WAR 06-20-2015-to-06-26-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

(168) 05-30-2015-to-06-05-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...05-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(169) 06-06-2015-to-06-12-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...12-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(170) 06-13-2015-to-06-19-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...19-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

_____

When this "really" gets going, it is going to make a lot of what's going on in other areas look tame.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150619/as--kashmir-mysterious_killings-c6fe783146.html

Kashmir rattled by targeted killings after period of calm

Jun 19, 6:33 AM (ET)
By AIJAZ HUSSAIN

(AP) In this Tuesday, June 16, 2015 photo, Taufeeq Aijaz left and Ibrahim Aijaz, children...
Full Image

SOPORE, India (AP) — Four assassination-style killings since last week have shaken this town in Kashmir just as the Himalayan region claimed by both India and Pakistan seemed to be slowly emerging from decades of violence.

There's strong suspicion in the Sopore area, where most of its 500,000 residents want independence or union with Pakistan, that India is behind the killings. The four slain men apparently shared a common sentiment: Two had fought Indian rule militarily while the other two had politically opposed India's control.

Militant and separatist groups say it's no coincidence that the attacks came after Indian Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar's comments last month that "you have to neutralize terrorists through terrorists only."

Rattled by the killings, Sopore is a ghost town. Its normally bustling streets lie deserted, and its residents, when they do go out, making little eye contact with each other. Some fear that Indian security forces have reactivated secret forces such as the "Ikhwanis" they once used to eliminate dissidents during the bloody 1990s.

(AP) A Kashmiri Muslim shows his bag to Indian Paramilitary force soldiers as demanded by...
Full Image

The violence comes after a period of relative calm. Guerrilla attacks have declined and tourism has once again becoming a serious business. But the recent attacks are a crushing reminder that the region where a bloody separatist campaign and brutal Indian military crackdown that has killed 68,000 people since 1989 remains volatile.

Activists called for a protest rally in the town Friday, but Indian authorities imposed a curfew in many parts of Kashmir, including old quarters of the main city Srinagar, to try to prevent that from occurring. Thousands of armed police and paramilitary soldiers fanned out across the region where street protests have become the main tool to express anger against Indian rule.

Police also detained dozens of separatist leaders and activists to stop them from leading the protest.

On-and-off talks between India and Pakistan over the disputed territory have made virtually no progress in years amid deep mutual distrust. India accuses Pakistan of training and financing militants and pushing them into the Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir. Islamabad denies the charge, saying it only gives moral and diplomatic support to the rebels.

The killings began last week when gunmen shot and killed a well-known separatist activist Sheikh Altafur Rehman, who was also a senior pharmacist at a hospital in Sopore.

(AP) A Kashmir Muslim girl watches from the gate of her house as an Indian Paramilitary...
Full Image

"He was released from police custody only two days earlier before he was brutally murdered by Indian agents," said his 74-year-old father Sheikh Mohammed Yousuf, sitting in his home, tears trickling down his cheeks.

"What will police probe? We know who's behind these killings. We know the planners," Yousuf said. "Anyone can be used for pulling the trigger."

Three days later, a local trade union leader and separatist sympathizer Khurshid Ahmed Bhat was killed. Then on two successive days, two former rebels were slain. Mehrajuddin Dar, who had fought with the pro-independence Jammu-Kashmir Liberation Front, was outside his poultry shop Sunday in Sopore when he was shot in the head from behind.

The next day, Aijaz Ahmed Reshi, who had been imprisoned at least several times, also was shot in the head in his village near Sopore. Two men came from behind and pumped three bullets into his head. The gunmen fired shots in the air as local villagers, along with a neighbor's dog, which caught ahold of one of assailants' legs.

"In a commando style, he shot the dog in the head," said a local resident, Ahmed Bhat, who only gave his last two names fearing reprisals.

(AP) In this Tuesday June 16, 2015, photo, relatives and neighbors of Aijaz Ahmed Reshi...
Full Image

Reshi was part of the Harkat-ul Mujahideen militant group in 2002, according to his family and neighbors. He was arrested and incarcerated for nearly three years in 2007. Police locked him up again for three months in 2012.

"He was now a contractor, leading somewhat a normal life," said his younger brother Muddasir Ahmed. "But he would always say: 'My life is nothing, soldiers will kill me any day.'"

Authorities say their initial investigations indicated that two prominent local rebels belonging to Kashmir's largest militant group, Hizbul Mujahideen, were involved in the killings.

"We've identified the militants and it's only a matter of time before we get them," said K. Rajendra, director-general of police. "It's an internal rivalry and an apparent split within their ranks leading to these killings." The police have offered a reward of about $31,000 for the capture of the two suspects.

The Hizbul Mujahideen has denounced the killings and blamed India — allegations that Rajendra called "baseless."

Noor Mohammed Baba, a political science professor at Kashmir University, said while it was difficult to draw any clear conclusions from the targeted killings, "there are reasons to suspect as common people, separatists and even some pro-India politicians have drawn conclusions from the defense minister's recent statement."

"India-Pakistan peace initiative is officially missing. People are fast losing hope," he said. "It is breeding a new kind of militancy which is professional and more lethal."

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/19/us-usa-terrorism-idUSKBN0OZ1S820150619

World | Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:08pm EDT
Related: World

Terror attacks, deaths up sharply in 2014: State Department

WASHINGTON | By Warren Strobel


Terrorist attacks worldwide surged by more than a third and fatalities soared by 81 percent in 2014, a year that also saw Islamic State eclipse al Qaeda as the leading jihadist militant group, the U.S. State Department said on Friday.

In its annual report on terrorism, the department also charts an unprecedented flow of foreign fighters to Syria, often lured by Islamic State's use of social media and drawn from diverse social backgrounds.

Taken together, the trends point to a sobering challenge from militant groups worldwide to the United States and its allies despite severe blows inflicted on al Qaeda, author of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in Washington and New York.

Al Qaeda's leaders "appeared to lose momentum as the self-styled leader of a global movement in the face of ISIL's rapid expansion and proclamation of a Caliphate," the report said, using an alternate acronym for Islamic State.

Last June, Islamic State attacked from its base in Syria and seized vast swaths of Iraq, much of which it still controls.

"The ongoing civil war in Syria has been a spur to the worldwide terrorism events," the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism, Tina Kaidanow, told a news conference.

She said that while the United States still worried about al Qaeda, the growing concern was the number of groups aligning themselves with Islamic State across the globe.

"There is an appeal of ISIS globally," Kaidanow added, using another acronym for the group.

U.S. President Barack Obama responded with air strikes in Iraq and Syria, and a program to train Iraqi security forces. He has also continued air strikes against militant suspects worldwide, included one this week that killed al Qaeda's deputy chief.

The State Department report, which covers calendar year 2014, said there were 13,463 terrorist attacks, a 35 percent jump from 2013, resulting in more than 32,700 deaths, an 81 percent rise. More than 9,400 people were kidnapped or taken hostage by militants, triple the rate of the previous year, it said.

There was some good news: Militant activity decreased in some countries, including Pakistan, the Philippines, Nepal and Russia.

The report said the global increase in terrorist attacks was mostly due to events in Iraq, Afghanistan and Nigeria.

Kaidanow said weak or failed governments allowed terrorist groups to thrive in places such as Yemen, Syria, Libya, Nigeria and Iraq.

Islamic State was particularly lethal. A June 2014 attack on a prison in Mosul, Iraq, in which the group killed 670 Shi'ite Muslim prisoners "was the deadliest attack worldwide since September 11, 2001," it said.

As of late December, more than 16,000 foreign terrorist fighters had traveled to Syria, exceeding the rate of those who traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen or Somalia "at any point in the last 20 years," the report said.

Last month, a senior State Department official said the army of foreign fighters who traveled to Syria had grown further, to 22,000.


(Additional reporting by Lesley Wroughton; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/19/us-mideast-crisis-syria-aleppo-idUSKBN0OZ1VY20150619

World | Fri Jun 19, 2015 11:26am EDT
Related: World, Syria

Syrian rebels set eyes on divided Aleppo

AMMAN/BEIRUT | By Suleiman Al-Khalidi, Sylvia Westall and Tom Perry

Syrian insurgents say they have begun a campaign to capture full control of the divided city of Aleppo, Syria's most populous city before it become a main battleground in its four-year-old civil war.

Neither side has been able to control Syria's main commercial hub, 50 km from Turkey, since battle erupted there in 2012, turning its UNESCO-listed historic center into a ruin.

The prospect of a rebel offensive in the city is a stark sign of the turn of momentum against President Bashar al-Assad's government, which has lost swathes of territory to fighters in recent months in the northwest, east and south of the country.

Just four months ago it was the army and its allied militia that were launching a major bid to besiege rebel-held areas of eastern Aleppo. Now, rebels are claiming the initiative.

"The big battle of Aleppo you can say has started in its preparatory phases," said Yasser Abdul Rahim, a rebel commander who directs a joint operations room set up in April to capture government-held Aleppo.

"There is a decisive final blow coming that will expel the regime from Aleppo and to liberate the city completely," said Abdul Rahim, a member of the Nour al Din al Zinki rebel group that has been a recipient of foreign support. He was speaking to an opposition-affiliated TV station, Halab Today.

The city's fall would be a major blow for Assad, restricting his control mainly to a belt of territory stretching north from Damascus to the Mediterranean coast. This would deepen Syria's de facto partition between the Assad-run west and other areas held by a patchwork of armed groups.

The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which tracks the war, said rebels had captured some ground in government-held districts in the city and to the north of it.

"They are now trying to mobilize around Aleppo, but until now they haven't made big progress," said Rami Abdulrahman, who runs the Observatory.

An alliance of rebels including recipients of Western aid fighting under the name Free Syrian Army made a small but notable advance into a government-held part of Aleppo this week.

The army says it beat back the foray into the Rashidin district - the first rebel advance into the heart of Aleppo's government-controlled residential area in more than two years.

Insurgents have also been bombarding government-held areas previously unaccustomed to the level of destruction inflicted on insurgent-held parts of the city.

More than 30 people were killed in an insurgent bombardment this week, the single most lethal rebel attack of its type there since the war began, according to the Observatory.

Government officials say they are still confident. A government military source said the insurgents had in recent months received artillery capable of destroying buildings, but still lacked the capability "to do something of strategic importance in Aleppo .... because the army is prepared."

But as government forces and the militia fighting alongside them lose ground elsewhere, diplomats see the fall of Aleppo as a real possibility. One said it would "not be a big surprise".


CHANGE IN MOMENTUM

The United States and its Western and Arab allies joined Syria's multi-sided civil war last year by launching a campaign of air strikes against Islamic State, the most powerful of the mainly Sunni Islamist groups fighting against Assad.

Washington also opposes Assad's government, and says its strategy rests on "moderate" rebels gaining strength to fight Islamic State.

The top U.S. general said this week the United States and its allies were weighing the possibility that Assad would soon narrow his focus to defending more limited areas of the country.

Since late March, the government has lost control of nearly all Idlib province to an alliance of insurgents including the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front. In the south, an alliance of rebels has advanced under the banner of the Free Syrian Army. Islamic State has also scored gains at Assad's expense, capturing the central Syrian city of Palmyra.

The leader of one rebel group in the north said large injections of foreign military support in the last two months signaled an "international decision" to increase pressure on Assad. The foreign aid had benefited insurgent groups including the hardline Islamist Ahrar al-Sham, said the commander, who spoke on condition he not be identified because of the political sensitivity of acknowledging covert international aid.

"The regime is exhausted. It cannot finish its battles, either with the opposition or with Daesh," the commander said, using an Arabic acronym for Islamic State.

Meanwhile, Assad's allies, the Iran-backed Lebanese Shi'ite group Hezbollah, have been helping the army drive insurgents from the border zone with Lebanon - vital to securing Assad's western zone of control.

The rebel surge on the battlefield has ended a long stalemate, and Western officials believe the increased pressure on Assad may open a window for diplomacy at last. Previous efforts have failed to open any viable peace process in a war that has killed a quarter of a million people and driven eight million from their homes.

Sources close to Assad still see no diplomatic solution.


ISLAMIC STATE THREAT

A rebel offensive in Aleppo still faces challenges. Government forces enjoy the advantage of air support. And Assad could send in reinforcements: Iran has vowed new support.

Islamic State is also a problem for the rival rebel groups. Its fighters are poised to the north of the city and have been trying to advance at the expense of the other insurgents.

The other rebels say fighting with Islamic State has disrupted their supply lines from Turkey, blocked fuel shipments causing shortages, and slowed their Aleppo attack plans.

The rebel commander in the north said he was very confident the government forces would be pushed back in Aleppo, but he also feared that Islamic State might be the ultimate beneficiary of a government defeat.

Noah Bonsey, senior analyst with International Crisis Group, said: "One can easily imagine Daesh exploiting a rebel escalation against the regime in Aleppo, including by simultaneously escalating its attacks on rebels north of the city."


(Additional reporting by Naline Malla; Writing by Tom Perry; Editing by Peter Graff)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/20/us-japan-southkorea-china-idUSKBN0P003S20150620

World | Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:52pm EDT
Related: World

Japan, China, South Korea consider autumn summit: Nikkei

TOKYO

China, Japan and South Korea are considering holding their first trilateral summit in three years, offering a potential stage for the first one-on-one meeting between Tokyo and Seoul's leaders, the Nikkei business daily reported on Saturday.

The talks would resume cooperation among East Asia's three biggest economies that had been on hold since 2012 because of territorial disputes and what Seoul and Beijing see as Japan's reluctance to confront its wartime past.

South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se and his Japanese counterpart Fumio Kishida are expected to confirm this weekend the leaders' intentions to hold the summit, the Nikkei said. Yun is visiting Tokyo for the first time in four years on Sunday.

The summit could take place between September and November in South Korea, the Nikkei said, and offer a stage for a first bilateral meeting between Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Park Geun-hye since taking office in 2012 and 2013 respectively.

Seoul-Tokyo relations have been long-strained by a feud over "comfort women" forced to work in Japan's wartime military brothels. The dispute has complicated efforts to boost security cooperation between the two, both staunch U.S. allies, as the region copes with an unpredictable North Korea and an assertive China.

As Japan and South Korea near their 50th anniversary of diplomatic ties, the two are sending conflicting signals over whether they can resolve the comfort women dispute.

For their part, Sino-Japanese ties remain frayed but have seen a thaw since Abe met Chinese President Xi Jinping for the first time last November and again in April.

Relations have been long strained by China's bitter memories of World War Two, and a dispute over a chain of uninhabited islets in the East China Sea.

Japan has adopted a more muscular security stance since Abe took power in 2012, leading to concerns among regional neighbors that the country is returning to its militarist past.

But Japan's Kishida reaffirmed the country's pacifism in a speech in Tokyo on Saturday.

"We have walked the path of a peace-loving nation, with feelings of remorse, and resolved to keep the peace and never to wage a war again," he said.


(Reporting by Thomas Wilson; Editing by Nick Macfie)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/global-peace-index-south-china-sea-a-potential-area-for-conflict/

Global Peace Index: South China Sea a 'Potential Area For Conflict'

A new report highlights an increasing division between the most and least peaceful nations – including in Asia.

By Franz-Stefan Gady
June 19, 2015

37 Shares
0 Comments

This week, the Institute for Economics and Peace published its annual Global Peace Index. This year’s index highlighted that escalating civil strife and the consequent refugee crisis have been among the key drivers in increasing the cost of containing global violence.

The intensity of armed conflict increased dramatically, with the number of people killed in conflicts globally rising more than 3.5 times from 49,000 in 2010 to 180,000 in 2014.

Despite ongoing improvements in peace in many countries, the number and intensity of armed conflicts increased dramatically, with a 267 percent rise in the number of deaths from conflict since 2010, creating unprecedented levels of refugees.

With specific reference to the Asia-Pacific region, the index highlights diverse trends:

The Asia-Pacific region ranked third behind Europe and North America in the Global Peace Index. However, as a region it contains the most diversity, with three countries in the top ten and a single country, North Korea, in the bottom ten of the overall rankings.

The paper also notes increased regional tensions in the Asia-Pacific region during 2014:

The South China Sea remains a potential area for conflict, with countries involved in the dispute (China, Vietnam and the Philippines) all showing a worsening of their scores in the 2015 index. Although the likelihood of further military skirmishes in the disputed waters is high, a large-scale military engagement remains unlikely.

Additionally, the Global Peace Index states that the Philippines suffered from an escalation of internal conflicts. It also underlines that Myanmar showed a worsening of its score, “partly driven by the imposition of martial law in the Kokang Self-Administered Zone in Shan State on the border with China, which is reflected in a deterioration in likelihood of violent demonstrations.”

The region’s black sheep, North Korea, “remains a concern for global peace with continued belligerence and isolation,” the index laconically summarizes.

However, not all news coming out of the Asia-Pacific region is negative:

Notable improvements in the Asia-Pacific region include Indonesia, which, thanks to improvements in the level of violent crime and a reduced impact of terrorism, was the most improved country in the region, rising 12 places to a rank of 46th in the overall rankings in 2015. Australia has moved up four places to ninth in the overall rankings, joining New Zealand and Japan in the top ten of the world rankings.

The picture is somewhat different in South Asia, where the scores of most countries in the region worsened, with just Bhutan, Nepal and Bangladesh registering gains. For example, Afghanistan appears to be on a downward spiral:

Against the backdrop of the withdrawal of most international forces from Afghanistan, the number of deaths from internal conflict in the country rose last year in tandem with an increase in political terror.

Pakistan is not far behind:

Pakistan’s score has similarly deteriorated, on the back of a worsening of its perceptions of criminality; as a result, the country remains second from the bottom in South Asia.

Even in India, the number of casualties from internal conflict rose with a Maoist insurgency still battling the government.

_____
_____

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/sout...es-show-pace-of-chinas-subi-reef-reclamation/

South China Sea: Satellite Images Show Pace of China’s Subi Reef Reclamation

China is adding 8 acres a day, while other images corroborate Malaysia on South Luconia Shoals.

By Victor Robert Lee
June 19, 2015
12.5k Shares
11 Comments

Satellite imagery from June 5, 2015 shows China has expanded its land fill of Subi Reef by 74 percent in less than two months, adding an average of eight acres of surface per day on that reef alone. Mischief Reef, larger than Subi, is now more than half filled in, according to a June 9, 2015 NASA image.

SubiReef side by side 2.6M June 5 2015

Subi’s expansion, to 3.87 square kilometers (955 acres*), has proceeded by extension along the reef as well as by widening. As previously reported, a straight segment of land fill on Subi is long enough to accommodate an airstrip more than three kilometers long; terrain grading patterns on this segment resemble China’s preparations for a now-constructed airstrip at Fiery Cross Reef, making it highly likely that China will build an airstrip at Subi as well.

surface grading 2.1M

Mischief Reef 2.0M side by side

The June 16 announcement by China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang that “the land reclamation project of China’s construction on some stationed islands and reefs of the Nansha (Spratly) Islands will be completed in the upcoming days” deserves to be treated with skepticism. Earlier obfuscation from Beijing defended its new installations as shelter for fishermen.

Subi, Mischief and Fiery Cross reefs are part of the disputed Spratly Islands, portions of which are claimed by Vietnam, the Philippines, China, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei. Subi lies 430 kilometers off the Philippines’ Palawan Island, and 930 kilometers from China’s nearest coastline at Hainan Island.

China’s land filling at four other Spratly Reefs – Gaven, Hughes, Cuarteron and Johnson South – has largely ceased, but intensive construction of facilities continues. On May 28, the U.S. government reported it had observed two mobile artillery units on one of China’s Spratly installations a month prior, but that they had subsequently been removed or concealed. (According to @Rajfortyseven and the South China Sea Research Forum, the artillery was positioned at Johnson South Reef, also called Chigua.) Each of Gaven, Hughes, Cuarteron, and Johnson South reefs now has a 5-meter by 40-meter concrete ramp leading to a 2nd/3rd story structure connected to a large new building. A ramp-and-“garage” arrangement of these dimensions could accommodate mobile artillery units and permit their concealment as well as provide sheltered elevation above storm surge in the event of a typhoon.

4 in 1 side by side 2.2M

While the Philippines, the country closest to China’s reef construction, has strenuously protested Beijing’s moves, Malaysia, which claims several islands and features further south and operates two Scorpène-class submarines, was largely silent on China’s actions until two weeks ago when The Borneo Post reported that “China has been detected intruding on Malaysian waters at the Luconia Shoals,” and a Malaysian government minister, Shahidan Kassim, posted aerial photos of a 1,000-ton-class Chinese Coast Guard vessel that purportedly had been anchored in the area for two years, in violation of Malaysia’s territorial rights. (Thanks to Scott Bentley and Andrew Chubb for calling attention to the Luconia Shoals.)

Undisclosed by Malaysian authorities, and apparently reported here for the first time, is that a much larger Chinese Coast Guard ship, of the 4,000-ton “3401-class,” has also been operating close to the South Luconia Shoals. A satellite image from February 13, 2015 shows the Chinese vessel stationed 3.5 kilometers from an elevated coral sediment feature within a site called Luconia Breakers. Because the feature may qualify as above-water, it may be of special value to territorial claimants. Malaysia-controlled pipelines from marine natural gas fields also pass within 30 kilometers of Luconia Breakers.

south luconia 2.5M

Chinese Coast Guard ships of the same “3401-class” have recently been used by Beijing to wrest control of the Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines, and to blockade the Second Thomas Shoal (also called Ayungin), where a unit of Filipino marines has been stationed.

In the February 13, 2015 satellite image, a smaller Malaysian Navy Kedah-class patrol vessel is seen anchored 2.7 kilometers northwest of the Chinese vessel. By not revealing this shadowing of the more threatening Chinese ship, Malaysia may wish to avoid a full-fledged stand-off like the one that resulted in the Philippines losing the Scarborough Shoal in 2012. The Malaysian leadership may also be weighing whether over time it can benefit from a counter-balance from the U.S. and its allies.

revised 2.1M Admiral Harry Harris and Malaysia & Philippines Admirals Shangri-La 30 May 2015

In an era in which the U.S. federal government lacks even the basic competency to protect millions of highly sensitive personnel files from Chinese government hacking, it is unsurprising that Malaysia would proceed cautiously as it assesses the help it might get from America to hold onto territory in the South China Sea.

Victor Robert Lee reports from the Asia-Pacific region and is the author of the espionage novel Performance Anomalies.

*Corrected from the original 395 acres.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2...issile-shield-defend-us-cities-russia/115723/

Pentagon Building Cruise Missile Shield To Defend US Cities From Russia

June 18, 2015 By Marcus Weisgerber

The military moves to set up an expensive sensor-and-shooter network, but is the threat real?

The Pentagon is quietly working to set up an elaborate network of defenses to protect American cities from a barrage of Russian cruise missiles.


The plan calls for buying radars that would enable National Guard F-16 fighter jets to spot and shoot down fast and low-flying missiles. Top generals want to network those radars with sensor-laden aerostat balloons hovering over U.S. cities and with coastal warships equipped with sensors and interceptor missiles of their own.

One of those generals is Adm. William Gortney, who leads U.S. Northern Command, or NORTHCOM, and North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD. Earlier this year, Gortney submitted an “urgent need” request to put AESA radars on the F-16s that patrol the airspace around Washington. Such a request allows a project to circumvent the normal procurement process.

While no one will talk openly about the Pentagon’s overall cruise missile defense plans, much of which remain classified, senior military officials have provided clues in speeches, congressional hearings and other public forums over the past year. The statements reveal the Pentagon’s concern about advanced cruise missiles being developed by Russia.

“We’re devoting a good deal of attention to ensuring we’re properly configured against such an attack in the homeland, and we need to continue to do so,” Adm. Sandy Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during a May 19 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington.

We’re devoting a good deal of attention to ensuring we’re properly configured against such an attack in the homeland, and we need to continue to do so.

Adm. Sandy Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

In recent years, the Pentagon has invested heavily, with mixed results, in ballistic missile defense: preparations to shoot down long-range rockets that touch the edge of space and then fall toward targets on Earth. Experts say North Korea and Iran are the countries most likely to strike the U.S. or its allies with such missiles, although neither arsenal has missiles of sufficient range so far.

(Related: The Middle East Has Four Minutes To Act If Iran Fires a Missile)

But the effort to defend the U.S. mainland against smaller, shorter-range cruise missiles has gone largely unnoticed.

“While ballistic missile defense has now become established as a key military capability, the corresponding counters to cruise missiles have been prioritized far more slowly,” said Thomas Karako, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington. “In some ways, this is understandable, in terms of the complexity of the threat, but sophisticated cruise missile technologies now out there are just not going away and we are going to have to find a way to deal with this — for the homeland, for allies and partners abroad, and for regional combatant commanders.”

Intercepting cruise missiles is far different from shooting down a missile of the ballistic variety. Launched by ships, submarines, or even trailer-mounted launchers, cruise missiles are powered throughout their entire flight. This allows them to fly close to the ground and maneuver throughout flight, making them difficult for radar to spot.

“A handful of senior military officials, including several current or past NORTHCOM commanders, have been among those quietly dinging the bell about cruise missile threats, and it’s beginning to be heard,” Karako said.

While many of the combatant commanders — the 4-star generals and admirals who command forces in various geographic regions of the world — believe cruise missiles pose a threat to the United States, they have had trouble convincing their counterparts in the military services who decide what arms to buy.


A handful of senior military officials, including several current or past NORTHCOM commanders, have been among those quietly dinging the bell about cruise missile threats, and it’s beginning to be heard

Thomas Karako, missile defense analyst at CSIS

Fast-track requests like Gortney’s demand for new radars on F-16s have been used over the past decade to quickly get equipment to troops on the battlefield. Other urgent operational needs have included putting a laser seeker on a Maverick missile to strike fast-moving vehicles and to buy tens of thousands of MRAP vehicles that were rushed to Iraq to protect soldiers from roadside bomb attacks.

Last August, at a missile defense conference in Huntsville, Ala., then-NORTHCOM and NORAD commander Gen. Charles Jacoby criticized the Army and other services for failing to fund cruise missile defense projects. NORTHCOM, based in Colorado, is responsible for defending the United States from such attacks.

“I’m trying to get a service to grab hold of it … but so far we’re not having a lot of success with that,” Jacoby said when asked by an attendee about the Pentagon’s cruise missile defense plans. “I’m glad you brought that up and gave me a chance to rail against my service for not doing the cruise missile work that I need them to do.”

But since then, NORTHCOM has been able to muster support in Congress and at the Pentagon for various related projects. “We’ve made a case that growing cruise missile technology in our state adversaries, like Russia and China, present a real problem for our current defenses,” Jacoby said.

One item at the center of these plans is a giant aerostat called JLENS, short for the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System. The Pentagon is testing the system at Maryland’s Aberdeen Proving Ground, a sprawling military complex north of Baltimore. Reporters have even been invited to see the tethered airship, which hovers 10,000 feet in the air.


We’ve made a case that growing cruise missile technology in our state adversaries, like Russia and China, present a real problem for our current defenses.

Gen. Charles Jacoby, former commander, NORTHCOM and NORAD

JLENS carries a powerful radar on its belly that Pentagon officials say can spot small moving objects – including cruise missiles – from Boston to Norfolk, Va., headquarters of the U.S. Navy’s Atlantic Fleet. Since it’s so high in the air, it can see farther than ground radars.

JLENS is in the early stages of a three-year test phase, but comments by senior military officials indicate the Pentagon in considering expanding this use of aerostats far beyond the military’s National Capital Region district.

“This is a big country and we probably couldn’t protect the entire place from cruise missile attack unless we want to break the bank,” Winnefeld said. “But there are important areas in this country we need to make sure are defended from that kind of attack.”

New missile interceptors could also play a role in the network too.

“We’re also looking at the changing-out of the kinds of systems that we would use to knock down any cruise missiles headed towards our nation’s capital,” Winnefeld said.

Ground-launched versions of ship- and air-launched interceptors could be installed around major cities or infrastructure, experts say. Raytheon, which makes shipborne SM-6 interceptors, announced earlier this year that it was working on a ground-launched, long-range version of the AMRAAM air-to-air missile.

The improvements make the missiles “even faster and more maneuverable,” the company said in a statement when the announcement was made at the IDEX international arms show in Abu Dhabi in February.

The Threat

Driving the concern at the Pentagon is Russia’s development of the Kh-101, an air-launched cruise missile with a reported range of more than 1,200 miles.

(Related: The US Missile System Driving a Wedge Between China, South Korea)

“The only nation that has an effective cruise missile capability is Russia,” Gortney said at a March 19 House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee hearing.

Russian cruise missiles can also be fired from ships and submarines. Moscow has also developed containers that could potentially conceal a cruise missile on a cargo ship, meaning it wouldn’t take a large nation’s trained military to strike American shores.


The only nation that has an effective cruise missile capability is Russia.

Adm. William Gortney, commander of U.S. Northern Command

“Cruise missile technology is available and it’s exportable and it’s transferrable,” Jacoby said. “So it won’t be just state actors that present that threat to us.”

During the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, American and Kuwaiti Patriot missiles intercepted a number of Iraqi ballistic missiles, Karako said. But they missed all five cruise missiles fired, including one fired at Marine headquarters in Kuwait. In 2006, Hezbollah hit an Israeli corvette ship with an Iranian-supplied, Chinese-designed, anti-ship cruise missile, Karako said.

Shooting down the missiles themselves is a pricy proposition, which has led Pentagon officials to focus on the delivery platform.

“The best way to defeat the cruise missile threat is to shoot down the archer, or sink the archer, that’s out there,” Gortney said at an April news briefing at the Pentagon.

At a congressional hearing in March, Gortney said the Pentagon needed to expand its strategy to “hit that archer.”

An existing network of radars, including the JLENS, and interceptors make defending Washington easier than the rest of the country.

“[T]he national capital region is the easier part in terms of the entire kill chain,” Maj. Gen. Timothy Ray, director of Global Power Programs in the Air Force acquisition directorate, said in March at a House Armed Services Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee hearing. “We remain concerned about the coverage for the rest of the country and the rest of the F-16 fleet.”

Winnefeld said that the JLENS and “other systems we are putting in place” would “greatly enhance our early warning around the National Capital Region.”

In an exercise last year, the Pentagon used a JLENS, an F-15, and an air-to-air missile to shoot down a simulated cruise missile. In the test, the JLENS locked on to the cruise missile and passed targeting data to the F-15, which fired an AMRAAM missile. The JLENS then steered the AMRAAM into the mock cruise missile.

But there are many wild cards in the plans, experts say. While the JLENS has worked well in testing, it is not tied into the NORTHCOM’s computer network. It was also tested in Utah where there was far less commercial and civil air traffic than East Coast, some of the most congested airspace in the world. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in March, Gortney acknowledged the project is “not without challenges,” but said that’s to be expected in any test program.

It is also unclear whether the JLENS over Maryland spotted a Florida mailman who flew a small gyrocopter from Gettysburg, Penn., to the U.S. Capitol lawn in Washington, an hour-long flight through some of the most restricted airspace in the country. The JLENS has been long touted by its makers as being ideal for this tracking these types of slow-moving aircraft.

Gortney, in an April 29 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing about the gyrocopter, told lawmakers the JLENS “has more promise” than other aerostat-mounted radars used by the Department of Homeland Security along the border with Mexico and in South Florida. He deferred his explanation to the classified session after the public hearing.

Experts say JLENS can not just spot but track and target objects like cruise missiles, making it better than other radars used for border security.

Raytheon has built two JLENS, the one at Aberdeen and another in storage and ready for deployment.

If a cruise missile were fired toward Washington, leaders would not have much time to react.

“Solving the cruise missile problem even for Washington requires not just interceptors to be put in place, but also redundant and persistent sensors and planning for what to do, given very short response times,” Karako said

 

[cooter]

my thoughts,

too little , too late, in the game, we have shrunk our operational stuff down to such low levels, that I think,( just my perception that is, ) that once things start, we just will not have the numbers to do much against our enemies,

and an after thought, if cruise missles were put in first, to hit key electric, grid supply areas, and command control points,which would blind us for a bit, then launching from offshore from, scuds in a bucket, to SLBMs, a piece of cake for an all out onslaught against the country

the way this country keeps going, this keeps ringing in my head,

"Come here, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth committed acts of immorality, and those who dwell on the earth were made drunk with the wine of her immorality."… one day her plagues will overtake her: death, mourning and famine. She will be consumed by fire, for mighty is the Lord God who judges her.
for In one hour she will burn

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/is-north-koreas-byungjin-line-on-the-us-china-strategic-agenda/

Is North Korea's 'Byungjin Line' on the US-China Strategic Agenda?

Are the United States and China on the same page regarding North Korea’s Byungjin line?

By Ankit Panda
June 20, 2015

On Friday, South Korea’s Yonhap news agency reported that the United States and China are planning on discussing North Korea’s nuclear program when senior leaders from both sides meet for their annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) next week. Yonhap based its report off comments made by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Russel during a recent press briefing ahead of the S&ED.

Russel implicitly referenced a joint U.S.-China opposition to North Korea’s “Byungjin Line”—the country’s policy of pursuing the parallel goals of economic development and a robust nuclear weapons program. Russel referred to that policy as a “fantasy,” noting that Pyongyang couldn’t “have its cake and eat it too.” Yonhap, thus, chose to call this out in its headline: “U.S., China to discuss ways to get N. Korea out of ‘fantasy’ of ‘byeongjin’ policy.” Russel notes that the United States and China will:

…accelerate the realization on the part of North Korea’s leadership that negotiations to end their nuclear program are the only path available to them that allows for economic growth. And that’s what we will discuss [at the Strategic and Economic Dialogue].

Russel’s remarks aren’t the first time U.S. officials have taken direct aim at North Korea’s Byungjin line, which was itself adopted during a plenary session of the Party Central Committee in Pyongyang in early 2013. In February 2015, U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice and Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi (who will be traveling, along with Vice Premier Wang Yang, to Washington for the S&ED next week) “agreed that North Korea would not succeed in its twin pursuit of nuclear weapons and economic development.”

Interestingly, at the time, Chinese press reports outlining the Yang-Rice meeting did not highlight that feature of their meetings. In fact, while the United States’ statement was the clearest indication of a U.S.-China agenda on countering North Korea’s Byungjin policy, China has been reluctant to publicly mention the policy. China continues to stress denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula and encourages a return to multilateral diplomacy within the framework of the long-stalled Six-Party Talks.

Last month, U.S. Secretary John Kerry referenced the Byungjin line when speaking on the North Korean issue before a press conference in Seoul. He noted, describing a recent meeting between him and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, that the United States and China had “agreed that a mix of negotiations and pressure are needed to address this challenge, and North Korea needs to live up to its international obligations and commitments.” He added that “it is obvious that North Korea needs to recognize that it will not succeed in developing its economy or breaking out of diplomatic isolation if it continues to reject denuclearization”—a clear reference to the Byungjin line.

We still haven’t seen anything concrete from China regarding its position on North Korea’s Byungjin line. Meanwhile, it is clear that Washington has embraced the issue, even in the context of describing bilateral U.S.-China coordination on the North Korean issue. China could begin to shed its unease regarding publicly mentioning North Korea’s Byungjin line though Beijing has a separate set of considerations from Washington.

For example, while relations between China and North Korea have broadly suffered since Kim Jong-un’s ascension to power—and particularly since the December 2013 demise of Jang Song-thaek, a key interlocutor between the two neighbors and an architect of the Byungjin line—China isn’t out to pull the economic rug out from under the North Korean leadership. Doing so could invite instability along the North Korea-China border, something Beijing is keen to avoid.

The North Korean issue is an area of opportunity for the United States and China. As senior officials meet next week for the S&ED, it’ll be imperative that they clarify the extent to which they agree that North Korea’s Byungjin line must go. Both sides continue to share their differences over the necessary preconditions for a return to diplomatic talks (China wants talks now, the United States wants talks after a North Korean show of good will). They need to clarify if these differences persist in how they regard Pyongyang’s bid to pursue “guns and butter” in tandem. To this end, it’ll largely be up to China to set the record straight. The United States has been clear on the matter for a few months now.

 

[Housecarl]

Missed this one...........

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/the-south-asia-nuclear-equation/

The South Asia Nuclear Equation

Recent remarks by a Pakistani general have reopened the debate on South Asia’s nuclear stability.

By Kunal Singh
June 15, 2015

1.0k Shares
111 Comments

For 15 years, since its inception in February 2000, General Khalid Kidwai served as Director General of Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division. Now an adviser to Pakistan’s National Command Authority, Kidwai was a speaker at the recent biennial Carnegie Nuclear Policy Conference. Offering a glimpse into Pakistan’s strategic thinking, he explained Pakistan’s shift from a strategy of “minimum credible deterrence” to “full spectrum deterrence.” During his talk, Kidwai justified Pakistan’s induction of battlefield nuclear weapons with operational ranges as low as 60 kilometers on the pretext of a non-existent “Cold Start” doctrine.

Kidwai’s remarks have re-opened the debate over South Asia’s nuclear stability. A Stimson Center essay by Jeffrey McCausland has expanded on the dangers of Pakistan incorporating tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs). For instance, Pakistan’s Army would have to use this weapon early in any battle, lest the conventionally superior Indian forces intrude deep into Pakistani territory and foreclose on the option of deploying TNWs. Moreover, Pakistan’s forces would have to ensure a concentration of Indian troops in the target area so that the damage inflicted can justify the use of a nuclear weapon. In general, command and control of tactical nuclear weapons can also be tricky in the heat of conventional battle.

Meanwhile, India’s doctrine allows it to retaliate with a massive nuclear strike to inflict unacceptable damage even in response to a “small” nuclear attack. Whether India would elect to exercise this option or not is another matter.

Overall, the deployment of TNWs should aim to save Pakistan from a conventional defeat and prevent further escalation to the level of strategic nuclear weapons. The ability of Pakistan’s TNWs to do either is dubious.

While the TNWs do not tilt, in this writer’s opinion, the scales one way or the other from what was set in 1998, there are other changes afoot in the region that call for greater examination. The re-emergence of the debate, courtesy of Kidwai, offers an occasion to look at these changes. With its growing leverage over Pakistan and Afghanistan, Beijing is likely to displace Washington from the region. Before that, however, let us recapitulate the old debates on nuclear stability in South Asia and the role played by the United States.

Old Debates

The nuclear stability debate after the 1998 tests was divided into two camps: nuclear optimists and nuclear pessimists. The optimists argued that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by both states would stabilize the region simply because any war between the two nations would have catastrophic possibilities. The pessimists, on the other hand, pointed to the organizational problems that might lead to deterrence failure, and concluded that proliferation would have destabilizing effects.

Sumit Ganguly and S. Paul Kapur, though on opposite sides of the divide, extricated this debate from the vague theoretical premonitions and placed it in the more realistic contemporary regional framework of South Asia. Ganguly, an optimist, believes that post nuclearization conflicts between India and Pakistan erupted because of regional tiffs and not as a consequence of nuclearization. Further, he believes that these conflicts did not escalate, thanks to the potential deterrence effects of nuclear war.

Kapur meanwhile chastises the earlier nuclear pessimists for conceding the deterrence effects of nuclear weapons to the optimists and restricting their arguments to organizational problems. He reformulates his position as one of “strategic pessimism.” While accommodating the realities of South Asia, Kapur further nuances the debate by introducing a distinction between revisionist and status-quo powers. A territorially dissatisfied power, if conventionally weaker than its adversary, will employ destabilizing tactics under the nuclear umbrella. The threat of nuclear weapons deters the conventionally stronger adversary from using its full might and thus will protect the revisionist power from large-scale conventional defeat. Moreover, the introduction of nuclear weapons internationalizes any minor dispute between the two countries, thus guaranteeing a settlement better than that which the weaker power could have negotiated on its own.

The U.S. Role

The role played by the U.S. to contain the possibilities of nuclear exchange in South Asia has been glorified or belittled, depending on which account you read. The nuclear optimists, as believers in the deterrence capabilities of nuclear arsenal, do not credit the U.S. for dousing all flames in nuclearized South Asia. The pessimists credit everything but nuclear weapons for de-escalation.

Nawaz Sharif’s meeting with Bill Clinton on July 4, 1999 is often cited as the reason for Pakistan’s withdrawal from the Kargil War. Ganguly disagrees. He points out that the Tiger Hill – one of the strategic points captured by the invaders – was evacuated by India “a good ten hours before” the meeting between Sharif and Clinton. The pessimists hit back with a narrative of the roles played by Robert Gates, then America’s deputy national security advisor, during the 1990 crisis; and later by Colin Powell, the U.S. secretary of State, and Richard Armitage, his deputy, during the 2002 standoff.

According to an interview Robert Gates gave to Seymour M. Hersh (one of the world’s best-known investigative journalists), Gates told Pakistan’s Army Chief General Mirza Aslam Beg that the U.S. had war-gamed every conceivable scenario between Pakistan and India, and there wasn’t a single way Pakistan could win. The American Ambassador Robert B. Oakley recalled Gates warning Beg to not expect any help from the U.S. in the event of war. Gates’ “mission” apparently cooled temperatures on both sides. The American also offered satellite reconnaissance data to reassure leaders about the withdrawal happening on both sides.

Following the launch of Operation Parakram by India in the aftermath of the terror attack on Indian parliament in December 2001, one million troops were facing each other across the the Line of Control and the international border. Colin Powell visited New Delhi after a stopover in Islamabad and assured India of Musharraf’s intention to crack down on terrorism. The fragility of the gains was exposed by a terrorist attack that killed 32 at the Indian army camp at Kaluchak in Jammu. Before the outraged Indians could initiate an assault, Richard Armitage extracted a promise from Musharraf to end infiltration “permanently.”

Christine C. Fair, an astute scholar who specializes in South Asia, has tabulated the Correlates of War (COW) Militarized Interstate Disputes (MID) data, concluding that the rate of conflict between India and Pakistan increased as the nuclear level of Pakistan proceeded from “Nonnuclear period” through “Incipient nuclear period” to “De facto nuclear period” and full-fledged post-test “Nuclear period.”

For two of those four periods – incipient nuclear period and nuclear period – the U.S. provided considerable military and economic aid to Pakistan, leading Fair to conclude that U.S. support may have emboldened Pakistan further to pursue its revisionist agenda.

China’s Role: Past, Present and Future

Pakistan’s route to nuclear weapons could have been much more onerous if not for Chinese support. China sought to tie India into perennial conflict with its western neighbor thus stymieing India’s ability and desire to pursue a greater role in Asia.

The recent visit of Xi Jinping to Pakistan opened the floodgates, with China pledging $46 billion dollars to Pakistan’s infrastructure and energy development. The deal envisions a China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) that runs from Gwadar Port in Baluchistan to Kashgar in Xinjiang. Gwadar is crucial to China’s “One Belt, One Road” program, as it is the point where the belt and the road meet. The CPEC will greatly shorten the route for energy imports into China. Gwadar provides China with an alternative to the Strait of Malacca, which can be choked by India.

Pakistan has since its birth steadfastly defined winning in terms of Kashmir and Afghanistan, legacies of “Two-Nation theory” and British colonialism. Thanks to China’s accommodation of Pakistan in the former’s One Belt, One Road initiative, the latter is realizing the benefits of regional connectivity. CPEC is expected to link East Asia to South Asia, Central Asia and Middle East, facilitating trade and investment across the continent. Chinese investment will diversify Pakistan’s economic options and create constituencies that will a) not remain fixated on the eastern border and b) seek peace that will enable them to harness the dividends of new opportunities. This development is likely to reduce the probability of nuclear belligerence from Rawalpindi.

As China supplants U.S. as Pakistan’s primary ally and gradually increases its profile in Afghanistan, it understands its responsibility to monitor the potential for a nuclear exchange in South Asia. As a seeker of global leadership, China is prepared to demonstrate its regional leadership credentials. Beijing, as a result, is likely to adopt a more neutral stance between India and Pakistan. It has been increasingly wary of taking Pakistan’s side in the dispute over Kashmir and the India-Pakistan wars. In a sign of changing realities, Chinese officials have shown interest in civil nuclear cooperation with India.

While the incipient factors seem encouraging, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. The next time, whenever it is, India and Pakistan come close to a conflict with nuclear clouds overhead, the role of China will be much more important than it has been in the past. And that role will be studied by scholars in great detail.

Kunal Singh is an Editor at policywonks.in. He is also a Research Associate at the Centre for Policy Research (CPR), New Delhi. He tweets at @kunaldrajput.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.project-syndicate.org/co...-robert-skidelsky-2015-06#LEwGP1WSC98Sww5L.99

JUN 18, 2015
Comments 5

The Sino-Russian Marriage

Robert Skidelsky

LONDON – The Chinese are the most historically minded of peoples. In his conquest of power, Mao Zedong used military tactics derived from Sun Tzu, who lived around 500 BC; Confucianism, dating from around the same time, remains at the heart of China’s social thinking, despite Mao’s ruthless attempts to suppress it.

So when President Xi Jinping launched his “New Silk Road” initiative in 2013, no one should have been surprised by the historical reference. “More than two millennia ago,” explains China’s National Development and Reform Commission, “the diligent and courageous people of Eurasia explored and opened up several routes of trade and cultural exchanges that linked the major civilisations of Asia, Europe, and Africa, collectively called the Silk Road by later generations.” In China, old history is often called to aid new doctrine.

The new doctrine is “multipolarity” – the idea that the world is (or should be) made up of several distinctive poles of attraction. The contrast is with a “unipolar” (that is, an American- or Western-dominated) world.

Multipolarity is a political idea, but it is about more than power relations. It rejects the notion that there is a single civilizational ideal to which all countries should conform. Different world regions have different histories, which have given their peoples different ideas about how to live, govern themselves, and earn a living. These histories are all worthy of respect: there is no “right” road to the future.

Eurasia is an idea whose time, it is said, has come around again. Recent historical research has rescued the old Silk Road from historical oblivion. The late American sociologist Janet Abu-Lughod identified eight overlapping “circuits of trade” between northwest Europe and China that, under the aegis of a Pax Mongolica, flourished between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.

According to Abu-Lughod, Western imperialism superimposed itself on these older circuits, without obliterating them. Islam continued to spread across geographic and political boundaries. Chinese and Indian migrations did not stop.

Now a unique conjuncture of economic and political developments has created an opportunity for Eurasia to emerge from its historical slumbers. In recent years, Western self-assurance was humbled by the financial crisis of 2008-2009 and political catastrophes in the Middle East. At the same time, the interests of the two potential builders of Eurasia, China and Russia, seem – at least superficially – to have converged.

China’s motive for reviving Pax Mongolica is clear. Its growth model, based largely on exporting cheap manufactured goods to developed countries, is running out of steam. Secular stagnation threatens the West, accompanied by rising protectionism sentiment. And, although Chinese leaders know that they must rebalance the economy from investment and exports to consumption, doing so risks causing serious domestic political problems for the ruling Communist party. Reorienting investments and exports toward Eurasia offers an alternative.

As China’s labor costs rise, production is being re-located from the coastal regions to the western provinces. The natural outlet for this production is along the New Silk Road. The development of the road (actually several “belts,” including a southern maritime route) will require huge investments in transport and urban infrastructure. As in the nineteenth century, reduction in transport costs will open up new markets for trade.

Russia, too, has an economic motive for developing Eurasia. It has failed to modernize and diversify its economy. As a result, it remains predominantly an exporter of petroleum products and an importer of manufactured goods. China offers a secure and expanding market for its energy exports. The big transport and construction projects needed to realize Eurasia’s economic potential may help Russia recover the industrial and engineering might it lost with communism’s fall.

This year Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan have joined together in a Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), a customs union with a defense component. The EEU is seen by its advocates as a step toward re-establishing the old Soviet frontiers in the form of a voluntary economic and political union, modeled on the EU – a project to take the sting out of the West’s “victory” in the Cold War.

Official Russian opinion looks forward to “the interpenetration and integration of the EEU and the Silk Road Economic Belt” into a “Greater Eurasia,” which will afford a “steady developing safe common neighborhood of Russia and China.” On May 8, Putin and Xi signed an agreement in Moscow that envisages the establishment of coordinating political institutions, investment funds, development banks, currency regimes, and financial systems – all to serve a vast free-trade area linking China with Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.

How realistic is this dream? Russia and China both feel “encircled” by the United States and its allies. China’s anti-hegemonic aim, expressed in almost inscrutable prose, is to secure “tolerance among civilizations” and respect for the “modes of development chosen by different countries.”

Putin, meanwhile, has ratcheted up his much more explicit anti-American rhetoric since the Ukraine crisis, which he sees as a prime example of Western interference in Russia’s domestic affairs. Boosting trade flows between Russia and China, and strengthening political and security coordination, will reduce their vulnerability to outside interference and signal the emergence of a new center of world power.

It may be considered a singular success for Western statesmanship to have brought two old rivals for power and influence in Central Asia to the point of jointly seeking to exclude the West from the region’s future development. The US, especially, missed opportunities to integrate both countries into a single world system, by rebuffing reforms of the International Monetary Fund that would have strengthened China’s decision-making influence, and by blocking Russia’s overtures for NATO membership. This led both countries to seek an alternative future in each other’s company.

Whether their marriage of convenience will lead to an enduring union – or, as George Soros predicts, a threat to world peace – remains to be seen. There is an obvious sphere-of-influence issue in Kazakhstan, and the Chinese have been squeezing the Russians for all they can get in bilateral deals. For the time being, though, squabbles over the New Silk Road seem less painful to the two powers than enduring lectures from the West.

 

[vestige]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2...issile-shield-defend-us-cities-russia/115723/

Pentagon Building Cruise Missile Shield To Defend US Cities From Russia

June 18, 2015 By Marcus Weisgerber

The military moves to set up an expensive sensor-and-shooter network, but is the threat real?

The Pentagon is quietly working to set up an elaborate network of defenses to protect American cities from a barrage of Russian cruise missiles.


The plan calls for buying radars that would enable National Guard F-16 fighter jets to spot and shoot down fast and low-flying missiles. Top generals want to network those radars with sensor-laden aerostat balloons hovering over U.S. cities and with coastal warships equipped with sensors and interceptor missiles of their own.

One of those generals is Adm. William Gortney, who leads U.S. Northern Command, or NORTHCOM, and North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD. Earlier this year, Gortney submitted an “urgent need” request to put AESA radars on the F-16s that patrol the airspace around Washington. Such a request allows a project to circumvent the normal procurement process.

While no one will talk openly about the Pentagon’s overall cruise missile defense plans, much of which remain classified, senior military officials have provided clues in speeches, congressional hearings and other public forums over the past year. The statements reveal the Pentagon’s concern about advanced cruise missiles being developed by Russia.

“We’re devoting a good deal of attention to ensuring we’re properly configured against such an attack in the homeland, and we need to continue to do so,” Adm. Sandy Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during a May 19 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington.

We’re devoting a good deal of attention to ensuring we’re properly configured against such an attack in the homeland, and we need to continue to do so.

Adm. Sandy Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

In recent years, the Pentagon has invested heavily, with mixed results, in ballistic missile defense: preparations to shoot down long-range rockets that touch the edge of space and then fall toward targets on Earth. Experts say North Korea and Iran are the countries most likely to strike the U.S. or its allies with such missiles, although neither arsenal has missiles of sufficient range so far.

(Related: The Middle East Has Four Minutes To Act If Iran Fires a Missile)

But the effort to defend the U.S. mainland against smaller, shorter-range cruise missiles has gone largely unnoticed.

“While ballistic missile defense has now become established as a key military capability, the corresponding counters to cruise missiles have been prioritized far more slowly,” said Thomas Karako, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington. “In some ways, this is understandable, in terms of the complexity of the threat, but sophisticated cruise missile technologies now out there are just not going away and we are going to have to find a way to deal with this — for the homeland, for allies and partners abroad, and for regional combatant commanders.”

Intercepting cruise missiles is far different from shooting down a missile of the ballistic variety. Launched by ships, submarines, or even trailer-mounted launchers, cruise missiles are powered throughout their entire flight. This allows them to fly close to the ground and maneuver throughout flight, making them difficult for radar to spot.

“A handful of senior military officials, including several current or past NORTHCOM commanders, have been among those quietly dinging the bell about cruise missile threats, and it’s beginning to be heard,” Karako said.

While many of the combatant commanders — the 4-star generals and admirals who command forces in various geographic regions of the world — believe cruise missiles pose a threat to the United States, they have had trouble convincing their counterparts in the military services who decide what arms to buy.


A handful of senior military officials, including several current or past NORTHCOM commanders, have been among those quietly dinging the bell about cruise missile threats, and it’s beginning to be heard

Thomas Karako, missile defense analyst at CSIS

Fast-track requests like Gortney’s demand for new radars on F-16s have been used over the past decade to quickly get equipment to troops on the battlefield. Other urgent operational needs have included putting a laser seeker on a Maverick missile to strike fast-moving vehicles and to buy tens of thousands of MRAP vehicles that were rushed to Iraq to protect soldiers from roadside bomb attacks.

Last August, at a missile defense conference in Huntsville, Ala., then-NORTHCOM and NORAD commander Gen. Charles Jacoby criticized the Army and other services for failing to fund cruise missile defense projects. NORTHCOM, based in Colorado, is responsible for defending the United States from such attacks.

“I’m trying to get a service to grab hold of it … but so far we’re not having a lot of success with that,” Jacoby said when asked by an attendee about the Pentagon’s cruise missile defense plans. “I’m glad you brought that up and gave me a chance to rail against my service for not doing the cruise missile work that I need them to do.”

But since then, NORTHCOM has been able to muster support in Congress and at the Pentagon for various related projects. “We’ve made a case that growing cruise missile technology in our state adversaries, like Russia and China, present a real problem for our current defenses,” Jacoby said.

One item at the center of these plans is a giant aerostat called JLENS, short for the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System. The Pentagon is testing the system at Maryland’s Aberdeen Proving Ground, a sprawling military complex north of Baltimore. Reporters have even been invited to see the tethered airship, which hovers 10,000 feet in the air.


We’ve made a case that growing cruise missile technology in our state adversaries, like Russia and China, present a real problem for our current defenses.

Gen. Charles Jacoby, former commander, NORTHCOM and NORAD

JLENS carries a powerful radar on its belly that Pentagon officials say can spot small moving objects – including cruise missiles – from Boston to Norfolk, Va., headquarters of the U.S. Navy’s Atlantic Fleet. Since it’s so high in the air, it can see farther than ground radars.

JLENS is in the early stages of a three-year test phase, but comments by senior military officials indicate the Pentagon in considering expanding this use of aerostats far beyond the military’s National Capital Region district.

“This is a big country and we probably couldn’t protect the entire place from cruise missile attack unless we want to break the bank,” Winnefeld said. “But there are important areas in this country we need to make sure are defended from that kind of attack.”

New missile interceptors could also play a role in the network too.

“We’re also looking at the changing-out of the kinds of systems that we would use to knock down any cruise missiles headed towards our nation’s capital,” Winnefeld said.

Ground-launched versions of ship- and air-launched interceptors could be installed around major cities or infrastructure, experts say. Raytheon, which makes shipborne SM-6 interceptors, announced earlier this year that it was working on a ground-launched, long-range version of the AMRAAM air-to-air missile.

The improvements make the missiles “even faster and more maneuverable,” the company said in a statement when the announcement was made at the IDEX international arms show in Abu Dhabi in February.

The Threat

Driving the concern at the Pentagon is Russia’s development of the Kh-101, an air-launched cruise missile with a reported range of more than 1,200 miles.

(Related: The US Missile System Driving a Wedge Between China, South Korea)

“The only nation that has an effective cruise missile capability is Russia,” Gortney said at a March 19 House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee hearing.

Russian cruise missiles can also be fired from ships and submarines. Moscow has also developed containers that could potentially conceal a cruise missile on a cargo ship, meaning it wouldn’t take a large nation’s trained military to strike American shores.


The only nation that has an effective cruise missile capability is Russia.

Adm. William Gortney, commander of U.S. Northern Command

“Cruise missile technology is available and it’s exportable and it’s transferrable,” Jacoby said. “So it won’t be just state actors that present that threat to us.”

During the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, American and Kuwaiti Patriot missiles intercepted a number of Iraqi ballistic missiles, Karako said. But they missed all five cruise missiles fired, including one fired at Marine headquarters in Kuwait. In 2006, Hezbollah hit an Israeli corvette ship with an Iranian-supplied, Chinese-designed, anti-ship cruise missile, Karako said.

Shooting down the missiles themselves is a pricy proposition, which has led Pentagon officials to focus on the delivery platform.

“The best way to defeat the cruise missile threat is to shoot down the archer, or sink the archer, that’s out there,” Gortney said at an April news briefing at the Pentagon.

At a congressional hearing in March, Gortney said the Pentagon needed to expand its strategy to “hit that archer.”

An existing network of radars, including the JLENS, and interceptors make defending Washington easier than the rest of the country.

“[T]he national capital region is the easier part in terms of the entire kill chain,” Maj. Gen. Timothy Ray, director of Global Power Programs in the Air Force acquisition directorate, said in March at a House Armed Services Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee hearing. “We remain concerned about the coverage for the rest of the country and the rest of the F-16 fleet.”

Winnefeld said that the JLENS and “other systems we are putting in place” would “greatly enhance our early warning around the National Capital Region.”

In an exercise last year, the Pentagon used a JLENS, an F-15, and an air-to-air missile to shoot down a simulated cruise missile. In the test, the JLENS locked on to the cruise missile and passed targeting data to the F-15, which fired an AMRAAM missile. The JLENS then steered the AMRAAM into the mock cruise missile.

But there are many wild cards in the plans, experts say. While the JLENS has worked well in testing, it is not tied into the NORTHCOM’s computer network. It was also tested in Utah where there was far less commercial and civil air traffic than East Coast, some of the most congested airspace in the world. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in March, Gortney acknowledged the project is “not without challenges,” but said that’s to be expected in any test program.

It is also unclear whether the JLENS over Maryland spotted a Florida mailman who flew a small gyrocopter from Gettysburg, Penn., to the U.S. Capitol lawn in Washington, an hour-long flight through some of the most restricted airspace in the country. The JLENS has been long touted by its makers as being ideal for this tracking these types of slow-moving aircraft.

Gortney, in an April 29 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing about the gyrocopter, told lawmakers the JLENS “has more promise” than other aerostat-mounted radars used by the Department of Homeland Security along the border with Mexico and in South Florida. He deferred his explanation to the classified session after the public hearing.

Experts say JLENS can not just spot but track and target objects like cruise missiles, making it better than other radars used for border security.

Raytheon has built two JLENS, the one at Aberdeen and another in storage and ready for deployment.

If a cruise missile were fired toward Washington, leaders would not have much time to react.

“Solving the cruise missile problem even for Washington requires not just interceptors to be put in place, but also redundant and persistent sensors and planning for what to do, given very short response times,” Karako said

Far too important to vanish to page 2.

The world is out to get the big dog.

The U.S. is the big dog (for the time being.)

Methinks the foreign enemy powers will strike when we are fully occupied with internal strife.

Therefore, those stirring the pot here at home are complicit. (Ignorant yes, complicit regardless)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/stor...n-tough-issues-including-s-china-sea-disputes

China, US set for ‘vigorous’ talks on tough issues, including S. China Sea disputes

By JO BIDDLE, AFP June 21, 2015 9:53am

The United States is vowing not to "paper over" differences with China at key talks this week weighed down by thorny issues of trade, cyber spying and tensions in the South China Sea.

And while some analysts believe there will be few concrete results from the annual US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, the two-day talks which open formally on Tuesday in Washington are seen as an important forum for managing ties between the two global powers.

"We talk through, we work through our differences. We seek to solve problems and to manage the problems that we can’t seem to solve," said the top US diplomat for East Asia, Danny Russel.

"We don’t paper over these differences. We don’t turn a blind eye to problems. We discuss them and we seek to tackle them directly."

US Secretary of State John Kerry and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew will host China's State Councilor Yang Jiechi and Vice Premier Wang Yang for a private dinner on Monday, before the talks kick off at the State Department the next day.

The world's two leading economies remain at odds over China's claims to much of the South China Sea and Washington has repeatedly urged Beijing to stop building artificial islands in the key waterway.

Such moves are "troubling not just to us, but to the countries in the region," Russel said, adding: "The prospect of militarizing those outposts runs counter to the goal of reducing tensions."

Hacking charges

Ties have also strained over US accusations of cyber-espionage.

A bilateral cyber-working group was suspended by Beijing last year after Washington indicted five Chinese military officers for hacking into US computers to pilfer intellectual property and US government secrets.

But both countries recognize it is an area where they need to cooperate.

"It's a place where us and China both have very important equities and as in the past, we'll continue to discuss those issues vigorously with our Chinese counterparts," a US Treasury official said.

Chinese officials remained more circumspect with foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang saying the delegations would have an "in-depth exchange of views on China-US relations as well as other major issues of common interest."

And the state-run Chinese press appeared optimistic about this seventh round of annual talks, which come ahead of a visit to the US by Chinese President Xi Jinping in September.

"Following months of diplomatic clashes over the South China Sea, Sino-US relations seem to be headed for calmer waters after key events in the lead-up to a major meeting between the two countries," the China Daily said.

It quoted Wang Yiwei, a professor of international relations at Renmin University, saying: "Washington understands the consequences of US-Sino confrontation, and conflict is not on the agenda.

"Still, it has to issue criticisms of China over the South China Sea to show its muscle and commitment to its Asian allies."

Not all doom and gloom

Other knotty problems remain over trade, the new Beijing-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank -- spurned so far by the US -- and whether to include the Chinese yuan as part of the IMF's international basket of reference currencies.

Washington has long claimed the yuan was manipulated, but the IMF said late last month that the currency was "no longer undervalued."

Such differences do "not necessarily doom the dialogue," said Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, adding the talks will still be "professional."

And David Dollar, an expert with the Brookings Institution, predicted the chill in ties arising from security issues would not spill over into the economic track.

Both countries "have compelling reasons to have a robust discussion of economic trends and to try to make progress on bilateral issues," he said.

"If anything, tension on the security side makes the economic talks more important."

One potential area of cooperation is on climate change, as UN-led talks loom in Paris in December to set new targets on limiting greenhouse gases.

"We’re still the two largest emitters in the world. We’re trying to position ourselves and lead, frankly, the international community into the Paris conference," said Russel.

There is concern in Beijing however over President Barack Obama's woes with Congress, particularly in trying to push forward a huge Pacific trade deal -- even though it will not include China.

The Chinese "start to wonder, can the US government execute things in its own self-interest?" said Posen. —Agence France-Presse

 

[Housecarl]

Please note that the F-35 range quoted in the attached graphic doesn't include air to air refueling.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/696809.html

Could Japan carry out a preemptive strike on North Korea?

Posted on : Jun.21,2015 06:52 KST Modified on : Jun.21,2015 06:52 KST

As Japan increases its military might, there’s a slight chance it could become involved in conflict on the Korean peninsula
Rep. Keiji Kokuta: The JASDF [Japan Air Self-Defense Force] decided to purchase the top-of-the-line F-35 fighter in Dec. 2011. This aircraft has stealth capabilities that make it extremely difficult for enemy radar to detect it. What is this aircraft’s range of activity?

Defense Minister Gen Nakatani: About 1,100 kilometers.

Kokuta: That means this aircraft is capable of reaching as far as the Korean Peninsula, Russia, and the East China Sea without aerial refueling. Another thing we can’t overlook is the weapons it can be equipped with. What is the JASSM [joint air-to-surface standoff missile]?

Nakatani: That would be the AGM-158, which is a stealth-capable long-range precision-guided surface-to-air missile. Apparently, this missile is currently carried by American F-15 and F-16 fighters and in the future will also be carried by F-35 fighters. However, there are no plans to equip the JASDF’s F-35As with this missile at the present time, and I don‘t know have any detailed information about it.

Kokuta: When you say there aren’t any plans to equip this missile at the present time, it sounds like you’re not completely denying that there are plans to equip it in the future. This weapon has a range of around 370 kilometers. That’s the distance from Tokyo to Nagoya. Isn’t the F-35 a fighter that meets all of the requirements for attacking an enemy base?

Nakatani: While the JASDF currently possesses some of the equipment required for attacking an enemy base, it does not possess the entire range of equipment for carrying out a series of operations. Fielding the F-35 will not change that fact.

Questions by Rep. Kokuta in the special committee of the House of Representatives

It was the afternoon of June 1 during a meeting of a special committee in Japan’s House of Representatives that was set up to review revisions to security legislation intended to allow Japan to exercise the right of collective self-defense.

The last speaker during the day’s review was Rep. Keiji Kokuta, 68, a lawmaker with the Japanese Communist Party, who asked a number of trenchant questions about suspicious remarks that key figures in the Abe administration have made recently about attacking enemy bases.

These questions abruptly added some tension to a meeting that had been on the verge of drawing to an end.

The details of the exchange between Rep. Kokuta and Defense Minister Gen Nakatani goes a long way toward answering a number of questions regarding Japan’s enemy base strike capability, an issue that has provoked unusual interest in South Korea and other countries around Japan.

Japan has repeatedly said that while attacking an enemy base is legally permissible, it is not actually capable of launching such an attack. But Kokuta and Nakatani‘s exchange makes clear that Japan’s strike ability will be strengthened considerably when the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) acquires the F-35A (42 fighters are planned).

After Nakatani got flustered by Kokuta’s questions, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stepped in to restore order. “The main role we are expecting from the F-35 is intercepting enemy fighters,” Abe said, not attacking enemy bases. But doubts about the issue still linger.

There have been various analyses of how the Korean Peninsula would be affected if Japan exercised the right to collective self-defense. The first concern that South Korea had about this issue was whether the Japanese Self-Defense Force (JSDF) would be able to land on the Korean Peninsula without South Korea’s consent.

This concern was provoked by the fact that wartime operational control (OPCON) of South Korean forces is exercised not by the president of South Korea but by the commander of US Forces Korea (USFK). Thus, if US military operations called for Japanese forces to enter South Korean territory, South Korea would not be able to stop it from happening.

This concern was assuaged to some extent by a provision that the Japanese government added to the Major Influencing Event Law bill that it submitted to the Japanese Diet last month. Article 2, clause 4 of the bill states that “measures in foreign territory can only be taken with the consent of the foreign country in question.”

If there were actually a war on the Korean Peninsula, it is impossible to know what decisions the US would make, but the provision that the Japanese government added to the bill does partially clear up South Korea’s concerns.

http://img.hani.co.kr/imgdb/resize/2015/0620/143467172693_20150620.JPG

Defense Minister Nakatani fuels controversy over enemy base attack

But things took an unusual turn when Nakatani appeared on a morning debate program on Fuji TV on June 17 and expressed the view that Japan’s right to collective self-defense enabled it to attack “enemy bases,” referring to North Korean missile bases. Since this means that Japan could carry out a strike on North Korean missile bases if the North attacked the US - even without attacking Japan directly - this caused a considerable stir even inside Japan.

The ongoing furor in Japan about attacking enemy bases is also creating a headache for South Korea, which must alleviate the threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missiles while also pursuing stability in Northeast Asia.

This explains remarks made by South Korean Defense Minister Han Min-koo when he met Nakatani in Singapore on May 30, the first bilateral conference of South Korean and Japanese defense ministers to take place in four years.

During the conference, Han made clear to Nakatani that, since the South Korean constitution claims North Korea as its territory, Japan would have to consult with South Korea before attacking a North Korea base. Nakatani reportedly avoided a direct response and suggested discussing the question later.

During a recent interview with the Hankyoreh, a former Japanese defense minister said that, while he understood South Korea’s concerns, North Korea was undeniably a member of the United Nations.

There are two points on which the recent discussion about attacking enemy bases in Japan differs fundamentally from discussions that have taken place in Japan in past decades. The first point is what the objective of such an attack would be.

Previous discussion in Japan about carrying out strikes on enemy bases has always concerned “individual self-defense,” which presumed a situation in which Japan had been attacked by an enemy state.

The reason that this has been a hot-button issue in Japan’s security policy is because it results in a basic contradiction with the principle of exclusive defense that underpins Japan’s defense policy.

Exclusive defense refers to a passive strategy of defense according to which Japan would only resort to force when attacked by an enemy.

But following this principle to the letter would create a security dilemma for Japan, since it would prevent the country from making a preemptive strike even when it is 99.9% certain that an enemy will launch a missile attack.

Ambiguous changes to the text of the US-Japanese Defense Guidelines

Former Japanese Prime Minister Ichiro Hatoyama (1883-1959) voiced his opinion on this question during a cabinet meeting in the House of Representatives in 1956.

“Suppose that Japan was in danger of an imminent and unjust attack and that guided missiles aimed at Japanese territory were to be the method of that attack. In such a case, it seems implausible that our constitution would have us wait meekly for annihilation. Legally speaking, one must conclude that carrying out a guided missile strike on these bases in order to prevent such an attack would fall within the scope of self-defense,” Hatoyama said.

The view that Japan cannot “wait meekly for annihilation” was upheld as an established tenet of the Japanese government in responses to the Diet by previous heads of Japan’s Defense Agency (now Defense Ministry) Shigejiro Ino (1901-1981) in 1959 and Hosei Norota, 85, in 1999. At the same time, Japan has maintained the ambiguous position that its ability to attack enemy bases is strictly legal in nature and that Japan does not actually possess the military capability to make such an attack.

However, in more recent discussion of this issue, the Japanese government has substantially relaxed the conditions under which it could carry out a strike on an enemy base. Even without being directly attacked, Japan would be legally permitted to attack a North Korean missile base, provided that the “three new conditions” for exercising its right to collective self-defense are satisfied, it now says.

The second change is that, in contrast with the hypothetical situations that the Japanese government has been emphasizing, the country has in large part acquired the capability to attack an enemy base.

The most recent steps taken in the discourse about attacking enemy bases were policy recommendations for revising defense policy that Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) made public in June 2013.

In the recommendations, the LPD said, “A decision should be made quickly about whether the JSDF should acquire the capability of attacking enemy bases - a capability that is considered legally permissible - taking into consideration the development and deployment of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles in neighboring countries [that is, North Korea].”

This recommendation was included in the outline of Japan’s defense plans that were announced in Dec. 2013 in the form of a provision that stated, “Necessary measures will be taken after exploring the capability of responding during the launch phase of a ballistic missile.”

At the same time, Japan was negotiating behind the scenes with the US to allow the JSDF future exercise of enemy base strike capabilities as part of the revision of their defense cooperation guidelines, which began in Oct. 2013. A Reuters article from Oct. 2014 quoted sources as saying the Japanese Defense Ministry and US Defense Department were conducting research and discussions at the officer level on what capabilities the JSDF would possess and their possibilities. The result was a change in the guidelines’ wording on enemy base strikes. While the original version stated that the US would “consider, as necessary, the use of forces providing additional strike power,” the version after revision in late April said the JSDF and US would “maintain an effective posture to defend against ballistic missile attacks heading for Japan” in the event of “an indication of a ballistic missile attack.” While the 1997 revision made it clear that the US would be in charge of striking enemy bases, the wording in the new guidelines is vague on the question of who would carry out such a strike.

What are Japan’s enemy base strike capabilities at the moment? While appearing before Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in the House of Councilors in March 2003, then-Defense Minister Takemasa Moriya, 70, listed a number of capabilities needed for such a strike, including the ability to destroy enemy anti-aircraft radar, low-altitude aircraft penetration, and air-to-service guided or cruise missiles. This, in turn, would require satellites and other intelligence assets to specific which bases to strike, fighters for actual combat deployment, air-to-surface guided missiles for those fighters, tankers to support the fighters on long-distance flights, and electronic warfare aircraft to disrupt radar and interceptor activity at enemy sites, as well as Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) to control everything.

In terms of fighters, the Japan Air Self Defense Force (JASDF) already has a laser-guided joint direct attack munition (JSDM) kit on its F-2. The F-2 also participated in actual firing drills as part of joint exercises with the US and Australia on Guam in Feb. 2014. This capability is expected to develop further once the JASSM is introduced on the F-35. Japan is also acquiring the KC-767 tankers and E-767 AWACS needed for its operations.

This explains why Nakatani offered “the electronic warfare aircraft used to disrupt and neutralize other countries’ anti-aircraft radar” after repeated questioning from Kokuta on the JSDF’s current equipment inadequacies. The information so far suggests that Japan’s enemy base strike capabilities are now at around 80-90% - and that it could carry out a strike against North Korean bases now in a joint operation with the US.

Why did Japan turn down the US’s request for cooperation in bombing Yongbyon?

The situation leaves much for Seoul to consider. The chances of the sort of scenario currently being discussed in Japan - North Korea attacking the US, and Japan carrying out a retaliatory strike on a North Korean missile base - are virtually nil. But there is a chance of a JSDF with a greater military role and capabilities influencing future US military decisions regarding North Korea.

Indeed, something similar happened during the first North Korean nuclear crisis in 1993 when the US was considering a surgical strike against Yongbyon, an area in North Korea with a large concentration of nuclear facilities. The US requested some 1,500 forms of support from Japan, including weapons and ammunition, defense of its warships, and use of civilian air and seaports. Tokyo ended up denying the request, citing Article 9 of the Constitution. The US ultimately decided against military action, and the crisis ended in Oct. 1994 with the Agreed Framework in Geneva. It’s a decision that might have turned out differently if the JSDF had had the capability to strike enemy bases and a commitment to using it.

“The US is a country that carries out preemptive strikes, which means that it could be exposed to counterstrikes from the countries it strikes,” Kokuta said in a June 4 interview the Hankyoreh. “The Abe administration’s reasoning, which is that the JSDF could strike enemy bases on behalf of the US when the US is under attack, is extremely dangerous.”

Kokuta went on to stress Japan’s need to “contribute to preventing armed conflict in East Asia before the fact with the spirit of the Peace Constitution.”

“The Abe administration is mistaken to consider only helping the US instead of thinking about South Korea, which stands to suffer the most from an incident on the Korean Peninsula,” he said.


By Gil Yun-hyung, Tokyo correspondent


Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/korea/articles/20150618.aspx

Korea: Death Before Disorder

June 18, 2015: In late May diplomats from the United States, South Korea, Russia, Japan and China met in Japan for a low key and informal meeting to discuss what to do about the North Korean nuclear program and the instability of North Korea in general. North Korea is refusing to discuss its nukes and the May meeting changed nothing. Meanwhile sources in Iran revealed that a North Korea technical delegation had recently visited and met with Iranian ballistic missile and nuclear experts.

North Korea confirmed that the head of the North Korean armed forces (general Hyon Yong Chol) was executed on April 30th. The reason given was that Hyon was found to have fallen asleep during a meeting presided over by Kim Jong Un. It was not confirmed that Hyon was executed using a ZPU 4 (a four barrel 14.5mm anti-aircraft machine-gun) in front of many senior officers. The Kims have often used unusual executions of senior officials to terrorize and encourage the bureaucracy that actually runs the country. Hyon was Defense Minister but that is not a particularly powerful job up there where the head of the Defense Ministry is mainly responsible for logistics and maintenance. Making public this execution has made the few hundred families that supply the senior leadership very nervous. This could be heard across the border in China where members of these families buy real estate and deposit cash in local banks, just in case. Noticing this the government ordered the military to release no further details of the execution and warn officers against spreading rumors.

The increased border security imposed since Kim Jong Un became the hereditary dictator in North Korea in 2011 has worked and the number of North Korean defectors reaching South Korea decline 52 percent (to 1,396) from the peak year (2,914 in 2009). This was accomplished with the cooperation of China. The total number of people escaping from North Korea has only declined about a third because far fewer are seeking to make it all the way to South Korea, which requires getting to a country, like Thailand, that has a South Korean embassy and local police who tolerate North Korean refugees arriving to visit the embassy for sanctuary and transportation to South Korea. For many escapees it is easier and cheaper to stay in China or go to some other country. China tolerates this as long as the North Korean illegals behave and, if caught, provide useful information about what is going on inside North Korea. While the cost of hiring a people smuggler to get you into China has doubled since 2011 there are a growing number of relatively wealthy people in North Korea (because of the legalized markets) and many of them are getting out. There are about 26,000 North Korea refugees in South Korea and about ten times as many in China and a growing number showing up, often illegally, in other countries. Over 70 percent of North Korean refugees living in South Korea are unemployed because of all the problems they have adapting. North Korea is run like a prison, with initiative and innovation (essential skills in the South Korean market economy) considered criminal behavior. The South Koreans were appalled when they began to note how ill-prepared North Koreans were to cope with freedom and democracy. Apparently many North Koreans have gotten the word as well. While more North Koreans are reaching South Korea (until recently, nearly 3,000 a year, versus about 500 a year in the late 1980s), most of them are women. Two decades ago less than ten percent of those reaching South Korea were women. But women are more adaptable and have an easier time finding a spouse in South Korea. For the North Korean men, South Korean society is actually quite hostile. Moreover, men are more closely watched in North Korea. South Korea is scrambling to find solutions to all this, but as they discovered when they studied the experience of East and West Germany reuniting, the culture shock was a generational thing. Those who were teenagers and younger could easily adapt but the older ones, who had grown up in communist East Germany, never fully adapted to life in a free market democracy. Unfortunately for South Korea, most of the northern refugees are not kids, but adults who have been conditioned to live in a police state and have chronic difficultly adapting.

Speaking of kids, parents in North Korea are alarmed at the increasing frequency of their children being questioned at school by security personnel concerning the behavior of adults in their family. In this particular the police are seeking out drug users or anyone involved with the thriving drug trade in the north. Drugs like opium, heroin and methamphetamine are manufactured by the North Korean government for export. These drugs are illegal in North Korea but some get into circulation anyway. Some methamphetamine is produced privately. It’s a dangerous way to get rich, as those caught doing this are executed, often after torture (to ensure they have revealed all they know). The government produces and exports these drugs in large quantities to obtain foreign currency.

Indicators are that popular unrest against the government up north is more common and that explains the greater and more public activities by the secret police up there. Propaganda efforts spend more attention to showing how hard leader Kim Jong Un is working to help the country. That message is diluted somewhat because Kim Jong Un has been putting on more weight in the last year. This is not good for a population that is often hungry and facing another year of bad harvests. The government doesn’t help by slowing down the implementation of promised economic reforms. The government apparently fears the growing number of families who are becoming wealthy by starting and running private enterprises. Historically such a commercial class has eventually been a threat to absolute rulers (be they socialist or royalist).

South Korea recently conducted a successful test of a locally made ballistic missile with a range of 500 kilometers. This enables South Korea to hit targets anywhere in North Korea with weapons (ballistic missiles) that North Korea is not equipped to stop. This test ends decades of restrictions on South Korean ballistic missile development. At this point the United States is no longer trying to restrict South Korean missile development. The South Koreans tried for over a decade to develop warmer relations with North Korea and all efforts failed. The 2010 North Korea attacks (using artillery and a torpedo than sank a warship) on South Korea changed a lot of attitudes in South Korea, and the United States. North Korea is still a big problem but now South Korea is free to try whatever it thinks will work.

South Korea has put nearly 7,000 people under medical quarantine in an effort to contain an outbreak of MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) a viral disease similar to influenza. South Korea becomes the first country outside Saudi Arabia to have an outbreak and so far 162 cases have been confirmed with a death rate of 12 percent. MERS was first discovered in 2012 among Saudi camels (and came to be called “camel flu”). As with most diseases like this MERS somehow got into humans (like the original flu thousands of years ago) and since 2012 nearly 700 Saudis have got it. Among Saudis the death rate was 40 percent. MERS cases have been detected in China, Sudan, United States and the Philippines so far but only in South Korea was it able to spread. In South Korea the government is getting a lot of criticism for not stopping the spread of MERS as was the case in other countries. MERS was first confirmed in South Korea in May. The Saudis have also suffered a lot of local and international criticism on how they have handled the matter. In response both Saudi Arabia and South Korea have responded more effectively. MERS spreads like the common flu, but not as quickly. It can be detected early and contained, as several nations have demonstrated. Since the only known source is Saudi Arabia (and possibly South Korea). Both countries are quarantining people who might have it and testing all people with the symptoms (similar to a bad case of flu). South Korea fears that North Korea may still be working on weaponizing diseases like MERS so that they spread faster and have a higher death rate.

Paranoia about the security of the Kim family is once more under review and being revised. This can be seen by reorganization of units and reassigning commanders. Some weaponry of military units that the Kim family frequently comes into contact with is being withdrawn. Thus one unit guarding a road frequently used by the Kims had its 14.5mm anti-aircraft machine-guns taken away. In another incident an explosives plant next to a rail line frequently used by the Kims was shut down. Many commanders of units have been transferred. This sort of thing has been going on since 2011, when a hundred troops from the Escort Bureau (the personal security force for the ruling Kim family) were assigned to the Chinese border. There, the Escort Bureau troops went after police and border guards who were taking bribes to allow people (and goods) to enter or leave the country. Previously, everyone sent to “clean up border security” has become corrupted. Those selected for the Escort Bureau are supposed to be the most loyal (to the ruling Kim family) and reliable. But given the extent of corruption in the upper echelons of the ruling class, members of the Escort Bureau were familiar with how their bosses get rich and powerful. For several weeks, the Escort Bureau men were the terror of the border region. But once their departure date approached, many of the Escort Bureau men began soliciting bribes. While the Escort Bureau troops had arrested many security personnel and civilians, they were still corruptible in the end. Thereafter the troops of the Escort Bureau were kept away from temptation and monitored more frequently by special secret police operatives selected for that duty. But now efforts to improve security for the Kims has become more public. This has been noticed inside North Korea as more photos appear in papers and on TV of leader Kim Jong Un meeting with members of the secret police and intelligence agencies.

Drought has been more common since the 1990s and it appears that another severe drought is underway. Professional weather forecasters believe that North Korea is faced with a record drought, the worst in over a century. The water shortages of the past few years have already caused a severe electricity shortages (because so much power comes from generators at dams). Since 2012 the generating capacity of these dams has sharply declined. That has reduced economic activity more each year. Thus trains (85 percent of them electrified) and factories are unable to operate, and farms producing less because irrigation pumps or farm machinery have no power. Nuclear and missile programs have priority on energy and cash for imports, but this is in short supply as well. This has led to a growing number of emergency measures. The hydroelectric shortages are worse in the cold weather, when reservoirs are at their lowest. The electricity shortages are worst in the northeast and are so bad this year that many trains are not running at all. It has gotten so bad that a major iron ore mine (a major source of foreign currency) was shut down putting thousands of miners out of work. Many of the unemployed have been ordered to “volunteer” to provide free labor to help out on farms during planting and harvesting. Same with many more city people. This farm duty has always been unpopular and incidents of open resistance are more frequent. ..........

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...0c90cc-1144-11e5-a0fe-dccfea4653ee_story.html

Middle East

Yemeni rebels persist even as their home region is destroyed in war

By Ali al-Mujahed and Hugh Naylor June 21 at 3:30 AM Follow @HughNaylor

SANAA, Yemen — Yemen’s Houthi rebels are enduring fierce bombing raids in their northern strongholds, as a Saudi-led campaign pounds neighborhoods, markets and power facilities, according to residents and aid workers.

But the insurgents have not only survived — they are threatening to push the war beyond this country’s borders.

Since early May, the rebels and their allies have launched near-daily attacks over the mountainous border into Saudi Arabia, even firing a Scud missile, according to Houthi fighters and foreign analysts. The Houthis say that they have killed dozens of Saudi soldiers and civilians.

The Saudi attacks and rebel response are raising the tempo of the three-month-old war, which has dramatically worsened a long-standing humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

“There’s a risk that with continued aerial bombardment of Houthi targets, the Houthis, in turn, will push even harder to attack southern provinces [of Saudi Arabia], creating a security disaster for the Saudis,” said Theodore Karasik, a Dubai-based expert on Middle Eastern military issues.

Analysts say that the Houthis may be trying to provoke the Saudis into launching ground attacks in northern Yemen, which could leave them with heavy casualties. In 2009, Houthi rebels killed more than 100 Saudi troops in border skirmishes. The recent Houthi cross-border attacks also may be intended to strengthen the rebels’ bargaining position at U.N.-sponsored peace talks that began Tuesday.

[In Yemen, thousands of child soldiers join the fight]

The Saudis and a mostly Arab coalition launched the air war in March, after the Houthi rebels overthrew the government of President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi and pushed to the southern city of Aden. Saudi Arabia, the region’s foremost Sunni power, views the Shiite rebels as proxies of its enemy, Shiite Iran.

Residents and aid workers say that the Saudi-led offensive has been especially devastating in northern Saada province, the Houthi heartland, a destitute farming region. There, neighborhoods and villages have been leveled, they say.

“The level of destruction in Saada is quite overwhelming,” said Teresa Sancristóval, an emergency coordinator with the aid group Doctors Without Borders. Until late last month , she worked at the Republican Hospital in Saada City, the only functioning medical center in the province. The airstrikes have hit power facilities, banks and nearly every government building, she said. She recalled that the hospital received a steady stream of wounded civilians.

Brig. Gen. Ahmed Asseri, spokesmen for the Saudi-led coalition, declined to discuss the number of coalition air raids conducted in Saada. He denied that civilians are being targeted, emphasizing that “precise weapons” are used if Houthis create “command-and-control centers among civilians.”

The Houthi leadership, based in Saada, has weathered the wave of Saudi bombings, according to rebels and analysts. Fighters use the region’s crags and caves for cover, they say. And the rebels say they are now taking the fight to their enemies.

“We’re killing their soldiers and threatening their cities,” said Ali Abdullatif, 35, a Houthi rebel who said he had participated in cross-border raids from Saada.

The Houthi fighters have been firing artillery at Saudi military posts and cities and launching guerrilla attacks on Saudi troops along the border.

In May, Houthi attacks forced the Saudis to cancel flights and close schools in Najran, a Saudi city near the border.

Earlier this month, rogue Yemeni military units working with the rebels fired a Scud missile from Saada toward Saudi Arabia’s largest air force base, located near the southwestern city of Khamis Mushait. According to Saudi media reports, the missile was intercepted. The Houthi allies appear to have a number of such missiles, which have a range of 200 miles or farther, analysts say.

Asseri, the Saudi spokesman, declined to disclose figures on Saudi forces and civilians killed in the Houthi cross-border raids.

The Saudis had hoped that their bombing campaign and an air and naval blockade of Yemen would force the Houthis to pull back to the north and allow the reinstatement of Hadi’s government, which currently operates out of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia’s capital.

But those objectives have not been achieved, dealing an embarrassing blow to Saudi Arabia’s leaders, said Christopher Davidson, an expert on Persian Gulf countries at Durham University in Britain.

He said that continued rebel attacks could be especially damaging to the credibility of Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s defense minister. The young leader is overseeing the war, which is part of a more assertive foreign policy adopted by his father, King Salman, who ascended the throne in January.

“For the Houthis to win, all they have to do is hold their positions,” Davidson said.
The war’s toll

The destruction in Saada reflects the mounting toll from the war. Millions of Yemenis are suffering shortages of food, water and fuel. Air raids and battles between Saudi-aligned militias and the Houthis and their allies have killed more than 2,500 people, wounded approximately 11,000 and displaced more than half a million, according to the United Nations.

[War in Yemen pushes health-care facilities to the brink of collapse]

The Houthi fighters honed their guerrilla tactics in Saada during an insurgency that began in 2004. After an uprising in 2011 that unseated Yemen’s longtime president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, the rebels became the country’s dominant power.

Tameem al-Shami, a health ministry spokesman in the Houthi-dominated government in the capital, Sanaa, said that the Saudi air raids have hit food markets, medical facilities and at least five ambulances in Saada. But collecting data on civilian casualties is difficult, he said.

Adnan al-Qafla, 30, said that he spent a month living in caves with his wife and two children after planes from the Saudi-led coalition began pounding his village in the Baqim area of Saada early last month.

“We tried to get back to our village to collect our belongings, but there was nothing left. Our home and 60 other homes were completely destroyed,” said Qafla, who fled to Sanaa this month.

Women and children were among those killed by the airstrikes, he said.

In a report last month, Human Rights Watch accused the Saudi coalition of targeting Saada with cluster bombs, which can be especially lethal to civilians because they scatter small munitions over a wide area.

The Houthis appear to be flaunting their attacks from Saada and other areas near the Saudi border. Video footage purporting to show recent rebel strikes on Saudi troops has been posted on social media sites, though the authenticity of the images could not be verified.

Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, a senior Houthi official based in the capital, declined to say how many raids the rebels had conducted in Saudi Arabia.

“If the Saudis don't halt their attacks, then all options are still open for us to respond,” he said by telephone.

Abdullatif, the Houthi rebel, said by telephone that the destruction in Saada has caused residents to rally around the Houthis.

“The Saudi attacks have done nothing but unite us,” he said.

Naylor reported from Beirut.

Read more

Al-Qaeda leader in Yemen is killed in U.S. drone strike
Houthi rebels in Yemen are holding multiple Americans hostage
For Saudis, Yemen conflict could be “their Vietnam”


Hugh Naylor is a Beirut-based correspondent for The Post. He has reported from over a dozen countries in the Middle East for such publications as The National, an Abu Dhabi-based newspaper, and The New York Times.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://johnbatchelorshow.com/schedules/friday-19-june-2015

John Batchelor Show

Friday 19 June 2015
Air Date: June 19, 2015

Friday 19 June 2015 / Hour 1, Block C: Gregory Copley, StrategicStudies director; GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs; & author, UnCivilization, in re: Analysis. By Gregory R. Copley, Editor, GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs. US policy officials refrain from comment on moves by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) toward acquiring a strategically significant military basing agreement in Djibouti, at the critical Strait of Bab el-Mandeb on the Red Sea-Suez sea line. But that does not mean that China’s move is not happening. And that it is also part of a commitment by Beijing to what will, within a half-decade or so, become a global string of military bases.

Pakistan Chief of Army Staff Gen. Raheel Sharif on June 10, 2015, assured the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that there would be no hurdles in the completion of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project, adding that maximum security was put in place for completion of the project. The CPEC will transform the Arabian Sea port of Gwadar into a mega-hub, linked by rail, road, pipeline, and air services to Kashgar, in the PRC’s Xinjiang province. PRC project investment would exceed $45-billion. (1 of 2)

Friday 19 June 2015 / Hour 1, Block D: Gregory Copley, StrategicStudies director; GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs; & author, UnCivilization, in re: Analysis. By Gregory R. Copley, Editor, GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs. Not one serious trend analyst seems to have a view on how to deal with the severe dislocations of global human society which will almost certainly begin in many parts of the world in a decade or two. At best, we are treated to narrow-discipline, linear projections of scientific or technological progress which could occur, assuming that the economic, social, and structural conditions prevailing today were to continue. (2 of 2)

http://johnbatchelorshow.com/podcas...ntelligence-committee-tamar-lewin-nyt-gregory

Hour Two
Friday 19 June 2015 / Hour 2, Block A: Michael Vlahos, Naval War College, in re: http://tass.ru/en/russia/802482
(US actions lead to new cold war — Putin) ;(Russia warns Sweden)http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-warns-sweden-it-wi...(1 of 2)

Friday 19 June 2015 / Hour 2, Block B: Michael Vlahos, Naval War College, in re: http://tass.ru/en/russia/802482 ; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-greeks-rush-for-their-savings-10333104.html (2 of 2)

Friday 19 June 2015 / Hour 2, Block C: Sohrab Amari, WSJ London, in re: Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini bangs his fists on the table. “Gentlemen, gentlemen!” he says. “If we do nothing else this week, we must conceive at least one terrorist act that will show all the world that the United States, the Great Satan, is but a paper tiger, a weak nation of weak people, a people ripe for destruction!” He is chairing a gathering of the infamous, among them Yasir Arafat, Muammar Gaddafi, and Mikhail Gorbachev. In the background, the man serving tea to the assemblage suddenly doffs his garb to reveal he is Frank Drebin of Police Squad. Drebin then delivers a well-deserved whupping to the whole lot of international thugs, Khomeini very much included.(1 of 2)

Friday 19 June 2015 / Hour 2, Block D: Sohrab Amari, WSJ London, in re: July/August issue of Commentary magazine and is available online, here: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-36-year-project-to-whitewash-iran-1/ (2 of 2)

http://johnbatchelorshow.com/podcas...vlahos-johns-hopkins-sohrab-ahmari-commentary

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.france24.com/en/20150620-rebels-mali-tuareg-peace-deal-algiers-accord

Malian rebels sign landmark peace deal with government

Latest update : 2015-06-21

Mali's Tuareg-led rebel alliance signed a landmark deal on Saturday to end years of unrest in a nation riven by ethnic divisions and in the grip of a jihadist insurgency.

The Algiers Accord aims to bring stability to the country's vast northern desert, cradle of several Tuareg uprisings since the 1960s and a sanctuary for Islamist fighters linked to Al-Qaeda.

The document had already been signed in May by the government and loyalist militias but the Coordination of Azawad Movements (CMA), a coalition of rebel groups, had been holding out until amendments were agreed two weeks ago.

Sidi Brahim Ould Sidati, a member of the Arab Movement of Azawad, put his name to the document in a televised ceremony in the capital Bamako on behalf of the CMA.

Dutch Foreign Minister Bert Koenders, former head of the UN peacekeeping force in Mali, and his French counterpart Laurent Fabius welcomed the CMA's commitment to the accord and urged Mali to ensure the deal was implemented.

"This responsibility lies primarily with the Malian actors and the government and armed groups must regain mutual trust - the only possibility for progress," they said in a joint op-ed in French daily Le Monde published on Friday.

"The political party leaders also have an important role to play, as well as civil society, including women and youth. In a word, reconciliation is the business of all Malians," they added.

Ramtane Lamamra, the foreign minister of Algeria, which has been leading international efforts to mediate the peace talks, attended the ceremony, along with scores of rebels.

The peace accord, hammered out over months under the auspices of the UN, calls for the creation of elected regional assemblies but stops short of autonomy or federalism for northern Mali.

'Untenable'

The Malian government and several armed groups signed the document on May 15 in Bamako, in a ceremony spurned by the CMA.

The rebels finally agreed to commit on June 5 after winning a stipulation that its fighters be included in a security force for the north, and that residents of the region be represented better in government institutions, among other concessions.

"It is a necessary and highly anticipated step, it will help to clarify the situation on the ground. Violence has increased in recent months," said Bamako-based political commentator Souleymane Drabo.

"The situation is untenable for everyone - for the people, for the United Nations and government forces."

But Drabo, a columnist at the pro-government L'Essor daily, warned that the CMA's signature did not guarantee peace.

"In 1992, a national pact was signed here between the government and armed groups and... fighting continued for three years after the signing," he said.

Mali was shaken by a coup in 2012 that cleared the way for Tuareg separatists to seize towns and cities of the north, an expanse of desert the size of Texas.

Al Qaeda-linked militants then overpowered the Tuareg, taking control of northern Mali for nearly 10 months until they were ousted in a French-led military offensive.

The country remains deeply divided, with the Tuareg and Arab populations of the north accusing sub-Saharan ethnic groups in the more prosperous south of marginalising them.

Deadliest UN mission

Loyalist militias seized the northeastern town of Menaka from the CMA in April, violating a ceasefire agreement and sparking an uptick in violence that left many dead on both sides.

The move threatened to undermine the country's already fragile and long-running peace process, but the pro-government forces later agreed to withdraw.

The Malian government has also lifted arrest warrants issued in 2013 against several CMA rebels in a further attempt to smooth the path to peace.

The MINUSMA peacekeeping force in Mali has suffered the largest losses among the UN's 16 missions worldwide, and is regularly targeted by militants in the north.

Its commander, Major General Michael Lollesgaard, said on Wednesday the force lacked the training, logistics and intelligence capabilities to effectively carry out operations.

Koenders and Fabius, in their Le Monde piece, urged European countries to step up their support for MINUSMA, which is made up largely of predominantly African troops.

"The crisis in Mali is indeed key to the interests of the whole of Europe, through the rise of terrorism and the amplification of the flow of migrants, and the UN mission plays an essential role in the stabilisation of Mali and, indirectly, the whole region," they said.

Since MINUSMA's deployment in 2013, 36 soldiers have died and more than 200 have been wounded, making it the deadliest mission since Somalia in the 1990s.

(AFP)

Date created : 2015-06-20

 

[brudog]

Thanks for the updates..

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20150622_Pentagon_chief_urges_balance_on_Russia.html

Pentagon chief urges balance on Russia

Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press
Posted: Monday, June 22, 2015, 1:07 AM

BERLIN - Defense Secretary Ash Carter said the United States and NATO need to have a "strong but balanced" approach to Russia, and he questioned whether Moscow's "backward-looking" aggressive behavior will change while Russian president Vladimir Putin remains at the helm.

Speaking to reporters traveling with him to Europe on Sunday, Carter said he can't be certain Putin will change direction, so allies must use a two-pronged approach that works with Russia on some issues while also girding to deter and respond to Moscow's aggression.

"The United States at least continues to hold out the prospect that Russia, maybe not under Vladimir Putin, but maybe sometime in the future, will return to a forward-moving course, rather than a backward-looking course," Carter said, just before arriving in Berlin.

The Pentagon chief, who will attend his first NATO meeting as secretary this week, said he wants to lay out America's balanced approach, which involves bolstering Europe's military ability to deter Russia's military actions. At the same time, allies need Moscow as they fight terrorism and hammer out a nuclear agreement with Iran.

Carter's trip comes as the European Union is expected to extend economic sanctions against Russia until January to keep pressure on Moscow over the conflict in eastern Ukraine. And it follows Putin's announcement that he will add more than 40 new intercontinental ballistic missiles that are capable of piercing any missile defenses.

Putin's remarks about the missiles were deemed "nuclear saber-rattling" by NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. Carter called it inappropriate behavior.

Carter is expected to give a speech in Berlin, travel to Estonia, and attend a NATO defense ministers' meeting this week.

A key theme at all his stops will be how the United States, NATO and other partners can best deal with the Kremlin in the wake of Moscow's annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region and its military backing of separatists battling Ukraine's government on the eastern border.

But part of the calculus, Carter said, will be a new playbook for NATO that deals with Russia's aggression while also recognizing its important role in the nuclear talks with Iran, the fight against Islamic State militants and a peaceful political transition in Syria.

Some allies are participating individually in the fight against Islamic State, but NATO has not agreed on how it should act.

Lolita C. Baldor Associated Press

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/22/us-yemen-strikes-idUSKBN0P20KC20150622

World | Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:13am EDT
Related: World, Yemen

Arab warplanes continue strikes on Houthis: residents

SANAA

More than 20 air strikes by Arab forces hit targets controlled by Houthi rebels across Yemen late on Sunday, residents said.

An Arab military coalition has been bombing the Houthis for three months to restore the country's exiled government and fend off what they see as Iranian influence.

The Houthis took over the capital Sanaa in September and spread throughout the country in a push they view as a revolution against a corrupt government but deny any military links with their allies in Tehran.

Backed up by Arab bombings and weapons drops, local fighters in Yemen's south and its main city Aden have resisted the heavily armed militia's advance.

In Aden, residents reported three raids on the Houthi-controled international airport while another bombing destroyed parts of the Ottoman-era Seera castle, a symbol of the city and the latest cultural site in Yemen to suffer damage in the war.

Along Yemen's border with Saudi Arabia, residents in Hajja province reported five air raids on buildings housing Houthi forces and their army allies, who have repeatedly clashed with Saudi forces in recent weeks.

Mainly drawn from the Shi'ite Zaydi sect, the Houthis are allied to Yemen's former president Ali Abdullah Saleh, who still has the loyalty of much of the army. They are fighting President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, who is exiled in Riyadh, and southern separatists, tribal factions and other political groups.

(Reporting by Mohammed Ghobari; Writing by Reem Shamseddine and Noah Browning; Editing by Catherine Evans)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20150622_Iranian_lawmakers_OK_inspection_ban.html

Iranian lawmakers OK inspection ban

Ladane Nasseri and David Lerman, BLOOMBERG
Posted: Monday, June 22, 2015, 1:07 AM

Iranian lawmakers approved the outlines of a bill that would ban inspections of military sites and require the lifting of all international sanctions under any nuclear deal with six world powers.

The vote, although preliminary, may complicate talks aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program as negotiators race to meet a self-imposed June 30 deadline for a deal.

The U.S. won't agree to a deal without securing the access and transparency needed to fully assess Iran's nuclear program, a State Department official said in a statement Sunday on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

About 199 of 213 lawmakers in Iran's plenum voted Sunday in favor of the measure, the state-run Mehr news agency reported. For the bill to become law, a detailed version has to be approved by parliament and the Guardian Council.

The U.S. official described the vote as a preliminary legislative step that awaits final action. Still, any perception that Iran is prepared to hinder access for international inspectors will make any deal a tougher sell in Congress, which has the power to review and possibly block it.

Diplomats from Iran and the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Russia and China are converging on Vienna, Austria, in an attempt to reach a final, comprehensive nuclear deal by June 30 that would limit Iran's nuclear program in exchange for easing international sanctions that have hobbled its economy.

Access by the International Atomic Energy Agency to some of Iran's military sites, which are deemed suspect by the U.S. and its allies, and the mechanism of sanctions removal have been points of contention in the negotiations. Iran denies its nuclear program has a military component.

The agency "will need to have the access it needs to resolve the issues of possible military dimensions of Iran's program," State Department spokesman John Kirby said at a press briefing Friday. "And without the parameters for that sort of access, there's not going to be a deal, and we've said that no deal is better than a bad deal."

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/06/whats-missing-iranian-nuclear-talks/115876/

What a Yemeni Missile Teaches Us About the Iran Deal

June 21, 2015
By Thomas Karako

The U.S. and its regional partners are going to have to work a lot harder because missiles are missing from the P5+1 nuclear negotiations.

Middle East / Commentary / Yemen

One may be forgiven for not noticing that Saudi Arabia on June 6 used Patriot missiles to intercept a Scud-class missile fired by Houthi rebels in Yemen. Besides adding the Saudis to the very short list of states that have intercepted a ballistic missile fired in anger, the episode holds several lessons about regional security concerns — and in particular, about Iran’s ongoing missile development.

Among them: the U.S. and its regional partners are going to have to work a lot harder because missiles are missing from the P5+1 nuclear negotiations.

Iran’s missile program, the largest and most diverse in the region, includes the 2,000-km Shahab-3, the solid-fuel Sejil of similar range, shorter-range rockets, anti-ship missiles and a new long-range cruise missile. A comprehensive approach to Iran’s nuclear capability would have dealt with its longer-range ballistic missiles, likely its preferred nuclear delivery system. The State Department originally pushed to include them in negotiations—but Tehran pushed back and Washington backed down. This is unfortunate; Iran’s retention of long-range missiles makes more problematic its likely future status as a threshold nuclear weapons state.

Missile limitations are sometimes seen as the lesser stepchild in the nonproliferation family, but they have actually been instrumental in arms control. Early arms-control treaties with the Soviets did not regulate nuclear weapons or enrichment at all, but rather the missiles and bombers to deliver them. Other nations that agreed to give up nuclear programs — for example, South Africa and Libya — did so in tandem with missile limitations. In general, long-range missile development has been an excellent historical indicator of both intent to acquire nuclear weapons and of good faith in agreements to roll such programs back. And missile testing and possession is easier to spy upon than, say, underground nuclear enrichment, materials, assembly, storage, or testing.

But since the better diplomatic solution to Iran’s longer-range missiles seems to be off the table, the U.S. and our regional partners will likely have to pursue more difficult and expensive counters.

The first step will be to continue to degrade missile development — indirectly, through the continued enforcement of missile sanctions, and directly, with covert sabotage. Both will clearly be harder when sanctions are lifted and relations more normalized. The Yemeni missile episode reminds us of the limits of counter-proliferation agreements. In 2002, the U.S. boarded the North Korean ship So San, in which 15 Scuds were hidden under sacks of cement. Yemen finally admitted that it bought the missiles, so under international law they were allowed to be delivered.

Second, America’s regional partners in the Middle East must improve their ability to destroy Iranian missiles on the ground. The Yemen missile launch demonstrates both the value and the limits of this “left-of-launch” approach. Saudi aircraft had already struck the believed locations of Houthi missiles and likely got most of them. After the launch was detected, aircraft destroyed the launcher, precluding further attack.

But this episode, along with numerous failed “Scud hunts” in Iraq, show that finding launchers isn’t easy. And in North Korea, in 2006, intelligence assets focused on the peninsula were prepared for the conspicuous Taepo-Dong launch—but were surprised when Pyongyang fired shorter-range mobile missiles into the sea. The clunky Scud missed by the Saudis would have been harder to hide than Iran’s mobile solid-fuel missiles. For this mission, partners are likely to want F-16 Block 60s and other standoff weapons.

The third needed response will be preparing to destroy missiles after launch. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar have already spent billions on Patriot and THAAD defenses, and more spending is in the pipeline for both sensors and shooters. Missile defenses are now established as part of a mix of warfighting capabilities. As seen with Yemen, defenses ride out an early missile attack until offensive forces can strike.

The joint statement issued after the recent GCC summit reiterated a call for missile-defense cooperation that would yield more protection than states acting independently. Cooperation should include real-time information sharing, especially early warning and tracking; purchase of additional sensors and interceptors, including by the GCC as an entity; and development of operational concepts to predesignate who shoots at which incoming missiles and when.

Even if a nuclear deal meets every White House goal, the potential for Iran to break the deal and quickly build a nuclear weapon means that the U.S. and partners in the region will have to maintain or acquire better capabilities to hedge President Barack Obama’s bet. It won’t be cheap or politically easy, but this is the price of omitting delivery systems from key discussions.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defenseone.com/managemen...w-small-nuclear-bombs/115765/?oref=d-mostread

Report: US Needs New Small Nuclear Bombs

June 21, 2015
By Marcus Weisgerber

CSIS’ Clark Murdock argues that only such weapons can deter rogue states from seeking nukes of their own.

Nuclear / Budget

The United States should develop new low-yield, tactical nuclear weapons to deter countries from seeking nuclear weapons of their own, a new think-tank report says. It also also argues that the U.S. should base more nuclear weapons around the world to better deter attacks.

“Forward deploying a robust set of discriminate nuclear response options conveys the message that the United States will ‘respond in kind’ and proportionately to nuclear attacks on its allies,” wrote Clark Murdock, a former Pentagon policy official who is now a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

CSIS’ “Project Atom” report, provided to Defense One in advance of its June 22 release, was produced by Murdock and eight co-authors as a “zero-based, blue-sky” look at American’s nuclear arsenal. It challenges the Obama administration’s policy of seeking to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in national strategy, and argues for new bombs, missiles, and delivery platforms to replace the ones that have been around since the Cold War.

Murdock’s report comes just days after Russian President Vladimir Putin said Moscow would deploy 40 new intercontinental ballistic missiles. It also comes as the Obama administration faces a handful of decisions on nuclear modernization, including proposals to develop new weapons.

https://admin.govexec.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/nukeforcebudget.png

The report recommends the U.S. keep its “rough parity” with Russia and “nuclear superiority” over China. It also suggests the U.S.“maintain sufficient capability to cope simultaneously with nuclear-armed ‘regional rogues’” and “maintain a smaller stockpile, which is enabled by a responsive infrastructure.”

In the report, Murdock argues that the superiority of the American military will lead certain countries to seek nuclear arms as an asymmetric counter.

“The value of nuclear weapons as a ‘trump card’ for negating U.S. conventional power was enhanced by the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” the report says. “If the United States apparently believes that it can be deterred by an adversary’s nuclear weapons, why wouldn’t a nonnuclear ‘regional rogue’ want one?”

Authors’ Dissent

But not all of Murdock’s co-authors agree.

Barry Blechman and Russell Rumbaugh of the Stimson Center argue that the American military is so far superior to its global counterparts that “nuclear weapons add few options” to the U.S. palette. “Indeed, given U.S. conventional military superiority, nuclear weapons serve no military role for the United States beyond deterring nuclear attacks on itself and its allies,” they write in one of the report’s appendices.

Blechman and Rumbaugh formed one of three think-tank teams — the others came from the Center for a New American Security and the National Institute for Public Policy — that contributed to the report, along with experts from CSIS and elsewhere. Under a methodology dubbed the “competitive strategies approach,” each of the teams produced their own analyses, which were discussed by the report’s authors and ultimately included as appendices. But the final report represents Murdock’s conclusions alone.

“As the author of the final report, my views were shaped and influenced by the debate among the independent think tank teams, but did not attempt to bridge the differences on fundamentals between the competing approaches,” he wrote.

Time to Rebuild?

After the end of the Cold War, the military seemed to lose focus on its nuclear mission. In 2007, the Air Force mistakenly flew nuclear weapons across the country on a B-52 bomber; the next year, it accidentally shipped ICBM fuses to Taiwan. There have also been cheating controversies throughout the Air Force and Navy nuclear ranks.

“The various scandals of the past decade were a symptom of the post-Cold War failure to believe in the nuclear mission, think seriously about deterrence, and invest and act accordingly,” said Thomas Karako, a senior fellow at CSIS and one of the Project Atom authors.

After a cheating scandal erupted under his watch, former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel placed the nuclear forces under close watch. He began regular visits to ICBM, bomber, and submarine bases. And along with other senior Pentagon officials, he began talking about the importance of nuclear forces down the road.

“The next decade includes a swell of investments to recapitalize the triad and the weapons themselves,” Karako said. “We’re paying the piper now, with interest, for having taken a peace dividend of the 1990s and our nuclear allergy in the 2000s. But the real deficit has been in thinking seriously about nuclear deterrence.”

In coming months, the Pentagon is expected to award a contract for a stealthy new Air Force bomber, a plane that officials say will eventually carry nuclear weapons. The Navy is also planning to buy new ballistic-missile submarines to replace its Ohio class. But these projects are expensive, and Pentagon officials have questioned their affordability.

Murdock argues the Pentagon needs a more diverse suite of nuclear weapons. “In order to execute its Measured Response strategy, the nuclear forces for both deterrence and extended deterrence should have low-yield, accurate, special-effects options that can respond proportionately at the lower end of the nuclear continuum,” he writes.

This could also include a “smaller, shorter-range cruise missile that could be delivered by F-35s” including the ones that will someday operate from the Navy’s aircraft carriers, Murdock said.

Karako said, “Without completing the current slate of modernization programs, we can’t even sustain our current deterrent capabilities from the 20th century – let alone go further, adapting and expanding our force to the challenges of the 21st. Project Atom represents a thinking competition of sorts, for what that may require.”

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?lng=en&id=191630

22 June 2015

Iran's Nuclear Program: Winning the Long Game

Is it possible to dissuade Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons over the long haul? Not if the West ignores the importance of the nuclear program to Iranian society, says Jarrod Hayes. That’s why Western policies must 1) downplay the program’s significance; 2) normalize its presence in the global arena; & 3) encourage Tehran to develop other high-tech industries.

By Jarrod Hayes for ISN

While Russian activity in Ukraine, migrants at sea in the Mediterranean, and the renewed possibility of a Greek exit from the Euro have claimed the headlines, the confrontation and negotiations between the permanent members of the UN Security Council (P5) along with Germany (+1) and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program continue. On April 2, 2015 the parties agreed upon a broad framework that left many questions unanswered, particularly relating to verification of Iranian compliance. Many of those answers are due to be delivered—or not—by the June 30 deadline for a technical framework agreement. Thus, while the situation may have taken a backseat in the current news cycle, it remains critically important—and contentious. While the Obama Administration in the US projects an upbeat assessment, others are more pessimistic. French leaders are highlighting concerns over verification. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been outspoken in his opposition and visited the United States in March 2015 in an effort to undermine U.S. domestic support. Several political figures, from Saudi Ambassador to the United States Adel al-Jubeir to U.S. Senator John McCain to former Defense Intelligence Agency director retired Lt. General Michael Flynn have sought to link the nuclear deal with Iran’s broader regional behavior, implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) arguing that the nuclear deal should not take place until Iran becomes a better international citizen.

These debates along with the looming deadline for a technical framework agreement should open up a broader discussion in the United States regarding the underlying assumptions of U.S. policy towards Iran. Without doing so, the broad framework agreed in April is likely to be a brief but quickly extinguished flash of hope. All too often, U.S. policy regarding Iran’s nuclear program focuses on the leaders of that country, seeking to change their political calculations. As a consequence, policy discussions in the United States pay scant attention to the political conditions that Iran’s nuclear program operates within. These conditions set the stage for political action, restraining potentially pragmatic leaders like Rowhani while empowering agitators like former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The social psychology of the Iranian nuclear deal

A critical component of the political context is the social significance of the nuclear program. Indeed, by failing to understand what the nuclear program means to Iranian society, U.S. policy has made the development of nuclear weapons more, not less, likely. Why more likely? By disregarding what the nuclear program means to Iranian society, the United States has pursued policies that make it impossible for pragmatic leaders to alter the trajectory of Iranian policy while giving hardline politicians the political fuel to push the nuclear program into dangerous territory. U.S. policy does so by highlighting the international importance of the nuclear program while simultaneously denying Iranians other avenues for asserting national success and establishing a positive international status. The increased focus on tying a nuclear deal to Iran’s purported regional behavior compounds this problem.

It might be easiest to understand the counterproductive effects of U.S. policy by examining what the nuclear program means for Iran’s status in three areas. The first is Iran’s place as a modern state. Despite the fact that nuclear technology is now 70 years old, it remains the case that developing a complete nuclear energy program is a significant technological feat. By successfully pursuing nuclear energy, Iran stakes a claim as a modern, technologically advanced country. The role of the nuclear program in asserting this identity is all the more significant because of the relative poverty of the rest of the intellectual economy. While sanctions have gutted much of Iran’s economy, the nuclear program stands as a shining example of the intelligence and capability of the Iranian people and thus as a source of national pride. Work in social psychology, specifically Social Identity Theory, is very clear on the importance of positive distinctiveness as a basis of social cohesion. Put another way, social collectives, like the individuals that comprise them, want to feel good about themselves. The drive for that positive distinctiveness can fuel conflictual behavior, as in the case of rival nationalisms. In the Iranian case, we should understand the nuclear energy program as tied to the image of positive distinctiveness held by Iranians about themselves

The second area of significance relates to Iran’s turbulent history of international relations in the 20th century. While most Americans are oblivious to the history of the United States in the region, Iranians are not so quick to forget American foreign policy that was central in overthrowing a rightfully elected prime minister (Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953), supporting an oppressive regime (the Shah), and aiding an aggressor (Iraq) in a war that killed at least 300,000 Iranians and saw the use of chemical weapons against Iran. The United States has also imposed economic sanctions since 1979. I raise these points to highlight the legitimate feeling of victimization held by Iranians. The nuclear program thus stands as a break with this history. While victimization suggests weakness and a loss of control, the nuclear program projects strength and control over the country’s destiny.

Finally, the nuclear program serves as a signal that Iran is on par with the leading states of the international system. Again, in the context of marginalization by the United States, the significance of this for Iranian society is difficult to overstate. Economic sanctions have diminished much of Iran’s economic capabilities. The country is politically isolated. For any society, the natural response to a sense of marginalization or diminution is to find ways to assert self worth. Positive distinctiveness enters the picture again. Groups seek to assert their collective positive distinctiveness, particularly when others deny it. There are few things that so obviously establish positive distinctiveness as a nuclear program. In the Iranian context, where there are few other options for establishing distinctiveness, the nuclear program assumes even greater social weight.

Setting a new path

U.S. policymakers have failed to appreciate these social dynamics, and in doing so exacerbated them. The Bush Administration focused almost exclusively on the nuclear program and emphasized ‘sticks’ in its policy. By making the nuclear program the primary basis of engagement, the Bush Administration amplified the first and third social dynamics, while the use of coercive penalties fed into the shared Iranian sense of victimization. The Obama Administration has done little better. The efforts to extend sanctions and tie a nuclear deal to Iran’s regional behavior further exacerbate the problem of positive distinctiveness. Policymakers might argue that external pressure creates political fissures, thus undermining the political leadership and the nuclear program. These arguments have been shown to be faulty. Rather than generate political tensions internally, the external pressure reinforces social dynamics that push the nuclear program forward. The popularity of the program is such that even the Green movement that erupted in the aftermath of the contested 2009 presidential election supported Iran’s nuclear program. U.S. policymakers are overdue for a rethink of the basic assumptions on which policy is predicated.

What, then, does the Obama and future administrations need to do? Admittedly, the problem will not go away quickly. Thus, the kinds of policies needed are the type that pay off long after politicians leave office. Still, there are things the Obama Administration can do now to begin addressing the social dynamic within Iran. First, enable the development of Iran’s intellectual economy. Expand opportunities for Iranian students to study in the United States. Permit investment by engineering, science, and technology firms in Iran. Reduce or eliminate sanctions on technology and engineering exports. Second, address the history of victimization. Apologize for past mistakes. Retarget sanctions to focus on the political leadership while minimizing the impact on society. Downplay the significance of the nuclear program in U.S.-Iran relations. Third, treat Iran like a significant player in the international system but oppose it where it works to destabilize neighboring countries. Address its nuclear program through the same international institutions that other states abide by. Offer an immediate shift in policy predicated on Iranian accession to the Nonproliferation Treaty’s Additional Protocol. That is, treat Iran’s program not as something exceptional, but instead as something normal and governed by existing international institutions. These and other policies addressing the social underpinnings of the nuclear program are the only hope the international community has of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons in the long term.

Jarrod Hayes is an Assistant Professor of International Affairs at the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs at the George Institute of Technology. His research focus is international security and foreign policy analysis. He received his PhD from the University of Southern California.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-do-you-fix-a-problem-like-korea/article/2566710

Editorials: National Security

How do you fix a problem like Korea?

Doug Bandow • | June 22, 2015 | 12:01 am

Out of all America's massive foreign policy challenges — China, Russia, the Middle East, to name only the most obvious — North Korea is perhaps the least tractable. For a quarter century, Washington has tried both engagement and isolation, but the Hermit Kingdom's behavior has remained unchanged, except that it is now a nuclear power and could develop an arsenal to match Israel's or Pakistan's fairly soon.

That's not good news, but it's not as bad as it seems. The tyranny in Pyongyang has never been and doesn't pretend to be a global power competing with Washington. It aims its rhetoric and weapons at America simply because we're the superpower on its border. War with Pyongyang poses an existential threat to the Republic of Korea, but it's a matter of choice for Washington.

North Korea has existed longer than the People's Republic of China and almost as long as the Soviet Union did. It emerged from the rubble of the Second World War after Japan's defeat. Washington and Moscow divided the Korean peninsula between them with each occupying approximately half, and created two client states — both authoritarian, aggressive, impoverished and dependent. The Soviets armed the north, headed by former guerrilla leader Kim Il-sung, but Washington denied the republic equivalent arms because President Syngman Rhee threatened to use them in a march north. The Korean War began barely five years after Hiroshima was destroyed, and it was greatly prolonged by China's joining in and fighting alongside the north.

Millions died or were displaced, both Koreas' economies were wrecked, and the peninsula was devastated. As the Cold War deepened, the so-called Demilitarized Zone along the 38th parallel dividing north and south, became the most heavily militarized frontier on earth. The two Koreas fell into their own cold war, with occasional hot-war flare-ups, and it has lasted long after the point at which the original Cold War is regarded as ancient history by the millennial generation. Yet America reluctantly remains in the middle of it all.

Kim Il-sung created the most totalitarian state on Earth, with a suffocating personality cult, a system of social classification and a security apparatus that continues to mete out barbarous punishments to the many people whom the regime deems to be its enemies. At one point, North Koreans were sorted into 51 different categories, and 150,000 or more were imprisoned in labor camps. At least half a million people died of starvation in the late 1990s.

Some outside observers hoped Kim's successors would lift the tyranny, but it has persisted as brutally as ever through the regimes of his son and now his grandson. Political repression is harsher than ever and escape to China is more difficult. People no longer are starving, but obtaining adequate food remains a challenge for many.

North Korea is not much better a friend than it is a foe. Neither Moscow nor Beijing has found it a predictable partner. Kim Il-sung cemented his control by purging Koreans aligned with either of his communist allies. He criticized minimal reforms in Russia after Stalin, and was scathing about China's for the Cultural Revolution. He vilified Moscow for recognizing the south after the end of the Cold War, although of necessity it reluctantly accepted China's normalization of relations with Seoul. Until recently, North Korea's had virtually no relationship with Russia, and ties with China are increasingly strained.

North Korea has evolved into a communist monarchy, with Kim Jong-il succeeding his father in 1994, and being followed by his third son, Kim Jong-un, in 2011. What do we know of Jong-un? That he briefly attended school in Switzerland and is apparently a fan of the Chicago Bulls basketball team (hence his apparently-reciprocated fascination with Dennis Rodman).

Although the despots have routinely inflicted horrors on the populace, they have until recently given some measure of security to their courtiers. Once Kim Il-sung had destroyed opposing factions, those around him were largely loyalists, many of whom had served with him against the Japanese. Officials rose and fell, and some occasionally suffered from mysterious deaths. But public executions, especially of family members, were rare.

But Pyongyang politics now appear to have become far bloodier. Defense Minister Hyon Yong-chol was executed recently, ostensibly for falling asleep at meetings. His fate, both quick and unexpected, suggested something more serious, however, such as involvement in plots against the younger leader.

At least half of North Korea's top 218 officials have been shifted since Jong-un came to power. Most of those who carried Kim Jong-il's coffin have disappeared. One of three "regents" created by Kim Jong-il for his son, Vice Marshal Ri Yong-ho, unexpectedly "retired" after an unusual Presidium meeting in July 2012. He is rumored to have been imprisoned or murdered. Jang, another "regent," was charged with treason and quickly executed. Aunt Kim Kyong-hui, the third "regent," has disappeared.

Overall, some 500 officials have been executed since Kim Jong-un took power, 70 of them high-level. Fifteen have been killed so far this year. While the sheer numbers are significant, so too is the fact they many have been made public.

A Hong Kong newspaper claimed, falsely, that Uncle Jang was fed to a pack of starving dogs. Minister Hyon was said to be shot with an anti-aircraft gun. The Hermit Kingdom has been a land in which the improbable is actually fairly likely. But there are also many false ideas about the place, because reliable information is so scarce. After I first visited more than two decades ago, for example, a State Department official asked me if North Koreans wore socks. (The answer was yes).

A supposedly knowledgeable analyst once claimed that trucks were not allowed in Pyongyang when in truth they are more common that normal cars. The story about the execution by hungry dog pack was invented as satire. The anti-aircraft fire story reflects one interpretation of satellite photos, not reliable eye-witness accounts.

Jong-un's behavior sustains the belief that he is impulsive. He appears to be either uniquely cruel or fearful, perhaps both. After consolidating power, his grandfather was able to relax a little. Il-sung's son, Jong-il, was also secure before succeeding his father because he had made so many senior appointments while his father was still alive. So he, too, saw no need to take precipitous action against his colleagues. Equally important, no one may have been willing to challenge his rule for the same reason.

The newest despot, however, enjoyed no such advantages. His succession was rushed. He was surrounded by officials appointed by his father. The capital probably teemed with party apparatchiks, soldiers, security officials and family members who believed it was their turn to take control. It is far better in Pyongyang to be No. 1 than to be anywhere else in the hierarchy.

Kim probably has only a shaky grip on power, and knows it. He may hope to eliminate even the slightest hint of opposition, and if he cows his court sufficiently he might be able to moderate his approach accordingly. But the lesson offered by Joseph Stalin, who was at his bloodiest after taking complete control, does not suggest this is likely. And in the short-term, at least, Kim has made his regime even more unstable by changing Pyongyang's political game so radically. If dozing off in a meeting means death, regicide makes some sense.

Still, the chief problem with North Korea for the rest of the world is not the "grotesque, grisly, horrendous public displays of executions on a whim and a fancy," mentioned by Secretary of State John Kerry. Nor is it the breathtaking human rights violations against ordinary people.

No, the nature of the North Korean regime matters because it possesses advanced conventional military forces and a growing arsenal of missiles and weapons of mass destruction. It has chemical weapons and abundant missiles. It is working on longer-range missiles that could strike North America. While no one actually knows its nuclear capabilities in detail, recent estimates suggest it will have 20 warheads by next year and 50-100 by 2020. Analysts disagree about whether Pyonyang has miniaturized weapons so they can be mounted on missiles, and it almost certainly faked photos of a submarine missile launch. But that episode suggests a North Korean goal.

The Kim dynasty's chief objective appears to be survival. Kim and company would doubtless be pleased to forcibly reunify the peninsula. but behind their rhetorical threats against America appears to be a realistic appreciation of U.S. power. South Korea, with twice the population of the north, can defend itself. It has far more advanced technology and greater international reach, having formed strong relationships with the north's only potential allies, China and Russia. Probably neither would help Pyongyang if it started another war.

But even if a North Korean attack is unlikely, its nukes make this small, bankrupt and isolated dictatorship a problem, for they create opportunities for extortion against wealthy, fearful neighbors such as South Korea and Japan. Developing the ultimate weapon also rewards the military for its loyalty.

The north has never followed through on its threat to turn Seoul into a "lake of fire," but it does commit lesser provocations. In 2010, it sank a South Korean ship and bombarded a South Korean island, but then backed off in the face of South Korean threats of retaliation. Kim Jong-un may lack his father's sure touch about how far to go, but he has avoided any serious international missteps so far.

Despite fears that it would sell nuclear materials to terrorists, Pyongyang has made them available only to governments, and thus has not crossed what would surely be a red line triggering American action. Nothing suggests Pyongyang will take such a step, risking the new security that its nuclear advances brought it.

Simply put, the Kim dynasty is evil, but not remotely suicidal. They prefer their virgins in this world rather than the next.

What makes the north such a challenge is that there is no obvious solution to any aspect of its malignant behavior. There isn't much that Washington and its allies, or even China, can do to keep it in check.

Current policy, combining isolation with an offer to negotiate if the north moves toward denuclearization, has failed. Pyongyang steadily built its nuclear arsenal and improved its missiles with international condemnation as background noise. It has proved more likely to behave provocatively when it thinks it was being ignored.

Some policymakers, such as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., suggested war is an option. But even without nuclear weapons, the north could turn the south's political, industrial and population heart into the threatened lake of fire. And Pyongyang is likely to see any military action as the start of full-scale war and an effort at regime change, prompting massive retaliation.

Decades of international sanctions have achieved little. North Koreans have suffered but the regime remains. It has made a virtue of isolation, calling it "Juche," the philosophy of self-reliance. The new Kim appears to be reaching out more overseas, but the bulk of North Korea's trade remains with China. Tightened controls would have little impact without Beijing's backing. China can veto any United Nations measure with which it disagrees and so far has consistently undercut American proposals for tougher action. It remains Pyongyang's economic lifeline.

The Obama administration has asked Beijing without success to press North Korea to be reasonable by cutting off food and energy supplies. China is unhappy with its unpredictable client but values stability over denuclearization, and is unwilling to make North Korean collapse more likely. It doesn't want conflict on its doorstep with loose nukes and mass refugee flows. Nor does Beijing want to encourage Korean reunification that would put the peninsula under American control with U.S. troops on its border.

All this means negotiation is the only remaining option, not that it is possible to retain illusions of success. Virtually no one believes Pyongyang will give up its nukes. The benefits of keeping them are too great. Jong-un is unlikely to provoke his marginally loyal military by negotiating away their most powerful weapon.

But the north might be willing to agree to other U.S. objectives, such as a cap on nuclear activity, pull-back of conventional forces, greater international transparency or discussion on human rights. Beginning a dialogue, even initiating a diplomatic presence, however small, would at least offer the U.S. a window into an otherwise mysterious and closed society.

More importantly, the U.S. should turn South Korea's defense over to Seoul. North Korea threatens America only because the U.S. has stations troops in the Korean peninsula. The need for such a presence disappeared years ago. South Korea developed a prosperous democracy, racing far past the north on almost every measure. Seoul has taken on an increasingly important international role. Its final step should be to take over the task of deterring the north. It's a dirty job, but it should be the responsibility of South Koreans rather than Americans after all these years.

Washington would no longer be a scapegoat for North Korea, useful as a demon to inflame support for the regime. South Korea no longer would look to America as the lead in dealing with North Korea. China no longer could take advantage of the U.S. by demanding concessions from Washington to "help" by pushing Pyongyang into one set of international talks or another. Washington should still be interested in Northeast Asia and ready to cooperate with its friends.

North Korea's communist monarchy could last decades longer.


Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Tripwire: Korea and U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changed World, and co-author of The Korean Conundrum: America's Troubled Relations with North and South Korea.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/editorial/AJ201506220017

EDITORIAL: Russia needs to move past its outdated Cold War mentality

June 22, 2015

Russia’s nuclear saber rattling is totally unacceptable.

President Vladimir Putin recently announced a plan to add 40 intercontinental ballistic missiles to Moscow’s nuclear arsenal this year.

Putin’s announcement has been viewed by the international community as a signal of his intention to use nuclear threats to intimidate Western powers. Tensions have flared anew between Russia and the West over Moscow's role in the Ukraine crisis.

Nuclear arms are inhumane weapons that must never be used in any situation.

Putin, who has made a series of outrageous remarks harking back to the 20th-century era of nuclear deterrence, needs to shake off this outdated Cold War thinking.

The United States, Europe and Japan should send Putin a clear message of intolerance to his nuclear blackmail.

Recently, Russia has been showing a disturbing inclination to flex its nuclear muscle.

Putin, for example, said in a documentary aired in March that the Kremlin was ready to put its nuclear forces on alert to deter intervention when Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula last spring.

During massive military drills in the Arctic in March, Russia reportedly tested a system of combat communications with its naval nuclear forces for launching nuclear attacks.

Putin’s remarks about new ICBM deployments came as another example of his escalating nuclear rhetoric.

Washington and Moscow are still bound by the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that requires both countries to reduce their strategic nuclear weapons to certain levels.

But Russia has been cutting back on its nuclear arsenal at a faster pace than required by the treaty, raising expectations of some new deployments.

For this reason, some experts argue that Putin’s plan to deploy new ICBMs does not necessarily represent a violation of the treaty.

Even so, by playing up his country’s nuclear arms buildup, the Russian president has brazenly defied the international community’s fervent wish to see the world move toward a nuclear-free future.

However, it is doubtful whether Moscow actually has the fiscal wherewithal to expand its nuclear arsenal.

If he tried to boost his popularity at home by demonstrating his hard-line stance toward the West, Putin would end up causing Russia to be even more internationally isolated.

If Moscow really deploys these ICBMs, tensions between Russia and Western powers will inevitably heighten further.

More than anything else, this kind of nuclear saber rattling runs counter to the spirit of the nuclear nonproliferation regime, which is designed to reduce the role of nuclear arms in national security.

If the perception that possessing nuclear weapons is effective for national security spreads internationally, many countries facing various regional security challenges could be tempted to go nuclear.

The United States and Europe should clearly demonstrate to Russia that it would gain nothing through nuclear provocation while continuing cool-headed diplomatic efforts based on a “dialogue and pressure” approach to make Moscow think twice.

The West also needs to repeatedly demand that Russia comply with international law and respect the territorial integrity of neighboring countries.

In addition to strategic nuclear arms, there are a slew of other sticky arms reduction issues between Russia and the Western powers.

In particular, both sides should immediately start effective efforts to reduce and eliminate tactical nuclear weapons such as nuclear bombs and short-range missiles designed for battlefield use.

As a nation that experienced firsthand the nuclear devastation caused by the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan has a significant role to play in promoting nuclear arms reduction.

In addition to government-level efforts, Japanese civil society should also make a direct appeal to the Russian people for actions in support of the abolition of nuclear weapons.

--The Asahi Shimbun, June 21

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.yahoo.com/austere-brand-islam-rise-europe-stirring-concerns-093923963.html

Austere brand of Islam on rise in Europe, stirring concerns

Associated Press By ELAINE GANLEY
23 hours ago

PARIS (AP) — Its imams preach austere piety, its tenets demand strict separation of sexes — and some of its most radical adherents are heeding the call of jihad. Salafism, an Islamic movement based on a literal reading of the Quran, is on the rise in France, Germany and Britain, security officials say, with Salafis sharply increasing their influence in mosques and on the streets.

The trend worries European authorities, who see Salafism as one of the inspirational forces for young Europeans heading to Syria or Iraq to do battle for the Islamic State group. Experts, however, point out that the vast majority of Salafis are peace-loving.

In Germany, there are currently about 7,000 Salafis in the country — nearly double the 3,800 estimated four years ago, the Interior Ministry said last month. About 100 French mosques are now controlled by Salafis, a small number compared to the more than 2,000 Muslim houses of worship, but more than double the number four years ago, a senior security official told The Associated Press. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. France does not do head-counts by religious practices or origins.

In Britain the numbers are on the rise, too. Seven percent of Britain's 1,740 mosques are run by Salafis, according to Mehmood Naqshbandi, an expert on Britain's Muslims and counter-extremism adviser to the British government who keeps a database of the various currents of Islam in Britain. He says those numbers are steadily growing, especially among young people — and that a quarter to half of British Muslims under 30 "accept some parts or all of the Salafi theology."

Today, the Internet is largely seen as the main route for youth to quickly radicalize. But radicalization can be cultivated in places where Muslims socialize, like mosques. And there, said the French security official, it is Salafis who are considered the principle purveyors of radical ideology.

Experts say Salafis in France have been waging a campaign of stealth to take over mosques. First they develop a following, then begin criticizing the imam in order to win control over the faithful, security officials and moderate Muslims say. Youth and converts to Islam are considered the most vulnerable to such messages.

Experts of Islam divide Salafis into three groups: the traditional brand of "quietists" who eschew politics; those who become politicized; and the hardcore worshippers who follow the call of jihad.

Today, Salafism has become a buzzword for danger. In Germany, authorities consider all Salafis as extremists, and security officials in Europe believe there is a direct line from the peaceful version to the version that embraces jihad — and risks tempting the fragile into fanaticism.

"The bridge is short," said Alain Rodier, a former intelligence officer who is now a terrorism specialist.

Salafism, in principle, should not be a cause for concern, said Naqshbandi, the British expert. But, he said, the very simplicity of its message means anyone can warp it to his own ends.

"People who want to pursue militant political Islam have a set of tools available ... which they can twist to argue their case," Naqshbandi said. He called the Islamic State group, which champions Salafism, the prime example of how the theology can be abused.

Those who practice Salafism — which comes from the word "salafs," or ancestors — seek to emulate the Islam of the prophet Muhammad and his early followers, which they consider the purest form of the religion. Salafis, who are Sunni Muslims, are easily identifiable. Men wear beards and robes above the ankle and women often cover their faces.

A mosque outside Lyon won an unusual case last week against a Salafi worshipper taken to court after months of tension. Faouzi Saidi, 51, was convicted of troubling public order inside a house of worship and fined. He admitted to criticizing the imam for what he claimed were theological lapses, but claimed he only once held "parallel prayers" in a corner with a group of followers.

The case was thought to be the first in France by Muslims against a Muslim invoking a 1905 law to guarantee secularism — used by the government to pass bans on headscarves and face-covering veils.

France has worked to put a safety ring around Islam since deadly January terror attacks in Paris, seeking to stifle the spread of extremism in areas considered fertile terrain. Authorities have notably started taking down Internet sites that glorify terrorism and are pressing ahead with a training program to instill imams with French values.

Critics say police often infringe upon the freedom of worship in their mission to monitor Salafi extremists. "It would be naive to think there is never a risk," said Samir Amghar, a specialist on Salafism. But to consider that every sign of ultraconservative Islam presents a danger "risks stigmatizing a large majority of Muslims."

And some Salafis say that the common image of their lives as being one of rigid worship — with no enjoyment — is a myth.

Olivier Corel, a Salafi who reportedly figured in the religious life of Mohammed Merah — who killed three children, a rabbi and three paratroopers in 2012 — went skiing with his wife in the Pyrenees in January.

"We have fun. We have fun. We have fun," his wife told the AP by telephone, before hanging up.

Rachid Abou Houdeyfa, a Salafi imam in the western French city of Brest known for his You Tube sermons of do's and don'ts, created one video showing himself and a buddy in a pleasure boat and titled it "Can One Have Fun?"

"We're going swimming," he said before diving into the water.

___

David Rising in Berlin and Sylvia Hui in London contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-show-more-flexibility-reach-nuclear-deal-uk-070605442.html

Iran will need to show more flexibility to reach nuclear deal: UK

Reuters
2 hours ago

LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) - Iran will need to show more flexibility to reach a nuclear deal with the six powers it is negotiating with, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said on Monday, suggesting the talks might go on beyond a June 30 deadline.

"There will need to be some more flexibility shown by our Iranian partners if we are going to reach a deal, but, look, this is a negotiation, we always expected it would go right to the line and maybe beyond the line," Hammond told reporters as he arrived for a European Union foreign ministers meeting in Luxembourg.

"So I think the serious negotiations are now getting underway and over the next week or so I hope we will start to see some real progress," he said.

Hammond is due to hold talks later with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif as well as the EU's foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and the foreign ministers of Germany and France.

Asked if it would matter if the June 30 deadline slipped by a few days, he said: "Let's see where we get to. We are pushing hard to get there."

(Reporting by Adrian Croft; editing by Philip Blenkinsop)

View Comments (13)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.france24.com/en/20150622-moscow-powerless-stop-russians-fighting-ukraine

22 June 2015 - 11H25

Moscow 'powerless to stop' Russians from fighting in Ukraine

MOSCOW (AFP) -

The secretary of Russia's security council said Monday it is impossible to stop Russians from going to fight in Ukraine because they are guided by "emotions."

Nikolai Patrushev, the hawkish former chief of the federal security service (FSB) who currently sits at the helm of President Vladimir Putin's group of security advisors, said the conflict is fuelled by US attempts to wipe out Russia.

"We don't call on people to go and we don't reward them. But really, it is impossible to prevent it," he said, once people hear about the "atrocities" happening across the border.

"Emotions go into play, people head over there and fight," Patrushev said in a wide-ranging interview to Kommersant newspaper published Monday.

The 15-month-long conflict in Ukraine has claimed the lives of nearly 6,500 people and driven more than a million from their homes.

Ukraine and the West say Russia sends regular troops into eastern Ukraine to boost separatist forces in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, but Moscow flatly denies such accusations.

On Monday the European Union formally agreed to prolong damaging economic sanctions against Moscow over its support for the rebels until January 2016.

Deployments of volunteers from Russia are no secret and various organisations have openly held collection drives for military gear in Moscow and elsewhere.

Putin portrays the crisis in Ukraine as the product of regime change instigated and funded by the United States, but Patrushev said in the interview that America's real goal is to destroy Russia.

"They don't care what will happen in Ukraine, they just need to exert pressure on Russia, so that is what the United States is doing," he said.

"They would want very much that Russia would not exist. As a country," he said.

"We have great resource wealth. And Americans believe we have them illegally or undeservedly," he said, adding that the US completely overpowers the European Union regarding Russia policy.

EU sanctions were only imposed due to "US influence," he said, adding even that Europe secretly recognises the annexation by Moscow of the Crimean peninsula in March 2014, which unleashed the first round of sanctions.

"They understand that everything that happened in Crimea was legal."

"Europeans are rather weak-willed and Americans are strong. The United States wants to dominate in the world," he said.

? 2015 AFP

 

[Housecarl]

Afghan Parliament attacked, Kabul: six (update: ten) large explosions; 5 dead/31 injured
Started by Lilbitsnana‎, Yesterday 11:22 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...pdate-ten)-large-explosions-5-dead-31-injured

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.france24.com/en/20150622-afghanistan-kabul-parliament-explosion-gunfire

Asia-pacific
Taliban launch attack on Afghan parliament

Latest update : 2015-06-22
A Taliban suicide bomber and six gunmen attacked the Afghan parliament on Monday, wounding at least 19 people and sending a plume of black smoke across Kabul, as a second district in two days fell to the Islamist group in the north.

The attack on the symbolic centre of power, one of the most brazen in years, along with a series of Taliban gains elsewhere, raise questions about the NATO-trained Afghan security forces’ ability to cope and how far the militants can advance.

Violence has spiralled in Afghanistan since the departure of most foreign forces at the end of last year. The insurgents are pushing to take territory more than 13 years after the U.S.-led military intervention that toppled the Taliban from power.

The attack began when a Taliban fighter driving a car loaded with explosives blew up outside parliament gates, said Ebadullah Karimi, spokesman for Kabul police, raising questions about how the driver got through several security checkpoints.

Six gunmen took up positions in a building near parliament, he said. Security forces killed the six after a gun battle lasting nearly two hours.

Kabul police chief Abdul Rahman Rahimi said all lawmakers were safe. TV pictures showed the speaker sitting calmly and legislators leaving the building, engulfed in dust and smoke, without panicking.

Photos from the recent #AFG Parliament attack @pajhwokpic.twitter.com/ogUIZjaEzU
— KavitaNair (@KavitaNair) 22 Juin 2015

Four women were among the 19 wounded, said Sayed Kabir Amiri, a health official who coordinates Kabul hospitals.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid claimed responsibility.

“We have launched an attack on parliament as there was an important gathering to introduce the country’s defence minister,” he said by phone.

Lawmaker Farhad Sediqi was among several lawmakers who criticised security agencies for not preventing the attack.

“It shows a big failure in the intelligence and security departments of the government,” he said.

The withdrawal of foreign forces and a reduction in U.S. air strikes have allowed Taliban fighters, who ruled Afghanistan with an iron fist from 1996 to 2001, to launch several major attacks in important provinces.

The second district to fall to the Taliban on Monday was in the northern province of Kunduz. Officials said it fell after urgently needed reinforcements failed to arrive.

The Taliban captured Dasht-e-Archi district a day after hundreds of militants fought their way to the centre of the adjacent district of Chardara.

“The Taliban managed to take it over this morning as the area has been surrounded for days,” Nasruddin Saeedi, the district governor who escaped to the provincial capital, Kunduz city, told Reuters by telephone.

“They are many foreign fighters with heavy machine guns. We have asked for reinforcements, but none arrived.”

Afghan soldiers were preparing a counterattack to retake both districts, another local official said.

Monday’s heavy fighting was just three km (two miles) from the governor’s compound.

(REUTERS)

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-really-doesnt-want-arms-races/#ixzz3dmTWnUNh

Russia really doesn’t want an arms race

By L. Todd Wood - - Thursday, June 18, 2015
Comments 8

Alexander Golts, the deputy editor of the online newspaper Yezhednevny Zhurnal, was quoted in The Moscow Times recently saying, “The Kremlin can take pride in the fact that, after directing every imaginable threatening statement at the West for the past 10 years, Europe and the U.S. are finally taking it seriously.”

Many in Russia believe the Kremlin created the crisis in Ukraine and with the West in order to deflect attention from the domestic economy and to appeal to an innate, rabid nationalism in the Russian population. Moscow needs an enemy and America is an easy target. I have written before on this site that the U.S. arming Ukraine would only fall into Vladimir Putin’s game plan. So far, the chessboard has gone in the Kremlin’s favor. The Russian narrative is working — it’s working in Russia that is. Mr. Putin’s popularity remains sky high. Moscow just opened a military theme park on the city outskirts to promote patriotism and the feeling that Russia cannot be defeated. However, now the chickens may be coming home to roost and the long-term consequences may not be good for Moscow.

Large-scale exercises recently were conducted by NATO in the Baltic Sea, landing troops only 100 miles from Kaliningrad, the home of the Russian Baltic fleet. NATO is parading armor through the Baltics and other Eastern European countries such as Poland. Western airpower is being built up in the region and now there is talk of permanently stationing NATO tanks and armored vehicles in former Soviet territory.

The United Kingdom’s defense minister, Michael Fallon, warned Russia that the exercises being held in the Baltic Sea were “not a game” and that Britain “would not be intimidated by Russia.” It seems that the Kremlin’s announcement of adding 40 more nuclear missiles to its inventory awaken the sleeping defense giant in the West.

Now concerns of a new arms race between the West and Russia are very real and front-and-center. With the weak and feckless Obama administration winding down, Moscow must realize a more hawkish president may be waiting in the American wings and could do wondrous things with a Republican Congress to revitalize the American economy and her defense spending.

AFP quoted Yury Ushakov, Mr. Putin’s top foreign policy aide, as saying recently, “Russia is trying to react to possible threats with some sort of means but that’s it … We are against any arms race because it naturally weakens our economic capabilities … In principle we are against it.”

Mr. Putin is a master at escalation and de-escalation. It remains to be seen if Russia will attempt to head off an American arms buildup by making nice. America and Europe have also announced they are preparing additional sanctions against Russia if the Ukrainian conflict worsens. These could include severe financial measures and could be targeted against Russia’s energy sector as well, which could have devastating consequences. The previous arms race didn’t end well for the Kremlin.

The ball is in Russia’s court, it seems. However, with other geopolitical hot spots flaring, such as the South China Sea, it seems a given that America will re-arm conventionally.

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/06/21/marines-amphibious/28935549/

Marines looking at deploying aboard foreign ships

Jim Michaels, USA TODAY 2:40 p.m. EDT June 21, 2015

Faced with a shortage of U.S. Navy ships, the Marine Corps is exploring a plan to deploy its forces aboard foreign vessels to ensure they can respond quickly to global crises around Europe and western Africa.

The initiative is a stopgap way to deploy Marines aboard ships overseas until more American vessels are available, said Brig. Gen. Norman Cooling, deputy commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe and Africa.

The Marines will be able to respond quickly to evacuate embassies or protect U.S. property and citizens, a need highlighted by the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador.

"There's no substitute for U.S. amphibious" vessels, Cooling said. "We're looking at other options" in the meantime, he added.

The Marines have been working with Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom and other close allies to determine the suitability of the foreign ships for U.S. personnel and aircraft.

The units would be designed for limited operations and not major amphibious assaults. A ground force of about 100 to 120 Marines would be deployed along with three or four Ospreys, which fly like airplanes but can take off and land like helicopters.

The U.S. Navy has 30 amphibious ships but says it needs 38 to fulfill war fighting requirements. It won't reach that level until 2028 because of budget constraints, according to the Navy.

Critics say the Navy has allowed its amphibious capabilities to decline.

"Allowing the continued atrophy of the Navy-Marine Corps team's amphibious capacity is simply not an option given the national security challenges facing the United States and its allies," said Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., a member of the Armed Services Committee, in an email statement.

Much of the Navy's current amphibious fleet is being used in the Pacific — where the U.S. military is attempting to respond to an expansionist China — and the Middle East, where it is responding to an endless series of crises.

Fighting in Ukraine and chaos in Libya have raised concerns about the need for forces who can respond quickly to events in Europe and Africa.

The U.S. has deployed land-based forces in Spain, Italy and elsewhere, which places them closer to crises in North Africa. But Marines aboard ships can usually get closer to the action and respond more quickly.

Cooling said it would likely be more than a year before agreements would be in place to allow for regular deployments of contingents of Marines on the foreign ships.

In additional to technical requirements, such as testing the ability of ships to carry U.S. aircraft and equipment, the United States would have to reach agreements separately with individuals or operate under NATO authorities.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.rferl.org/content/kaliningrad-russia-nato-west-strategic/27079655.html

Russia
Kaliningrad, Moscow's Military Trump Card

By Tony Wesolowsky
June 18, 2015

Russia is pouring troops and weapons -- including missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads -- into its western exclave of Kaliningrad at such a rate that the region is now one of Europe's most militarized places.

A NATO official, writing to RFE/RL on condition of anonymity, said that Moscow is stationing "thousands of troops, including mechanized and naval infantry brigades, military aircraft, modern long-range air defense units and hundreds of armored vehicles in the territory."

The military activity in Kaliningrad, which has no land connection to Russia and which borders EU members Lithuania and Poland, has raised alarms in Vilnius and Warsaw that can be clearly heard in Brussels and Washington.

"They're making quite big military exercises in the Kaliningrad district [which is] very, very close to our neighborhood," says Andrius Kubilius, a former Lithuanian prime minister. "So of course we are worried about such military developments very close to our borders."

In part due to such concerns, NATO this month is carrying out military maneuvers in Poland and the Baltic States, a U.S. military convoy recently travelled across Eastern and Central Europe in a show of the defense alliance's commitment to protect the region, and Washington is reportedly debating whether to store heavy military equipment in several Baltic and Eastern European countries bordering Russia.

The Kaliningrad region, which lies along the Baltic Sea in what was once East Prussia, has long held strategic value.

'Forward-Operating Base'

Annexed from Germany in 1945, Kaliningrad was a closed military zone during the Soviet era, meaning only someone with special permission could get in.

It is now home to Russia's Baltic Sea Fleet, as well as the Chernyakhovsk and Donskoye air bases, with thousands of Russian troops stationed there.

As the confrontation with the West heats up, Russia is finding Kaliningrad the "obvious place" to deploy more military hardware, explains Dmitry Gorenburg, a Russian military expert at the CNA Corporation think tank in Arlington, Virginia.

http://gdb.rferl.org/B692615A-68E6-4AE6-9089-A09B0C5C4AF9_w640_s.gif

Kaliningrad also serves as the likely starting point for the numerous reports of Russian military activity over Baltic airspace and in the Baltic Sea, Gorenburg tells RFE/RL.

"From Kaliningrad you can just go right out and you're there; there's Sweden, Poland, Germany's not that far away," Gorenburg explains. "So, it's almost like you can set it up as a forward-operating base without leaving your own country's territory."

Gorenburg says the growing military role of the Baltic Fleet contrasts with its more peaceful past.

"It's right near where all the main shipyards are. It was a place where they tested a lot of the new ships," Gorenburg says. "Its main mission prior to the crisis was mostly focused on sort of coastal protection kind of stuff. There really wasn't a lot of military activity in the Baltic Sea until quite recently."

According to NATO and regional analysts, one of the main worries for the West is whether Moscow has permanently stationed Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad.

Iskanders are capable of carrying conventional and nuclear warheads and have a range of 400 kilometers -- meaning if they were stationed in Kaliningrad many European cities, including Berlin and Warsaw, would be in their range.

In the past, the Kremlin has used the threat of deploying Iskanders in Kaliningrad as a sort of bargaining chip.

In 2008, Moscow said it would station the missiles there if Washington went ahead with plans to build components of a U.S. missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.

In 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama scrapped those plans.

The Iskander missiles were reported to have been deployed, at least temporarily, when Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered "snap" -- meaning with no prior notification to the West -- military drills in Kaliningrad in December 2014 and March 2015.

The size of the drills has been nothing short of impressive, with some 9,000 troops and 55 naval ships taking part in the December 5-10 exercises.

In Poland, the potential threat posed by the Iskander missiles in part prompted Warsaw to decide to upgrade its air-defense system, according to Pavel Fleischer, a research fellow at Warsaw's Casimir Pulaski Foundation.

"Recently, we just finished the procurement process for a new air-defense system, and we chose the [U.S.] Patriot [Air and Missile Defense] System," Fleischer tells RFE/RL. "So, we think our capabilities will be increased during the next couple of years."

In March, Poland said it was seeking to obtain Tomahawk missiles for submarines that Poland is planning to purchase by 2030.

Fears Of 'Provocation'

In Lithuania, the main rail link between Kaliningrad and Russia proper, leaders are concerned the Kremlin may orchestrate a "provocation" in the exclave to escalate tensions, according to Kubilius.

"We are afraid of any kind of possible provocations on transit routes, both railways, or gas pipeline, or electricity transit routes, which can be organized in order to have some type of pretext from Moscow's side, for Russia's side, to begin some aggressive actions," explains Kubilius, the leader of Lithuania's Homeland Union center-right party.

In May, Lithuania joined Latvia and Estonia in announcing they were seeking a permanent NATO presence on their soil to counter increased Russian military action.

All three countries have significant Russian minorities and fear Kremlin moves to inflame tensions there after the pro-Russian uprising in eastern Ukraine.

NATO said it would study the proposal.

Vladimir Chizhov, Russia's ambassador to the EU, said the request to NATO was motivated by "local politics rather than a genuine security situation."

Amid growing Baltic unease, The New York Times reported on June 13 that Washington was "poised to station battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and other heavy weapons for as many as 5,000 American troops in several Baltic and Eastern European countries."

Russia in part justifies its actions in Kaliningrad by painting the West as the aggressor, pointing to NATO expansion to former Soviet satellite states, and to the deployment of NATO troops and hardware closer to Russian borders.

The New York Times report on the planned U.S. stationing of heavy military equipment in the Baltics and Eastern Ukraine set off alarms at the Kremlin.

A Russian Defense Ministry official said the planned U.S. action would amount to "the most aggressive step by the Pentagon and NATO" since the Cold War.

Although he did not mention Kaliningrad, General Yuri Yakubov said on June 15 that "Russia would be left with no other option but to boost its troops and forces on the western flank."

In a sign that it was not an idle threat, Putin announced the next day that Russia would add more than 40 new intercontinental ballistic missiles to its nuclear arsenal this year.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...olice-station/4871434926961/?spt=hs&or=tn_int

China arrests 13 people after hundreds of protesters attack police station
At least 900 police officers were called to restore order after the attack, which stemmed from a family feud over the death of a 28-year-old woman.
By Fred Lambert Contact the Author | June 21, 2015 at 7:34 PM Follow @upi

CHANGSHA, China, June 21 (UPI) -- Chinese authorities arrested 13 people Saturday after hundreds of protesters attacked a police station in central China's Hunan province.

The dispute stemmed from the death of Cao Hui, a 28-year-old girl from the village of Yanhe, in Shuangfeng County. Officials concluded she had been poisoned by pesticide, but her family accused her husband of involvement.

According to China's Xinhua news agency, Cao's relatives displayed her body at her mother-in-law's residence, beat her husband and destroyed his furniture before hanging up banners attracting attention to the matter.

On Thursday the family took hostages of local officials and police who tried to intervene, reportedly beating them with bricks and beer bottles and making them kneel before Cao's body.

Hundreds of protesters joined Cao's relatives and attacked Yanhe's police station the next day. According to reports, authorities deployed up to 900 police officers to restore order.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150622/lt--salvador_violence-5ab55d8f8d.html

Bloodshed in El Salvador reaching levels of 1980s civil war

Jun 22, 8:11 AM (ET)
By ALBERTO ARCE

(AP) In this May 30, 2015 photo, members of the fast response police units speed to an...
Full Image

SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador (AP) — Word on the street is that only the girlfriends of gang members are allowed to be redheads or blondes. So in this violent place, women are scurrying to salons to give up their blond hair and highlights, to dye it all black — not out of fashion sense, but out of fear.

"They also say you can't wear yellow or red clothing," said Claudia Castellanos, a beautician at an upscale salon. "Can you believe it? They've already attacked a woman on a bus for wearing yellow."

There's no evidence the rumors are true. The gangs, sophisticated criminal organizations, even issued a statement to deny the hair-color decree.

But with violence in El Salvador reaching levels rivaling those of the civil war that ended more than two decades ago, few are willing to take risks.

(AP) In this May 30, 2015 photo, a fast response units' policeman questions relatives of...
Full Image

El Salvador has just experienced one of its most violent months since the end of the civil war in 1992, with 635 homicides reported in May for the country of just over 6 million people. June is on track to break that mark, with the latest bloodshed coming Sunday when suspected gang members killed two soldiers guarding a bus terminal in the capital.

Fear is pervasive across San Salvador. As daylight fades, stores close early and streets empty. At night, roadblocks go up to thwart possible grenade attacks on police stations, where officers sleep rather than risk being attacked while riding buses home.

Taxi drivers memorize signals to give gang lookouts who guard neighborhoods, flashing codes with their high beams and rolling down their windows to make themselves visible.

Castellanos counts the number of women who've come to her salon recently seeking to color their hair dark: One, two, three, four ...

"You don't wait for clarifications," said Maria Jose Estrada, a former blonde who lives on the outskirts of San Salvador. "These people are crazy and they will kill you."

(AP) In this June 12, 2015 photo, hairdressers take a break from their work at a hair...
Full Image

Police officials and others blame the worsening insecurity on the breakdown of a truce made between the gangs and the government in 2013. While the homicide rate plunged, critics say the truce gave the gangs time to strengthen, train and acquire heavier arms than they had in the past.

Jailed gang leaders were moved from maximum-security prisons to more lax facilities where they were able to run their criminal operations remotely.

But in January, the 6-month-old government of President Salvador Sanchez Ceren publicly rejected any truce and launched an aggressive crackdown, putting gang leaders back in maximum-security cells. The change has meant the streets now are controlled by younger, better-armed criminals who are willing to be reckless.

"You take away the mature leadership, and you get a structure that is made up of younger, fanatical people who want to make a name for themselves," said Raul Mijango, a former guerrilla and a facilitator of the truce. "They want war."

The police say they are ready for battle.

(AP) In this May 28, 2015 photo, a suspected gang member who was found out of breath on...
Full Image

"Things have to get worse before they get better," said a police official, who agreed to comment only if not quoted by name for fear of reprisals. "When I see one (gang member) on the street, I'm going to shoot him before he shoots me."

Police say the crackdown on gang strongholds in the cities has caused members to flee to surrounding rural areas, bringing violence with them.

On a warm, muggy May night in Olocuitla, a town about 20 miles (30 kilometers) south of San Salvador, the bodies of two teens were found in a steep gully after a shootout with police near an old cattle stable, which gang members had turned into a shooting range. One of the dead was the leader of the cell, a 16-year-old who had a grenade in his hand.

Such evidence of crime's spread has rural residents taking new precautions.

Carlos Treminio, a street vendor who lives on the north edge of the capital, now accompanies his teenage son and daughter on their walk to school rather than leave them vulnerable to gang recruiters.

(AP) In this May 28, 2015 photo, suspected members of the 18th Street gang stand...
Full Image

"These jerks lurk around the schools and offer everything to join the gang. If you refuse, they kill you," Treminio said. "I will do everything to protect my children."

Howard Cotto, assistant national police chief and a former guerrilla commander, said the gangs will not find the sort of rural support enjoyed by rebels in the 1980s because they have no ideology.

"They are much more vulnerable," he said.

But, he believes, nothing will change unless the country addresses problems of poverty and a lack of opportunity for young people. The government has arrested 12,000 gang members in the last year with little to show for it, he said.

"We can go in and arrest 50 gang members and 50 more will take their places," Cotto said. "With just arrests, we won't accomplish anything."

Mijango, who helped negotiate the last truce, sees negotiation as the path to avoid the sort of bloodshed the country saw when his Farabundo Marti National Liberation was fighting conservative governments in the 1980s.

Now the former rebel movement is the governing party and it is the gangs who control territories where 90 percent of El Salvador's people live, noted Miguel Fortin Magana, the chief forensics officer for the country's Supreme Court.

"This is like a virus that has spread throughout the country," he said.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...s-for-dual-capable-f-35c-and-tactical-413936/

US report calls for dual-capable F-35C and tactical nukes

By: James Drew
Washington DC
Source: Flightglobal.com
in 7 hours

A US think tank has proposed installing nuclear weapons on the Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter for deployment aboard aircraft carriers as a hedge against Russia and China.

Clark Murdock of the Center for Strategic and International Studies floated the idea of a return to carrier-based nuclear weapons in a new report published on 22 June.

The US government has committed to outfitting only the land-based F-35A with nuclear weapons as a “dual-capable aircraft,” namely the Boeing B61-12 thermonuclear guided bomb.

According to Murdock though, the F-35C should also receive nuclear weapons in the future as a “visible manifestation” of the United States’ commitment to protecting its allies.

“While I think bombers are an important hedge capability, what’s really important are nuclear-capable aircraft that can be forward-deployed on the territory of our allies,” he said at a report unveiling in Washington. The report, titled Project Atom, considers alternative nuclear strategies and force postures in the 2025 to 2050 time frame.

Murdock believes the “nuclear umbrella” the United States extends to its allies is more effective and reassuring when it is planted in allied territory instead of relying solely on long-range nuclear bombers, ballistic missiles and submarines.

According to the US Air Force, the first full-up B61-12 nuke will be assembled by 2020 and early aircraft integration activities with the F-35A are due to begin next year. The current time line would see the F-35A achieve dual-capable status by 2024 as part of the Block 4 configuration.

“We had 7,000 nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe at the pinnacle of the Cold War,” says Murdock. “In Asia, we had almost 1,000 deployed on the Korean Peninsula. About 3,000 total were in the Asia Pacific theatre.

“When the Soviets looked out at their borders, they didn’t just see a ring of American men and women in uniform, they saw a ring of nuclear weapons. They knew that any major, conventional aggression on their part would go nuclear because all the weapons were there.”

Murdock’s analysis also concludes that America needs to field range of nuclear weapons, at least one for every rung of the nuclear escalatory ladder, from low-yield, tactical nukes right up to those capable of mass destruction. The current US strategy favours a massive retaliatory response as the primary deterrent against a nuclear attack, leading some to question how the West will respond in the event of a lower-lever crisis.

Murdock as well as contributing author Elbridge Colby of the Center for a New American Security believe America needs a variety of air-delivered tactical nuclear weapons, including low collateral, enhanced radiation, earth penetration, electromagnetic pulse “and others as technology advances”.

“US nuclear weapons should and need to do more than threaten unhindered devastation,” says Colby. “It’s not very credible if the United States threatens to loose apocalyptic destruction that would call forth a matching response over something less than a very central or grave interest. It’s a bad idea.

“I do think the US should reserve the right and the ability to use nuclear weapons first in extreme circumstances to respond to aggression.”

The conversation about the strategic nuclear force structure comes as the US Defense Department embarks on a major recapitalisation of its nuclear triad, which critics and supports alike say is unaffordable.

It also comes as the West’s former Cold War rivals Russia and China invest heavily in their nuclear infrastructure, while America’s nuclear weaponry ages out.

The DOD is requesting billions of additional dollars from Congress to buy a new nuclear-capable bomber, submarine, ballistic missile, cruise missile and nuclear command-and-control apparatus.

Table

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150622/ml--egypt-us-9a4dd0852e.html

US delivers 2 missile ships to Egypt for security support

Jun 22, 12:22 PM (ET)

CAIRO (AP) — The U.S. Embassy in Cairo says America has delivered two vessels, known as fast missile craft, to Egypt's navy to help it secure vital waterways such as the Suez Canal and Red Sea.

Monday's statement on the embassy website says the ships were delivered last week in the Mediterranean port city of Alexandria, doubling Egypt's current number of such vessels. The two previous vessels were also provided by the United States.

The embassy's senior defense official, Maj. Gen. Charles Hooper, says the delivery is a sign of America's ongoing commitment to Egypt and the two countries' shared security interests in the region.

The embassy says the total of four ships represent a $1.1 billion investment by the United States in its strategic partnership with Egypt.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150622/eu--europe-migrants-92b8fc7e5c.html

EU launches navy operation against migrant-traffickers

Jun 22, 11:14 AM (ET)
By JAMEY KEATEN

(AP) Migrants disembark in the port of Taranto, southern Italy, after being rescued at...
Full Image

LUXEMBOURG (AP) — The European Union launched a naval operation Monday to try to stop human-traffickers from bringing migrants across the Mediterranean to Europe in unseaworthy boats, a lucrative and at times deadly practice.

More than 100,000 migrants have entered Europe so far this year, with some 2,000 dead or missing during the perilous quest to reach the continent. Dozens of boats set off from lawless Libya each week, with Italy and Greece bearing the brunt of the surge.

The naval operation, which was officially launched by EU foreign ministers meeting in Luxembourg, will operate in international waters and airspace until the EU can secure a U.N. Security Council resolution endorsing its effort and permission from Libyan officials to enter their territory.

"We will start implementing the first phase of the operation in the coming days. This covers information-gathering and patrolling on the high seas to support the detection and monitoring of smuggling networks," said EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini.

(AP) Abraham Hilan 17, from Eritrea, plays soccer at the Franco-Italian border in...
Full Image

"The targets are not the migrants. The targets are those that are making money on their lives and too often on their deaths," she told reporters.

The EU aims to "dismantle the business model" of the traffickers by destroying their boats, she said. But the U.N. has been slow to endorse the operation amid criticism from refugee groups that the move will only deprive migrants fleeing poverty and conflict of a major way to escape, rather than address the roots of the problem.

Libya's divided factions have also been reluctant to approve any operation in its waters or on land, which means that the transition to more robust phases of the naval mission could take months.

A senior EU diplomatic official, speaking on condition of anonymity to provide operational details, said five naval units led by Italian light aircraft carrier Cavour will be joined by two submarines, three maritime surveillance planes, two drones and two helicopters for the operation.

They will be involved in rescue work if needed. Politically sensitive actions such as boarding or destroying smuggling boats could come in later phases of the operation.

(AP) Migrants pray at the Franco-Italian border in Ventimiglia, Italy, Sunday, June 21,...
Full Image

The first phase aims to gather intelligence on who the traffickers are, how they operate, and where the money goes.

Many of the migrants have told their rescuers that the smugglers beat them or threaten them with death if they balk at boarding the rickety fishing boats or rubber dinghies.

Italy expressed satisfaction it was getting assistance in its efforts to eradicate the smuggling. Defense Minister Roberta Pinotti noted that the military mission against traffickers of human beings was "until today what we were doing alone."

But the politically thorny issue remains of how much responsibility EU countries bear for migrants rescued at sea and brought to Italian ports. Asylum rules dictate that those seeking refugee status remain in the country where they set foot, but Italy counters that most of the asylum-seekers want to go to northern Europe, where relatives await them.

Last year, 170,000 rescued migrants were brought to Italy, and some 60,000 have arrived on rescue boats so far this year. Thousands have been rescued in the last few days alone in Italy and Greece.

With mixed success, Rome has been arguing that the responsibility of sheltering these people should be divvied up among EU countries.

---

Frances D'Emilio contributed from Rome; Elena Becatoros contributed from Athens.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150622/eu-russia-islamic-state-5e7b4706cf.html

Russia security czar: More than 1,000 Russians fight with IS

Jun 22, 12:57 PM (ET)

MOSCOW (AP) — More than 1,000 Russian nationals have joined the Islamic State group and they could pose a major threat when they return, Russia's Security Council chief said.

Nikolai Patrushev told the business daily Kommersant in an interview published Monday that they form "sleeper cells" and could mount terror attacks in the future on orders from their bosses.

"They can fully integrate into society, pretending to observe its norms and laws," he said. "But when it's needed, terrorist leaders could use such 'law-abiding citizens' for preparing or conducting terror attacks."

Patrushev said IS recruiters have been active in Russia and ex-Soviet Central Asian nations, particularly focusing on young people and members of ethnic minorities.

In one recent case, a 19-year-old student of the elite Moscow State University was detained in a Turkish border town. She and 12 other Russians were believed to be en route to Syria to join IS.

President Vladimir Putin said last week that despite the rift with the West over Ukraine, Russia considers it necessary to strengthen international cooperation in fighting IS, which he described as "absolute evil."

After two separatist wars in Chechnya, Russia is still facing an Islamic insurgency in several provinces of the North Caucasus where militants mount sporadic attacks on police and other officials.

In a video posted Monday on YouTube, a man reads a statement on behalf of the Caucasus rebels, pledging allegiance to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The man says the rebels based in Chechnya and three other North Caucasus provinces, Dagestan, Ingushetia and Kabardino-Balkariya, swear to obey al-Baghdadi's orders to establish Islamic Shariah law "across the entire Earth."

The video didn't provide any details, such as the number of fighters swearing the oath, or names of the leaders. Its veracity couldn't be independently confirmed.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://johnbatchelorshow.com/schedules/monday-22-june-2015

JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW
Co-host: Thaddeus McCotter, WJR, The Great Voice of the Great Lakes; and author, Liberty Risen.

Hour One
Monday 22 June 2015 / Hour 1, Block A: Thomas Joscelyn, Long War Journal senior editor, & Bill Roggio, Long War Journal and FDD, in re: Ali Ani al-Harzi – first person identified as participant and planner of Benghazi attack; said to have just been killed in a Mosul airstrike. . . . Ansar al Shariah in N Afr was always part of al Q network. IS takes advantage of N Afr pipeline, absorbed some of the leaders into its own operations. Derna (Cyreneica): the two brothers left Ansar al Shariah, went into IS; however, IS went into a fight vs al Q and lost. / Kabul: suicide attacks vs legislature in Kunduz (on Tajik border; population abt a million): initial crew stopped, although they got through the outside gates with vehicle?; one fellow got through on foot; then . . . Taliban continue to be committed to fighting the war. Taliban are a few years away from being able to take over the whole country, as in pre-9/11. If total US pullout in 2016 0or 2017, one can count on a major collapse of the Afghan govt.

Monday 22 June 2015 / Hour 1, Block B: Thomas Joscelyn, Long War Journal senior editor, & Bill Roggio, Long War Journal and FDD, in re: al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb: Mokhtar Bel Mokhtar, declared dead so far ten times – wraithlike , has been restored to life. He seems not to have died. AQIM also issued a "live" statement. MBM was operating in the Sahel; was part of the spectacular raid in Algeria on oil-drilling camp – a radical ideologue who uses cigarette smuggling to fund his work. Immed. after the Benghazi attack, he gets a call from some of he attackers to offer congratulations to him for his success in the raid. Unless they're sloppy with operational security or we have humint (rare), hard to figure out his whereabouts. Training camps:; 37 new ones, 25 in Syria and 12 in Iraq. Set up by three different crews: IS; al Q & al Nusrah; and allied jihadist groups from Caucasus, Uyghurs, other small groups. Camps train and propagandize recruits, and reassure the donors. May learn to make IEDs, use small arms, sometimes heavy weapons, sometimes for women or children. Used primarily to wage local jihad. . . . Over 20 camps in eastern Syria no longer operational where al Q camps was taken over by IS.

Monday 22 June 2015 / Hour 1, Block C: Gordon Chang, Forbes.com, in re: Neither of us has any money invested in the Shanghai or Shenzen stock markets. However, the military does and must be worried as the crest was achieved and it then sank – 6.3 % down on Friday, alone on Shanghai Composite. Correction or bear mkt? Fuelled by margin debt , and so extremely dangerous. Beijing must be panicking. "Margin debt" means borrowed money – from investment houses, friends, banks, everybody. Whenever Chinese mil lashes out at neighbors, the neighbors re-think investing in China, send the money to India or elsewhere. Retreat has been 152% sine last July – 929 days, according to Bloomberg. There's no fundamental to suggest that this mkt will keep rising. Economy growing at 1% or 2% at best; trading at 84 x earnings (egad) – and he Chinese govt wants it that way. Expect State enterprises buy their own shares. Will release more liquidity into the Chinese economy, whence it'll go not into productive capacity (no demand) but into stocks or bubble territory. . . . Pro-Beijing legislators tried to break a quorum; it went down in an unanticipated loss. More drift: pan-democrats in HK don't have the votes to reach full success, but will do well in next elections as they’ll have critical blocking capacity Beijing can’t get what it wants at the ballot box so may try rougher tactics.

The next few days are critical for Beijing, so expect bold government action to rescue the stock markets. / What next in Hong Kong-Beijing democracy tussle? / Lawmakers in Hong Kong have rejected a highly controversial proposal by the government . . . / How the Senate Can Help Hong Kong's Democracy Campaigners / China Media: Hong Kong Opposition Is Destroyer of Democracy

Monday 22 June 2015 / Hour 1, Block D: Peter Berkowitz, Hoover, in re: "Anti-Israel Group a Threat to Liberal Democracy," Real Clear Politics, June 17; BDS, as Monsieur Richard cut Orange (telco) out of Israel, then reversed. . . . Traced origin of BDS to 1975, UNGA resolution equating Zionism with racism. te that from its inception, Israel has promised equal rights to all citizen regardless of ethnicity, race, religion, and has maintained that. A mtg in South Africa condemned Israel as an Apartheid state; BDS continues this. Dr Qanta A. Ahmed, a Muslim British physician & Assoc Prof of Medicine, SUNY, was in Knesset on 15 June protesting vs other academics who’ve sought to condemn Israel and all those who haven’t taken a stand against their country. She argues that all academics shd protest . . . she organized a letter in response to this Lancet letter; struggled to get her letter published, denouncing critics of Israel. is it true that BDS funding comes from the Saudi princes? Even as the Saudi royal family is in close conversation with Israel today? Btw, there are many figure in the OPA who oppose BDS because Israel is the largest employer of West Bank Palestinians. Most enthusiastic proponents of BDS are European, esp leftists.
lhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/17/anti-israel_group_a_threat_to_liberal_democracy.html

http://johnbatchelorshow.com/podcas...-war-journal-bill-roggio-long-war-journal-fdd

Monday 22 June 2015 / Hour 2, Block D: Malcolm Hoenlein, Conference of Presidents, in re: Sander Bak, youngest partner at Milbank Tweed; and athlete, remarkable reputation for integrity, much beloved husband, father, and son, left this world on Friday 19 June.

More than 1,600 Syrians have been treated in Israeli hospitals, yet the frustration felt by Druze near the border was taken out on an Israeli medic, who was murdered in horrible ways. / White House responding to the UN report on Hamas bombing last summer. Report places blame on both Hamas and Israel; their statistics are wrong. A major international delegation visited, returned with a report saying that Israel took extraordinary care to protect civilians.
Syrian war casualty killed as Israeli Druze attack IDF ambulance ; Golan Heights mob storms convoy transporting injured fighters; Israeli soldiers wounded in melee; PM, IDF chief condemn incident

http://johnbatchelorshow.com/podcas...uthor-liberty-risen-john-fund-national-review