WAR 07-11-2015-to-07-17-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

(171) 06-20-2015-to-06-26-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...26-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(172) 06-27-2015-to-07-03-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...03-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(173) 07-04-2015-to-07-10-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...10-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

_____

Saudi Arabia/10 Nation coalition are bombing YEMEN
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-10-Nation-coalition-are-bombing-YEMEN/page29

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150711/ml--yemen-9e7cc486ad.html

Airstrikes pierce new Yemen truce following ground fighting

Jul 10, 9:00 PM (ET)
By AHMED AL-HAJ

SANAA, Yemen (AP) — A new truce in Yemen was pierced within an hour as Saudi-led airstrikes hit targets in the capital Sanaa and the southwestern city of Taiz following reports of ground movement and fighting, security officials said.

The U.N.-declared truce that began after midnight Friday is meant to last through the end of the holy month of Ramadan and allow in desperately needed humanitarian aid for millions of people.

Houthi rebel media reported at least one airstrike in the east of the capital of Sanaa, targeting a military camp used by the rebels. It was not clear what immediately prompted the airstrike.

Security officials said three airstrikes came after Shiite rebels and their allied forces clashed with rivals who have held pockets of resistance against the rebels' control of Taiz.

(AP) Shiite fighters, known as Houthis, ride in a pickup while patrolling in a street in...
Full Image

Witnesses also reported the airstrikes. One airstrike targeted a military camp used by forces loyal to the rebels, while another hit a rebel convoy, the officials said.

Both sides exchanged blame for violating the truce. Rebel officials said their rivals were using the truce to advance in Taiz. Fighters accused the rebels of trying to push them from the territories they hold.

All officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to report to the media amid a tense truce.

The U.N. Security Council welcomed the announcement of the humanitarian pause and urged all parties "to exercise restraint in cases of isolated violations and to avoid escalation." The council also said "no party should take advantage of the pause to move weapons or seize territory."

Council members urged all parties to facilitate the urgent delivery of humanitarian assistance to all parts of Yemen.

(AP) A man walks on the rubble of a wedding hall destroyed by a Saudi-led airstrike in...
Full Image

The pause announced Thursday comes just days after the U.N. warned that the Arab world's poorest country is "one step" from famine. Yemen relies on imports for the bulk of its food and fuel, but the coalition has imposed a near-complete air and sea blockade during the fighting. The rebels want the blockade lifted completely.

The U.N. this month declared its highest-level humanitarian emergency in Yemen on July 1. The U.N. humanitarian office says 80 percent of the population needs aid, and millions are close to famine.

Yemen's exiled government had wanted the rebels to withdraw from the cities and towns they had overrun since September as a precondition to a truce, but it came under pressure to agree to a halt in violence immediately.

Witnesses and officials said the truce was holding in the country's second major city, Aden, and other cities. There were reports of minor fighting in parts of Aden, including missiles that landed near military installations in the in the north and west. Security officials said missiles fell near military installations controlled by rebels.

The officials, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said coalition airplanes flew over Aden.

Aid convoys had lined up outside Aden to be allowed in, but none had moved amid the reports of fighting.

More than 3,000 people have been killed in Yemen since March, when the Saudi-led, U.S.-backed coalition began airstrikes against the Houthi rebels who have seized control of the capital and other cities.

Soon after the fragile truce came into effect, Houthi rebel officials said they are committed to the truce. They spoke on condition of anonymity as they waited to see whether the other side, Yemen's exiled government and allied troops on the ground, would also commit.

Late Thursday and just before the truce came into effect, a suspected U.S. drone strike killed four al-Qaida militants traveling by car in the coastal city of Mukalla, controlled by the militant group, in eastern Yemen.

Al-Qaida has profited from the turmoil that has gripped Yemen, seizing new territories.

 

[Housecarl]

P5+1 + Iran Announces Reaching Solutions on Key Parameters for Agreement
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...lutions-on-Key-Parameters-for-Agreement/page6

Iran deal ‘done,’ Israeli report says, after major US concessions
Started by Ragnarok‎, Today 06:12 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...sraeli-report-says-after-major-US-concessions


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/07/11/iran-nuclear-idUKL8N0ZQ2DP20150711

Commodities | Sat Jul 11, 2015 3:25am BST
UPDATE 4-Iran, powers give themselves to Monday for nuclear deal

* Third extension in two weeks

* 'Painfully slow,' Britain's Hammond

* Major powers hold inconclusive meeting (Adds Chinese comment)

By John Irish and Arshad Mohammed

VIENNA, July 10 (Reuters) - Iran and major powers gave themselves until Monday to reach a nuclear agreement, their third extension in two weeks, as Tehran accused the West of throwing up new stumbling blocks to a deal.

Both sides say there has been progress in two weeks of talks, but British Secretary Philip Hammond called it "painfully slow" and he and his French counterpart, Laurent Fabius, left Vienna saying they would return on Saturday.

Having missed a Friday morning U.S. congressional deadline, U.S. and European Union officials said they were extending sanctions relief for Iran under an interim deal through Monday to provide more time for talks on a final deal.

Iran and six powers - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States - are trying to end a more than 12-year dispute over Iran's atomic program by negotiating limits on its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.

The sides remain divided over issues that include a U.N. arms embargo on Iran which Western powers want to keep in place, access for inspectors to military sites in Iran and answers from Tehran over past activity suspected of military aims.

Iran's foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said a deal was unlikely to be reached on Friday and negotiators would probably spend the weekend in Vienna. He sought to blame the West for the impasse.

"Now, they have excessive demands," he said of the major powers' negotiating position.

Britain's Hammond said ministers would regroup on Saturday to see if they could overcome the remaining hurdles.

"We are making progress, it's painfully slow," he told reporters before leaving Vienna.

Zarif has been holding intense meetings for two weeks with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to try to hammer out a deal limiting Iran's nuclear programme in return for withdrawing economic sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy.

An agreement would be the biggest step towards rapprochement between Iran and the West since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

But the negotiations have become bogged down, with final deadlines extended three times in the past 10 days and diplomats speaking of a shouting match between Kerry and Zarif.

The White House said on Friday the United States and its negotiating partners "have never been closer" to agreement with Iran but that the U.S. delegation would not wait indefinitely.

China's official Xinhua news agency quoted a diplomatic source as saying the West and Tehran had almost agreed on the clarification of Iran's alleged past nuclear weapon programme, so called possible military dimensions (PMDs) issues and big progress was also made over capping Iran's nuclear capability in the deal.


DEADLINE MISSED

The negotiators missed a Friday morning deadline set by the U.S. Congress for an expedited 30-day review of the deal. Any deal sent to Congress before Sept. 7 would now be subject to a 60 day review period, accounting for lawmakers' summer recess.

U.S. officials had previously expressed concern that the extended review would provide more time for any deal to unravel, but have played down that risk in the last few days as it became increasingly likely that the deadline would not be met.

On Thursday, Kerry suggested Washington's patience was running out: "We can't wait forever," he told reporters. "If the tough decisions don't get made, we are absolutely prepared to call an end to this."

Ali Akbar Velayati, top adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called Kerry's remarks "part of America's psychological warfare against Iran".

A senior Iranian official speaking on condition of anonymity said the United States and the other powers were shifting their positions and backtracking on an April 2 interim agreement that was meant to lay the ground for a final deal.

"Suddenly everyone has their own red lines. Britain has its red line, the U.S. has its red line, France, Germany," the official said.

Back in Iran, Friday provided a reminder of the depth of more than three decades of enmity between Iran and the West that a deal could help overcome.

Iranians rallied for the last Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan, observed in Iran as "Qods Day" or "Death to Israel day", to show support for Palestinians, protest against Israel and chant slogans against the "Great Satan" United States.


OPTIMISTS

Western countries suspect Iran of seeking the capability to make nuclear weapons. Iran says it has the right to peaceful nuclear technology.

Over the past two years, the nuclear talks have brought about the first intensive direct diplomacy between the United States and Iran since Iranian revolutionaries stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held hostages for over a year.

A successful outcome would be a triumph both for U.S. President Barack Obama and Iran's President Hassan Rouhani, a pragmatist elected in 2013 on a pledge to reduce Iran's international isolation. Optimists say a deal could help reshape Middle East alliances at a time when Washington and Tehran face a common foe in the Sunni militant group Islamic State.

But both presidents face scepticism from powerful hardliners at home, making it difficult to bridge final differences. (Additional reporting by Louis Charbonneau, Parisa Hafezi, Shadia Nasralla, Doina Chiacu and Roberta Rampton; writing by Parisa Hafezi, John Irish and Arshad Mohammed; editing by Peter Graff and Philippa Fletcher)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/07/10/uk-yemen-security-idUKKCN0PK2N820150710

World | Sat Jul 11, 2015 12:54am BST
Related: World, Yemen, Middle East

Saudi-led air strikes hit Yemeni cities two hours into truce - residents

SANAA

Saudi-led air strikes hit Yemen's capital and another main city causing explosions, residents reported, two hours after a United Nations humanitarian truce took effect.

Bombing pounded Yemeni military positions east of the capital Sanaa and also Yemen's third largest city Taiz.

The U.N.-brokered pause in the fighting was meant to last a week to allow aid deliveries to the country's 21 million people who have endured over three months of bombing and civil war.

A coalition of Arab states has been bombing the Iranian-allied Houthi rebel movement since late March in a bid to restore to power Yemen's President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, who has fled to Riyadh.

The group controls much of Yemen, including Sanaa and Taiz.

Air raids and fighting have killed more than 3,000 people since then.

Residents in areas of heavy combat between Houthi forces and local militiamen reported that ground fighting and Saudi-led air strikes on the Houthis had increased across the country in the hours before the truce was to take effect.

All parties to Yemen's conflict had welcomed the announcement of the truce and called for it to be extended.

But the exiled government wants the group to release prisoners and give up land, while the Houthis say they doubt any calm would last.

"We don't have big hope in its success because its success is linked to the commitment of the Saudi regime and its allies," Abdel-Malek al-Houthi, leader of the Houthi movement, said in a televised speech on Friday.


(Reporting by Mohammed Ghobari; Writing by Noah Browning; Editing by Lisa Shumaker, Toni Reinhold)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/10/the-myth-of-the-iranian-military-giant/

The Myth of the Iranian Military Giant

Saudi Arabia’s military outspends the Islamic Republic's 5-to-1; the UAE's does by 50 percent. And ending the arms embargo after a nuclear deal won't change that.

By Trita Parsi, Tyler Cullis
July 10, 2015

You’d be forgiven for thinking that Iran, unshackled from economic sanctions, would have free rein to domineer its vulnerable Persian Gulf Arab neighbors and cause trouble for Israel. As the fearful refrain goes, if an Iran restrained by crippling sanctions has managed to assert its influence over four Arab capitals — those of Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen — what will an Iran freed from sanctions and a global arms embargo do? As noted Iran hawk Ray Takeyh recently wrote, “the most important legacy of the prospective agreement [may be that it] enable[d] the Islamic Republic’s imperial surge.” This same line has been pushed so hard that it has become accepted fact in Washington.

The problem is, the line isn’t true. But, nonetheless, it is threatening to upend a lasting nuclear deal with Iran.

As the nuclear talks between Iran and the P5+1 countries head down to the wire in Vienna, the issue has arisen in the question of whether the arms embargo imposed on Iran as part of the U.N. Security Council resolutions would be maintained following a nuclear deal. The United States and its European partners say yes; Russia, China, and Iran say no.

The timing is troubling to say the least. Just as solutions have been found to constrain and roll back elements of Iran’s nuclear program, this issue — one that’s outside the scope of the nuclear talks — is now taking on such exaggerated importance that it threatens to undo the serious progress of the past 18 months. Having performed so well at insulating the nuclear talks from outside complications, U.S. and Iranian negotiators have nearly reached agreement only to come to a standstill over this regional dimension. Of course, no one imagined back in 2010 that a conventional arms embargo — part of what was otherwise a U.N. Security Council resolution focused squarely on Iran’s nuclear-proliferation activities — would rear its ugly head in quite this manner.

The Russian and Iranian position is that the Security Council resolutions rested on the understanding that the arms embargo would be lifted once concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program were resolved. Provided that a deal is reached on Iran’s nuclear program, Russia and Iran thus argue, the arms embargo loses its legal justification. The current U.S. position, however, may be less interested in maintaining coherence with past policy than it is with ensuring that it mitigates regional allies’ concern as much as possible as part of a nuclear deal with Iran. Understandably, U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration fears that undoing the arms embargo on Iran would be a step too far for some of the United States’ key regional allies, all of which — but particularly Saudi Arabia — threaten to undermine the administration’s case for a nuclear deal should they perceive their interests to dictate in favor of doing so.

The problem is that the exaggerated tales, now running rampant in Washington, of Iranian regional ascendancy in the wake of a nuclear deal don’t jibe with reality.

Far from being a hegemonic power, able to domineer and subdue its regional rivals with impunity, Iran has a regional position that remains untenable, all while its regional rivals procure weapons systems that make themselves increasingly invulnerable.

Indeed, sober assessment shows that — both quantitatively and qualitatively — Iran’s regional rivals are well positioned not just to counter a “rising” Iran but to compete with it as well. Moreover, this has been true for some time. According to an April report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), interrogating the relevant “data make a conclusive case that the Arab Gulf states have … an overwhelming advantage of Iran in both military spending and access to modern arms.”

Quantitatively, Iran’s military expenditures have sunk far below those of its Gulf rivals. In 2014, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), more than 25 percent of Saudi government spending was devoted to beefing up its military assets — expenditures that totaled more than $80 billion. Along with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which spent nearly $23 billion, the two Gulf Arab countries comprise well over half the $173 billion in military expenditures spent by all Middle Eastern countries that year.

Comparatively, Iran’s military expenditures failed to measure up. During 2014, Iran’s military spending was about $15 billion, which comprised about 9 percent of total military spending in the Middle East. That’s a mere fraction of Saudi military spending and about two-thirds of the UAE’s. The Gulf Cooperation Council states — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE — outspend Iran on arms by a factor of 13.

This imbalance is also not merely a current phenomenon. In fact, according to SIPRI’s database, even prior to the arms embargo on Iran, which went into effect in 2010, Saudi Arabia’s military expenditures in the past two decades consistently doubled or tripled the amounts Iran was outlaying to its own military. The new trend, then, is not that Saudi spending has overtaken that of Iran (which has historically been the case during the era of the Islamic Republic), but rather that Saudi military spending has skyrocketed since 2005 to the point where it now dwarfs that of its regional rival — Iran.

Qualitatively, the story’s the same. As one CSIS report notes, “The Arab Gulf states have acquired and are acquiring some of the most advanced and effective weapons in the world. Iran has essentially been forced to live in the past, often relying on systems originally delivered at the time of the Shah.” Saudi spending is used to procure the most modern weapons systems, while Iran is left with beleaguered and aging weapons systems ill-suited for state conflict.

For the Gulf Arab countries, this includes some of the most modern American military hardware, such as the latest fighter jets from Boeing and Lockheed Martin, Predator drones, Apache attack helicopters, Patriot air-defense systems, and stockpiles of the latest missiles, bombs, and other weapons. As the Christian Science Monitor reported in May, there is a virtual rush to buy high-tech American weapons systems to protect against a rival Iran.

Meanwhile, Iran is left with weapons systems that border on obsolete. Relying on Shah-era military hardware and unable to find a reliable partner overseas for weapons purchases, Iran has been forced to rely on its own industrial base to make any substantive advancements to its military weapons programs. While it does retain the region’s largest stockpile of ballistic missiles, expert opinion remains that Iran has been less than successful in doing so, leaving it in the disadvantageous position of being both outspent and outarmed by its regional adversaries.

Based on the trend lines, too, this situation is unlikely to change even in the wake of a nuclear deal. Indeed, a look at SIPRI’s accounting of the Islamic Republic’s past military spending shows that its expenditures have consistently been within 3 percent of its GDP. As much as sanctions have at times been cited as the reason for Iran’s paltry outlays to its military, the fact is that Iran’s military spending has moderately risen — not decreased — during the sanctions era. This can be chalked up to the fact that Iran’s security crises were exacerbated as a result of the ongoing nuclear dispute, not ameliorated by it. Following a deal, the incentive structure for Iran does not thus tilt in favor of increased military spending, but decreased spending.

Add to all this the fact that outside powers — including the United States, France, and Britain — either maintain or have increased their presence in the Gulf region in ways favorable to Gulf Arab state interests, and the balance of conventional capabilities is starkly opposed to the Iranians.

Despite all this, though, the perception in Washington remains of a domineering Iran towering over its Gulf Arab rivals following a nuclear deal.

In simpler times, such exaggerated tales of an adversary’s ascendancy would risk distorting our field of perception and make it much more difficult to adopt sensible strategies for protecting our core security interests. But at this moment, with the outcome of the nuclear talks in the balance, these tall tales of future Iranian capabilities threaten to implode the negotiations while they rest on the cusp of success. Whether ill-informed or with malign intent, talking heads in Washington are portraying what is ultimately a false picture of the regional balance of power.

Finishing the negotiations has proved tougher than many had predicted, with diplomats blowing through a third deadline this past week. The issue of the arms embargo on Iran is one of the few remaining sticking points — and it’s a tricky one because Russia has officially broken with the P5+1 and called for the embargo to be lifted. The entire nuclear deal could fall on this one single issue.

That’s why it’s so essential to correct this common but false wisdom and adopt a more sober view of what the region might look like the day after a nuclear deal. It’s not just a matter of missiles — it’s a matter of war and peace.

 

[Housecarl]

Main Russia/Ukraine invasion thread - NATO: Russian Tanks and Artillery Enter Ukraine
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ian-Tanks-and-Artillery-Enter-Ukraine/page421


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Ukraine-leader-to-give-rebels-self-rule.html

Angela Merkel and François Hollande urge Ukraine leader to give rebels self-rule

In a rare and blunt message, the German and French leaders call on Petro Poroshenko to ensure partial self-rule for the pro-Russian separatist east

By AFP
9:54PM BST 10 Jul 2015
Comments 24

German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president Francois Hollande took the rare step on Friday of pressing Ukraine's Western-backed leader to ensure partial self-rule for the pro-Russian separatist east.

The blunt message from two of Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko's most important allies marked another sign of European impatience with fighting that still engulfs the ex-Soviet nation five months after the signing of a broad truce.

The 13-point agreement reached in the Belarussian capital Minsk controversially guarantees three years of autonomy to militia-run districts of Ukraine's industrial provinces of Lugansk and Donetsk.

The mostly Russian-speaking regions – dotted with war-shattered steel mills and coal mines that once fuelled Ukraine's economy – want their special status spelt out in constitutional amendments that would be enormously difficult to overturn.

But Mr Poroshenko's draft changes so far only make passing reference to an existing piece of legislation that gives insurgency leaders temporary self-administration rights.

The rebels fear the law could be easily watered-down or even revoked – a decision that would cheer Ukraine's nationalist forces and outrage Russian president Vladimir Putin.

The European Union's dire state of relations with Russia have been of particular concern to Ms Merkel as she tries to return calm to the continent's jittery markets and bring more stability to the 28-nation bloc's eastern front.

Mr Poroshenko said Ms Merkel and Mr Hollande – both present at the Minsk agreement's signing in February – had "recommended that the president of Ukraine continue with (his) constitutional reforms".

The two "especially stressed that the draft constitution of Ukraine reflects special self-rule for certain districts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions".

Mr Hollande's office confirmed that the French leader and Merkel placed "particular emphasis on the special status of certain areas in the regions of Donetsk and Lugansk in the draft constitution".

The German statement carried a similar message. None of the sides mentioned who had initiated the conference call.

More than 6,500 people have died and 1.4 million have been left homeless since the conflict erupted in the wake of the February 2014 ousted of a Russian-backed leader and his replacement by a strongly pro-Western leadership.

The Minsk deal managed to contain some of the clashes but daily exchanges of fire still flare.

A Ukrainian military spokesman accused the insurgents on Friday of "once again resorting to the use of heavy weapons, sabotage and reconnaissance groups".

Mr Poroshenko also somewhat unexpectedly warned citizens on Friday of the mounting threat of "terror" facing peaceful cities now under full Ukrainian control.

The 49-year-old former chocolate magnate said his efforts to stamp out the uprising had drained security resources and left swathes of Ukraine open to attacks from criminals and those allied to rebel fighters.

"The terrorist threat level has significantly risen outside the zone where we are conducting our antiterrorist operation," Mr Poroshenko said.

Ukraine refers to the insurgents as "terrorists" – a label that infuriates Russia.

Moscow denies either instigating the uprising or providing the militias with heavy weapons and tacit support from Russian troops.

But it offers the separatists strong diplomatic backing at both the United Nations and the periodic Minsk truce talks.

Mr Putin said on Friday that Ukrainian peace efforts were "stalling" because of Mr Poroshenko's refusal to hold direct talks with the self-declared leaders of Lugansk and Donetsk.

"Yet I still tend to think that (the truce) is more likely to succeed than fail," Mr Putin said on the sidelines of a BRICS emerging nations summit in the Russian city of Ufa.

 

[energy_wave]

The Russian Air Force is falling out of the sky
Kyle Mizokami

The flights began last year. The government of Russian President Vladimir Putin, eager to send a message, began flying nuclear bombers on training missions near the United States and its allies around the world.

The message was one of intimidation and defiance: Russia is still a power to be reckoned with, and meddling in the Ukraine, Syria, and Russia itself — particularly on human rights issues — is not appreciated.

Now, after months of aggressive flying, Russia's overworked air force is falling out of the sky. On July 5, a Su-24M tactical bomber crashed during takeoff at Khabarovsk in the Russian Far East. The plane banked sharply after takeoff and hit the ground. Both pilots were killed.

Five Russian combat planes have crashed in the past month. Russia's attempt to demonstrate strength has backfired spectacularly and demonstrated weakness instead.

In the past year, Russia has sent nuclear bombers to the borders of the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Poland, the Netherlands, and Japan. In May, a pair of Su-24 bombers made a low pass over the destroyer USS Ross in the Black Sea, and Russian fighters have demonstrated "reckless" and "unprofessional" behavior near American spy planes over the Baltic Sea, prompting protests from the Pentagon.

Russia's Air Force has been run at a high tempo, and the pace is catching up with an already-weary aircraft fleet. The toll in just the last month has been extraordinary: In addition to the fatal Su-24M accident, two MiG-29 fighters have crashed. Less than three hours after the second MiG crash, a Su-34 strike fighter flipped over while landing and went down south of Moscow.

On Monday July 6th, a Tu-95 strategic bomber suffered an engine fire and overshot the landing strip at Ukrainka Airbase in the Russian Far East, where flights against Japan and the Western United States are conducted. Both pilots were killed.

President Vladimir Putin has decided to mount frequent shows of force to remind other countries of Russia's military power. Unfortunately for him, all of Russia's options for a show of force are dicey. Russia's military suffered from neglect during the 1990s and early 2000s, the result of a weak economy that was unable to properly fund the armed forces. Armored vehicles, ships, and planes were inadequately serviced, and even fell into disrepair.

The Russian Army, being what it is, can't mount an effective show of force beyond the country's borders. The Russian Navy can't send its remaining aircraft carrier and cruisers abroad without a oceangoing tugboat shadowing them — in case one of the ships breaks down.

That leaves the Russian Air Force. The vast majority of Russia's Air Force was built and operated by the Soviet Union, making the youngest of these planes 24 years old. The Tu-95 "Bear", MiG-29 "Fulcrum," and Su-24 "Fencer" fighters and bombers that crashed in the last month were all inherited from the Soviet Union.

Compounding the problem is the inability to replace older aircraft with new models. Since the end of the Cold War the United States has introduced the all-new F-22 Raptor and is on the verge of introducing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Russia on the other hand has not introduced a new fighter design in 30 years. Russia's latest fighters, the Su-35 air superiority fighter and the Su-34 strike fighter, are updated designs dating to the late 1970s.

Russia recently announced an aggressive program to modernize its armed forces, and pledged to spend $400 billion on new armaments. But already the program is in trouble, as sanctions over the war in Ukraine, a ban on military sales to Russia, and declining oil prices have sapped the modernization effort.

Russia recently cut its initial buy of the new PAK-FA fighter, it's first stealthy, so-called "fifth generation" design, from 52 to a mere 12. The troubled aircraft program is suffering from technical difficulties and cost overruns. Russia will likely buy more fighters down the road, but it's an example of the problems Moscow faces in procuring new equipment.

Moscow is caught between a rock and a hard place. Russia can no longer rely on older equipment to project an image of strength and power. But increasingly it cannot afford to replace that equipment with modern designs the equal of American and Western equipment.

Four airmen serving their country have died, a tragedy regardless of nationality. But the upshot of this recent spate of crashes may be a more realistic view of Russian power by those wielding it. The Russian military is simply not ready for war — or even saber rattling.

http://theweek.com/articles/565028/russian-air-force-falling-sky

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150711/iran-nuclear_talks-c71854b2aa.html

Top US -Iranian meeting amid new nuke deal target date

Jul 11, 4:57 AM (ET)

VIENNA (AP) — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif are using their first full day of renewed overtime at nuclear talks to whittle away at disputes that have led to four extensions of the latest round.

All seven nations at the talks agreed to set a new target day of Monday for an accord after realizing that they could not wrap up the talks as they hoped to do by Friday.

Negotiators had originally hoped to come up with a deal by June 30. Kerry and Zarif met as talks entered their 15th straight day Saturday.

Any deal is meant to clamp long-term restrictions on Iranian nuclear programs that are technically adaptable to make weapons in exchange for sanctions relief for Tehran.

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Beyond The Levant ‏@TheRealBTL 5m5 minutes ago

Tunisia’s ‘non-NATO ally’ status confirmed by U.S. - http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...s-non-NATO-ally-status-confirmed-by-U-S-.html … 16th country to become a Major Non-NATO Ally of United States.


posted for fair use


Tunisia’s ‘non-NATO ally’ status confirmed by U.S.

President Barack Obama meets with Prime Minister Beji Caid Essebsi of Tunisia in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington. (File photo: AP)

AFP, Washington
Saturday, 11 July 2015

Tunisia’s status as a “non-NATO ally” of the United States has been approved, the U.S. State Department said, paving the way for enhanced military cooperation between the countries.

Washington hailed the partnership between the United States and Tunisia after the Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) status was confirmed Friday.

“MNNA status sends a strong signal of our support for Tunisia’s decision to join the world’s democracies,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement.

He added the “status is a symbol of our close relationship.”

In May, U.S. President Barack Obama declared Tunisia a non-NATO ally while hosting his Tunisian counterpart Beji Caid Essebsi at the White House.

The United States is hoping to strengthen Essebsi, who in December became the first democratically elected leader in Tunisia’s 60-year history.

Kirby said the status offers Tunisia a host of “tangible privileges, including eligibility for training, loans of equipment for cooperative research and development, and foreign military financing for commercial leasing of certain defense articles.”

Tunisia is the 16th country to become a Major Non-NATO Ally of the United States.

Tunisia became the flashpoint of Arab Spring revolts across the Middle East in 2011 when a disaffected fruit vendor set himself alight, arousing pent-up anger at failing government and economic hardship.

Granting the country MNNA status is a bid to bolster the country against the rising threat of jihadist groups in the region.

On June 26, a gunman killed 38 foreign holidaymakers, including 30 Britons, at a beach resort.

The massacre followed an attack in March, when two jihadists gunned down 21 tourists and a policeman at the Bardo National Museum in Tunis.

Both attacks were claimed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group.
Last Update: Saturday, 11 July 2015 KSA 17:37 - GMT 14:37


http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...s-non-NATO-ally-status-confirmed-by-U-S-.html

 

[vestige]

Of all the above, this stood out to me:

Main Russia/Ukraine invasion thread - NATO: Russian Tanks and Artillery Enter Ukraine

I have seen them and they ain't pretty.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150711/ml--islamic_state-5d08a1cd56.html

Afghanistan says US strikes destroy its Islamic State branch

Jul 11, 1:39 PM (ET)
By RAHIM FAIEZ

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Afghanistan said Saturday that recent U.S. airstrikes it assisted destroyed the top leadership of a fledging Islamic State affiliate there, potentially striking a major blow to an insurgent group already targeted by local Taliban fighters.

While U.S. officials declined to confirm it, Afghan authorities said an American airstrike Friday killed Islamic State affiliate leader Hafeez Sayeed and more than 30 other militants. That comes after Afghan officials earlier said another U.S. airstrike killed the affiliate's second-highest official, Gul Zaman, and six others, including a former Pakistani Taliban spokesman named Shahidullah Shahid who earlier had joined the group.

"With the killings of Hafiz Sayeed, Gul Zaman and Shahidullah Shahid, who were the high-profile figures of Daesh in Afghanistan, we have destroyed the base of ISIS," said Abdul Hassib Sediqi, a spokesman for Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security, using two alternate names for the militant group.

Sediqi offered no photographs or other evidence to show the strikes killed the Islamic State affiliate's top leaders, though he said Afghan authorities verified a corpse from Friday's strike was Sayeed. Militants with the group have not discussed the strikes online.

NATO officials declined to immediately comment on the claim, saying they would issue a statement later Saturday. U.S. Army Col. Brian Tribus, a spokesman for U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, confirmed Americans carried out an airstrike Friday in Nangarhar's Achin District, but declined to comment further.

NATO and U.S. officials have not commented on the strike that Afghan officials said killed Zaman and Shahid, which they said took place Monday in the same district as Friday's strike.

The Islamic State group, which holds a self-declared "caliphate" across roughly third of Syria and neighboring Iraq, has inspired militants across the greater Middle East and Africa to declare allegiance to its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The militants include those in Egypt who purportedly claimed a car bombing early Saturday at the Italian Consulate in Cairo that killed one person.

They also include militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the target of a U.S.-led invasion after the 2001 al-Qaida terror attacks on America.

Disenchanted extremists from the Taliban and other organizations, impressed by the Islamic State group's territorial gains and slick online propaganda, began raising its black flag in extremist-dominated areas of both countries in recent months.

Analysts and officials say the number of Islamic State supporters in the Afghan-Pakistan region remains small and that the group faces resistance from militants with strong tribal links. However, the rise of even a small Islamic State affiliate could further destabilize the region and complicate U.S. and NATO efforts to end the 13-year Afghan war.

In April, a motorcycle-riding suicide bomber attacked a line of people waiting outside a bank in eastern Afghanistan, killing at least 35 and wounding 125 in an assault the country's president blamed on the Islamic State group. Other violence has been blamed on the Islamic State affiliate, including gun battles between its followers and the Taliban, who warned the Islamic State group to stay out of the country. Afghan officials have suggested the Islamic State affiliate had a presence in three of its provinces, including Nangarhar, which borders Pakistan and frequently sees militants cross its borders.

Sediqi, the National Directorate of Security spokesman, said Afghan officials had created a special intelligence unit to target the Islamic State affiliate and its work directly aided the U.S. airstrikes.

"Daesh activities have been totally disturbed here and it is not easy for them to replace all these high-ranking figures any time soon," he said.

Meanwhile Saturday, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said army airstrikes killed at least 28 people in the Islamic State-held town of al-Bab in northern Syria, including 19 civilians. The Local Coordination Committees group said the barrel bombings killed 29 people.

Al-Bab is a frequent target of Syrian army strikes that often kill civilians. On May 31, Syrian army airstrikes that hit a packed market in al-Bab killed around 70 people, most of them civilians.

---

Associated Press writers Eileen Sullivan in Washington, Zeina Karam in Beirut and Brian Rohan and Jon Gambrell in Cairo contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/11/us-yemen-security-idUSKCN0PK2N020150711

World | Sat Jul 11, 2015 2:58pm EDT
Related: World, United Nations, Yemen

Bombing and heavy fighting break Yemen truce: residents

SANAA/ADEN | By Mohammed Ghobari and Mohammed Mukhashaf

Video

Saudi-led air strikes and heavy shelling between warring factions shook several cities in Yemen on Saturday, residents said, violating a United Nations humanitarian truce which took effect just before midnight.

The U.N.-brokered pause in the fighting was meant to last a week to allow aid deliveries to the country's 21 million people who have endured more than three months of bombing and civil war.

A coalition of Arab states has been bombing the Iranian-allied Houthi rebel movement - Yemen's dominant force - since late March in a bid to restore to power President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, who has fled to Riyadh.

That coalition said on Saturday that the Yemeni government in exile had not asked it to pause, according to a news flash on Saudi-owned Arabiya TV.

Yemeni government officials were not immediately available to comment, but the U.N. Secretary General's office said before the truce that President Hadi had "communicated his acceptance of the pause to the coalition to ensure their support."

Air raids pounded Houthi and Yemeni army units in the capital Sanaa and in the group's stronghold province of Saada along the border with Saudi Arabia.

Fighting raged in the embattled southern city of Taiz and the eastern province of Mareb amid intense artillery exchanges between Houthi fighters and local militiamen backed up by Arab air strikes.

In Aden, one of the country's most deprived and war-torn areas, witnesses said Houthi forces fired mortars and Katyusha rockets towards opposition fighters based in northern areas and around the city's international airport.

Bombing by the Arab alliance and fighting have killed more than 3,000 people since March 26.


"TRAGIC"

The Houthis, who hail from the Shi'ite Muslim sect, and their army allies say their spread throughout the country is part of a revolution against a corrupt government and hardline Sunni Muslim militants which they say are allied to the opposition forces, and they vowed to keep up the fight despite the truce.

"Our security and armed forces maintain their right to fight and hunt down al Qaeda and Islamic State elements as part of our just defence of our people," Colonel Sharaf Luqman, spokesperson for the Houthi-allied army, said in a statement on Saturday.

Supplies of food, fuel and medicine have dwindled dangerously because of the fighting and a near-blockade by the coalition, spreading disease and hunger.

"There have been very heavy air strikes and fighting across the country, seemingly unabated," UNICEF's Yemen representative Julien Harneis said.

But while the fighting mostly doesn't stop humanitarian aid being delivered to affected areas, the tragic thing is that it does impede the civilian population from going the last mile and being able to reach that assistance," he added.

Local officials in Aden said that Houthi fighters had allowed 25 trucks of medical aid into the besieged city on Saturday, but were holding up 40 other trucks full of food.

All parties in Yemen's conflict had welcomed the announcement of the truce and called for it to be extended.

But the exiled government wants the Houthis to release prisoners and give up land they have seized in battle, while the Houthis say they doubt any calm will last.

Residents in the eastern city of Mukalla said a suspected U.S. drone fired two missiles at cars carrying al Qaeda militants on Friday night, killing three including a senior leader in the group, Abu Hajar al-Hadrami.

Washington fears turmoil in Yemen will strengthen al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the deadliest branch of the global militant group.

AQAP's new leader Qassim al-Raymi, appointed after his predecessor was killed in a U.S. drone strike last month, called for attacks on the United States in a taped speech released on Thursday.


(Writing by Noah Browning; Editing by Toni Reinhold and Pravin Char)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/11/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKCN0PL0F420150711

World | Sat Jul 11, 2015 4:36pm EDT
Related: World, United Nations, France, Davos

France says 'decision time' has come in Iran nuclear talks

VIENNA | By Louis Charbonneau and John Irish


France's foreign minister appeared to put pressure on the United States and Iran on Saturday to speed up nuclear talks, saying all issues were now on the table and that the time had come to make a decision.

Western and Iranian diplomats close to the talks said they expected to work well into the night in hopes of a breakthrough, perhaps as early as on Sunday, on a deal to bring sanctions relief for Tehran in exchange for curbs on its atomic program.

Iran and the six powers involved in the talks - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States - have given themselves until Monday to reach a deal, their third extension in two weeks, as the Iranian delegation accused the West of throwing up new stumbling blocks to an accord.

"Now that everything is on the table, the moment has come to decide," French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said in a statement sent to Reuters after speaking to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond.

Among the biggest sticking points this week has been Iran's insistence that a United Nations Security Council arms embargo and ban on its ballistic missile program dating from 2006 be lifted immediately if an agreement is reached.

Russia, which sells weapons to Iran, has publicly supported Tehran on the issue.

However, a senior Western diplomat said earlier in the week the six powers remained united, despite Moscow's and Beijing's well-known dislike of the embargos.

Western powers have long suspected Iran of aiming to build nuclear bombs and using its civilian atomic energy program to cloak its intention - an accusation Iran strongly denies.

Other problematic issues in the talks are access for inspectors to military sites in Iran, answers from Tehran over past activity and the overall speed of sanctions relief.

"Still have difficult issues to resolve," Kerry tweeted on Saturday after meeting Zarif.

The two men have met nearly every day since Kerry arrived in Vienna more than two weeks ago for what was intended to be the final phase in a negotiation process lasting more than year and a half aimed at securing a long-term deal with Iran.

An agreement would be the biggest step towards rapprochement between Iran and the West since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, although both sides are likely to remain wary of each other even if a deal is concluded.


"GLOBAL ARROGANCE"

In separate comments, Iran's President Hassan Rouhani suggested the talks could go either way while Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said Tehran would continue its fight against "global arrogance" - referring to the United States.

According to his website, Khamenei was asked by a student what would happen to the "fight against global arrogance" after the completion of the nuclear talks and the supreme leader replied that fight must go on.

"Fighting global arrogance is the core of our revolution and we cannot put it on hold. Get ready to continue your fight against the global arrogance," Khamenei was quoted as saying. "The U.S. is the true embodiment of the global arrogance."

Rouhani, who was elected president in 2013 on a platform of improving Iran's relations with the world as well as its sickly oil-based economy, was quoted by Iran's Nasim news agency as suggesting talks could succeed or fail.

"Even if the nuclear talks fail, our diplomacy showed the world that we are logical. We never left the negotiation table and always provided the best answer," Nasim quoted Rouhani as saying during a meeting with Iranian artists.

"Twenty-two months of negotiation means we have managed to charm the world, and it’s an art," he was quoted as saying.

Kerry told reporters late on Friday the atmosphere in the talks was constructive.

"A couple of differences have been decided ... It's safe to say we have made progress," he said, without giving any details.

Fabius and Hammond returned to Vienna on Saturday and a U.S. official said that Kerry had spoken by telephone with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who was not in Vienna.

In the last few days the talks have become bogged down, with diplomats speaking of a shouting match between Kerry and Zarif.

The White House said on Friday that the United States and its partners "have never been closer" to agreement with Iran but that the U.S. delegation would not wait indefinitely.

A senior Iranian official speaking on condition of anonymity said on Thursday the United States and other Western powers were shifting their positions and backtracking on an April 2 interim accord that was meant to lay the foundations for a final deal.


(Additional Reporting by Parisa Hafezi, Arshad Mohammed and Shadia Nasralla in Vienna and Bozorgmehr Sharafedin in Dubai; Writing by Louis Charbonneau, John Irish and Arshad Mohammed; Editing by Hugh Lawson)

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://news.vice.com/article/now-would-be-a-pretty-good-time-to-launch-a-nuclear-attack-on-russia

Defense & Security

Now Would Be a Pretty Good Time to Launch a Nuclear Attack on Russia

By Ezra Kaplan
July 9, 2015 | 9:55 am

Russia's space-based early warning system, designed to alert the nation to an inbound nuclear missile attack, is offline, leaving Moscow partially blind to potential intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) attacks.

Since the Cold War, both the US and Russia have used a combination of satellites and ground radars as part of early warning systems to alert their governments to any incoming ICBMs. Russia announced last year that it would be replacing its aging Soviet-designed missile-warning system, which was decommissioned in January, this month. But last week, they announced that the replacement satellites had been delayed by four months.

"Today we are nearly prepared to launch the first satellite into a highly elliptic orbit, the launch of which will take place in November 2015," Major General Oleg Maidanovich, commander of Russia's Aerospace Defense Forces, said Tuesday. Maidanovich, however, did not offer an explanation as to why the launch had been postponed.

Related: Russia Is Getting New Nuclear Missiles ¡ª But It's Probably Not the End of the World¤w

Signs of an ICBM missile launch include heat and infrared signatures coming from the hot plume of rocket exhaust created during the missile's ascent phase. Early warning satellites are then complemented by an array of ground-based radars to detect incoming missiles.

"The major difference is that [the detection] range on the ground is limited because of the curvature of the Earth, so you don't have as much warning that a missile is incoming," Michaela Dodge, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, told VICE News. She explained that ground-based systems have to look for different kinds of indicators because a missile's heat signature decreases significantly within five minutes of a launch.

So with its satellites out of commission, Russia can only depend on ground radar, leaving the country vulnerable to a surprise nuclear attack at a time when tensions with the rest of the world are growing.

Last weekend, while Russian President Vladimir Putin called President Barack Obama to wish him a happy Fourth of July, the US Air Force intercepted four Russian nuclear-capable long-range bombers off the coasts of California and Alaska.

Watch VICE News' 'Silencing Dissent in Russia: Putin's Propaganda Machine'

But despite that incident, recent antagonism in the Baltic Sea, and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, experts point out that a pre-emptive strike against the Russians ¡ª even with their defenses down ¡ª would be exceedingly unwise.

"If you are going to do a first strike, you want be able to take out as much of the Russian nuclear force as you can so that you reduce the prospects of retaliation," Steven Pifer, director of the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative at the Brookings Institution, told VICE News. "Nobody has the capability to execute that."

It's also highly unlikely that the US would be willing to make the first move against the former Soviet republic.

"I can conceive of no circumstance in which the United States would launch a 'bolt from the blue' first strike on Russia ¡ª not gonna happen," Pifer said. The only way an American president would launch a nuclear attack, he says, would be in retaliation to another country's strike.

The decision for any nuclear strike has to come from the president, who would access the infamous nuclear "football," a super-classified briefcase that is always kept near him. Though its contents are a secret, it is widely believed that the black leather case contains everything the president needs to initiate a nuclear attack, whether preemptive or retaliatory.

Were the president to give the order, it would swiftly move through the chain of command until it reached the three legs of the nuclear triad: Ohio-class submarines carrying Trident D5 ballistic missiles, the 450 underground missile silos holding Minuteman III missiles spread throughout the Great Plains, and long-range nuclear bombers like the B-2.

Related: Cold War Nuclear Treaties: Old and Busted or Cool Vintage?¤w

But no matter how effective the early warning systems, neither Russia nor the United States is capable of defending itself against an all-out missile attack from the other.

"The United States has been very clear that it would be impossible, foolhardy, and a fool's errand to try to defend against a Russian nuclear attack," Tom Collina, director of policy at Ploughshares Fund, an anti-nuclear proliferation think tank, told VICE News. "The only thing defending against a nuclear attack is Russia's own self-restraint and wisdom. Nuclear deterrence is what holds the balance of terror in place, not defenses."

The greatest danger posed by Russia's hobbled early warning system, according to Collina, is the risk of misinterpretation.

"We want Russia to have full information about what threats might be coming towards it, because the situation here is not that the United States is going to launch a pre-emptive war against Russia, but that Russia will launch nuclear weapons under the misinformed impression that it is being attacked," Collina said. "From the US perspective, the more situational awareness, the more early warning Russia has, the better."

In other words, the lack of early warning satellites doesn't make the world more dangerous because it increases the likelihood of a surprise nuclear attack. It makes the world more dangerous because it increases the fear of a surprise nuclear attack.

Follow Ezra Kaplan on Twitter

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/11/us-mideast-crisis-town-idUSKCN0PL09H20150711

World | Sat Jul 11, 2015 8:20am EDT
Related: World

Monitor: Syrian air strike kills 28 in Islamic State-held town

BEIRUT

A group monitoring the Syrian war said an army air strike on an Islamic State-controlled town in the north killed at least 28 people including three children on Saturday, though the military denied the report.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based organization that monitors the war via a network of activists on the ground, said 19 civilians were among the dead in a helicopter attack on al-Bab, 30 km (20 miles) northeast of Aleppo.

A Syrian military source said the army had not carried out any air strikes in al-Bab on Saturday.

A U.S.-led coalition is waging a separate campaign of air strikes against Islamic State targets in Syria, but rejects the idea of partnering with President Bashar al-Assad, who it sees as part of the problem.


(Writing by Tom Perry; Editing by Andrew Heavens)

 

[Housecarl]

Head of Sinaloa drug cartel escapes Mexican maximum security prison for 2nd time
Started by mzkittyý, Today 06:45 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-Mexican-maximum-security-prison-for-2nd-time


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://abc27.com/2015/07/12/mexican-drug-lord-joaquin-el-chapo-guzman-escapes-prison/

Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman escapes prison

By Sarah Newton
Published: July 12, 2015, 7:19 am | Updated: July 12, 2015, 7:37 am

MEXICO CITY (AP) – Mexican drug lord, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman escaped last night from a maximum security prison for the second time.

Security officials stated that Guzman led the powerful Sinaloa Cartel. He was last seen near the prison showers late Saturday.

The National Security Commission said in a statement that Guzman went to the showers shortly before 9 p.m. and wasn’t seen for a while. Upon checking his cell, authorities found it was empty.

The search began immediately in the surrounding area and highways.

Flights have been inspected at the airport near the prison outside Mexico City.

Guzman has been in prison since February 2014.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/...taking-responsibility-its-own-security-gloves

Japan’s security: Gloves off

A pacifist nation inches closer to taking responsibility for its own security

Jul 11th 2015 | TOKYO | From the print edition
Comments 49

FOR months Japan’s Diet (parliament) has been debating one of the country’s most important legislative changes since the second world war. Shinzo Abe, the prime minister, wants to make it easier for Japan’s armed forces to join military activities abroad and defend allies under attack—principally America. But Mr Abe’s long-cherished aim of loosening the shackles of the country’s pacifist constitution is proving unpopular at home.

The government wants to ram a clutch of security bills through the Diet’s lower house by July 16th. Despite complaints about this by some of Japan’s neighbours who are still haunted by memories of its role in the war, the laws would not involve sweeping change. Japan would still not send combat troops abroad, even on peacekeeping missions. It would be able to use military force to protect its allies, but only if Japan itself were deemed to be in a “survival-threatening situation”. Worryingly for Mr Abe, however, public support is receding ever farther.

A recent poll by the state broadcaster, NHK, found that almost half the population did not understand the bills. Even Sankei Shimbun, a strongly pro-government newspaper, says that nearly 60% oppose passing them this summer. Public backing for the government has dipped below 40% for the first time since Mr Abe called—and won—a snap election last year, according to the Asahi Shimbun, a liberal newspaper. Mr Abe’s difficulties were highlighted last month when three legal experts testified before the Diet that the government’s plans violated the constitution, article nine of which says that “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.” One expert, Yasuo Hasebe, had been asked to testify by the prime minister’s own Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).

Mr Abe says he does not want Japan to become embroiled in foreign conflicts. But he does value the alliance with America, which wants him to find ways of enabling his country to play a bigger security role. Both Japan and America worry about the rise of China and North Korean military madness. Neither government wants Japan to be hogtied by old rules should an emergency arise, such as an attack by China on an American ship defending Japan. One aim is to achieve “inter-operability” with American forces, in line with new guidelines for the two countries’ military relationship that were adopted during a visit by Mr Abe to Washington in April.

During that trip Mr Abe had no problem convincing his hosts of the need for new security laws in Japan. But he angered lawmakers at home when he told America’s Congress that his legislation would be passed by both houses of the Diet this summer. At that stage, the bills had still not even been submitted. His pledge looks increasingly rash; the lower house may be close to passing the bills, but there will still be haggling in the upper house where the LDP lacks a majority.

Much of the debate relates to the constitution, especially article nine, which is treasured by many Japanese. But those who accuse Mr Abe of violating it ignore the fact that it has long been interpreted loosely. The document, for example, permits no army, navy or air force; but Japan has had all three since the 1950s. (It got around the ban by calling them “self-defence forces”.) It was Mr Abe’s predecessor, Yoshihiko Noda of the Democratic Party of Japan, who raised the idea of allowing Japan to engage in “collective” security, as defending allies from attack is described.

You say army, I say self-defence force

Mr Abe is eager to make Japan a more normal military power, but he has failed to convince many citizens that this is necessary. The government has found only a handful of leading scholars to support its view publicly. Critics, meanwhile, have been having a field day: an academic group campaigning against the laws has gathered support from 9,000 scholars, including some who normally support Mr Abe. This has led to recriminations. Mr Hasebe, the constitutional scholar, has been bitterly attacked by LDP members who once respected him. At a meeting in June at the LDP’s headquarters, several lawmakers blamed the media for failing to help the public to understand the bills. They proposed leaning on advertisers to smother negative coverage of them. (Mr Abe distanced himself from their comments.)

One reason why Mr Abe has been having trouble selling the legislation is that he is reluctant to describe specific scenarios that might require “collective defence”. China would be enraged if he were even to hint that its behaviour might be a cause for Japanese concern. Mr Abe has given only one possible example: joining allies to end a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, through which flows much of the oil on which Japan depends.

Asked about his struggle over the legislation, Mr Abe told The Economist that it took 25-30 years for the majority of Japanese to accept the need for a security treaty with America (pushed through in 1960 by his grandfather, the then prime minister, Nobusuke Kishi)—implying that the public would eventually support the latest bills too. But it will burn up political capital that Mr Abe badly needs to push ahead with long-delayed economic reforms. He has been talking to right-leaning opposition parties in an effort to garner support in the upper house. Even if the bills are rejected there, they could become law by September if the government can muster a two-thirds majority in the lower house. That should be possible if the LDP can get Komeito, its coalition partner, to co-operate. An extra-long Diet session may help: on June 22nd, with boycotts and protests bogging down parliamentary debate, the government decided to keep the legislature open through the summer.

Mr Abe may take heart from China’s relatively muted response so far. Though state media in China have issued their usual warnings about a revival of Japanese “militarism”, its government has moved in recent months to restore stability to an often turbulent relationship with Japan. After long shunning high-level contacts with Mr Abe’s administration, the Chinese government is now more willing to talk to it—even about ways of ensuring that the two countries do not come to blows.

Related topics

China
Politics
Government and politics
World politics
Asia-Pacific politics

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.aucegypt.edu/GAPP/CairoReview/Pages/articleDetails.aspx?aid=859

ISIS Is Weak, but so Are Arab States

Rami G. Khouri
July 11, 2015

One of the depressing mysteries of the day in the Middle East is why the many different parties involved in the struggle against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have not coordinated more urgently to fight and destroy ISIS. You would think that Iraq, Syria, Iran, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, assorted Kurdish groups in several countries, Hezbollah, and other non-state actors with powerful military capabilities would join forces at a minimum level in order to definitively end ISIS’ mini-expansions into or towards their territories.

That has not happened, so it allows ISIS to continue waging war on several fronts, despite its vulnerabilities and its disjointed control of patches of territory in Syria and Iraq. Recent events in both Iraq and Syria confirm what many, including myself, have always assumed, that a combination of ground troops from the region supported by coordinated air strikes from the United States and others would quickly constrain, weaken and then defeat ISIS in local battles.

This has happened most recently in northern Syria, where Kurdish forces led by the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), supported by units from the Free Syrian Army and intensive U.S. air strikes, have pushed ISIS out of valuable territory that connected its Raqqa city heartland with border crossings into Turkey. This included ISIS’ loss of the important border post of Tal Abyad.

Some estimates say that ISIS has been driven out of about one-third of the lands it controls around its ‘capital’ of Raqqa city. A comparison of maps of Syria today and several months ago shows ISIS-controlled areas that once looked like expanding blobs now looking more like thin slivers. Most importantly, press reports of some battles in and around Tal Abyad say that ISIS forces often left their defensive positions and fled for safety towards Raqqa or Turkey. We are witnessing a clear and repeated breakdown of the image that ISIS has tried to promote of itself, as an invincible fighting force that often wins even before any shot is fired, because its savagery and determination frighten any opponent into submission.

Well, the more accurate emerging reality in the military realm—as always pertained in the political and socio-economic spheres—is that ISIS is not so strong in absolute terms, but its gains have occurred primarily because of two related reasons: the weaknesses and uncoordinated nature of its foes in Iraq and Syria, especially governments, non-state militias and foreign air powers, and the general chaos and ungoverned nature of areas where it advances. When those two conditions are addressed and eliminated, ISIS is exposed for what it really is: a cult-like movement that attracts desperate people from the region and abroad whose main attraction to ISIS is that it offers them that which they seek but do not find in their own societies.

These desperate people who join or support ISIS include Sunni Arabs whose lives in Syria and Iraq have been a series of miseries for many decades, and Arabs and foreigners from other countries who see in ISIS the illusory promise of a noble struggle that gives meaning to their otherwise hollow and vulnerable lives. Its victories on the ground, like taking Raqqa, Mosul, Ramadi and Palmyra, are less a reflection of ISIS’ mighty fighting abilities, and more about the consequences of the incoherent, corrupt and dilapidated state of the Arab societies around it.

The most significant element in the condition of the Arab societies, especially notable in Iraq, is the double-barreled problem of sectarian tensions within Iraqi nationals (such as Kurds vs. Arabs, Shiites vs. Sunnis, and others) and tensions between the United States and several key parties, notably Iran, Iranian-backed Iraqi militias, the Syrian government, and Islamist rebel groups in Syria. Consequently, coordination among all the parties that are threatened by ISIS is minimized or prevented, and ISIS is left to expand here and there almost at will—until, that is, it comes up against a diligent ground force that coordinates closely with available air attack capabilities, as just happened in northern Syria.

This highlights the absolute centrality of political and socio-economic issues over military or strategic matters, in this episode with ISIS as well as with conditions across the Arab world in general. The political and sectarian problems that prevent military coordination also plague the constructive political development of countries like Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, Lebanon, Palestine and others.

The threats from ISIS emphasize the central and common challenge facing all Arab states, of developing effective and equitable governance systems that allow all citizens to share in the fruits and toil of decent nationhood, and thus avoid the indecent vulgarities of ISIS and its ilk.



Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly in the Daily Star. He was founding director and now senior policy fellow of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut. On Twitter @ramikhouri.

Copyright ©2015 Rami G. Khouri -- distributed by Agence Global

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...can_defeat_massed_missile_salvoes_108212.html

July 11, 2015

Directed Energy Can Defeat Massed Missile Salvoes

By Daniel Goure

The Department of Defense is trying to recapture the technological mojo it believes it had during the Cold War. Not surprisingly, while we were investing, quite rightly given the circumstances, in armored vehicles and counter-IED technologies to defeat insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, Russia and China were trying to catch up with us in such areas as long-range precision strike capabilities. Even more ominous, they plan to employ such weapons en masse. In a recent speech, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Robert Work, described the problem thusly:

“… competitors have caught up on this regime (precision guided munitions) and they’re going to fire mass guided missile salvos at us. So the first aspect of the Third Offset Strategy is to win a guided munitions salvo competition. If you cannot do that, and if you cannot convince your adversary that you will dominate in that competition, then they may feel emboldened to pull the trigger, and they may feel that they can forestall us in projecting power into a theater. A larger salvo of guided munitions generally will defeat a smaller salvo of guided munitions. …”

Work went on to state that one key objective of the Pentagon’s approach to regaining its technological advantage, the so-called Third Offset Strategy, must be to find means to defeat massed salvoes by precision-guided ballistic and cruise missiles. “We need a ‘Raid Breaker.’ We need a demonstration called Raid Breaker which can demonstrate that if someone throws a salvo of 100 guided munitions, we’ll be able to ride it out.”

We have been here before. Beginning in the 1980s with President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative and continuing until the end of the Cold War, the United States struggled to find ways of defeating massed missile salvoes. Only then the primary threat wasn’t conventional missiles but the Soviet Union’s massive strategic nuclear arsenal.

Thirty years of investment in technology has resulted in the development and deployment of effective missile defense systems, particularly against shorter-range threats. Systems such as the Patriot, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System with the Standard Missile 3 and the Theater High Altitude Area Defense have proven that it is possible to “hit a bullet with a bullet.”

Then, as now, one of the primary challenges to the deployment of effective missile defenses was the presumed cost-exchange ratio. Simply put, the cost of intercepting an incoming missile or warhead had to be equal or less than that of an additional incoming weapon. Current systems, while quite capable against most if not all theater missile threats, are also relatively expensive. The Deputy Director of the Missile Defense Agency recently acknowledged that the current approach based on missile versus missile was a dead end. “The strategy is not sustainable. You can’t continue to buy these interceptors and have enough to necessarily intercept everything that’s out there.”

To be part of the Third Offset Strategy, the technologies for the “Raid Breaker” concept have to be less expensive on a per intercept basis than the cost of the next offensive missile. In addition, such systems have to be able to address the evolving threat involving precision guided, maneuvering and hypersonic missiles. Robust missile defenses, those able to meet the criterion for Raid Breaker, will have to be based on alternatives to hitting a missile with a missile, that provide low cost per shot, deep magazines, high speed of engagement and precision targeting. The Deputy Secretary made the point this way: “It doesn’t have to be a kinetic solution. Hell, I don’t really want a kinetic solution. That gets into an imposing cost strategy on us. It’s got to be something else.”

Fortunately, something else is within our reach. Steadily, methodically and smartly, MDA and the Services have been investing in a host of energy-based weapons systems. Last summer, the Office of Naval Research tested a 30 KW solid state laser weapon system demonstrator under real world conditions aboard the USS Ponce in the Persian Gulf. This system successfully engaged small boats and unmanned aerial vehicles in addition to ballistic missiles. The Navy has begun work on a maritime laser weapon system that could be deployed on surface combatants in less than ten years. The Army recently tested a Boeing-built land-based tactical laser that successfully destroyed not only rockets, but artillery and mortar shells. BAE Systems has demonstrated the ability of an electro-magnetic rail gun system to fire extremely high speed projectiles out to very long ranges. A rail gun also has the capability of attacking large surface targets, at sea and on land.

Directed energy systems provide game changing capabilities that meet Deputy Secretary Work’s desire to bend the cost-curve in favor of the defense. The combination of extremely low cost per shot, deep (in some instances virtually unlimited) magazines and very rapid engagement of multiple targets are exactly those needed to counter the threat of massed attacks by ballistic and cruise missiles or shorter range rockets. Current kinetic missile defenses will still be employed against very high value targets. The Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Services need to get behind these directed energy programs. The defense department needs to start now developing the budgets and program plans that turn R&D efforts into programs of record.


Dr. Daniel Goure, is a Vice President at the Lexington Institute.

This article originally appeared at the Lexington Institute

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150712/ml-iraq-7309267f8e.html

Iraqi officials: Bombings across Baghdad kill 14, wound 41

Jul 12, 2:10 PM (ET)
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA

BAGHDAD (AP) — A series of bombings Sunday across the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, killed at least 14 people and wounded 41, police officials said.

The deadliest attack took place at the Aden checkpoint in Baghdad's Khazimiyah district, where a suicide car bombing killed eight people, including five civilians, and wounded 23.

In Baghdad's al-Askan district, a car bomb killed at least four people and wounded 11 on a commercial street as people gathered after sunset to break their daily fast for the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

Police also said a roadside bomb on a commercial street in Baghdad's al-Amal neighborhood killed two people and wounded seven.

Medical official corroborated the casualty figures. All spoke on condition of anonymity as they are not authorized to brief journalists.

No one immediately claimed responsibility for the attacks. However, the Islamic State militant group is often behind assaults on checkpoints as it seeks to challenge Iraqi security forces amid intensifying battles in northern and western Iraq.

---

Associated Press writer Murtada Faraj contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150712/iran-nuclear_talks-6cf045aec0.html

AP News Break: Diplomats: Iran announcement planned Monday

Jul 12, 4:25 PM (ET)
By GEORGE JAHN and MATTHEW LEE

(AP) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry leaves his hotel on the way to mass at the St....
Full Image

VIENNA (AP) — Negotiators at the Iran nuclear talks plan to announce Monday that they've reached a historic deal capping nearly a decade of diplomacy that would curb the country's atomic program in return for sanctions relief, two diplomats told The Associated Press on Sunday.

The envoys said a provisional agreement may be reached even earlier — by late Sunday. But they cautioned that final details of the pact were still being worked out. Once it is complete, a formal, final agreement would be open to review by officials in the capitals of Iran and the six world powers at the talks, they said.

Senior U.S. and Iranian officials suggested, however, there might not be enough time to reach a deal by the end of Sunday and that the drafting of documents could bleed into Monday.

All of the officials, who are at the talks in Vienna, demanded anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the negotiations publicly.

(AP) Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, right, talks to journalist from a...
Full Image

"We are working hard, but a deal tonight is simply logistically impossible," the Iranian official said, noting that the agreement will run roughly 100 pages.

The senior U.S. official declined to speculate as to the timing of any agreement or announcement but said "major issues remain to be resolved."

Despite the caution, the negotiators appeared to be on the cusp of an agreement.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who on Thursday had threatened to walk away from the negotiations, said Sunday that "a few tough things" remain in the way but added "we're getting to some real decisions."

En route to Mass at Vienna's gothic St. Stephens Cathedral, Kerry said twice he was "hopeful" after a "very good meeting" Saturday with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who had Muslim services Friday. The two met again early Saturday evening.

(AP) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry walks in the garden of Coburg where closed-door...
Full Image

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius also was cautiously optimistic, telling reporters Sunday: "I hope that we are finally entering the last phase of this negotiation."

In Iran, President Hassan Rouhani said an agreement was close, but not quite done, describing the negotiations as "still steps away from reaching the intended peak."

In another sign that a deal could soon be sealed, Russian news agencies reported that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had arrived in Vienna. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi was also expected later in the day. The other foreign ministers of the six nations negotiating with Iran already are in the Austrian capital and in position to join Kerry and Zarif for an announcement.

Movement toward a deal has been marked by years of tough negotiations. The pact is meant to impose long-term, verifiable limits on nuclear programs that Tehran could modify to produce weapons. Iran, in return, would get tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief.

The current round of nuclear talks is now in its 16th day and has been extended three times since the first deadline of June 30 was missed. The mood among negotiators had turned more somber each time a new target date — first July 7, then July 10 and then July 13 — was set.

(AP) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry leaves his hotel on the way to mass at the St....
Full Image

As the weekend approached, Kerry declared the talks couldn't go on indefinitely and warned that the U.S. could walk away from the negotiations.

Diplomats familiar with the talks said most of the nuts and bolts of implementing the deal have been agreed upon. But over the past week, issues that were previously on the back burner have led to new disputes. Among them is Iran's demand for a lifting of a U.N. arms embargo and its insistence that any U.N. Security Council resolution approving the nuclear deal be written in a way that stops describing Iran's nuclear activities as illegal.

A diplomat familiar with the negotiations said disagreements also persist on how long some of the restrictions on imports of nuclear technology and other embargos outlined in any new Security Council resolution will last. The diplomat, who demanded anonymity because the diplomat wasn't allowed to discuss the confidential talks, said restrictions will last for years, not months.

Meanwhile, Iranians were preparing to celebrate in the event of an agreement. Iran's semi-official ISNA news agency reported that deputy police chief Brigadier General Saeed Montazer al-Mahdi said the authorities are fully prepared for such celebrations.

Despite Kerry's relatively upbeat take, comments by Iran's supreme leader suggested that Tehran's mistrust of Washington would persist no matter what the outcome of the talks.

(AP) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry uses crutches as he walks in the garden of Coburg...
Full Image

Iran's state-run Press TV cited Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday as calling the U.S. an "excellent example of arrogance." It said Khamenei told university students in Tehran to be "prepared to continue the struggle against arrogant powers."

His comments appeared to be a blow to U.S. hopes that an agreement will lead to improved bilateral relations that could translate into increased cooperation in a common cause— the fight against Islamic State radicals.

Zarif had hinted at just that last week, suggesting a deal acceptable to his country will open the door to joint efforts on that front.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a fierce opponent of what he considers a deal that is too lenient on Tehran, said Khamenei's comments showed that Western powers are "caving" in to Iran even as the Islamic republic keeps railing against them.

A nuclear deal will also face serious scrutiny from members of U.S. Congress.

"This is going to be a very hard sell for the administration," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said on "Fox News Sunday" when asked about the likelihood of Congress signing off on a deal.

---

Associated Press writer Ali Akbar Dareini contributed from Tehran.

 

[energy_wave]

Pentagon chief outlines plans for space war versus China and Russia
By Thomas Gaist
8 July 2015

The US Defense Department is implementing plans for aggressive modernization of America’s space warfare capabilities and nuclear forces, including the creation of new space warfare facilities and hundreds of billions in additional spending for nuclear weapons upgrades.

Pentagon second-in-command Robert Work, the deputy defense secretary, spelled this out in public appearances at congressional hearings and think tank symposia during the last week of June.

The US will spend some $5 billion, an initial sum predicted to rise substantially, to develop military-related space systems, including communications and spy satellites, as part of joint efforts with the intelligence agencies and private firms. Further details about the new space ops centers have not been made public, though Work vowed that they would be up and running within six months.

Air Force Secretary Deborah James has been tentatively selected to spearhead the space war initiatives, which will build on existing US space war capabilities overseen by the Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

The new high-tech military buildup is part of preparations for confrontation and war with Russia and China, Work made terrifyingly clear in remarks to a symposium in Washington, DC.

Work warned that new Russian and Chinese missile systems, designed to strike against US satellite-based reconnaissance, missile-guidance, and communications networks, are undermining the unchallenged military and technological superiority enjoyed by Washington since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

“The margin of technological superiority to which we have become so accustomed over the past 25 years is steadily eroding,” he told attendees.

New generations of space weapons systems and weaponized satellites are necessary if the US is to maintain its position of global primacy, Work said. Without the new hardware, Washington will no longer be able to “win the guided missile salvos competition” and “project decisive power across transoceanic distances,” Work said.

“We must be prepared now to prevail in conflicts that extend into space,” he added.

Both Russia and China view US space systems as a “vulnerable center of gravity for US military power,” Work claimed. “Under any circumstances, both of these countries present us with an enduring and very difficult military challenge.”

In this new nuclear arms race, the US plans to spend an additional sum of at least $250 billion between 2021 and 2035 on programs to modernize its arsenal, Work said during subsequent congressional testimony, where he appeared alongside the top US naval officer, Admiral James Winnefeld.

The nuclear weapons upgrades will begin with the replacement of the US Navy Trident submarine fleet. New Trident subs, designed to launch strategic nuclear weapons capable of destroying entire metropolitan areas, will be purchased by the government for some $6.5 billion apiece, Work said.

Then, during the 2020s, the US will focus on acquiring a new fleet of strategic nuclear bombers, purchased at more than $500 million each. That decade will see efforts to upgrade and replace US ground-based nuclear forces, Work said, at an unspecified price tag.

“While we continue to seek to create the conditions under which we could declare that the sole purpose of our nuclear forces is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, today’s security environment does not meet those conditions,” he said. “We face the harsh reality that Russia and China are rapidly modernizing their already capable nuclear arsenals.”

The $250 billion in upgrades outlined by Work will come as part of an estimated $1 trillion in total spending on nuclear force modernization approved by the Obama administration. Federal spending on nuclear weapons upgrades will surpass $350 billion in the next decade alone, according to recent estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.

The Obama White House has already overseen the completion of a new nuclear weapons research facility, the National Security Campus in Kansas, where initial efforts will focus on upgrading and replacing US submarine-launched W-76 nuclear warheads.

The White House and Pentagon continue to view nuclear weapons as usable instruments of US political and military aims, Work emphasized, and not merely as a deterrent force to be held in reserve. “Our nuclear forces provide the President the means to achieve his or her objectives should deterrence fail,” he said.

The Obama administration and military-intelligence establishment are presiding over war preparations of a vast and terrifying scale, including plans for a futuristic, decades-long arms race aimed at securing complete military dominance over China.

In addition to the new space warfare and nuclear modernization facilities, the US is building a massive new joint operations center for US Cyber Command (CYBERCOM). The CYBERCOM HQ, based around a new 600,000 square-foot server farm currently under construction near the NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland, is planned to include subcommands from all four branches of the military.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/07/08/spac-j08.html

Imo, there was a reason NASA built a space truck with a cargo bay large enough to fit two buses end to end back in the 70's and 80' and remember, over 90% of those missions were classified as military related. Sooo...just what did the the US put up into space?

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/china-wants-to-develop-a-new-long-range-strategic-bomber/

China Wants to Develop a New Long-Range Strategic Bomber
Can China’s aviation industry deliver?

By Franz-Stefan Gady
July 13, 2015
48 Shares
1 Comment

China needs to develop a new long-range strike bomber capable of attacking targets farther out in the Pacific. This is the principal conclusion of a meeting of Chinese military officials, according to AFP citing a full-page China Daily article published last Tuesday as its source.

In the meeting the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) was also referred to as a “strategic force” a title usually reserved for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Second Artillery Corps – Beijing’s “de facto strategic missile force,” according to China Daily.

The new bomber should be capable of striking targets as far as the “second island chain” – an area stretching from the Kurils in the North through Japan, the Bonins, the Marianas, the Carolines and Indonesia in the South – the paper further states.

The PLA’s definition of a long-range strategic bomber is a minimum range of 8,000 km (5,000 miles) without refueling and the capacity to carry a payload of more than 10 tons of air-to-ground ammunition.

This definition would correspondent to the sparse details available on China’s prospective subsonic stealth bomber – the H-20 (or H-X) – which could enter service by 2025 some analysts note. According to the Chinese Military Aviation blog, new long-range strategic bomber designs have been under development at the 603rd Aircraft Design Institute (a partner of Xi’an Aircraft Industrial Corporation) since the 1990s.

The new bomber will allegedly have a flying wing design, similar to that of the American B-2 and is referred to as a “strategic project” by the Chinese military. The blog also notes that individual parts of the aircraft are already being manufactured.

“H-20 is believed to be able to evade modern air defense systems and penetrate deep into the enemy territory,” Chinese Military Aviation underlines. Some analysts argue that the primary mission of the new bomber will be do attack U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups. The bomber could also become part of a U.S.-like nuclear triad.

The PLAAF currently operates approximately 15 H-6K nuclear-capable bombers, a locally built version of the Russian Tupolev Tu-16 Badger, which according to Chinese media quoted in a previous The Diplomat article can “reach Okinawa, Guam and even Hawaii from China’s mainland,” depending on the bombers armament. However, the H-6K is only seen as an interim solution.

China’s May 2015 Defense White Paper emphasized that “[t]he PLAAF will boost its capabilities for strategic early warning, air strike, air and missile defense, information countermeasures, airborne operations, strategic projection and comprehensive support.”

China Daily cited a Chinese defense journal that emphasized that a medium-range bomber would be inadequate considering the PRC’s strategic environment:


A medium-range bomber can’t essentially fix the PLA air force’s shortcomings in terms of strategic strike and strategic deterrence. Thus the air force does need an intercontinental strategic bomber capable of penetrating an enemy’s air defenses.

However, the editor-in-chief of the defense journal is skeptical about China’s abilities to produce a modern long-range strike bomber in a short amount of time, considering that it would require “a state-of-the-art structure and aerodynamic configuration as well as a high-performance turbofan engine.”

“All of these are major problems facing the Chinese aviation industry. I don’t think these difficulties can be resolved within a short period of time,” he additionally pointed out.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...n-eastern-Afghanistan-kills-25/6071436737262/

Suicide attack on military base in eastern Afghanistan kills 25

By Fred Lambert Contact the Author | July 12, 2015 at 6:34 PM

KHOST, Afghanistan, July 12 (UPI) -- A suicide car bomb attack on a checkpoint near Camp Chapman, adjacent to the city of Khost, Afghanistan, killed 25 people on Sunday, according to reports.

Foreign soldiers, including U.S. troops, are based at Camp Chapman alongside Afghan security forces, but all of the dead are believed to be Afghan, according to Al Jazeera.

No groups have claimed responsibility for the bombing.

The incident comes after U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan's Nangarhar province, just north of Khost province, last week killed the commander of the region's Islamic State cell, Hafiz Saeed Khan, as well as two of the group's senior commanders.

Earlier last week, an improvised explosive device attached to a motorcycle killed two civilians and a police officer as a police unit patrolled by in Kandahar, and a suicide car bomb attack on a NATO convoy in Kabul wounded four civilians.

Sunday's attack also comes amid an increase in militant assaults on Afghan security forces, about 330 of whom are killed or wounded each week in militant attacks by the Taliban and other groups, according to U.S. and Afghan officials. In the first 15 weeks of 2015, such attacks occurred at a rate 70 percent higher than during the same period in 2014.

The Taliban claimed to have killed up to 25 police officers in raids against checkpoints -- some manned by two to three officers -- in remote areas of Helmand province last month.

Around the same time, the Afghan military says it counter-attacked and seized two districts in the county's north after they were overran by Taliban militants fighting alongside IS forces.

U.S. President Barack Obama announced plans for U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2011, and coalition forces officially handed the security operation to Afghan forces in December 2014.

The president's original timetable called for a reduction of U.S. troops in the country to 5,500 by the end of 2015, but in late March Obama announced the U.S. force would maintain its current posture of nearly 10,000 troops, used for advising and assisting Afghan forces, until the end of the year.

Camp Chapman was the setting of a 2009 attack, when an al-Qaida triple agent blew himself up while meeting with CIA handlers, killing nine people, including seven officials working for the agency.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...global-zero-and-hello-a-more-dangerous-world/

Goodbye, Global Zero, and Hello, a More Dangerous World

by Col. Rob Maness
12 Jul 2015
Comments 8

Russia is our greatest existential threat!

In business, politics, and national security, knowing when to abandon a once-winning strategy can be the difference between long-run success and running off the cliff. The United States has reached this point in its strategic approach to Russia.

As recently as 2010, US-Russian relations were improving. Achieving Ronald Reagan’s vision of a world without nuclear weapons seemed possible. Unfortunately, Russia’s deeds over the past year have dashed these hopes, as highlighted by President Obama’s nominee for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Joseph Dunford, in his confirmation testimony: “If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I’d have to point to Russia… If you look at their behavior, it’s nothing short of alarming.”

Russia’s creeping expansion borrows tactics from the Chinese. It integrates paramilitary units to produce a casus belli for intervention, conventional force to coerce or threaten its neighbors, and counter-intervention measures to dissuade western involvement.

An alarming development is that Russia contemplates the early use of small-yield, tactical nuclear weapons and withering cyber attacks to dissuade the United States and Europe. It is an effective asymmetric play.

It also directly challenges the underpinnings of US deterrence. Russia’s strategy capitalizes on the limitations of US large-yield nuclear weapons, its own violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and the US military’s dependence on vulnerable commercial cyber networks for its operations. All undercut US and NATO credibility in the face of Russian provocation.

Russian use of small-yield nuclear weapons as a warfighting tool early in a conflict could limit US or NATO options to retaliate with its arsenal of large-yield nuclear weapons. US strategic weapons were not built for warfighting but for deterrence. They were meant to be the ultimate reprisal weapon.

A small-yield, Russian nuclear weapon delivered using precision guidance atop intermediate range missiles could devastate military targets, while limiting civilian effects. Would a US President inflict large numbers of civilian deaths with large-yield, strategic weapons in retaliation?

It begs the question whether the deterrence logic of the US large-yield nuclear arsenal remains credible. This has been a key underpinning of successful US deterrence for 70 years. But it depended on the Russians believing the US would use these weapons when pressed.

Persistent cyber attacks against US commercial networks could not only devastate the US economy but also disrupt US conventional military operations that depend on these networks. If the US is banking on conventional force to deter Russian use of small-yield nuclear weapons, this vulnerability is so attractive that it could serve to incentivize a Russian attack.

So what should the United States do?

First, launch a crash program to reduce US commercial cyber vulnerabilities. No government agency is chartered with this mission. US law prevents industry from actively defending itself or sharing data to facilitate defense. A simple first step would allow private sector collaboration with a national defense-led honest broker to facilitate cooperation and defense.

Second, walk away from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. With Russia in clear violation and China building missiles apace as a non-signatory, the treaty no longer serves to strengthen stability on US terms. Worse, it forecloses lower cost military alternatives to deal with Russian and Chinese counter-intervention strategies, such as the US fielding its own force of precision intermediate-range missile systems.

Third, increase the readiness of the nuclear industrial base and reconsider the investment being made in large-yield weapons. Basic design skills in the US nuclear labs have eroded dangerously. Engineers have become maintainers, not designers. The US is recapitalizing its large-yield weapons, instead of building more flexible designs that give a President credibility to deter aggression and control escalation.

How the United States responds to Russia over the next 24 months will set the table for downstream options around the world. It marks an uncomfortable return to a world dominated by state on state competition.

While the idea of exchanging nuclear weapons is indeed horrific, the unthinkable is quite thinkable for other world leaders. The nation and future Presidents deserve credible tools to respond. Abandoning the notion of a secure United States free of nuclear weapons is a great first move. Only then can we begin to think about and truly understand deterrence in a more dangerous world.


Colonel Rob Maness is a retired US Air Force officer. Over his more than 32 years of service he gained experience as a commander in bomber combat operations, as an installation commander in the nuclear mission area, a senior vice-commander in the airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance mission, supervising a major Air Force command team operating the national budget process and strategic planning, and as a joint staff operations officer in nuclear operations and future operations in the Pentagon, including on 9/11/01. Following his military service, he spent two years in a Fortune 500 Utility company as a Director before running for the US Senate in Louisiana during the 2014 election cycle.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...h-agreement-on-de-escalating-conflict/6614204

Colombia, FARC guerillas reach agreement on de-escalating conflict

Posted about 4 hours ago

The Colombian government has reached a historic agreement with leftist FARC guerrillas to de-escalate the decades-long armed conflict, diplomats in Havana say.

The two sides have been engaged in talks in Cuba in an attempt to end Latin America's longest war, which has killed some 220,000 people and displaced millions over 50 years.

The move marks a significant step in peace talks between the two sides that began in November 2012 but have been hampered in recent months by an increase in violence.

"The national government, from July 20, will launch a process of de-escalation of military action, in response to the suspension of offensive actions by the FARC," said a joint statement read by Cuban and Norwegian diplomats, who have been mediating the talks.

Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos tweeted that the announcement was "an important step to advancing toward agreement."

Mr Santos has said he wants to reach a peace agreement in 2015, and the two sides have pledged to work "without delay" toward a deal.

To accelerate talks, they agreed to alter the structure of the talks, putting all remaining issues on the table at once instead of adhering to one topic at a time.

Last week, FARC called a unilateral ceasefire starting on July 20, the sixth such ceasefire it has called during the course of the talks.

The government's lead negotiator emphasised that de-escalation was not tantamount to a government ceasefire, and said the armed forces would respond based on FARC actions.

"We are not going to repeat failed experiences," said Humberto de la Calle, the lead government negotiator.

"We are not going to just paralyse government forces for a simple illusion that will later prove frustrating."


FARC guerilla commander and Colombian delegation head shake hands in Cuba
Photo: The FARC-EP leftist guerrilla commander Ivan Marquez (R) and the head of the Colombian delegation for peace talks Humberto de la Calle (L) shake hands during talks in Havana (AFP: Yamil Lage)


The latest commitment provides a boost to peace talks that have been threatened by increased battlefield violence in recent months.

Cuba and Norway are acting as so-called "guarantor" countries in the peace talks. Chile and Venezuela are "escort" countries. All four have called for an urgent de-escalation of the violence.

Colombia's civil strife dates back to 1964 and has drawn in left-wing guerrillas, right-wing paramilitaries and drug gangs, killing more than 220,000 people and uprooting as many as six million.

FARC rebels had been observing a unilateral ceasefire since December, and it led to relative calm.

But clashes resumed in mid-April, following an ambush by the rebels that left 11 soldiers dead.

Each side blames the other for the escalation and the FARC ended its truce in May.

During that truce, the fighters claim that government forces stepped up attacks on rebel camps.

Since that truce ended, about 30 rebels have been killed in army operations and recent surveys show the public is increasingly wary about the peace process.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://warontherocks.com/2015/07/ge...-about-russia-but-not-because-of-their-nukes/

General Dunford is Right about Russia, but Not because of Their Nukes

John R. Deni
July 13, 2015 · in Commentary

During his Senate confirmation hearing to replace Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, Marine Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford was asked his opinion of the most serious threat facing the United States today. Given the continuing chaos across Syria and Iraq, one could easily assume his response would be “the Islamic State.” Another easy answer might have been China, especially considering its aggressive moves in the South China Sea and its proven ability to conduct costly cyberattacks on U.S. commercial and government computer networks. Conversely, the nominee for the nation’s top military position might have gone with something a little more unconventional, such as climate change.

But General Dunford didn’t choose any of these — instead, his answer was Russia. This may have come as a surprise to some. But when pressed by West Virginia’s Sen. Joe Manchin to expand upon that response, Dunford cited a rather obvious reason for why Russia is at the top of his list. Specifically, he noted Russia’s nuclear arsenal makes it the only country in the world that poses an existential threat to the United States, and that its behavior lately has been “alarming.”

Notably, Secretary of State John Kerry publically disagreed with this assessment. This difference of opinion likely has less to do with a considered critique of Dunford’s analysis and more to do with the fact that Kerry is teamed with not just Russia, but China as well, in trying to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran at the moment.

Despite what may have been poor timing, the nominee was quite right that Russia’s nuclear arsenal could pose an existential threat, and Moscow’s recent behavior is problematic to say the least. However, these are not the reasons why Russia should be at the top of the threat list. The primary reason that Russia poses the greatest threat to U.S. national security today is because of its proven ability to hold at risk vital U.S. interests in the three most strategically important regions of the world — Europe, East Asia, and the petroleum producing areas of the Middle East.

Of the top 15 U.S. trading partners today — a group that accounts for nearly 75 percent of all U.S. imports and exports — 11 are located in Europe or East Asia. With the exception of China, these countries also share most U.S. values and norms. It should come as no surprise, then, that the United States has established treaty-based defensive alliances with nearly all of these countries. U.S. collective defense arrangements with allies in Europe and East Asia are not based on altruism, history, or institutional inertia — instead, they are vital to the U.S. economy and hence the American way of life.

Meanwhile, the unfolding fracking revolution is reducing American exposure to the vagaries of foreign petroleum suppliers, as well as revitalizing American manufacturing and contributing significantly to the ongoing economic upswing. However, the most important American trading partners in Europe and East Asia are still heavily reliant on petroleum products from the Middle East, so even as the United States becomes less so, these countries remain tied to the region. Moreover, oil is a global commodity. A supply disruption in say, Kuwait, affects the price of oil everywhere.

Foreign fighter attacks in Tunisia and France, as well as Islamic State ties to Boko Haram in Nigeria, may prompt some to conclude that the Islamic State has the ability to threaten American and allied interests around the globe. In reality, this seems open to debate and perhaps the most that can be proven conclusively at this point is that the Islamic State has the ability to inspire globally. In any case, the terrorism challenge it poses is not as potentially strategically decisive as Russia’s behavior. China’s actions in both the East and South China Seas clearly threaten stability in East and Southeast Asia. However, China poses virtually no threat to U.S. interests in Europe or the Middle East.

Russia, unlike the Islamic State or China, is the only entity on the planet that has the proven ability to decisively threaten American vital interests in all three of the regions most important to the United States, in part because Russia is physically connected to them. Certainly, Russia’s military stockpile of roughly 4,500 nuclear weapons appears threatening, but ultimately these weapons are only one tool in the service of Russian national security policy.

From Washington’s perspective, the most compelling aspect of Russia’s security policy is its zero-sum nature, a stark alternative to the West’s positive-sum approach, pursued to great success in most of Europe over the last several decades. To a large extent, Moscow’s zero-sum approach to national security is a function of Russia’s historical geopolitical position, with potential adversaries on three sides — Germanic peoples to the west, Muslims to the south, and Chinese and Japanese to the east. Under these circumstances, domestic political incentives appear to favor zero-sum approaches in national security. And the sooner the United States learns how to compete with Russia in a zero-sum context, the more effective it will be in responding to Gen. Dunford’s concerns.



Dr. John R. Deni is a Research Professor of Security Studies at the Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute. He is the founding editor of and a frequent contributor to the SSI Live podcast series, and you can follow him at @JohnRDeni.

 

[vestige]

I notice several articles on this thread are full of technical marvels and the BS they are allegedly capable of performing or will perform if needed. There is also veiled reference to MAD and the avoidance of referring to Russia and China as enemies by using terms like “competitors”.

What a world of chicken sh*t PC double speakers we have now.

The fact of the matter is the world is out to get us. It always has been. They hate our guts for a variety of reasons. They realize we have a gutless idiot at the helm supported by scores of other gutless idiots.

They are methodically destroying us from the inside without firing a shot as they predicted years ago. The idiot in charge has assisted them more than they ever hoped.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Ill-have-more-flexibility-after-election.html

When the heathens inside the gate have the country in turmoil from coast to coast, the citizens fighting one another, the police and the military; all fighting among themselves and against one another, then they will strike… hard and with a killing blow.

Bump away for the non-believers.

 

[Housecarl]

I notice several articles on this thread are full of technical marvels and the BS they are allegedly capable of performing or will perform if needed. There is also veiled reference to MAD and the avoidance of referring to Russia and China as enemies by using terms like “competitors”.

What a world of chicken sh*t PC double speakers we have now.

The fact of the matter is the world is out to get us. It always has been. They hate our guts for a variety of reasons. They realize we have a gutless idiot at the helm supported by scores of other gutless idiots.

They are methodically destroying us from the inside without firing a shot as they predicted years ago. The idiot in charge has assisted them more than they ever hoped.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Ill-have-more-flexibility-after-election.html

When the heathens inside the gate have the country in turmoil from coast to coast, the citizens fighting one another, the police and the military; all fighting among themselves and against one another, then they will strike… hard and with a killing blow.

Bump away for the non-believers.

Definitely agree with your take on the "double speak", though it's there in part to get around the more squeamish with limited attention spans.

The "technical marvels" are more of a problem now that "we" don't have a monopoly on them anymore. The thing about precision guided weapons is their "bang for buck" impact goes way beyond their actual "blast and flash" effects in the same manner that special operations/"non-amateur" terrorism deliver.

The very degree of "surgical" effects they can deliver (provided the intel on everything including what happens next three or four "moves out" is correct) brings TPTB into the "kill chain" they've been outside of since formal feudalism required them to be on the front with a sword to protect their "interests". One has to wonder how much this understanding has percolated through the movers and shakers at large. The recent series of breeches of the White House should have hammered that home to at least the political class.

A point that must be remembered is that historically once the "gutless" leadership can no longer deliver on even the minimum of their responsibilities, they get eventually replaced, one way or the other, by those who aren't gutless. Often the case those that come in are like Sulla or Aurelian, the trick they have to work is not being a victim themselves once "the rules" are thrown out in "fixing" things.

The US has been lucky in this point, even when taking into account the self induced mess that culminated in the Civil War/War Between the States. The historical record generally hasn't been that kind and I fear "the odds" are going to catch up with us as well at some point.

 

[Housecarl]

Russia Considers US B61-12 Nuclear Bomb Test 'Open Provocation'
Started by Possible Impactý, Today 08:55 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-US-B61-12-Nuclear-Bomb-Test-Open-Provocation

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://rbth.com/news/2015/07/13/rus...omb_test_in_us_in_current_situatio_47713.html

Russian Defense Ministry: New nuclear bomb test in U.S. in current situation utterly provocative

19:17 July 13, 2015 Interfax

The testing of a B61-12 nuclear bomb at the Tonopah Test Range in the U.S. state of Nevada is provocative and confirms U.S. intention to keep in Europe its current nuclear weapons that can reach as far as Russia, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov told reporters on July 13.

"The U.S. actions in the current situation are utterly provocative and run counter to Washington's stated commitment to full nuclear disarmament. They reaffirm the U.S. intention to keep its nuclear weapons deployed in Europe, which are capable of reaching Russian territory, and to ensure their maximum combat efficiency," said Antonov, commenting on the B61-12 nuclear bomb test carried out in the U.S.

The Russian Defense Ministry "has not left without notice the B61-12 nuclear bomb test conducted by the U.S. without nuclear warhead detonation, on July 1, 2015," Antonov said. "The tested nuclear bomb is a dual-purpose bomb," he said.

"It can be both an element of strategic offensive weapons when delivered by heavy bombers and a non-strategic nuclear weapon when delivered by tactical aircraft. What made this test special was the fact that it used an F-15E fighter and bomber aircraft as a nuclear weapon delivery vehicle. This gives reason to suggest that the test aimed to test the possibility of the B61-12 bomb being used by NATO's fighter bombers based in Europe," the deputy minister said.

The Russian Defense Ministry sees it as "testament to the U.S. stubborn reluctance to stop using NATO non-nuclear members in conducting joint nuclear missions which is in direct disagreement with its obligations under the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)," Antonov said.

"Thus, under the guise of the notorious and trumped-up Russian threat, the U.S. has not only been building up its military potential and NATO activity near Russia's western borders, but it has also been upgrading its nuclear arsenal," the deputy minister said.

"Such U.S. nuclear bomb tests cannot be regarded as a move that can have a positive effect on the international situation," he said.

"Irresponsible actions of this sort are not making the world safer and calmer. They are sending a wrong and alarming signal to international community. It is particularly important to remember it now, given the ambiguous results of the May 2015 NPT Review Conference," the deputy minister said.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150713/ml-islamic-state-e6f8d31414.html

Iraq begins operation to oust Islamic State group from Anbar

Jul 13, 9:21 AM (ET)
By SINAN SALAHEDDIN

(AP) People inspect the scene of after an explosion hit a busy commercial area in...
Full Image

BAGHDAD (AP) — The Iraqi government began a long-awaited, large-scale military operation Monday to dislodge Islamic State militants from the country's western Anbar province, a military spokesman announced.

The spokesman for the Joint Operations Command, Brig. Gen. Yahya Rasool, said in a televised statement that the operation started at dawn and that government forces are backed by Shiite and Sunni pro-government fighters. Rasool didn't say whether the U.S.-led international coalition is taking part.

This is not the first time the Iraqi government has announced an operation to retake Anbar — where several key towns, including the provincial capital, Ramadi, remain under Islamic State control. In May, authorities announced an operation to retake Ramadi, but there has not been any major progress on the ground since then.

In a brief statement, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi vowed to "take revenge from Daesh criminals on the battlefield ... and their cowardly crimes against unarmed civilians will only increase our determination to chase them and to expel them from the land of Iraq."

(AP) People inspect the scene of after an explosion hit a busy commercial area in...
Full Image

The Islamic State group, also known by the Arabic acronym Daesh, seized large parts of Anbar in early 2014 and captured Ramadi in May. Iraqi forces, which had been making steady progress against the extremists in recent months with the help of the air campaign, scored a major victory in recapturing Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit in April.

During the past few weeks, the troops have been moving to cut the militants' supply routes and to surround and isolate Ramadi and Fallujah.

Rasool didn't provide any further details on the ongoing operations. By noon, the country's state TV reported government forces recapturing villages and areas around Fallujah.

Hours after the announcement of the military operation, Iraq's Defense Ministry announced the arrival of four F-16 fighter jets from the United States to Balad air base north of Baghdad. They are part of 36 F-16s purchased by the Iraqi government.

The new fighter jets will boost Iraq's air force, which depends only on several Russian-made secondhand Sukhoi jets. Last week, a Sukhoi fighter jet accidentally dropped a bomb over a Baghdad neighborhood and killed at least 12 people.

(AP) People inspect the scene of after an explosion hit a busy commercial area in...
Full Image

Meanwhile Monday, the Islamic State group claimed responsibility for a series of bombings Sunday in Shiite areas of Baghdad that killed at least 29 people and wounded 81.

Iraq is going through its worst crisis since the 2011 withdrawal of U.S. troops. The Islamic State group controls large swaths of the country's north and west after capturing Iraq's second-largest city of Mosul and the majority of Anbar province.

In neighboring Syria, government helicopter gunships dropped barrel bombs on a diesel market in the northern town of al-Bab that is held by the Islamic State group, activists and pro-IS social media pages said.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Monday's airstrikes killed 13, including six women, and wounded as many as 40. A Facebook page used by Islamic State supporters said 35 people.

Monday's attack on al-Bab came two days after activists said army airstrikes killed at least 28 people in al-Bab

Al-Bab is a frequent target of Syrian army strikes that often kill civilians. On May 31, Syrian army airstrikes that hit a packed market in al-Bab killed around 70 people, most of them civilians.

---_

Associated Press writer Bassem Mroue in Beirut contributed to this report.

---

This story has been corrected to show that Iraq recaptured Tikrit in April.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150713/lt--mexico-drug_lord_escapes-b3451d789a.html

Escape by top drug lord a strong blow to Mexico's government

Jul 13, 8:00 AM (ET)
By ALBERTO ARCE and CHRISTOPHER SHERMAN

(AP) Federal police patrol near the Altiplano maximum security prison in Almoloya,...
Full Image

MEXICO CITY (AP) — The capture of drug lord Joaquin Guzman was the crowning achievement of President Enrique Pena Nieto's government in its war against drug cartels, a beacon of success amid domestic woes. That makes the bold escape by "El Chapo" from a maximum security prison all the more devastating.

A widespread manhunt that included highway checkpoints, stepped up border security and closure of an international airport failed to turn up any trace of Guzman by Monday, more than 24 hours after he got away.

Widely considered the world's richest and most powerful drug trafficker before his capture last year, Guzman slipped down a shaft from his prison cell's shower area late Saturday and disappeared into a sophisticated mile-long (1.5 kilometer-long) tunnel with ventilation, lighting and a motorcycle apparently used to move dirt.

"All the accolades that Mexico has received in their counter-drug efforts will be erased by this one event" if Guzman is not recaptured, said Michael S. Vigil, a retired U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration chief of international operations.

(AP) A soldier stands on an armored vehicle as he guards near the Altiplano maximum...
Full Image

More than anything else, the escape undermined Mexico's assertion it can deal with top drug lords at home and doesn't need to extradite them to the U.S. The national pride that appeared to motivate Pena Nieto's administration to prosecute drug lords like Guzman through its own court system has now turned into a national embarrassment.

"This is regrettable, very bad, because it without doubt affects the image of Mexico in the world," Mexican Sen. Luis Miguel Barbosa told journalists in Paris on Monday. He was part of a delegation traveling with the Mexican president to the French capital.

"You have to completely renew the Mexican prison system. The arrest of all warders and managers is not enough," he said. "This happened due to collaboration from within the jail at the highest level."

According to a report from the Congressional Research Service in May, extraditions from Mexico to the U.S. peaked at 115 in 2012, the last year of Pena Nieto's predecessor, Felipe Calderon. There were 66 last year.

The escape route apparently was built over the last year right under authorities' noses into a supposedly escape-proof lockup. Its scale has raised suspicions of corruption that could most discourage the U.S., Mexico's main ally that has poured more than $1 billion into joint efforts at battling organized crime cartels, much of it focused on reforming the criminal justice system.

(AP) In a Thursday, Feb. 14, 2013, file photo, a poster displayed at a Chicago...
Full Image

The United States was already stinging from a court decision in August 2013 to free drug lord Rafael Caro Quintero on procedural grounds, overturning his conviction in the 1985 kidnapping, torture and murder of DEA agent Enrique "Kiki" Camarena. Caro Quintero hasn't been seen in public since then.

"For the most-wanted criminal to escape from the highest-security prison is going to create conflicts, the first of them with the United States," Mexican security expert Jorge Chabat said Sunday.

The escape also hurt Pena Nieto domestically. He had campaigned on one main promise — to diminish drug cartel violence — and had claimed success in attacking drug gang capos like no administration before, arresting or killing essentially all the top leadership of the Zetas, Beltran Leyva and Knights Templar cartels.

It was a highlight for an administration struggling on other fronts, including a lackluster economy and scandals over the disappearance of 43 college students, and the purchase by the president's wife of a mansion, known as the "white house," from a government contractor.

"This hurts him a lot. It is an administration that already has a lot of image problems, with the scandals over the students and the 'white house,' and now this comes along and paints them as an administration with serious problems of inefficiency and corruption," Chabat said.

(AP) Mexican navy marines patrol near the maximum security prison Altiplano in Almoloya,...
Full Image

Just as painful are memories of the cocksure way officials reacted after they captured Guzman in February 2014, some 13 years after the Sinaloa Cartel boss managed to flee from Mexico's only other maximum-security prison.

Pena Nieto said in a televised interview that allowing him to escape again would be "unforgiveable." Jesus Murillo Karam, his attorney general at the time, said the possibility of another Guzman escape "does not exist."

Manuel Ballbe, director of School of Risk Prevention at Spain's Autonomous University of Barcelona, said it was important for the U.S. to push for extraditions.

"International pressure is the check and balance against the state's corrupt powers," Ballbe said.

The bold and well-engineered escape also illustrates that simply capturing such a powerful figure without dismantling his financial network is insufficient, he said.

(AP) Federal police patrol near the maximum security prison Altiplano in Almoloya, west...
Full Image

"Holding a drug lord inside the country does not affect his financial capacity," Ballbe said. "It is very difficult for the state to do something against the size of the bribes that these networks can produce."

U.S. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said in a statement that "we share the government of Mexico's concern regarding the escape of Joaquin Guzman," adding that "the U.S. government stands ready to work with our Mexican partners to provide any assistance that may help support his swift recapture."

But Peter Bensinger, a former administrator of the DEA, said he expects that U.S. officials have expressed their anger to their Mexican counterparts.

"He ought to have been housed in an American prison," Bensinger said. "Mexican authorities will come in for tremendous criticism, as they should."

Raul Benitez, a security expert at Mexico's National Autonomous University, said Guzman's second escape is even worse for Pena Nieto than if he had never captured him.

"In the context of the drug war it is the president's worst failure," Benitez said.

---

Associated Press writers Mark Stevenson in Mexico City, Maria Verza in Almoloya, Mexico, Michael Tarm in Chicago, Maggy Donaldson in Paris and Jorge Sainz in Madrid contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

With everything else going on in the area......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150713/eu--turkey-kurds-3916611f59.html

Turkey vows to press on with constructions in Kurdish region

Jul 13, 11:52 AM (ET)

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu vowed on Monday to press ahead with the construction of dams and roads in the country's mainly Kurdish southeast, saying Turkey would not bow to Kurdish rebel threats.

Kurdish militants threatened to resume attacks on Saturday, accusing Turkey of "preparing for war" by continuing to build military outposts as well as dams and roads they claimed would be used by the military. They warned the constructions were a violation of a two-year old ceasefire brokered as part of Turkey's fragile peace process with the Kurdish rebels.

The announcements were the latest setback to the peace efforts launched in 2012 in a bid to end the three-decade long conflict between government forces and the rebels of the autonomy-seeking Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK.

"Governments build roads and dams. They don't back down through threats," Davutoglu told reporters. He accused the Kurdish rebels of reneging on the pledge to withdraw armed fighters from Turkish territory.

The PKK's jailed leader Abdullah Ocalan declared a ceasefire in 2013 and ordered his group to withdraw fighters to bases in neighboring northern Iraq as part of the peace efforts. The ceasefire largely holds but the PKK later halted the fighters' withdrawal, saying Turkey had not taken any steps to reciprocate.

The conflict has killed tens of thousands of people since 1984. Turkey and its allies regard the PKK as a terrorist group.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/13/give-the-mullahs-ballistic-missiles.html

World
07.13.151:00 AM ET

Give the Mullahs Ballistic Missiles?

Ending an arms embargo on Iran will only destabilize the Middle East and threaten U.S. national security.

By Andrew J. Bowen
Comments 8

A comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran is will reportedly be announced as early as Monday. And while it’s too soon so say what the parameters (and details) of such an agreement will be, one 11th-hour item of debate is obvious given what both Iranian negotiators and their surrogates in the Western press have argued—namely, that lifting the arms embargo on Tehran is but a minor concession to make in securing a historic diplomatic accord. On the contrary, lifting the embargo is major capitulation to Iran and one that directly threatens U.S. national security.

Advocates of this policy have three main arguments.

First, that the U.S. shouldn’t get preoccupied by this small snag, because Iran’s military is comparatively weaker than that of traditional American allies in the region; the Gulf States, for instance, will retain a substantial conventional power advantage against the Iranians.

Second, Washington’s concessions on the embargo aren’t a big deal because these negotiations are focused on Iran’s nuclear program and the UN sanctions that were put in place in 2007 and onwards to restrict their conventional programs were punishment for refusing to give up their nuclear program. As the Iranian negotiators and their Russian counterparts have argued, all sanctions, put in place because of this program, should be lifted with a deal. In their view, the U.S. is disingenuous to keep these sanctions in place after agreeing to lift all UN sanctions.

Finally, there’s a claim that Iran simply needs advanced weapons to help defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Tehran has argued that more advanced weaponry and weapon systems would aid their efforts to defeat ISIS. Advocates of a stronger U.S.-Iran partnership in fighting ISIS operates on the optimistic thinking that Tehran and the U.S. have a shared common enemy.

Matthew McInnis, a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former senior expert on Iran at the CENTCOM, argues, “these are all red herrings. They distract from Iran’s real threat to U.S. national security interests: an unfettered Iranian armed forces.”

Let’s start with the first argument—that Iran’s neighbors still outspend on their national defense programs. In 2014, members of the Gulf Cooperation Council collectively spent $114 billion on their militaries, far greater than the Iranian defense budget estimated at $16 billion—or $30 billion, according to President Obama, likely throwing in off-the-books funding for Iran’s proxy groups and partners. Riyadh’s spending on military equipment alone has skyrocketed in the past decade, dwarfing Tehran’s outlays. Money here is a lousy metric because while the Gulf States struggle with how to use their fancy new toys, the Iranians have learned how to fight better with less. With the exception of the United Arab Emirate’s Air Force, the Arab Gulf States are not in a favorable position to challenge Iranian sea dominance in the Persian Gulf. Iran has an aging navy but it can still deploy ships thousands of miles away.

It is true that Iran is not a conventional military behemoth. Tehran may have the largest ballistic missile force in the region but those missiles cannot hit their targets with much accuracy. Iran also lacks the ability establish air superiority or sustain a major land invasion beyond its borders.” (Iranian tanks will not be rolling through the streets of Riyadh anytime soon, even if the mullahs desperately want them to.)

Rather, the real threat from increased Iranian military might lies elsewhere. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) — the Islamic Republic’s praetorian division designed to guarantee the safety and security of the regime — does not hesitate to remind the world through its harassment of commercial shipping, military exercises, and frequent rhetoric that it can control or shut the Strait of Hormuz, through which 30 percent of the world’s petroleum supplies passes.

Keeping the Strait open depends on the U.S. Navy being able to keep up with effective counter measures against improved Iranian cruise missiles (itself a fact belies the claim that the Gulf States can safeguard their own backyard by themselves), and so Tehran has invested in weapons such as cruise missiles, mines, submarines, and even swarming armed speedboats to specifically target U.S. naval vulnerabilities. Iran’s intent is to make it increasingly costly to operate in the Persian Gulf. ” Lifting the conventional arms embargo would allow Russia or China to sell Iran the latest generation cruise missiles and drones, which only increase Tehran’s ability to frustrate or harass America’s protectorate of this vital waterway.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929, which imposed the conventional weapons embargo in 2010, cut off Tehran’s trade with Russia, China and other suppliers in battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, and missiles as well. It’s unclear what Russia or China would sell to the Iranians after the embargo is lifted, but some estimates put Russian arms sales to Iran at potentially $7-8 billion a year if an embargo is lifted. A little more can go along way particularly by increasing the range and accuracy of their current systems.

Moreover, Iranian ballistic missiles outfitted with Russian or Chinese quality precision-guidance munitions could be devastating for U.S. and GCC naval and air bases if there are further relaxations on Iran’s acquisition of missile technology. McInnis argues, “Iran is even attempting to develop ballistic missiles to hit U.S. aircraft carriers from hundreds of miles offshore. With more Chinese help it could finally accomplish this goal.” The GCC states’ true fear is a nightmare scenario in which the United States becomes unable or unwilling to operate in the Persian Gulf or Gulf of Oman.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in recent statements has stressed that he has no interest in working with Washington beyond the terms of any nuclear agreement and that America should have no security role in the Middle East — a statement which constitutes a clear and present to U.S. interests which have an outsize security role in the region. Neither will there be any shift in his support of Iran’s regional proxies or allies.

Rather than promoting stability, greater access to advanced missiles, artillery, and combat vehicles could empower a range of Iranian proxy forces, partners and terrorist groups – from Lebanese Hezbollah to the Syrian National Defense Forces (a sectarian paramilitary organization tantamount to Iran’s Basij) to Palestinian Hamas— which remain a threat to U.S. interests and to our regional allies, most notably Israel. These forces could endanger U.S. personnel at regional diplomatic and military facilities and make it more difficult for Washington to secure a political solution in Syria and Iraq, let alone between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Also, American military advisors in Iraq could be further endangered by better-equipped Shia proxies — namely IRGC-backed militias now acting as the vanguard ground army against ISIS — seeking to stymie U.S. efforts to secure the long-term stability of the Iraqi government. Shi’a Popular Mobilization Forces, Hashd al-Shaabi, have proven to be viscous sectarian actors in many places in Iraq. If Iran decides to supply them with new air and ground missile equipment, it could be impossible for Baghdad to reintegrate them back into the Iraqi security services and escalate the sectarian violence in the country.

Washington’s bet on Tehran as a partner against ISIS then is rather dubious and questionable. In Syria, Iran has devoted more resources in supporting the Assad government’s efforts in fighting the Qatari, Turkish, and Saudi backed opposition than ISIS. From conversations with people close to the Assad regime in Damascus, Iran has sanctioned the Assad government’s usage of chlorine gas against their opponents. Tehran has avoided confronting ISIS in Syria, seeing the extremist group as a useful tool against the Syrian rebel opposition groups. Even though Iran is engaged in fighting ISIS in Iraq, their actions appear driven more by containing and managing ISIS in Iraq than defeating it in order to keep the Iraqi state weakened and the central government in Baghdad reliant on Tehran. Serious reform of the Iraqi political system, which would give Sunnis a say in their state’s future and arguably buy their participation in the state has been an initiative that Iran has blocked since the U.S. withdrawal in 2010. This marriage of convenience is prone to divorce.

The recent uncovering of the IRGC-backed plot to destabilize the monarchy in Jordan only underscores the myth that a better-equipped and wealthier Iran will somehow grow tamer with respect to regional ambitions and that IRGC is even active in places outside of Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq. We must not forget how Tehran sought to conduct a terrorist attack in Washington, D.C. with an attempted assassination of then Saudi ambassador to the U.S., Adel Jubeir, an operation that was to have been carried out on American soil.

Increased arms flowing into Hezbollah’s hands and like-minded groups in the Palestinian territories endanger the security of Israel.” Further equipping and training of Yemen's Houthis could position this group to threaten global trade through the Suez Canal if they are able to both establish a naval presence from the Red Sea port of Hodeida and further south at the Mandeb Strait. Increased IRGC armed shipments to the Houthis could lead to more stand-offs in the Gulf of Aden with the U.S. Navy.

Whether or not the conventional arms embargo should remain in a final nuclear deal with Iran is not a simple question of parsing U.S. Security Council Resolution language. This is a critical U.S. national security issue and therefore makes the Obama administration responsible for safeguarding it. Regardless of the Russian and Iranian interpretations of the words and spirit of the UN Resolutions and the emerging Joint Plan of Action, Washington can’t let such a debate become a distraction from enabling Iran to emerge from these negotiations as a credible conventional threat to the U.S. and its allies in the region.

In the coming months Washington should remain vigilant in monitoring and constraining Iran’s efforts to further develop its military and the IRGC. This is essential to protecting our interests and the security of our allies. Lifting the embargo would importantly undermine the commitments President Obama made to our GCC partners at the Camp David Summit this past Spring.

It is one of the great ironies with this potential deal that in trying to constrain Iran’s nuclear program for ten to 15 years, we may actually help create an Iranian military that puts the lives of American sailors, soldiers, and airmen at serious risk.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...eterrence-requires-new-capabilities/30084823/

Commentary: Sustaining Nuclear Deterrence Requires New Capabilities

By Clark Murdock and Thomas Karako 1:18 p.m. EDT July 13, 2015

US Defense Secretary Ash Carter recently visited Berlin to assure allies that the US would deter aggression. NATO leaders are worried that Russia might invade the Baltics in a Crimea-style fait accompli, and then threaten nuclear escalation unless the alliance backs down.

Moscow's treaty violations and "nuclear sabre rattling," Carter warned, raise "questions about Russia's commitment to strategic stability" and to "the profound caution that world leaders in the nuclear age have shown over decades to the brandishing of nuclear weapons."

This is but the latest confirmation that we've entered a new nuclear age — one characterized by different rules, more actors, less predictability and the paradox that America's conventional superiority may make deterrence harder.

After noting that opponents might be tempted to employ nuclear weapons to overcome conventional inferiority, the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review observed that US nuclear forces should deter nuclear-armed adversaries from escalating their way out of failed conventional aggression.

"Escalate to de-escalate" tactics have already been publicly embraced by Russia but could also be used by North Korea or China. Instead of graduated rungs along an "escalation ladder," adversaries may well be tempted to lower their nuclear thresholds to forestall conventional defeat.

Last November, then-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel called nuclear deterrence the department's "highest priority mission." But it is official US policy to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons and pursue a world without nuclear weapons. This may weaken nuclear deterrence because allies and adversaries will wonder how the US might respond to limited nuclear employment.

Plotting to offset US conventional superiority has prompted some states, like North Korea and Iran, to pursue nuclear weapons, and others, like Russia, to increase their reliance on nuclear weapons.

To keep the nuclear threshold elevated in the minds of potential adversaries, the US must have more flexible and credible means to control escalation. The distinction between strategic and nonstrategic nuclear weapons is long obsolete. Any use of a nuclear weapon could have profound strategic effects.

In a new report, "Project Atom," we recommend that in addition to retaining our traditional strategic deterrent, the US needs to acquire nuclear capabilities that enable it to respond proportionately to employment of a nuclear weapon. Specifically, the US should develop options for more forward-deployed assets and more discriminate weapons.

Proliferation by Iran or others could strain extended deterrence and invite allies to re-evaluate their non-nuclear status. During the Cold War, large-scale conventional aggression was not deterred by US or NATO declaratory policy, but by the significant presence of nuclear weapons in Europe and the Pacific. Establishing credibility may require greater nuclear burden-sharing and forward-basing.

Nuclear submarines and ICBMs should remain the highly survivable foundation of US deterrence. Dual-capable F-35s on land and aboard carriers would provide forward-based or rapidly deployable aircraft. Penetrating bombers remain a visible complement to both missions.

More discriminate weapons may be needed. The future B61 gravity bomb will retain lower-yield options and no longer require a parachute for delivery, catching up to 1990s JDAM-like guidance. Credibility would be further enhanced through low-yield weapons deliverable across the triad, as well as additional nuclear-capable standoff cruise missiles from air, sea and land.

But new thinking from Washington is also required. Both statutory restrictions and policy limitations prevent the US from developing new weapons, components, missions or capabilities. The average weapon in today's stockpile is over 28 years old. Current modernization plans will further limit options, since there is no path to replace the B61-11 earth penetrator. In the near term, the national laboratories could be freed to begin researching new designs for lower cost; more safety, security and reliability; lower yields; and other effects.

After a long procurement holiday, the US deterrent is now entering a bow wave of investment and recapitalization. Over the next two decades, a new set of post-Cold War delivery systems will be built, and many of today's weapons will be life-extended. Infrastructure modernization is also badly overdue; uranium facilities in Tennessee, for instance, date to the Manhattan Project.

Current modernization plans are critical just to retain current capabilities, and avoid disarmament by rust. While requiring 3 to 6 percent of the defense budget over the next decade, these investments should be made with an eye to future geostrategic realities.

Broadening options available to a president would strengthen US extended deterrence, discourage proliferation among allies and communicate that there are no potential gaps for adversaries to exploit. This is not about "war fighting" or making weapons "more usable," but making deterrence more credible. Failure to adapt to new realities could invite nuclear use by creating false perceptions that the US would be self-deterred.

Our conventional superiority tempts our adversaries into lowering their nuclear thresholds. A newer, more flexible and more credible US nuclear deterrent designed for 21st century challenges would raise that threshold and help make nuclear employment less attractive.


Clark Murdock is a senior adviser and Thomas Karako is a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. They are respectively the lead and contributing authors of the "Project Atom" report

 

[Housecarl]

The Army plans to cut 40,000 soldiers from its ranks over the next two years
Started by Lilbitsnanaý, 07-07-2015 01:05 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ldiers-from-its-ranks-over-the-next-two-years

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...5/07/13/editorial-edge-cutting-deep/30084861/

Editorial: On the Edge of Cutting Too Deep

Defense News 1:20 p.m. EDT July 13, 2015

The US Army's announcement that through 2017 it's cutting end strength by 40,000 more troops made headlines last week, but was hardly a surprise.

For years, service leaders have warned that spending caps would lead to a smaller force. The only question was where those cuts would come from.

End strength stands at about 490,000 troops today, down from 566,000 in 2010. By the end of 2018, troops will have been cut from nearly every US and overseas base, shrinking the active force to 450,000 troops.

And without more funding, service leaders made it clear that further cuts are on the table, making all the more likely a 420,000-soldier Army, as hinted at by the latest Quadrennial Defense Review.

Army leaders have fought hard against troop cuts. Now, forced to act, they're making sure to detail the local economic impacts of the latest round of troop reductions.

Congress has responded with outrage that's not only predictable, but also hypocritical: Legislators can't have a hand in slashing defense spending then complain about the impact of those cuts.

In the interests of national security — should lawmakers get to that after all the grandstanding — Congress must honestly debate America's defense future, from strategy to the required resources.

A good place to start would be to scrap defense spending caps that are both disruptive and encourage budgetary sleight of hand to fund needed priorities.

DoD can and should get more efficient — with a flat budget, it can't afford to keep shrinking to cover the rising costs of modernization, training and people. Each of the services has been trading people for programs and training. While size for its own sake is no virtue, it's equally true that size should be scaled to strategic and projected future missions rather than budget alone.

Today, the military services maintain considerable combat capabilities, but the question is at what point will they become too small to support US peacetime needs in an ever-more complex and fast-moving world, much less to meet major wartime demands.

Given the magnitude of looming modernization programs, there will be a temptation to further shrink the force to cover the costs of key priorities, rather than properly commit more resources to underwrite strategic priorities, such as new bombers and ballistic missile submarines.

Moreover, while President Obama last week went to the Pentagon to make it clear that he wants minimal numbers of US troops directly engaged in fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq, DoD's new National Military Strategy made it clear that America must prepare for prolonged campaigns against adversarial states and violent extremist organizations.

Sustained operations, even peacetime deployments, naturally put stress on the force, which is why sufficient size during an era of complex and sustained threats is vital.

Some lawmakers, decrying a lack of real strategy, want to craft their own approaches to addressing ISIS and other threats. Congress has a long and successful history of shaping thoughtful and lasting strategies initially opposed by DoD, among them the landmark Goldwater-Nichols legislation that promoted the very jointness that today is key to US war fighting. But those successes came at a time when members and their staffers had deep and broad national security expertise and an ability to set partisanship aside to achieve strategic aims.

It's good news if Congress is serious about more broadly debating strategy. It's even better news if members take the time to educate themselves on national security, craft a strategy that puts national interests ahead of party interests and then fully commits necessary resources.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/0...ary-chiefs-as-multinational-army-beefs-up-to/

Nigerian leader fires all military chiefs as multinational army beefs up to fight extremists

Published July 14, 2015 · Associated Press

ABUJA, Nigeria – President Muhammadu Buhari has fired all Nigeria's military chiefs as a multinational army prepares for a fresh onslaught against the West African nation's Islamic extremists.

It was an expected development since Buhari, a former military dictator who was elected in March, has severely criticized the Nigerian military's failure to defeat the Islamic extremists operating mainly in the northeast.

The sacked officers had been appointed in January 2014 when former President Goodluck Jonathan replaced the top military echelon because of failures against Boko Haram.

Jonathan had been accused of being partisan in naming Christians to all but one of the positions in the armed forces traditionally dominated by Muslims. Nigeria is divided almost equally between Muslims who predominate in the north and Christians in the south.

Buhari's announcement on Monday was more even-handed.

Both the new army chief of staff, Maj. Gen. Tukur Yusuf Buratai, and the national security adviser, Maj. Gen. Babagana Monguno, are from northeastern Borno state which is the birthplace of Boko Haram.

Defense chief Maj. Gen. Abayomi Gabriel Olonisakin and navy chief Rear Admiral Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas are from the south. The chief of defense intelligence, Air Vice Marshal Morgan Monday Riku, is from the Middle Belt and the chief of air staff, Air Vice Marshal Sadique Abubakar, is from northeastern Bauchi state.

Boko Haram had seized a large swath of northeast Nigeria and declared an Islamic caliphate. A multinational army earlier this year drove the insurgents out of towns and villages but suicide bombings and village attacks have increased, killing more than 250 people in the past two weeks.

The sackings come two weeks before Buhari is to meet with President Barack Obama at the White House in Washington D.C. to discuss more U.S. help in the battle to curb the Islamic uprising that has driven 1.5 million people from their homes and killed more than 13,000 people in six years.

Amnesty International puts the death toll at more than 20,000 to include the deaths of some 8,000 detainees who allegedly died in military custody.

Buhari has promised to investigate Amnesty's allegations. Hundreds of soldiers are being court-martialed for alleged cowardice and desertion. Atrocities committed by the Nigerian military have hampered U.S. help because of laws that prevent the United States from providing certain arms to the governments of armed forces accused of gross human rights abuses.

Buhari inherited a firestorm of problems including a near-empty treasury blamed on corruption and halved prices for the petroleum that provides about 80 percent of government revenue.

Last week, he announced he was halving his salary, putting lawmakers on the spot as their salaries come up for review. But salaries form only a small part of the remuneration as lucrative allowances make Nigerians among the highest paid legislators in the world at nearly $200,000 a year.

 

[Housecarl]

Iran Deal - Done - press conference shortly; Congress has 60 days to review
Started by Lilbitsnanaý, Today 12:06 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...erence-shortly-Congress-has-60-days-to-review


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.smh.com.au/world/the-art...eal-will-be-in-the-pitch-20150714-gica1o.html

The art of the Iran nuclear deal will be in the pitch

Date July 14, 2015 - 6:47PM
Paul McGeough
Chief foreign correspondent

Washington: It's hard to believe that the diplomatic kabuki of the last few days was not an elaborate ritual to prepare varied fractious constituencies for an Iran nuclear deal that long has been inevitable – they would be the crazy right in Washington and Tehran. Oh – and Israel too.

On Sunday, US Secretary of State John Kerry was relaxed enough to break from the talks to go to Mass at the church in which Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was married in Vienna ; on Monday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani tweeted – and then de-tweeted - that a deal had been done; and the Tehran police announced that all was ready for mass celebrations in the streets of the Iranian capital.

The deal was not to be announced formally till about 11am Tuesday in Vienna , where the talks were being held at the grand Palais Coburg hotel. And for a while, the unattributed snippets from those who had been feeding the chooks – as former Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke Petersen used to describe talking to the media – remained quiet.

But at 3am Washington time, there was a tweet from US State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf – indeed there was a deal, under which Iran's nuclear program would be curbed and put under a stiff United Nations inspection regime and, the inevitable tradeoff that has been long anticipated, was that the sanctions that have brought the Iranian economy to its knees, would be lifted.

But the quantum in the deal struck between Iran and the so-called P5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany) would not be revealed for another couple of hours – how tightly the program was to be curbed; how strict would be the inspections; and how soon might all the sanctions be eased.

The art of this deal will be in how it's pitched to the Republican rump in the US Congress and to the archconservatives who line up behind Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - and the diplomatic pas de deux that US President Barack Obama and his Iranian counterpart Rouhani will be obliged to dance for them and for disbelievers in the capitals of the Middle East.

Even before the detail of the deal emerged, Israeli Cabinet Minister Miri Regev denounced it as a "licence to kill". At the other end of the spectrum, Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council declared: "Today, diplomacy has triumphed and war is off the table."

What might the deal look like?

Reuters reported that Iran had agreed to a "snapback" clause that would restore sanctions within 65 days if it violates the terms of the deal. Also the current UN arms embargo would remain in place for five years and a UN ban on missile development would continue for eight years.

It was not clear if Tehran had capitulated in the face of American demands that it accept "no-notice" inspections.

On British radio, former White House adviser Dennis Ross alluded to the inevitable fine print in a document that reportedly runs to 100 pages, asking: "How much control do the Iranians have over [inspections]? Are they able to affect the timing of [them]. When the Iranians talk about managed access [to nuclear sites] does that mean that basically they are in a position to have time to resist access to the site? The more we know about those questions the more comfortable I will be."

Meanwhile, the global oil market didn't bother waiting for a formal announcement of the deal – on Tuesday oil prices tumbled in recognition that after being shut out for years, Iran with its huge energy reserves was back in the game.

Follow FairfaxForeign on Twitter

 

[Lilbitsnana]

I'm wondering how long it will be before something goes "boom"; either in Israel or in Iran. I don't know which one will hit first.

tick-tock

 

[Housecarl]

I'm wondering how long it will be before something goes "boom"; either in Israel or in Iran. I don't know which one will hit first.

tick-tock

Yeah, I hear you.

My guess is that as soon as the Iranians get the sanctions off and the money released the Russians are going to fully re-equip the Iranian military, tanks, artillery, SAM/BMD, aircraft, etc; very likely with license production in and technology transfers to Iran. As soon as that starts I'd expect to see that force be used openly in Iraq and Syria.

Pakistan, the PRC and India all are chomping at the bit to get pipelines running from Iran to fuel them.

My guess is that Iran could "break out" relatively quickly. The design of a working and deliverable fission or boosted fission weapon isn't as difficult as the next step in weapons design, fusion/thermonuclear weapons. And if you've got guidance systems that allow for a CEP of 100 meters or less at range you really don't need anything bigger than 100 kt, and arguably even bigger than 20 kt, for "deterrence".

I expect the Israelis to make a "demonstration" of their Jericho, throwing a "blivet" to range at a target someplace in the south Indian Ocean. After that, putting on a "light show" isn't necessary.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150714/ml--israel-iran-5dd85c9506.html

After deal, Israel still vows to block an Iran nuclear bomb

Jul 14, 6:17 AM (ET)
By ARON HELLER

(AP) Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference with...
Full Image

JERUSALEM (AP) — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Tuesday's nuclear deal with Iran a mistake of "historic proportions" and vowed to keep up efforts to block the Islamic Republic from obtaining an atomic bomb.

The strong reaction was echoed across the political spectrum in Israel, where concern is high the country's arch enemy has duped the world and will acquire nuclear weapons to use against Israel. Iran already backs militant groups that attack Israel and its leaders frequently have referred to Israel's destruction in the past.

Netanyahu has been at the forefront of global opposition to the deal and has openly clashed with the Obama administration and other Western powers that have been pushing for an easing of sanctions in return for greater restrictions on its nuclear program. Netanyahu showed no signs of tempering his criticism Tuesday and added a veiled threat of his own.

"One cannot prevent an agreement when the negotiators are willing to make more and more concessions to those who, even during the talks, keep chanting: 'Death to America,'" he said, before meeting with Dutch Foreign Minister Bert Koenders. "We knew very well that the desire to sign an agreement was stronger than anything, and therefore we did not commit to preventing an agreement. We did commit to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and this commitment still stands."

(AP) Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference with...
Full Image

In the past, Israel has threatened to carry out a military strike against Iran's nuclear installations. But that option appeared to fade as the U.S.-led group of powers engaged in diplomacy with Iran.

Israel's first course of action looks to be an intense lobbying effort in the U.S. Congress to oppose the deal. Netanyahu spoke against the emerging deal before a joint session of Congress in March. Yet despite strong support among Republicans in Congress, there is little that can be done now.

The Senate can weigh in on the agreement but can't kill it, because Obama doesn't need congressional approval for a multinational deal that is not designated a treaty.

Lawmakers have 60 days to review the agreement, during which Obama can't ease penalties on Iran. Only if lawmakers were to build a veto-proof majority behind new legislation enacting new sanctions or preventing Obama from suspending existing ones, the administration would be prevented from living up to the accord.

Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely said Israel "will employ all diplomatic means to prevent confirmation of the agreement."

Netanyahu's coalition partners angrily criticized Wednesday's agreement. Education Minister Naftali Bennett, who heads the hawkish Jewish Home party, said July 14 will be remembered a "dark day for the free world." Cabinet Minister Miri Regev said the agreement gave Iran a "license to kill."

The cascade of criticism crossed party lines, reflecting the widespread opposition to the deal in Israel.

"This is a regime based in deceit, and now they are going to do what they did for the last 20 years, which is trying to get themselves nuclear weapons behind the back of the world," Yair Lapid, the head of the opposition Yesh Atid Party, told The Associated Press. "Now they are going to do it with the help of the international community."

Netanyahu called on all sides to "put petty politics aside" and unite behind opposing Iran.

"Our concern, of course, is that the militant Islamic state of Iran is going to receive a sure path to nuclear weapons," he said, adding that Iran would get a "jackpot of cash bonanza of hundreds of billions of dollars."

"This is a bad mistake of historic proportion," he said