-plan

Sea Platforms

China launches fifth LPD for PLAN

Andrew Tate, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
16 June 2017

China's fifth Yuzhao-class (Type 071) landing platform dock (LPD) vessel was launched on 15 June at the Hudong-Zhonghua shipyard in Shanghai. Fitting out and sea trials of the previous ship took 12 months: an indication that the newest vessel of the class is likely to enter service in about June 2018.

The Type 071 LPDs are 210 m long and displace more than 20,000 tonnes. Equipped with a hangar that can accommodate up to four medium-lift helicopters, such as the Harbin Z-8, they can also fit four Yuyi-class (Type 726) air-cushioned landing craft in the well deck. For amphibious operations the Type 071 LPDs are likely to embark between 600 and 800 troops.

The lead ship of the class was commissioned in 2007 and the first three ships all were allocated to the South Sea Fleet of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). After a four-year gap in production, the fourth ship of the class emerged and entered service with the PLAN's East Sea Fleet in February 2016. The latest ship to be launched is also expected to be allocated to this fleet.

All ships of the class have been built at the Hudong-Zhonghua shipyard and recent satellite imagery showed more LPD modules on the dockside, indicating that assembly of the hull of a sixth ship is likely to commence shortly.

Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options:�@ihs.com/contact


To read the full article, Client Login
(244 of 325 words)

http://www.janes.com/images/assets/491/71491/1704238_-_main.jpg

 

[Housecarl]

North Korea Main Thread - All things Korea June 17th - June 23th
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...n-Thread-All-things-Korea-June-17th-June-23th

Europe: Politics, Trade, NATO. June 2017
Started by*northern watch‎,*06-02-2017*09:34 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?518218-Europe-Politics-Trade-NATO.-June-2017/page2

CNN: US military moved High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) to Al Tanf Syria
Started by*Possible Impact‎,*06-13-2017*07:53 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...llery-Rocket-System-(HIMARS)-to-Al-Tanf-Syria

Isis claims first attack in Israel
Started by*mzkitty‎,*Yesterday*03:19 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?518973-Isis-claims-first-attack-in-Israel

ISIS 2017 threats, rumors and attacks, etc.
Started by*Lilbitsnana‎,*05-31-2017*10:38 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?518067-ISIS-2017-threats-rumors-and-attacks-etc./page3

Looks like more troops will be sent to Afghanistan
Started by*Heliobas Disciple‎,*06-13-2017*08:25 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-like-more-troops-will-be-sent-to-Afghanistan

----

For link see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...-decided-send-4k-more-troops-afghanistan.html

Mattis Hasn't Decided to Send 4K More Troops to Afghanistan

Military.com | 16 Jun 2017 | by Richard Sisk

A spokeswoman for Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Friday pushed back against news reports that he's already approved sending 4,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

"Secretary Mattis has made no decisions on a troop increase for Afghanistan," Dana White, an assistant to Mattis and the chief Pentagon spokesperson, said in a statement.

White noted that Mattis in testimony to Congress through this week had repeatedly said that decisions on troop increases would await the presentation to President Donald Trump of a new strategy for Afghanistan that would be ready in mid-July.

The Associated Press on Thursday reported that Mattis as early as next week may announce that he supports deploying 4,000 more troops in response to the request of Army Gen. John Nicholson, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, who had requested between 3,000 and 5,000 additional forces.

In her statement, White said that Trump had delegated authority to Mattis to set troop levels in Afghanistan, but any decision would have to await consultations with other government agencies, the Afghan government, NATO allies and other coalition members.

The U.S. currently has roughly 8,400 troops in Afghanistan (excluding those in country on a temporary basis), while NATO and coalition allies have a total of about 5,000 forces.

Mattis' quick denial through his spokesperson of the AP report attributed to a "Trump administration official" suggested disarray within the administration on the way forward in Afghanistan, where Mattis said earlier this week that the Taliban "had a good year last year."

In the course of testifying on the budget at four congressional hearings from Monday through Thursday, Mattis was challenged repeatedly on how the addition of a few thousand troops could turn around a steadily deteriorating situation in which the Taliban is resurgent, an offshoot of ISIS is stepping up terror attacks, al-Qaida maintains a presence, and widespread corruption in Kabul stifles reform.

At a hearing of the defense subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., asked Mattis, "What are the likely prospects that sending more troops will make any more difference now than it has in the last 16 years?"

"It's a fair question," Mattis replied. In his prepared testimony and in response to questions, he said the U.S. has no choice but to continue a long-term commitment to Afghanistan to prevent another 9/11-type attack on the homeland.

"Thanks to the vigilance and skill of the U.S. military and our many allies and partners, horrors on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001, have not been repeated on our shores," Mattis said. "However, the danger continues to evolve, and that danger requires a commitment to defeat terrorist organizations that threaten the United States, other nations and the people of Afghanistan."

In assessing the way forward, "This administration will not repeat the mistakes of the past," he said. "We cannot allow Afghanistan to once again become a launching point for attacks on our homeland or on our allies."

Mattis did not go into detail on what he meant by "mistakes," but said the new strategy he is drawing up in concert with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will be firmly based on the situation on the ground, and not be guided by arbitrary timelines for withdrawals.

In sketching the outlines of the new strategy, Mattis said, "We will continue to work with our allies, and we will ask more of them."

He said, "Our core mission will remain the same -- to train, advise and assist Afghan forces," but he is looking for more "agility" on how U.S. troops are employed, possibly moving them down to lower levels in the Afghan command chain in their advisory roles.

The new strategy will also focus on increased airpower to hold off the Taliban and give the Afghan forces breathing space to train and regroup, Mattis said.

Nicholson began asking for a "few thousand" more U.S. troops in February. He described the situation in Afghanistan at the time as being at a "stalemate."

In March, Army Gen. Joseph Votel, Nicholson's boss as commander of U.S. Central Command, backed up Nicholson's request in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Sen. John McCain, the committee chairman, asked Votel, "Are we developing a strategy to break the stalemate and is it going to require additional U.S. troops?"

Votel responded that "the answer to your question is 'yes,' we are developing a strategy and we are in discussions with the -- with the [defense] secretary and the department right now, both General Nicholson and I are -- are forming our best advice and recommendations to the secretary and we look forward to moving forward with that."

"I do believe it will involve additional forces to ensure that we can make the advise-and-assist mission more -- more effective," Votel said.

An another SASC hearing on Tuesday, McCain prodded Mattis on why it is taking so long to come up with the new strategy for Afghanistan.

"We are now six months into this administration. We still haven't got a strategy for Afghanistan," he said. "It makes it hard for us to support you when we don't have a strategy. We know what the strategy was for the last eight years -- don't lose. That hasn't worked."

-- Richard Sisk can be reached at Richard.Sisk@Military.com.

 

[Housecarl]

For link see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2017/...e-its-airstrike-killed-isis-leader-al-baghdad

Russia says it's not '100 percent' sure its airstrike killed ISIS leader Al-Baghdadi

Issues
Bill Chappell · NPR · Jun 16, 2017

The Russian Defense Ministry says it may have killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a late May airstrike on an ISIS meeting in Raqqa, Syria. But the development has not been confirmed, Russian officials said Friday. In recent years, previous reports of Baghdadi's death have proved inaccurate.

"So far, I have no 100 percent confirmation of this information," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, according to state-run Tass media, hours after defense officials posted a notice about the May 28 attack.

A spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition said of the Russian report, "We cannot confirm."

Russia's military said the strike targeted a meeting of senior commanders as they planned travel routes for extremist fighters forced out of the ISIS stronghold in Raqqa. The attack began after midnight and lasted around 10 minutes, the military said.

"According to information which is verified through various channels, the meeting was also attended by the leader of ISIS, Ibrahim Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was also killed during the airstrike," the defense ministry said earlier in the day.

The Russian military said the strike, carried out by two jets, killed up to 300 fighters and 30 field commanders, along with the ISIS head of security and two emirs who control Raqqa and a neighboring area.

Citing monitor group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, Telegraph correspondent Josie Ensor said the group believes Baghdadi was in a different part of Syria when the Raqqa meeting was attacked.

In response to Russia's claim that its strike killed an ISIS emir named Ibrahim al-Nayif al-Hajj, the human rights group said, "this news is not true," adding that it believes Hajj was killed in an attack on May 24 at al-Baroudeh village.

 

[Housecarl]

For link see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.voanews.com/a/coalition-closely-monitoring-turkish-training-syrian-militia/3903883.html

Extremism Watch

US-led Coalition Closely Monitoring Turkish Training of Syrian Militia

June 16, 2017 5:07 PM
Rikar Hussein
Kasim Cindemir

The U.S.-led coalition in Syria is closely monitoring Turkey's arming and training of a Syrian militia in northern Syria and asking Turkey instead to return the region to control of local residents, coalition sources told VOA.

U.S. Army Colonel Joseph Scrocca, spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition's Operation Inherent Resolve, told VOA that the coalition "feels strongly that any land seized [from Islamic State] should be returned to the people and governed by local representatives from that area."

The coalition's focus is on defeating IS in Syria and Iraq, and "we urge all of our partners and allies to do the same," Scrocca said.

'National army'
Scrocca's comment came as the Turkish military is working to establish a "national army" for rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA) fighters to operate in northern Syria's Jarabouls and al-Bab areas.

The two areas were seized from IS during a Turkey-supported operation known as Euphrates Shield, which involved Turkish troops and tanks and some FSA factions.

The operation began in August 2016 and ended in March, and the area along the Turkey-Syria border remains under the Turkish army's control.

Syrian Kurds see Turkey's presence as a de facto occupation. Turkish officials say more than a million residents have returned to their homes and the IS presence on the Turkish-Syrian border has been eradicated.

"Once we have created a safe zone, the Syrians will be able to establish their national army, so they can feel safe," Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in May.

Turkish officials said the expanded FSA unit has 10,000 to 12,000 fighters and will be prepared to carry out defensive and offensive operations inside Syria.

"They will show their difference in possible future operations and they will be successful," the Anadolu Agency, a news agency headquartered in Ankara, quoted one Turkish military official as saying.

Training of FSA members
Metehan Demir, a Turkish defense and military analyst, told VOA that training of FSA members started in March, when the government prepared two military camps in Turkey's Hatay and Kilis areas.

Turkey's official news agency said the unit was being trained in how to use weapons, including mortars, rocket launchers and machine guns.

"Hatay camp is especially very well-organized for this purpose," Demir said.

He said Turkey would most likely use the new FSA unit to try to counter the increasing influence of Kurdish YPG forces who are leading the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in a major battle for the IS stronghold of Raqqa.

While the United States supports the YPG and sees it as a key Syrian partner in the fight against IS, Turkey opposes its role and considers it a terrorist organization linked to Turkish-Kurdish separatists inside Turkey, known as the PKK.

"The message from Ankara to Washington is clear," Demir said, "Don't cooperate with YPG, because we are training a new FSA that can do a better job."
U.S. officials have not commented on Turkey's reinforcement of the FSA.

After the U.S. announced last month that it was sending arms to the SDF for the Raqqa operation, Erdogan warned that Turkey would not remain idle and watch the YPG gain in strength. He said Turkey would "exercise its rights under the rules of engagement."

Not likely to align
Analysts say it is unlikely that U.S. forces will align with the Turkey-backed FSA.

"By all reports, the U.S. military does not believe that the FSA forces being trained by Turkey are anywhere near ready to carry out the Raqqa-related mission that SDF/YPG forces are performing," Alan Makovsky, senior analyst for the Center for American Progress and a former U.S. State Department official, told VOA.

Kurdish officials say they are concerned that Turkish-supported militias will ultimately attack their areas and disrupt the Raqqa operation.

"Turkey should cease its involvement in Syria and focus on resolving its internal problems, especially with its Kurds," Salih Muslim, co-chairman of the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party, which provides political direction to the YPG, told VOA.

Muslim accused Turkey of supporting extremist groups to stop Kurdish aspiration for autonomy, and he pleaded with the U.S. for more support.

"Our focus will be to liberate Raqqa and bring back security to it," Muslim said. "America has by now realized how important Syrian Kurds are for the region's stability."

The U.S. in recent months has tried to prevent direct confrontations between Turkey and the YPG. When Turkish planes and artillery attacked YPG bases in April, U.S. troops began patrolling the Syria-Turkey border and tensions eased.

And Turkey's influence on the FSA does not extend deep into Syria, analysts say. Rebels south of the Turkish-controlled area in Syria are reportedly severing ties with the FSA and former self-styled militias that are becoming aligned with the U.S.-led coalition.

"Turkey's biggest challenge over the long term might be consolidating its hold on the territory it now holds," Makovsky said. "Based on the internal fighting and defections among FSA forces in al-Bab, it will need a far more reliable proxy than the FSA forces it now commands."

 

[Housecarl]

Saudi Arabia Gives Qatar 24 Hour Ultimatum; Analysts Warn Of "Military Confrontation"
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...arn-Of-quot-Military-Confrontation-quot/page3

Saudi Arabia and Bahrain break diplomatic ties with Qatar over 'terrorism'
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...plomatic-ties-with-Qatar-over-terrorism/page4

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

Turkey FM in 'positive' Saudi talks on Qatar

AFP
4 hrs ago

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu held talks in Saudi Arabia on Friday with King Salman, continuing efforts to resolve the Gulf's biggest diplomatic crisis in years.

Diplomatic sources told AFP that "the meeting was positive", but there were no specifics.

Riyadh, the UAE, Egypt and others severed diplomatic and economic ties with Qatar almost two weeks ago, accusing Doha of supporting groups, including some backed by Iran, "that aim to destabilise the region".

Qatar denies any such support for extremists.

Cavusoglu travelled to the holy city of Mecca where Salman is based for the last days of Ramadan, after meeting his Kuwaiti counterpart on Thursday.

The emir of Kuwait, which did not cut ties with Qatar, has also been trying to mediate.

Turkey's chief diplomat was in Doha on Wednesday where he called for dialogue after meeting Qatar's emir and foreign minister ahead of his Saudi stop.

"Although the kingdom is a party in this crisis, we know that King Salman is a party in resolving it," Cavusoglu said earlier.

"We want to hear the views of Saudi Arabia regarding possible solutions and will share with them our views in a transparent way... We pay a great attention to our relations with them," he said.

The crisis has put Turkey in a delicate position as Ankara regards Qatar as its chief ally in the Gulf but is also keen to maintain its improving ties with regional power Saudi Arabia.

At the same time, Turkey is eager to maintain workable relations with Iran, Saudi Arabia's foe.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Tuesday described the decision by Gulf states to cut political and economic ties with Qatar as "inhumane and un-Islamic".

He stopped short of directly criticising Saudi Arabia and said that as "the elder statesman of the Gulf," Salman should resolve the matter.

Among the punitive measures, Qatar Airways is banned from the airspace of its neighbours, Gulf states gave Qataris 14 days to get out, and Saudi closed its land border through which much of Qatar's food supply crossed.

 

[Housecarl]

For link see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-syria-idUSKBN19807Y

World News | Sat Jun 17, 2017 | 4:05am EDT

Iraqi forces capture crossing on Syria border from IS: military statement

The Iraqi army and Sunni tribal fighters have dislodged Islamic State from the al-Waleed border crossing into Syria, an Iraqi military statement said on Saturday.

Aircraft from the U.S.-led coalition and the Iraqi air force took part in the operation, the statement said.

Al-Waleed is close to Tanf, a strategic Syrian highway border crossing with Iraq, where U.S. forces have assisted rebels trying to recapture territory from fleeing Islamic State fighters. U.S. forces have been based since last year at Tanf.


(Reporting by Maher Chmaytelli; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)

 

[Housecarl]

For link see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-egypt-court-idUSKBN198096

World News | Sat Jun 17, 2017 | 5:16am EDT

Egyptian court recommends death penalty for 31 over assassination of prosecutor

By Haitham Ahmed | CAIRO

A Cairo criminal court on Saturday recommended the death penalty for 31 people convicted of involvement in the 2015 assassination of Egypt's top prosecutor, the most senior state official killed by militants in recent years.

The court set a verdict session for July 22, after referring its recommendation to the country's top religious authority, the Grand Mufti, for a non-binding legally-required opinion.

Public Prosecutor Hisham Barakat was killed in a car bomb attack on his convoy in Cairo, an operation for which Egypt blamed the Muslim Brotherhood and Gaza-based Hamas militants, though both groups have denied it.

The Interior Ministry released a video last year showing clips of several young men confessing and admitting going to Gaza for training from Hamas, though some of them later denied the accusations in court.

Egypt faces an Islamist insurgency led by Islamic State in North Sinai, where hundreds of soldiers and police have been killed.

The group has also increasingly carried out attacks in Egypt targeting Christians in a spate of church bombings and shootings that have killed some 100 since December.

Barakat was the highest-ranking state official to die in a militant attack since President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, a former military chief, ousted President Mohamed Mursi, a Brotherhood leader, in 2013 after mass protests against his rule.

(Reporting by Haitham Ahmed; Additional reporting by Mostafa Hashem; Writing by Ahmed Aboulenein; Editing by Andrew Bolton)

 

[Housecarl]

For link see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...sses-300/ar-BBCN4ay?li=AA4Zpp&ocid=spartanntp

Philippine troops pound Islamists as death toll passes 300

AFP
Ayee Macaraig
1 hr ago

Philippine troops pounded Islamist militants holding parts of southern Marawi city with air strikes and artillery Saturday as more soldiers were deployed and the death toll rose to more than 300 after nearly a month of fighting.

Fires erupted and dark plumes of smoke rose from enclaves still occupied by the militants as the air force staged bombing runs to support ground troops struggling to dislodge the fighters from entrenched positions, AFP journalists at the scene said.

MG520 attack helicopters and FA50 fighter jets were used in the raids, while sustained bursts of automatic gunfire could be heard in the distance, indicating the intensity of the fighting.

Also on Saturday, 400 fresh troops were airlifted to Marawi from the central Philippines, ANC television said quoting military officials.

Television footage showed the soldiers bidding goodbye to their families before being flown to the conflict zone.

Hundreds of militants -- supported by foreign fighters -- rampaged through Marawi, the largely Christian Philippines' most important Muslim city, on May 23 waving black flags of the Islamic State (IS) group.

President Rodrigo Duterte declared martial law in the entire southern region of Mindanao to counter the attack, which he said was part of a plan by IS to establish a base in the country.

Such a base could be crucial for IS' ambitions to establish a caliphate in Southeast Asia, analysts say.

The military has said eight foreign fighters from Chechnya, Yemen, Malaysia and Indonesia were among the militants killed in the Marawi fighting.

- Hundreds of thousands displaced -
The overall death toll rose to 329 with 310 -- 225 militants, 59 soldiers and 26 civilians -- killed in the conflict, according to government figures.

The 19 others deaths came from those displaced by the fighting, said Mujiv Hataman, the governor of a Muslim autonomous region in the south.

Hataman said the deaths among the evacuees were caused by severe dehydration from diarrhoea.

More than 309,000 people have been been displaced in Marawi and nearby areas, the government said. Many have fled to the homes of friends and relatives and others are in evacuation centres.

"Our forces are moving towards the heart of the enemy," regional military spokesman Jo-ar Herrera told reporters in Marawi on Saturday, referring to the heavy fighting under urban conditions.

"It's the centre of gravity. This is where the location of their command and control, the leadership of the enemy."

Ground commanders estimate "more than 100" militants are still holding out in at least four villages in Marawi, military spokesman Brigadier General Restituto Padilla said in Manila.

But he said the figures were based on estimates a few days ago "so this number could have dropped significantly".

Padilla said in an interview with DZMM radio the military would no longer give any self-imposed deadlines on when the militants would be driven out after failing to meet previous ones they had set.

"We are trying our best to expedite (driving them out) without unduly compromising the lives of our soldiers and at the same time the remaining civilians there," he said.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For link see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://panampost.com/elena-toledo/...ection-between-mexican-drug-cartels-and-isis/

US Government Confirms Connection between Mexican Drug Cartels and ISIS

By: Elena Toledo - @NenaToledo - Jun 15, 2017, 4:43 pm

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told Congress that a “very different approach” will be implemented for fighting**Mexican drug cartels and other transnational criminal groups from now on.

Tillerson told the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives that the two countries are now concentrating on the “supply chain of how drug trafficking, human trafficking and other criminal activities are conducted in a cross-border manner.”

“This is a comprehensive effort that we have been promoting, with the cooperation of our Mexican counterparts,” he said. “I think they will see a very different approach to how we attack the cartel problem.”

Tillerson was questioned by Texas State Rep. Michael McCaul about*whether he shared*concerns with*National Security Secretary John Kelly regarding*the connection between “criminal networks and terrorist networks.” Kelly had previously said “cartels share ties with terrorist networks, with the possibility of smuggling not just drugs or people, but dirty bombs.”

Read More: The Mexican President’s Cheap Talk on Human Rights of Central American Immigrants
Read More: Mexican Ex-Governor Javier Duarte Arrested in Guatemala Following Six-Month Chase

To this, Tillerson responded that the the connections are certainly there, including with the*Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which, he said, “is part of our global effort to deny funding to terrorists.”

The Texas representative said that they are equally concerned and that it is “therefore important to have security both on the border with Mexico but also on the southern border of Mexico.”

Source: Noticieros Televisa

Elena Toledo
Educator by trade, social-media apprentice, activist for a democratic Honduras, and free thinker. Follow her on Twitter @NenaToledo.

-----

Hummm.....

For link see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://sofrep.com/83548/deploying-military-socom-combat-mexican-drug-cartels-nonsense/

Deploying the military and SOCOM to combat Mexican drug cartels and other nonsense
By Jaeson "Doc" Parsons 06.16.2017#World News

Should the United States deploy its military to assist Mexico to fight the increasingly violent and overpowering drug cartels? There are some in Congress who believe that this is still a viable option. The last time the United States provided its military in such a fight, specifically Plan Colombia, things didn’t go as planned, shocker…

Plan Colombia was signed into law in 2000 by President Bill Clinton, consisting of mainly military assistance to combat the drug cartels in Colombia. The original aid package was just $1.3 billion but over the course of the ten-year plan, it rose to more than $7.3 billion. The plan was to cut Colombia’s cocaine production by half and though this was briefly achieved, most of the production just shifted to neighboring Bolivia and Peru, apparently where it was originally produced prior to Colombia’s production surge. Furthermore, since the “Plan” ran its course, Colombia’s productions have skyrocketed, reaching new heights....

(Member content....)

About the Author

Jaeson "Doc" Parsons Born in Chicago & raised in the shadow of the Chicago Board of Trade, Jaeson spent nearly 15 years in the world of global finance. After the 9/11 triggered an overwhelming sense of duty & he left the markets and joined the Army. Enlisting as a combat medic, Jaeson earned the honor of ‘Doc’ on the streets of Ramadi. Doc was honorably discharged and while attending WVU, he started the Graffiti of War Project - www.GraffitiofWar.com, a project documenting the unique artwork created by service members & civilians in conflict zones. The ultimate purpose being to use the book to raise awareness for veterans & service members afflicted with PTSD & TBI, and promoting arts therapy as an alternative solution. Doc's work and odd musings have been published in Maxim and Business Insider as well as featured via outlets such as Fox News, Wired Magazine, Stars & Stripes, Time.com and others.

Comments

To comment on this article please join/login. Here's a sample of the comments on this post.

John R.
Surprised you didn't mention the extreme blowback that occurred when Mexican forces were trained by Snake Eaters. They went back to their country, and because there was better money in working with cartels they started acting as enforcers for the Gulf Cartel and eventually formed "Los Zetas". Arguably the most sophisticated and brutal Cartel in the country. If any change is going to be made, it's going to take more than bullets. Ties between cartels and the Mexican government officials need to be cut to see any lasting result. Task like that wouldn't be easy, or quite as "sexy". But it's the only (or at least the first and most necessary) step I can think of that would have any lasting effect.

Jim b
The CIA!?The worlds biggest drug dealers, thought everyone knew that! And until our Government starts to really take this war on drugs as a declared war, No period our forces don't belong performing any mission like that on foreign soil,

Michael T
Concerning the CIA, yeah, I know...but, maybe the only ones we know about are the ones that go screwed up? Maybe they're geniuses at it and THAT's why we don't know about it, right?!! LMAO!!

William S
You nailed it RE: the corruption in Mexico. I've heard from multiple SOF vets who helped train units in the Mexican Marines (who they praised, by the way) that once those trained Marines would execute a successful mission, orders would come down breaking it up and reassigning the unit members elsewhere. As for the Agency - I'm skeptical. They have a pretty long history of not being able to pull off what you described.

Sanmon
To penetrate the organizations you would have to acknowledge that that organization is in the United States. We already know and the Mexican government knows the players in Mexico. Look no further than the US to find the ones that need to be penetrated.

 

[Housecarl]

For link see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/15...nts-to-u-s-role-in-fueling-drug-war-violence/

The Murder of Mexican Journalists Points to U.S. Role in Fueling Drug War Violence

Jesse Franzblau
June 15 2017, 6:30*a.m.
Comments 48

One month ago, the award-winning journalist Javier Valdez was pulled from his car and killed in broad daylight near his office in Culiacán, in Sinaloa state in Mexico. Valdez is the sixth journalist to be assassinated in Mexico this year, and his killing has sparked outcry and sent new shockwaves of fear through the country’s media.
The journalists being targeted in Mexico have something in common: a commitment to documenting political corruption and state links to drug trafficking. Valdez’s assassination follows a pattern of murder directed at silencing the messengers who are digging up truth and exposing the underbelly of the drug war.

Valdez was the co-founder of Ríodoce, the only independent paper still operating in Culiacán, which is the center of the Sinaloa Cartel and much of the drug war violence in the region. In February, Ríodoce published an interview with an envoy from Dámaso López (“El Licenciado”), formerly the right-hand man of the notorious drug lord “El Chapo” Guzmán. Lopez was apparently moving to take control of the Sinaloa cartel’s territory in a fight with Guzmán’s sons before he was captured*by authorities last month. Guzman’s sons reportedly pressured Valdez to not publish the interview. Other journalists who were close to Valdez suspect involvement of Sinaloa and federal authorities in the killing. To date, there have been no arrests reported in the case.

“We thought Javier was untouchable,” said Marcela Turati, a prominent journalist who writes for the weekly magazine Proceso who was a close friend of Valdez. “He was one of the most internationally recognized journalist in the country. How do we protect ourselves if they are able to kill the most visible with impunity?”

A week before Valdez’s murder, the Committee to Protect Journalists published a*report*detailing prominent recent murders of journalists and failures in the prosecution of the crimes. The Mexican government’s human rights commission reported in 2016 that 90 percent of crimes against journalists go unpunished — 82 percent for killings and 100 percent for disappearances, where the bodies of journalists are never found. Of the 114 murders of journalists that the Mexican government has recorded since 2000, a federal special prosecutor’s office for crimes against free speech has investigated 48 in the past seven years, resulting in only three sentences.

The U.S. State Department’s human rights report on Mexico last year noted that “journalists were sometimes subject to physical attacks, harassment, and intimidation due to their reporting. Perpetrators of violence against journalists continued to act with impunity with few reports of successful investigation, arrest, or prosecution of suspects.” This same line has appeared in all of these reports in recent years.

Nonetheless, in the face of blatant inaction by the Mexican government, U.S. assistance to Mexico’s drug war has continued to flow, and to expand. Declassified State Department documents unearthed in recent years show that the United States has armed and funded Mexican military and police units despite being well aware of abuses and cover-ups. At the same time, the United States has supported projects supposedly aimed at strengthening the rule of law in Mexico, but none of it appears to be having the stated effect.

Training, Guns, and Money
Since 2008, the U.S. government has appropriated over $2.6 billion for security aid to Mexico through the Mérida Initiative — a counter-drug aid package negotiated between former U.S. and Mexican presidents George W. Bush and Felipe Calderón in 2007 — and other security assistance programs. Originally proposed as a three-year program, Mérida underwent a drastic expansion under the State Department of*Hillary Clinton that continues today, despite President Donald Trump’s antagonism toward Mexico over immigration and the border wall.

The aid flows not just from the State Department, but also the Pentagon, Justice Department, and other agencies. The large part of this money is funneled through U.S.-based security firms, which reap enormous profits from contracts on everything from Black Hawk helicopters to armed vehicles, intelligence equipment, computer software, night-vision goggles, surveillance aircrafts, satellites systems, and more. Additionally, weapons companies benefit from direct sales of arms and other equipment, which net another billion each year for the weapons contractors.

Along with equipment, the United States exported a kill or capture targeting strategy against the suspected leaders of Mexico’s drug trade, an approach borrowed from counterterrorism that grew in popularity during Clinton’s tenure at State. U.S. officials who helped shape the targeting programs include Anthony Wayne, former ambassador to Mexico and before that deputy ambassador to Afghanistan, and John Brennan, former CIA director who served as chief counterterrorism adviser to President Obama. Brennan visited Mexico in 2009 to discuss the architecture and implementation of the high-value targeting, or “HVT” operations, modeled on programs carried out in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries.

Many observers and security experts believe that high-value targeting has only destabilized the drug trade without reducing it, leading to more violence. One of the most notable high-value targeting operations took place in Javier Valdez’s home state of Sinaloa in July 2010, where, according to formerly classified internal files obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, the U.S. shared intelligence with Mexico’s authorities that led to the killing of Ignacio “Nacho” Coronel Villarreal, one of the four main leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel at the time. The killing of Villarreal led to a rise in fighting in 2010 over territory between Sinaloa Cartel forces and other organized criminal organizations such as the Zetas.

Towards the end of the Obama administration, the United States shifted its emphasis from military hardware to programs with a stated focus on institutional reform, including training law enforcement at the local level. The DEA, for example, has trained thousands of police officers in sensitive investigative techniques each year, while the Justice Department and other agencies have provided Mexican agencies with network, forensic, and biometric equipment. State Department cables show that U.S. assistance has included millions for state-level laboratories, crime-scene analysis, ballistic analysis, evidence gathering, criminal intelligence analysis and the like.

U.S. agencies say these efforts are key to strengthening Mexico’s investigative capacity, but they have done little to change the impunity for ongoing systematic human rights crimes, including killings of journalists. One of the problems, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, is that even when perpetrators are punished, collusion between the government and organized crime keeps investigators from identifying who is actually responsible for the crimes.

“We need an international presence to investigate what is taking place here,” the journalist Marcela Turati told The Intercept. “A representative or team of experts from the [Organization of American States] Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, or another similar body from the United Nations that can investigate the crimes, identify the structures of impunity, and help Mexico redesign its justice system. Our government has demonstrated a lack of political will and capacity to solve these crimes.”

“No to Silence”
The U.S. government is well aware of the problem of institutional impunity; internal U.S. State Department reporting on Mexico, released via FOIA and through leaks, has provided blunt confirmation of a pattern of active cover-ups and linked Mexican authorities to abuses.

In 2010, U.S. Embassy officials were reporting on instances where drug trafficking organizations were operating with “near total impunity,” in the face of “compromised local security forces,” in Mexico’s northeastern states. Yet, U.S. training and assistance continued in the region. The U.S. Embassy and DEA carried out training programs for police from Nuevo León even as U.S. consulate officials said that the security apparatus in that state had been compromised, with the governor admitting that some state and police officials had been co-opted by the Zetas. U.S. assistance programs also continued as DEA officials reported on the arrests of active-duty and retired law enforcement officials in Nuevo León for providing protection and assistance to drug-traffickers.

In the case of a series of*massacres in the northeast, in San Fernando in the state of Tamaulipas between 2010 and 2011, U.S. officials highlighted how Mexican authorities were trying to minimize “the State’s responsibility” for the crimes. U.S. State Department files document how authorities sought to cover up the violence, jeopardizing investigations by splitting up corpses of the victims “to make the total number less obvious and thus less alarming.” Nonetheless, after mass graves were discovered, the U.S. ratcheted up its programs in the region.

The search for justice for the victims of drug war violence has been led by journalists and by the family members of the victims, not the government agencies receiving U.S. assistance. And they have too often been silenced.

Miriam Rodríguez Martínez’s 14-year-old daughter, Karen, disappeared in 2012 and was buried in another mass grave in San Fernando. Rodríguez doggedly pursued those responsible for her daughter’s kidnapping and murder. Her efforts implicated members of the Zetas and resulted in*the imprisonment of the primary suspect in the crime. She also led activist efforts by family members to find the remains of others disappeared in the region. Rodríguez*was killed in her home in San Fernando on Mother’s Day in Mexico, just five days before Javier Valdez’s murder.

Valdez was intent on challenging the silence in the face of such crimes. When his colleague, Miroslava Breach, was assassinated in late March, he said, “Let them kill us all, if that is the death sentence for reporting this hell. No to silence.”


This article is being published in conjunction with an international campaign, Our Voice is Our Strength/ Nuestra Voz Es Nuestra Fuerza, to remember Javier Valdez and his work and to call for an end to impunity for crimes against the press in Mexico.

Related

After an Uprising in Mexico, the Return of the Narco Warlords

How a Lime Grower Led an Uprising Against One of Mexico’s Bloodiest Drug Cartels

Independent Investigators Leave Mexico Without Solving the Case of 43 Disappeared Students

Mexican Authorities Implicated in Violence, But U.S. Security Aid Still Flows

 

[Housecarl]

Swedish Police Attacked By 100 Masked Migrant Youths
Started by Shacknasty Shagrat‎, Today 09:57 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-Police-Attacked-By-100-Masked-Migrant-Youths

Swedish Islamophobia Expert Who Joined ISIS Now Calling For Attacks In Sweden
Started by Shacknasty Shagrat‎, Today 11:50 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...Joined-ISIS-Now-Calling-For-Attacks-In-Sweden

The Roots of Violent Extremism
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?519031-The-Roots-of-Violent-Extremism

----------

For link see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2017/06/is-t...g-strategic-discourse-on-the-south-china-sea/

Is the Focus on FONOPs Muddying Strategic Discourse on the South China Sea?

It is proving extremely difficult for Washington to convince Beijing of its seriousness in the South China Sea.

By Robert Farley
June 17, 2017

At Lawfare, Peter Dutton and Isaac Kardon argue that the focus on Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) in the South China Sea has come to obscure the basic strategic issues, rather than illuminate them. Dutton and Kardon suggest that the U.S. government and the U.S. Navy ought to reconsider the use of FONOPs as a political tool, and instead concentrate on the broader goal of sailing whenever, and wherever, it feels itself legally entitled to sail.

Over the past weeks, the U.S. Navy and a considerable portion of the U.S. strategic analyst community have staked out the position that whether a U.S. destroyer conducts a “man overboard” drill in the vicinity of a Chinese installation has strategic relevance. The analytic community was previously gripped by the question of why the United States had conducted no FONOPs since the beginning of the Trump administration; before that, it pondered whether a FONOP without a “man overboard” drill constituted a sufficiently robust response to the growth of Chinese naval power and the assertiveness of China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea.

The notion of the utility of FONOPs is built around the idea that the Chinese are hypersensitive to U.S. messages regarding SCS installations, and that the Chinese will read such messages in the way that we intend; in other words, the Chinese are listening, and there is no meaningful noise to muddle what we’re saying. Of the first assumption there is considerable evidence; Chinese officials do seem to pay a great deal of attention to U.S. vessels when they conduct freedom of navigation missions in the South China Sea. Of the second, there is considerably less evidence.

At the very best, conveying critical strategic messages through military action is fraught with difficulty and contradiction. What does the action mean? How will the target interpret the action? Will the target believe the action represents a credible commitment, or cheap bluster? Literal bookshelves of foreign policy work has been produced on these questions, but have failed to resolve the basic conundrum; the messages we want to send are only rarely the messages that others hear.

FONOPs taken; FONOPs not taken; FONOPs misconducted; FONOPs conducted at the behest of one element of the U.S. foreign policy hierarchy rather than some other element; FONOPs as indicative of the policy of one administration rather than another. In sum, Dutton and Kardon make clear that FONOPs make nothing clear; they are inadequate to conveying precision-guided messages to the Chinese military and diplomatic establishment. FONOPs impose no practical constraints on China’s development of new installations in the SCS. They send no obvious message about conditions under which the United States might go to war. They are as likely to confuse potential allies as they are to confuse the Chinese.

The United States has taken on an enormously difficult task in the South China Sea. It needs to convince China that it cares as much about quasi-island-features in the South China Sea as China does, and that it is willing to take expensive risks in order to prevent China’s expansion of these features. Given that the U.S. has no territorial claims of its own, and that the U.S. has struggled to develop a compelling economic argument regarding the relevance of these features, it is proving extremely difficult for Washington to convince Beijing of its seriousness. FONOPs are the tool that the United States has happened upon, but they are altogether inadequate to the task.

------

For link see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.lawfareblog.com/forget-...and-operate-wherever-international-law-allows

SOUTH CHINA SEA

Forget the FONOPs — Just Fly, Sail and Operate Wherever International Law Allows

By Peter A. Dutton, Isaac B. Kardon Saturday, June 10, 2017, 10:10 AM

On May 24, the guided-missile destroyer USS Dewey (DDG 105) operated within 12 nautical miles (nm) of Mischief Reef, a disputed feature in the South China Sea (SCS) controlled by the People’s Republic of China, but also claimed by the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam. The Dewey’s action evidently challenged China’s right to control maritime zones adjacent to the reef —which was declared by the South China Sea arbitration to be nothing more than a low tide elevation on the Philippine continental shelf. The operation was hailed as a long-awaited “freedom of navigation operation” (FONOP) and “a challenge to Beijing’s moves in the South China Sea,” a sign that the United States will not accept “China’s contested claims” and militarization of the Spratlys, and a statement that Washington “will not remain passive as Beijing seeks to expand its maritime reach.” Others went further and welcomed this more muscular U.S. response to China’s assertiveness around the Spratly Islands to challenge China’s “apparent claim of a territorial sea around Mischief Reef…[as well as] China’s sovereignty over the land feature” itself.



But did the Dewey actually conduct a FONOP? Probably—but maybe not. Nothing in the official description of the operation or in open source reporting explicitly states that a FONOP was in fact conducted. Despite the fanfare, the messaging continues to be muddled. And that is both unnecessary and unhelpful.

In this post, we identify the source of ambiguity and provide an overview of FONOPs and what distinguishes them from the routine practice of freedom of navigation. We then explain why confusing the two is problematic—and particularly problematic in the Spratlys, where the practice of free navigation is vastly preferable to the reactive FONOP. FONOPs should continue in routine, low-key fashion wherever there are specific legal claims to be challenged (as in the Paracel Islands, the other disputed territories in the SCS); they should not be conducted—much less hyped up beyond proportion—in the Spratlys. Instead, the routine exercise of freedom of navigation is the most appropriate way to use the fleet in support of U.S. and allied interests.



What Did the Dewey Do?

According to Pentagon spokespeople, the Dewey entered within 12 nm of Mischief Reef at 7 a.m. local time on May 24. The destroyer then sailed in a zigzag pattern, at times navigating within 6 nm of the feature. The Dewey also conducted a “man overboard” rescue drill. The man overboard drill is the clearest suggestion that an intentional—and approved—FONOP occurred. What other reason is there to approach within 6 nm of Mischief Reef for a man overboard drill?

In response, the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) quickly sortied guided-missile frigates Liuzhou and Luzhou to intercept and “expel” the Dewey, which remained within 12 nm of Mischief Reef for 90 minutes and repeatedly communicated with the PLAN vessels its intention to peacefully exercise navigational freedoms. The Dewey was plainly operating in a mode consistent with high seas freedoms, and not in the “continuous and expeditious” manner required of innocent passage through a claimed and accepted 12 nm territorial sea.

The Department of Defense statement issued shortly after the operation demands some further parsing since it expressly avoids stating clearly that the operation was a FONOP. Pentagon spokesman MAJ Jamie Davis informed the press in a written statement that “U.S. forces operate in the Asia-Pacific region on a daily basis, including in the South China Sea” and in so doing “demonstrate that the United States will fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows.” The statement went on to note that the U.S. has a “comprehensive Freedom of Navigation Operations program,” but shares this information without connecting it to the Dewey’s operations. It did not confirm or deny that the operation was a FONOP. As Julian Ku noted here at Lawfare, other Pentagon officials speaking on the record would only state that FONOPs are ongoing. Summaries of all FONOPSs conducted each year will now be acknowledged only in an end-of-year report published by the Department of Defense.



What Is a FONOP?

Since 1979, the Defense and State Departments have jointly run the Freedom of Navigation program for the purpose of issuing formal challenges to other states’ explicit maritime claims. Such operations uphold the U.S. position that the coastal state claim in question is excessive as a matter of international law (see Roach and Smith’s Excessive Maritime Claims for an authoritative discussion of which claims are deemed excessive and why). The U.S. Navy’s FONOPs fulfill the Secretary of Defense’s role in undertaking activities in the area of the excessive claim that are consistent with international law, but inconsistent with the coastal state’s claim. The role of the State Department is to communicate the legal challenge to the target government, usually in a formal, written demarche. According to the official description, the fleet may also conduct “FON-related” activities, where a freedom of navigation challenge is a secondary effect of an operation with a different primary purpose. Such second-order FONOPs typically do not require interagency coordination and are executed within the military chain of command, unaccompanied by a diplomatic demarche. These “FON-related” activities are simply routine exercises of high seas freedoms that happen to have the secondary effect of strengthening the rule of law at sea.

Traditionally, FONOPs are operationally minimal and diplomatically low-key. The point is not to menace the offending state with gunboats or to upstage them with publicity. Rather, the program asserts the relevant legal norm in word and in deed. FONOPs are not primarily designed to send targeted signals of resolve, reassurance, commitment, deterrence, or any other of the many political-military signals the United States sends through its naval operations. A FONOP is a specialized tool to protect discrete legal norms that underpin the order of the oceans. This order is largely codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and is also widely accepted as customary international law. American FONOPs therefore do not just protect American freedoms—they protect the right of all states to benefit from the open oceans regime.

As detailed in the Pentagon’s annual reports, many claims are challenged around the world—including those of allies and partners. The map below (see the interactive version here) shows the location and relative frequency of FONOPs (represented by the size of the circle) since the Pentagon started publishing its data in 1991. The Asian littoral (running from the Sea of Japan to the Arabian Sea) is obviously the locus of this activity, as the region in which the majority of excessive claims are located. But the map makes clear that the program is global and targets competitor states and friends alike. FONOPs are purposively decoupled from other diplomatic initiatives specific to a state or region precisely because their purpose is to uphold a uniform set of norms for all of the world’s oceans.

How Is a Formal FONOP Different from the Routine Practice of Freedom of Navigation?

The Commander of the United States’ Pacific Fleet has repeatedly stated in his public addresses that vessels under his command spend an “average [of] 700 ship days a year … in the South China Sea.” That is, at any time on any given day of the year, one or two U.S. Navy ships are in the South China Sea. These ships undertake the full panoply of routine naval operations—exercising with other navies, maintaining a reassuring presence, gathering intelligence, protecting sea lines of communication, deterring conflict, and standing ready to intervene in times of crisis, among many others. Routine operations can send the full spectrum of political signals to allies, partners, and friends—and to potential foes—in support of the policies of the elected leaders of the U.S. government. They can even have the incidental effect of challenging an excessive claim. The key is that such operations make routine use of the full spectrum of existing freedoms.

Naval operations of this sort occur continuously across the globe, including in the South China Sea. As former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter put it, “the United States will fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows, as we do around the world, and the South China Sea will not be an exception.” Unlike a FONOP, which has a narrow legal purpose intended to challenge a specific legal claim made by a sole coastal state, routine naval operations perform a far broader set of political and strategic functions. The nature of these operations must be clear if their purposes are to be achieved.

So was the Dewey’s passage a FONOP designed to be a narrow legal challenge between the US and Chinese governments? Or was it a rightful and routine exercise of navigational freedoms intended to signal reassurance to the region and show U.S. resolve to defend the rule sets that govern the world’s oceans? Regrettably, the DOD spokesman’s answer was not clear. The distinction is not trivial.



What’s the Problem with Confusing FONOPs and Freedom of Navigation?

The U.S. should have undertaken, and made clear that it was undertaking, routine operations to exercise navigational freedoms around Mischief Reef—rather than (maybe) conducting a FONOP.

The first problem with conducting FONOP operations at Mischief Reef or creating confusion on the point is that China has made no actual legal claim that the U.S. can effectively challenge. In fact, in the Spratlys, no state has made a specific legal claim about its maritime entitlements around the features it occupies. In other words, not only are there no “excessive claims,” there are no clear claims to jurisdiction over water space at all. Jurisdictional claims by a coastal state begin with an official announcement of baselines—often accompanied by detailed geographic coordinates—to put other states on notice of the water space the coastal state claims as its own.

China has made several ambiguous claims over water space in the South China Sea. It issued the notorious 9-dashed line map, for instance, and has made cryptic references that eventually it might claim that the entire Spratly Island area generates maritime zones as if it were one physical feature. China has a territorial sea law that requires Chinese maritime agencies only to employ straight baselines (contrary to international law). And it formally claimed straight baselines all along its continental coastline, in the Paracels, and for the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, which China claims and Japan administers. All of these actions are contrary to international law and infringe on international navigational rights. These have all been subject to American FONOPs in the past—and rightly so. They are excessive claims. But China has never specified baselines in the Spratlys. Accordingly, no one knows for sure where China will claim a territorial sea there. So for now, since there is no specific legal claim to push against, a formal FONOP is the wrong tool for the job. The U.S. Navy can and should simply exercise the full, lawful measure of high seas freedoms in and around the Spratly Islands. Those are the right tools for the job where no actual coastal state claim is being challenged.

Second, the conflation of routine naval operations with the narrow function of a formal FONOP needlessly politicizes this important program, blurs the message to China and other states in the region, blunts its impact on China’s conduct, and makes the program less effective in other areas of the globe. This conflation first became problematic with the confused and confusing signaling that followed the FONOP undertaken by the USS Lassen in the fall of 2015. Afterward, the presence or absence of a FONOP dominated beltway discussion about China’s problematic conduct in the South China Sea and became the barometer of American commitment and resolve in the region. Because of this discussion, FONOPs became reimagined in the public mind as the only meaningful symbol of U.S. opposition to Chinese policy and activity in the SCS. In 2015 and 2016 especially, FONOPs were often treated as if they were the sole available operational means to push back against rising Chinese assertiveness. This was despite a steady U.S. presence in the region for more than 700 ship days a year and a full schedule of international exercises, ample intelligence gathering operations, and other important naval demonstrations of U.S. regional interests.

In consequence, we should welcome the apparent decision not to conduct a FONOP around Scarborough Shoal—where China also never made any clear baseline or territorial sea claim. If U.S. policy makers intend to send a signal to China that construction on or around Scarborough would cross a red line, there are many better ways than a formal FONOP to send that message. One such political signal that was well sent is the deployment of Third Fleet forces from San Diego to the Western Pacific to augment the U.S. Navy’s Seventh Fleet forces resident in Asia. On January 5, 2017, the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) and its carrier strike group (CSG 1) began a new “Third Fleet Forward” deployment pattern in the Western Pacific. The group conducted routine operations in the South China Sea and is now conducting exercises in the Asia-Pacific with allies and partners to demonstrate American commitment and to build partner combat capabilities. Official U.S. government statements were appropriately understated, noting that “[o]perating two carrier strike groups in the Western Pacific provides unique training opportunities for our forces and provides combatant commanders with significant operational flexibility should these forces be called upon in response to regional situations.” The Chinese foreign ministry acknowledged the activity without protest. These vessels were carrying out routine naval operations to send a clear signal to regional states about U.S. capabilities and intentions. This was a clear message, clearly received.

The routine operations of the fleet in the Pacific theater illustrate the crucial—and often misunderstood—difference between a formal FONOP and operations that exercise freedoms of navigation. FONOPs are not the sole remedy to various unlawful restrictions on navigational rights across the globe, but are instead a small part of a comprehensive effort to uphold navigational freedoms by practicing them routinely. That consistent practice of free navigation, not the reactive FONOP, is the policy best suited to respond to Chinese assertiveness in the SCS. This is especially true in areas such as the Spratly Islands where China has made no actual legal claims to challenge.

RELATED ARTICLES

Water Wars: Giving Pragmatic Engagement a Shot
Jimmy Chalk, Sarah Grant Fri, Jun 16, 2017, 9:27 AM

Water Wars: A United Front from Singapore to Sydney
Jared Dummitt, Eliot Kim Fri, Jun 9, 2017, 9:46 AM

Water Wars: China, China Everywhere, Under the Sea and In the Air
Sarah Grant Fri, Jun 2, 2017, 9:15 AM

Water Wars: Fighters, Flights, and Perhaps a FONOP
Jared Dummitt, Eliot Kim Fri, May 26, 2017, 10:06 AM

Dewey Freedom of Navigation Operation Challenges China’s Sovereignty to Mischief Reef
James Kraska Thu, May 25, 2017, 9:56 AM

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/us-wounded-afghanistan-base

Another insider attack in Afghanistan leaves 7 Americans wounded

By: Shawn Snow and Andrew deGrandpre, June 17, 2017

WASHINGTON — At least seven U.S. troops were wounded Saturday when an Afghan soldier allegedly fired on them inside a military compound in northern Afghanistan, the second apparent insider attack in a week.

The incident occurred around 2 p.m. local time, during a training exercise at Camp Shaheen in Mazar-e Sharif. The attacker, a commando assigned to the Afghan army's 209th corps, allegedly fired three rocket-propelled grenades at the Americans before continuing the attack with two M4 carbines, an Afghan defense officials told Military Times. The assailant was later shot dead by an American armed with a pistol, the Afghan official said.

There are no American fatalities, according to a statement from the NATO command headquartered in Kabul. The wounded were evacuated and the incident is under investigation, officials said.
Follow
Resolute Support ✔ @ResoluteSupport
UPDATE: Seven U.S. service members wounded, evacuated for treatment. Insider attack Camp Shaheen, Mazar-e Sharif under investigation https://twitter.com/ResoluteSupport/status/876074845951406080 …
8:27 AM - 17 Jun 2017
363 363 Retweets 206 206 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Saturday’s attack marks at least the second violent incident so far this month involving American personnel embedded with Afghan security forces. It comes exactly one week after an Afghan soldier allegedly opened fire on U.S. troops, killing three and wounding one. For the month of June, U.S. officials have reported at least three other Americans wounded in action in Afghanistan. Year to date, that number has now reached nearly 50.

It is significant, too, that the attacker at Camp Shaheen was a member of the Afghan army's elite commando force. The U.S. strategy in Afghanistan focuses heavily on further developing these units, with plans well underway to double their size in coming years.


Army Times
Army identifies victims of apparent insider attack in Afghanistan


U.S. troops remain at risk elsewhere in the country. In mid-March, three U.S soldiers were shot and wounded in another apparent insider attack at an Afghan military complex in Helmand province, where a Task Force of 300 U.S. Marines is embedded with the Afghan security forces today.

Saturday's attack comes amid talk in Washington of sending another 4,000 American troops to step up counter-terror operations and help break what senior military leaders have declared a stalemate in the 16-year war with the Taliban. NATO countries contributing to the war effort are likely to make individual announcements soon on adjusting their troop levels. Among European countries, those numbers are expected to be under 1,000.

President Donald Trump has delegated authority on troop numbers in the war-torn region to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. A spokeswoman for Mattis, Dana White, indicated earlier this week that his decision is pending further consultation with other U.S. agencies, the Afghan government and NATO, she said.

Mattis told House and Senate lawmakers this week that, by mid-July, he plans to provide the White House with a comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan. That plan may include sending U.S. military advisers even closer to the action, and possibly embedding tactical air controllers within front-line Afghan units to help them push back the Taliban.

“We are not winning in Afghanistan,” Mattis told senators on Tuesday.


Military Times
As Trump weighs more troops in Afghanistan, some in Congress seek to freeze his funding


Long-term, officials say, the objective is to set the conditions that will enable the U.S. to maintain a counter-terrorism presence in the region and prevent the sort of lawlessness that could destabilize Afghanistan's neighbors. Both Pakistan and India possess nuclear weapons. There's mounting concern, too, about the increasingly overt efforts by Russia and Iran to influence regional affairs.

Presently, approximately 8,500 U.S. troops are deployed to Afghanistan as part of two separate operations.

The larger of the two, known as Resolute Support, is focused on advising and assisting Afghan security forces with the goal of enabling them to independently protect the country's populace from a resilient Taliban. The other is a counter-terrorism mission called Freedom's Sentinel. It comprises mostly elite special operations troops and remains focused on targeting an Islamic State offshoots and the many al-Qaida affiliates entrenched along Afghanistan's border with Pakistan.

Shawn Snow is a Military Times staff writer and editor of the Early Bird Brief. On Twitter:@SnowSox184. Andrew deGrandpre is Military Times' senior editor and Pentagon bureau chief. On Twitter: @adegrandpre.

Comments 9

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.france24.com/en/20170617-tehran-says-saudi-coastguard-killed-iranian-fisherman

17 June 2017 - 21H40

Tehran says Saudi coastguard killed Iranian fisherman

TEHRAN (AFP) -
An Iranian fisherman was shot and killed Saturday by the Saudi coastguard which accused him of entering Saudi waters, Iran's interior ministry said, fuelling tensions between the regional rivals.

"Two fishing boats were in the Persian Gulf and strayed due to high waves. The Saudi coastguard say the boats entered Saudi waters and killed one of the fishermen," Majid Aghababaie, head of border affairs at the interior ministry, said in a statement published by Iranian media.

He said it was not clear if the fishing boats had strayed into Saudi waters and that Iranian authorities were trying to determine the facts.

"Even if the boats had entered Saudi waters, the coastguard were not authorised to open fire," Aghababaie added.

Foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Ghassemi issued a similar statement.

The shooting comes amid increased tensions between Sunni-led Saudi Arabia and its arch rival Iran.

The tensions flared after twin attacks on June 7 on the parliament and the shrine of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Tehran in which 17 people were killed.

The Islamic State jihadist group claimed responsibility.

But Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard has accused Saudi Arabia of involvement in the attacks.

Iran's Intelligence Minister Mahmoud Alavi has also put the blame on Riyadh.

"Saudi Arabia is sponsoring terrorist groups in Iran," he said on Thursday.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif also pointed the finger at Saudi Arabia, during a visit to Norway this week.

"We have intelligence that Saudi Arabia is actively engaged in promoting terrorist groups operating on the eastern side of Iran in Baluchistan," Zarif said.

The incident also comes as the Gulf faces one of its worst diplomatic crises in years.

Earlier this month Saudi Arabia and several of its allies cut ties with Qatar, accusing it of supporting extremist groups, including some backed by Iran.

Qatar denies the allegations.

Iran has urged its Gulf neighbours to engage in a dialogue to resolve their dispute.

It also sent several planeloads of food to Qatar earlier this month after the Gulf countries cut off air links with Doha.

Saudi Arabia also sealed its land border with Qatar, which relies heavily on imports for food and raw materials.

© 2017 AFP

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.france24.com/en/20170617...es-deraa-ceasefire-un-russia-july-peace-talks

Syria
ceasefire
diplomacy
Middle East

Syrian army declares city ceasefire, UN plan July peace talks

Latest update : 2017-06-17
The Syrian army said it would suspend combat operations in the southern city of Deraa for 48 hours from Saturday, as mediators announced two separate attempts to convene new peace talks next month.

The Syrian army general command said a ceasefire at noon (0900 GMT) on Saturday was being implemented to support “reconciliation efforts”, according to a statement carried by state news agency SANA.

The announcement came on the same day as the United Nations said it wanted to start a fresh round of peace talks between Syrian factions on July 10 in Geneva, and Moscow said it hoped to hold talks in Kazakhstan’s capital Astana on July 4-5.

Since a resumption of peace negotiations last year, there have been multiple rounds brokered by the United Nations in Geneva between representatives of Syrian rebels and the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, resulting in scant progress.

Another track of talks brokered by Russia - a key Assad ally - has also been happening in Astana, Kazakhstan, since January.

In an emailed statement the office of United Nations special mediator for Syria Staffan de Mistura said he wished to convene a seventh round of Geneva talks in July and further rounds in August and September.

The United States welcomed the ceasefire announcement and called on the Syrian government to live up to its ceasefire commitments.

“We will judge this initiative by the results not the words,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said in a statement. She urged the Syrian opposition groups to halt attacks to allow humanitarian aid to reach those in need.

Pause in hostilities

In more than six years the Syrian conflict has killed hundreds of thousands of people and driven more than 11 million from their homes.

In May, Iran, Russia and Turkey brokered a deal in Astana to create four de-escalation zones in Syria.

Violence levels have been vastly reduced in those proposed de-escalation areas, but fighting has continued in major frontline areas, including in Deraa city.

'SYRIAN GOVERNMENT FORCES SIEGE SITUATIONS'

Subscribe to our videos for free!
The Syrian army and Iran-backed militia forces have stepped up attacks against a rebel-held part of Deraa city in recent weeks, in a possible prelude to a large-scale campaign to gain full control.

De Mistura said this week a new round of talks would depend on the progress made in setting up the de-escalation zones.

A war monitor said the level of violence in Deraa had fallen seven hours after Saturday’s ceasefire was due to take effect, but it and rebels said there was some bombardment for the first couple of hours.

A rebel commander in Deraa told Reuters hostilities had not stopped three hours after the ceasefire was due to begin.

“We have not heard of any such talk and the regime is still attacking us with the same intensity,” the commander said at 3:30 p.m. (1230 GMT).

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights war monitor said there was a “cautious calm” by 7 p.m.

“There are breaches and we are distrustful of the regime’s intentions in abiding by the ceasefire,” Major Issam al Rayes, spokesman for the Southern Front grouping of the Free Syrian Army rebels, told Reuters.

“The regime’s forces have stopped their military operations after big losses in equipment and men since the start of their campaign over a month ago ... after the failure of repeated attempts to advance,” he said.

The United States and Russia have been holding talks on creating a separate “de-escalation zone” in southwestern Syria that would include Deraa province, on the border with Jordan, and Quneitra, which borders the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

(REUTERS)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-security-police-idUSKBN19905G

World News | Sun Jun 18, 2017 | 8:40am EDT

Six police killed in attack on Afghanistan police headquarters

By Samihullah Paiwand | GARDEZ, Afghanistan

At least six police were killed and dozens of people wounded when as many as six gunmen and a suicide bomber attacked a police headquarters in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday morning, officials said.

It took Afghan security forces most of the day to kill the last gunmen, who had barricaded themselves in a kitchen in the compound, according to police.

The attack, claimed by the Taliban, began around 6:30 a.m. (0200 GMT) when one bomber detonated a car packed with explosives at the gate of the police headquarters in Gardez city, capital of Paktia province, said Najib Danish, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry.

Around six attackers stormed the gate after the blast, with at least two quickly killed by police. The others held out against Afghan special forces that had responded to the attack, he said.

Paktia police chief Toryalai Abdani put the toll at six police killed and 12 wounded.

Doctors at the city hospital said they had received the bodies of at least five police, as well as at least 30 wounded people, including 21 civilians.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, with spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid reporting more than 100 police were killed and wounded. The Islamist group often exaggerates casualty numbers in attacks against government targets and security forces.

Insurgent groups like the Taliban and Islamic State have launched a string of attacks across Afghanistan in recent weeks.

Islamic State claimed responsibility for a deadly attack on a mosque in Kabul on Thursday.


Also In World News
Russia criticizes U.S. for 'anti-Cuban' approach, says it sides with Cuba
U.S. destroyer almost foundered after collision, bodies found: Seventh Fleet


A massive truck bombing and later suicide attacks left hundreds dead and wounded at the end of May and beginning of June, raising political tensions for the Afghan government, which is struggling to combat rising violence and corruption.

Thousands of international troops remain in the country to train and assist Afghan security forces as well as carry out counter-terrorism missions.

American defense officials say in coming weeks they will decide whether to send between 3,000 to 5,000 more troops as requested by military commanders.

(Writing by Josh Smith; Editing by Paul Tait, Larry King)

 

[Housecarl]

White House Officials Push for Widening War in Syria - Pentagon Objections
Started by*Possible Impact‎,*Yesterday*06:34 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...for-Widening-War-in-Syria-Pentagon-Objections

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...s-move-into-last-isis-stronghold-in-city.html

isis

Mosul battle: Iraqi troops move into last ISIS stronghold in city

Published June 18, 2017
Associated Press

BAGHDAD – *U.S.-backed Iraqi troops pushed into the last Islamic State stronghold in Mosul on Sunday, an Iraqi commander said, formally launching the final major battle of an eight-month campaign to drive the militants from Iraq's second largest city.

The IS group captured Mosul when it swept across northern and central Iraq in the summer of 2014. Iraq launched a massive operation to retake the city last October, and has driven the militants from all but a handful of neighborhoods.

The extremists are expected to make their last stand in the Old City, a densely populated quarter with narrow, winding alleys.

Related Image

Expand / Collapse
Iraqi security forces advance during fighting against Islamic State militants, in western Mosul, Iraq, Wednesday, March 1, 2017. *(AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)
Lt. Gen. Abdul-Amir Rasheed Yar Allah, who commands army operations in Ninevah province, said Iraqi special forces, the regular army and Federal Police are taking part in the operation to retake the Old City, which began Sunday at dawn.

Iraq state TV aired live footage showing thick black smoke rising from the Old City, with the sound of gunfire rattling inside. It said leaflets were distributed urging civilians to leave through five "safe corridors."

Related Image

Expand / Collapse
In this April 29, 2017 file photo, an Iraqi Federal Policeman runs away after he fired shots at an Islamic State group position on the western side of Mosul, Iraq. *(AP Photo/Bram Janssen)

Gen. Abdel Ghani al-Asadi, the head of Iraq's special forces, told state TV he expects the extremists to put up a "vicious and tough fight." Al-Asadi said the troops "will be very careful" to protect the civilians in the densely populated area.

The International Rescue Committee called on Iraqi forces and the U.S.-led coalition to "do everything in their power to keep civilians safe during these final stages of the battle for Mosul."

"With its narrow and winding streets, Iraqi forces will be even more reliant on airstrikes despite the difficulty in identifying civilians sheltering in buildings and the increased risk of civilians being used as human shields by ISIS fighters," said Nora Love, the aid group's acting country director, using another acronym for IS.

Love warned that the assault could lead to even more civilian deaths than the hundreds killed so far in airstrikes across the rest of the city, as "the buildings of the old town are particularly vulnerable to collapse even if they aren't directly targeted."

Those who try fleeing to government-controlled areas risk being caught in the crossfire or targeted by IS snipers, Love added.
Related Image

Expand / Collapse
Western Mosul is a far tougher battleground *(The Associated Press)
The Old City is home to the centuries-old al-Nuri mosque, where IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi delivered a Friday sermon in 2014 as his group declared an Islamic caliphate in the areas it controlled in Syria and Iraq. The militants have lost much of that territory over the last three years, and Mosul is their last urban bastion in Iraq.

Related stories...
UN believes up to 150,000 civilians are trapped in Mosul
ISIS used Mosul church to abuse Yazidi girls, women, Iraqi Army officer says
More than 100 ISIS fighters attack Iraqi forces in Mosul

Up to 150,000 civilians are believed to be trapped in the Old City, where the militants are using them as human shields, U.N. humanitarian coordinator Lise Grande told The Associated Press on Friday. She said conditions are "desperate," with little food and no clean water.

 

[Housecarl]

China Advances High-Speed Ramjet Engine New system for hypersonic missiles
Started by China Connection‎, Today 12:14 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...jet-Engine-New-system-for-hypersonic-missiles

Iran Launches Missile Strikes Against "Terror Bases" In Eastern Syria (Launch FROM Iran)
Started by Possible Impact‎, Today 12:40 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...Bases-quot-In-Eastern-Syria-(Launch-FROM-Iran)

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/1.796422

Iran Fires at Militants in Syria in First Use of Mid-range Missiles in 30 Years

Militant groups in Syria are responsible for attacks in Tehran, Iran says. Missiles flew over 500 miles, over Iraqi territory

Gili Cohen , Reuters and The Associated Press Jun 18, 2017 11:28 PM

- In first, U.S. fighter shoots down Syrian warplane over Raqqa
- Why ISIS is thanking Trump for his response to its terror attack on Iran
- Tehran says attackers were Iranians who fought for ISIS in Syria, Iraq

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards has fired ground-to-ground missiles from western Iran into eastern Syria, aiming at the bases of militant groups Iran holds responsible for attacks in Tehran which left 18 dead last week, the Tasnim news agency reported.*

This was the first operational use of mid-range missiles by Iran since the war with Iraq, which ended in 1988. Watch video purportedly showing missile launch:
skip - Missile launch
https://twitter.com/MashreghNews_ir/status/876531037924229120

H.Soleimani @MashreghNews_ir
Video: This is so close to the launcher; chants of Allah-o Akbar (God is the Great) is heard
1:04 PM - 18 Jun 2017
2 2 Retweets 11 11 likes
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/1.796422

The Iranian video is currently under examination by Israel, in attempt to understand the details of the incident. It remains unknown if the missiles struck their targets and what effect the strikes could have on the region.

http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/...gen/derivatives/size_1496xAuto/2115592321.png

"The spilling of any pure blood will not go unanswered," the Revolutionary Guards said in a statement, according to Tasnim.*

The Guard's website, as well as semi-official news agencies, reported the strikes Sunday on*Deir*el-Zour, Syria. The Guard's website said it launched surface-to-surface medium-range missiles targeting the area.*

It did not immediately offer other specifics, other than to say the missiles were launched from Iran.*

A Guard statement carried on its website said the strike came from its bases in western Iran. It said many "terrorists" were killed and their weapons had been destroyed in the strike.

The paramilitary force warned Islamic State militants and their "regional and international supporters" that similar retaliatory attacks would target them as well if another assault in Iran occurs.*

Activists in Syria did not immediately have information about the Iranian-claimed strikes. Deir el-Zour is home to both Islamic State militants and civilians.*

Five Islamic State-linked attackers stormed Iran's parliament and a shrine to revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini this month, killing at least 18 people and wounding more than 50.

Meanwhile, the Syrian army said that the U.S.-led coalition shot down one of its planes*near the ISIS-stronghold of Raqqa. No other details were given.

Gili Cohen
Haaretz Correspondent

 

[doctor_fungcool]

China Advances High-Speed Ramjet Engine New system for hypersonic missiles
Started by China Connection‎, Today 12:14 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...jet-Engine-New-system-for-hypersonic-missiles

Iran Launches Missile Strikes Against "Terror Bases" In Eastern Syria (Launch FROM Iran)
Started by Possible Impact‎, Today 12:40 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...Bases-quot-In-Eastern-Syria-(Launch-FROM-Iran)

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/1.796422

Iran Fires at Militants in Syria in First Use of Mid-range Missiles in 30 Years

Militant groups in Syria are responsible for attacks in Tehran, Iran says. Missiles flew over 500 miles, over Iraqi territory

Gili Cohen , Reuters and The Associated Press Jun 18, 2017 11:28 PM

- In first, U.S. fighter shoots down Syrian warplane over Raqqa
- Why ISIS is thanking Trump for his response to its terror attack on Iran
- Tehran says attackers were Iranians who fought for ISIS in Syria, Iraq

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards has fired ground-to-ground missiles from western Iran into eastern Syria, aiming at the bases of militant groups Iran holds responsible for attacks in Tehran which left 18 dead last week, the Tasnim news agency reported.*

This was the first operational use of mid-range missiles by Iran since the war with Iraq, which ended in 1988. Watch video purportedly showing missile launch:
skip - Missile launch
https://twitter.com/MashreghNews_ir/status/876531037924229120



The Iranian video is currently under examination by Israel, in attempt to understand the details of the incident. It remains unknown if the missiles struck their targets and what effect the strikes could have on the region.

http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/...gen/derivatives/size_1496xAuto/2115592321.png

"The spilling of any pure blood will not go unanswered," the Revolutionary Guards said in a statement, according to Tasnim.*

The Guard's website, as well as semi-official news agencies, reported the strikes Sunday on*Deir*el-Zour, Syria. The Guard's website said it launched surface-to-surface medium-range missiles targeting the area.*

It did not immediately offer other specifics, other than to say the missiles were launched from Iran.*

A Guard statement carried on its website said the strike came from its bases in western Iran. It said many "terrorists" were killed and their weapons had been destroyed in the strike.

The paramilitary force warned Islamic State militants and their "regional and international supporters" that similar retaliatory attacks would target them as well if another assault in Iran occurs.*

Activists in Syria did not immediately have information about the Iranian-claimed strikes. Deir el-Zour is home to both Islamic State militants and civilians.*

Five Islamic State-linked attackers stormed Iran's parliament and a shrine to revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini this month, killing at least 18 people and wounding more than 50.

Meanwhile, the Syrian army said that the U.S.-led coalition shot down one of its planes*near the ISIS-stronghold of Raqqa. No other details were given.

Gili Cohen
Haaretz Correspondent

This little tidbit of news, H.C., is a biggie

 

[Housecarl]

This little tidbit of news, H.C., is a biggie

Yup. Particularly when this is put together with it....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-06-18-07-13-44

Jun 18, 7:13 AM EDT

IRAN, CHINA HOLD JOINT NAVAL DRILL IN PERSIAN GULF

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's navy has conducted a joint exercise with a Chinese fleet near the strategic Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf.

The official IRNA news agency said Sunday's drill included an Iranian warship as well as two Chinese warships, a logistics ship and a Chinese helicopter that arrived in Iran's port of Bandar Abbas last week.

It said the scheduled exercise came before the departure of the Chinese fleet for Muscat, Oman. It did not provide further details.

The U.S. navy held a joint drill with Qatar in the Persian Gulf on Saturday.

U.S. and Iranian warships have had a number of tense encounters in the Persian Gulf in recent years. Nearly a third of all oil traded by sea passes through the Strait of Hormuz.

 

[Housecarl]

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...men-attack-Mali-luxury-resort-at-least-2-dead

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/18/africa/urgent--gunfire-heard-at-mali-tourist-resort/index.html

Gunmen attack Mali luxury resort, at least 2 dead

By Joseph Netto, Farai Sevenzo and Darran Simon, CNN
Updated 5:52 PM ET, Sun June 18, 2017
Report: Shots fired at tourist resort in Mali
Pause
Current Time 0:11
/
Duration Time 0:55
Loaded: 0%Progress: 0%0:11Fullscreen
00:00
Mute
Configuration
Subtitles

CNN)At least two people were killed and 30 others rescued on Sunday after gunmen attacked a luxury resort popular with Westerners near Mali's capital city of Bamako, a source briefed on the investigation told CNN.

An unknown number of people were injured and taken to a hospital after the attack on Le Campement resort, the source said.
Mali's Ministry of Security and Civil Protection said "armed individuals, certainly terrorists" attacked the resort. The statement said a Malian anti-terror force was on the scene.

"They [the armed men] exchanged gunshots with members of the special anti-terrorist force (FORSAT) who had arrived just a few minutes after the attack. FORSAT managed to secure the surroundings of the site. The operation to secure the premises is in progress," the statement said.

The EU Training Mission in Mali tweeted a statement that it was aware of the attack and was assessing the situation.

Earlier this month, the US Embassy in Bamako issued a travel warning on its website, saying there was an increased security threat to Westerners.

"The US Embassy informs US citizens of a possible increased threat of attacks against Western diplomatic missions, places of worship, and other locations in Bamako where Westerners frequent. Avoid vulnerable locations with poor security measures in place, including hotels, restaurants and churches," the warning said.

Le Campement is on the outskirts of the capital, about 30 minutes from downtown Bamako. The resort is also popular with expatriates who use its facilities to host business meetings and team-building exercises.

The grounds include a hotel, bars, restaurant, spa and swimming pools. The resort also offers live entertainment and several outdoor activities, including bike rides and kayaking on the Niger River.

The former French colony has been battling Islamist extremists with help from French forces and the United Nations.

Mali hotel attack: Gunmen barged in, shot at 'anything that moved'
Mali hotel attack: Gunmen barged in, shot at 'anything that moved'
In November 2015, gunmen raided a Malian hotel and killed at least 22 people, according to the UN Mission in Mali.

The gunmen shouted "Allahu akbar" as they opened fire on tables of people who were gathered for breakfast at the Radisson Blu Hotel in Bamako, a witness said.

Two attackers were killed, but it was unclear then whether security forces killed them or whether they blew themselves up, mission spokesman Olivier Salgado said at the time.

CNN's Farai Sevenzo reported from Nairobi, Kenya. CNN's Radina Gigova, Robyn Kriel and Samantha Beech contributed to this report. CNN's Sandrine Amiel and Matou Diop contributed from Paris.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.militarytimes.com/articl...-in-southeast-asia-raises-alarm-in-washington

Islamic State threat in Southeast Asia raises alarm in Washington

By: Matthew Pennington, The Associated Press, June 18, 2017

WASHINGTON — Southeast Asia's jihadis who fought by the hundreds for the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria now have a different battle closer to home in the southern Philippines. It's a scenario raising significant alarm in Washington.

The recent assault by ISIS-aligned fighters on the Philippine city of Marawi has left more than 300 people dead, exposing the shortcomings of local security forces and the extremist group's spreading reach in a region where counterterrorism gains are coming undone.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told Congress last week that a long-running U.S. military operation to help Philippine forces contain extremist fighters was canceled prematurely three years ago. Small numbers of U.S. special operations forces remain in an "advise and assist" role, and the U.S. is providing aerial surveillance to help the Philippines retake Marawi, an inland city of more than 200,000 people.

But lawmakers, including from President Donald Trump's Republican Party, want a bigger U.S. role, short of boots on the ground. They fear the area is becoming a new hub for Islamist fighters from Southeast Asia and beyond.

"I don't know that ISIS are directing operations there but they are certainly trying to get fighters into that region," said Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, using another acronym for the group. "We need to address the situation. It should not get out of control."


Defense News
US aircraft in Philippines in battle against ISIS


U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials note that ISIS has publicly accepted pledges from various groups in the Philippines. In a June 2016 video, it called on followers in Southeast Asia to go to the Philippines if they cannot reach Syria.

About 40 foreigners, mostly from neighboring Indonesia and Malaysia, have been among 500 involved in fighting in Marawi, the Philippine military says. Reports indicate at least one Saudi, a Chechen and a Yemeni killed. In all, more than 200 militants have died in the standoff, now in its fourth week.

Video obtained by The Associated Press from the Philippine military indicates an alliance of local Muslim fighters, aligned with ISIS, are coordinating complex attacks. They include the Islamic State's purported leader in Southeast Asia: Isnilon Hapilon, a Filipino on Washington's list of most-wanted terrorists, with a $5 million bounty on his head.

U.S. officials are assessing whether any of the estimated 1,000 Southeast Asians who traveled to Iraq and Syria in recent years are fighting in Catholic-majority Philippines. They fear ungoverned areas in the mostly Muslim region around Marawi could make the area a terror hub as in the 1990s.

Then, the Philippines was a base of operations for al-Qaida leaders like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef, who plotted in 1994-95 to blow up airliners over the Pacific. The plot was foiled. But the same men were instrumental in the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

Other nations share the fear. Singapore recently warned of ISIS exerting a radicalizing influence "well beyond" what that of al-Qaida and Jemaah Islamiyah ever mustered. Jemaah Islamiyah carried out major terror attacks around the region in the 2000s. ISIS already has been linked to attacks in Indonesia and Malaysia, and foiled plots in Singapore, this past year.

This month, Mattis told the region's defense chiefs that "together we must act now to prevent this threat from growing." In Congress this past week, he stressed intelligence sharing and nations like Singapore sharing the burden, rather than deploying U.S. troops.

More than 500 U.S. special operations forces were based in the Mindanao region from 2002 to 2014, advising and training Filipino forces against the Abu Sayyaf, a group notorious for bombings and kidnappings. When it ended, Philippine and U.S. officials voiced concern the U.S. withdrawal "could lead to a resurgence of a renewed terrorist threat," the RAND Corp. later reported. Months before the withdrawal, Abu Sayyaf pledged support to ISIS.

Supporting the Philippines isn't straightforward in Washington. President Rodrigo Duterte is accused of overlooking and even condoning indiscriminate killings by his forces in a war on drugs. Thousands have died. But that campaign has involved mainly police and anti-narcotic forces, not the military leading the anti-ISIS fight.


Military Times
Setting aside human rights, Trump courts Asian leaders


Still, the Philippine government is partly to blame for Marawi's violence, said Zachary Abuza, a Southeast Asia expert at the National War College. He said the root cause was the government's failure to fulfill a 2014 peace agreement with the nation's largest Muslim insurgency, which fueled recruitment for ISIS-inspired groups.

Ernst, who chairs a Senate panel on emerging threats, wants the U.S. military to restart a higher-profile, "named operation" helping the Philippines counter ISIS. The Pentagon retains between 50 and 100 special operations forces in the region. At the request of the Philippine military, it has deployed a P3 Orion plane to surveille Marawi. It gave more than 600 assault firearms to Filipino counterterrorism forces last week.

Duterte has retreated from threats to expel U.S. forces from the Philippines as he seeks better ties with China. He said recently he hadn't sought more U.S. help, but was thankful for what he was getting.

"They're there to save lives," Duterte said.

Associated Press writer Deb Riechmann in Washington and Jim Gomez in Manila, Philippines, contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/arti...s-leader-baghdadi-dead-it-may-not-matter-1089

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Is ISIS Leader Baghdadi Dead? It May Not Matter

JUNE 16, 2017 | BRUCE HOFFMAN

Russia’s Defense Ministry released a statement Friday that it is investigating whether it had killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, along with several other senior ISIS officials, in a May 28 airstrike that targeted a senior ISIS leadership meeting in a suburb of the group’s de facto capital of Raqqa, Syria. The reports come less than a week after Syrian state television announced Baghdadi’s death as a result of the Russian airstrike.

“According to information that is being verified through various channels, the leader of ISIS ... Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was also present at the meeting and was killed as a result of the strike,” the ministry said.

In addition to Baghdadi, the ministry claimed that other key ISIS figures that had been killed in the strike including the emir of Raqqa Abu al-Haji al-Masri, Ibrahim al-Naef al-Hajj, and ISIS security chief Suleiman al-Sawah.

However, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stopped short of confirming Baghdadi’s death, saying that "so far, I have no 100 percent confirmation of the information that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been killed.”

Previous reports have claimed that Baghdadi had been killed in U.S. and coalition airstrikes, but they turned out to be false. It is believed, however, that Baghdadi was significantly wounded in at least one of the strikes. The elusive ISIS leader’s last public appearance occurred in June 2014 when he declared a “caliphate” in Mosul’s Great Mosque of al-Nuri in and his most recent audio recording was released last November.

General Stephen Townsend, commander of anti-ISIS Operation Inherent Resolve, said in April that he had “no idea” where Baghdadi was hiding. U.S. officials said they could not confirm the Russian reports and are investigating the matter.

The Cipher Brief’s Bennett Seftel spoke with Cipher Brief Network Expert and counterterrorism expert Bruce Hoffman to discuss the potential impact of Baghdadi’s death on ISIS.

The Cipher Brief: This week there have been reports that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed in a May 28 Russian airstrike outside of Raqqa. What would Baghdadi’s death mean for ISIS moving forward?

Bruce Hoffman: The reports are still unconfirmed but, for me, the most interesting thing is that this is far from the first time that Baghdadi’s death is being reported. In the past, he has certainly come very close to being killed. So these reports are entirely plausible.

What worries me the most, though, is that ISIS has taken a leaf from al Qaeda’s playbook, not only in their overall strategy, which I’ve argued in previous interviews, but also in cloning themselves to the same extent and manner that al Qaeda’s affiliates and associates at a point became almost as threatening and as powerful as al Qaeda central – in particular al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. We see the same phenomenon unfolding with ISIS, where, for instance, its Libyan arm played an obviously critical role, perhaps even the preeminent role, in the Manchester bombing last month.

What this means is that ISIS – perhaps as al Qaeda did long ago – has gone beyond just the charismatic leadership and organizational skills of one single individual. In other words, even taking out the head of the organization would not cause it the same damage today that it might have some years ago.

This is part of the group’s own strategy to ensure its longevity and continued relevance as it experiences serial battlefield reverses and territorial losses in Syria and Iraq. Further, given how close Baghdadi has come to being killed in the past, ISIS has recognized the fragility of its leadership and has put together a structure that’s more decentralized and that ensures that ISIS will continue to exist in one form or another.

TCB: Baghdadi’s last public appearance occurred when he declared a “caliphate” in Mosul’s Great Mosque of al-Nuri, and his most recent audio recording was released in November. Does he still play an important role in the organization?

Hoffman: There are two dimensions to that. One is that we don’t know, given the severity of injuries that Baghdadi has sustained in previous attacks, how well he has recovered or not. Therefore, it is difficult to assess what sort of leadership or day-to-day managerial role he plays in the organization. It could well be that for the last couple of years, he hasn’t played a very prominent or salient role at all, and, therefore, his elimination, at least in practical terms, doesn’t really matter.

On the other hand, it could be that after having come so close to being killed in one of these raids, that Baghdadi has just hunkered down and adopted a much more careful security profile, and that he is still exercising enormous authority behind the scenes. It’s hard to gauge that.

What you can say is, as had been the case with al Qaeda in the 2008-2011 time period when the U.S. killed several key al Qaeda leaders, the U.S. and other forces have been very effective at systematically dismantling ISIS’ leadership through air strikes, drone attacks, and killings on the ground. Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, who would have been the most logical and clear successor to Baghdadi, was eliminated last summer.

Now this has other implications. Most of the people in the senior ranks of ISIS who have been eliminated were the die-hard members who were resolutely opposed to any sort of reconciliation or cooperation with al Qaeda. At least according to my reading, probably the only man left standing who is really resolutely opposed to that is Baghdadi. So in that respect, his death may well pave the way for some form of reconciliation or re-amalgamation between ISIS and al Qaeda, or at least make it much more possible than it might have been in the past.

All of these things have potentially destabilizing second- and third-order effects. Not that there is any reason to avoid eliminating Baghdadi, but it emphasizes that if these reports do in fact prove to be accurate, we need to temper our jubilation and satisfaction that a key implacable enemy of the U.S. has been eliminated with understanding of what the repercussions and dynamics of this elimination might be.

TCB: Does it make a difference whether Baghdadi is killed in a Russian air strike as opposed to the U.S.? What could the ramifications be?

Hoffman: It is momentous if Russia and not the U.S. is responsible for Baghdadi’s death in a sense that it provides them with enormous bragging rights that only burnishes their reputation and enhances their influence and perhaps power in the region. If they have in fact achieved this feat, then they stepped in and elbowed the U.S. aside as a key player as what will be seen as the war against ISIS. The bragging rights to having killed Baghdadi are not inconsequential.

ISIS

IRAQ

SYRIA

RUSSIA

THE AUTHOR IS BRUCE HOFFMAN
Professor Bruce Hoffman is a tenured professor at Georgetown University and the Director of the Center for Security Studies. He has served as a commissioner on the Independent Commission to Review the FBI’s Post-9/11 Response to Terrorism and Radicalization, a Scholar-in-Residence for Counterterrorism at the CIA, and an adviser on counterterrorism to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq in 2004.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/colu...ances-tehrans-ambitions-dominate-mideast-1090

Iran Nuke Deal Finances Tehran’s Ambitions to Dominate Mideast

JUNE 16, 2017 | GENERAL JACK KEANE

As we approach the two-year anniversary of the signing of the landmark nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 world powers—the U.S., UK, France, Russia, China plus Germany—The Cipher Brief sat down with network expert General Jack Keane to discuss the likelihood that the deal holds, what could transpire if Iran is caught cheating, and the Trump Administration’s overall approach towards Iran.

TCB: In your view, has the Iran nuclear deal, which was signed in July 2015, worked so far? Has it limited Iran’s capacity to acquire a nuclear weapon?

Jack Keane: It is a horrible deal because Iran has been given over $100 billion, and its strategic objective is to dominate and control the Middle East and to undermine the Sunni Arab states. That has been its strategy since 1980, and it will use that money to do that very thing. We see Iran actively involved in toppling the government in Yemen and working with the Houthis there; propping up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his regime in Syria; gaining a significant amount of influence and control with the government in Iraq; and somewhat working, through proxies, to undermine the government in Bahrain. So from that perspective, it’s a horrible deal because this deal is financing Iran’s strategy and ambitions to dominate the Middle East.

TCB: Do you believe Iran is cheating?

Keane: We have to have a fairly healthy suspicion that Iran will do whatever it can to advance itself. Because it has cheated in the past and built unauthorized, secret sites, one has to be very vigilant and also conclude that it is likely doing that again.

TCB: Do you think the nuclear agreement will hold?

Keane: I suspect at some point Iran will be caught cheating, and as a result, it will get sanctioned, and therefore, the deal will come apart. I think that is the likely thing.

TCB: If there is verification that Iran is cheating, has the deal limited our capacity to respond?

Keane: No. If Iran is caught cheating, I suspect that the parties to the nuclear deal would act responsibly and sanction Iran as a result.

TCB: Can you give us a sense of how the Trump Administration is approaching Iran? Does the recent ISIS attack in Iran change the dynamics in U.S.-Iranian relations?

Keane: The recent attack doesn’t change anything at all. U.S. President Donald Trump’s visit to the Middle East was clearly embraced very strongly by the 55 leaders who attended his speech, which included nearly all of the leaders in the Middle East and North Africa. Trump called out the Iranians in that speech, saying they are the number one strategic threat to the region, we must counter the Iranians in addition to Islamic extremism, and we need to form an alliance to combat Iran’s strategy. That was really quite extraordinary. No American President has ever spoken like that. Leaders in the Middle East and North Africa feel very strongly that the U.S. now has their back.

I think that’s why we actually saw at least four Sunni Arab countries break off diplomatic ties with Qatar, because Qatar has ties to the Iranians. I don’t believe they ever would have broken those ties under the Obama Administration, because they would be fearing an Iranian backlash. With the Trump Administration, they know President Trump has their backs, or at least that’s what they believe, and therefore, they were able to take that stand.

TCB: What does Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s reelection say about the Iranian government’s and population’s desire to engage with the international community?

Keane: I believe the Iranians, after the nuclear deal was concluded, first celebrated and then went back to the business of trying to dominate and control the Middle East using the money they received from sanctions relief. That is their number one objective.

TCB: Are you concerned about the “sunset clauses” in the nuclear deal, which outline the expiration of certain restrictions on Iranian nuclear developments after certain time periods? Where those mistakes to include in the deal?

Keane: Yes, absolutely. I’m concerned about the whole deal, which gives the Iranians a pathway to enrichment and eventually a nuclear weapon. It makes no sense when that was the very reason why you would want to have a nuclear deal with Iran – so that they would not obtain a nuclear weapon.

THE AUTHOR IS GENERAL JACK KEANE
General Keane, a four-star general, retired after 37 years of service which culminated in his appointment as acting Chief of Staff and Vice Chief of Staff of the US Army. General Keane is president of GSI Consulting and serves as chairman of the Institute for the Study of War, a director of General Dynamics and a former and recent member, for 9 years, of the Secretary of Defense Policy Board.

 

[Housecarl]

Van Mows Down Pedestrians Near London Mosque
Started by*eXe‎,*Yesterday*05:15 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ows-Down-Pedestrians-Near-London-Mosque/page2

Turkish Govt destroys ANZAC Monument
Started by*Meadowlark‎,*Yesterday*07:26 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?519101-Turkish-Govt-destroys-ANZAC-Monument

US shoots down Syrian jet
Started by*hoss‎,*Yesterday*05:26 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?519086-US-shoots-down-Syrian-jet

The Four Horsemen - 06/12 to 06/19
Started by*Ragnarok‎,*06-12-2017*04:33 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?518732-The-Four-Horsemen-06-12-to-06-19

Hezbollah Terrorist Flag Flies as Anti-Israel Al-Quds March Takes Over London’s Streets
Started by*Millwright‎,*Yesterday*05:32 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ael-Al-Quds-March-Takes-Over-London’s-Streets

China Advances High-Speed Ramjet Engine New system for hypersonic missiles
Started by*China Connection‎,*Yesterday*12:14 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...jet-Engine-New-system-for-hypersonic-missiles

-----

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.janes.com/article/71506/...personic-r-d-for-next-generation-aam-solution

Air-Launched Weapons

Raytheon to leverage hypersonic R&D for next-generation AAM solution

Robin Hughes, London - IHS Jane's Missiles & Rockets
19 June 2017

Raytheon Missile Systems (RMS) is expected to leverage its expanded research in hypersonic weapons technologies to inform the development of its next-generation air-to-air missile solution as a follow-on to the current AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) capability.

Over the past four years, Raytheon Company has invested in excess of USD500 million in Advanced Missile Systems - the growth engine and front-end product line at RMS - for research into, and development of, advanced kinetic and non-kinetic weapon systems technologies, Dr Thomas Bussing, vice-president, Advanced Missile Systems, Raytheon Missile Systems said.

"A significant portion of that investment is related directly to hypersonic weapons," said Bussing.

Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options:　ihs.com/contact


To read the full article, Client Login
(129 of 990 words)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-russia-suwalki-gap-idUSKBN1990L2

World News | Sun Jun 18, 2017 | 5:53pm EDT

NATO war game defends Baltic weak spot for first time

By Andrius Sytas | SUWALKI GAP, Polish-Lithuanian border

U.S. and British troops have carried out the first large-scale NATO defensive drill on the border between Poland and Lithuania, rehearsing for a possible scenario in which Russia might try to sever the Baltic states from the rest of the Western alliance.

The frontier runs for 104 km (65 miles) through farmland, woods and low hills, in an area known as the Suwalki Gap. If seized by Russia, it would cut off Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

Over two days, U.S. helicopters and British aircraft took part in exercises that also involved troops from Poland, Lithuania and Croatia in a simulated defense of the potential flashpoint.

"The gap is vulnerable because of the geography. It's not inevitable that there's going to be an attack, of course, but ... if that was closed, then you have three allies that are north that are potentially isolated from the rest of the alliance", U.S. Lieutenant General Ben Hodges told Reuters.

Russia denies any plans to invade the Baltics, and says it is NATO that is threatening stability in Eastern Europe by building up its military presence there and staging such war games.

But Hodges, who commands U.S. forces in Europe, said it was crucial for the alliance to show it was ready.

"We have to practice, we have to demonstrate that we can support allies in keeping (the Gap) open, in maintaining that connection," he said.

GAME CHANGER
Russia's 2014 annexation of Ukraine's Crimea peninsula in the Black Sea has changed NATO's calculations, seeing Russia increasingly as an adversary. Before then, no forces from other alliance members were stationed in the Baltic states; now four battlegroups totaling just over 4,500 troops have been deployed in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

The Poles have been pushing other NATO allies to use some of these troops to secure the vulnerable Suwalki corridor and deter potential Russian aggression. But while 1,500 troops took part in this weekend's exercises, a Lithuanian commander cautioned that it would take more to defend the gap in the event of a genuine conflict.

"This is only a small-scale drill compared to what would be needed in case of a real attack, but it is important for us because it shows that allies share our worries", said Brigadier General Valdemaras Rupsys, head of Lithuania's land forces.

Simulating a covert insertion of forces, three American helicopters landed in a field in rural Lithuania on Saturday, startling grazing horses and cows, in an area several hours' drive from where a U.S. battalion is stationed at Orzysz base in Poland.

"The training helps present a credible defense force that hopefully will deter aggression, but if not, we'll be prepared to move to defend the borders of NATO," said Lt. Col. Steven Gventer, who leads the U.S. battlegroup in Orzysz.

NATO officials believe Moscow will hold its own exercise in Russia and Belarus on a much greater scale in September, possibly involving 100,000 troops, under the codename "Zapad" (West). Baltic officials believe Moscow will also rehearse an attack on the Suwalki Gap during Zapad.

"I think it's important for the soldiers to train on land that they may have to defend some day," said Major General John Gronski, deputy commander, U.S. Army Europe, observing the exercise in Lithuania.

(Reporting by Andrius Sytas; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)

Also In World News
Van rams worshippers leaving London mosque, injuring 10
Russian ForMin calls on U.S. to respect Syria's integrity: agencies

 

[Housecarl]

Op-Ed/Gov/Mil - It’s Getting Harder to Draw Lessons from Today’s Wars
Started by*Housecarl‎,*Today*03:50 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ting-Harder-to-Draw-Lessons-from-Today’s-Wars

Russia Halts Cooperation With US In Syria, "No Fly Zone" west of Euphrates River
Started by*Possible Impact‎,*Today*05:34 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...quot-No-Fly-Zone-quot-west-of-Euphrates-River

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/201...r-defense-control-system/138757/?oref=d-river

The US Army Urgently Needs a Modern Air-Defense Control*System

By Dan Leaf
U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. (Ret)
Read bio
June 16, 2017

It’s got one under development, dubbed IBCS. It’s delayed, over budget — and vital to American security.

As North Korea continues to test its missiles and demonstrate its intransigence in word and deed, Adm. Harry Harris wants the U.S. Army to step up its role in joint operations. “I’d like to see the Army’s land forces sink a ship, shoot down a missile, and shoot down the aircraft that fired that missile – near simultaneously – in a complex environment where our joint and combined forces are operating in each other’s domains,” the U.S. Pacific Command boss said last fall, and again in May.

There’s an Army program in the works that will help meet Harris’ vision, but it is itself under*threat.

To meet PACOM’s demands, joint and coalition teams need a combination of interoperable systems, and the tactics, techniques and procedures to fully use them. Combat experience has shown just how challenging command and control is in the modern battlespace. During the invasion of Iraq in 2003, two coalition fighter jets were shot down (with three crewmembers killed), and a U.S. fighter destroyed a U.S. Army Patriot radar with an anti-radiation missile. Serving as the air component commander’s senior representative to the land commander, I saw first-hand how complex a fight that was, even against an enemy that kept its aircraft on the ground and its air defense relatively*limited.

The next adversary is not likely to be so compliant. War in Korea would almost certainly begin on North Korea’s initiative, employing many of its 5,000-plus surface-to-air missiles, 600-plus combat aircraft, surface-to-surface rockets and missiles, and conventional artillery. The battlespace would be compressed and more complicated. The entire Korean Peninsula is half the size of Iraq, and metropolitan Seoul is the size of Chicago with over three times the population. The fight would no doubt center around the South Korean capital and the border just to the north, drawing extraordinary numbers of tactical aircraft, air defenses and artillery fire. The degree of difficulty would be significantly increased by the operational necessity of protecting, and in some cases evacuating, large numbers of*civilians.

What does that mean in plain English? Command-and-control systems must allow commanders to see through the fog of war to the maximum extent possible, differentiate between friendly and enemy aircraft and weapons, and rapidly use any sensor (radar, electronic, and other) to identify and enable the best shooter to counter a threat. In so doing, the system will preserve limited ammunition and protect coalition forces from friendly fire. These capabilities have to be dependable in harsh environments – not just a burning, dusty desert or a stifling tropical forest, or an urban jungle, but also in the face of electronic and cyber*attacks.

That requires a major evolution in the way sensors and shooters work together. As an F-15 pilot, I used my aircraft’s radar to find my target, then to guide my missiles to it. That’s no longer good enough. The goal of modern C2 systems must be a structure that allows any sensor to cue any system to target with the best available weapon within a matter of seconds. That type of system is what commanders need to maintain a technological and decision-making*edge.

We have made progress in off-board cueing and target hand-off, but Harris’ vision of integrated, interoperable systems remains too far off. One promising step is the U.S. Army’s quest for a robust C2 capability under its larger Integrated Air and Missile Defense initiative. Dubbed the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System, or IBCS, it is a system currently in testing that is intended to provide warfighters a unified and clear view of the battle. Enhanced aircraft and missile tracking will improve the ability of combatant commanders and air defenders to command and control in complex*environments.

A fully capable IBCS is a must-have for the US Army to operate effectively in the Korean theater and elsewhere. Unfortunately, the complexity of such a system and additional Army requirements to make IBCS capabilities more robust have pushed, according to media reports, initial operational capability to*2022.

The Army, to its credit, recognized the importance of continued pursuit of a fully modern IBCS. The current budget requests the addition of more than $500 million for additional development, test and evaluation. Given the urgency of the Korean situation, that investment provided must be used wisely: the Army should seek to do some testing in the Korean theater, and, where possible, deploy partial capabilities at the first*opportunity.

Some may be tempted to advocate punishing the IBCS program by cuts or cancellation, a common outcome for difficult development programs. The U.S. cannot afford either outcome. Continued development of interoperable and dependable command-and-control systems on the fastest possible timeline makes a statement to*both key regional allies and potential adversaries like Kim Jong-un, while allowing our warfighters to effectively command in the most complex*environments.

--

Dan “Fig” Leaf is the President and Managing Director of Phase Minus 1, a conflict resolution and security consulting company. A retired 3-star Air Force command pilot with more than 3,600 flight hours, he last served on active duty as Deputy Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command. Full bio

 

[Housecarl]

The US base in the Azores is also "up or grabs"....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/china-may-soon-establish-naval-base-u-s-ally-pakistan-n770991

News
Jun 19 2017, 4:48 am ET

China May Soon Establish Naval Base in U.S. Ally Pakistan

by Wajahat S. Khan

LONDON — Nuclear-armed Pakistan is a key ally of the United States — but the relationship is far from untroubled. And one of Washington's main geopolitical rivals appears ready to step in.

The Pentagon is warning that the Islamic republic may soon house a Chinese military base.

While the U.S. gives Islamabad hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, the two countries are not on the same page when it comes to fighting terrorism or ending the war in Afghanistan.

A report released earlier this month suggested that Beijing would likely turn to countries such as Pakistan as it seeks to project its economic and military power abroad.

The Pentagon didn't provide a time frame for such a move. However, a senior Pakistani diplomat confirmed to NBC News that his country invited China to build a naval facility on its territory back in 2011.

Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the diplomat said this request came just days after U.S. Navy SEALs conducted a secret raid to kill Osama bin Laden in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad, when relations between Washington and Islamabad took a nosedive.

Despite the reports, China's Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying dismissed the idea of a Chinese base in Pakistan as "conjecture" and "irresponsible remarks."

But Western experts and Pakistani officials see it as a distinct possibility.

Shifting Ties
Soon after 9/11, Washington and Islamabad drew closer. The U.S. lavished Pakistan with military and civilian aid, and in return Pakistan granted the U.S. forward bases for military operations in Afghanistan and drone strikes in its own tribal areas.

But more recently Pakistan has become more estranged from the U.S. and the West because of continued allegations that it harbors militant groups. It's also accused of not doing everything it can to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table over the war in Afghanistan.

In addition, Western countries are more interested in doing business with India, which is Pakistan's arch-rival and a regional strategic competitor to China.

Where the West has withdrawn, China has stepped in.

https://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/news...39a90ba4d6c67d9a65e1d0.nbcnews-ux-600-480.jpg
China's "Belt and Road" plan would be the world's largest infrastructure program. Paul Cheung / NBC News

Pakistan is set to play an important role in China's "Belt and Road," a $1.4-trillion global trade plan that analysts say could shift the center of global economy and challenge the current U.S.-led order.

Islamabad is banking on receiving more than $50 billion in Chinese loans and grants in relation to this initiative. Its part of the trade route — known as the China Pakistan Economic Corridor, or CPEC — would connect the landlocked Chinese province of Xinjiang to the Indian Ocean and some of the world's most important maritime corridors.

Common Enemy
The Chinese-Pakistan alliance also makes sense in terms of their shared rivalry with India.

"What better way for China to demonstrate clout than to build a military base right in your rival's backyard?" said Michael Kugelman, a senior associate at the Wilson Center.

All three countries have nuclear weapons, and some experts have long since worried that ongoing skirmishes between India and Pakistan could one day boil over into a nuclear war — although this remains a worst-case-scenario.

Related: $46B Project Reveals Chinese Power Play in Pakistan

Because Pakistan has a smaller conventional army than India's, a Chinese base on its soil could help the Islamic republic compete with its old Hindu rival.

"We need an equalizer against India … Previously, it was the U.S. and Saudi [Arabia]. Now, it's China," one Pakistani intelligence official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

China has already riled the U.S. and its allies after constructing several man-made islands on reefs and rock formations in the disputed South China Sea.

With overlapping territorial claims from China, Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines, this body of water is home to rich energy and fishing reserves and around $5 trillion of sea-borne trade passes through it each year.

Pakistan's role in China's global trade plans means a military base would make sense. The Chinese "may have strong incentives to protect their assets," said Sameer Lalwani, a research fellow at the Stimson Center, a think tank based in Washington.

"Chinese deployments in Pakistan could range from Chinese intelligence personnel, naval forces in ports like Gwadar, air forces to support missions in Central Asia, or even special forces or counterterrorism strike capabilities," he said.

https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/news...0bb1357ca9d496223c45db.nbcnews-ux-600-480.jpg
A map showing the location of Gwadar, Pakistan. Google Maps

Gwadar already has a commercial port built and operated by Chinese authorities and was touted by one high-ranking Pakistani military official as a possible site for the Chinese base. The other two potential locations are Jiwani and Ormara.

All three are close to the vital Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf.

Signs of Strain
Even though China calls Pakistan its "Iron Brother" and "All Weather Friend," Beijing's patience has also been tested. Last week, ISIS claimed that it killed two Chinese teachers who were abducted in Balochistan in May.

Such incidents have prompted Pakistan to beef up security around Chinese citizens involved in the infrastructure splurge. The army has raised two new infantry divisions, speckled with commando, paramilitary and police units, to protect Chinese workers.

Related: China's 'Money Game' Woos Allies Away from Neighbor

As a show of force and unity, three Chinese warships docked on Saturday for a training mission at the Pakistani port of Karachi, where China is already manufacturing four attack submarines as part of a larger arms deal.

But there are other sensitivities involved.

"There is a firm opinion against any bases being given to any foreign country inside Pakistan. We've seen what happened when we gave such rights to the Americans," said Lt. General Javed Ashraf, retired chief of the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, the country's intelligence agency known as the ISI. "This is not only what the general public feels, but the Pakistani forces are also opposed to the idea."

Wajahat S. Khan and Alexander Smith reported from London. Eric Baculinao reported from Beijing.

 

[Shacknasty Shagrat]

President Trump has announced some big changes in the military.
The USMC is doing well.
SS

https://twitter.com/W7VOA

 

[Housecarl]

Missed this one....Way too much going on....Yes it's from Russia's RT but the fact they'd advertise it is important....HC

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.rt.com/news/392585-nuclear-antimissile-test-video/

Russia tests nuclear-tipped missile interceptor (VIDEO)

Published time: 16 Jun, 2017 15:20
Edited time: 16 Jun, 2017 16:31

The Russian military has successfully tested a short-range ballistic missile interceptor designed to destroy incoming nuclear warheads with a nuclear explosion in the air. These missiles are used in Moscow’s anti-ballistic missile system.

The A-135 ABM system protects Russia’s capital and its surroundings from a possible nuclear missile attack. It consists of phased-array radar, a command center, and launchers that release two types of interceptor missiles, the long-range 51T6 and the short-range 53T6.

Video
https://youtu.be/M8IElq3zeFY

On Friday, Russia’s strategic missile forces and air and missile defense forces jointly tested a 53T6 missile at the Sary Shagan test range in Kazakhstan. Of course, the missile, which has been dubbed Gazelle by NATO, didn’t have a nuclear warhead like those in the 68 silos around Moscow.

“During the test, the ABM system interceptor successfully performed its task and hit a provisionary target,” Deputy Commander of the Air and Missile Defense Andrey Prikhodko said.

The video of the test was provided by the Russian Defense Ministry.

The Russian military tests interceptor missiles once or twice a year to confirm their combat readiness.

The 10-meter-long rocket reportedly can deliver a 10-kiloton nuclear tip a distance of up to 80 kilometers at a speed of three kilometers per second.

Russia is currently developing a new interceptor missile that is now approaching a phase that requires intensive test launches, according to Russian military officials. Dubbed the Nudol, most information about the long-range projectile is classified.

 

[Lilbitsnana]

I don't know if NK related or not, but, probably is in one way or another, even if it turns out to be just an exercise.


Christopher Wilson‏ @CWilson_2011 2h2 hours ago

@StratSentinel @CivMilAir @planesonthenet @IntelCrab @TheWarMonitor There is an active hold on inbound planes at Osan NK via Osan ATC


Christopher Wilson‏ @CWilson_2011 2h2 hours ago

All for a priority take off


Strat 2 Intel‏ @Strat2Intel
Replying to @CWilson_2011 @StratSentinel and

I'm also hearing callsigns I believe are used for an F-16 unit based in Japan. Sounds like a number arriving. TOJO.

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Aircraft Spots‏ @aircraftspots 3h3 hours ago

?? US Air Force
E-3G 76-1607 WHISTLER51 - Airborne somewhere w/ a Middle East Mission Callsign... ?

 

[Lilbitsnana]

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...ares-Mohammed-bin-Salman-as-crown-prince.html


Saudi Arabia declares Mohammed bin Salman as crown prince
Staff writer, Al Arabiya English Wednesday, 21 June 2017


Saudi Arabia has declared Prince Mohammed bin Salman as the kingdom's crown prince while Prince Mohammed bin Nayef has been relieved from his position after a royal decree was issued by King Salman bin Abdulaziz early on Wednesday morning.

(Developing)
Last Update: Wednesday, 21 June 2017 KSA 06:43 - GMT 03:43



ETA: adding link to thread I started - http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?519242-Saudi-Arabia-New-Crown-Prince-named

 

[Lilbitsnana]

WarMonitor Retweeted
Conflict News‏ @Conflicts 32m32 minutes ago

BREAKING: Saudi King strips Mohammed bin Nayef of Crown Prince post, names son Mohammed bin Salman as Crown Prince - @zaidbenjamin


Conflict News‏ @Conflicts 22m22 minutes ago
Replying to @Conflicts

MORE: Mohammed bin Nayef has been stripped of all titles, his aides in Interior Ministry have been sacked - @zaidbenjamin

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Zaid Benjamin Verified account @zaidbenjamin 2m2 minutes ago

Saudi TV says the Saudi king has decided to re-pay all allowances since it was suspended retroactively on the same day his son was crown prince.

 

[Lilbitsnana]

King Salman is old (81 yrs) and in ill health.

The new Crown Prince is only 31 yrs old; he will be 32 on Aug 31. He will end up being the youngest Saudi King ever (unless he meets his demise early)

The youngest Saudi King until now (since 1932 creation of current Saudi Arabia) was in his early 50s

 

[Lilbitsnana]

hmmm, sounds like a threat to me, so I say the UN should be vaporized immediately.

posted for fair use and discussion
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4978818,00.html



UN chief: US will be replaced if it disengages from world

AP|Published: 21.06.17 , 08:06
Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned the Trump administration on Tuesday that if the United States disengages from many issues confronting the international community it will be replaced—and that won't be good for America or for the world.


Guterres made clear to reporters at his first press conference here since taking the reins of the United Nations on Jan. 1 that proposed cuts in US funding for the UN would be disastrous and create "an unsolvable problem to the management of the UN."

 

[Lilbitsnana]

WarMonitor Retweeted
Conflict News‏ @Conflicts 32m32 minutes ago

BREAKING: Saudi King strips Mohammed bin Nayef of Crown Prince post, names son Mohammed bin Salman as Crown Prince - @zaidbenjamin


Conflict News‏ @Conflicts 22m22 minutes ago
Replying to @Conflicts

MORE: Mohammed bin Nayef has been stripped of all titles, his aides in Interior Ministry have been sacked - @zaidbenjamin

Zaid Benjamin Verified account @zaidbenjamin 2m2 minutes ago

Saudi TV says the Saudi king has decided to re-pay all allowances since it was suspended retroactively on the same day his son was crown prince.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...ares-Mohammed-bin-Salman-as-crown-prince.html


Saudi Arabia declares Mohammed bin Salman as crown prince
Staff writer, Al Arabiya English Wednesday, 21 June 2017


Saudi Arabia has declared Prince Mohammed bin Salman as the kingdom's crown prince while Prince Mohammed bin Nayef has been relieved from his position after a royal decree was issued by King Salman bin Abdulaziz early on Wednesday morning.

(Developing)
Last Update: Wednesday, 21 June 2017 KSA 06:43 - GMT 03:43

King Salman is old (81 yrs) and in ill health.

The new Crown Prince is only 31 yrs old; he will be 32 on Aug 31. He will end up being the youngest Saudi King ever (unless he meets his demise early)

The youngest Saudi King until now (since 1932 creation of current Saudi Arabia) was in his early 50s

Steve Herman‏Verified account @W7VOA 2h2 hours ago

Steve Herman Retweeted Steve Herman

The new Saudi crown prince was credited with arranging @POTUS "successful" trip to Riyadh. He's also world's youngest defense minister.

Steve Herman added,

Steve HermanVerified account @W7VOA
#Saudi King Salman deposes his 57 y.o. nephew as crown prince, replaces him with his 31 y.o. son (eldest from his 3rd wife). https://twitter.com/spagov/status/877363658652876800 …

Steve Herman‏Verified account @W7VOA 1h1 hour ago

Steve Herman Retweeted واس

#Saudi king calls for public pledge of allegiance to new crown prince tonight in Mecca.


Steve Herman‏Verified account @W7VOA 1h1 hour ago

Saudi TV now reporting on change of crown princes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ry9yGYyx2Y …

 

[Lilbitsnana]

WarMonitor Retweeted
Strategic Sentinel‏ @StratSentinel 1h1 hour ago

South Korea calls Japanese Embassy official to protest its claims to disputed Liancourt Islands http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2017/06/21/0200000000AEN20170621011100315.html?sns=tw …


(I believe this has been posted earlier on main)
WarMonitor‏ @TheWarMonitor 2h2 hours ago

Russian fighter jet flies five feet from US aircraft @CNNPolitics
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/20/politics/russian-su-27-five-feet-from-us-aircraft/index.html


WarMonitor Retweeted
Newsweek‏Verified account @Newsweek 3h3 hours ago

NATO escorted 32 Russian jets away from allied airspace over the Baltic Sea in just seven days http://bit.ly/2sTtF4F

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
For links see article source.....
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/north-koreas-real-strategy/

North Korea’s real strategy

21 Jun 2017|Christopher R. Hill

North Korea’s quest for nuclear weapons is often depicted as a ‘rational’ response to its strategic imperatives of national security and regime survival. After all, the country is surrounded by larger, supposedly hostile states, and it has no allies on which it can rely to come to its defense. It is only logical, on this view, that Kim Jong-un wants to avoid the mistake made by Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar el-Qaddafi, both of whom would still be alive and in power had they acquired deliverable nuclear weapons.

In fact, North Korea’s appetite for nuclear weapons is rooted more in aggression than pragmatism. North Korea seeks nothing less than to decouple the United States from its South Korean partner—a split that would enable the reunification of the Korean Peninsula on Kim’s terms. In other words, North Korea does not want only to defend itself; it wants to set the stage for an invasion of its own.

Of course, such a scenario is, in many ways, the stuff of fancy. But to be a North Korean today is not necessarily to accept the world as it is. And North Korean propaganda continues to reiterate the view that the Korean Peninsula consists of one people, sharing one language and one culture, indivisible—except by outsiders like the US. By this logic, the North needs to find a way to discourage those outsiders from intervening in the peninsula’s affairs.

As it stands, the US-South Korea relationship operates on the basis of something like the North Atlantic Treaty’s collective-defense clause, Article 5: any North Korean aggression against South Korea will, it is assured, be met by the combined forces of South Korea and the US. Such a counterattack would be decisive, ensuring the total destruction of the North Korean regime.

If North Korea had long-range nuclear weapons, however, it might be able to change the strategic calculus, by threatening to launch a nuclear attack on the US mainland in response to US intervention on the Korean Peninsula. The US might intervene anyway, launching its own devastating attack on North Korea. But it might also choose not to risk casualties on its own soil.

If the US did shirk its collective-defense responsibilities, South Korea would still have plenty of recourse against its northern neighbor. After all, South Korea’s conventional forces are far better trained, equipped, and motivated than their North Korean counterparts. But it is hard to say whether the North Koreans know that. Like many dictatorships before them, they may be the first to believe their own propaganda—in this case, that they can succeed against a South Korean foe that is not buttressed by American military might.

In any case, North Korea—which has invested heavily in forward deployed special forces and other asymmetrical elements of contemporary warfare—seems to be gearing up for an offensive, if only it can get the US out of the way. Against this background, efforts to bring the Kim regime back to the negotiating table—spearheaded largely by China—are misguided.

Such efforts aim to persuade North Koreans to freeze all missile and nuclear tests, in exchange for a scale-down and delay of annual joint exercises by US and South Korean forces. Advocates of this so-called ‘freeze for freeze’ approach say that such a tradeoff is only fair: the North cannot be expected to suspend its efforts to strengthen its defensive capabilities if the US and South Korea are pursuing supposedly hostile military cooperation in its near-abroad.

But this argument has it backward. In fact, it is the North whose activities are inherently hostile, and the South, along with the US, that is focused on defense. Indeed, planning for the annual US-South Korea spring exercises is always based on the premise that North Korea has invaded the South, not vice versa. North Korea knows this well.

But North Korea also knows that, without joint exercises, a military alliance becomes weak and hollow. In 1939, for example, when Germany invaded Poland, the British and French, per their treaty with Poland, declared war on Germany. But, in reality, they did little to protect Poland, which Germany subjugated rather quickly. If the US suspends joint military exercises with South Korea, its willingness or ability to respond to North Korean aggression in the South may become similarly weak.

This scenario is all the more dangerous, given the possibility that the suspension of missile and nuclear tests may not actually lead to a concomitant weakening of North Korea’s nuclear program. Testing is only a small element of a weapons program—and not necessarily an essential one. There is no sign that the North Koreans would actually end research and development of nuclear weapons.

In fact, the idea that North Korea will abandon its weapons programs in exchange for the promise of security and regime survival has been tested has failed whenever it has been tested. In September 2005, five world powers, including the US, offered North Korea an unimpeded civilian nuclear program, energy assistance, economic aid, and diplomatic recognition, as well as a promise to establish a regional mechanism for maintaining peace and security in Northeast Asia. A US commitment not to attack North Korea with conventional or nuclear weapons was also included in the deal.

All North Korea had to do to secure these benefits was abandon its nuclear-weapons programs and accede to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. But the North was not willing to allow for a credible verification protocol. Instead, it attempted to limit verification to that which was already known. In the end, it walked away from the agreement, rather than work to find an acceptable way forward.

A stronger and more purposeful US-China dialogue on North Korea is essential to resolving what is emerging as the world’s most urgent security problem. But the discussion should focus on direct measures to impede and undermine the country’s inherently aggressive nuclear program—not to offer more concessions that will only strengthen a rogue regime’s hand.

Author
Christopher R. Hill, former US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia, is Dean of the Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver, and the author of Outpost. This article is presented in partnership with Project Syndicate © 2017.*Image courtesy of Flickr user (stephan).