WAR 07-23-2016-to-07-29-2016_____THEWINDSofWAR

Housecarl · Jul 24, 2016

Sorry folks, the meatworld summoned me to an extra shift today.....

(225) 07-02-2016-to-07-08-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...08-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(226) 07-09-2016-to-07-15-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...15-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(227) 07-16-2016-to-07-22-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...22-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

------

Main Russia/Ukraine invasion thread - NATO: Russian Tanks and Artillery Enter Ukraine
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ian-Tanks-and-Artillery-Enter-Ukraine/page443

Brazil police arrest man suspected of Olympics attack plans
Started by mzkittyý, Today 12:38 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...arrest-man-suspected-of-Olympics-attack-plans

Isis bombing in Kabul, Afghanistan kills 80, injures hundreds
Started by mzkittyý, Today 12:01 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...n-Kabul-Afghanistan-kills-80-injures-hundreds

Military Coup Underway In Turkey, Troops At Bridges, Airports and State TV
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...roops-At-Bridges-Airports-and-State-TV/page35

Russian airstrikes on US-Used base in Syria Confirmed by Military Diplomatic Source
Started by Possible Impactý, Today 09:32 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...Syria-Confirmed-by-Military-Diplomatic-Source

Turkey's Incirlik Air Base: Post-Coup Power Cut Remains at U.S. Site - US nukes in danger
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...Remains-at-U.S.-Site-US-nukes-in-danger/page7

Shooting spree' reported at Munich shopping mall, July 22nd 2016
Started by Repairman-Jack‎, Yesterday 09:39 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-at-Munich-shopping-mall-July-22nd-2016/page9

------

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Eco...-meet-amid-divisions-over-South-China-Sea-row

July 24, 2016 12:30 pm JST

ASEAN foreign ministers meet amid divisions over South China Sea row

VIENTIANE (Kyodo) -- Foreign ministers from Southeast Asia gathered Sunday for an annual meeting at a time when they are struggling to take a unified stance on how to reduce tensions in the South China Sea.

The one-day ministerial meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in Vientiane comes after an international tribunal's ruling nearly two weeks ago that dismissed China's sweeping claims to almost the entire disputed sea.

Although the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague found that China has no historic and economic rights to the resource-rich body of water, differences persist among ASEAN members, mostly between the Philippines and Vietnam -- the two most vocal claimants -- and Cambodia, which has very close ties with Beijing.

Attention is focused on to what extent the top diplomats can express uniform views on the South China Sea issue in their joint statement to be released after the meeting, which will be a prelude to a series of discussions through Tuesday with regional partners, including China, Japan and the United States.

"Today, the regional and global landscape is undergoing complex and rapid changes, offering both opportunities and challenges," Lao Foreign Minister Saleumxay Kommasith told his counterparts as he opened the meeting.

He said the forthcoming meetings will provide major opportunities not only for ASEAN to engage with its dialogue partners but also for major powers to discuss important issues, "thereby contributing to enhancing mutual understanding and strategic trust, and creating an environment conducive to the promotion of peace and stability" in the region and elsewhere.

Besides the Philippines and Vietnam, Indonesia, Myanmar, and Singapore have requested that the communique mention the need for "full respect for legal and diplomatic processes" when dealing with disputes in the South China Sea, according to ASEAN diplomatic sources.

However, some of ASEAN's less-developed members, most notably Cambodia, are seen as keen to avoid antagonizing China as it is a major source of aid and an important trade and investment partner.

Those countries, which back China's long-standing position that territorial issues should be dealt only by countries directly concerned through bilateral talks, have insisted that the grouping should avoid touching on specific developments in the South China Sea, the sources said.

As the chair of the meeting, Laos is facing a challenge in how to reconcile the conflicting demands in the joint communique to be issued later in the day.

"If Laos accepts the wordings as suggested by those countries, especially the Philippines, that gesture will for sure make China unhappy, but if those wordings are not inserted, certain ASEAN members will not be happy either," one ASEAN diplomat said.

However, if no consensus is reached on the matter, the joint communique will have to be "scrapped," the diplomat said.

China's rapid construction of airstrips and military facilities on artificial islands after carrying out a large-scale reclamation has stoked concerns in the region.

Despite these concerns, one of the sources said, ASEAN as a whole is not likely to harden its stance on the maritime issue, given that senior officials from both sides had intensive consultations prior to the ministerial meeting in the Laotian capital.

Other major issues expected to be discussed by the ministers include the rise of terrorism, disaster management, economic cooperation and integration of the 10-member bloc in every aspect.

The meeting marked the debut of Myanmar's de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi -- whose posts include foreign minister -- on the regional diplomatic stage following the formation of the country's new government in late April.

On Sunday, ASEAN and Chinese foreign ministers are scheduled to hold a meeting. Senior officials working for them are hoping to send positive messages to the rest of the world that ASEAN and China remain committed to aiming for the early adoption of a meaningful Code of Conduct in the South China Sea, according to the sources.

One of them said ASEAN and China are considering issuing a statement solely dedicated to the South China Sea on top of their joint communique.

In the planned independent statement, the officials want to reflect ASEAN and China's strong will to use peaceful means in addressing disputes in the contested waters.

Housecarl · Jul 24, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-big-south-china-sea-dilemma-17097

The Buzz

China's Big South China Sea Dilemma

July 23, 2016

What does Beijing do now?

China’s reaction to the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s relatively harsh ruling against it on the South China Sea has been angry. The court upheld nearly all of the 15 points on which the Philippines approached the Court in 2013.China boycotted the proceedings, questioning the Court’s jurisdiction and publicly claiming historic rights to the South China Sea and its resources. The Court rejected this claim, concluding “there was no legal basis for China to claim historical rights to resources.”

In the absence of China exercising its right of defence, the Court was left with little alternative than to give an ex-partè ruling based on United Nations Convention of the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), to which both China and the Philippines, but not the US, are signatories.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry in a defiant statement said “the award is invalid and has no binding force. China does not accept or recognise it.” Later the Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister reiterated China’s proclaimed right to declare an air defence identification zone (ADIZ) over the South China Sea. Whether or not China will implement an ADIZ, he said, depends upon the level of threat China faces.

Washington called upon countries bordering the South China Sea to avoid “provocative statements or actions.” In the Philippines, the change of presidency seems to have brought a new approach towards resolving the country’s differences with China. The Foreign Secretary welcomed the Court’s decision, urging “restraint and sobriety” among all concerned. Earlier, he had indicated that the Philippines would be ready to enter into bilateral negotiations with China after the judgment over joint exploration of resources in the South China Sea. Yet the Philippines still expects China to respect the ruling [2]. And the ruling’s strong wording puts limits on how far the Philippines can roll back its claims without inviting a domestic backlash.

The South China Sea covers an area of nearly four million square kilometres. US$5 trillion or one-third of total commercial shipping passes through the Sea every year, making it one of the most important trade routes in the world. The South China Sea is a resource battleground, with an estimated 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas as well as 12 per cent of the global fisheries catch.

The Chinese claim over the South China Sea, represented by the so-called nine dash line [3], predates communist rule in Beijing. China is now accused of building 3200 acres of territory in the South China Sea through reclamation and island building efforts.

Though the ruling pertains to the Philippines–China dispute, it will bolster similar claims by other states against China’s nine dash line. It will also increase pressure on China to seek a negotiated resolution [4] to the overlapping claims. Any other course will be damaging to China’s international standing.

China believes that the increased US presence in the Asia-Pacific region — now institutionalised under the ‘Pivot to Asia’ policy, launched in 2012 — is meant to contain China’s rise. Many analysts believe that tensions in the South China Sea would be easier to resolve if the US prioritised regional cooperation over individual security partnerships. The United States’ active diplomacy encourages Japan, India and, to a certain extent, Australia to participate in ‘freedom of navigation’ operations in the South China Sea. This fuels discord in the region [5].

The US views freedom of navigation as critical to its interests in the Western Pacific and essential for it to maintain a predominant role in the region. It is therefore concerned that China will impede freedom of navigation in the region. Yet China’s own economic rise depends upon freedom of navigation in the South China Sea; it will interfere in commercial shipping at its own peril.

China’s increasing assertiveness in the South China Sea is a natural consequence of its growing economic power and its need to secure its front yard. It would be folly to underestimate China’s tenacity in pursuit of its national interests.

It is highly unlikely that China will relent on its position [6] and cede control of the islands Beijing now occupies within its nine dash line, despite the ruling. But China does not want to be seen as a bully in the region, and will likely accommodate other’s positions in bilateral negotiations. China’s ambitions need a friendly neighbourhood. It must assure the ASEAN member-states that its intentions are benign.

ASEAN countries face a serious dilemma in balancing their relations with both China and the United States. Perceived pressure from China will likely push smaller countries towards the United States.

As China is the major regional power, and has global ambitions, the onus is on it to take the lead in reducing tensions. This will mean working quietly behind the scenes to accommodate the interests of ASEAN member-states. After all, small economic concessions from China — the world’s largest economy in terms of real GDP — could mean big gains for the ASEAN countries. Together, Asia can rise peacefully.

This first appeared in East Asia Forum here [7].

Tags
South China Sea [9]China [10]UNCLOS [11]South China Sea Ruiling [12]Scarborough Shoal [13]
Topics
Security [14]
Regions
Asia [15]

Source URL (retrieved on July 24, 2016): http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-big-south-china-sea-dilemma-17097

Links:
[1] http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-big-south-china-sea-dilemma-17097
[2] http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/07/18/moment-for-compromise-in-the-south-china-sea/
[3] http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/07/14/did-china-just-clarify-the-nine-dash-line/
[4] http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/0...t-asia-respond-to-the-south-china-sea-ruling/
[5] http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/06/07/brinkmanship-in-the-south-china-sea-helps-nobody/
[6] http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/07/07/south-china-sea-after-the-hague-ruling-whats-next/
[7] http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/07/23/what-happens-now-in-the-south-china-sea/
[8] https://www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/28068173812/sizes/l
[9] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/south-china-sea
[10] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/china
[11] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/unclos
[12] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/south-china-sea-ruiling
[13] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/scarborough-shoal
[14] http://nationalinterest.org/topic/security
[15] http://nationalinterest.org/region/aisa

Housecarl · Jul 24, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...s_security_trench_around_fallujah_109611.html

July 23, 2016

Iraqi Army Digs Security Trench Around Fallujah

By Hamza Hendawi

AGHDAD (AP) — The Iraqi military will use a medieval tactic to keep control of Fallujah after recapturing it from the Islamic State group last month: It is digging a trench around the city.

The trench will have a single opening for residents to move in and out of the city, which is virtually empty since the offensive that defeated the IS militants, said Lt. Gen. Abdul-Wahab al-Saadi, deputy commander of the counterterrorism forces that led the successful campaign.

It will be about 7 miles (11 kilometers) long and "will protect the city's residents, who have lived through many tragedies, as well as security forces deployed there," al-Saadi said in an interview with The Associated Press at his Baghdad headquarters.

Cutting off all roads but one will allow authorities to monitor the movements of residents more closely. Fallujah has been a source of car bombs used against Baghdad, which is 40 miles (65 kilometers) to the east. Restricting traffic will be one way to try to stop any explosives-laden vehicles from leaving the city.

Besides the trench, more modern security measures also will be used.

Personal details of the estimated 85,000 residents who fled during the May-June battle to liberate the city will be stored electronically, and forgery-proof ID cards will be issued, according to Mayor Issa al-Issawi. Cars owned by residents also will be issued display badges containing electronic chips.

The trenches will be about 40 feet (12.5 meters) wide and 5 feet (1.5 meters) deep.

Work has begun on the first leg, running about 4 miles (6 kilometers) on the north and northwest side of the city, al-Issawi told the AP. Digging the second leg, which runs 3 miles (5 kilometers) along the south and southeast, will begin soon, he said.

The western edge of Fallujah abuts the Euphrates River, providing a natural barrier. On the east side is the heavily patrolled main highway to Baghdad, which will be the sole entrance to Fallujah.

The two trenches run through open desert areas used in the past by militants, said Maj. Gen. Saad Harbiyah, in charge of military operations in western Baghdad.

Iraqis have used various earthworks, walls and fortifications ever since the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003. During the war, Saddam had trenches dug around Baghdad, filled them with oil and set them ablaze, using thick, black smoke to obscure the view for U.S. warplanes.

Since the war, Baghdad has become a city of concrete blast walls, erected to protect buildings but also to control the movement of people. During the 2006-07 sectarian violence between Shiites and Sunnis, entire neighborhoods were sealed off by blast walls to restrict and monitor access.

In January 2014, Fallujah became the first major Iraqi city to be captured by the Islamic State group. The extremists later swept through much of Anbar province, taking its capital, Ramadi, and much of the north, including Iraq's second-largest city of Mosul.

A U.S.-led coalition and Iranian-backed Shiite militia forces have helped the Iraqi army recapture territory from the Islamic State.

Security problems have plagued Iraq, especially in Fallujah. The city has been a center of Sunni opposition to Shiite-led governments in Baghdad, with Sunnis complaining of discrimination at the hands of the country's majority Shiites.

Fallujah residents have suffered under more than two years of rule by Sunni extremists of the Islamic State group. That suffering could be exacerbated if the security measures are seen by residents as too heavy-handed.

Security measures like the trench may make little difference in the long run if there is no reconciliation between Sunnis and a government many of them see as oppressive, illegitimate and a tool in the hands of Iraq's giant Shiite neighbor, Iran. Shiite hard-liners, in turn, see Sunnis as sympathetic to militants, many of whom view Shiites as infidels.

The Iraqi government also plans to dig a trench along the border between Anbar province, where Fallujah is located, and neighboring Karbala, home to one of Shiite Islam's holiest shrines. Work also has begun on walls and trenches around vulnerable parts of Baghdad's outer areas to guard against car bombs. In both cases, however, work has been slowed by lack of funds and corruption.

Fallujah faces its own internal differences as well. Some factions of its main tribal clans declared allegiance to IS, while others did not, prompting the extremists to kill prominent tribal members and blow up the homes of those who fled.

Iraqi authorities arrested about 21,000 Fallujah residents from among those who fled the city on suspicion of IS membership, according to al-Saadi. Following questioning, all were released except for about 2,000 who face further interrogation and possible prosecution, he added.

Tens of thousands of displaced residents will be allowed to return to Fallujah later this year, al-Saadi said.

"We must turn a new page with Fallujah. There is no other way for reconciliation," said al-Saadi, a veteran of the government's fight against militants in Anbar.

"We must punish those with blood on their hands, but not those who merely joined Daesh," he said, using the Arabic acronym for IS. "Revenge and mass trials will only breed more hatred and resentment."

Government spokesman Saad al-Hadithi echoed al-Saadi's view.

"We cannot judge people by their intentions. Only those who committed crimes will face justice," al-Hadithi told AP. The government intends to rely on the local police force and Sunni tribesmen to maintain security in Fallujah, he said.

But the chairman of Anbar's provincial council, Sabah al-Karhout, complained that "reconciliation efforts" were below what was needed and that much rides on how secure Fallujah residents feel when they return home.

"Marginalization must end so that calls for a federal system to disappear," he said, alluding to a growing sentiment among Iraq's Sunni Arabs for autonomy in their regions.

Associated Press writer Qassim Abdul-Zahra in Boston contributed to this report.

Housecarl · Jul 24, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/07/22/us-lawmakers-duel-over-plans-to-upgrade-nuclear-arsenal/

US Lawmakers Duel Over Plans to Upgrade Nuclear Arsenal

Posted By: Brendan McGarry July 22, 2016

In competing letters this month to the Obama administration, U.S. lawmakers dueled over plans to upgrade the military’s nuclear arsenal.

On Wednesday, a group of 10 Democratic senators urged President Barack Obama to restrain spending on nuclear weapons by “scaling back excessive nuclear modernization plans, adopting a policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons, and canceling launch-on-warning plans.”

The July 20 letter cites independent studies that estimate upgrading and sustaining the nuclear arsenal may cost $1 trillion over three decades.

It was signed by Edward Markey and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer of California, Al Franken of Minnesota, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Sherrod Brown of Ohio.

The current U.S. nuclear arsenal stands at less than 1,600 warheads, according to a March report from the Congressional Research Service.

That includes about 440 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs); some 336 Trident II (D-5) submarine-launched ballistic missiles carried in 14 Trident submarines (each carries 24 missiles); hundreds of B61 bombs for B-2 Spirit bombers and F-16 Fighting Falcon fighters; and hundreds of AGM-86B air-launched cruise missiles for B-52 Stratofortress bombers, according to CRS.

In the letter, the Democratic senators urged the cancellation of the Air Force‘s plans to develop a new nuclear cruise missile, the Long Range Standoff Weapon, as a replacement to the AGM-86B beginning around 2030. The program would cost $20 billion and “provide an unnecessary capability that would increase the risk of nuclear war,” they wrote.

Military leaders want the weapon in part to give Air Force bombers a better “standoff capability,” thus extending their effective range, especially as potential adversaries such as China and Russia develop more sophisticated air defenses.

The Defense Department has proposed spending $8.5 billion on missile defense programs in fiscal 2017, which begins Oct. 1, an 6.5 percent decrease from the current year, according to Pentagon budget documents.

The letter came a week after a bipartisan group of Republicans and Democrats wrote to Defense Secretary Ashton Carter in favor of nuclear modernization.

“The three legs of the nuclear triad combine to form a very effective deterrent,” they said in the July 12 correspondence. “The three legs — land-based missiles, bombers and nuclear submarines — are aging and must be modernized to ensure this interlocking triad continues its decades-long record of protecting the nation.”

It was signed by John Hoeven, a Republican from North Dakota; Steve Daines, a Republican from Montana; Jon Tester, a Democrat from Montana; Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah; Joe Donnelly, a Democrat from Indiana; Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat from North Dakota; Marco Rubio, a Republican from Florida; Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia; David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana; Martin Heinrich, a Democrat from New Mexico; John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming; Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia; Deb Fischer, a Republican from Nebraska; and Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island.

Housecarl · Jul 24, 2016

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-protests-russia-idUSKCN1030UW

World | Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:13pm EDT
Related: World, Afghanistan

Russia's Putin tells Afghan leader ready to fight terror together: agencies

Russian President Vladimir Putin sent a message to Afghan counterpart Ashraf Ghani expressing readiness to fight all forms of terrorism together in the most active way after Saturday's bomb blasts in Kabul, Russian media cited the Kremlin as saying.

Twin explosions tore through a street demonstration by members of Afghanistan's mainly Shi'ite Muslim Hazara minority in Kabul, killing at least 80 people and wounding more than 230 in a suicide attack claimed by Islamic State.

"The head of the Russian state strongly condemned this cynical crime committed against peaceful citizens and reiterated readiness to continue the most active cooperation with the authorities and people of Afghanistan in fighting all forms of terrorism," Russian media quoted a Kremlin statement as saying.

(Reporting by Dmitry Solovyov; editing by Mark Heinrich)

Housecarl · Jul 24, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulcoy...-is-talking-about-the-black-sea/#16fbe5b32470

Opinion

Jul 23, 2016 @ 10:36 PM 17,788 views

The Flashpoint No One Is Talking About: The Black Sea

Paul Coyer, Contributor
I cover foreign policy with a focus on Eurasia. Full Bio 

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

The recent decision of the international tribunal regarding China’s expansive claims in the South China Sea, and the certainty of continued confrontation in the region, which I wrote about last week, brings to mind another strategic body of water in which tensions are high and great potential exists for military conflict, but to which very few are paying attention – the Black Sea. The Black Sea has long played a key military and economic role for the nations on its periphery, is rich in resources, and has historically been the scene of geopolitical conflict due to its strategic importance, an importance that the confrontation between Russia and the West is once again highlighting. Since Russia has occupied Crimea, it has been working assiduously to strengthen its ability to project power throughout the Black Sea region, with considerable success. Russia’s Black Sea neighbors, in turn, have increasingly been cooperating in naval maneuvers and port visits, and discussions of joint defense production, in an effort to strengthen their ability to resist Russia and to not cede complete control of the Black Sea to Moscow.

Romania is concerned with the security of its energy platforms in the Black Sea, as well as about its ability to ensure freedom of access to the mouth of the Danube River – the ability to control access to the Danube has strategic importance, among other reasons, due to the river’s role as a key transportation and trade route that runs through virtually the whole of central Europe. Georgia, which occupies a strategic position at a historically important geographical and cultural crossroads, needs the Black Sea to be a friendly space because of the access it provides to Europe – Russian control would serve to isolate Georgia from its new Western partners and make it more vulnerable to Russian pressure. As far as Ukraine goes, Russia’s strategic gain in terms of occupation of the Crimea is obviously Ukraine’s loss. Ukraine’s access to the Black Sea is economically and strategically vital, and from Russia’s position in Crimea it has the ability to interdict the major Ukrainian access points to the Black Sea provided by the Dniester and the Dniepr Rivers.

Russia, for its part, for hundreds of years has seen control of the Black Sea to be vital to Russian security, and control of Crimea, in turn, to be key to command of the Black Sea. Crimea first became a center of Russian naval power in the 18th century after Czarist Russia defeated the Ottoman Empire in a series of wars, and was taken over from the Ottomans by Catherine the Great late in the 18th century. Control of and access to the Black Sea was a contributing factor to the Crimean War in the mid 19th century. One of the key reasons Russia lost the war to an alliance of Britain, France, and an internally rotting Ottoman Empire (which loss included a nearly year long siege of Russian forces in Sevastopol, adding to Russian sensitivity about Sevastopol) was that it was unable to control the Black Sea, which was dominated by Russia’s opponents. Upon losing the war, Russia suffered the consequence of losing the ability to station naval warships in the Black Sea altogether – a strategic nightmare that was one of the factors driving Russian fears when political debates in Kiev in recent years broached the topic of not renewing the Russian lease of its base in Sevastopol, and an important factor behind Putin’s decision to annex the peninsula once the maidan protests resulted in the loss of the Kremlin’s ally in Kiev.

Control of Crimea and the Black Sea gives Russian the upper hand in the whole of the region around the Black Sea, as well, including in its centuries old geopolitical rivalry with Turkey. In addition to Sevastopol’s defensive value, Moscow also sees the warm water naval base as critical to Russia’s ability to project naval power globally, and is planning to use its position there to expand its naval presence, and thus Russian influence, in the Mediterranean, the Atlantic and the Persian Gulf. Without Crimea, Russia’s global stature is diminished. With it, it has a strong base for geopolitical power projection.

Russia’s determination to control the Black Sea, therefore, has deep historical roots and an understandable strategic rationale. Russia’s argument that its behavior is defensive in nature, however, is less easy to agree with, and the pattern of Russian aggressiveness over the past few years, and in particular the dramatic expansion of Russian military power in the Black Sea, has made the other Black Sea littoral states increasingly nervous.

Within two months of annexing Crimea, Russia announced a plan to rebuild its naval force in Sevastopol, and has significantly bolstered it in the past two plus years, with additional surface and subsurface combatants, all of which will be capable of employing long-range cruise missiles and/or supersonic anti-ship missiles, scheduled to be delivered at various points within the next 1-4 years. From its new seat in Crimea, Russia now has coverage over the whole of the Black Sea with a potent combination of supersonic anti-ship missiles having a range of 600 km, advanced warplanes, and surface and subsurface combatants armed with cruise and anti-ship missiles. Additionally, it is strengthening its A2/AD capabilities by the placement in Crimea next month of its newest surface-to-air missile system, the S-400 , and the planned deployment next year of new Podsolnukh (“Sunflower”) radar installations, which Moscow touts as being able to spot the F-35 stealth fighter.

Three Admiral Grigorovich-class frigates are due to be added to the fleet later this year, which will provided needed larger ships to a fleet populated mostly by smaller ships.

The capabilities of the Russian navy lag far behind that of the US Navy, and the Russian navy is highly unlikely to ever again reach the level of strength and capability it enjoyed during the latter part of the Soviet era, but it does nevertheless have the ability to seriously challenge American and NATO freedom of action in the Black Sea and to shape the behavior of the American and allied navies by raising the costs of confrontation. And although the Russian surface combatants in the Black Sea to date are relatively small (a weakness the addition of the frigates is meant to help address), even Russia’s small corvettes pack a much stronger punch than the corvettes of other navies, being able to employ new, long-range, precision-guided Kalibr cruise missiles that are usually found on larger ships. Late last year Russia demonstrated this capability when it launched cruise missies from its Black Sea flotilla in strikes on targets in Syria, a demonstration of its new capabilities aimed at impressing the West and its neighbors around the Black Sea as much as striking anti-Assad forces in Syria. And the Russian submarine force, which Moscow is planning to bolster significantly over the next couple of years, also constitutes a serious threat to the ability of the US and partner navies to operate.

Russia’s attempt to dominate the region and block the United States navy from cooperating with the navies of littoral states worried about Russian control of the Sea has led to Russia undertaking actions that seek to dissuade American ships operating there, such as dangerous passes by Russian warplanes over US navy ships and other attempts to intimidate. When a US Navy destroyer, the USS Porter, transited the Bosphorus Straits and entered the Black Sea last month in order to conduct joint exercises with littoral partner navies, a Russian Foreign Ministry official threatened “retaliatory measures”. One Russian military analyst, a member of the Advisory Council of the Russian Military-Industrial Commission, asserted that the ship had entered the Black Sea as part of “preparations for combat employment of the country’s military forces,“ illustrating just how deeply engrained is the paranoia within Russia.

Russia’s aggressive behavior seems calculated to signal that Russia is willing to risk conflict, and that unless the United States and NATO are likewise willing to risk it, they should back down. Sounds similar to Chinese behavior in the South China Sea, doesn’t it?

In May, Turkish strongman Recep Erdogan warned that Russia is turning the Black Sea into “a Russian lake” with very little opposition from Turkey’s NATO partners, and has urged the United States and NATO to make a greater effort to contest control of the Sea. Russia immediately responded to Erdogan’s warning by itself counter-warning that the Black Sea “will never be NATO’s lake”.

Various proposals related to a coordinated NATO response to Russia have been put forward, including Romania’s proposal that NATO create a permanent Black Sea fleet, made at NATO’s recent summit in Warsaw, but no decisions were made. Given the anemic naval forces of all the littoral states with the exception of Turkey, a NATO force in the Black Sea would have had to depend upon stronger NATO partners such as Turkey, the United States and western European states, to provide the bulk of the naval firepower. Bulgaria opposed Romania’s proposal, due in large part to intense pressure placed on it by Moscow, illustrating the leverage Russia retains due to energy supplies, as well as Russia’s continued ability to intimidate its neighbors in general.

Regional cooperation that seeks to balance the threat from Russia is accelerating, however, regardless of NATO, and regional navies are realizing their need to bolster their own naval strength and to cooperate more deeply among themselves. Turkey and Ukraine, as one example, have announced plans to begin joint defense production. Turkey, for its part, has been among the most active in cooperating with the fellow littoral navies in a show of resolve not to cede control of the Black Sea to Russia. This past spring, for example, Turkish ships visited every littoral state with the exception of Russia. One of the central reasons Putin has done all he can to pressure Erdogan to take a more pliable stance vis-à-vis Russia is that Russia’s position in the Black Sea would be immeasurably strengthened were Russo-Turkish distrust and hostility lessened, and were Moscow to be able to neutralize Turkey and its control of the Bosphorus Straits. Much attention has been given, and for good reason, to the leverage Ankara has over Washington due to the Incirlik air base, and over Europe due to the Turkish role in the refugee crisis. However, the strategic importance of the Black Sea, and Russia’s intention to control it and the surrounding region, add to the need for both Europe and the United States to maintain cooperative relations with Turkey.

Ceding control of the Black Sea to Moscow would have negative strategic consequences far beyond the issue of military advantage in the Black Sea itself, and the lack of a comprehensive strategy toward Russia (and such a strategy has been lacking since the end of the Cold War) on the part of the United States and NATO has given Vladimir Putin room to maneuver that he otherwise would not have had. As a recent RAND study has noted, while NATO and US rhetoric has been strong, corresponding plans of action that would effectively counter Russian attempts to subvert and destabilize NATO members and non-NATO partner states along Russia’s periphery have not been developed. Recent history has shown that Vladimir Putin will take whatever advantage the West cedes to him. It is important that the West does not continue to allow him the advantage in the Black Sea.

Housecarl · Jul 24, 2016

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-crisis-of-political-islam-1469223880

The Saturday Essay

The Crisis of Political Islam

First Egypt and now Turkey show the perils of ideological religious parties (and strongman rule), but other Muslim countries are faring better with democracy

By Yaroslav Trofimov
July 22, 2016 5:44 p.m. ET
231 COMMENTS

In 1999, a former mayor of Istanbul named Recep Tayyip Erdogan was imprisoned and banned from politics for life for reciting a poem. “Our minarets are our bayonets, our domes are our helmets, our mosques are our barracks,” the incriminating lines went. “My reference is Islam. If I am not able to speak of this, what is the use of living?”

The ban on Mr. Erdogan didn’t stick. Now Turkey’s president (and prime minister for 11 years before that), he is presiding over a nationwide purge of suspected enemies after the failure last week of a military coup against his government.

For decades, in much of the Middle East, Islamist politicians like Mr. Erdogan weren’t able to speak out—and, when they did, they frequently faced a prison cell or a hangman’s noose. From Algeria to Egypt to Turkey, the apparatus of the state repeatedly unleashed repression—of varying degrees of harshness—to marginalize political Islam, crushing democratic freedoms while offering the excuse of preserving secular values. The West, preferring the autocratic devils it knew over the Islamists it didn’t, often concurred.

In response, many of the Islamist movements that sprang up under the influence of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood—groups that include Mr. Erdogan’s party—have gradually embraced the language of pluralism and the idea of democratic politics and elections. Crucially, however, these modern Islamists have often viewed democracy not as a value in itself but merely as a tactic to bring about a “true” Islamic order. To them, the voting booth was simply the most feasible way to dismantle the postcolonial, secular systems that, in the eyes of their followers, had failed to bring justice or development to ordinary Muslims.

In 2005, Mr. Erdogan—then serving as Turkey’s prime minister and acclaimed for improving the country’s human-rights record and pushing forward its bid for membership in the European Union—let slip on a trip to Australia that he viewed democracy just as “a vehicle.”

In the subsequent decade, Mr. Erdogan has extinguished major centers of opposition in Turkey’s bureaucracy, media, military and judiciary. In the wake of the failed coup—itself a vivid confirmation that his suspicions weren’t unfounded—he has launched a crackdown on tens of thousands of potential opponents, including detaining nearly 9,000 people since the collapse of the plot. “All the checks and balances have now been eliminated,” said Soner Cagaptay, a Turkey expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

In Egypt, hopes for democracy were high in the wake of the 2011 demonstrations in Tahrir Square that helped to topple longtime autocrat Hosni Mubarak. But the country’s first democratically elected president, Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, took just a few months after being elected in 2012 to start ominously consolidating his rule, granting himself immunity from judicial oversight. His power grab was cut short by a successful military coup the following year, which installed the country’s current strongman, Abdel Fattah Al Sisi. His regime has quickly proven more repressive even than Mr. Mubarak’s.

This cycle of conflict—between the entrenched “deep state,” dominated by a country’s military and security establishments, and Islamist parties eager to grab as much power as possible whenever elected due to their wholly legitimate fears that they won’t otherwise be allowed to govern—has been a major reason why democracy has failed to take root in the Middle East.

Tainted by their associations with the West or the autocratic regimes long in power, liberal and secular parties have struggled to emerge as a third option in much of the region. And democracy, after all, is a tough proposition when neither of the two major forces now shaping the Middle East’s politics—the old-guard autocrats and the Islamist movements—truly believes in it.

The democratic exception to this rule is Tunisia, the one Arab democracy to emerge from the Arab revolutions of 2011. It is the only country now rated as “free” by Freedom House, a U.S. organization that analyzes civil liberties and political rights, out of the 17 Muslim-majority nations in the Middle East and North Africa. That’s the worst record for any region.

“There is a lot to be done before democracy has a chance. Education, pluralistic ideas and consensus-building are in short supply in many of these countries,” said Hassan Hassan, a fellow at the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy in Washington, D.C.

This democracy problem is linked not so much with Islam, an ancient religion, as with political Islam—a modern ideology developed in 20th-century Egypt, in part, to redress the Middle East’s backwardness compared with the West. Its founding fathers in the Muslim Brotherhood met violent deaths— Hassan al-Banna was gunned down in 1949, Sayyid Qutb was hanged by the Egyptian government in 1966—but their ideas took root throughout the Middle East after the repeated failures of autocratic regimes that preached the rival ideas of socialism and Arab nationalism. Offshoots of the Brotherhood now represent the dominant political movements from Morocco to Turkey to the Gaza Strip.

But the Muslim world is more than the Middle East. And the further one travels from the Middle East’s core, the less relevant this strain of political Islam tends to become. The world’s most populous Muslim country, Indonesia, has been a successful democracy since 1999. Conservative Islamist parties have remained at the margins of power, and local demands for more religious rule have been addressed through decentralization.

“Even though we are mostly Muslim, the way we practice Islam has very local characteristics. We in Indonesia like to live together in diversity; we are different, and this has created a challenge here for Islamist movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood,” explained Samsul Maarif, a scholar at the Center for Religious and Cross-Cultural Studies of Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta, on the Indonesia island of Java.

Islamist political parties have also consistently failed at the ballot box in Pakistan, the world’s second-most-populous Muslim country. That is one reason why Islamist radicals in Pakistan have embraced the strategy of terrorism instead. Even though Pakistan’s army still retains considerable influence over foreign and security affairs, democratic politics has consolidated there since the end of direct military rule in 2008. The 2013 election led to the country’s first handover of power between rival parties. Outside the Middle East, democracy has also worked, at least so far, in Muslim-majority nations as diverse as Senegal and Albania.

But political ideas tend to travel from the Muslim world’s core to its periphery, not the other way around. A decade ago, the West African nation of Mali was often held up as the freest Muslim democracy, a potential inspiration for democrats in war-torn Afghanistan and Iraq. Fast forward to 2012, and Mali’s democracy collapsed under the onslaught of Islamist radicals who had emulated the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Arguments about the role of religion—and divinely inspired morality—in public life are hardly unique to Muslim societies, of course. Established Western democracies have grappled with these issues too, and not always gracefully. During the lifetimes of many older Americans, after all, it has been a felony to sell alcohol or to engage in adultery or homosexual sex.

But Islam is a religion whose founder established a successful empire instead of dying on the cross. As a result, it offers a far more detailed prescription than Christianity of how government and society should be run. “The Quran is our constitution,” runs the Muslim Brotherhood’s historic slogan.

As such, politicians and voters who believe in the primacy of Islamic law inevitably find themselves in conflict with the principle of democracy whenever a majority favors a different path. This, after all, is why more radical groups, such as Islamic State, have rejected democracy outright as an infidel heresy.

After its 1979 revolution, Iran purported to reconcile this conundrum by establishing its “Islamic Republic.” Yet the Iranian system—in which the country’s Shiite clerical establishment retains supreme authority—has turned the country’s democratic institutions and elected officials into a sideshow whenever major decisions are made. Ultimate power rests with the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, not with parliament. As the Iranian constitution explicitly states, all laws and regulations “must be based on Islamic criteria”—which are up to the clerics.

The Iranian Revolution also led to a hardening sectarian divide across the region that has proven to be another obstacle to democratic politics. Sunni Saudi Arabia, whose legitimacy as the custodian of Islam’s holiest sites is hotly contested by the theocracy that runs Shiite Iran, has fought back by fomenting anti-Shiite sentiment and funding proxy battles with Iranian allies from Yemen to Syria. (Most Muslims are Sunnis.)

More recently, Gulf monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have backed Mr. Sisi’s coup in Egypt. The Gulf states, fearing for their own rule, were particularly hostile to the democratic experiment in Tunisia, the country where the Arab Spring began. Tunisia remains the only country where the heady initial hopes for freedom haven’t been dashed by a military takeover (as in Egypt), a bloody crackdown (as in Bahrain) or chaos and civil war (as in Syria, Yemen and Libya).

Tunisia became the region’s lone beacon of Arab democracy largely thanks to the wisdom shown by the local spinoff of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Ennahda Party. After the 2013 Egyptian coup, Ennahda, then essentially running Tunisia’s government, took an unusually pragmatic approach. It compromised on the role of Islam in society during sessions to draft the country’s new constitution and accepted an election that voted the party out.

“We may lose power, but Tunisia will win,” Ennahda’s leader Rached Ghannouchi recently told his party’s congress. Tunisia, he added, was able to avoid the carnage that followed the other Arab Spring revolutions by “adopting the principle of dialogue, acceptance of the other and avoidance of exclusion and revenge.”

That prescription has proven especially hard to apply in countries such as Syria and Iraq. With borders carved on the map by European colonialists, they have been run for much of their modern histories by dictatorial regimes that masked minority rule with a secular facade. Sunni-majority Syria has long been run by the Alawite-dominated Assad tyranny, and Shiite-majority Iraq was held under the boot of Saddam Hussein’s Sunni dictatorship.

After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 introduced majority rule, the country quickly fell into Shiite sectarian dominance—especially under former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose refusal to heed Sunni concerns pushed many of them into Islamic State’s embrace. In Syria, Alawites and other minorities continue backing President Bashar al-Assad despite his brutality, fearing that the advent of Sunni majority rule wouldn’t just disempower them but perhaps lead to their extermination.

In pivotal countries like Turkey and Egypt, both important U.S. partners, the political struggle has also become a zero-sum game. In this environment, the U.S. and its European allies have precious few instruments left to promote a democratic agenda, especially after the Obama administration worked to reduce its involvement in the Middle East and the antidemocratic powers of Russia and China tried to expand their influence.

In Egypt, Turkey and other Middle Eastern countries under stress, “leaders have been able to define societal struggles in existential terms,” said Steven Cook, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “What can a U.S. president or secretary of state do in those circumstances? Not much.”

Memories in the region are long, and few people have forgotten how, in the past, the West often sided with dictators such as Mr. Mubarak in Egypt, accepting the autocrats’ argument that the only alternative to their corrupt but secular rule was theocratic tyranny by bearded fanatics. It also didn’t help that, in 2013, Egypt’s secularists and liberals enthusiastically welcomed Mr. Sisi’s coup—only to be targeted themselves by the wave of repression that followed his takeover.

The West has often struggled to balance its ideals and its interests. The U.S. has offered only the mildest of criticisms of Mr. Sisi’s abuses, and in 1991, key Western countries, especially France, appeared to welcome the decision by Algeria’s rulers to abort a second round of elections that seemed sure to be won by an Islamist party. The Algerian coup sparked a civil war that claimed as many as 200,000 lives, convincing many previously peaceful Islamists that power can only be gained with bullets and bombs—and directly contributing to the rise of al Qaeda.

Turkey a week ago stood on the verge of following a similar route. “It’s hard to be optimistic about Turkey. But if the coup had succeeded, it would have offered further definitive proof that Islamists can’t take power in democratic elections or can’t stay in power through democratic elections,” said Shadi Hamid, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the author of a new book, “Islamic Exceptionalism.” “That would have sent a dangerous message that ISIS and other extremist groups benefit from: that the only way to achieve anything is through brute force.”

Write to Yaroslav Trofimov at yaroslav.trofimov@wsj.com

Related Reading

After Orlando, a Long War (June 17, 2016)
Russia’s Long Road to the Middle East (May 27, 2016)
Jihad Comes to Africa (Feb. 5, 2016)
America’s Fading Footprint in the Middle East (Oct. 9, 2015)

Housecarl · Jul 24, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-ruling-asean-idUSKCN1040GK

World | Sun Jul 24, 2016 10:33am EDT
Related: World, China, South China Sea

ASEAN deadlocked on South China Sea, Cambodia blocks statement

VIENTIANE | By Manuel Mogato and Michael Martina

Southeast Asian nations failed to agree on maritime disputes in the South China Sea on Sunday after Cambodia blocked any mention to an international court ruling against Beijing in their statement, diplomats said.

Foreign ministers from the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) met for the first time since the U.N.-backed Permanent Court of Arbitration handed an emphatic legal victory to the Philippines in the dispute this month.

The ruling by the court in The Hague denied China's sweeping claims in the strategic seaway, through which more than $5 trillion in global trade passes each year.

China claims most of the sea, but ASEAN members the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei all have rival claims. Beijing says the ruling has no bearing on its rights in the sea, and described the case as a farce.

The Philippines and Vietnam both wanted the communique issued by ASEAN foreign ministers after their meeting to refer to the ruling and the need to respect international law, ASEAN diplomats said. Their foreign ministers both discussed the ruling with ASEAN counterparts in the Laotian capital.

But before the meeting, China's closest ASEAN ally Cambodia opposed the proposed wording, throwing the group into disarray. Phnom Penh supports Beijing's opposition to any ASEAN stand on the South China Sea, and its preference for dealing with the disputed claims on a bilateral basis.

FIRST DEADLOCK SINCE 2012

"We are still working on it," Indonesia's Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi told Reuters after the meeting on Sunday, adding that she hoped the ASEAN members would reach an agreement.

Cambodia's Foreign Minister Prak Sokhon declined to comment on his country's position on Sunday.

Even after a late-night meeting of foreign ministers called to thrash out the issue late on Saturday, the region's top diplomats were unable to find a compromise.

The group has given itself until Tuesday to come to issue a statement, said one ASEAN diplomat.

ASEAN is facing the prospect of being unable to issue a statement after a meeting for only the second time in its 49-year history. The first time, in 2012, was also due to Cambodia's resistance to language about the South China Sea.

"We have been here before and I hope they can solve it," said one official from the ASEAN Secretariat in Indonesia. "It is the same story again, a repeat of the meeting in 2012."

Over the next two days, Southeast Asian nations will meet with China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. Kerry and Wang are also expected to meet and discuss the maritime issues.

Wang, who started bilateral meetings with ASEAN members on Sunday, said he thought the media focus on the South China Sea issue was "very strange".

It was "not a China-ASEAN issue," he said, adding that disputes should be resolved among the parties involved.

Japan's Foreign Minister Fumiko Kishida will also be in Laos for the ASEAN regional forum meeting. It is unclear if he will meet Wang, but China reacted angrily to Kishida saying he would discuss the sea issue if they do meet.

China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang, in a statement posted on the ministry's website, said the sea is not Japan's concern.

"We urge Japan not to hype up and meddle in the South China Sea issue," he said. "Japan is not a concerned party in the South China Sea, and because of its disgraceful history is in no place to make irresponsible comments about China."

U.S. ROLE

The United States, allied with the Philippines and cultivating closer relations with Vietnam, has called on China to respect the court's ruling.

It has criticised China's building of artificial islands and facilities in the sea and has sailed warships close to the disputed territory to assert freedom of navigation rights.

But Kerry will urge ASEAN nations to explore diplomatic ways to ease tension over Asia's biggest potential military flashpoint, a senior U.S. official said ahead of his trip.

Chinese state media called for "damage control" at the meetings. A commentary published by the official Xinhua news agency on Sunday said the court ruling was a "blow to peace and stability in the region ... and only serves to increase the likelihood of confrontation and turbulence."

Barack Obama is set in September to become the first U.S. president to visit Laos, attending an annual summit hosted by the country that holds the ASEAN chairmanship.

Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi is also in Laos, making her debut at ASEAN meetings as the foreign minister for Myanmar.

(Additional reporting by Simon Webb in Vientiane and Lesley Wroughton in Paris; Editing by Tom Heneghan)

Housecarl · Jul 24, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-security-gulen-insight-idUSKCN10407W

World | Sun Jul 24, 2016 8:00am EDT
Related: World, Turkey

Turkish president gains upper hand in power struggle

ISTANBUL | By Samia Nakhoul and Ayla Jean Yackley

At the crossroads between a divided Europe and a convulsed Middle East, Turkey is caught in a power struggle between former Islamist allies which is shaking democratic institutions and raises questions about its future path.

Since a failed coup on July 15, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) founded by President Tayyip Erdogan has gained the upper hand in its battle with clandestine networks in the military, judiciary and bureaucracy loyal to U.S.-based cleric Fethullah Gulen.

This fight to the bitter end has alarmed the West and unsettled the country of 80 million, which borders the chaos in Iraq and Syria and is a Western ally against Islamic State.

Erdogan accuses Gulen of masterminding the attempted coup by a faction within the military and has rounded up more than 60,000 people in an operation which he hopes will cleanse Turkey of what he calls the Gulenist "virus".

The purges, carried out as Turkey faces attacks by Islamist State and a revived struggle with Kurdish militants, go beyond the more than 100 generals and 6,000 soldiers held, or the nearly 3,000 judges detained.

They already encompass 21,000 teachers and much of the academic community, and new targets in a media already hit by years of firings and fines, jailings and closures.

"They are traitors," Erdogan told Reuters in an interview on Thursday. He described Gulen's network as "like a cancer" and said he would treat them like a "separatist terrorist organization" and root them out, wherever they may be.

Gulen, 75, denies plotting against the state and suggested the day after the abortive coup that it may have been staged to justify a crackdown on his followers.

The millions of members of Gulen's "Hizmet" (Service) movement do not outwardly identify as supporters. Since the failed coup many are going even further underground, refusing to take calls or trying to leave the country.

Some followers are dumping books in the woods and publishers are getting rid of their stocks, said Nedim Sener, an investigative journalist at Posta newspaper who wrote a book on the Gulen movement’s efforts to infiltrate the state and was jailed in 2011 for more than a year.

A senior journalist at a Gulen-affiliated newspaper, speaking on condition of anonymity because he feared reprisals, said he and other editors were afraid to go to the paper's office in the days following the failed coup and that their printers refused to continue publishing.

"I advised my colleagues not to go to the office for their own safety," he said. "The newspaper has become a liability, it has just disappeared ... I'm afraid for my family and for my life. It's dangerous to go outside."

Asked if he was a follower of Gulen’s teachings, he said: "Answering this question could now be used as evidence against me. Now I could be prosecuted for a book I keep at home ... Everyone is too afraid to call their friends, worried this will cause their detention. It’s a climate of fear everywhere."

ALLIES TURNED FOES

Erdogan was prime minister from 2003 until 2014, when he became president. When he first came to power, he led a reinvented Muslim conservative party wary of fiercely secularist generals and judges who had closed a series of Islamist parties.

Related Coverage
› Soldiers in coup have badly harmed Turkey: chief of General Staff

In the skirmishing that followed, and after the army and the courts tried to push aside the AKP in 2007-08, Erdogan turned for help to Gulen, whose movement had built a loyal following among police, prosecutors and civil servants.

Gulen, a Muslim imam self-exiled in Pennsylvania since 1999, has built a franchise of schools in Turkey and around the world, promoting the importance of education, scientific progress, religious coexistence and fighting poverty.

After their ascent to power, Erdogan and the AKP became dependent on the Gulenists in their common fight against the army. It was mainly Gulenist prosecutors who, after Erdogan and his party narrowly escaped being banned in 2008, built two big conspiracy trials targeting the upper echelons of the army.

These two cases, known as Ergenekon and Sledgehammer, netted more than 40 generals, but also swept up opponents of both the ruling party and the Gulenists. It later became clear after many charges were dismissed that bogus evidence had been used.

Yet at the time, the Gulenists’ apparent success in helping Erdogan break the army’s grip on Turkish politics emboldened them to demand more power in the security services and the army.

"It is essentially not a struggle about ideology because their ideology is so similar. Both want to turn Turkey into a more conservative Islamised society," said one Turkey analyst who asked not to be named after the declaration of emergency laws which could hit those critical of the state.

"It is a struggle about power and that alliance broke down because of disagreement over power-sharing."

PURSUIT OF POWER

If Gulenist penetration of state institutions is as deep as the purges suggest, then much of it must have happened while Erdogan was in charge.

"We never considered even the possibility that they might be involved in this kind of a treason. They were citizens of our country and we supported them to the fullest as citizens of our country," Erdogan told Reuters.

Sener said there had been a tendency to see Gulen as a religious leader, but he has always rejected this.

"He is a man who is in pursuit of power and power alone. Fethullah Gulen and his followers want to take over the organs of the state," he said.

"Had (Erdogan) taken this seriously he would have cleaned this up years ago. But he never imagined the guns would be turned on him."

The struggle between the former allies started in late 2011.

Erdogan had been re-elected that summer for a third term as prime minister, making no secret of his presidential ambitions. His posters emphasized power until 2023, the centenary of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s founding of the modern republic.

But when he suddenly had to pull back from the political fray and undergo surgery, prosecutors assumed to be loyal to Gulen targeted Hakan Fidan, Erdogan’s intelligence chief.

This apparent attempt to push Gulenist influence into the security services was like targeting Erdogan himself, who complained of betrayal, asking publicly: "What is it that we didn’t give you that you wanted?"

Tit-for-tat battles followed, electrifying Turkish politics. The government closed down the dershane, a network of private tutoring centers, mostly run by the movement. Gulenist prosecutors in 2013 launched corruption investigations into Erdogan’s cabinet and family. The gloves came off.

END OF THE MOVEMENT?

This degree of state infiltration, and the damaging leaks by prosecutors, revealed a power structure Erdogan loyalists described as a "parallel state" intent on taking power.

"It has aspirations to capture the state. They certainly came quite a long way in reaching this objective, they have certainly been helped and assisted by the AKP," said Sinan Ulgen, head of the liberal EDAM think tank in Istanbul and a fellow at the Carnegie Europe think tank.

"When AKP came to power they established an alliance. It helped to populate the Turkish administration with Gulenists."

Government officials say the Gulenists have carefully planned to seize state institutions for over three decades by using their schools and universities to prepare civil servants, something the AKP found difficult to match when it took power.

Gulen schools have identified and groomed generations of capable students, starting from primary schools through university and into their professional life. Many rose to influential jobs in the state and business.

"This is the more benign face of the movement but there is a dark face," Ulgen said, adding that it has steadily become more powerful over the past decade and succeeded in penetrating bodies such as the police, judiciary and prosecution service.

Sener said government hotlines set up for people to inform on suspected Gulenists meant the movement looked set for a fall.

"This movement will end," said Sener. "There are a few who are still hidden... To a very large extent, this is the end of the Gulen movement in Turkey."

(Writing by Samia Nakhoul, Editing by Nick Tattersall and Timothy Heritage)

iceblue · Jul 24, 2016

New study warns Russia could invade Poland ‘overnight’

A NEW study has warned Russia could invade Poland “overnight” at any time and NATO forces must be prepared to respond.

The aggressive foreign policy of a resurgent Russia under president Vladimir Putin has countries in the region on high alert after they annexed Crimea from Ukraine, according to The Sun.

The think tank Atlantic Council warns: “Even if Moscow currently has no immediate intent to challenge NATO directly, this may unexpectedly change overnight.”

It talked up the rapid speed of Russia’s military operations and warned Poland and its allies that they must be prepared and arm up as a deterrent.

The report even suggests potential targets to hit in Russia if required, including the Kaliningrad and the Metro infrastructure in Moscow.

It recommends more US missiles be shipped to the region, and urges Poland to find a way to stop ‘fighting age men’ quitting the country to find work abroad, and join their military instead.

Earlier this month, US president Barack Obama announced plans to deploy 1,000 troops to the east of Poland.

It is the biggest escalation of hostilities in the region between Russia and NATO states since the Cold War.

Ben Rhodes, the deputy US national security adviser, denied that the US was escalating tensions in the region.

He said: “What we are demonstrating is that if Russia continues this pattern of aggressive behaviour, there will be a response and there will be a greater presence in eastern Europe.”

Britain is one of the 28 NATO members and also decided to make deployments this month to the region.

500 troops will be stationed in Estonia and 150 in Poland, and a further 3,000 will be put on notice for immediate action in the region if activity increases.

This article originally appeared on The Sun and was republished with permission. http://www.news.com.au/world/europe...t/news-story/50a897559a1b66c76abf74e5c91a1cfd

What I find really interesting in this is the Atlantic Union is pre-designing an eventuating war with Russia and using Poland as the pawn.

Housecarl · Jul 25, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://atimes.com/2016/07/korea-caught-in-the-middle-again/

Korea caught in the middle — again

By Kongdan Oh on July 24, 2016 in AT Opinion, China, Koreas

Koreans live in a tough geopolitical neighborhood. Since the beginning of recorded history they have been attacked by Japanese from the east and Chinese and Mongols from the west. Since the Japanese were defeated in World War II, few Koreans fear they will come under attack from either the west or east. Today the biggest worry is the North Koreans, who routinely threaten their South Korean brothers and sisters with destruction, and occasionally carry out their threats with minor provocations.

Koreans still suffer from a “shrimp among whales” syndrome. Although they have become a developed country with a high international profile, thanks to their globally marketed products and the popularity of “hallyu” pop culture, they often see themselves as caught between the United States on the one hand and China on the other.

Anti-missile or anti-China?

A recent case is the decision to let the Americans install a THAAD anti-ballistic missile battery to help defend against an attack from North Korea. The decision would appear to be entirely justified in the face of the Kim regime’s expanding missile program and continuing threats to turn South Korea into a “sea of fire.” However, because the battery is designed and operated by the Americans, the Chinese and Russians claim to view it as a direct threat to their security, and consequently have lobbied South Korea to forgo this means of protecting themselves.

The arguments that China, and to a lesser extent Russia, have voiced are somewhat contradictory. One argument is that THAAD is not for protection against North Korea’s missiles, but instead will be targeted at their own missiles. This is a strange argument on two counts. First, few Koreans have even thought about the possibility of being attacked by Chinese or Russian missiles. Second, it is widely acknowledged that THAAD would have very limited effectiveness in combating an all-out ICBM attack from a major military power.

A more coherent objection is that the radar system used by THAAD would provide the United States with valuable intelligence about everything that goes on in Chinese and Eastern Russian airspace. It would be surprising, however, if the United States did not already have this kind of capability.

That the chief reason for deploying THAAD is to counter North Korean missiles seems to be overlooked. One Chinese article belittled the North Korean threat by asserting that “North and South Korea have gotten themselves into an extremely foolish negative security competition.” Yet the author admitted that “In the past, only North Korean missiles targeted South Korea.” He then added—and this is probably why the Chinese censors deleted the online article a few days later — that “in the future, North Korean, Chinese, and Russian missiles will target targets within South Korea.”

Whatever the capabilities of THAAD as a means of countering North Korean missiles, it would not be far fetched to suspect that the deployment is at the same time an American and South Korean political message to China. “If you are unwilling to do more to curtail North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs, we will have to take steps that you may find inconvenient.” This inconvenience is nothing compared to the trouble that the United States and South Korea have gone to defend against North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction.

North Korea objects

And what of North Korean objections to THAAD? They begin with the preposterous denial that North Korea poses any nuclear or missile threat to South Korea. Instead, THAAD “may bring a new Cold War to the Asia-Pacific” and “upset the regional strategic balance and contain China and Russia,” thus appealing for the sympathy of Pyongyang’s Cold War allies. Interestingly, the article continues with the claim that “It is the US ulterior purpose to neutralize the attack capability of rapidly developing Asian countries … and thus hold political, economic and military hegemony over the region.” So North Korea was targeting South Korea after all!

Time will tell if China undertakes any concrete measures to try to punish South Korea for the THAAD deployment, for example by curtailing economic relations. Despite its objections, Russia has little political or economic leverage over South Korea. North Korea, as usual, has made more threatening gestures.

After the decision to deploy THAAD was announced, the North Korean Artillery Bureau promised to take “physical counter-action to thoroughly control THAAD … from the moment its location and place have been confirmed.” South Koreans were reminded that “the Korean People’s Army has long put not only all the aggressive war means of the enemies but even their attack and logistic bases against the DPRK in the precision sighting strike range.”

A few days later, South Korea announced that THAAD would be deployed far to the south of the inter-Korean border, which incidentally places it beyond the range of North Korea rockets and artillery but not beyond the range of the North’s ballistic missiles. From this location THAAD will protect about two-thirds of South Korea, excepting the heavily populated Seoul area. Included in the protected range will be most US military installations and South Korea’s military headquarters. It was decided that Seoul, close to the border, could not be protected by THAAD. Instead, Seoul’s PAC-2 anti-missile defense will be upgraded to PAC-3.

South Korea’s decision to make

Chinese and North Korean threats have rippled through South Korean society. Many South Koreans fear that Chinese will stop visiting Korea and buying Korean-made products. Others believe Korea should be cultivating better relations with China and distancing itself from the United States. Still others, especially those who live near the proposed THAAD site, are (needlessly) concerned about the radar’s impact on their health, and also fear provoking a North Korea attack. Overall, however, more South Koreans support THAAD deployment (50%) than oppose it (32%).

Ultimately, THAAD in South Korea is not about China or Russia but about North Korea. South Koreans have long lived under a North Korean threat and they are entitled to defend themselves. It seems hypocritical of China and Russia to tell South Korea how to protect itself. Although South Korea happens to be situated in the middle of major powers, this is not the cause of its problems with North Korea. If the United States again comes to South Korea’s rescue, it is a credit to the US-ROK alliance, and a discredit to the Chinese and Russians, who are unwilling or unable to extend protection to South Korea by reining in North Korea.

Dr. Kongdan Oh is a senior Asia specialist at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA). Her most recent book is Hidden People of North Korea: Everyday Life in the Hermit Kingdom, second edition.

The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the view of Asia Times.

Housecarl · Jul 25, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/07/120_210172.html

Posted : 2016-07-24 17:37
Updated : 2016-07-24 18:44

NK to seek 'nuclear nation' status at ARF

Pyongyang's top diplomat attends ASEAN forum

By Rachel Lee
Ri Yong-ho

North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho is expected to call on the international community to accept his country as a nuclear state at the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in Laos, officials here said Sunday.

Ri and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi arrived in the Laotian capital of Vientiane on the same flight Sunday afternoon.

This is the first time for Ri to attend an international meeting since taking office in May. Ri, a career diplomat, was the North's top representative for the now-dormant six-party talks that involved the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia.

His trip to Laos came at a time when Pyongyang is seeking to strengthen its ties with its traditional allies to counterbalance Seoul's efforts to accelerate Pyongyang's international isolation.

The North has stepped up its nuclear weapons program this year. It fired a Hwasong-10 intermediate range ballistic missile on June 22, after carrying out its fourth nuclear test on Jan. 4 and a series of ballistic missile tests afterwards.

This year's ARF, the region's largest security gathering, attracted diplomats from 27 countries, including all members of the six-party talks aimed at Pyongyang's denuclearization as well as the 10 ASEAN-member states.

They will attend a welcoming dinner hosted by Laos Foreign Minister Saleumxay Kommasith, Monday.

South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se will also attend the forum, where both Yun and Ri are expected to make the utmost effort to deliver their stance on Pyongyang's nuclear programs to gain support from the international community.

The two ministers will not have a separate meeting, a government official said.

However, there is speculation that Ri may hold talks with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi.

A source said the two ministers made a reservation at the same accommodation for this visit, raising a possibility that the two diplomats could hold unofficial talks. Upon Ri's departure to Laos Saturday, Chinese Ambassador to Pyongyang Li Jinjun was at the airport to see the North Korean minister off, according to foreign reports.

Beijing is Pyongyang's key diplomatic partner and economic lifeline, but bilateral relations became chilly since the North's third nuclear test in 2013. The two held talks at the ARF in Myanmar in 2014, but the same did not happen at last year's forum in Malaysia. A North Korean delegation led by Ri Su-yong recently visited Chinese President Xi Jinping as part of the North's efforts to mend ties.

The South Korean government said the focus of this year's ARF is to urge the international support to better implement the U.N. Security Council's latest sanctions on Pyongyang for its denuclearization.

"The ARF will discuss some of the very complex issues surrounding terrorism, the South China Sea and North Korea's nuclear and missile threats after its fourth nuclear test early this year," Yun said, expressing his will to have the majority of participating countries strictly follow the U.N. Security Council's latest sanctions on Pyongyang.

On the sidelines of the forum, Yun will hold talks with Vietnam, Myanmar and Laos _ all of which have been friendly with Pyongyang _ as part of his efforts to attract participation in sanctioning the North. High on the agenda will also be the deployment of the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense battery on the Korean Peninsula.

Yun plans to meet with his Japanese counterpart Fumio Kishida and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday.

But because of the chair country's traditionally close ties with Pyongyang, Seoul is likely to face challenges in reflecting its stance on the North in a chairman's statement, the source said.

rachel@ktimes.com

1. China, N. Korea likely to hold talks at ASEAN meetings
2. Japan's top diplomat expresses pleasure at improved ties with S. Korea
3. US, China's top diplomats likely to hold talks at ASEAN meetings
4. S. Korea holds hearing on Volkswagen Korea's emissions scandal
5. N. Korea opens nature museum, remodeled zoo in Pyongyang
6. S. Korea, Iran to discuss launching joint fish farming venture
7. Seoul to set up N. Korean human rights foundation
8. Korean seafood to be promoted at Chinese beer festival
9. UAE, S. Korea building ties via cultural, economic cooperation
10. Ruling party lawmaker advocates S. Korea's nuke armament

Housecarl · Jul 25, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/07/116_210208.html

Posted : 2016-07-25 12:34
Updated : 2016-07-25 12:34

Ruling party lawmaker advocates S. Korea's nuke armament

À½¼ºµè±â

A former floor leader of the ruling Saenuri Party said Monday that South Korea should also develop nuclear weapons if Pyongyang's provocation continues, adding the country's security is being threatened as U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump openly spoke about the withdrawal of troops from the Korean Peninsula.

"As Trump is openly calling for the pull out of U.S. troops from South Korea, the country's security is like a candlelight facing a storm," Rep. Won Yoo-chul claimed, adding the country should also develop its own nuclear weapons capability to deal with Pyongyang's ever-growing threat.

Since 2006, the northern country has tested four nuclear devices and argued it can put these on top of missiles able to target all of South Korea, Japan and some U.S. bases in the Pacific.

Trump has been claiming the U.S. should continue defending other countries as long as they pay for the cost of the troop presence, arguing that it makes no sense to pay to defend rich nations. South Korea currently pays about half the costs, about US$900 million a year, to help finance its U.S. troop presence.

Yoo added North Korea may conduct its fifth nuclear test around the end of this month, adding South Korea should also come up with serious countermeasures if the reclusive country makes such a move.

The five-term lawmaker has been an advocate of Seoul acquiring nuclear weapons as a means to defend itself.

In line with the move, Yoo said he will kick off the so-called nuclear forum to conduct studies on detailed action plans to better cope with North Korea's provocations and help establish peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.

Political pundits, however, said it is uncertain if Yoo's claim will earn support from other party members, as it contradicts the government's stance on non-proliferation. (Yonhap)

Housecarl · Jul 25, 2016

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.trust.org/item/20160724110103-nv951/?source=reOtherNews2

ANALYSIS - Kerry's Syria plan with Russia faces deep skepticism in U.S., abroad

by Reuters
Sunday, 24 July 2016 11:00 GMT

Critics concerned about sharing intelligence with Russia, which they say has been an untrustworthy partner in Syria

(Repeats July 22 story)

By Yara Bayoumy, Jonathan Landay and John Walcott

WASHINGTON, July 22 (Reuters) - Skeptics in the U.S. government, European allies in the anti-Islamic State coalition and the main Syrian opposition, distrustful of Russia's intentions, are questioning Secretary of State John Kerry's latest proposal for closer U.S.-Russian cooperation against extremist groups in Syria.

Several U.S. military and intelligence officials called the plan naive, and said Kerry risks falling into a trap that Russian President Vladimir Putin has laid to discredit the United States with moderate rebel groups and drive some of their fighters into the arms of Islamic State and other extremist groups.

Some European members of the coalition against Islamic State forces have expressed concern about sharing intelligence with Russia, which they say has been an untrustworthy partner in Syria.

The current proposal, which Kerry hopes to conclude within weeks, envisions ways in which Washington and Moscow would share intelligence to coordinate air strikes against the al Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front and prohibit the Syrian air force from attacking moderate rebel groups.

Kerry's State Department and White House allies say the plan is the best chance to limit the fighting that is driving thousands of Syrians, mixed with some trained Islamic State fighters, into exile in Europe and preventing humanitarian aid from reaching tens of thousands more, as well as preserving a political track.

In the end, according to two officials who support Kerry's efforts, there is no alternative to working with the Russians.

"There are reasons to be skeptical, as with any approach in Syria, but those who criticize this plan as unlikely to work or flawed on other grounds, like working with Russia, have the responsibility of presenting something better or more effective," said former White House Middle East advisor Philip Gordon, now with the Council on Foreign Relations think tank.

Kerry's critics say the plan is flawed, in part because as it now stands it would leave the Russians and Syrians free to use ground troops and artillery against moderate groups fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces.

'TWO BASIC PROBLEMS'

They also say targeting the Nusra Front is difficult because in some areas its fighters are comingled with more moderate rebels.

"That underscores two basic problems that Kerry seems to be ignoring," said one U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "One: The Russians' aim in Syria is still either keeping Assad in power or finding some successor who is acceptable to them. ... And two: Putin has proved over and over again, and not just in Syria, that he cannot be trusted to honor any agreement he makes if he decides it's no longer in Russia's interest."

Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, will have an opportunity to meet this week at the ASEAN summit in Laos. But even if it is adopted, the plan is unlikely to provide quick relief for civilians trapped in a five-year-old civil war that the United Nations estimates has killed 400,000 people.

Kerry told reporters on Friday that Obama had "authorized and ordered this track" and that the plan would be based on specific steps, not trust. But even Kerry has refrained from voicing optimism, instead saying the effort was showing "a modicum of promise."

A European diplomat said Kerry and Lavrov have agreed to draft a map showing where the Nusra Front operates.

"The two sides would then, through joint analysis, decide who to target ... by getting the U.S. in the same tactical room; Moscow would then have to guarantee that Assad's planes stopped bombing," the diplomat told Reuters. "He is, in his Kerry way, optimistic. But the devil is in the details, and we're not convinced that Moscow is serious."

British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said the United States and Russia have an understanding to minimize the danger of aircraft interfering or colliding with each other, and that the British were covered by that understanding.

"But it certainly does not extend to any cooperation over targeting, and we would not welcome that," Fallon said at an event in Washington.

Many U.S. officials are concerned that sharing intelligence with Russia could risk revealing U.S. intelligence sources, methods and capabilities.

'EXPECT TRICKS'

Andrei Klimov, deputy chairman of the international affairs committee in Russia's upper house of parliament, said that even if the plan is agreed upon, it would be for only a short time, until the next U.S. administration takes office. Obama's presidency ends in January.

"I'm afraid Assad will expect tricks from the Americans," Klimov told Reuters. "They have been saying constantly he's an outcast ... and now they're about to tell Assad, 'You know, please give us a day's advance notice before you want to trash someone with your forces.'"

"Every time while talking to Assad we have to convince him, give arguments, additional guarantees. ... We can't give him orders, he's on his own soil."

Following a meeting with Putin last week, Kerry expressed concern about indiscriminate bombings by Syrian forces, but did not mention Russian violations of a cessation of hostilities agreement, although the CIA publicly has pointed to them.

"What's striking is not what Kerry has said, but what he's failed to say," said another U.S. official, adding that Kerry had left out the "inconvenient facts" about Russian violations.

Robert Ford, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria and now a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute think tank in Washington, told Reuters that whether it was Moscow's bad intent or lack of leverage, "it's not clear to me that the Russians can deliver on their side of the deal."

The Syrian opposition said it was concerned whether Russia could succeed in getting the Assad's government to ground its air force.

"The (Obama) administration has put its bet on the good faith cooperation of the Russians, with so far very disappointing results," Basma Kodmani, a member of the main Syrian opposition High Negotiations Committee, told Reuters in Washington last week.

(Additional reporting by Lesley Wroughton and John Irish in Paris, Maria Tsvetkova in Moscow and Idrees Ali in Washington; Writing by Yara Bayoumy; Editing by John Walcott and Will Dunham)

Housecarl · Jul 25, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-alqaeda-idUSKCN1040U1

World | Sun Jul 24, 2016 1:44pm EDT
Related: World, Afghanistan

Al Qaeda chief urges kidnappings of Westerners for prisoner swaps: SITE

Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri has appeared in an audio interview calling on fighters to take Western hostages and exchange them for jailed jihadists, the monitoring service SITE Intelligence Group said on Sunday.

In recording posted online, Al-Zawahiri called on the global militant network to kidnap Westerners "until they liberate the last Muslim male prisoner and last Muslim female prisoner in the prisons of the Crusaders, apostates, and enemies of Islam," according to SITE.

Reuters could not verify the authenticity of the recording. Zawahiri is believed to be seeking refuge in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area that is the Taliban's base.

(Writing by Mehreen Zahra-Malik; Editing by Raissa Kasolowsky)

------

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...attempt-may-have-facial-injury-after-headbutt

Suspect in RAF kidnap attempt may have facial injury after headbutt

Serviceman from RAF Marham also punched assailant to ground, potentially wounding him, Norfolk police say

Jamie Grierson
@JamieGrierson
Monday 25 July 2016 10.32 EDT

Detectives investigating an alleged attempt to kidnap an RAF serviceman believe one of the suspects may have a visible facial injury after revealing the victim headbutted and punched him to the ground.

The serviceman, in his late 20s, was jogging near RAF Marham in Norfolk on Wednesday when two men described as “Middle Eastern” in appearance sprang from a dark-coloured Ford Galaxy and tried to drag him into the vehicle at knifepoint.

The victim managed to fight off one attacker but did not cause him to bleed, contrary to some reports, Norfolk police have said. However, the main suspect may have swelling and bruising around his eye socket after he was headbutted and punched by the serviceman.

Det Supt Paul Durham, from the Norfolk and Suffolk major investigation team, who is leading the inquiry, said: “The victim managed to fight off his attacker and headbutted him, we believe around the eye socket, so it is possible he suffered swelling and bruising in this area.

“He was then punched, which caused him to fall to the ground. Clearly the extent of his injuries is unknown, however, we do not believe either attack caused the suspect to bleed, contrary to reports circulating in the media.

“If you know someone who matches the description of our suspect, who has a similar injury, then I would urge you to contact my officers.”

On Saturday, Norfolk police said it is increasingly likely the two men involved in the alleged kidnap attempt were part of a larger team and there could have been more than two men in the car.

Police have appealed for dashboard camera footage recorded by drivers in the Marham or King’s Lynn areas and also asked shoppers at a nearby Costcutter store to come forward after CCTV revealed a number of people used the store at the time of the botched kidnapping.

Detectives previously said they could not rule out terrorism as a motive and launched dedicated hotlines for anyone with information.

As the serviceman knocked one of the alleged assailants to the ground, the second man reportedly climbed out of the car wielding a 3in blade. As he went to help his companion, the victim ran away.

Police released descriptions of the suspects. The first man was between 20 and 30, approximately 6ft tall, of athletic but stocky build, with dark hair, which was long on top, and had a well-groomed beard. He was of Middle Eastern origin in appearance with a dark skin tone and wore dark casual clothing.

The second was between 20 and 30 years old but younger than the first suspect and of slimmer build. He was approximately 5ft 10in, clean shaven with short dark hair. He was also of Middle Eastern origin in appearance and wore a white T-shirt and dark shorts.

RAF Marham is home to four Tornado squadrons that have played a key role in the bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria. From 2018, the base will also house the F-35 Lightning II jet.

Housecarl · Jul 25, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.engadget.com/2016/07/25/us-military-creates-space-mission-force-to-wage-satellite-war/

US military creates 'Space Mission Force' to wage satellite war

The Air Force wants to keep its "competitive advantage" in space.

Steve Dent , @stevetdent
12h ago in Politics

If a major war ever happens, low-Earth orbit could turn into a combat zone. To that end, the US Air Force Space Command has created the "Space Mission Force" to train soldiers to operate military satellites in response to threats. "Adversaries have developed and fielded capabilities to disrupt and deny the space systems we operate on behalf of the United States and our allies," writes US General John Hyten. "Consequently, [we] must organize, train and equip our space forces in a way that maintains our vigilance."

The Air Force already has Space Command squadrons to defend and attack military satellites, but wants to jack up the number of personnel. The goal is to provide airmen with up to six months of training, then have them work four to six months with experienced Space Command personnel. "Our space forces must demonstrate their ability to react to a thinking adversary and operate as warfighters in this environment," says Hyten.

The paper was light on the specifics of the training, but clear on the goals. Hyten said that the US military must stay ahead of potential enemies by taking a hard look at its current practices and, if necessary, overhaul its space defense systems. Two squadrons have already started training, and the space wing that mans the Air Force missile warning satellites will move over to the Space Mission Force next, year, according to Space News.

Housecarl · Jul 25, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...consequences_and_natos_next_steps_109616.html

July 25, 2016

Brexit: Eastern Flank Consequences and NATOs Next Steps

By Octavian Manea

What are the Brexit consequences on NATO’s deterrence focus and the independence of the Intermarium?

We continue the Brexit debate in the second part of an interview conducted with Luis Simón, Research Professor at the Institute for European Studies (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) and Director of the Brussels office of the Royal Elcano Institute.

The first part of the interview with Luis Simon looked at Britain as the link between the US and Europe and enquired into whether Brexit will shatter this role. Simon highlighted that a Britain that is both strong and engaged in Europe is most certainly in America’s national interest and stressed that saying a Brexit signals a decoupling between Europe and America might be "pushing things a bit too far". Furthermore we enquired into how Brexit might affect the EU collective defence clause and discovered that the situation is in fact more complicated than it seems to be if one takes into account Russian revisionism in Eastern Europe which is prompting many in Germany to think harder about defence and deterrence in an eastern flank context thus leading them to argue for German re-engagement within NATO. Simon added that it would not be surprising to see Britain and Germany work closer in a NATO context while "Britain continues to cooperate with France bilaterally in out of area operations".

The second part of the interview looks closely at what the consequences of a Brexit for the Eastern Flank’s Intermarium might be and consequently what necessary steps should be adopted by NATO in the Black Sea region.

Some Eastern countries are looking towards a 21st Century Intermarium, are we going to see a reactivation of the German question?

The concept of the Intermarium was popularized by Polish Josef Pilsudski during the interwar years. It was meant to evoke the possibility of some sort of federation or association between Poland and the other independent states located in the geographical space between the Baltic and Black seas, placed geopolitically between Germany and Russia.

The preponderant European seapower of the day has traditionally seen an independent intermarium as a precondition for the preservation of a balance of power in Eastern Europe. Back in the early twentieth century, when the British Empire was the main guardian of the European balance, Sir Halford Mackinder warned about the perils associated with a German-Russian condominium, and argued that London should prevent the formation of any such condominium. To do so, he urged Britain to form alliances with the independent countries of Central and Eastern Europe, with a view to helping build up their own capabilities and autonomy. The situation is somewhat different today, not least given that Germany is deeply integrated in NATO and, through its leadership role in the EU, plays a key part in the broader West. However, the preservation of an autonomous intermarium still remains critical to the preservation of balance of power in Eastern Europe – and beyond.

I would say that one of the main accomplishments of the post-Cold War years was the restoration of the intermarium. From a Western perspective, the independence of those countries is the best way to prevent the emergence of a potential hegemon in Eastern Europe, and preserve a balance of power on the continent. This is forward defense at its best. And I think this is a logic that the US and Britain understand particularly well, given their traditional preoccupation with preserving the continental balance. Today, the main foundations of an independent intermarium are its anchoring in NATO and the EU. The NATO bit is substantiated in a strong security relationship between the intermarium countries, the US and the UK. The EU bit is largely grounded in a network of special economic relationships between the intermarium countries and Germany.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea and ongoing intimidation of some NATO countries signals that the viability of the intermarium as an autonomous geopolitical space might be in question. Against that backdrop, the US has taken up the leading role in terms of trying to preserve the intermarium’s independence, both within NATO and through a number of bilateral and sub-regional initiatives. NATO’s defence and deterrence agenda (which includes greater readiness, more exercises, training initiatives and rotational deployments) is ultimately about preserving the independence of the intermarium.

Beyond NATO, both the US and Britain are working closely with the Nordic and Baltic countries, and thus contributing to the consolidation of sub-regional defence cooperation in northeastern Europe. And then there’s the bilateral element, which is critical. In recent years, the US has set up of an Aviation Detachment just outside of Warsaw, has advocated for giving more resources to NATO’s Multinational Corps Northeast in Scezin, and invested in an increasingly close bilateral relationship with Poland in the area of Missile Defense. Something similar, is going on in Romania: NATO activated a new Multinational Division Southeast headquarters in Bucharest last year, the US has expanded its presence in Mihail Kogãlniceanu Air Base (southeastern Romania), and given Romania an important role in NATO’s missile defence architecture.

Washington has clearly singled out Poland and Romania as the main hubs for command and control, air and missile defense in northeastern and southeastern Europe respectively, and this bears witness to the importance the US attaches to the intermarium. I would say that Britain is also particularly invested in that process, as it has been rather active in recent years in terms of building up its defence ties with some of the countries of the intermarium, especially the Baltic States. This has happened both bilaterally and in the context of NATO, with Britain having been one of the main advocates of NATO’s security agenda in the eastern flank. A clear example of that is Britain’s decision to set up a 7-nation Joint Expeditionary Force aimed at fostering interoperability between the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and the three Baltic States. This initiative shows Britain’s leadership in terms of gathering the support and resources of other northwestern European countries with a view to strengthening a maritime line of supply to the intermarium.

In NATO, attention is focused on the Nordic part of the Intermarium, while its Southern part is deeply fragmented. Should the Alliance invest more of its presence (maritime, air and land) in that part of the Intermarium?

I think you are right. Perhaps we often tend to overlook the fact that southeastern Europe is actually the area where Russia has been most active in recent years. Moscow's attempts to shore up its geopolitical standing in the Black Sea are pre-date the annexation of Crimea. As you say, the 2008 invasion of Georgia and ongoing support to the breakaway regions of Abkhazia (situated on the Black Sea Basin) and South Ossetia are good examples of that. Then, following the annexation of Crimea, Russia is now in a position to earmark additional ships and resources to Sevastopol, without Ukraine's consent (as was the case before 2014). That has led to a strengthening of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, and led to the emergence of an Anti-Access and Area Denial bubble in the Black Sea area. So yes, I would say that the balance of power in the Black Sea basin has been overturned in recent years, and this situation could be further compounded should Russia expand its influence in Eastern Ukraine.

In addition to that, the combination of the reinvigoration of the Black Sea Fleet and Russia's recent military build-up in Syria have led some analysts to speak of an A2/AD ecosystem in the Levant and Eastern Mediterranean. The proliferation of A2/AD systems in southeastern Europe and the Levant poses a problem for NATO, not least in the maritime domain. To mitigate this problem, I think the Alliance should develop a maritime strategy for the Black Sea and Eastern Mediterranean, and perhaps enhance the capabilities of its Standing Military Group 2. In this regard, a recent report by Carnegie Europe alludes to how NATO could leverage deep-strike, precision-strike, and stealth capabilities through advanced air platforms and munitions, both in the Eastern Med and in the Black Sea Basin. As far as the latter goes, I think it is particularly important to strengthen the theater air and missile defences of Romania and Bulgaria and invest in greater mil-to-mil ties with Ukraine and Georgia.

This article originally appeared at Defence Matters.

Housecarl · Jul 25, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/24/obama-rushing-mosul-offensive-against-isis-to-infl/

Troops fear Obama rushing Mosul offensive to influence election

By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Sunday, July 24, 2016
Comments 341

Some U.S. officers in Baghdad believe the Obama administration is rushing plans for a Mosul offensive so it takes place before the November presidential election, a retired general says.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Barbero said his contacts in Baghdad have relayed the concerns to him, fearing there is now an “artificial timeline” for what promises to be by far the toughest battle in the war against the Islamic State in Iraq.

Iraqi Security Forces, which has made strides since the U.S.-led coalition began retraining its troops, may not be sufficiently prepared for a rushed operation. The troops face the monumental task of capturing a city of almost 2 million citizens and up to 10,000 Islamic State fighters and their booby traps.

“There is tremendous concern that Washington is going to press for a Mosul operation to commence before the November election,” Mr. Barbero told The Washington Times. “The concern is, will the conditions be set on the ground by then, and I don’t think so.”

Asked about the view that the White House is pushing an early offensive, Mr. Barbero answered, “Yeah. I’m hearing that from Baghdad.”

“If you look at the track record, that is not unbelievable,” he said. “It’s an artificial timeline, especially before the election.”

Added Mr. Barbero, who commanded troops in the Persian Gulf War: “We all know the conditions for this. This is going to be a different fight. They are going to fight to the death in Mosul, and we have got to make sure that the conditions are set so we can destroy them.”

An offensive less than four months from now would help Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton dispute Republican charges that the Obama administration is letting the Islamic State run a global terrorism operation. Some Republicans argue that more American boots should on the ground for the fight.

The administration and Iraqi leaders want the offensive completed, or nearly so, before Mr. Obama leaves office in January, which would allow him to claim U.S. victory in the second war for Iraq.

The top U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said the command is trying to accelerate the timeline for military, not political, reasons.

“I am not aware of any influence like that on the timeline for Mosul operations. We are supporting the Iraqi Security Forces and their timeline,” Army Col. Christopher Garver told The Times. “We will do what we can to help the Iraqis make that happen.”

He noted that Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has said he wants Mosul liberated by year’s end.

An enemy on the ropes

The U.S.-led Operation Inherent Resolve has three main pillars: train and advise the Iraqi Security Forces, supply weapons, and conduct airstrikes and surveillance.

Col. Garver said Army Lt. Gen. Sean MacFarland, the in-country commander, wants to accelerate the timeline to increase pressure on an enemy that has lost territory. The Islamic State retreated from three major towns in Iraq — Tikrit, Ramadi and Fallujah — as well as from territory close to Raqqa, its so-called capital in Syria.

“When you have an opponent on the ropes, you don’t let him off the ropes; you press the attack,” he said. “This prevents the enemy from reconstituting his force and rebuilding combat power. We believe we — the coalition and the Iraqi Security Forces — have the initiative and are gaining momentum. To keep that momentum moving in our favor, we will do what we can to accelerate the campaign.”

At a coalition war planning session last week at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington, the overall war commander, Army Gen. Joseph Votel, expressed caution about a quick Mosul schedule.

“I think one of the key things we took out of the meeting this morning was, with respect to Mosul, was we shouldn’t underestimate the amount of preparation necessary to take on an operation like that,” said Gen. Votel, who runs U.S. Central Command.

“It’s a big city — 2 million people, large geographic area — so we want to make sure we’re well-prepared. So, things like force generation, making sure we’ve got the right stabilization plan in place, and we’ve got the right political aspects in place here to help manage that city after the fight has gone, I think are important aspects.”

Iraqi forces in the south — a mix of regular army, special operations, Sunni tribes and Shiite militias — are putting a ring around Iraq’s second-largest city to choke off supplies. The coalition is counting on the semi-autonomous Kurdish northern region to close the ring by sending in peshmerga fighters from the north.

The the Sunni-Shiite-Kurdish coalition matches Mosul’s hodgepodge of tribal, religious and ethnic diversity. They have lived under the Islamic State’s harsh rule since Iraqi government forces fled en masse in 2014.

‘Center of gravity’

The allies took a significant step this month by reclaiming an air base at Qayyarah, 40 miles south of Mosul. Mr. Obama approved a deployment of 560 troops, many of whom will work to turn the war prize into a functioning air base from which troops and strike aircraft can make quick thrust in and around the city.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales said the Iraqis will be attempting to conduct the complexity of a huge land battle requiring the ability to stage, maneuver and resupply.

“Realize the distances were talking about — hundreds of kilometers,” Mr. Scales said. “That is not something they’re good at.”

Mr. Scales, a highly decorated Vietnam War veteran, said Iraq will need a force of about 50,000, far more than used in previous urban battles and a number that will stretch the Iraqi Security Forces and associated fighters to their limits.

“Unlike Raqqa, Mosul can’t be easily cordoned off and isolated from the outside,” he said. “It’s in the open, spread over a huge area with no natural hills, waterways or walled suburbs to provide a natural line for an advancing force.”

“The attacker will need copious amounts of very heavy firepower — 1,000- and 2,000-pound bombs,” he said. “It will have to be methodical, and the Iraqis will be under pressure to kill ISIS and not kill the innocents.”

Mr. Scales endorses a campaign beginning before November to avoid northern Iraq’s rainy season.

“If mechanized forces are needed, and they will be, then entry has to be done soonest,” he said.

Two developments favor the coalition, he said. Iraq’s special operations forces, honed by U.S. trainers, have grown much better at street fighting.

And perhaps losing Ramadi and Fallujah has shaken the Islamic State’s feeling of invincibility.

“But remember, Mosul is their strategic, moral and psychological center of gravity,” Mr. Scales said. “They will fight for it.”

Housecarl · Jul 25, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.wsj.com/articles/libyan-forces-advance-in-islamic-state-held-city-1469462978

Libyan Forces Advance in Islamic State-Held City

Government forces retake security headquarters in embattled coastal city of Sirte

By Tamer El-Ghobashy in Cairo and Hassan Morajea in Nice, France
Updated July 25, 2016 7:04 p.m. ET
3 COMMENTS

Forces fighting for the United Nations-backed Libyan government said Monday they had seized the security headquarters in Sirte, a crucial step toward retaking control of the coastal city that Islamic State captured more than a year ago.

Sirte is the militant group’s most important base outside its strongholds in Syria and Iraq, and its fighters have put up stiff resistance since the initial drive by government-allied forces into the city in late May.

But Libyan commanders said Monday they had shrunk Islamic State’s area of control around Sirte, the birthplace of late dictator Moammar Gadhafi, from 150 miles of coastline to just two square miles in the city center. U.S. and Libyan intelligence officials earlier this year estimated some 5,000 militants were inside Sirte, though they say the number has dwindled.

“We’re slowly tightening our grip on them,” a senior Libyan officer said.

The security headquarters in Sirte is a complex in a part of the city that the forces backing the government have been trying to enter for weeks.

Islamic State leaders have promoted Sirte as a destination for foreign recruits, urging migration to the city to bolster its presence there.

As recently as May, U.S. military commanders considered an air campaign against Islamic State targets in Libya. They were concerned the group was preparing to stage attacks from the North African country to counter the increasing military pressure on cities it controls in Iraq and Syria.

The U.S. and Britain haven't confirmed a military presence in Libya, but U.S., British and French military advisers are present in the country, Libyan officials have said. France said last week that three of its special forces soldiers had been killed in a helicopter crash in eastern Libya—the first time it has acknowledged having forces there.

The campaign by government forces and their allies to retake Sirte has been slowed by Islamic State’s use of suicide bombers, land mines and snipers.

Fighters from the Misrata Brigades, a powerful militia leading the operation, have been forced to reduce the use of heavy artillery to avoid harming civilians who remain in the city center. They have relied instead on close-quarters combat using lighter weapons and armored vehicles, the senior officer said.

“We’re trying to take our time to minimize loss of life on our end,” he said.

Sirte fell to Islamic State forces in February 2015, at the height of a political and armed struggle between Libyan factions vying for control of the oil-rich nation.

The political rivalry, which resulted in two separate governments each controlling a large swath of Libya, created a security vacuum that allowed Islamic State to flourish. Sirte quickly became an entry port for fighters, weapons and other resources.

Libya’s unity government, known as the Government of National Accord, moved into the capital Tripoli in March and announced that the reclaiming of Sirte was a priority.

The battle for the city has been beset by fresh political tensions.

Since the presence of French troops in Libya was confirmed last week, Misrata Brigades officials have complained about inadequate support from the international community, which backs the unity government.

The French special forces killed in Libya had been embedded with an armed group commanded by Gen. Khalifa Haftar, a fierce opponent of the unity government backed by France as Libya’s only legitimate administration.

Write to Tamer El-Ghobashy at tamer.el-ghobashy@wsj.com

Housecarl · Jul 25, 2016

For links see article source.....(Note this is a heavily linked article..HC)
Posted for fair use.....
http://warontherocks.com/2016/07/all-cards-on-the-table-first-use-of-nuclear-weapons/

All Cards on the Table: First-Use of Nuclear Weapons

Al Mauroni and David Jonas
July 25, 2016

Recent news that President Obama may be considering changes in nuclear deterrence policy has caused a storm of speculation as to whether the time is right for the U.S. government to declare a no first-use policy. In short, this refers to a policy by a state that possesses nuclear weapons not to use them as a means of warfare unless first attacked by an adversary with nuclear weapons. The United States has never had a no first-use policy, preferring the concept of strategic or calculated ambiguity to suggest that it could respond to a crisis with nuclear weapons, if appropriate, or with the massive use of conventional weapons. Thomas Schelling, who called deterrence “the diplomacy of violence,” reminds us that latent violence may influence a state’s choice and that the threat of more damage to come can make a state yield or comply. One of the rationales for retaining nuclear weapons is to deter an adversarial nation from initiating a conventional war and using its nuclear weapons as a latent threat against U.S. military actions. As a matter of extended deterrence, allies such as Japan and South Korea would like to be assured that the United States will not hesitate to use all means to protect them, given that they have committed to not developing nuclear weapons (per the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty).

Writing at War on the Rocks, Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association believes it is time for the United States to take the pledge of no first-use of nuclear weapons, calling a first-use policy part of “dangerous, Cold War-era nuclear thinking” that could lead to early use of nuclear weapons by adversaries such as Russia or China. He decries the possible scenario of “launch under attack” – e.g., a massive U.S. nuclear weapons launch in response to early satellite warnings of an adversarial missile launch – as something that increases the risk of catastrophic accidents or miscalculation between states. While the U.S. military has a “launch under attack” capability, the U.S. government does not have a written policy to “launch on attack” or “launch on warning.” The option is available to the president if he chooses to use it, again under the principle of strategic ambiguity. Since at least 1997, if not earlier, the tendency of U.S. presidents has been to increase the time to make any decision to respond to an attack with nuclear weapons. The president always has the option to not order an attack upon receiving confirmation that another nuclear power is attacking the United States with strategic nuclear forces. U.S. nuclear forces are not on “hair triggers” — evoking an image of Colt pistols set for release at the slightest pressure — that would lead to an accidental launch during an international crisis.

Kimball apparently does not believe that the United States should consider first-use of nuclear weapons in response to non-nuclear military combat operations due to the risk of potential escalation to uncontrolled nuclear weapons use by both sides. Despite the recent NATO Warsaw summit in which the alliance declared the intent to retain nuclear arsenals, Kimball believes that U.S. allies only require conventional forces to deter a non-nuclear threat from Russia or China or North Korea. Recent Russian threats to use tactical nuclear weapons, or “escalating to de-escalate,” prove him wrong. Similarly, China’s no first-use policy may not hold if a U.S. military strike with conventional weapons were to take out key command and control nodes necessary for China’s nuclear deterrent to remain credible. With respect to North Korea, current U.S. nuclear weapons policy allows for first use of nuclear weapons in retaliation against chemical or biological weapons use, or to deter a massive conventional attack against South Korea. These examples illustrate the need to offer the president the option of pre-empting an adversary’s nuclear or non-nuclear attack with nuclear weapons, if the stakes are high enough.

This debate about U.S. nuclear policy is not new and has not been advanced by Kimball’s arguments. Michael Gerson argued in 2010 that the U.S. government had missed an opportunity to adopt no first-use in the last Nuclear Posture Review. On the other hand, political and military advisors prefer to leave the president with options for different scenarios, such as responding to unambiguous intelligence warnings that a nuclear-armed state is preparing to attack the United States with its nuclear arsenal.

However, we believe that Kimball’s discussion is not so much about whether the United States is willing to use nuclear weapons first. Rather, Kimball seems to want the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal taken off alert. He uses a quote from the Global Zero report on nuclear risk reduction that “U.S. land- and sea-based strategic forces, armed with nearly 1,000 warheads, stand ready for immediate firing in peacetime.” Global Zero uses this statement to discuss how the United States could stand down its readiness for immediate launch and instead, adopt a practice of moving bombers, land-based nuclear missiles, and nuclear-armed submarines to high-alert during crises. This might reduce the risk of accidents or misunderstandings leading to nuclear war. Under the Global Zero construct, adopting a no first-use policy would logically lead to de-alerting as a next step. This approach has some significant problems, were it to be adopted.

First of all, we should stop believing that nuclear deterrence is Cold War thinking by people who want to retain Cold War weapon systems. The United States retains aircraft carriers, heavily armored tanks, and high-performance aircraft that were designed during the Cold War because they have a demonstrated role in contemporary scenarios. Similarly, because adversary nuclear weapons still exist as an existential threat today, the readiness of U.S. nuclear weapons has a place in current national security discussions. As Secretary of Defense Ash Carter noted in congressional testimony, nuclear weapons are the bedrock of our security. We want the leaders of Russia, China, and other states to hesitate before attacking the United States because they know the United States has more than 1,000 nuclear weapons ready to launch on the president’s order. This does not mean that the president would direct a nuclear first-strike, but strategic stability is maintained because of the high-alert status of land- and sea-based nuclear missiles.

Second, if the United States were to de-alert its nuclear forces, what message would re-alerting them send to an adversary during a crisis situation? This point was studied during the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, and the analysis suggested that (assuming both sides had “de-alerted” their nuclear forces) a race by the two sides to regain a high-alert posture might be misinterpreted and lead one to attempt a pre-emptive strike on the other. De-alerting U.S. nuclear forces has far more peril than promise in future conflict scenarios.

The question of whether the U.S. government should change its policy about attacking a non-nuclear state that employs chemical or biological weapons against U.S. forces or allies is a different issue. This is (perhaps) a genuine example of Cold War thinking; that an adversary might use chemical or biological weapons to such a devastating effect that the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation would be seen as proportional. It is hard to believe that there would be a scenario today in which the U.S. government would respond to a nation-state’s chemical or biological weapons attack with nuclear weapons, but the interjection of the possibility of an “irrational response” may deter such an attack in the first place. Indeed, that is part of the calculus of strategic ambiguity and illustrates its value, which is evident in that it provides additional options for response. This is a political decision, whether the United States should rely solely on superior conventional forces to retaliate against chemical or biological weapons attacks.

It is natural for President Obama to be reflective about the role of nuclear weapons employment, and he has certainly engendered a lively discussion on the topic during his two terms in office. However, it would be surprising and ill-advised if, in the last year of his administration, he made such a radical deviation in U.S. nuclear weapons employment policy by issuing a no first-use doctrine. Certainly this issue should be discussed in the development of the next administration’s nuclear weapons employment policy, and without a doubt, these same arguments will resurface. The next administration will have to consider whether nuclear weapons are meant solely to deter the adversarial use of nuclear weapons — to include a nuclear-induced electro-magnetic pulse attack. Until then, there is strong and compelling evidence that current doctrine works. The United States should retain its “ace in the hole” — the threat of first-use of nuclear weapons — as it anticipates future crises that will surely emerge.

Al Mauroni is the Director of the U.S. Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies. David S. Jonas is a partner at FH+H firm, a DC area national security law firm. He is also an adjunct professor at Georgetown and George Washington University Law Schools where he teaches nuclear nonproliferation law and policy. The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Air University, U.S. Air Force, Department of Defense, or the FH+H law firm.

Correction: This article originally stated that the United States has not had a “launch under attack” policy since at least 1997. This was not entirely accurate and that sentence has been replaced with a more nuanced explanation.

Housecarl · Jul 25, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.aina.org/news/20160725200713.htm

Syndicated News

5,000 to 10,000 Islamic State Fighters in Mosul, Iraq

By Ed Adamczyk
Posted 2016-07-26 00:07 GMT

MOSUL, Iraq (UPI) -- Islamic State fighters in Mosul, Iraq, number between 5,000 and 10,000 but that number is expected to decline, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition said as the coalition advanced on the city.

Airstrikes on Mosul, a city of more than 500,000 and an IS headquarters, have intensified, reducing IS troop strength as Kurdish Peshmerga and Iraqi army troops advanced by land to a Mosul suburb.

IS leadership began moving its center of operations to other parts of the city, media activist Abdullah al-Malla, in Mosul, told the independent Iraqi news agency ARA, the Assyrian International News Agency reported Monday. Al-Malla said police headquarters, the courts, weapons storage facilities and security headquarters have been relocated "to other districts of Mosul believed to be safer."

Col. Christopher Garver, the coalition's spokesman, said Sunday the militant group is expected to avoid further personnel losses after the bombardments by reducing its number of forces in the city. IS sustained heavy losses in manpower and equipment in the airstrikes and the shelling by army and Peshmerga infantry.

"At the start of the attack to liberate Mosul, the number of the fighters of the organization will be from 5,000 to 6,000. [The] number of unarmed civilians in Mosul range between 500,000 to a million," Garver said.

Garver added coalition troops number about 7,000 in Iraq, including 560 U.S. forces, with additional personnel stationed on nearby aircraft carriers and warships. He said the coalition has trained nearly 24,000 Iraqis as security personnel, including police, army and anti-terrorism units.

Housecarl · Jul 25, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-ruling-china-idUSKCN10604M

World | Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:26pm EDT
Related: World, China

China asks U.S. to support resumption of talks with Philippines

China's foreign minister has asked the U.S. secretary of state John Kerry to support the resumption of talks between China and the Philippines over the South China Sea, following a ruling against Beijing over the dispute earlier this month.

China did not participate in and has refused to accept the July 12 ruling by the U.N.-backed Permanent Court of Arbitration, in which U.S. ally Manila won an emphatic legal victory.

Meeting in the Laos capital Vientiane on Monday during a summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told Kerry that China and ASEAN had agreed the dispute should get back onto the "correct" track of being resolved by direct talks with the parties concerned.

China "hopes the United States side talks actual steps to support the resumption of talks between China and the Philippines, and support the efforts of China and ASEAN to maintain regional peace and stability", Wang said, according to a foreign ministry statement released on Tuesday.

China has repeatedly blamed the United States for stoking tensions in the South China Sea and of taking sides in the dispute, charges Washington denies.

Competing claims with China in the vital shipping lane and resource-rich sea are among the most contentious issues for the 10 members of ASEAN, who are pulled between their desire to assert their sovereignty while fostering ties with an increasingly assertive Beijing.

China's foreign ministry said Wang again urged Tokyo not to intervene in the South China Sea, saying Japan was not a claimant in the disputes and should avoid interfering in up the maritime spats.

"The China-Japan relations are still vulnerable and unsatisfactory," Wang told Fumio Kishida, Japan's minister for foreign affairs.

Japan and allies Australia and the United States issued a joint statement voicing their "strong opposition to any coercive unilateral actions" in the South China Sea and calling on both the Philippines and China to abide by the legally binding ruling.

China scored a diplomatic victory on Monday as Southeast Asian nations dropped any reference to the court ruling in a joint statement in the face of resolute objections from Cambodia, China's closest ASEAN ally.

(Reporting by Ben Blanchard in Beijing and Simon Webb in Vientiane; Editing by Lincoln Feast)

Housecarl · Jul 25, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-olympics-rio-investigation-prosecutor-idUSKCN1052AY

Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:49pm EDT
Related: World, Brazil

Olympic plotters saw 'opportunity to reach paradise': prosecutor

CURITIBA, Brazil | By Stephen Eisenhammer

Twelve Brazilian suspects arrested for discussing a potential attack during the Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro were "no joke," the prosecutor for the case told Reuters on Monday.

Dismissing criticism that the recent arrests were a calculated move to show Brazil taking the threat of terrorism seriously, Rafael Brum Miron said the suspects, alleged sympathizers of the Islamic State militant group, discussed an attack with at least two foreigners who formed part of a messaging group.

One suspect, he said, wrote via the Telegram messaging service that "the Olympics are an opportunity to reach paradise." Another, who was detained on Sunday following a search after initial arrests last Thursday, had discussed acquiring heavy weaponry.

Miron's comments follow some questioning of the operation because Brazil's justice minister, when announcing the arrests, called the suspects "absolutely amateur" and said they had no specific plans or capabilities to attack the Games that begin on Aug 5.

"They were amateurs, but they were not a joke," Miron said in his office in the southern city of Curitiba. "There's no such thing as an experienced suicide bomber."

Justice Minister Alexandre Moraes, who has faced criticism for minimizing the threat of an attack during the Games, said security agencies were watching anyone who visited websites that "make an apology for terrorism" even if they were just curious and not planning to do anything.

"Our police and intelligence agencies are continuing to monitor more than 100 people so that we can have tranquility during the Games," Moraes told reporters after inspecting security equipment at the Brasilia airport at the start of a tour of the country's main entry ports for visitors for the Games.

Moraes said he had instructed the high security prison in southern Brazil where the 12 men are being held to allow them immediate access to lawyers to guarantee their legal rights.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation gave Brazil the tip that led to the arrests, according to Miron, by sending a succinct report that said "these people merit investigating."

He said the last of those arrested, detained Sunday in the state of Mato Grosso, is actually a leader of the group. Officials initially played down his importance in order to prevent a panic at the possibility of an alleged militant on the loose, he added.

At least two members of a wider group of about 20 people investigators monitored were foreigners, Miron said, explaining that sometimes awkward messages from them appeared to have gone through Google Translate.

The foreigners, he added, are believed to be from Africa.

Brazilian police are now investigating possible connections with Islamist groups there.

As police scour seized computers and phones, initial evidence suggests that Brazil itself was not the target, but that the suspects saw the Games as such because "there are lots of people coming from abroad," Miron said.

No specific country was singled out for attack, nor was any date or target finalized, but investigators have said the group was interested in striking countries currently in conflict with Islamic State.

Miron would not specify how investigators intercepted messages via Telegram, a service that encrypts data between users. He said, however, it did not require help from the company.

In a separate interview televised Sunday, the judge overseeing the investigation said investigators had obtained data from Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. because the suspects had also used those platforms.

(Additional reporting by Anthony Boadle in Brasilia; Editing by Paulo Prada and Mary Milliken)

Housecarl · Jul 25, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.janes.com/article/62516/north-korea-building-new-larger-submarine-pens

Sea Platforms

North Korea building new, larger submarine pens

Nick Hansen, Stanford, California and Jeremy Binnie, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

25 July 2016

North Korea is constructing a fortified structure near the port city of Sinpo that will have what appears to be two covered docks (pens) that could shelter ballistic missile submarines (SSBs).

Located 2.25 km south of the Sinpo shipyard, close to the Mayang-do Naval Base on the country's east coast, the new base may be the largest active military building project in North Korea at the moment.

Airbus Defence and Space imagery shows construction of the base prior to August 2012. Much of the harbour seen in Google Earth imagery from 2009 (an area covering some 6,000 m²) had been blocked off by a sea wall and filled in by August 2012.

Housecarl · Jul 25, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.dw.com/en/drug-violence-kills-two-mexican-mayors-over-weekend/a-19424544

Mexico

Drug violence kills two Mexican mayors over weekend

A drug gang has killed a Mexican mayor for reportedly refusing to hand over part of his municipality's budget as protection money. Police have also arrested six men in connection with another mayor's murder.

Date 25.07.2016

Ambrosio Soto, the mayor of a township that includes known drug trafficking haven Ciudad Altamirano, was killed late Saturday, making him the second mayor to be killed in Mexico over the weekend.

"Yesterday, our friend Ambrosio Soto, president of the Pungabarato municipality, was killed, besieged by organized crime," Mexican Senator Miguel Barbosa said in a statement on Sunday.

Soto was visiting a town in Michoacan state near the Guerrero state border, where his township is located.

Guerrero state spokesman Roberto Alvarez said gunmen blocked a highway with pickup trucks near the borderline in Michoacan, and then proceeded to open fire on Soto's vehicle.

Alvarez added that two federal officers were wounded in the attack.

Mexican authorities provided Soto with additional security, including a federal police detail, after he made a request over a year ago, Barbosa said.

A local drug gang reportedly threatened the mayor after he refused to turn over part of the township's operating budget as a payment for protection.

75 mayors killed in drug violence

Meanwhile, police on Sunday arrested six men in connection with the murders of Domingo Lopez Gonzalez, mayor of San Juan Chamula, two town officials, a municipal government driver and a resident.

Gunmen opened fire on the mayor during a multi-day protest in the central square of San Juan Chamula on Saturday.

The leftist Democratic Revolution Party said 75 mayors have been killed in the last decade due to drug-related violence in Mexico.

DW recommends

Mexico to extradite drug lord 'El Chapo' Guzman to the US

The Mexican government has agreed to hand over drug lord Joaquin Guzman to the US for trial. The head of the Sinaloa drug cartel was captured in January after a spectacular escape from a high-security prison last year. (21.05.2016)

Narcotics seized in US-Mexico tunnel bust

Mexican group decapitate musician, shoot wife and child

Headless bodies found in Mexico's northwest

Housecarl · Jul 25, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.insightcrime.org/news-br...on-shows-collusion-and-rot-in-law-enforcement

Reporter Murdered in Veracruz, Mexico Was Under Police Protection

Written by Deborah Bonello
Monday, 25 July 2016

The third reporter murdered in the southern Mexico state of Veracruz this year was gunned down in front of his family despite being under police protection at the time, illustrating the dangers of working as a journalist in a hub for drug and human trafficking that is plagued by corruption-fueled violence.

Pedro Tamayo was shot at least ten times in front of his wife and two children outside his home in the small city of Tierra Blanca on the night of July 20th. Two men approached Tamayo and after talking with him briefly, shot him at close range, according to the state prosecutor's office.

At the time, Tamayo was under a state-sponsored protection program because he received threats on his life, allegedly after reporting on the abduction and murder of five young people by local police from Tierra Blanca earlier this year. Police officers checked in with him on a daily basis as part of the scheme, yet according to a report by AFP on his murder, Tamayo's family told the agency “that a state police vehicle was parked near the house during the homicide but that the officers did nothing to arrest the killers and even "laughed" at a relative asking for help.”

Tamayo died in an ambulance on his way to hospital.

SEE ALSO: Mexico News and Profiles

The Committee for the Protection of Journalists (CPJ) reports that a colleague of Tamayo's said the reporter had worked with Veracruz law enforcement as an informant. Other reports online allege the same.

"He would provide law enforcement with information about organized crime he gathered while he was working as a reporter," Tamayo’s colleague told CPJ. "It is not an uncommon phenomenon in Veracruz, though not openly spoken about."

Veracruz state Attorney General Luis Ángel Bravo confirmed to CPJ that there exists a "registry of a professional relationship" between Tamayo and state law enforcement. Mexico's national Special Prosecutor for Crimes Against Free Speech will be working with state and local authorities on an investigation into Tamayo's killing.

Veracruz is one of the most dangerous states in Mexico for journalists, and the country ranks number 8 in the CPJ’s global impunity index. Anabel Flores, a crime reporter for newspaper El Sol de Orizaba, was abducted from her home in the city of Orizaba, Veracruz on February 8, reported SinEmbargo. Her body was found the next day across the state line in Puebla, her hands tied and a plastic bag over her head.

Manuel Torres, editor of the news website Noticias MT, was shot to death on May 14, 2016.

InSight Crime Analysis

Tamayo's murder shows the complex and dangerous environment in which many Mexican journalists work, and how they can often become actors themselves in organized crime groups' dispute for control and markets or their ongoing conflict with the authorities. Journalists have also been shown to work with criminal gangs in parts of the country.

Veracruz is a populous and violent state that was until recently a bastion of the Zetas crime group. Now, the valuable "plaza," or illegal business center, of Tierra Blanca is being disputed by the Zetas and the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), according to observers.

In addition to drug trafficking, Central American migrants passing through Veracruz on their way to the United States are a big source of revenue for criminal organizations, which kidnap them and extort their families. Criminal gangs also charge migrants a tax for riding the trains that snake through the country from south to north, and the railway line for one of those trains run right through Tierra Blanca, where Tamayo lived and worked. That flow of humanity represents easy income for whoever controls the territory.

Given the high levels of crime and insecurity across Veracruz, it would not be out of the ordinary for state police and other authorities to be working with the area's criminal gangs; there have been examples of such collusion all over Mexico. That a police patrol was parked nearby when Tamayo was murdered, combined with the fact he sought protection after reporting on alleged police abuses, indicates he may have had good reason to fear the very authorities entrusted with his protection.

Housecarl · Jul 26, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.rferl.org/content/bangladesh-nine-militants-killed/27880603.html

Nine Suspected Militants Killed By Police In Bangladesh

July 26, 2016

Police in Bangladesh have killed nine suspected militants after a gun battle in the capital, Dhaka.

"All of them belong to a militant group but still it is not clear which group they are," a police official was quoted as saying by Western news agencies.

One suspect was arrested during the raid in a residential area and taken into custody by the police.

Police have arrested a number of militants in recent days in the hunt for those involved in a bloody attack on a Dhaka cafe earlier this month in which 20 people were killed, most of them foreigners.

Police believe many extremists are still in hiding and may be planning attacks.

Bangladesh has seen a spate of killings over the past 18 months targeting liberals or members of minority groups -- killings the government blames on two home-grown groups.

Based on reporting by Reuters and AFP

Housecarl · Jul 26, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-iran-deal-already-falling-apart-17118

The Iran Deal Is Already Falling Apart

Its long-term goals are out of the question.

Mohammed Nuruzzaman
July 25, 2016

The historic nuclear deal that Iran and the P5+1 group of powers signed on July 14, 2015, marked its first anniversary amidst hopes and despairs. Designed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons in exchange for sanctions relief, the deal, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), has made little progress, contrary to hopes for a thaw in U.S.-Iranian relations and an ensuing period of calm and stability in the Middle East. The U.S. State Department, in a cautious statement, has termed the deal “fragile but working.” Some analysts claim that the deal has worked in that it has largely eliminated the dangers of war involving Iran, Israel and the United States, while others emphasize plugging “holes” to make the deal work. Viewed realistically, such optimistic notes hold little water, as the deal is gradually approaching its endpoint.

The fear of a possible collapse of the deal has been stoked by a flurry of anti-deal actions, such as the U.S. imposition of new sanctions against Iran last October, in response to Iran’s testing of ballistic missiles; the seizure of Iranian assets at the behest of the U.S. Supreme Court in April; the Iranian navy’s capture and brief detention of ten U.S. sailors who drifted into Iranian waters in January; or the threats to renegotiate the deal by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. At a more fundamental level, Iran’s expectations for a post-deal economic windfall or America’s expectations for a change in Iran’s regional behavior have not materialized, at least until now.

There are two principal reasons for the deal’s lackluster performance. The first is the ad hoc nature of the deal to address some short-term concerns and issues in U.S.-Iranian adversarial relations, while leaving a host of deeper political and strategic problems unresolved. The second reason is the gradual return of anti-deal hawks both in Washington and Tehran, who initially failed to scuttle nuclear negotiations, but are now relaunching their attacks to rip up the deal. Together, these two factors put the deal’s survival at serious risk.

The Deal’s Short-Term Goals

The JCPOA was more a marriage of convenience than an attempt to reset strained U.S.-Iranian relations. Both countries came to the negotiating table with diverse sets of interests and expectations that were hardly helpful in initiating and sustaining genuine rapprochement.

Iran, first and foremost, decided to negotiate with the Americans in order to help rebound its ailing economy. Reeling under crippling sanctions imposed on and off by the United States, the UN and the EU following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iranian economy was facing growing isolation and a resulting downward spiral. The situation took a dire turn in early 2012, after the United States and the EU imposed a new round of sanctions to completely cut Iran off from the global financial transactions system. Not only did they take a toll on the domestic economy, but the new sanctions also threatened Iran’s ability to financially and militarily support its Syrian and Lebanese allies—President Bashar al-Assad and Hezbollah. President Rouhani, who won the 2013 presidential election with the mandate to end the nuclear impasse with the West, and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei were determined to get the sanctions lifted to reintegrate Iran into the global economy and arrest economic decline. Together, they set a new example of realpolitik, only to be disappointed later.

So far, Iran has not received any major benefits from sanctions relief, primarily delayed or denied by U.S. policies to block Iran from dollar transactions and scare global banking institutions away from doing business with Iranian companies. Foreign business delegations are rushing to Tehran, but no significant investment accords have been signed, other than the recent $441 million joint venture between the French automaker Peugeot-Citroën and Iran Khodro. The U.S. Congress, on top of that, has passed a resolution to foil Boeing’s planned $25 billion passenger aircraft sales contract with Iran, an extra measure outside the realm of sanctions. There are new realizations in Tehran that the nuclear deal basically brought no change in U.S. behavior and attitudes towards Iran. Khamenei, in a nationally televised address in late March, complained of foot-dragging by the United States and urged the Americans to act on their promises.

For the United States, there were a slew of deep aspirations to be realized from a breakthrough with Iran. Chief among the aspirations was to change Iran’s regional behavior—from an enemy to a predictable competitor, if not a future ally. The second aspiration was that Iran, once a deal was clinched, would support a political solution to the Syrian Civil War: a change of regime in Damascus, in Washington’s political jargon. The Obama administration also hoped that normalization initiatives with Tehran would strengthen the Iranian reformist and moderate political forces. A change in domestic politics, facilitated by a reformist drive, may eventually bring about a change in Iran’s foreign policy orientations towards the West.

Washington, to its deep frustration, has noticed that it simply made a series of unfounded calculations about Iran. Just three months after the deal was concluded, Khamenei closed the door to U.S.-Iranian cooperation by imposing an outright ban on further negotiations with the United States, while Rouhani had hoped to engage the Americans to hammer out a solution to the devastating conflict in Syria. Khamenei has deep suspicions about the United States and he labelled Rouhani and other reformists as “naïve people” who failed to understand American machinations in the Middle East region. Furthermore, he ruled out cooperation with “evil” Britain or the “Satan” of the United States on regional issues. President Obama later admitted that he did not anticipate a quick change in the hostile relations between Iran and the United States. While the two countries are coordinating war efforts in Iraq to destroy Islamic State, but they diverge in Syria over the fate of the Assad government, Iran’s sole Arab strategic partner and a vital link to its Lebanese ally Hezbollah. Iran has also welcomed Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War, a policy the United States has accepted as a fait accompli, at best.

Deep and Irreducible Divergences

In reality, the lack of progress in post-deal U.S.-Iranian relations speaks of deep political, ideological and strategic divergences, which are not necessarily reducible, between the two adversaries. Tensions over missile tests or the imposition of a ban on negotiations with the United States are simply symptoms of such divergence, and they largely explain why Tehran and Washington are back on a collision course, and may be unable to avoid confrontations in the future. The JCPOA has paid scant attention, if any, to broadly reflect on compelling strategic issues that bedevil U.S.-Iranian ties, such as intimidating the U.S. military presence surrounding Iran; America’s military commitment to its traditional Arab allies, whom Iranians of all stripes castigate; and Iran’s strategic aspirations to claim the dominant status in the Gulf neighborhood and beyond. Amidst divergences, the only area where U.S.-Iranian interests perfectly matched and converged was the urgent need to jointly fight and destroy Islamic State.

Supreme Leader Khamenei probably thinks that normalization of ties with the United States would undercut the spirit and rationale of the 1979 Islamic Revolution; after all, the revolution was against American influence in and domination over Iran. The hardliners seem to be wedded to this fear more than Khamenei himself. In their attempts to foreclose possible avenues of cooperation with the United States, they cite a laundry list of injustices Iran has suffered at the hands of the United States and the UK, the most notable being the 1953 coup against the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadeq, American support for Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran (1980–88), and the 1988 U.S. naval combat operations that destroyed Iran’s critical oil infrastructure on the Gulf coast.

Politically, Iran and the United States stand poles apart: the United States proclaims itself a free and open society, while Iran is led by a velayat-e faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist) with strict adherence to Islamic rules, norms and values. The Iranian political system blends elected and unelected institutions, with the Supreme Leader having the final say on all state matters. Such political dissonances heighten security tensions in Iran—a prime reason propelling its nuclear program. That America poses a potent military threat to the regime in Tehran is never lost in Khamenei’s mind. Additionally, America’s efforts to arm, and its post-deal renewed commitments to defend, its Gulf allies, hamstring Iran’s strategic blueprint to steer clear of foreign threats and regional opposition. In that sense, the nuclear deal did not alter the strategic environment of the Gulf very much in favor of Iran. It was rather the Arab Spring that vastly expanded the Iranian sphere of influence, from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) forces are actively involved in combat planning and operations in Iraq and Syria, and Hezbollah’s war efforts to defend ally Bashar al-Assad have added new strategic weight to Iran’s regional influence—a development the United States cannot undo or roll back.

The Next Phase

In the past year, the nuclear deal has yielded few positive and more inauspicious outcomes. Admittedly, there are now few or no bellicose statements from Israel or the United States against Iran—that “all options are on the table” to deal with Tehran’s nuclear ambitions—though there has hardly been any letup in Israeli air assaults on Hezbollah convoys or fighters in Syria. Some Iranian military personnel have also fallen prey to Israeli attacks. Iran has honored its commitment to the JCPOA and is free to conduct oil business with external parties, but transactions through international banks remain at the mercy of the United States. The expected foreign investment is not pouring in. Instead of experiencing “concrete results” from the deal, average Iranians are expressing frustration that U.S. actions are preventing deals with interested foreign parties—a prime obstacle to revamping the economy.

Iranian hard-liners—the conservatives and the IRGC in particular—are banking on the deal’s failure to make a strong political comeback after their defeat in the last parliamentary and Assembly of Experts elections held in February. They are pressing home the point that the United States could never be trusted, a point they expect to capitalize on in the upcoming presidential election in 2017. The growing power of the IRGC, in particular, may eventually cast a negative shadow on the deal, in case the deal remains a deal in name only. The IRGC is the real driver behind Iran’s proactive foreign policy, with the Foreign Ministry mostly playing a supporting role, including in Iraq or Syria. Rightly or wrongly, IRGC generals, who directly report to the Supreme Leader, consider the United States a spent power in the Middle East and generally have the stomach to stand up to American challenges, deal or no deal.

Actions by powerful insider interests in Washington go a long way to make Iranian hard-liners more hostile toward the United States. Hawks in Congress, AIPAC and other business interests are often irrationally anti-Iran, mainly because of their concerns for Israel and for domestic political gains. They refer to Iran’s support for Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and the anti-Israel statements that Iranian leaders frequently make. But Iran’s anti-Israel postures are primarily for domestic political consumption, and in order to prove that Iran is not just a Shia power, as often alleged, but a Muslim power. Iran hardly poses an existential threat to Israel.

Former Israeli defense minister Moshe Yaalon, while criticizing Netanyahu as a “fear-monger,” has recently admitted that “in the foreseeable future, there is no existential threat to Israel.” But the American hawks’ preoccupation with the “Iran threat” has strong potential to derail the deal and push the United States down the road to dangerous collisions with Iran. And this seems more likely to happen, as the deal enjoys no significant American public support. A Gallup poll conducted last February found that only 30 percent of Americans approved of the deal, and that a meager 14 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Iran.

The U.S. strategy, it seems, is to deny Iran benefits from the deal, force it to renege on its commitments to the deal and then use Iran’s breach of obligations under the deal to impose more unilateral sanctions. This will simply strengthen the hands of Iranian hard-liners, who view the deal as an ineffective agreement with the West, giving them much-needed political ammunition to go after the deal. Having seen no benefits from the deal, they are likely to pursue a more assertive foreign policy, often creating tensions with the United States, while stopping short of scrapping the deal altogether, to avoid being blamed for its collapse. The Iranian public will hardly see any point in an unsustainable post-deal rapprochement with the United States. The reformists under President Rouhani would stand alone and be weakened politically. A shift from impaired diplomacy to heightened tensions and hostility is more likely to occur.

The deal, in short, is an imperfect measure to address some immediate concerns, not a long-term framework to resolve deep strategic and political divergences between Iran and the United States. Their return to a period of renewed hostilities should surprise no one.

Mohammed Nuruzzaman is associate professor of international relations at Gulf University for Science and Technology in West Mishref, Kuwait.

Housecarl · Jul 26, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...licy-changes-and-lawmakers-speak-up/87537124/

White House Mulls Big Nuclear Policy Changes, and Lawmakers Speak Up

Joe Gould, Defense News 6:09 p.m. EDT July 25, 2016

WASHINGTON — As the clock ticks down on the final term of US President Barack Obama, who is believed to be reviewing a potential disarmament agenda for his last months in office, there has been a flurry of activity on Capitol Hill to try to influence the internal debate.

Lawmakers both pro and con for nuclear modernization have fired off dueling letters—the latest a July 20 letter to Obama from five key House Democrats who want to scale back standing nuclear modernization plans.

In addition to potential budget cuts, the White House is mulling several other disarmament initiatives. The Washington Post reported earlier this month that they included a five-year extension of the New START agreement, United Nations approval of the unratified Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and a public pledge that the United States would never use nuclear weapons unless another nation used them first—as well as the cancellation of the Long-Range Stand Off (LRSO) weapon program to replace aging cruise missiles.

Following the report came the letter signed by House Armed Services Chairman Ranking Member Adam Smith, D-Wash., and others, which backed the no-first-use policy declaration and eliminating the launch-on-warning nuclear posture as “steps that could avoid an unintentional or hasty start to unprecedented and catastrophic nuclear devastation."

DEFENSE NEWS

Senators Urge Obama To Cancel Nuclear Cruise Missile

Nuclear modernization plans have become unaffordable and untenable in the face of statutory budget caps, the letter warns.

“At a time when the United States is facing an extremely complex threat environment and Congress shows no indication that it will eliminate its budget caps, this plan risks squandering hundreds of billions of dollars on certain weapons programs that will likely be either delayed or cancelled, and it will plunder much-needed funds for conventional military forces in the process,” the letter reads.

(See article)

Five ranking members signed on: Reps. Smith; Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., of the Budget Committee; Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, of the Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee; Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., of the Armed Services Tactical Air and Land Subcommittee; Jackie Speier, D-Calif., of the Armed Services Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

On the opposite side of the aisle, HASC Chair Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, told reporters the nuclear deterrent is the foundation of US national security, and downplayed its expense in the context of the larger defense budget. Anything that calls the commitment to nuclear deterrence into question, he said, “results in a more dangerous world.”

DEFENSE NEWS

Interview: HASC Ranking Member Adam Smith

While lawmakers agreed to the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia amid the administration’s assurances it would modernize what remained, “We’ve not kept that promise, so it’s like other situations: I’m grateful the administration plan is not worse.”

“Some of these calls for further cuts are irresponsible in my opinion,” Thornberry said.

Competing visions are also evident within the platforms of the Democratic and Republican parties, whose conventions to nominate their presidential candidates—Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump respectively — are this month.

The GOP platform invokes Cold War-president President Ronald Reagan, with a peace-through-strength style approach and a robust “Reagan-era force.” It advocates a multi-layered missile defense system, nuclear modernization, an end to the mutually assured destruction doctrine and to rebuild relationships with allies, “who understand that as long as the U.S. nuclear arsenal is their shield, they do not need to engage in nuclear proliferation.”

“We should abandon arms control treaties that benefit our adversaries without improving our national security,” the platform reads.

DEFENSE NEWS

Corker, McCain: Don't Quit On Nuke Modernization

A draft platform document for the Democratic Party—whose convention began Monday in Philadelphia—drew a contrast with Trump, who is “unwilling to rule out using a nuclear weapon against” the Islamic State. It proposes strengthening the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and heading off the expansion of nuclear weapons programs.

“To this end, we will work to reduce excessive spending on nuclear weapons-related programs that are projected to cost $1 trillion over the next 30 years,” a draft of the platform reads.

Still, the partisan split on nuclear modernization is not a clean one. A bipartisan group of 14 senators signed a July 8 letter spearheaded by Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., that called on Defense Secretary Ash Carter to reaffirm the Pentagon’s commitment to modernize the nation’s nuclear triad.

They are Sens. Steve Daines, R-Mont.; Jon Tester, D-Mont.; Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Joe Donnelly, D-Ind.; Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D.; Marco Rubio, R-Fla.; Mark Warner, D-Va.; David Vitter, R-La.;, Martin Heinrich, D-N.M.; John Barrasso, R-Wyo.; Deb Fischer, R-Neb.; the Senate Armed Services Committee’s ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kaine, D-Va.

Key military officials back nuclear modernization. The House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee hosted military officials in charge of the nuclear arsenal July 14, where Adm. Cecil Haney, head of U.S. Strategic Command, said the president’s 2017 budget request, contained “no margin to absorb” cuts.

DEFENSE NEWS

After Nuclear Missile Loss, Dems Vow to Keep Fighting

Gen. Robin Rand, chief of Air Force Global Strike Command, defended the LRSO, which would replace the Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) program. ALCM is scheduled to age out in 2030, and LRSO would replace it with 1,000 to 1,100 cruise missiles, representing the Air Force’s standoff nuclear delivery capability.

Rand described the ALCM as “a ten-year missile in its thirtieth year” which will be increasingly vulnerable to enemy air defenses, while the nascent stand-off weapon will be tougher for an enemy to target.

“You don't want to get into the eye of the tiger if you can avoid it,” Rand said.

A group of 10 Democratic senators signed a separate letter to Obama July 20 urging him to cancel LRSO development. It was signed by Sens. Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer of California, Al Franken of Minnesota, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator who recently ended his campaign for the presidency.

Senate Armed Services Chair John McCain, R-Ariz., and Senate Foreign Relations Chair Bob Corker, R-Tenn., signed a June 17 letter urging Obama to stick with nuclear modernization plans, arguing he is bound by longstanding commitments he made to Congress.

DEFENSE NEWS

Carter Open to DoD-wide Nuclear Weapons Fund

In a June 6 address to the Arms Control Association, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes gave the first hints of a turnabout on nuclear policy, saying Obama was working to advance the agenda of the 2009 Nuclear Security Summit in Prague. In his first major foreign policy speech, Obama announced his drive to reduce the role of nuclear weapons and eventually rid the world of them.

Aaron Mehta in Washington, D.C., contributed reporting.

mzkitty · Jul 26, 2016

Thread on the Mogadishu blast(s):

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...oldiers-killed&p=6127675&posted=1#post6127675

Housecarl · Jul 26, 2016

mzkitty said:
Thread on the Mogadishu blast(s):

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...oldiers-killed&p=6127675&posted=1#post6127675

Thanks MzKitty....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-somalia-blast-idUSKCN1060P5?il=0

World | Tue Jul 26, 2016 1:45pm EDT
Related: World, United Nations, Africa

13 people killed in Somali suicide bombing claimed by al Shabaab

MOGADISHU | By Abdi Sheikh and Feisal Omar

Video

Suicide bombers killed at least 13 people at the gates of the African Union's main peacekeeping base in the Somali capital on Tuesday, police said, in an attack claimed by the Islamist militants of al Shabaab.

The force of the bombings shattered windows at Mogadishu's nearby airport, showered arriving passengers with glass and forced the suspension of flights, police and witnesses said.

The United States condemned the attack on the AMISOM peacekeeping force's base, the latest by the militant group that wants to topple Somalia's western-backed government and rule the Horn of Africa country according to sharia law.

"At least 13 people - mostly security forces - died in the two car bomb blasts," and 12 others were wounded, police officer Abdiqadir Omar told Reuters. Al Shabaab, which is linked to al Qaeda, said it set off two car bombs.

Police said the first attacker detonated a car bomb and the second tried to storm the base on foot, but was shot and exploded at the gate. The guards were caught in the blast as they escorted U.N. personnel into the base, known as Halane.

In a statement, White House spokesman Ned Price said the U.S. stood with Somalia in its fight against "despicable acts of terrorism that seek to destabilize" the country.

"We remain committed to helping Somalia progress along a path towards peace and prosperity and the defeat of terrorist groups, including al-Shabaab,” he said.

AMISOM said on Twitter it condemned the "senseless attacks that aim to disrupt and cripple the lives of ordinary Somalis". There was no immediate comment from the United Nations.

People arriving on international flights said the blasts shattered windows in the airport buildings.

"We were greeted by two loud blasts. The glass of the airport building fell on us," said Ali Nur, who had just got off a plane from Nairobi.

Al Shabaab regularly attacks AMISOM, which is made up of about 22,000 military personnel from Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia and other African countries helping to support Somalia's government and army.

Somalia was plunged into anarchy in the early 1990s following the toppling of military dictator Mohamed Siad Barre.

The U.N. refugee agency on Tuesday increased its funding appeal to nearly $500 million to finance the voluntary return and reintegration of Somali refugees from the sprawling Dadaab camp in Kenya, which hosts some 330,000 Somalis.

Kenya, citing security threats, said last month it aims to reduce by almost half the population of the camp.

"Despite the security situation currently in Somalia, people are returning on a daily basis," UNHCR's representative in Somalia Caroline van Buren told a news briefing in Geneva.

"We cannot assure the refugees that they will be safe, but we take precautions," she said. "For instance, when we have return convoys, we inform AMISOM of the convoys, the routes they will be taking, the number of vehicles, the number of people. It is not 100 percent, but we are doing the best we can."

(Additional reporting by Stephanie Nebehay in Geneva and Jeff Mason in Washington; Writing by Duncan Miriri and Elias Biryabarema; Editing by Tom Heneghan)

Housecarl · Jul 26, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/world/middleeast/isis-iraq-insurgency.html?_r=0

Middle East

As ISIS Loosens Grip, U.S. and Iraq Prepare for Grinding Insurgency

By MICHAEL SCHMIDT and ERIC SCHMITT
JULY 25, 2016
Comments 108

BAGHDAD — The Islamic State’s latest suicide attack in Baghdad, which killed nearly 330 people, foreshadows a long and bloody insurgency, according to American diplomats and commanders, as the group reverts to its guerrilla roots because its territory is shrinking in Iraq and Syria.

Already, officials say, many Islamic State fighters who lost battles in Falluja and Ramadi have blended back into the largely Sunni civilian populations there, and are biding their time to conduct future terrorist attacks. And with few signs that the beleaguered Iraqi prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, can effectively forge an inclusive partnership with Sunnis, many senior American officials warn that a military victory in the last urban stronghold of Mosul, which they hope will be achieved by the end of the year, will not be sufficient to stave off a lethal insurgency.

“To defeat an insurgency, Iraq would need to move forward on its political and economic reform agenda,” Lt. Gen. Sean B. MacFarland, the top American commander in Iraq, said in an email.

A return to guerrilla warfare in Iraq, while the United States and its allies still combat the Islamic State in Syria, would pose one of the first major challenges to the next American president, who will take office in January. American public opinion has so far supported President Obama’s deployment of roughly 5,000 troops to help Iraq reclaim territory it lost to the Islamic State in 2014, but it is not clear whether political support would dissipate in a sustained effort to fight insurgents.

For American diplomats and commanders, the specter of an insurgency resurrects some of the most bitter memories from the United States’ involvement in Iraq over the past 13 years. Officials voice concern about how that type of mayhem — which was led by an earlier iteration of the Islamic State and nearly crippled the Iraqi government when the United States had more than 100,000 troops in the country — could affect the stability of Iraq and the broader campaign to defeat the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

In a recent visit to Iraq, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter acknowledged these looming challenges, noting that toppling the Islamic State in urban centers like Mosul “won’t establish control over the entirety of the territory,” and that the militants would “try to terrorize the population.”

The Islamic State is increasingly fighting less like a conventional army than “a more terrorist-type force,” Gen. Joseph L. Votel, the commander of American forces in the Middle East, said last week. On the battlefield, the Islamic State has redoubled its use of suicide bombers and ambushes to attack Iraqi security forces. Despite losing about half the territory it seized in Iraq, it carried out the suicide attack in Baghdad this month, one of the deadliest bombings in Iraqi history.

“When ISIS’s army is defeated in Mosul and elsewhere in Iraq, there will still be ISIS terrorist cells that will attempt to continue to carry out the kind of terrorist attacks we have seen in Baghdad and elsewhere in recent months,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former top American commander in Iraq, said in an email.

Senior Iraqi officials agree. “Absolutely, Daesh will remain a potential threat to Iraq,” the country’s foreign minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, told reporters in Washington last week, using an Arabic term for the group.

American military officials in Baghdad said that they had not seen the Islamic State mass more than 100 troops on the battlefield since December, when a group of several hundred attacked a base in northern Iraq. “We have seen more and more of their guys with vests on trying to run into Iraqi Army headquarters buildings or in the middle of a fight into a big group of soldiers,” said Col. Christopher Garver, the military spokesman in Iraq.

After losing battles to the Iraqis, some Islamic State fighters have tried to blend back into groups of civilians who have fled the violence, according to Iraqi commanders.

“We have hurt ISIS’ morale, but nobody can deny that ISIS still has its sleeper cells, and we expect anything from it,” said Lt. Gen. Abdul Wahab al-Saidi, the commander of Iraqi operations in Falluja.

“A number of ISIS fighters were found among the displaced people in Falluja, and one of them even blew himself up,” he said. “They are criminal, and we must expect anything from the criminals because they would do anything.”

The United States and other countries in the coalition countering the Islamic State are adopting a series of measures that they believe will help the Iraqis defeat the remnants of the group in the coming months.

In recent weeks, specially trained American explosives experts, including a three-star Army general, and new bomb-detection devices have been sent to Baghdad to help stem suicide and car-bomb attacks. The Danes, who are part of the coalition, have begun training border patrol agents.

The first class of 300 Iraqi border patrol agents completed a four-week training course on Wednesday, Colonel Garver said. The plan is to train five more similarly sized classes and use them to patrol the border with Jordan and Syria.

The American-led coalition has focused intensely for months on the military campaign to retake Mosul — a dauntingly complex task. But the dozens of defense and foreign ministers meeting in Washington last week were equally concerned with the aftermath of the fight for Mosul and the city’s security, reconstruction and governance.

Western and Iraqi officials are preparing plans to address the humanitarian needs of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians displaced by the violence, and the importance of restoring local government in Mosul and other areas controlled by the Islamic State for the past two years.

“The local governance plan has to be ready to go,” said Brett McGurk, Mr. Obama’s special envoy for combating the Islamic State.

Even if the operations to take Mosul are ahead of schedule, there will almost certainly be a new American president in office by the time that operation is complete. And although it is not clear how committed that administration will be to the fight in Iraq, American commanders are planning for an enduring presence of forces to help the Iraqis.

“After the defeat of ISIL in Iraq, the U.S. and our partners will need to retain a presence there that can help the Iraqis secure their borders and hunt the terrorist threats within them,” General MacFarland said.

Follow Michael Schmidt @nytmike and Eric Schmitt @EricSchmittNYT on Twitter.

Michael Schmidt reported from Baghdad and Washington, and Eric Schmitt from Washington. Falih Hassan contributed reporting from Baghdad.

Housecarl · Jul 26, 2016

Rouen, France: 2 men (ISIS) stormed a church and killed 2 people; a priest was beheaded
Started by Lilbitsnanaý, Today 03:05 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...d-killed-2-people-a-priest-was-beheaded/page2

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/0...g-threatened-war-on-christians-to-europe.html

TERRORISM

Murder of French priest brings ISIS' long-threatened war on Christians to Europe

By Malia Zimmerman ·Published July 26, 2016 · FoxNews.com
Comments 2707

Video

The barbaric murder of an elderly French priest Tuesday shows ISIS has made good on its chilling two-year-old pledge to bring its war on the West into the very sanctuaries of Christianity, experts told FoxNews.com.

Shouting "Allahu Akbar," the radical Islamist killers slit the throat of 85-year-old Jacques Hamel and critically wounded one other person during the morning attack inside a Catholic church near the Normandy city of Rouen. The terrorists, who forced Hamel to kneel before they slaughtered him, were later killed by police marksmen.

"They forced him to his knees. He wanted to defend himself. And that's when the tragedy happened," said the nun, identified as Sister Danielle.

ISIS' Amaq news agency said the France attack was carried out by two Islamic State "soldiers," Reuters reported.

"[ISIS] has declared war on us," French President Francois Hollande said Tuesday. "We must fight this war by all means, while respecting the rule of law -- what makes us a democracy."

For two years, the black-clad jihadist army has called for attacks on Christians in Rome, throughout Europe and across the world. It has even called for the assassination of Pope Francis. The attack -- which the knife-wielding ISIS killers reportedly videotaped -- in the northern French town of Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray shows Islamist killers have heeded the call.

“The Islamic State is persistently demoralizing European unity by launching divisive attacks within its borders -- the most recent attack on the Catholic Church aims directly at the French sense of identity,” said Veryan Khan, editorial director for the U.S.-based Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium.

Calls for attacks on Europe in general and the Catholic Church in particular have built to a fever pitch over the last several months, Khan said. Two months ago, ISIS circulated a video message on the social media site Telegram about migrations to the Caliphate from within the Middle East and from Europe. In the video, “the Pope is demonized and the land of the Crusaders is lambasted,” Khan said.

"Truly, we will fight you even in your churches until we raise there that the name of Allah is the only God," read one propaganda image recently released by ISIS, and depicting a fighter waving a flag atop a European church.

Over the weekend, ISIS Twitter accounts called for more operatives to take up arms in France and carry out additional deadly attacks, according to an analyst with the U.S. based company GiPEC.

Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi on Tuesday said the attack is especially evil "because this horrific violence took place in a church, a sacred place in which the love of God is announced, and the barbaric murder of a priest and the involvement of the faithful."

Lombardi called the attack "more terrible news, that adds to a series of violence in these days that have left us upset, creating immense pain and worry."

Pope Francis has expressed "pain and horror for this absurd violence, with the strongest condemnation for every form of hatred and prayer for those affected."

The church was reportedly on a "hit list" discovered at the residence of a would-be ISIS attacker in April 2015, The Sun reported. Sid Ghlam was believed to be planning "imminent attacks" in France when investigators arrested him. Officials allegedly uncovered an arsenal of weapons and found that Ghlam was talking with someone in Syria who had ordered him to strike specific churches -- including the one in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray.

One of Tuesday's attackers was on the radar of French police and had traveled to Turkey, said Mohammed Karabila, president of the Regional Council of the Muslim Faith for Haute-Normandie.

ISIS’ onslaught against Christianity has long been in full effect in the Middle East, where the Caliphate’s soldiers force Christians to convert or die and have destroyed churches, tombs and sacred artifacts that date back to Christ’s time. Militants went on a rampage through Iraq's Mosul Museum in February 2015 using pickaxes, sledgehammers, and explosives to forever destroy historic and irreplaceable Christian shrines. In August 2015, the Islamic State devastated an ancient Christian monastery, the Mar Elian monastery, in central Syria, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Last year, ISIS proudly showcased the mass beheading of Egyptian Coptic Christian fishermen in Libya, and in the video that captured the horrific acts, also called for attacks on Pope Francis.

Tuesday’s monstrous attack came just 12 days after Mohamed Bouhlel, claiming allegiance to ISIS, plowed a truck into a crowd attending a Bastille Day celebration in Nice, killing 84.

Housecarl · Jul 26, 2016

These aren't Han Chinese but Uighur/Turkmen....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-terror-claims-bolstered-by-new-evidence-1469435872

World

Over 100 Chinese Fighters Have Joined Islamic State in Syria

Studies come as China seeks West’s cooperation on counterterrorism, but cast doubt on some of Beijing’s assertions

By Jeremy Page
July 25, 2016 4:37 a.m. ET
8 COMMENTS

BEIJING—Leaked Islamic State records provide the first solid evidence that more than 100 Chinese nationals have joined the jihadist movement in Syria, according to two recent studies, findings that come as Beijing is seeking closer cooperation from Western governments to counter terrorism.

The studies by two U.S. think tanks found that almost all Chinese fighters in the records said they came from China’s northwestern region of Xinjiang, where some members of the Muslim Uighur ethnic group have been resisting Beijing’s rule for decades.

Some Chinese recruits didn’t specify their origin, but gave names, noms de guerre or other details suggesting they were Uighur.

The research from the New America think tank and the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point was based on Islamic State registration forms, leaked by a defector, for recruits entering Syria from Turkey from mid-2013 to mid-2014. It corroborates Chinese officials’ assertions that there are about 300 Uighurs fighting with Islamic State in both Syria and Iraq. It’s unclear if more Chinese fighters joined the group outside the period covered by the leaked documents.

However, the findings cast doubt on China’s frequent assertion that many Uighur militants had trained and worked with al Qaeda and other foreign groups over the past nearly two decades. One of the studies found none with former jihadist experience and the other found four, with two listing experience in Pakistan, one in Afghanistan and one in Xinjiang, which Uighur separatists call East Turkestan.

China’s Foreign Ministry didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The studies indicate that many of the Uighur fighters were married and came to Syria with their children with the intent of settling in 2014—shortly after an uptick in violence in Xinjiang prompted an intense security crackdown there. This suggests many weren’t planning to return to China to foment jihad, which Chinese authorities have suggested was a threat.

The data “suggest that Uighur fighters joining ISIS are considering their move to be permanent or long term,” said Nate Rosenblatt, the author of the more recent study, which was published by New America last week.

Both studies found that recruits were mostly poorly educated, low-skilled laborers, with a high proportion from religiously conservative areas that have experienced high levels of police and antigovernment violence. “Contextual evidence in China suggests the country’s antiterrorism campaign in Xinjiang could be a push factor,” said the New America study.

Islamic State formed in April 2013, spinning off from al Qaeda’s Syrian branch and taking most of the founding group’s foreign fighters, some new recruits and other veteran jihadists who had fought U.S. forces in Iraq. Over the course of 2014, Islamic State was able to simultaneously overtake large swaths of territory using separate fighting forces in Iraq and Syria, eventually linking the territorial gains across the border and erecting its so-called caliphate that summer. The vast majority of foreign fighters joined Islamic State after crossing over from Turkey—a route that became known among Western officials as the “jihadist highway.”

The 118 Chinese recruits the study found in the registration records varied in age from 10 to 80, and included eight who were 16 or younger. Last year, Islamic State issued a propaganda video showing Uighur children and an 80-year-old Uighur man who it said had joined the movement in Syria.

The West Point study was published in April and based on the same leak of records but a slightly larger sample. It found 167 Chinese fighters.

Among them, 15%—a relatively large proportion—declared that they were willing to conduct suicide attacks, the West Point study found. The West Point study’s lead author, Brian Dodwell, said the majority of those people were either single or of unclear marital status.

He also said 10 Chinese fighters—including one who claimed previous jihadist experience—reported an affiliation to the Turkestan Islamic Party, a militant group that has claimed responsibility for several recent attacks in China. The group is also known as, or is an offshoot of, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement and has been based in Pakistan’s tribal areas, terrorism analysts say.

China lobbied successfully to have the movement included on a United Nations terrorist list in 2002, but has struggled to convince many foreign governments and terrorism experts of its existence as a cohesive group that conducts attacks within China. a series of attacks in China in 2013 and 2014It stepped up such lobbying following a series of attacks in China in 2013 and 2014 that bore some hallmarks of jihadist groups.

The U.S. and other Western governments have been reluctant to cooperate with China on counterterrorism because of concerns about widespread rights abuses that Uighur and foreign activists say Chinese security services have committed in Xinjiang.

Britain labeled the Turkestan Islamic Party a banned terrorist organization earlier this month, saying it had been founded by Uighur militants in 1989 and now operates in China, Central and South Asia and Syria.

China has also been increasing pressure on some Southeast Asian countries to return Uighurs who have fled China, often attempting to reach Turkey via Thailand or Malaysia. Both the U.S. studies found that all the Chinese fighters had come via Turkey and a relatively high proportion of those who reported other foreign travel said they had been to Malaysia or Singapore.

—Maria Abi-Habib contributed to this article.

Write to Jeremy Page at jeremy.page@wsj.com

Housecarl · Jul 26, 2016

Hummm....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://warontherocks.com/2016/07/germany-takes-a-steely-look-at-the-world/

Germany Takes a Steely Look at the World

Sebastian Bruns
July 26, 2016
Comments 3

On October 24, 2006, the first Angela Merkel government issued its first white book on defense and the future of the German Armed Forces. Four years later, on May 31, 2010, the president of Germany and official head of state, Horst Köhler, resigned. He stepped down over harsh criticism, after alluding to the fact that Germany should consider military force abroad in order to guard maritime supply routes and to combat regional instabilities. These were precisely some of the key policies of the 2006 White Book, yet the outcry in the German public four years later was so tremendous that it forced the president’s hand. Although the role of the head of state in Germany’s parliamentary system is more ceremonial in nature, this was highly significant because Köhler was the first president to resign in the history of the Federal Republic.

Earlier this month, the most recent German white book (the first since 2006 and only the third since the end of the Cold War) was issued by the current and third Merkel government. And in February 2017, the 12th President of Germany will be elected for a new five-year term. Should he or she be more careful when commenting on security and defense policy, and perhaps even order a moving van for the year 2021? Well, not so fast. Germany’s coming-of-age since its reunification a quarter of a century ago and the tectonic shifts in the international security environment have contributed to a sobering but ultimately necessary ‘normalization’ of the German strategic mindset. Most recently, this was symbolized by the resurgence of Russia and military conflict on European flanks, more than 1.14 million immigrants in 2015 alone, the E.U. crises, and the rise of Islamic extremism.. It appears that the international order, from a central European point of view, is eroding (including a cooled off relationship with the United States in the wake of transatlantic turmoil over the NSA affair). Indeed, the West as a whole has lost much of its global soft and hard power projection capabilities. The 2016 white book seeks to reflect much of that. The process to which the document is but an outcome informally builds on a debate that has been going on in informed German think tank and academic circles since 2013. That year, two leading think tanks came together to publish an influential paper on the future of German defense and security policy. Some of that language found its way into speeches at the Munich Security Conference 2014, where Secretary of Defense Ursula von der Leyen (a conservative), Secretary of State Frank-Walter Steinmeier (a Social Democrat) and — low and behold — current German president Joachim Gauck (a former pastor and opposition member in East Germany during the division of the country) all underlined that requirement for more military engagement in the world should the need arise. This set the scene for the new German capstone document.

The process of writing the current white book has been more inclusive than ever. A staggering series of workshops featuring numerous participants from Germany and abroad was held between the summer of 2015 and the spring of 2016 in Berlin and elsewhere. The overarching aim of that process, complete with its own campaign logo , was to include the broader public into the decision-making process early on. Public feedback then informed the writing of the document, which then happened in Berlin over the past six months. Surprisingly, drafts were not leaked. The timeline was tight since the white book needs to be kept out of the campaign for the 2017 general election and to be untangled with a European Union Global Strategy for Foreign and Security Policy due out later this year. Naturally, the white book took into consideration established frameworks, strategies, treaties, and other documents of binding relevance to Germany. The process alone motived military services, academics, and the public to consider the strategic role of Germany and the use of military force.

In the words of Brigadier General Carsten Breuer, the German Army one-star in charge of writing the white book, this iterative process was infused by a sense of “strategic patience” in an increasingly chaotic world. The project was ambitious nonetheless. To start, it represented the government’s first effort to conduct a strategic review and provide a far-reaching outlook (10 years) for more than a decade. Second, the document sought to not simply identify shortcomings and problems, but rather provide a more positive outlook and underline the shaping value of sound security and defense policy. Third, not less than five “reforms” of the Bundeswehr since 1990, shedding its Cold War posture and attempting to adapt to the challenges of the new era, had left the German Army, Navy, and Air Force hollowed out and in a desperate state of material and personnel readiness.

Germany, long-since been uneasy with the use of military force for political ends, had deployed military assets to Afghanistan support of the international force to provide security. For more than a decade (and certainly for the 2006 white book), the idea of nation-building, counterinsurgency campaigns, and combatting irregular challenges dominated how the German armed forces, its political masters, and the German public thought about and prepared for the use of military force. In parallel, the German Navy was deployed in such maritime security operations as Operation Active Endeavour (in the central Mediterranean, 2002 to 2016), the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon’s Maritime Task Force (UNIFIL, Eastern Mediterranean, since 2006), and the European Union’s counter-piracy operation ATLANTA (Horn of Africa, since 2008). Collective security, not coalition defense, was the name of the game.

Russia’s resurgence and its willingness to use force to coerce neighbors, the collapsing Middle East in Syria and Iraq, the challenges of an Iranian nuclear program, a number of failing states and uprisings in Northern Africa, and the disintegrating European Union in the wake of the Euro currency and migration crises have changed the way Germans think about the challenges of the world around them. Now, homeland security and alliance defense are as important as global collective security (something that the recent NATO Summit in Warsaw echoed). The Northern, Southern, and Eastern flanks of the continent will be the future areas of concern and operations for Germany and its allies. For Germany, this is a paradigm change, and the Bundeswehr for the first time is looking at being provided with more resources to overcome a strained force with little to no reserves. For years, the force structure shrank as the alleged peace dividend was happily collected.

A white book, given how it is written and shaped in the whole-of-government system, only goes so far as to give impulse and hint at current and future responsibilities for a country like Germany and the leadership roles that come with it. As any strategically minded document, it has various audiences. Russia, for one, is no longer considered as a partner (like it was the case in the 2006 white book), but rather characterized as a challenge. And while Germany underlines its principal foreign-policy consensus that it is committed to alliances and would only in exceptional cases circumvent a E.U. directive, a NATO mandate, or a U.N. resolution to deploy military force, it now recognizes that coalitions of the willing (like the Counter ISIL operations) cannot be ruled out. This is a clear signal to allied partners and non-allied friendly nations alike. A powerful message is the idea that in the future, foreign E.U. nationals could serve in the German armed forces. This could reduce the personnel and recruitment crisis that the Bundeswehr is challenged with after conscription was suspended in 2011. It would also be a powerful sign that Germany means business when it comes to building up a more integrated European force in the distant future. The notion that the armed forces could also play more significant role in homeland security and domestic counter-terrorism operations, a hotly contested issue in the public (which likes to see the Bundeswehr in Germany only for disaster relief) and also strictly limited by the German constitution, will likely go to the Federal High Court to be resolved. It helps to drive the debate about the famed, and often failed, comprehensive approach and the limits of dividing inner and outer security from each other. Finally, any future German head of state should be relieved that maritime security and its global horizon are once again mentioned in the 2016 white book. The German Navy, much like the Luftwaffe, the Army, and other branches are currently working on subsidiary strategies to implement the aspirations of the white book. It should be hoped that no resignations need to take place by senior leaders for stating the obvious for a country like Germany.

Dr. Sebastian Bruns heads the Center for Maritime Strategy and Security at the Institute for Security Policy, University of Kiel (ISPK), Germany. He is one of the editors of the Routledge Handbook of Naval Strategy and Security (2016), Project Director to the “Kiel Conference” on maritime security challenges, and a member of the German Navy’s Chief of Naval Operations strategy advisory group. Before coming to Kiel for his PhD, Sebastian served as a congressional staffer for an Indiana Republican, handling the Congressman’s defense and military affairs from 2010 to 2011.

Housecarl · Jul 26, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/china-military-africa_us_57968d7ee4b0d3568f844344

WORLDPOST

China’s Military Push In Africa Is Unlikely To End Anytime Soon

Beijing is no longer happy simply playing a low-key support role to peacekeeping operations on the continent.

07/25/2016 07:10 pm ET
Podcasts and Video

Over the past five years the Chinese military presence in Africa has undergone a profound change. Until 2012, the Chinese were happy to play a low-key support role in multinational peacekeeping operations on the continent, preferring to send military engineers and medical staff rather than deploy combat forces. Today, that is no longer the case. China is in fact the eighth-largest supplier of troops for U.N. peacekeeping operations in Africa and the largest among the five permanent Security Council members, according to the European Council on Foreign Relations.

The large and growing Chinese military presence in Africa is also becoming increasingly diverse both in terms of where its forces are deployed and their operational capacity. China’s most sophisticated warships have been actively involved in multinational anti-piracy operations off the coast of Somalia in the Gulf of Aden since 2008. In West Africa, the People’s Liberation Army deployed elite medical units, including a massive hospital ship, to Ebola-ravaged regions in Liberia and Sierra Leone and, similarly, Chinese military medical teams have also been dispatched to the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo where they provide desperately needed health care to the embattled civilian population.

Around 2014, the Chinese began to shift their military engagement strategy in Africa to include the deployment of combat-ready infantry units to countries like Mali and South Sudan where the United Nations peacekeepers are targeted by Islamist radicals and partisan fighters. Although at least three Chinese soldiers have been killed this year in Africa, experts note these PLA combat forces are typically confined to their bases and rarely venture outside the wire. Nonetheless, the fact that the Chinese have taken that first step in redefining their role in African security operations is significant, and with the imminent completion of the PLA Navy’s new outpost in Djibouti, it seems likely that this trend will continue in the coming years.

Mathieu Duchâtel, Richard Gowan and Manuel Lafont Rapnouil recently explored China’s new military engagement strategy in Africa in a policy brief for the European Council on Foreign Relations. The trio raised the interesting question of how a more robust Chinese security presence in Africa will impact European military operations on the continent given that countries like France and Britain, among others, have long considered Africa to be a traditional sphere of influence. Mathieu and Manuel join Eric and Cobus ― in the podcast above ― to discuss the rapidly changing multinational security architecture in Africa.

Join the discussion. Do you think China’s increased military engagement in Africa is good for the region? Let us know what you think.

Facebook: www.facebook.com/ChinaAfricaProject

Twitter: @eolander & @stadenesque

Earlier on WorldPost:

Housecarl · Jul 26, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-the-hybrid-state-adversary-17103

The Buzz

Russia: The Hybrid State As Adversary

Dan Goure
July 25, 2016

Oceans of ink and terabytes of electronic musings have been expended on the subject of hybrid warfare. The classic formulation is a non-state actor with appurtenances of state power and, in many cases, support from traditional nation states. Of particular concern to defense planners and intelligence experts was the ability of these non-state actors to acquire and employ advanced military systems such as anti-tank guided missiles, artillery rockets and man-portable anti-aircraft missiles. Insurgents and terrorists would employ advanced systems to increase their lethal capabilities without changing either their strategies or organizations. The concept of hybrid warfare was soon expanded to the realm of strategy. As explained by Frank Hoffman, perhaps the best scholar on the subject:

The most distinctive change in the character of modern war is the blurred or blended nature of combat. We do not face a widening number of distinct challenges but their convergence into hybrid wars.

These hybrid wars blend the lethality of state conflict with the fanatical and protracted fervor of irregular warfare. In such conflicts, future adversaries (states, state-sponsored groups, or self-funded actors) will exploit access to modern military capabilities . . .

Prior to 2014, hybrid warfare was generally believed to be a strategy of the weak, groups or nations lacking the military means, financial resources, territorial base or organizational skills to fully exploit modern military means. The Russian invasion of Crimea and the initiation of a proxy war in Eastern Ukraine stunned Western strategists, generally, and the community of hybrid warfare theorists, in particular. Here was a major power relying largely on a mix of special forces, proxy forces, limited numbers of traditional military units (often in disguise) and a very sophisticated campaign of political subversion, economic attack, cyber warfare and information operations to conduct a campaign of territorial conquest while reducing the risk of escalation to conventional inter-state conflict.

This led some observers to propose the idea of multi-vector hybrid warfare and of political and information operations intended to undermine target states either to support more kinetic operations or even to obviate the need for physical coercion as somehow a new concept in inter-state conflict. Others drew a close correlation between actions by the current Russian government and the history of Soviet political and propaganda operations during the Cold War.

More recently, a number of authors have brought a measure of historical perspective and dispassionate analysis to the issue. While the means available to Russia are somewhat different, notably access to the world’s banking system, the presence of Moscow-supported news outlets in Western capitals, the ability to conduct cyber attacks on critical networks, as these authors and others point out, the use of all national sources of power to influence the behavior of adversaries and prepare the battlespace for possible kinetic conflict is as old as the organized state.

While it is true that many states have practiced some forms of hybrid warfare, not all have done so successfully and few have been able to implement it as an integrated strategy. We have seen examples of this recently when repeated attempts by this White House to forge an alliance with so-called moderate Syrian rebels against either Assad or ISIS foundered over concerns for the rebel groups’ political bona fides. Government efforts to develop information operations against Islamic violent extremists have foundered over concerns about not being allowed to engage in propaganda, e.g., to lie.

In reality, only a few nations and non-state actors have demonstrated a real proficiency at conducting hybrid warfare. What distinguishes the masters of the art of hybrid warfare from the average practitioners is that they learned these skills in their struggles for domestic power. The tools for hybrid warfare – deception, infiltration, corruption, the use of cover organizations, paramilitary forces, the creation of new domestic security entities and conventional military capabilities – were all used first to seize and consolidate domestic power.

Today, Russia is the ultimate hybrid threat. I describe it as such not merely because it has developed a panoply of official and un-official tools with which to pursue its strategic objectives but because it is the quintessential hybrid actor. Hybrid actors are generally defined as non-state entities able to employ both traditional and non-traditional elements of power and, in many cases, support from traditional nation states. Russia is unique insofar as it is controlled by a cabal that has many of the characteristics of non-state groups that have acquired hybrid capabilities and developed strategies based on their use. Moreover, many of the tools and techniques employed by the Kremlin in the pursuit of its external strategy are the same as it has employed to maintain and even increase its domestic controls. It is hardly surprising that the Russian ruling circle, the Vertikal, with its core of former and current secret police officers and close engagement with criminal elements in the pursuit of pecuniary interests, has been able to employ with such effect bribery, blackmail, hacking, intimidation and outright murder in its domestic and foreign operations.

More broadly, Putin’s Kremlin employs non-traditional means to further asymmetric ends. Domestically, these tools have been used to crush Russia’s nascent democracy, restrict the development of a civic culture and exact extraordinary rents from the economy. Internationally, these same means are being employed to destabilize the current international order and, most significantly, the set of Alliances and bilateral relationships that are essentially to peace in Europe. According to Stephen R. Covington of Harvard, a long-time NATO official:

The Russian military has adopted an approach to conflict in peace, crisis, and war that couples large-scale conventional and nuclear forces to the appli*cation of non-attributable, ambiguous means of destabilization.

This Russian model of hybrid warfare differs fundamentally from other models in this latter respect. No other nation in Europe is implementing such an array of actions that break with post-Cold War European norms and practices.

What makes Russia the most dangerous hybrid threat is the use of these non-traditional means integrated with and supported by traditional conventional military capabilities and both are covered by a nuclear umbrella. Moreover, as demonstrated by the operations to seize Crimea and destabilize Eastern Ukraine as well as numerous recent exercises, the Russian military is increasingly capable of and, one might argue, specifically designed to support the employment of non-traditional/hybrid means and methods and to secure the political and territorial gains achieved thereby.

Dr. Dan Goure is a Vice President of the Lexington Institute. He is involved in a wide range of issues as part of the institute’s national security program.

Housecarl · Jul 26, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/07/26/facing_north_koreas_nuclear_reality_109627.html

July 26, 2016

Facing North Korea's Nuclear Reality

By Rodger Baker

After announcing that it would cut communications with the United States, North Korea launched three missiles (two Scuds and a No Dong) last week. In some ways, there is little unexpected in North Korea's actions. Since the early 1990s, the North Korean nuclear and missile programs have been a focus of greater and lesser international attention, and there is no reason to predict that a resolution satisfactory to the United States (or North Korea) will emerge any time soon. Similarly, the United States followed a familiar script in its reaction to the recent launches, threatening additional sanctions and further isolation.

But that doesn't mean nothing has changed. North Korea once treated its nuclear weapons programas a bargaining chip — a way to raise the stakes with the United States to wheedle concessions and aid. Now, however, nuclear weapons development is no longer something Pyongyang is willing to trade away for economic support and promises of nonaggression. North Korea has ramped up the testing cycle for its various missile systems, and it may be preparing for another nuclear test. If Pyongyang has no intention of stopping or reversing its nuclear weapons program — the two outcomes that U.S. policy has been geared to achieve — then perhaps it is time for Washington to reconsider its strategy for dealing with a nuclear-armed North Korea.

From Bargaining Chip . . .

North Korea launched its nuclear weapons program in earnest in the 1980s. After the Soviet Union collapsed, and amid social and political instability in China, Pyongyang rapidly expanded the program, fearing that its two primary backers could no longer provide the economic and security guarantees that North Korea had previously relied on. The United Nations' recognition of both Korean governments as legitimate reinforced those concerns, and when South Korea began to engage politically and economically with China and Russia, Pyongyang's worries mounted.

By the early 1990s, a major nuclear crisis was emerging, carefully crafted by North Korean founding leader Kim Il Sung to draw the United States into an economic and energy settlement called the Agreed Framework. Kim also launched a diplomatic offensive, inviting South Korean President Kim Young Sam to visit Pyongyang for what would have been the first inter-Korean summit. But the meeting never occurred. Kim Il Sung died unexpectedly, and his son, Kim Jong Il, took power and finished the negotiations for the Agreed Framework, signed in 1994. At the same time, he pushed forward with North Korea's long-range missile program, leading to the 1998 launch of the Taepodong/Unha missile. Though Pyongyang claimed it had launched the missile to put a satellite into orbit, the United States contended that the move was a clear attempt to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

Throughout much of Kim Jong Il's term, North Korea used its nuclear weapons programs as a negotiating tool. Projecting a combination of unpredictability, nuclear ambition and economic decrepitude, North Korea earned a reputation as an erratic power that could not be restrained through any conventional political means. If the country's economic crisis precipitated its ruin, then the government might unleash its burgeoning arsenal. To avoid that outcome, the United States opted to provide North Korea with just enough aid and negotiating opportunities (particularly under the multilateral six-party talk format) to slow its nuclear weapons development and forestall economic collapse. This approach proved beneficial for both sides, reducing the threat of U.S. military action in North Korea while also mitigating the risk of a global disaster at a relatively low cost. North Korea even undertook various diplomatic offensives, expanding relations with Western nations, opening up to increased Western tourism and holding summit meetings with South Korean leaders. But, as U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower once noted, "The world moves, and ideas that were good once are not always good."

Following the 9/11 attacks, Pyongyang toned down its histrionics and even proffered something of an olive branch to the United States. But the offer was rebuffed, and the United States named North Korea part of the Axis of Evil, along with Iraq and Iran. When the United States invaded Iraq, suspecting that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction that it could deploy, along with conventional capability, against neighboring countries, Pyongyang began to rethink its security strategy. Having the means to damage South Korea — or as North Korea puts it, to turn Seoul into a sea of fire — in case of invasion was no longer a deterrent for foreign military intervention.

. . . To Security Cornerstone

Nonetheless, as Libya renounced its quest for WMD in 2003 (likely in an attempt to avoid Iraq's fate), Pyongyang continued to negotiate with Washington, hoping for a security guarantee. Then in 2006, North Korea carried out its first nuclear test, sounding alarm bells in the United States and around Asia. Pyongyang used the fears that the test inspired to speed up negotiations, and in 2008, it destroyed the cooling tower at the Yongbyon nuclear reactor. North Korea continued this pattern, carrying out another nuclear test in 2009 and revealing a secret nuclear facility in 2010 before suspending nuclear and missile tests in 2012.

At the same time, the country's leadership had begun to lose faith in the efficacy of bartering its nuclear program for economic and security concessions. The world was changing too fast, North Korea's traditional sponsors were undependable and U.S. promises seemed unreliable. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's death in late 2011 also gave Pyongyang pause. Even though Gadhafi had abandoned his nuclear ambitions and had been partially reaccepted by the international community, the West stood by and watched as he was overthrown and killed in an uprising. Gadhafi embodied Pyongyang's worst fear: to give up its military deterrent and then fall to a foreign-facilitated insurrection. Kim Jong Il's death a few months later and the accession of his very young replacement, Kim Jong Un, only compounded the sense of uncertainty in North Korea.

Since then, the country has unequivocally rejected the idea of trading away its nuclear weapons program. Pyongyang has spent too much time, money and political capital to simply walk away. What's more, it has no guarantee that doing so will protect its leaders from foreign military intervention. And simply being able to threaten South Korea or even Japan is not enough anymore to deter the United States from taking such action.

Over the past year, North Korea's testing cycle has accelerated rapidly, particularly for longer-range and mobile missile systems, such as the Musudan/Hwasong-10 and submarine-launched ballistic missiles, which provide second-strike capability that the Taepodong does not. In addition, Pyongyang is conducting tests on re-entry, which will be necessary for intermediate-range ballistic missiles and ICBMs. Although the United States has missile defense systems in place in the Asia-Pacific region and on the homeland, missile defense is not completely effective. Consequently, from Pyongyang's perspective, its demonstrated ability to deliver a nuclear device to the United States would alter Washington's cost-benefit calculations over whether to attack or destabilize North Korea.

Adjusting to the New Status Quo

No longer a bargaining chip, North Korea's nuclear program has become a vital component of its national security. Pyongyang's byungjin policy, which places equal emphasis on nuclear weapons and economic development, is more than just posturing. Though North Korea's goals will not be easy to achieve — if they are ever achieved at all — U.S. policies geared toward stopping or reversing the nuclear program will likely do little to thwart them.

The question, then, may not be how to prevent North Korea from attaining a nuclear capability, but how to manage regional relations once it has. The United States has said it will not recognize North Korea's nuclear capabilities. But choosing not to recognize a reality is not a starting point for a viable strategy. Already the United States has adjusted to the reality that India, Pakistan and Israel have functioning nuclear weapons programs, despite the prohibitions against them. Acknowledging that North Korea has joined these countries would not mean an end to counterproliferation policy; instead, it would establish a more realistic foundation for assessing policy options.

The true danger of a nuclear North Korea is less that Pyongyang would lash out with a pre-emptive strike than that its newfound nuclear capability would prompt Japan, South Korea and Taiwan to follow suit. In discussions with China, the United States has even said as much. To prevent this domino effect, the United States could increase its military presence and activity in the Asia-Pacific region, doubling down in its security guarantee to allies and partners. From China's perspective, though, neither scenario is ideal: A greater U.S. presence would constrain China's options and actions, while a nuclear Japan and South Korea (and perhaps Taiwan) would fundamentally change the balance of power and security concerns in the region.

The United States has a political calculation to make as well. For more than two decades, Washington has tried to stop Pyongyang's nuclear development. Sanctions, isolation, threats, talks and concessions have all failed. The failure is due in part to a significant misunderstanding between the two sides regarding their core security concerns and in part to the relatively low priority that North Korea's nuclear armament has always been for the United States (as a long-term threat, it was often set aside for more pressing issues). Regardless, a nuclear-armed North Korea would cast doubt on the U.S. ability to influence foreign powers through non-military means.

Barring pre-emptive military action, a political crisis in North Korea, or a major accident that convinces Pyongyang that the risks of a nuclear program are not worth the reward, a nuclear-armed North Korea looks more and more inevitable. If the country will not back down from its nuclear program, the United States will need a different strategy to manage the new regional dynamics that it creates. Ideally, the new approach would not only reassure allies of their security but would also include North Korea, Pakistan, India and perhaps even China and Israel in broader discussions of nuclear weapons numbers and arms control measures. To do this, however, the United States will first have to recognize North Korea's nuclear capability. Many argue that granting Pyongyang the acknowledgment it desires would reward bad behavior. But the alternative solutions have proved ineffective, and ignoring the new status quo will not change it.

This article originally appeared at Stratfor.

Housecarl · Jul 26, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/russian-navy-plans-eight-new-missile-cruisers

Russian Navy Plans Eight New Missile Cruisers

By MarEx 2016-07-25 19:52:38
Comments 5

The Russian Navy is preparing a contract with the nation’s largest shipbuilder for eight new nuclear-powered missile cruisers.

According to local media, United Shipbuilding Corporation Deputy President Igor Ponomarev says the contract is currently under review. The construction of the first vessel is expected to commence in early 2018.

The new missile cruisers will be designed by the Severnoye Design Bureau in St. Petersburg and are expected to have a deadweight of 17,500 tons, a length of 200 meters (650 feet0 and to be equipped with more than 200 missiles including a version of the S-500, the newest and most lethal Russian missile system.

These weapons are expected to make the vessels comparable with U.S. Navy’s Arleigh Burke class destroyers. Cruisers are fitted with sophisticated modern guided-missile systems that can take out virtually any target in the air, the sea, beneath the waves or on the shore. Destroyers have similar guided-missile capabilities and take part in a wide range of missions, including supporting carrier and expeditionary strike groups and surface strike groups.

Pravda reports former deputy commander of the navy, Admiral Igor Kasatonov, saying: “Nuclear-powered cruisers are autonomous and well-armed. They can face various challenges in any part of the world ocean. The Russian Navy has not placed orders for vessels of this class since 1989. The decision to build several ships means that Russia pursues geopolitical interests to maintain its presence in remote parts of the world.”

--
comments

Maritime Executive

Recommend
⤤ Share

Sort by Newest

Avatar

Join the discussion…

Avatar

ADM64 • 2 hours ago

Their current financial state, to say nothing of the problems they've been having with construction, make it unlikely they will crank out these ships any time soon. Moreover, absent some form of organic air power to support them, missiles or not, they will face challenges on the open sea. That said, the Russians can be very imaginative with their designs.

△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar

John Roberts • 4 hours ago

They are expensive. They have the same capabilities as an Arleigh Burke class destroyer. OK, that was a stupid statement. The Aegis system is what the S-500 wants to be when it grows up. Those two vessels are not even comparable. 1v1 that cruiser loses every time to a Burke destroyer.

△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar

The Drill SGT > John Roberts • 3 hours ago

The Burke will use it's 5in gun, the harpoons having been removed from the latest block? Or are you postulating that it is going to shoot those expensive SM-6 missiles with their 140lb warheads against a Russian Battlecruiser? Instead of saving the SM-6's to try and stop the Branmos?

The Russians replying with Sunburns with twice the range, and 4 times the warhead? Or perhaps the block II scramjet Branmos at 8500km/hr and 5 times the warhead?

The fact is that the US Navy lags very badly in anti-ship missile tech. Burke is a superior ASW ship, but in a surface fight?

△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›

−
⚑

Avatar
Lazarus • 5 hours ago

Just like the US planned 30 DDG 1000's. We'll see if Putin's oil boom lasts to support this scheme. Such ships would still be vulnerable to subsurface attack and could be overwhelmed by network-coordinated salvos.

△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar

Phil Blank • 9 hours ago

So, who will build them?
Not the French!

Housecarl · Jul 26, 2016

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mali-violence-idUSKCN1062SK

World | Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:32pm EDT
Related: World, United Nations, Africa, Mali

Mali arrests leader of Islamist group linked to deadly attack on troops

Malian forces arrested a regional leader of Islamist group Ansar Dine in central Mali on Tuesday, after it claimed an attack in the region that killed 17 soldiers, the army spokesman said.

Ansar Dine laid claim to the attack last week by gunmen who fired on troop positions, burned buildings and pillaged shops, killing 17 Malian soldiers and wounded 35 on an army base in the central town of Nampala last week.

Army spokesman Modibo Naman Traore said the state security services arrested the commander, Mahmoud Barry - nicknamed "Abou Yehiya" - as he was traveling on a road between Nampala and the town of Dogofri.

"He is close to Lyad Ag Ghali, the chief of Ansar Dine," Traore said, adding that Barry had also planned an attack on the town of Nara that killed 12 people.

French forces intervened in 2013 to push back Islamist fighters who had hijacked a Tuareg uprising to take over northern Mali. But despite 11,000 United Nations peacekeepers deployed in the country since, insecurity has worsened and militants still launch frequent attacks across the vast desert country and its neighbors.

(Reporting by Tiemoko Diallo, writing by Tim Cocks, editing by G Crosse)

WAR 07-23-2016-to-07-29-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

Senior Member

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

I give up.

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

WAR 07-23-2016-to-07-29-2016_____THEWINDSofWAR